The Lakeland evening telegram. (Lakeland, Fla.) 1911-1922, 1915-06-05
E. Z. Jones Says New Game Law
Is Far More Expensive Than
Under His Administration
Jacksonville Times-Union. }

Jacksonville Times-Union.)
Z. z Jones, commissioner of the
department of game and fish for Flor
ida, has written to E P. Conroy, HI. b,
Philips and d. ]. Herrin of this city
explaining what the legislature is at
tempting to do in regard to the state
game laws. In his letter he claims
that operation of the new law will
cost about three times as much as the
old measure and that it will have to
be borne by the taxpayers. Under the
new law the state is delegating its
power to the several counties for the
protection of the game, birds and
fish.
Mr.. Jones Letter.
Mr.. Jones letter is as follows:
have read with considerable in
terest the article in the Times-Union
of Saturday pertaining to the new
game bill, and | am writing you in
regard to the matter. | have rea-
sons to believe that several of the
representatives who fought to abol-
ish the game and fish department did
so for personal reasons. l mean to
say that they fought me personally,
and not with an idea that the game
law they were voting for would be
better law than the law of 1918.
One of your representatives, Mr..
Dancy, was in the bunch and you
may say for me to him what l say
in regard to this matter.
Naturally there must have been
considerable OPPOSITION created to the
present game law because | prose-
cuted during my administration of
eighteen months 62S persons, most
of whom were prosecuted the first
twelve months and they and their
friends have done nothing but fight
the game law since being prosecuted.
Within the past six months both vic :
lations and prosecutions have sub
sided. Ut goes without saying, and
the best people of the state know it,
if | had played politics after the leg
islature convened here Gas well as
before) that the game and fish de-
partment would not have been
fought.
will take up some of the provis-
ions of the new bill.
Is Up to Counties
First-The provisions places the
ownership of the game and birds in
to the several counties, and yet the
state prescribes inadequate regula :
tions to protect them. 1t is absurd
to think that the state can place the
ownership of it's wild life into the
counties. The highest courts in the
land have decided that the wild life
of any state is owned by the state,
not as a proprietor, but for protec-
ton. 1t would not seem therefore
that the State is justified in trans
ferring the title.
Second--Under the new bill there is
a provision which must necessarily
require direct tax assessment up
on the taxpayers of the state to carry
it out. 1t is the wardens salaries,
which are left to the county CON-
missioners to be fixed at not more
than $500 each and to be paid from
the fine and forfeiture fund of each
county. We all know that the coun--
ty commissioners will fix the salary
at the maximum, which means
$4,000 in salaries and while 1t is
impossible for many hunters licen-
ses to be sold under the new bill as
under the old law, we will give that
point the benefit of a possible doubt
and say that there will be as many.
1t provides larger license fee to be
paid to the county judges and to the
game wardens but we will say that
it provides no larger fees to these
officials, giving it another benefit.
In two seasons under the old law the
county judges and game wardens re
ceived $28,754.50 fees from licenses
sold. Now, If as many licenses are
sold under the new bill in 1915-16
and 1916-17 as were sold under the
old law in 1914-1915 and 1913-1914,
the county judges and the wardens
will receive in license fees not less
than $56,509, and in addition to the
wardens' fees they will receive SAL
aries of $62,400, or total of $11s,-
900, $62,400 Of which is to be paid
from the fine and forfeiture fund Of
the several different countieh, which
fund is now, and generally, bank
rupt and which fund is also created
by tax levy. If the old law remain
intact and there were sold as many
licenses the two following years as
were sold the two last years, there
would be a difference in expenses
under the old law and the new bill
as the difference between $11S.909
and $41,5S5.65, or difference of
$77,323.35 in favor of the old law,
and without any compulsory expense
on any taxpayer.
Large Quantity Of Game
Third-It is a well-known fact
that not more than twelve counties
of the state possess large quantity of
game. It cannot be said that under
the new bill that the largest revenue
in hunters licenses will be had by
these twelve counties, and as Senator
N-,oto 80 ox,u ,,5 d Characterization