Year: 1875

The subject of the protection of fish and
game has been brought to the attention of
the people Of Vermont, for several years.
Legislative enactment has gone far to protect
fish and game, even to the protection of
"wild geese flying over" and partridges
while they are destroying the fruit buds in
orchards in spring, but has ignored entirely
the rights of owners of land and water,
until the act Of the last session protecting
those who engage in fish culture. We re-
gard this as a serious defect in our law.


The following from DIR. Goldsmith to the
Springfield Republican is of interest as bear
ing on the subject


CARLSBAD, Bohemia, May 30, 1873.


| want to tell your readers something
about European game, game laws and game
preservation. In Great Britain, France,
Belgium, Germany and Austria the idea
which underlies all legislation is that hunt
ing is use of land adherent to the soil, and
goes with it--that the right to kill game on
given tract Of land is as much an use of it
as is the growing of timber or of grain, or
the rearing Of cattle. Thus the sentiment
OF the people holds that it is as much an in
vasion of the propretor's rights to kill the
game as to kill the poultry. The trespass
in the case Of poultry is Que against right
and a property. In the matter of game, the
trespass is not so much upon the property
10 game, as upon that use Of the land which
gives to the owner qualified or conditional
property in the game, and an unconditional
(save as modified by police regulations) and
exclusive right to kill it on his premises
The hunting use of the land is inseparablo
and in practice often separate or, in other
words, A, the landowner, can let to B, a
farmer, .he agricultural uses of the land, aud
to q, a sportsman, the hunting or shooting


Most of our best lawyers in America will
1 think, agree that the common law "
gives just these rights to all American land
owners. The difficulty with us however, is
that our state statutes provide no laws ade-
quate to the protection Of these rights. Our
laws Of trespass regard only the wrongful
occupancy OF land, not the wrongful occupan-
cy OF franchise. According to our law
of trespass, the sneak who tramples down
! your grass while hunting rabbits with bag
and ferrets is no more Of a trespasser than he
who, on the way from church, walks through
the fields chanting the l99th psalm. The
trespasser is punished for the damage he docs
to the grass or grain or plOwed land, ETC.,
but not for usurping a franchise. Police
regulations may provide punishment fol
catching the rabbits with the help of ferrets
or out Of season, but not for catching rabbits
on another mans land.


In almost all Europe the law Furnishes not
only for wrongful occupancy and for the
damage done during that occupancy, fol
catching the rabbits by forbidden means and
at forbidden time, but punishes also foI
the trespass upon the franchise the hunting
the shooting use of the land. Herein is
seen the marrow of game laws. The details
Of the law for the protection Of the franchis'
differ in different countries. The scheme o
each country's statutes embraces mostly tht
same purposes. In the 6rst place the tres
passer upon occupancy is dealt with accord
ing to his intent. That is to say, the Of
fcnse is the greater if, in addition to beinI
wrongiul!y on the premises, he has In hi
possession the implements of poacher. Il


the second place, the trespass is more serlou


If in the night, or if he carries arms witt
which be may resist arrest, or if the tres


passer goes in company with others. Th
J two latter provisions are for the protection
Of the persons who guard the game, i. Q
the owner Of his keepers. For the purpos


Of efficiency of execution of the law, game
} keepers or their equivalents are ad hoe Off


GERS Of the peace Then again the traffic i
game is so regulated as to prevent the sal
Of game unlawfully killed.


. Inasmuch as the shooting franchises al