Connecticut western news., 1916-02-10
The Deer Slaughter.

G. S. Bryan, of Brookfeld Center, writes to the New York Tribune as follows:
 have before me clipping from the weekly edition of the Danbury, Conn. News, under date of Jan. 5, 1916. The heading tells the story: "One Thousand Deer Killed. Wholesale Slaughter of Animals in State Since August These figures are apparently given out by the superintendent of the state fish and game commission, and may therefore be called official. .. Is write I have ot the latest data at hand. A sumn sry # the game laws of the several states 4Jr 1915, corrected to Oct 2O, 1914, fails to reveal any legislation similar to Connecticnt's in any ether state. In most of the states other than Connecticut an absolute ''close season. prevails. In few no "open season. is allowed. Local ex- ceptions,'' of course, exist in certain states.
 The Connecticut act does not stipu- late that deer nay be taken or killed only when damage has been done by them to growing crops, etc. It does not limit the number that may be killed or taken 1t does not restrict the, privilege to residents of the state; for the words, "any member of his family" may be construed to include non- residents. It specifies that for killing a shotgun is to be used. No sportsman thinks of hunting such game as deer with a shct gun. The use of shotgun increases the number ot animals who are wounded and escape, perhaps to die 8 lingering death-an event which is deplored by every true sportsman. It specifics all bucks and both lawns and does as lawful subjects for slaughter at any time. This is quite counter to the better sentiment now generally existing.
 In New Brunswick any one who thunts, takes, hurts, injures, traps, snares, shoots, wounds, kills or des- troys," COW or calf moose or caribou is liable to $20O fine or three months in jail. The law defines male animal as a calf until he is at least three times notless than fonr inches long on each antler. Moose and caribou have more commercial value as trophies" than deer, and deer are comparatively more plentiful. But the same general principle should be applied 10 the killing of deer.
 The Connecticut act allows capture by any means except "trap, snare or device" Whether this includes the ) lasso or the bolas might be a matter fol debate. But it does apparently leave 6 loophole whereby deer may be rur
 down by dogs-one of the meanest ot
 obsolete hunting practises, "Jacking,'
 another indefensible method, may also
 apparently be employed when feasible t Lastly the report or the killing ol l "capture'' is not to be made to a game { warden, constable or other local official but to one of the fish and game com missioners or to the commission as l whole. This would probably neve 3 be done within twenty four hours, a f the law provides; and frequently, W,
 may suppose, would not be done at all l For failure to report penalties are i'm a posed, to be sure, but the possibilitie of evasion are obvious.
 s I have above presented an objec . lesson in cause and effect. Until tn 7. passage of this act protection was to b I given to Connecticut deer to June l l 1917. The act was past, and "whole - sale slaughter followed. Have pr 8 Hornaday and others labored in vail
 to instruct our legislators