Record. xxix 



To show you how these state laws are constantly changed, the 

 balance sheet of last year's legislative gains and losses is instructive. 



Gains are: — Massachusetts and North Dakota prohibited spring 

 shooting. Montana and Nebraska protected the Doves throughout 

 the year. Idaho accorded protection to the Blackbirds. North Caro- 

 lina passed a number of local game laws. Oklahoma and North 

 Dakota enacted the so-called "Model Law," and California established 

 a bird day. 



Losses are: — Illinois removed protection from all hawks, and 

 New Mexico from road runners. Oklahoma left the Doves without 

 any closed season, Pennsylvania classed Loons and Grebes as game 

 birds with an open season, and removed protection from Shrikes, 

 Eagles, Buzzards, Ospreys, Cranes, Herons, and Bitterns. Utah 

 removed protection from Blackbirds, Blue Herons, Bitterns, Squaks, 

 Magpies, and Kingfishers. West Virginia removed protection from all 

 Hawks, Owls, Eagles, Crows, and Kingfishers. Indiana, Nevada, Oregon 

 and Nebraska extended spring shooting two or three weeks. Idaho 

 permitted shooting in January and February, and Washington in Jan- 

 uary, February and March. 



But even more important than the making of the game and bird 

 protection law is its enforcement. It is a well known fact that local 

 officials do not appreciate the good of bird protection and are unwilling 

 to prosecute friends and neighbors for violation of unpopular laws. 

 For the last twenty-five years, and long before game laws were ever 

 thought of, we have had in Missouri a law prohibiting the killing or 

 catching of song and insectivorous birds and the robbing of their 

 nests, but sheriffs and constables, whose duty it was to enforce the 

 law, ignored it so constantly that it became a dead letter. 



When game laws were created, it was necessary to employ special 

 officers with a regular salary; this led to the present system of game 

 wardens adopted by most states. Unfortunately, this game warden 

 system is also subjected to the moods of the General Assembly, and 

 it was shown in our own state a few years ago how easy it is to 

 make the law inefficient by simply omitting the appropriation for the 

 salary of district game wardens. The Forty-fourth General Assembly 

 appropriated only enough money to pay a big salary to the state game 

 and fish commissioner and for the expenses of his office and travels, 

 but nothing for deputy game wardens. Governor Folk sanctioned the 

 bill against the wishes of the Audubon Society and it became a law, 

 wholly worthless for the reason that one head game warden without 

 a force of assistants can do nothing except draw his salary. 



The last General Assembly re-enacted the entire game law with 

 desirable modifications, but the next legislative session may change 

 it again or deprive it of its effectiveness. But under present conditions 

 even the best game warden system is inadequate for the care of birds, 

 other than game. The aim of the game warden is to preserve game in 

 the interest of the hunter; being hunters themselves they naturally do 

 not care very much for the preservation of other than game birds, and, 

 like most people, think that small birds are fit for nothing, and 

 that it makes little difference whether they are killed or not. Nor 



