37 



of $20 is imposed for each game bird killed out of season, but $10 

 only is required in the case of each shore bird, and the same amount 

 in that of each other undomesticated bird or each nest or egg of such 

 bird as is protected at all times. 



The Enforcement of the Bird Laws. 



Until the year 1896 our game laws were rather ineffective, for 

 there was no one who considered it his duty to enforce them. In 

 1896 the Commissioners of Inland Fisheries were given by law the 

 powers of game commissioners. This was the most important step 

 taken for the protection of birds and game up to that time, for it 

 assured, in some measure, at least, the enforcement of the law. The 

 powers and duties of the commissioners have been extended from 

 time to time, and their efficiency has been increased. 



In 1894 a resolve was enacted providing for the introduction of 

 Mongolian pheasants. The species introduced was the ring-neck. In 

 1895 the commissioners were authorized to propagate birds and animals, 

 and the sum of $500 was appropriated for the purpose of purchasing and 

 propagating pheasants. While the introduction of the pheasants may 

 not have been an unmixed blessing, the experience gained in propa- 

 gating birds will be of value to the Commonwealth, for unquestionably 

 the time has come for Massachusetts to experiment, "with a view of 

 eventually propagating and distributing native game birds to supply 

 her depleted covers. 



Needed Legislation. 



This necessarily limited and imperfect review of our legislative 

 enactments for the conservation of birds exhibits clearly the main 

 reasons why protection has, in many cases, failed to protect. The 

 principal reasons for this failure are four in number: (1) legislation 

 has been spasmodic and vacillating, (2) laws and penalties have not 

 been sufficiently stringent, (3) until recent years the laws have not 

 been enforced, (4) protection has come too late. 



Protection will always be ineffective if it is held back until the need 

 for it is generally recognized. It should become operative before it 

 becomes necessary to save a bird from extermination. Its laws should 

 not be enacted merely with the purpose of maintaining the present 

 number of birds. Its province should be to increase their numbers 

 before they are in any danger of extinction, and legislation with this 

 end in view is needed noiv. 



In 1904 it was stated in my report on the decrease of birds ' that 

 at least six species of game birds, waterfowl or shore birds had dis- 

 appeared, and that the wild pigeon was then practically gone from 

 Massachusetts, and also that several other species were then nearly 

 extirpated or driven out. Among these latter the Eskimo curlew 

 was mentioned. To-day the belief obtains among ornithologists 

 that both the passenger pigeon and the Eskimo curlew are extinct. 

 It may be already too late to save the vanishing species, and the 

 wood duck and the upland plover are in great danger. 



The question arises. What more can be clone to conserve and in- 

 crease the birds that remain? 



1 Forbush, Edward Howe, "Special Report on the Decrease of Certain Birds and its 

 Causes, with Suggestions for Bird Protection." Fifty-second report of the Massachu- 

 setts State Board of Agriculture. 



