330 ANNUAL, REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 19 30 



The harmonizing of the various interests and the development of 

 well defined programs for wild-life administration requires the broad 

 and technical training of naturalists. They alone are in a position 

 to anticipate the far-reaching results of protection or control meas- 

 ures. Furthermore, because of their interest in the wild life they 

 should be the leaders in its proper development and administration. 

 The field of technical advisors to wild-life administrators is a large 

 one and as yet practically untouched. From the wildest and most 

 remote tracts in the world to small city parks, there are problems 

 relating to wild-life administration and it is doubtful if there is in 

 existence to-day an organization administering wild-life protection 

 that does not have numerous unsolved problems of a biological nature 

 that are handicapping its work. 



Successful protection of the wild life of any region or country is 

 primarily contingent upon the development of an attitude on the 

 part of a majority of the people favorable to wild-life perpetuation. 

 Protection is necessarily based upon public sentiment, well drafted 

 laws, and their vigorous and impartial enforcement. To obtain 

 either the enactment of good laws or their successful enforcement it 

 is necessary that the masses of the public realize that it is to their 

 benefit to protect wild life. This points out the great importance 

 of developing methods of showing the value of wild life, means to 

 employ for its preservation and the benefits to be derived from 

 protection. 



Heretofore, the sportsmen or a very few foresighted and coura- 

 geous lovers of wild life have led minority fights for its protection. 

 Some of these fights have ultimately been successful and have ac- 

 complished great good, but they have been hard struggles and the 

 burden has been heavy on the few who were worldng for the general 

 benefit. Many good causes have failed and most of those that have 

 succeeded have been limited in scope to the lines in which the spon- 

 sors were most interested. As might be expected, the result of vari- 

 ous groups of diverse interests taking up the matter of protection 

 of the objects of their particular interest has produced inconsistent 

 local legislation, usually designed for the protection of one group 

 of wild life, often at the expense of another, which in some instances 

 has been of equal value. 



In keeping with the development of the legislation, the enforce- 

 ment of the laws has frequently been spasmodic and inconsistent and 

 often in the hands of those interested in particular kinds of game, 

 fur, or fish rather than wild life as a whole, which has resulted 

 harmfully in some instances. With a few outstanding exceptions we 

 have had no consistent wild-life administration programs. That is, 

 but few regions have developed really consistent and properly bal- 

 anced wild-life laws and enforcement calculated to develop the maxi- 



