Norwich bulletin., 1917-02-03
TIE DEER QUESTION AND TIE FARMER


 IIIigganurn'' and '.EarIs of Killingly" and Dukes of. North SfonineHnri
 The day for that sort of thing has tgone by. This is an age of farm and factory production. alfd one in which men and women are. independently at least. considered of more importance than deer or salmon. The rights of the worker and producer are admit Itedly higher, now-a-days, than those iof the fdler and wastrel. The very
 which we live i'm depends upon the
 protection of producers.
 I The first and foremost and most inn- tportant of the producers is the far
 mer. From his inclosed and cultivat- ed fields must come practically all the food which nourishes the nations. Ev- cry effort of government, every pro-
 posai of legislation should, as a mat ter of primal common sense, consider first of all his completed protection in ] the continuance and increase of that production upon which the feeding of the world depends.
 Yet the pretection of "earner solely as and for class involves and intends the addition of new obstacles to his work, the eneouragemen of new injury to his crops, the protection of pests which decrease his productive All, Solely for the pleasure of cer- ltain men who would rather hunt than work, and who are selhshly willing to put their personal pleasure above the material interests of the community. For it must not be forgotten that the protection of game in so-called closed Iseasons' is solely that it may, in such seasons. so increase and multiply as Ito afford better sport to the hunter in the "epen season"
 Meantime, closed season or open season, the game" is taking it's living and making it's increase off the fields of the farmer. He is. perforce~ and which it thriyes. and finds his already too small production sometimes griev- |ously diminished by it's ravages
 enough to fight in the buzz bugs and ds ths and the worms and th@ slugs and things of that sort. without having legislation foist upon him other enc mics and forbid him. under penalty of extortionate and oppressive fines, to defend himself against them.
 There are certain birds and a few wild animals which are generally be- lieyed to be helpful to the farmer I dos not say they are so, but simply that they are commonly believed to 1 be so. Not being poultryman but | a gardener. I for one like to see Skunkss in my garden. I don't want l to pet them, nor do think thernMes- 1 pecially pretty nor sweet-scentedtBut l they do love grubs and they eat tre- mendous lot in their nightly prowlings- l So far as I have ever discovered, they don't iniure my crops. Occasionally they undermine a turnip or a carrot to get at the fat worm which is living on it or under it, but I have never discovered any trace of injury by them to plants. such as caused by weed chucks, rabbits, etc. Toads and snakes l also. eat lot of bugs and the like 1 It is the law of my garden that no man, woman or boy interfere with 1 any skunk or toad or snake found on l them. I would rather have seventeen 1 sl<unks in my tomato patch than one l she rabbit in my beans or one wood 1 chuck burrow in my clover or one deer in my corn
 The place for "same" is in the woods and Wiidernesses- I've no objection to rabbits in the wide-EppaIachian forests of an unsettled country I've no objection to deer in a northwestern wilderness where there isn't a farm | ton to hons and elephants and rhi- | noeeroses and hippepotami in mid l Africa. or to rich people going there | to hunt them.
 But I do object. as emphatically as | know how, to having my farm made | a breeding place and protected com | pound for rabbits and deer; against | being compelled to feed them for | long closed season" and then have | my fields roamed over and my fences | broken down and my gates left open | by horde of so-called hunters from E some other part of the country in the | Aopen season"
 If one were allowed to and could | domesticate deer and keep them as he | keeps cows. they would make a valua- l ble addition to our herds. No way | has yet been discovered to do this Nor 1 is such a preservation intended or de- | sired by oE< game laws The laws | which protect deer do not seek or | dream of any advantage to the com munity as a whole, but simply the | pleasure of an infnitesimal minority. Which pleasure has to be paid for in | the losses they cause to the real pro- ducers. deserves protection less than another, | It is the common cotton-taiI rabbit | the bean eating, eabbage-destroying | corn -Hibbling. tree-barking rabbit | Yet no less than sixteen states had | according to the latest information at | my hand. laws protecting this very | pest which one small state of Aus | tralia has paid S1,750, 900 in a vain at tempt to exterminatei
 It would be quite as sensible to | protect the mosquito or the bald faced hornet. No doubt they, too, would be protected if only they were big enough to make targets.
 There is no reason on earth why, if certain very rich people want to l preserve game. they shouldn't buy up and fence in and stock big compounds or even verdant intervales with any form of wild life they close-and