The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1916-01-29
TO PERMIT
OR PROHIBIT
Laws on Fish and Game
Most Efficient in Pres
ent Form
SPORTSMEN AGAINST
FURTHER TINKERING
Laws Whose Provisions Are Permissive
Are Found to Be More Easily En-
forceable = Change to Prohibitive
Form Would Be Step Backward.

1t is interesting to note that until
only a few years ago Vermont laws
relating to the subject of fish and
game were uniformly drafted in the
prohibitive form 1t was made I'M
lawful to take a fish or an animal in
certain periods of the year and
throughout the chapter it was sue
cession of 9 shalt not provisions.
No human mind appeared to foresee
all the things that might be done in
violation of the spirit, but not the
letter, of these statutes. There was
as much mental ingenuity manifested
| by the violators as by the makers of
| these statutes. Therefore it was com
paratively easy for bright lawyer
to find the necessary technical loop
| hole by means of which his client
escaped paying penalty.
Many times it was proven that the
spirit of the law had been broken,
but in the absence of a specific prohi-
bition against an unlocked for con
tingency the violator escaped and up
on the fish and game department de-
| volved the cost of warden service and
other expense. To plug up these loop
holes was the duty assumed by sue
ceeding bodies of legislators. The
time thus spent might have been
otherwise employed and was some
times subject of criticism This
constant changing of the laws by add
tions of further prohibitive features
led not only to increase in bulk but
in some cases, to unexpected and dis
appointing conflict in the laws.
. Finally, men who have made fsl
and game legislation constant stud,
concluded that better results might b.
obtained by making the statutes per
missive in form rather than prohibi
tive, For instance, instead of en-
: deavoring to state the many an
varied WAYS in which certain AM
NAL or fish should not be taken, tn
permissive form was adopted whic1
simply provides that such certain an
nal or fish may be taken such an
,, such dates in the manner speeifie'
! and in no other way. Thus a ma
quickly and readily ascertains wha
he may do and knows that anythin
: outside Of this permission is a viol;
4 ton not only of the spirit, but tn
4 letter of the law. He does not hav
4 to wade through n more or less con
I plicated catalogue CT things he mus
4 not do.
Simplicity in a statute is highly d
sirable in a body polite that is SUI
( posed to be self governing. The $
called law breaker, who frequent
was able to defy the law under Il
4 provisions Of prohibitivc sections, di
1 covered that the new form was a so
Of stone wall thoroughly plastered al
solicited and containing none of II
old, familiar Ioopholes through while
he might by the aid of his attornt
! squeeze. Officials charged with e
fcrcement of the laws have found til
form superior to its predecessor. La
breakers do not like it,
Change Made in 1912.
D States other than Vermont whic
J have adopted the new permissive for
of fish and game laws are New Yor
New Hampshire, Missouri, Minnesot
Louisiana and Colorado. Vermo
- adopted this form in 1912 For
- period previous to 1912 the laws we
: in a more or less juInbled conditi,
due to amendments of various kin
made by different sessions of the leg
lature. It was considered desirable
get them into better shape and as
result a codifcation was complete
All law relating to a given subje
= is placed in one section or under o
heading The convenience of an {
R rangement of this kind. is obviol