I love the history of hunting and guns in the United States. For well over 100 years, it has led to some crazy stuff. So every now and then, I'll be giving you texts from our illustrious hunting history.
Today is an 1897 letter from a Minnesota man named Horace A. Milton to Western Field and Stream, a precursor to the modern Field and Stream. Horace opposes the idea of hunting regulations, something that was gaining momentum at this time because American wildlife larger than squirrels were all about to go extinct.
"I notice a strong tendency in this land of the free to restrict the freedom of "the hunter," and get the working class entirely shut out from the freedom of the woods, field and hills given us by our Creator. Pay $25 or twenty-five cents to hunt in any state in the "Free United States?" I shall hunt in any State I choose to and pay no tax. My father died in Libby Prison to free some of our countrymen. The farmers will charge for the privilege of hunting on their land, and the poor folks will poach on the game preserves as they do in other countries. My Janesville, Wis., paper says: 'No poor man can pay $30 for the privilege of shooting deer in this State, and they buy nothing here, and camp out, so we make nothing off them. But the rich who can pay the tax will spend $30,000 in this state.' During the open season I will hunt deer in Wisconsin and pay no tax. I am poor, and will take my eating stuff along. If arrested, I will serve my time. After released I shall devote my life to exterminating the game of any hog State that restricts the freedom of the poor. Now this is the way I feel about it. And this same sentiment will be raised in others, and the flood will come. I believe no man should be stopped from hunting where he chooses during the open season. The deed for every farm should read: 'After Sept. 1st, each year, this land is thrown open for hunting until season closes. Actual damage to owners' property to be paid by hunter at once. No game preserves or passes allowed to private parties or companies.'"
i am a hunter, and this guys sounds a little loopy. private land is just that, and he took an outrageous stance of game extermination as a response. fortunately, public hunting land exists for guys like this, but there are costs charged by each state's fish and game department for "management" services. basically, if game species are put on your property at government expense, then there's an argument to let the public have access to that game. this is practiced now with publicly-funded stocked trout streams on private land, but the landowner must agree to this upfront. i don't know if this is done with hunting or not.
ReplyDeletethe take-away from this post is hopefully not to paint hunters/gun owners as whackadoos. nowadays, the big issue of gun sportspeople is the protection of the second amendment and the reduction of any hurdles and controls involved in law-abiding persons owning a firearm. imagine what this loose cannon would have said if you'd have tried to take his guns...
get a load of what happens in different states: you can simply show your driver's license to buy a firearm in many states. but in NJ you must apply/purchase a firearm id, get 3 letters of reference from locals, get finger-printed and checked at both the FBI and SBI, and letters of intent are sent to your employer(!), and you must officially declare yourself not mentally unstable. the whole process takes months, and i can almost relate to old Horace just recalling the BS.
Another brilliant find . . .
ReplyDeleteThese would make a great collection of alternative documents for a history survey. I would absolutely use it in one of my classes . . .
I quite serious here.
I am quite serious here.
ReplyDeleteDuh.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteMy take away is how much attitudes have changed in 109 years. Even if this guy was a lone nut, he at least got his letter published so the editors of "Field and Stream" didn't think he was so crazy.
I remember reading a glancing reference to the idea that even white American's concepts of private property were radically different in the 19th century. Like you didn't really have the right to restrict people from being on your property, within the limits of good behaviour.
The writer of this letter was quite representative of a lot of working-class sentiment against hunting restrictions at that time. Elites codified hunting laws to create game for themselves and in doing so, cut out a lot of working-class people, Indians, blacks, and immigrants from being able to hunt. We can look at this as a good thing because the lack of hunting restrictions had decimated American wildlife populations. However, this whole program was heavily infused with some severe class bias.
ReplyDelete