AMERICAN GA:\IE BIRDS 



155 



SPORTSMEN AS CONSERVATORS OF GAME 



There are many good citizens in the 

 United States who believe that hunting 

 is wrong and who consider all sportsmen 

 arch enemies of wild life. There are 

 sportsmen and sportsmen, and the genu- 

 ine lover of gun and dog will almost in- 

 variably be found to be a lover of nature 

 and at heart a conservationist of wild life. 



Be the sportsman what he mav, the 

 sportsmen of the United States, as a 

 body, constitute a very important factor 

 in the present struggle to keep wild crea- 

 tures from total extinction. ^lany of us 

 who love -wild life and who long ago 

 abaufloned the use of the gun, neverthe- 

 less belie\'e that game exists for reasons 

 other than esthetic. Only extremists in- 

 sist that all animal life is sacred and must 

 on no account be taken. ISirds, in addi- 

 tion to their esthetic value and their im- 

 portance as allies of the farmer in his 

 warfare on insects, are important as food. 



They are also important because they 

 furnish a healthful and exhilarating pur- 

 suit to an army of men who at certain 

 seasons take to the woods and fields and 

 because of their outdoor life make better 

 men and better citizens. 



I'.OTH FEDER.VE .\.\'D st.\te e.\ws 

 XECKSS-VRY 



Since game birds have such strong 

 claims on our interests, it cannot be 

 doubted that both State and Federal laws 

 are necessary for their protection, an<l 

 the more cordial and complete the co- 

 operation between State and Federal 

 officers, the more el+ective will be the 

 administration of the laws. E\'en more 

 essential in the long run is the recognition 

 of the importance of our wild life by the 

 people at large and their hearty sympathy 

 and active cooperation as individuals with 

 efforts for its protection. 



Nor should sportsmen and sportmen's 

 clubs be backward in cordial cooperation, 

 since they are among the chief benefi- 

 ciaries of measures for the preservation 

 and increase of game birds. The need is 

 not for more laws, but rather for fewer, 

 sim])ler, and more comprehensive stat- 

 utes. It is the multiplicity of legal enact- 

 ments subject to constant change, coupled 

 with their non-enforcement, that has been 



largely responsible in the past for the 

 general decline in the number of our 

 game birds. Fewer laws with better 

 enforcement should be the rule for the 

 future. 



THE PRESER\'-\Tlox .\.\-n IXCRE.VSE OF 

 G.V.ME lUKDS is FE-\SII!LE 



A few words ma)- be added on certain 

 practical means, other than restrictive 

 measures, for the preservation and in- 

 crease of our game birds. (Jne of the 

 most effective is the establishment of 

 sanctuaries where bir<ls may safeh" resort 

 to nest and feed during migration. 



The Federal Government has already 

 demonstrated the utility of this method 

 and has established no fewer than 68 bird 

 reservations in dififerent parts of the 

 United States, including .Vlaska. If the 

 national jiarks, large game preserA'es, and 

 national monuments are added to the list, 

 the government now has more than loo 

 sanctuaries, some of which include thou- 

 sands of acres, where birds of all kinds 

 are protected at all seasons. 



The example thus set by the govern- 

 ment has stimulated both State authori- 

 ties and pri\-ate individuals. Se\'eral of 

 the States now ha\e extensiv-e game ])re- 

 ser\-es or refuges of their own, and a 

 large number of ])rivate sanctuaries have 

 been set apart, aggregating many square 

 miles in extent. 



Conspicuous examples of these are the 

 A\'ard-Afcllhenny preserve, dedicated to 

 wild-life conservation bv Charles Willis 

 Ward and E. A. !McIlhenny : ]\Iarsh 

 Island, accpiired through the generositv 

 of ^Irs. Russell Sage: and the Rocke- 

 feller ijreser\e. .\11 these are in Louisi- 

 ana. That private means are being thus 

 devoted to the public welfare through 

 the protection of birds speaks well for 

 the future. 



In furtherance of the sanctuarv ])lan, 

 there would seem to be excellent reasons 

 why the sev'eral States, in the interests of 

 their citizens, should set apart tracts of 

 land, and specifically designate them as 

 bird sanctuaries, where all shooting 

 should be prohibited, as it is in the 

 greater part of the District of Columbia. 

 Such tracts, especially if puldic parks, 

 not only serve the important end of 



