The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1913-07-10
may KILL FEMALE DEER
Assembly Members Hold That There is
Ample Protection for all Game in
Wisconsin and Refuses to put Fur
Their Limit on Sportsmen.

was indefinitely postponed in the SEN
ate after it had 5een the subject OF
humorous warm debates The adyo-
Gates of this bill were rather disap-
pointed over the defeat of the meas
ure as they were anxious the bill
should pass and were prepared to make
q hard fight to secure its enforcement
if it had become a law. The bill was
aimed at a further protection Of deer
and the two strongest arguments which
were made against the measure We're
first, that Wisconsin did not need to
further protect the deer, that they
were receiving sufficient protection
now and multiplying in great numbers,
and second, that it would impose a
great hardship on the hunter for the
reason, it is said, that in the woods
it is very often impossible to dis
tinguish whether it is buck or a doe
at which the hunter is shooting.
AS a matter of fact, it is claimed
a majority of the deer which are
killed are bucks, because the does are
more shy and are found in more Sc
Guided spots in the woods and in
places which cannot be easily reached
by hunters Northern Wisconsin mem
beers who opposed the bill say there
are plenty of deer in Northern Wis
consin at the present time, and that
the present law which limits hunter
to a single deer is amply sufficient to
protect the deer and to insure there
being plenty of deer to hunt SO long
as the regions in which the deer now
exist do not succumb to the demands
of civilization and remain in their for
est state. 1t is said to be the fact that
the woodland portions of Wisconsin
are fast being cleared that is driving
the deer away from this state far
more than the hunters.
In fact, there was one novel bill be-
fore this legislature on the subject Of
deer hunting which, although it was
indefinitely postponed, was deserving
at the time it was introduced of more
notice than it obtained from the pap
ers. This bill provided that farmers
in Northern Wisconsin should receive
recompense from the state for all iG-5
jury done to their farms by wild deer.
What is more, this bill was not put in.
as a joke, and it will come back to an
other legislature for further discussion.
1t has the support of settlers in the
northern part of Wisconsin who claim
that if the deer are to be preserved by
the state, the state should make some
plans for paying for the damage they
occasion.
1t is the statement Of these farmers
that each year there are heavy losses
to settlers by reason of the ravages of
wild deer. 1t is claimed they get into
clearings and that they do not stop
with eating vegetables but often eat
tender grain and corn with the result
that a single deer S feeding may make
a perceptible loss to a farmer who is
powerless because of the game laws to
protect himself against the marauders
The bill for the reimbursement of
the farmers went to indefinite post
ponement with something of smile,
playing around the faces Of the mem
bers, but the authors Of the bill say
that one of the issues on the game
question which is bound to come up
regularly at legislative sessions until
some settlement is reached of the
question is as to whether the state
shall not be made responsible for its |
protected wild animal charges One Of
the stories told by Northern Wis
consin member was to the effect that
settler in Forest county had prac-
tically his entire crop Of last season
ruined by deer which he was power
aess to even shoot because they were
nuisances.
Michigan has the same question be-
fore it. Settlers in the northern pen
insula in Michigan claim the same
thing as the Northern Wisconsin set
tiers In regard to the deer and declare
that either the game laws should be so
amended that actual settlers should |
have the right to shoot deer out of
season and thus protect their places
from the ravages of the marauders or
else that the state should pay damages
for the losses which are occasioned by |
the deer. While the state game war
dens of Wisconsin did not think this
legislature would be warranted in max
ing an appropriation to meet losses
occasioned to settlers by reason Of the |
ravages of deer, the members OF the |
game warden > department. admit that
this may. ne a serious question in the
future and that it may be necessary at |