BULLETIN NUMBER FOUR 161 



Stated briefly, we understand the arguments of the 

 Missouri Fish and Game League to be about as follows : 



1. — It is not every year that Missouri has any water in 

 the fall ; therefore, it is not every year that the fall season 

 affords any considerable amount of shooting. Assuming 

 without argument that all other states have shooting 

 throughout the whole length of the federal season, Missouri, 

 it is claimed, is in justice entitled to an extra month in the 

 "late winter/' viz., until March 31. 



2. — It is claimed that, among other pernicious effects 

 of the present law, the sale of licenses has fallen off, thus 

 crippling the state game warden's fund and the enforce- 

 ment of the state game laws. 



3. — It is claimed that Missouri is entitled to the desired 

 concession by reason of having, of her own accord, stopped 

 the sale of game, and performed sundry other virtuous 

 acts. 



4. — Last and foremost, the migratory bird law is "un- 

 constitutional." 



It seems incredible, and hardly complimentary to the 

 American sportsman's sense of humor, that the Missouri 

 Fish and Game League should expect the rest of the 

 country to take all these arguments seriously. We beg 

 leave to speak our mind on each one separately. 



First, as to the periodical scarcity of fall water and fall 

 shooting. This is a fact, and we readily admit it. But 

 does the Missouri League imagine that their state has a 

 monopoly on fall drouths? Surely they know better. It 

 is common knowledge that in all except the seacoast and 

 lake regions, fall shooting depends on fall water, and fall 

 water does not always occur. This is the case not only 

 in Missouri, but in practically all the central and western 

 interior states. And if Missouri has no monopoly on this 

 condition, why are they entitled to special concessions by 

 reason thereof? 



