SPHERE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT $i 



could be avoided by turning the entire subject over to one 

 or the other. But after more mature thought it becomes 

 evident that the states cannot, and the Federal government 

 should not be intrusted with the task of wild-life conserva- 

 tion alone. 



The states cannot handle the whole problem themselves 

 because conservation work on the high sea and in the terri- 

 tories outside the boundaries of any state is completely be- 

 yond their jurisdiction. Only the Federal government can 

 be responsible for wild life in these areas. Clearly, too, the 

 Federal government must continue to bear the primary re- 

 sponsibility for conservation measures on Federal property, 

 parks, and forests. 



Constitutional and legal obstacles on the other hand stand 

 in the way of making the Federal government solely re- 

 sponsible for wild-life conservation throughout the United 

 States. It would, for example, be necessary to amend the 

 constitution and add a provision delegating control over all 

 wild animals to the national government. In view of the 

 lack of a universal demand for an amendment of that 

 nature, it would be a long and difficult task to make such a 

 change. 



In addition, from a purely administrative point of view, 

 it would be most unwise. Turning over all conservation 

 activities to the Federal government would necessitate a 

 uniform game code and the creation of a nation-wide war- 

 den force of from five to eight thousand men. One might 

 conclude from the dismal failure of the attempt to enforce 

 the National Prohibition Act that such a game code would 

 be extremely unpopular as well as unenforceable. Thus any 

 advantages that might accrue through simplification from 

 vesting complete control over conservation in the Federal 

 government would be far outweighed by the practical dis- 

 advantages of such a system. 



