CHAPTER XL

BREEDING GAME AND FUR IN CAPTIVITY

GAME BREEDING.—­The breeding of game in captivity for sale in the markets of the world is just as legitimate as the breeding of domestic species.  This applies equally to mammals, birds, reptiles and fishes.  It is the duty of the nation and the state to foster such industries and facilitate the marketing of their products without any unnecessary formalities, delays or losses to producers or to purchasers.

Already this principle has been established in several states.  Without going into the records, it is safe to say that Colorado was the pioneer in the so-called “more-game” movement, about 1899; but there is one person who would like to have the world believe that it started in the state of New York, about 1909.  The idea is not quite as “old as the hills,” but the application of it in the United States dates back through a considerable vista of years.

The laws of Colorado providing for the creation of private game preserves and the marketing of their product under a tagging system, are very elaborate, and they show a sincere desire to foster an industry as yet but slightly developed in this country.  The laws of New York are much more simple and easy to understand than those of Colorado.

There is one important principle now fully recognized in the New York laws for game breeding that other states will do well to adopt.  It is the fact that certain kinds of wild game can not be bred and reared in captivity on a commercial basis; and this being true, it is clearly against public policy to provide for the sale of any such species.  Why provide for the sale of preserve-bred grouse and ducks which we know can not be bred and reared in confinement in marketable numbers?  For example, if we may judge by the numerous experiments that thus far have been made,—­as we certainly have a right to do,—­no man can successfully breed and rear in captivity, on a commercial basis, the canvasback duck, teal, pintail duck, ruffed grouse or quail.  This being the case, no amount of clamor from game dealers and their allies ever should induce any state legislature to provide for the sale of any of those species until it has been fully demonstrated that they have been and can be bred in captivity in large numbers.  The moment the markets of a state are thrown open to these impossible species, from that moment the state game wardens must make a continuous struggle to prevent the importation and sale of those birds contrary to law.  This proposition is so simple that every honest man can see it.

All that any state legislature may rightfully be asked to do is to provide for the sale, under tags, of those species which we know can be bred in captivity in large numbers.