Connecticut western news., 1917-05-10
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1917,
UNJUST CRiTlCls M.

 Ep, Connecticutr' has been widely distributed, condemning the present deer law, and claiming that the State Board of Fisheries and Game sanctions shis law. The circular, signed by J. $. Bryan, Brookfield Centre, Conn.,, states that Connecticut has outraged com mon sense and sportsmanship and the modern spirit of conservation, and that khe act which was approved by the Governor on May 19, 1915 (the present deer law is called by experts lone ot ahe most reactionary and surprising nieces of legislation ever passed since game laws were first known" The eircular goes on as follows:
 ''It is just as we'll to speak frankly about thls deer slaughter law. It kgn't new laR, not yet tested by skperlence. For two years it has heen in operation to tine amazement of all good sportsmen, game lovers, an1 believers in fair play-and to ahe wanton, unnecessary destruction ef one of tue states excellent assets.
 All game lovers and good sports ~zsen took it for granted that mis. gake had been made, ard that when ahe General Assembly met in 1917 Eational law would be endorsed by asse State Board of Fisheries and Game and passed by the Assembly. Now, it seems, the State Board of Fisheries and Game prefers to make a. bad matter worse by giving it's sanction to the existing law.
 It's attitude cannot, therefore, be. 4sailed mistake and only that.
 On April 28, 1917, Dr. W. T. Rornaday, who is the greatest authority in this country on game conservation wrote the following Eester:
 April 28, 1917. sr. William M. Maltbie, Executive
 Secretary, State House, Hartford,
 Conn.
 Dear Sir:-Thank you very much a6r your letter of April 27 I regret shat Gov. Holcomb is away and is likely to remain out of touch with aae deer situation in Connecticut aatil it is too late for him to assume leadership in the settlement of that sather vexed question.
 Inasmuch as he is absent, I think k would be good thing if you would refer my letter and it's enclo. stre to Hon. Samuel c. Shaw, who aow has bill before your legislature intended to produce a better deer Saw in Connecticut. The deer prob. EAsn has come to Connecticut to stay, 9nd think it would be the part of wisdom to put it cn sound basis Before greater friction is developed. The present situation is intolerable, and ought not to be permitted to 1ndure even another year.
 There should be enacted into law as once the principle of compensation zor damages by deer that has been successfully worked out in Vermont &or number of years; and along with that there should be enacted a Raw for the protection of female deer and lawns and the killing of male deer with horns, to a limited number sach year.
 ! think that you could render the whole state valuable service by backing up MT. Shay in the produc. aion of law of the kind have des. cribed. The present situation is too sntolerable to be permitted to endure.
 Yours very truly,
 w. T. Hornaday. Dr Leonard c. Sanford of New Maven, a member of the State Board Fisheries and Game, and one of the asding ornithologists and naturalists m she country, voices the attitude of ssse Board in the following letter to Mr. Bryan, which explains itself, and hould convince the most skeptical that Che State Board of Fisheries and Game does not sanction the existing deer law.
 New Haven, Conn.,, May 6, 1917. Agr. J. s. Bryan,
 RTookfeld Center, Conn.
 My dear MT. Bryant
 X have received your circular Wake Up Connecticut in which .Sou state that the State Board of Fisheries and Game prefer to make Bad matter worse by giving it's sanc- iion to the existing law.
 As member of the State Board of Fisheries and Game, I would like to call your attention to the fact that ssle present Board. almost without exception, are opposed to the exist ing deer law of this state. and was appointed by this Board to appear aefore the legislative committee on