New-York tribune., 1920-07-13
Game and the Farmer
Why The State Should Protect Them
From the Hunter
To the Editor of The Tribune.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: The greatest need of the pres
ent time is a better understanding
between cities and the country, or,
rather, between the residents of cities
and the residents of the country. This
better understanding can be brought
about by legislation that is not dis
criminatory but on the broad tasis
Of equal and just consideration of all
interests.
One of the things that cause much
resentment to the owners and occupy-
ers Of farm land is the present wild
game laws, which the farmers will ask
the next Legislature to amend so as
the better to recognize the land own
ers' rights. For instance, the law that
compels land owner to post his lands
and to protect himself against tres
passers is unjust, un-American and
an insult to the land owner, causing
him unjust trouble and expense in pro-
tecting himself. The state is in honor
and duty bound to post lands, and the
state should protect a land owner in
his rights. Any one going upon such
land without express permission of
the owner commits trespass, and the
act should be so construed, and the
party thus trespassing should be held
responsible, first, in the penal law of
trespass, and, second, for all damage
caused by such trespass. The posting
Of lands in itself is no protection to
the owner, for such notices are fre-
quently and wantonly destroyed, and
then the owner becomes helpless under
the law.
This law should be Immediately re-
pealed, and the farmers of the state
are going to ask, with all the emphasis
at their command, for its repeal, and
we ask that in the name of fair play
the city papers and city residents join
with us in the action for it's repeal.
The farmer asks that person who
wishes to go upon another's land for
hunting or fishing should first obtain
the owners consent, for the land is
the owners domain and should be pre-
served to him in full.
The conservation laws are perhaps
just and necessary for the preserva-
ton of game, but why preserve the
game if the one who feeds it and
raises it on his own land has less op-
portunity to enjoy it than the ruthless
hunter who comes out from town and
regardless Of the farmers first right
to it, runs over his lands and gener-
ally conducts himself in way that
ignores the rights Of the owner? The
deer under conservation laws are pro-
tected on the farm, and while feeding
them the farmer must sit quietly by
and see his crops destroyed, the gor-'
mandizing pheasant pull his corn and
feed upon his wheat in shock, even
coming into his barnyard and robbinp
his poultry of their feed and occupy
ing his hen house. There are also
the unsavory skunk, which marauds the
'"SAA A0Vo0 oAo lakes Cn0 eggs ana Kills
the young chickens, and the rabbits,
which ruin young orchards. Yet in the
name of conservation the farmer must
sit still and see all this destruction
going on and not be permitted to raise
hand to preserve his own. 1t is not
necessary to maintain wild game con-
ditions on tillable lands, and it should
not be allowed, and the state must
take measures to protect the farmer
in his natural rights. The sportsman
should be sportsman enough to expect
game only on wild lands.
The farmer should be fully protect
ed against trespass and interference
with his crops and stock, and no
hunter should be permitted to enter
tillable land without the consent Of
the owner. The farmer should also be
permitted to take such action with re-