AMERICAN GAME BIRDS 



151 



the ducks and geese that now breed 

 within our borders and that visit us from 

 the North would not suffice to supply the 

 inhabitants of New York and Chicago, 

 to say nothing of a dozen or twenty of 

 our other large cities, for more than a 

 few short weeks. 



Indeed, were the market demand for 

 game to be fully satisfied, all the winged 

 game of America killed during the next 

 two or three seasons could be marketed 

 and eaten. Reaching the great markets 

 in the comparatively small quantity that 

 it now does, game of all kinds com- 

 mands prohibitive prices for any but the 

 wealthy. As Forbush justly remarks, 

 the present market price of quail is so 

 high as practically to amount to a bounty 

 on the birds" heads and is a constant 

 temptation to the market hunter to kill 

 his quarry, despite State or Federal law, 

 in season and onr. 



STATE PROTECTIVE LAWS 



State or colonial ownership of game 

 was indeed early recognized, but only 

 grudgingly in so far as it was restrictive 

 of the right of the individual to hunt 

 wild game when and where he pleased. 

 Everywhere the feeling prevailed that all 

 wild game belonged to the people, to be 

 killed whenever necessity or inclination 

 prompted, and it may be said that no 

 little of this feeling remains to the pres- 

 ent day. The change fron". the old be- 

 lief that wild game belonged to him who 

 could take it. to the theory of State own- 

 ership of game, marked a long step for- 

 ward in game preservation. Today few 

 principles of American law are more 

 firmly established than this, though it 

 was not until 1896 that the principle was 

 formally enunciated by the Sujireme 

 Court of the L'nited States. 



If the several States, under the prin- 

 ciple of State ownership, have failed ade- 

 quately to protect their game, it has not 

 been for lack of game legislation. Even 

 in the colonial period laws regulating the 

 manner of taking game were i)assed. As 

 early as 1708 heath hens, rufifed grouse, 

 quail, and wild turkeys were protected in 

 New York; but it was not till I7<)i tb.at 

 woodcock were given legal protection. 

 In 1710 a law was enacted in Massachu- 



setts prohibiting the use of boats and 

 canoes with sails, or canoes disguised 

 with hay, sedge, or seaweed, for hunting 

 waterfowl. 



Snipe were protected in Massachusetts 

 in 1818. and ducks in Rhode Island in 

 1846; Connecticut and New Jersey pro- 

 tected their doves and insectivorous birds 

 in 1850, and in 185 1 Wisconsin passed 

 protective laws in favor of the prairie 

 chicken. It is worth noting in connec- 

 tion with game legislation that it was not 

 until 1878 that the first bag-limit law was 

 enacted. This limited the bag of game 

 birds in Iowa to 25 in one day — a limit 

 which has remained practically unchanged 

 for 'i^y years. 



Since early times, and especially of late 

 years, game legislation has so flooded the 

 country that it is difficult to keep track 

 of it. Over 1,300 laws were enacted dur- 

 ing the first decade of the present century 

 (1901-1910). Despite th^; great volume 

 of legislation, some birds, as geese, were 

 never given a close season in California, 

 Texas, Arkansas, and other States. 



STATE GAME LAWS DIVERGENT 



It needs only a glance to show that 

 State laws and regulations affecting game 

 differ widely, even in .''.djoining States ; 

 thus a game bird may be adequately pro- 

 tected by law in one State and be only 

 partially protected in a neighboring State. 

 or not protected at all. 



Moreover, the history of game preser- 

 vation since colonial times in many States 

 reveals no well-defined policy, but a series 

 of regulations constantly changing ac- 

 cording to the ever-shifting points of 

 view of State and game officials and the 

 political exigencies of the moment. Even 

 the funds raised by the sale of hunting 

 licenses, in most States ample for effect- 

 ive enforcement of the laws, have not 

 always been devoted to the cause of pro- 

 tection, but often have been diverted to 

 very different uses. 



So great is the divergence in the nature 

 and purpose of game legislation of the 

 several States that ther^ would seem to 

 be little ho])e that the inconsistencies and 

 shortcomings will ever be reconciled. 

 Some who do not realize what lias been 



