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  The precepts of yesterday may be out of date and worthless tomorrow.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, maintained for the preservation of wild life rather than for its slaughter, is an institution beneficial to the public at large, and therefore entitled to legal rights and privileges above and beyond all which may rightly be accorded to the so-called “preserves” that are maintained as killing-grounds.

5.  The law may justly discriminate between the actual game preserve and the mere killing-ground.

6.  Whenever a killing-ground becomes a public burden, it may be abated, the same as any other public infliction.

In private game preserves the time has arrived when lawmakers and judges must begin to apply the blood-test, and separate the true from the false.  And at every step, the welfare of the wild life involved must be given full consideration.  No men, nor body of men, should be permitted to practice methods that spell extermination.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXIX

BRITISH GAME PRESERVES IN AFRICA AND AUSTRALIA

This brief chapter is offered as an object-lesson to the world at large.

In the early days of America, the founders of our states and territories gave little heed, or none at all, to the preservation of wild life.  Even if they thought of that duty, undoubtedly they felt that the game would always last, and that they had no time for such sentimental side issues as the making of game preserves.  They were coping with troubles and perplexities of many kinds, and it is not to be wondered at that up to forty years ago, real game protection in America went chiefly by default.