fone f these exlusions of public hunting. however, a" as yet a     
  iM 
by any constractj  manaeansnt, and on the  ooe grounds particularly the 
system exhibit$ serious absee against the public 6ame S p9ly- 
23. 1'2M"~ 1992 Htfl. Convincinge evidencs Of the AiscrepFMT between

doman4  ML supply in hunting privileges it found in the statels attO$ 
to foro the perpetuation of free 4er ad ruffed. goue huti           M   
  o 
a rider attachsd to the forest orop law. This prevides that iu oria  t to
s 
the privilege of the speoas  system of taxation set up 1W tho stat fe   for

lands, the ovner mst leave the lan  open to pablic shoot1u.    While this
kh 
the sperfioial appearance of a stateoaaaliki move to pepetuatd          
  in 
sport$ it is really of doubtfail expelency in actual practice becuse it ho

out no incentive to te land owner to prodc         crops.  In fat, it he

out the oontrary incetive of getting rid of the gare, so that he *a tm 
advantage of the forest tax without being sebjeeted to the nansaws of b 
It maust be tai, however, that the lands lwolvei are mostly forest lat 
Suitable only for doer and ruffed gouse. If there are any lands in the *tat

that can  mep on prouctng game without the help of the lsa     wr, and wik

only sush eaag    nt as the state can give, it is these laue. 
There is now a widely discuassed proTasal to insert a free hunt 4 
proviso in the fur farm low.  This ease is probably a little   Wfmt, In 
that private hustinu grounds, especially waterfowl gronds, are soeti 
acquired under the color of a fur farm 
It is not the intent of this caption to either indor    or cono 
these specific legislative experiments, but merely to point out their bearin

on tte centwal principle of proviling an incentive for the practice of 
mmaaLer~t bry land. owners. 
 
. 149 -