REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS 69 



The following, taken from the U. S. Bulletin, for 1905, on Hunting 

 Licenses, issued by Dr. T. S. Palmer, in charge of Game Preservation, 

 U. S. Biological Survey, Washington, D. C, is worthy of the careful 

 consideration of our legislators and others who may be interested in 

 the restoration and preservation of the game of California: 



EXPERIMENTS IN LICENSE LEGISLATION. 



Since the adoption of license laws, a number of experiments have been tried, some 

 of which have proved successful and others unsatisfactory. The possibility of making 

 the protection of game self-sustaining and of maintaining a warden service from the 

 income derived from license fees has been successfully demonstrated. In 1905 warden 

 service was maintained without appropriation from the State treasury in vine of the 

 thirty-six states which have State commissioners or game wardens in charge of the 

 work: Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota. 

 Washington, and Wisconsin. 



The right of a State to impose heavier fees on non-residents than on residents, which 

 has often been questioned, has been upheld in every instance in which test cases have 

 been carried to the higher courts. Such decisions have been rendered by the Supreme 

 Courts of Illinois (Cummings vs. People, 71 N. K. 1031) and New Jersey (Allen vs. Wi/ckoff, 

 2 Atl. 659), and by the 1". S. Circuit Court in Illinois (In re Kberle, 98 Fed. 295). The 

 Supreme Court of Arkansas, however, has held that a law prohibiting non-residents 

 from hunting in the State is unconstitutional in so far as it prevents them from hunting 

 on their own property (State v s. Mallory, <S3 S. W. 955). 



In the effort to devise some means of identifying the holder, one or two -tates have 

 required a photograph in addition to a description on the license; but this requirement 

 has not come into general use. Nine states — Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Min- 

 nesota, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming— and the provinces of Ontario 

 and (Quebec have adopted the coupon license, which furnishes a record of the game 

 offered for shipment, but not of the trarne killed. The latter information is secured by 

 Manitoba by requiring each holder of a permit to return the permit to the department 

 of agriculture, with an affidavit showing the number of animals killed or taken. Failure 

 to make such returns within thirty days after the close of the season subjects the holder 

 to a fine and may be ground for refusal of a permit another year. In the British colo- 

 nies of Africa such returns of game killed under license are commonly required and 

 furnish valuable statistics of the quantity of game killed each year. Only by the 

 adoption of some such system as this can the full statistical benefits of the license 

 system be obtained — namely, a record of the persons hunting, a record of game ship- 

 ments, and a record of the game killed. 



About one third of the states which issue licenses either allow no export or make no 

 provision for carrying home game. Among these are Florida, Mississippi, New Jersey. 

 New York, North Dakota, and West Virginia. Other states allow licenses to take home 

 certain kinds of game, but not others. Withholding such privileges is naturally regarded 

 as a hardship, and a slight change in policy, so as to allow the licensee to take with him 

 a reasonable amount of game, would eliminate much criticism of the game laws. 



In the attempt to issue licenses in the most economical manner, several expedients 

 have been tried which were promising at first, but proved to be unsatisfactory. Few 

 states have been able to handle the immense amount of work involved in issuing res- 

 ident licenses without the assistance of county clerks or similar local officers, but when 

 this work is delegated to such officers adequate provision should be made for securing 

 reports of the number of licenses issued and the amounts collected. Exemption of 

 persons hunting in the county of residence has proved unsatisfactory and probably 

 reduces the income to about twenty-five per cent of what it should be. 



Several states, including Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota, have 

 gone so far in attempting to enforce the license laws as to authorize the confiscation of 

 guns or other hunting paraphernalia. The wisdom, if not the constitutionality, of such 

 provisions is open to question, as considerable opposition and litigation are sure to be 



