No. 4.] BIRD PROTECTION. 395 



STATUTORY BIRD PROTECTION IN MASSACHUSETTS. 



BY EDWARD HOWE PORBUSH, ORNITHOLOGIST OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE 

 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



It is common talk, especially in rural communities, that "the more 

 laws we pass for the protection of birds and game the less game 

 we see." A certain section of the press reflects this sentiment, even 

 to the extent of advocating the abolition of the game laws. This is 

 a popular error, arising from a confusion of effect with cause. If we 

 transpose the trite saying, and opine instead that the fewer the birds 

 and game the more laws are passed for their protection, we shall 

 then have the proper relation of cause and effect. When the fact 

 is thus stated it becomes a truism which explains at once that the 

 scarcity of game causes the enactment of protective laws, and that 

 the reason of the depletion of birds and game is to be found in the 

 lack of timely and adequate protection. 



A careful examination of the laws that have been enacted for the 

 protection of birds and game since the first settlement of Massachu- 

 setts, together with a comparison of the records of the numbers of 

 birds observed during this period, shows clearly why statutory pro- 

 tection has thus far failed to protect, and indicates the remedy by 

 which we may save those species of birds which are not already too 

 near extermination to admit of salvation. 



The earlier records of the Massachusetts Bay Colony show no pro- 

 vision for the protection of birds; but in 1632 it was ordered "that 

 noe pson w'soeur shall shoote att fowle vpon Pullen Poynte or Noddles 

 Ilelalid but that the s d places shalbe reserved for John Perkins to 

 take fowle w th netts." 1 



Thus a single person was given a monopoly of bird destruction on 

 certain lands. 



The continued policy of unstayed slaughter had produced so 

 marked an effect on the wild ducks, geese and swans by the first 

 part of the next century that in 1710 a province law was enacted 

 which prohibited the use, in fowling, of boats or canoes with sails, 

 or of any kind of disguised craft. The preamble of this act states 

 clearly the necessity for its passage as follows • — 



1 "Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New 

 England," Vol. I., p. 94. 



