18 DIGEST OF GAME LAWS FOR 1901. 



making proper provision for transportation of live game for propaga- 

 tion, in extending greater protection to shore birds, woodcock, apd 

 turkeys, which are becoming greath' diminished in numbers and are 

 threatened with extermination in certain localities, and especiall}^ in 

 protecting wild fowl during the spring when they are on the way to 

 their breeding grounds. A comparison of Plates I and II will show 

 that in the greater part of the United States ducks have very little 

 protection. Many of the species breed in the far North and do not 

 occur in the United States during summer. Yet nine States in the 

 South and West accord wild fowl practically no protection, and a num- 

 ber of others have close seasons of only four or live months duration, 

 chiefly during the time when the birds are absent from the State. On 

 the other hand a few States realize the necessity for greater protection 

 and are making strenuous efforts in this direction. During the present 

 3^ear Wisconsin has successfully maintained the anti-spring shooting law 

 on its statute books and its example has been followed b}^ Michigan, 

 which has closed its season a full month earlier than before. Maine 

 also has put an end to spring shooting of ducks. Including these, six 

 border States and three provinces of Canada — Maine, New Hampshire, 

 Vermont, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Brunswick, Ontario, 

 and Manitoba — have now united in prohibiting* spring duck shooting. 

 Public sentiment against spring shooting is gradually gaining ground, 

 but the States which have been able to crystallize this sentiment into law 

 are still few in number. It seems difficult to make the public appreciate 

 the fact that migratory game must receive at least as much protection 

 as is accorded resident game if it is to be saved from extermination. 

 Many persons who are strongly in favor of prohibiting spring shooting, 

 and who appreciate the difficulty of passing such a law in their own 

 State, have suggested a national law as the onl}^ solution of the question. 

 This is impracticable, since the fixing of times and seasons for taking 

 game is a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the States, a preroga- 

 tive which they jealousl}^ guard, and one which both State and Federal 

 courts recognize. Onh'^ five 3'ears ago the Supreme Court of the United 

 States expressly declared that " the power of the State to control and 

 regulate the taking of game can not be questioned." ^ The remedy lies 

 in concerted action on the part of individuals and associations in neigh- 

 boring States, all working for the attainment of a common object. In 

 such a movement the Provinces of Canada have shown their willing- 

 ness to join by making their laws conform in many respects to those 

 of adjoining States.^ The Province of Ontario has even gone so far as 

 to provide in its game-protection act of 1900 that when any migra- 



1 Ward V. Eace Horse, 163 U. S. 507. 



^ The recent steps toward uniformity in the laws of the border States and Provinces 

 are doubtless largely due to the efforts of the North American Fish and Game Protec- 

 tive Association, which was organized January 30, 1900. 



