46 PROBLEMS IN WILD LIFE CONSERVATION 



dent's right to withdraw lands upon his own initiative and 

 by his own authority. 48 



On the other hand, the national government may destroy 

 game during the season closed by state law if such game is 

 found to be damaging property on public lands. The United 

 States Supreme Court in Hunt v. United States 49 upheld the 

 right of the Secretary of Agriculture to order the killing of 

 a surplus of deer, which were seriously injuring the young 

 trees in the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona, notwith- 

 standing the state game law which provided for a closed 

 season on deer. The Court based its decision solely on the 

 grounds that the national government had the right to take 

 such steps as necessary to protect its property, the only limi- 

 tation being, in this case, that the carcasses of the deer taken 

 out of the forest reservation must be plainly marked to 

 show that they had been killed thereon. 



But in the absence of congressional act or executive order 

 setting aside an area of public land for some special purpose, 

 state game laws apply unless such area was specifically ex- 

 cepted from all state jurisdiction in the act of admittance. 

 Thus in the national forests which have not been closed to 

 hunting by act of Congress or by executive order, state game 

 seasons apply. 



Conservation of Wild Life on Indian Reservations: The 

 phrase of the commerce clause giving Congress power to 

 regulate commerce with the Indian tribes sets Indian reser- 

 vations in a class by themselves. Indians as persons are 

 wards of the United States, whose actions to a varying de- 

 gree are regulated by acts of Congress. Thus, the status of 

 the individual as well as the status of the land must be con- 

 sidered in determining the extent of federal control. 50 



48 United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459 (1914). 



49 278U. S. 96 (1928). 



50 United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 374 (1886). 



