Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1914-10-23
DEMOCRATS BECOME SPECIFIC
Would Withdraw Protection of Wild
Life in Observation-Disclosures
Loss Instead of Gain
to State

CIdLIC pOlltlCIduS nave dSSdi1cu LuC
present state administration on &C
count of an alleged multiplicity of
boards and commissions and from
time to time they have promised, If
elected, to abolish some of them. Our
reply to this charge was that it was
too vague and general; and We in
vited our critics to name the board
or commission they would abolish if
they had a chance. For two years
there was no response to this chal'
lenge Now for the first time crit
les have picked up courage to make
reply. In their platform they now
propose in the interest of economy
to abolish the Game Warden Depart
ment and the State Treasury Agent
Their platform declaration upon this
subject is as follows:
1--WE are in favor of abOlishing the
offices of State Game Warden and
State Treasury Agent and transfer
ring their duties to the sheriffs, con
stables, marshals and police depart
ments of the state, under supervis
ion of the State Treasurer"
A pretty mild and cautious begin
ming, a relatively unimportant speci
fication, you will say; for neither OF
these departments can be considered
one of the big commissions of the
state. But such as it is let us deal
with it. A small beginning is better
than none; and We congratulate the
Democratic party for having evinced
even this much courage.
Our opponents speak of this pro
posed change in the Department OF
Fish and Game as a transfer" OF
duties. Why call it a ''transfer?
Sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, constables
and police officers now have precise
ly the same power in the enforce
ment of laws for the protection of
fish and game that game wardens
have-all the power, in a word, they
can ever have after this proposed
transfer" has been made. Manifest
ly, therefore, it is not a case of
transferring authority from one Off
Ger to another, but of abolishing an
existing department and providing
nothing new to take it's place. Is
this wise?
Means Only Withdrawal of Protection
What will be the result? Judging
the future by the past county, city
and village peace officers will do
nothing to enforce the fish and game
laws. Though fully empowered for
years to administer these statutes,
they have done nothing about it..
Abundant experience shows, on the
contrary that they are no more in
terested in this work than the ordi-
nary layman. Will their natures
change over night, will their sense
Of duty be transformed, when the
state department is abolished? 1t
uOeS not seem likely.
What then does this proposal
amount to? 1t means the destruction
of fish by spearing, by SEEMING and by
dynamite. 1t means the extermina-
ton of deer by pot-hunters. 1t means
the slaughter of ducks, cartridges
and prairie chickens as wild pigeon
were slaughtered a quarter of CEN
fury ago. It means the disappearance
of wild life in Wisconsin,
Not Demanded by sportsmen
When all this has been done, who
will be benefited thereby? Not the
farmer; for the birds and animals
now protected by our laws destroy
insects that injure his crops. Not
the sportsman; for the halcyon days
of hunting will be gone. Wisconsin,
"the state that made fishing famous"
will lure fishermen no more, for the
fishing will have been destroyed. Not
the taxpayer; for the game warden
ACDIl t11lCl1L 10 lllOl = Cudi1 SCAI oOoCeeAlA
ing. The license fees cheerfully paid
by hunters provide money enough to
pay all the expenses of the depart
ment and leave a balance of many
thousands of dollars besides. This
excess is turned into the public treas
ury and so reduces taxation Last
year it amounted to almost $4,000.
Were it not for the game warden
department this additional sum would
have had to be raised by taxation.
But with the destruction of hunting
and fishing the amount of the Ii
cense fees will quickly decline.
Who has demanded this change?
1t is safe to say that every sports
man in the state will oppose it and
they are the ones who pay the bills.
What except the exigencies of polit-
ical controversy can account for this
platform declaration? Is it possible
that having failed for two years to
xl.r,L