usively
controlled by clubs. In many states the private game preserves are a
source of great irritation, and many have been attacked in courts of
law.[N]

[Footnote N: "Private Game Preserves and their Future in the United
States," by T.S. Palmer, United States Department of Agriculture, 1910.]

But I am not sorrowing over the woes of the unattached duck-hunter, or
in the least inclined to champion his cause against the ducking-club
member. As slaughterers and exterminators of wild-fowl, rarely
exercising mercy under ridiculous bag-limits, they have both been too
heedless of the future, and one is just as bad for the game as the
other. If either of them favored the game, I would be on his side; but I
see no difference between them. They both kill right up to the
bag-limit, as often as they can; and that is what is sweeping away all
our feathered game.

Curiously enough, the angry unattached duck-hunters of California are
to-day proposing to have revenge on the duck-clubbers by _removing all
restrictions on the sale of game_! This is on the theory that the
duckless sportsmen of the State of California would like to _buy_ dead
ducks and geese for their tables! It is a novel and original theory, but
the sane people of California never will enact it into law. It would be
a step just _twenty years backward_!

THE PUBLIC vs. THE PRIVATE GAME PRESERVE.--Both the executive and the
judiciary branches of our state governments will in the future be called
upon with increasing frequency to sit in judgment on this case.
Conditions about us are rapidly changing. The precepts of yesterday may
be out of date and worthless tomorrow. By way of introspection, let us
see what principles of equity toward Man and Nature we would lay down as
the basis of our action if we were called to the bench. Named in logical
sequence they would be about as follows:

1. Any private game "preserve" that is maintained chiefly as a
slaughter-ground for wild game, either birds or mammals, may become
detrimental to the interests of the people at large.

[Illustration: EGRETS AND HERONS IN SANCTUARY ON MARSH ISLAND]

2. It is not necessarily the duty of any state to provide for the
maintenance of private death-traps for the wholesale slaughter of
_migratory_ game.

3. An oppressive monopoly in the slaughter of migratory game is
detrimental to the interests of the public at large, the same as any
other monopoly.

4. Every de facto game preserve, main