1344 



Canadian Forestry Journal, October, 1917 



it will be unlawful to kill them or 

 to take their eggs at any time of 

 the year. The close seasons on ducks 

 and geese will not exceed three and 

 one-half months, and the dates of 

 opening and closing will be fixed in 

 accordance with local conditions and 

 after consultation with the proper 

 authorities in the different provinces. 

 On a number of birds, such as the 

 cranes, swans, curlew and most of 

 the shore-birds, with the exception 

 of woodcock, snipe, certain plover 

 and yellow-legs which are becoming 

 greatly reduced in numbers, a close 

 season of ten years will be provided. 

 The wood duck and eider duck will 

 also be given special protection. 

 Where they are injurious to agri- 

 cultural or other interests, provision 

 will be made for the killing of pro- 

 tected birds under special permit. 

 Regulations will also be made to 

 prohibit the shipment of migratory 

 birds or their eggs during the close 

 seasons and generally to govern the 

 traffic in them and their eggs. 



While the numbers of the migra- 

 tory birds in Canada and the United 

 States have been most seriously de- 

 pleted by various causes confidence 

 js felt that, with international 

 <!0-operation, and, particularly, the 

 prohibition of spring shooting, a 

 gradual increase in the abundance 

 of our wild bird life will take place. 



FIXING THE GUILT 

 FOR SPREADING FIRES ] 



«i. 



The decision of the Supreme Court 

 of Washington in the case of Carrie 

 Sandberg vs. Cavanaugh Timber Co., 

 wherein it is held that the owner 

 of property upon which a forest fire 

 starts, and spreading, damages a 

 neighbor's property, must pay has 

 just appeared. One important fea- 

 ture of the decision is that the 

 original property owner's responsi- 

 bility is fixed no matter how the 



fire started. In this case the fire 

 began in the logging operations of 

 the Cavanaugh Timber Co. upon 

 its own land. The decision closes 

 thus: 



"Contention is made in appellant's 

 behalf that the evidence introduced 

 upon the trial does not support the 

 judgment and verdict, in that it 

 does not w^arrant a finding that appel- 

 lant did not exercise due diligence 

 looking to the prevention of the 

 spreading of the fire to respondent's 

 property. A careful reading of the 

 evidence convinces us that this was 

 a question for the jury. The fire 

 was traced, by creditable evidence, 

 directly from the place it started upon 

 appellant's land to respondent's prop- 

 erty. It occurred early in August 

 during a very dry season. It is true, 

 appellant used some effort jto stop 

 the fire a day or two following its 

 starting, but very little effort there- 

 after. On the second or third day 

 following, appellant's foreman was 

 warned by a fire ranger that the fire 

 was proceeding towards the east, 

 threatening the property of others. 

 This ranger also testified that, in his 

 opinion, the fire could have been 

 subdued had proper efforts been used 

 in that behalf. Respondent herself 

 testified that, about one and a half 

 hours before the fire reached her 

 place, she warned appellant's fore- 

 man by telephone message of the 

 approach of the fire to her place 

 and asked for help. None was furn- 

 ished by appellant, according to her 

 testimony. Whether or not her place 

 could then have been saved is some- 

 what problematical. We deem it un- 

 necessary to pursue this inquiry 

 further. We are quite clear that 

 the question of appellant's negligence, 

 so far as the question of its efforts to 

 control the lire are concerned, was 

 for the jury to decide. 



"Some contention is made in ap- 

 pellant's behalf that the verdict is 

 excessive. A reading of the evidence 

 convinces us that there is ample 

 room for difference of opinion upon 

 that question, and we are therefore 

 constrained not to interfere with the 

 jury's award of $2,000 to respondent. 



"The judgment is affirmed." 



