ADDENDUM 



The foregoing paper was written during the summer and early fall of 1918. 

 and as the result of unavoidable delay in printing, the section dealing with the game 

 laws of the state is now out of date, owing to the passage of a new game law by the 

 state Legislature in April, 1919. It is too late to rewrite the chapter but the follow- 

 ing notes will suffice to indicate the principal changes of interest to bird students. 



The new bill is entitled an "Act to Amend, Supplement, Revise, Consolidate 

 and Codify the Laws of This State Relating to the Preser\-ation, Protection and 

 Propagation of Wild Animals, Including Quadrupeds, Birds and Fish of Both This 

 and Other States, and to Repeal Certain Laws Relating Thereto." It is specified 

 that it shall be known as the "Law of Minnesota Relating to Wild Animals." This 

 statute, as introduced, was the work of a commission appointed by the Governor, 

 as directed by the Legislature in 1917. In both general arrangement and wording 

 the present law differs considerably from the old law, but the intent and provisions 

 in its various parts are, in the main, the same. 



In Part IV, devoted to Birds, are to be found the following changes, intended, 

 in some instances, to bring the state law into accord with the Federal law: — 



WOODCOCK. Closed period e.xtended to Oct. 1, 1920. 



UPLAND PLOVER. Closed period e.xtended to Sept. 16, 1927. 



PRAIRIE CHICKEN. Closed period established until Sept. 16, 1922. 



SHARP-TAILED GROUSE. Same as Prairie Chicken. 



RUFFED GROUSE. Closed period to Oct. 15, 1920 and thereafter they may 

 be killed "only in even numbered years." 



RING-NECKED or ENGLISH PHEASANT (male). Same as Ruffed 

 Grouse. 



WOOD DUCK. Closed period extended to Sept. 16. 1923. 



At the request of the National Association of Audubon Societies and the 

 Biological Bureau of Washington a provision against the sale of plumage, in support 

 of the Federal law, was incorporated in the present state law. It reads as follows: — 



"Sec. 65. CERTAIN WILD BIRDS PROTECTED— Wild birds, other 

 than the English sparrow, blackbird, crow, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper hawk, 

 goshawk, and great horned owl, shall not be taken or possessed at any time, dead or 

 alive, except under the authority of a certificate issued by the commissioner. No 

 part of the plumage, skin or body of any bird protected by this section, or of any 

 birds coming from without the state, whether belonging to the same or a different 

 species from that native to the state of Minnesota, provided such birds belong to 

 the same family as those protected hiy this chapter, shall be bought, sold or had in 

 possession for sale. This section shall not apply to game birds for which an open 

 season is provided in this chapter, nor to the keeping and selling of parrots or song 

 birds as domestic pets, provided that nothing herein shall be construed to permit 

 the buying or selling of wild song birds." 



Under the provision of the new law (Sec. 120) permits to collect birds, nests, 

 and eggs for scientific purposes are to be issued by the commissioner only to "any 

 municipal corporation, incorporated society of natural history, college or university, 

 mairitaining a zoological collection." This is even more stringent than the old law 

 and is unnecessary, unwise, and not in accordance with the present liberal policy 

 of the U. S. Department of Agriculture under the provisions of the Migratory 

 Bird Treaty Act. There is no valid reason why properly accredited and capable 

 citizens should not be legally permitted to carry on individual investigations. The 

 U. S. Department of Agriculture is issuing permits to such persons, but they are 

 useless in states having such provisions as the above and much unfortunate irrita- 

 tion and disappointment results, with the loss of valuable and needed effort by 

 really capable collectors who for various reasons can not be connected with scientific 

 institutions. An ornithologist must be a collector at some time in his career. If 

 personal collecting is not to be allowed, there will soon be very few if any trained 

 ornithologists, and this will be a distinct economic and educational loss to the com- 

 monwealth. The thousands of hunters are no more entitled to their annual licenses 

 to kill for sport and food than are the few worthy students of birds to legal per- 

 mission to carry on their investigations in the only way that will give accurate and 

 valuable results. The destruction of life by the latter class is as nothing compared 

 with the thousands of birds killed annually by sportsmen and it is now known that 

 game birds have an economic importance, aside from their value as food, quite 

 comparable with that of the non-game birds. 



