30 



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

 clearly the necessity for its passage as follows : — 



'\^"lle^eas the water-fowl of divers kinds, which were wont in former years in 

 great numbers to frequent the maritime towns of this province were of great 

 service and benefit to the inhabitants, both for meat and feathers, but are now, 

 in great measure, affrighted and driven away by manj' persons who have 

 made use of boats or canoes with sails, or canoes or floats trimmed up, covered, 

 or disguised with haj^, sedge, sea-weed, ice, cloths or other materials, therein 

 to go off to shoot at them at distances from the shoar upon the flatts and feeding 

 ground, wliich practices if continued are likely to have the ill affect to cause 

 the fowl wholly to desert and disuse the said towns. ' 



The fine imposed for infractions of the law was 40 shillings, half 

 to go to the informer and half to the poor of the town, and the culprit 

 was estopped from shooting for three years after conviction, on penalty 

 of a similar fine. The act continued in force until March 10, 1713, 

 and was re-enacted from time to time until the revolutionary period, 

 after which it lapsed. During provincial times there appears to have 

 been no other statute enacted for the protection of any species of 

 bird; but the towns were empowered to raise money to pay bounties 

 on the heads of birds and mammals, and bounties were paid on the 

 heads of crows, blackbirds, and ruffed grouse or partridges. 



After Massachusetts became a State apparently no attention what- 

 ever was paid to the protection of birds for more than a quarter of a 

 century, for it was not until 1818 that any statutory regulation of 

 shooting was enacted. The preamble to the act of 1818 follows: — 



Whereas there are within the Commonwealth, many birds which are useful 

 and profitable to the citizens, either as articles of food, or as instruments in the 

 hands of Pro\adence to destroy various noxious insects, grubs and caterpillars, 

 which are predjudicial or destructive to vegetation, fruits and grain; and it is 

 desirable to promote the increase and preservation of birds of the above de- 

 scription and to prevent the wanton destruction of them at improper seasons. 



This shows that even in those early days- there was an intelligent 

 appreciation of the value of birds to man. 



■At that time the effects of unrestricted shooting had become evident, 

 not only upon the upland game birds, but even on such smaller species 

 as robins and meadow larks. This act (chapter CTIL, 1818) protected 

 partridges and cjuail from ^larch 1 to September 1, and woodcocks, 

 snipe, larks and robins (which evidently were regarded as fair game 

 for all) from March 1 to July 4, but it was nullified to some extent 

 b.v local option, as the voters of any town could suspend the law's 

 provisions within the town limits for one year by taking action at the 

 regular town meeting. This act, inadequate as it was, signalized the 

 first attempt of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to protect her 

 upland game birds, notwithstanding the fact that some of these birds 

 had been decreasing in numbers for many years. Dwight wrote in 

 his "Travels in New England and New York," published in 1821, 

 that wild turkeys had then greatly lessened in numbers. Notwith- 

 standing the noticeable decrease they were never protected by law, but 

 were killed off rapidly, and the last bird of the last flock recorded in 

 Massachusetts was killed on Mount Tom in 1851. Evidently pro- 

 tective laws were not the cause .of the extirpation of the wild turkey. 

 Like the great auk, it was the victim of unrestricted persecution by 

 man at all seasons. 



' "Acts and Resolves of the Province of Massachusetts Bay," Vol. I., p. 667. 



