FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276  
277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   >>   >|  
sand in this country ever will see the place and time wherein the opposite is true. At present there are just two places in America, and I think only two, wherein there exists the slightest exception on this point. The state of Vermont is becoming overstocked with deer, and the females have in _some_ counties (not in all), become so tame and destructive in orchards, gardens and farm crops as to constitute a great annoyance. For this reason, the experiment is being made of permitting does to be killed under license, until their number is somewhat reduced. The first returns from this trial have now come in, from the county game wardens of Vermont to the state game warden. Mr. John W. Titcomb. I will quote the gist of the opinion of each. The State Commissioner says: "This law should remain in force at least until there is some indication of a decrease in the number of deer." Warden W.H. Taft (Addison County) says: "The killing of does I believe did away with a good many of these tame deer that cause most of the damage to farmers' crops." Harry Chase (Bennington County) says the doe-killing law is "a good law, and I sincerely trust it will not be repealed." Warden Hayward of Rutland County says: "The majority of the farmers in this county are in favor of repealing the doe law.... A great many does and young deer (almost fawns) were killed in this county during the hunting season of 1909." R.W. Wheeler, of Rutland County says: "Have the doe law repealed! We don't need it!" H.J. Parcher of Washington County finds that the does did more damage to the crops than the bucks, and he thinks the doe law is "a just one." R.L. Frost, of Windham County, judicially concludes that "the law allowing does to be killed should remain in force one or two seasons more." C.S Parker, of Orleans County, says his county is not overstocked with deer, and he favors a special act for his county, to protect females. A summary of the testimony of the wardens is easily made. When deer are too plentiful, and the over-tame does become a public nuisance too great to be endured, the number should be reduced by regular shooting in the open season; but, As soon as the proper balance of deer life has been restored, protect the does once more. The pursuit of this policy is safe and sane, provided it can be wrought out without the influence of selfishness, and reckless disregard for the rights of the next generation. On the whole, its handling is li
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276  
277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

County

 

county

 
number
 

killed

 

reduced

 
wardens
 
season
 
protect
 

Rutland

 

repealed


Warden
 

farmers

 

damage

 
remain
 
killing
 
overstocked
 
females
 

Vermont

 

special

 
Parker

favors

 

Orleans

 

easily

 

summary

 

country

 
plentiful
 

testimony

 

Washington

 

Parcher

 

thinks


concludes

 

allowing

 
seasons
 

judicially

 

Windham

 

endured

 

influence

 
selfishness
 

wrought

 

provided


reckless

 

disregard

 

handling

 

rights

 

generation

 
policy
 
shooting
 

regular

 

nuisance

 

proper