AMERICAN GAME BIRDS 
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 out. 
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 from 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. To-day 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 Supreme 
Court of the United 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 passed. As 
early as 1708 heath hens, ruffed grouse, 
quail, and wild turkeys were protected in 
New York: but it was not till 1791 that 
woodcock were given legal protection. 
In 1710 a law was enacted in Massachu- 
15] 
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 1851 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 37 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 this 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 adjoining 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 there would seem to 
be little hope that the inconsistencies and 
shortcomings will ever be reconciled. 
Some who do not realize what has been 
