CONCLUSION 231 



tion the Federal government has been granted a surprising 

 leeway by the courts. Such cases as have arisen concern- 

 ing the power of Congress to legislate for wild life on the 

 public domain have resulted in almost every instance in the 

 upholding of that authority. 



The powers of the State governments under the consti- 

 tution have also been broadly interpreted by both Federal 

 and State courts. On the grounds of ownership and the 

 right to regulate under police power, the State governments 

 have ample authority in the field of wild-life conservation. 

 The major limitations imposed upon the states arise chiefly 

 from such authority as has been vested in the Federal gov- 

 ernment by the United States constitution. 



The Federal government has shown remarkable willing- 

 ness to cooperate with the State governments wherever 

 necessary to reach some particular form of traffic in wild 

 game which has been beyond the legal powers of the states. 

 When the states found that they were prevented by the 

 commerce clause of the constitution from stopping the im- 

 portation during the closed season of game legally taken 

 elsewhere, Congress intervened and by means of the Lacy 

 Act of 1900 prohibited such shipments. 



The possibility of obtaining certain minimum standards 

 among the states has been explored under the Migratory 

 Bird Treaty Act of 1918, followed by the Black Bass Act 

 of 1929. This type of regulation in the future, the writer 

 believes, offers opportunities for further development. 



Reform of Enforcement Procedure: The difficulties of 

 enforcing the game and fish laws are in few particulars 

 different from the difficulties of enforcing any other type 

 of law. There are the problems created by the inertia of 

 public opinion, by the lack of properly trained personnel, 

 and by the political pressure which is often brought to bear 



