Record. XXix 
To show you how these state laws are constantly changed, the 
balance sheet of last year’s legislative gains and losses is instructive. 
Gains are:—Massachusetts and North Dakota prohibited spring 
shooting. Montana and Nebraska protected the Doves throughout 
the year. Idaho accorded protection to the Blackbirds. North Caro- 
lina passed a number of local game laws. Oklahoma and North 
Dakota enacted the so-called “Model Law,” and California established 
a bird day. 
Losses are:—lIllinois removed protection from all hawks, and 
New Mexico from road runners. Oklahoma left the Doves without 
any closed season, Pennsylvania classed Loons and Grebes as game 
birds with an open season, and removed protection from Shrikes, 
Eagles, Buzzards, Ospreys, Cranes, Herons, and Bitterns. Utah 
removed protection from Blackbirds, Blue Herons, Bitterns, Squaks, 
Magpies, and Kingfishers. West Virginia removed protection from all 
Hawks, Owls, Eagles, Crows, and Kingfishers. Indiana, Nevada, Oregon 
and Nebraska extended spring shooting two or three weeks. Idaho 
permitted shooting in January and February, and Washington in Jan- 
uary, February and March. 
But even more important than the making of the game and bird 
protection law is its enforcement. It is a well known fact that local 
officials do not appreciate the good of bird protection and are unwilling 
to prosecute friends and neighbors for violation of unpopular laws. 
For the last twenty-five years, and long before game laws were ever 
thought of, we have had in Missouri a law prohibiting the killing or 
catching of song and insectivorous birds and the robbing of their 
nests, but sheriffs and constables, whose duty it was to enforce the 
law, ignored it so constantly that it became a dead letter. 
When game laws were created, it was necessary to employ special 
officers with a regular salary; this led to the present system of game 
wardens adopted by most states. Unfortunately, this game warden 
system is also subjected to the moods of the General Assembly, and 
it was shown in our own state a few years ago how easy it is to 
make the law inefficient by simply omitting the appropriation for the 
salary of district game wardens. The Forty-fourth General Assembly 
appropriated only enough money to pay a big salary to the state game 
and fish commissioner and for the expenses of his office and travels, 
but nothing for deputy game wardens. Governor Folk sanctioned the 
bill against the wishes of the Audubon Society and it became a law, 
wholly worthless for the reason that one head game warden without 
a force of assistants can do nothing except draw his salary. 
The last General Assembly re-enacted the entire game law with 
desirable modifications, but the next legislative session may change 
it again or deprive it of its effectiveness. But under present conditions 
even the best game warden system is inadequate for the care of birds, 
other than game. The aim of the game warden is to preserve game in 
the interest of the hunter; being hunters themselves they naturally do 
not care very much for the preservation of other than game birds, and, 
like most people, think that small birds are fit for nothing, and 
that it makes little difference whether they are killed or not. Nor 
