104 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. [P. D. 4. 



residing in Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Illinois. This 

 organization is said to contain about 2,500 members, and they 

 sought to destroy the Federal migratory bird law, and even 

 the Biological Survey which makes the regulations under the 

 law, unless they could secure a special spring shooting privilege 

 to their section. As noted in my report for 1915 attempts 

 were made in that year to repeal the law; also the law was 

 contested in the courts and carried up to the Supreme Court 

 of the United States, where the case has been heard once, 

 left undecided, scheduled for a rehearing, and jBnally indefi- 

 nitely postponed. In the meantime, attempts have been made 

 to defeat appropriations for the administration of the law, but 

 these attempts have failed. 



In 1915 some changes were made in the personnel of the 

 committee having charge of the Federal regulations under the 

 migratory bird law. Just at that juncture the Interstate Sports- 

 man's Association, through its legislative agents and congress- 

 men at Washington, was able to bring such pressure to bear on 

 the Department of Agriculture as to secure a promise of an ex- 

 tension of the shooting seasons to March 10 in Illinois, Iowa, 

 Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri, provided the gunners of those 

 States would accept this as a compromise and cease their op- 

 position. Already one month's extension had been granted to 

 Missouri, and, grown confident by the apparent success of their 

 efforts, the Interstate Sportsman's Association, or rather, per- 

 haps, the extremists in that organization, refused to be satisfied 

 with anything less than an extension of the shooting season to 

 the 1st of April, and continued their campaign, directing their 

 efforts first against an appropriation for the enforcement of the 

 law and next against the proposed treaty with Great Britain, 

 which was intended to strengthen the law and carry out its pro- 

 visions in Canada as well as in the United States. 



Soon after the proposed change in the regulations was pub- 

 lished by the Biological Survey, great opposition to the ex- 

 tension of spring shooting developed, not only in the east where 

 such opposition was to be expected, but in the west where ap- 

 parently the malcontents had been having their own way thus 

 far. It was shown that if such a privilege were granted, under 

 pressure, to the gunners of a few States similar pressure would 

 be brought to bear demanding similar privileges in many other 



