Askov American

UNTANGLING-CROSSED WIRES

Editor Askov American:

An article appeared in the Jan. 28th issue of the Askov American and apparently with unqualified imagination. One D. L. Pearson of Sandstone, Minn., is trying to uphold the game laws and the persecuting activities of the game wardens but oh, how weak, hollow and inconsistent is his argument. It sounds more like a confession of their guilt. Nevertheless it was a very good argument considering the foundation he had to stand on.

I can not help but think Mr. Pearson has been misinformed and being unfamiliar with the situation (as his writing would indicate), and by their clever line he has been wrongly converted. First, he says he is no special friend of any game warden but knows several who are very nice men. If he had said they appear nice I would not take exceptions to his remark but he makes a positive statement. He must be very well acquainted with them to make this unusual remark. Now if he has had the proper acquaintance to warrant him in making this assertion then why isn't he a special friend to them?

He then states he don't know if the game laws are constitutional or not but any way he says if he was caught doing something that was against the law he wouldn't holler. Suppose our forefathers had taken this attitude, what would our constitution amount to today?

He also says maybe I am not as prejudiced as some, never having been convicted of any game violations. Possibly he has been one of the lucky ones, but think how many poor fellows has been caught who has no pull with the game wardens and put in jail for the possession of game which is their own property by birthright.

He then asks if a game refuge was so bad why did the farmers decide to continue it in Eastern Pine county, the answer to this question was given in the issue of Jan. 7th, Askov American, by Magnus Christiansen of Cloverdale, and incidentally Mr. Christiansen lives in a reserve and knows what he is talking about. He informs us the meeting for the continuation of this refuge referred to was never published in the local papers and not even one-third of the land had been signed over for the refuge and that it seemed to be kind of a family affair. Then he shows how little he knows about deer and that he never seen where game did much damage to farmers' crops, If he will come over to my place I will take him out and show him where the deer have completely destroyed whole fields of grain, rutabagas, etc., and it was not stuck off in the brush to attract them as he tries to insinuate. Then he sights us to a farmer near Woodlake, who was after the state because the pheasants ate up his corn crop and a couple of hunters from Hinckley went to his place in the fall and found his place posted with no hunting signs, then casts reflections on the poor farmer for trying to save some of the birds for his own use after they had eaten his crop.

I presume Mr. Pearson thinks those hunters were more entitled to them. That is the kind of stuff they feed us but maybe Mr. Pearson thinks we are used to it and don't know any better.

He further states we haven't enough rich sportsmen for Eastern Pine county as they come in and buy deer from the farmer paying him as much as he could get for his best cow, etc. Now, Mr. Pearson is getting his wires crossed for if we are law abiding citizens as he infers we should be, we would not sell a deer. Neither would anyone buy it for the law prohibits the sale of deer and the stand Mr. Pearson takes he certainly wouldn't encourage us to break the law and become criminals.

Speaking of the idea of the settler selling hunting permits or allowing the town clerk to issue such permits he says he thinks the farmers has too much to try to sell already. It seems I have heard something like that before, runs something like this, "Unto him that hath shall be given but to him that hath not even that which he hath shall be taken away."