Local residents resented hunting restrictions put on marshlands Continued from page 16 At one point the frustration became so great that James Baird, editor of the local newspaper, the North Ontario Observer, wrote the following scathing article, under syndicate of Toronto Swells have purchased the Scugog Marsh for the purpose of breeding fish and fowl, and for the foolish purpose of hooking the former and shooting the later. They also propose to protect the game - such protection as the wolf gives the lamb. Rony: Ss. Osler brains if they expect that by paying a lot of money to somebody they can secure a monop- oly of hunting and fishing on the Scugog Marsh. If these would-be notables are allowed to take part with the public hunting and fishing over the Marsh they may thank their stars, but if they get impertinent over it they will be excluded entirely and it will serve them right. But their mightiness are putting it ona little too thick when they put up posters forbidding trespassing on the Marsh; such modesty on the part of the syndicate would melt the heart of a stone. Trespass on the Marsh! O, my country! Will the modern Neros allow us to creep past the Marsh on our hands and knees? It is said that they intend to employ a gameskeeper who will pour all the terror of the law on the head They certainly have got more money than OTICE ia hershy given, that rithin one month put the Btock ‘Companies’ aor Patent Act,” chapter one. hgndivod _ titty nevun of the Rovined Statutes of se are, to carty on the busitices of ae ‘roeeng and gi mindy licwnaes to ae crate, te ead and otter hinds and furbe ig aciuaals upon 2 ew which the thet a may pe om upon or neat oes ang. in the Ontario and ‘Durie we the chiut Dbusinods of the said Company is ia tobe at ‘cronto, in the County of Yurk. 4 Ths amount of capital atock of tha Company iy fo be ten thousand dollam. bares ip to be tle and the Beatty, Pa BMuuu- fecturer, Charles Herburt Rigor Deutiat, it, Fiodevioke Bechert Qnoch, lnosprance Agent, ell of the City of Toronty, in tha’ Ovunty of York, ‘and alt Zz ron are also tu be the firsé Dircotors of said Com- WeoARTEY, OSLER, HOSKIN & CREELMAN, i for the Appdianta Sat Copy of original advertisement printed in the Ontario Gazette published in Toronto in September 1890 30 FOCUS - MAY 2008 of the unfortunate who may be found on the Marsh or Swamp. Their bark is perhaps worst than their bite, they may bark away but if ever they attempt to bite we will extract every tooth they have and give them a free and permanent pass to their grab-all home in Toronto There may be localities where the good natured, broad backed, easily ridden community will smile when they are sat upon, but he that imposes on this community will find he has caught a Tarter.” A subsequent article pub- lished in a Toronto newspaper o1 October 10, 1890, described the conflict between the owners of the Scugog Game Preserve Company, or “Syndicate” and the residents of Port Perry. The story suggested that the resi- dents were unhappy at losing the rights of shooting over this large tract of marsh, estimated at more than 2,000 acres, and rankled some of the sporting residents, who for- mulated a plan to frustrate the own- ers. The newspaper suggested that an arrangement was made with several hunters to trespass on the grounds and shoot with the hope that they would be brought before the magistrates on the charge in accordance with notices posted on the lands. It was implied that some of the local magistrates knew of the arrangement and they hinted that a verdict for the defendants was already arranged. But two local businessmen and avid hunt- ers, Messrs J.M. Davis and Jonathon Blong did not consider all the avenues open to the high-profile owners. Consequently a writ was issued against Mr. Blong in the High Court in Toronto, instead of being brought before the local magistrates, with whom the hunters had allegedly conspired. The writ claimed $500 damage for tres- passing on the grounds and also asked for an injunction restraining future trespass. The court case was moved to Osgoode Hall, Toronto where it was heard by Justice C. Boyd. Unhappy hunters formulated a plan to frustrate owners After listening to all the arguments, Justice Boyd handed down his judgement stating that “the defendants (Davis and Blong) were in the wrong to trespass and shoot ducks on the property owned by the Lake Scugog Marsh Company. With the law now firmly on the side of the marshland syndicate, local hunters resisted any further urge to challenge the owners of the property, realizing trespassers would be dealt with harshly. The results of the case appears to have brought an end to the two-year conflict between town residents and the owners of the Scugog Game Preserve, although the fact that the land was being monopolized by a group of non-residents wasn’t entirely forgotten by locals, as the subject of hunting in the marsh surfaced occasionally. Despite the animosity felt toward them, by some local residents, the owners settled in and began improving the property for their private hunting concerns. Tenders called to construct a clubhouse in 1892 In October 1892, Henry S. Osler, a promi- nent Toronto lawyer with the firm of McCarthy, Osler, Hoskins and Creelman and one of the owners of the Scugog Game Preserve called for tenders to construct a clubhouse on the property. Port Perry contractor Charles Powers, ten- dered to do the work for $890. and was Please turn to page 31 focus@observerpub.ca