272 Recent Literature. [April 



of birds raised in Massachusetts, feed them upon the insects for the sup- 

 pression of which the pubhc is spending annually at least a million dollars, 

 and each autumn kill the surplus old birds for food." Admitting that 

 damage is caused in some cases, the Commissioners continue: " Thus, 

 while the individual farmer may have actually been damaged in a very 

 substantial way, the community has been benefited by the insect-eating 

 value of the pheasant, and the State should reimburse the farmer for dam- 

 age to his crops in cases where substantial damage could be shown; or, 

 in case of persistent damage, provision should be made for killing the indi- 

 vidual pheasants which have thus acquired the perverted habit of eating 

 as special food farm products of particular value to man." 



This is a clear convincing statement of a necessary corollary to the 

 theory of state ownership of wild game. Massachusetts has advanced 

 further than any other state in the practical working out of game protection 

 under this theory. For years it has reimbursed cultivators for losses occa- 

 sioned by deer, and it now proposes to apply the same method to the 

 pheasant problem. As a matter of fact the principle set forth must be 

 applied to all wild animals protected by the state. If citizens are unable 

 legally to protect their property then they must in justice be paid by the 

 state when they suffer loss on account of animals which are the property 

 of the state. 



The reviewer has hitherto argued for exemptions in state protective laws 

 in favor of owners whose property was being damaged The Massachu- 

 setts plan is however more logical, more in accord with modern ideas as 

 to strict and comprehensive protection, and is simpler in operation. In 

 Massachusetts, reports of damage are now investigated jointly by a repre- 

 sentative of the game commission, and one of the state board of agriculture 

 in cooperation with the complainant. The damage is assessed, and the 

 amount paid. Thus the matter is definitely settled in one transaction. 

 Permission to kill injurious animals, for a few days or a season, would 

 involve long drawn out and expensive inspection and seems not nearly so 

 practicable a scheme as the Massachusetts plan. We must do something 

 to satisfy complainants or our protective laws will create antagonists instead 

 of supporters. Massachusetts is doing this in a sane and logical way and 

 other states would do well to follow her example. 



A contingency beyond remedy by the process outlined above, is damage 

 caused by the increase or incursion of overwhelming numbers of any 

 species. Such an emergency could be met by declaring suitable open 

 seasons, and by instituting cooperative destructive measures. — W. L. M. 



