The Globe. THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1876.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 633, 29 June 1876, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1876.

At the last meeting of the Council of the Acclimatisation Society a proposition was made to enlist the co-opera-tion of kindred Societies in the colony, for the purpose of inducing legislation in the direction of imposing still further restrictions in the matter of game preserving. It is proposed that a gun license fee should be imposed, viz,, that a certain sum shall be paid by anyone carrying a gun, and that to do so without having procured a license, shall expose a person to a prosecution for recovery of a penalty. Ko one can be more ready than ourselves to admit the good which the efforts of the Acclimatisation Society have effected in the way of bringing amongst us fish and birds of a decidedly useful kind, and also in securing legislation for the protection from extermination and indiscriminate slaughter, of

our native game. But, whilst admitting the necessity of legislation to prevent the wholesale extermination of native game, we yet must protest against the introduction amongst us of Game Laws of such a character as in England have been the cause of much misery, crime, and, on the part of a large class, of fancied oppression. The institutions of the old country, where they are good in their operation, and beneficial to the colony, may be introduced amongst us with good effect, but we very much doubt if, in this instance, the reproduction of the stringent and penal provisions of the laws relating to game, which there obtain, can be deemed advisable. The Protection of Animals Act now in force here is even in its present form capable of being greatly relaxed, with advantage, without in any way impairing its efficiency to secure the prevention of wholesale slaughter of native or imported game at unseasonable times. No one would object to this, and an Act which provided safeguards against this should, and we believe would, have the support of all classes of the community. But when wo find rigorous and mischievous provisions, such as the one alluded to, being sought to be introduced, which would, if carried into effect, tend to the very worst results, such as unhappily used to be too common at home, then we do not hesitate to say that the Acclimatisation Society is stepping out of its way. The question of the Game Laws at home has been a frequent subject of discussion, and the policy of such severe enactments as are there in force, often questioned. It is argued that they are far too stringent; and, not only this, but the duty of administering them is in the hands of Justices who, from being interested parties in the preservation of game, come to the consideration of cases brought before them, "with a bias. This latter point holds good here equally as in England; for, without in the slightest degree wishing to impute improper motives to our local magistracy, it is obvious that the gentlemen who sit in judgment, from the R.M. downwards, are interested, either as land owners or members of the Acclimatisation Society, in the preservation of game. Hence it is that the statute will in all probability, be carried out ,to the utmost letter, and much dissatisfaction and discontent ensue. It would be far better for the Council of the Acclimatisation Society, in conjunction with other societies of a similar kind, to endeavour to promote legislation of a character which, while providing for the due spread of game throughout the province by the prevention of indiscriminate shooting, will yet not press hardly on the people or be of an obnoxious kind. To attempt to introduce here some of the worst features of the law on this subject at home wqpld, we believe, be alike impolitic arickuuwise, and one which, after all, would have no good effect in the direction wished. The provision for a gun license is, we believe, fraught with many evil consequences, and, as such, we hope that, should the Societies agree to it, the General Government will refuse to incorporate it in any amended Bill, should one be brought forward this session. The present Act is full of absurdities, and there is ample scope for the societies to do good work in recommending the rerelaxation and alteration of many of its provisions. A case in point occurred recently at Leitbfield, where a person was fined’ £5 under the 25th section of the Act, for being on unfenced land in pursuit of game, although in possession of a license. He had overstepped a boundary line, which as the land was unfenced, it must have been exceedingly difficult to define, and for this he has had to pay a considerable sum. Now it seems a very absurd and indeed vexatious provision, that for an act of inadvertance which was very pardonable, anyone should be liable to a fine not exceeding £2O. Hot only so, but it opens the door to the gratification of petty spite and malice to a degree which must prove very injurious to the well-being of society, more especially in a colony like this, were more freedom is supposed to exist than in England. Therefore we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that an amended Act is highly necessary, but not in the direction of making the clauses more stringent, but rather that some 'relaxation in the present provisions should be made, so long as the one end is arrived at viz., the greatest amount of protection to native and imported birds, &c, with the least amount off oppression and annoyonce to tin : general public. Legislation in this ; direction cannot fail to be useful,♦ ball extreme measures of a different cha 1 racter, such as the proposed gu 4 license, will only be mischievous. J