588 GAME BIRDS, WILD-FOWL AND SHORE BIRDS. 



Statutory Bird Protection. 



In the year 1907 I went over the statutes of Massachusetts, 

 from the settlement of the Plymouth Colony to the beginning 

 of the twentieth century, and scanned the enactments framed 

 for regulating the destruction of game. These laws show that 

 from the beginning until recent years the attention of the law- 

 makers has been directed more toward granting special privi- 

 leges, or monopolies, for the killing of game than toward pro- 

 tecting it. Certain places were reserved for certain people 

 as fowling places, where nets were set. Penalties were pro- 

 vided for interference with these privileges. Laws were passed 

 forbidding any one, except the owner of certain lands, to shoot 

 thereon. 



It was not until 1818 that the Ruffed Grouse and Bob- 

 white were protected during spring and summer, and neither 

 these birds nor the Woodcock received adequate protection 

 until after the beginning of the twentieth century. It was not 

 until recent years that spring protection was given to shore 

 birds, and water-fowl never have been adequately protected 

 in Massachusetts. Spring shooting of wild-fowl was not pro- 

 hibited, except for one year, until 1909. Wild Turkeys never 

 were protected. Passenger Pigeons had no protection until 

 they were practically extinct, and the Heath Hen had no 

 protection until it was nearly extirpated from the mainland. 

 Other States have been behind Massachusetts, as a whole, in 

 the matter of bird protection, and some of them are still behind 

 (1910), although many have advanced beyond her. 



Those who have had experience in game legislation know 

 that most persons who are persistent in introducing and 

 pressing game laws are working for some special privilege or 

 for their own profit, and not primarily for the public interest 

 and the preservation of the game. Our people have failed to 

 see the necessity of restrictive laws and to enact them in time. 

 When this is considered, we need not wonder that the game 

 laws have failed to protect the game. They have failed because 

 necessary restrictions have not l^een enacted or enforced at 

 all, or not until too late. It is useless to protect a bird per- 



