58                                                          AMERICAN GA ME
           Gu,!-" w, y/ ,O 
 
 
 
                      Poacher, Or Paying Guest 
 
In the Hill Country of Texas the Sportsman is a Welcome Customer Paying for
the Privilege of Harvesting the Annual Game Crop. 
                                                          BY WM. J. TUCKER

                                     Executive Secretary, Texas Game, Fish
and Oyster Commission. 
 
 
ACILITIES for travel, improved during 
     the last two decades, have made it possible 
     for the hunters in numbers to reach the 
 
 
heretotore inaccessible haunts oi game 
and in all too many instances with the 
coming of the hunters in numbers the 
farmer and ranchman of Texas have 
lost interest in the protection of game. 
Many of the farmers and ranchmen 
regard game as a liability because of 
its attraction to the hunter and the 
imagined and occasional actual men- 
ace that the hunter is to livestock, 
range and forest. 
     An Asset, Not a Liability 
  How    game to the farmer and 
ranchman in some sections of Texas 
has become an asset rather than a li- 
ability and how the farmer and ranch- 
man have been given an incentive to 
welcome an increase of game on their 
premises, is one of the interesting 
stories that can be told by those who 
are familiar with the history of con- 
servation in the Lone Star State. 
  By Legislative declaration in Texas, 
similar to the declarations that have 
 
State, game is the property of the 
people of the State. There are no 
private rights thereto. It is axiomatic, 
however, that all native game is on 
privately owned land, and even though 
 
 
that time, and decided that they would do all 
within their power to increase the game sup- 
plies on their premises. The result of their 
 
 
of hunting privileges an increasing army of 
urban dwellers flocked to those sections where 
the privileges were for sale. They realized 
         .n,a LIC U , J1l  4 1 *i1,  1All  1,I UJ 
 
 
tain a place to hunt. It was natural that 
competitive bidding for the best places 
to hunt soon resulted and that prices 
all out of proportion to the true worth 
of the shooting privilege were paid to 
the landowner. It also disclosed the 
fact that all landowners were not con- 
servationists and that while some de- 
sired game on their premises, because 
of the price they could get for the 
privilege of hunting, in their greed for 
larger gross receipts annually, they 
sometimes admitted too many hunters, 
and more than the excess crop of 
game was taken. Their neighbors, 
especially those who did not sell hunt- 
ing privileges, but who maintained a 
good supply of game on their premises 
for themselves and    their friends, 
grew resentful. They complained that 
the "lease system" was resulting in 
not only permitting the killing of an 
excess amount of game on one's own 
premises but much of the game which 
ead been -rea-rd on adjiaefein premises. 
     Complaints by Sportsmen 
   Sportsmen set up legitimate com- 
plaints. They argued, that under the 
system in vogue, only the man of 
abundant means would be able to find 
 
 
occupants of the land could achieve 
its destruction in a single season if 
they so willed. 
          Game a Source of Food 
  In the earlier periods of development in this 
State game was desired on farm and range be- 
cause it afforded an auxiliary food supply. In 
an earlier epoch it was the primary supply, and 
it is well to reason that the land would not have 
been conquered if it had not been for game. But 
with growing crops and ranges well stocked 
the necessity that the early pioneer felt for 
game was no longer apparent. The early in- 
centive for its increase had been destroyed by 
tlA march of civilization. With the destruc- 
ti,  of this incentive game reached a low ebb 
in Texas more than 20 years ago. The con- 
servation machinery was also weak. Out of 
this debacle came a realization, almost too late, 
of the recreational advantages of game. Then 
came larger groups of sportsmen over the State, 
many of them organized, and a conservation 
department better equipped, and the decline was 
halted. 
          Farmers Protected Game 
   Some ten or more years ago groups of farm- 
 ers and ranchmen banded themselves together 
 in the West Central part of Texas, formulated 
 conservation regulations for their own proper- 
 ty that were stronger than the State laws at 
 
 
William J. Tucker 
 
 
work was soon apparent. Many of these areas 
in a few years had an annual excess crop of 
game that more than met the personal needs of 
the landowner. With the increase of game in 
those areas, hunters from afar were attracted, 
and by voluntary offers the hunting privileges 
were purchased on these ranches. 
          Sale of Shooting Rights 
  There was a law at this time which prohibit- 
ed the sale of game, but there was no law which 
prohibited the sale of the right to hunt. This 
system grew apace. Meagre at the start, it had 
grown some six years ago to proportions that 
attracted the attention of the conservation de- 
partment and the Legislature. Not so much 
with the idea of regulating the sale of hunting 
privileges as to determine the numbers of peo- 
ple who were paying for the privilege of hunt- 
ing, a law was enacted about six years ago. It 
required that all of those who lease or sell 
the hunting privileges on their premises must 
first apply to the Conservation Department 
for a shooting preserve license and pay the fee 
of $5.00 therefor. They are required to enforce 
the State laws on their property, to keep a 
record of those who hunt and their kill. 
         Competition Raised Prices 
  With the legal status that was given the sale 
 
 
         a place to hunt and that he would 
         annually purchase the hunting rights 
on all of the good lands at a price that would 
be prohibitive for the man of small means. 
There was no objection to the fact that wealthy 
individuals purchased large tracts in fee, pri- 
marily to assure good hunting for all time to 
come for themselves and their friends. The 
argument was that the game is the property of 
the people of the State and that the price for 
the privilege of hunting this game, if permitted, 
should not be so great but that almost everyone 
would be placed on an equal footing in bar- 
gaining for these hunting rights. 
       Present Law Passed in 1929 
  At the session of the Legislature in January, 
1929, the Trespass law of Texas was re-written. 
It now provides that it is unlawful for anyone 
to hunt or fish upon the enclosed lands of an- 
other, providing that the owner of such lands 
does not make a charge in excess of four dol- 
lars per day per person or an aggregate of 
more than 25 cents per acre per year for the 
shooting privileges on his land. Many land- 
owners argue that this price is too low and 
point out that the maximum price will always 
be charged and that the man who has little 
game on his premises will get as good a price 
as the man who has an abundant supply. There 
is no question but that there are inequalities by 
            (Continued on page 67)