A?*ri{RTCAx G v:\ri-: cirds 



1.".:] 



accomplished in recent years are inclined 

 to desj)air. 



Afeantime, after a century of experi- 

 ment by the States, the depletion of our 

 game birds continues, and the end of sca'- 

 eral species is in plain view. It must be 

 e\ident to all that, so far as the conser- 

 \ation of wild life is concerned. State 

 control has proved a failure. Not a 

 single State has succeeded in adequately 

 protecting its own resident game, to say 

 nothing of the game that migrates 

 through it. 



FEDIiR.\L illGKATORV 1!1R1) L.\W 



It is the belief of many that what the 

 States have failed to do for the conser- 

 vation of our bird life can be accom- 

 plished by the Federal government, and 

 thev further believe that the act approved 

 March 4, 1913, commonly known as the 

 Federal Aligratory Bird Law, marks a 

 long step in advance in game protectiijn. 

 I'>y this act the migratory game and in- 

 sectivorous birds which do not remain 

 ])ermanenth' within the borders of any 

 one State or Territory are declared to be 

 within the custody and under the protec- 

 tion of the government of the United 

 States. 



This act, be it noted, provides prijtec- 

 tir.n only for game and insectivorous 

 birds that migrate ; hence man\- oi our 

 finest game birds, like the bob-white, val- 

 ley quail, mountain quail, ruffed grouse, 

 l)rairie hen, sage her., blue grouse, wild 

 turkey, and others, being non-migratory, 

 ha\e been left in charge of the several 

 States in which they reside. Flere we 

 mav lea\'e them, trusting that, notwith- 

 standing past failures, the measures 

 enacted for their benefit will stay the fate 

 with which most of them are threatened. 



Aligratory birds are on a very difter- 

 ent basis from others. Such of the 

 ducks, geese, and shoreljirds as still breed 

 within our limits, including Alaska, mi- 

 grate early to more southerly localities, 

 where they winter. Some of them, in 

 fact, especially the shorebirds, pass be- 

 yond our borders anrl winter south of 

 the tropics. Rut by far the great ma- 

 jority breed in foreign territory far ti 1 

 the northward of our possessions, and 

 we have no claim on them save as they 



tarr_\' on their journey for a time almig 

 our coasts or on our lakes and rivers (jr 

 winter in the Southern States. 



It seems eminentl\- fitting that these 

 migrants, as the}' tra\'erse our territory, 

 feeding in one State to-day, in another 

 State to-morrow, should be under Fed- 

 eral control, subject to such regulations 

 as seem likely to preserve the species. 

 The law giving Federal protection has, 

 after a year's trial, met with general ap- 

 proval. Moreover, although its constitu- 

 tionalit}' has Ijeen (piestioned, its main 

 ]mrposes have been indorsed by the great 

 majority of sportsmen, though among 

 them are many who dissent from certain 

 regulations because they abridge the 

 privileges enjoyed under State law. 



In this connection it may not be out of 

 place to direct the attention of sportsmen, 

 man\' of whom seem to have somewhat 

 misconstrued the purpose of the Federal 

 law, to the fact that tlie intent of the law 

 was not primarih' to increase shooters' 

 privileges by lengthening the open season 

 and enabling them to kill larger bags of 

 game, but to preserve game birds in gen- 

 eral, more particularly the ones threat- 

 ened with extinction. 



If the accomplishment of this laudable 

 end curtails to some extent the present 

 pri\'ileges of sportsmen, the\- should not 

 complain, since the ultimate result of the 

 law, if it be enforced, will be largely to 

 increase the number of our game birds. 

 Should it then somewhat curtail the privi- 

 leges of the present generation of sports- 

 men, it will at least insure to future .gen- 

 erations the peri^etuity of our game birfls. 



Here it may be pointed out that if the 

 l)resent ^ligratorv Rird Raw, now Iiefore 

 the Ignited States vSupreme Court, should 

 fail to meet the test of legal requirements 

 and be pronounced invalid, bird conser- 

 \ationists need not be discouraged, since 

 two courses are open ; first, so to amend 

 the law that it will stand every legal test : 

 ■econd, to ribtain a constilutiiinal amend- 

 ■nent which will effect the desired end. 



.Amendments to our constitution are 

 proverbially difficult to secure, but who 

 can doul)t that with the widespread in- 

 terest in bird life of the present genera- 

 tion of .Vmericans such an amendment 

 can be obtained in due time. 



