Year: 1875

The third meeting of the Vermont as.
sociation for the protection of fish and
game, was held in Burlington, Thursday
evening, Oct rs. A good number of
influential men of theState were present.
Dr. NJ. Goldsmith of Rutland, was chos-
en- president, John W. Newton of St.
Albans, and DIR. Geo. f. Gale of Brat
tleboro, vice presidents. DR. Goldsmith
delivered an interesting address on " The
economic advantages Of the protection Of
fish and game"


THE ADDRESS.


DIR Goldsmith having discussed first,
the cause of the extinction of salmon
and trout which once abounded in Yer
mont, proceeded to consider the protec-
tion of fish and game and the punish
ment Of offenders. As the matter now
stands, the offender is not commonly sup
posed to violate any right of property,
and it is no ones especial function to
bring him to punishment. We, the men,
bers of this association, cannot form our
selves into an ambulatory police to watch
woods and brooks, and the expense in
volved renders a special police impossi-
BILE, so that all that remains to us is a
corps of volunteer watchmen, stirred to
activity by their love of the rod and the
gunner by the sense of ownership. We
can effect much by word of mouth and
use of pen. Taking a trout upon a
spawning bed is as mean an act as SLAM
der and the same meanness applies to
any unreasonable taking of fish or game.
1t is taking that which is unfit for food
and also destroying future opportunity
for sport, and this no gentleman will do.


People should learn, and it is our pro-
vince to teach them, that, though tech
nically there is no property in fish or
game, the farmer has the exclusive right
to kill it while on his premises, or to
rent that right to another. | venture to
assert, and that after careful examination
and inquiry, that where good trout
brooks run through farms the fishing,
thoroughly protected against trespass,
would rent for sums sufficient to pay the
taxes upon the entire farm. AT least, !
know of two streams in Rutland county
for which | am authorized to give, on
the conditions above named, in one case
sum larger than the whole annual pro-
duct of the farm through which it runs,
and in the other more than enough to
pay the taxes | know of thousands of
acres of mountain land on which / would
be glad, and so would any sportsman
with means to do it, to pay the taxes,
aye, and more in some cases, for the
game that grows upon it, or would grow
upon it. That such brooks and noun
tain lands are not rented to-day is simply
because farmers do not know their rights
or, knowing them, do not maintain them.
The presumption is that they do not
know their rights or the money value of
them. The game rents of Scotland are
estimated at $3,000,000 annually. 1t is
doubted if Scotland can bear as much
game as Vermont, and it is not to be
doubted that if our farmers were satisfied
that they could get Sl,000,000 annually
in game, they would, with fit laws to the
fore, become keen-scented game-keepers
as were ever found beneath Scotch plaid
or English fustain. We can most fur
ther the ends of this association by edu-
eating the people of this State, in regard
to the matter, that land owners may
know their rights and defend them.


The extinction of furred and feathered
game in Vermont with its causes was
touched upon, with fine description of
the genuine sportsman and his creed in
opposition to the :" pot hunter" to which
nothing but verbatim report could do
justice.


To foster, to keep alive, to spread
craftsmanship is to redeem the calling
from pothunterdom. To show our peo
pie among whom there fingers something
of the ascetic spirit of Puritanism which
looks askance ON all things not money
making or church going, that the use of
the rod and gun is becoming recreation
which all men may gracefully pursue
and be bettered by pursuing this, gen.
tlemen, is part of our mission. In re-
gard to that other factor of the plente-
business of game a sense of the right of
property-we have in Vermont almost
all to do. The number of our citizens
who feel that the right of shooting game
belongs to the landholder while it is on
his land can almost be counted on ones
fingers. The idea that you or l have
not the right, while on our neighbor's
lands, to shoot the game we find seldom
gains lodgment in a Vermont head. We
admit the farmers right to order us off
his premises, and, if stout enough, to
drive us off if we refuse to go when or
dered; but we don't seem to understand