88 



THE GAME BREEDER 



T*?5 Game Breeder 



Published Monthly 



Edited by DWIGHT W. HUNTINGTON 



NEW YORK, DECEMBER, 1918. 



TERMS: 



10 Cents a Copy — $1.00 a year in Advance. 



Postage free to all subscribers in the United States. 

 To All ForeignCountriesand Canada, $1.25. 



The Game Conservation Society, Inc. 

 publishers, 150 nassau st., new york 



D. W. Huntington, President, 



F. R. Peixotto, Treasurer, 



J. C. Huntington, Secretary. 

 E. Dayton, Advertising Manager. 

 Telephone, Beekman 3685. 



IMPORTANT REGULATIONS. 



Our readers' attention is especially 

 invited to paragraph 2 of regulation 8, 

 permitting the shooting and sale of mi- 

 gratory fowl and to the new regulation 

 numbered 12, which would seem to indi- 

 cate that permits issued by Uncle Sam 

 are not valid in most of the States if 

 State wardens wish to trap the bird 

 trappers for the purpose of fining them 

 under State laws. The new regulation 

 12 has nothing to do with the important 

 Section 12 of the law which only can be 

 repealed by an act of Congress. We be- 

 lieve the State laws will be amended to 

 conform to the regulations. 



The shooting of wild ducks owned by 

 game breeders and of new stock con- 

 taining a "V" in the foot will remain a 

 simple matter on country places and 

 game ranches where wild fowl are plen- 

 tiful. 



♦■ 



WHO OWNS THE GAME? 



The courts have decided with some 

 uniformity that the State owns the 

 game. Recently State-owned game and 

 game owned by individuals, shooting 

 clubs and game farmers have been dis- 

 tinguished by statutory enactments and 

 by court decisions. We have little doubt 

 about what the courts will decide in cases 

 where stock birds have been obtained 

 legally and where food has been pro- 



duced by industry. Section 12 of the 

 Migratory Bird Law points the way to 

 sensible State laws and court decisions 

 preventing interference with game 

 breeders. 



Laws intended to protect the vanish- 

 ing State game are not intended, of 

 course, to save the abundant game owned 

 by breeders. They should not and prob- 

 ably do not prevent a valuable food- 

 producing industry. To hold that laws 

 protecting the rare State game apply to 

 game produced for food and owned by 

 the producers would be to hold that the 

 legislature intended to make food pro- 

 duction a crime. Logically the owners 

 of tame, half tame and wild turkeys 

 produced by industry should be jailed 

 for having such game on the farms. 



New questions of ownership are pre- 

 sented by the Migratory Bird Law and 

 the regulation supposed to be made 

 by the Secretary of Agriculture. If 

 the migratory birds are now owned by the 

 United States and Canada during the 

 periods of their residence in the respec- 

 tive countries, the United States and 

 Canada can issue permits to take some 

 of the wild fowl for breeding purposes, 

 as has been done. If, however, the States 

 still own the game, and the State laws, 

 which uniformly forbid, we believe, the 

 trapping of wild fowl, are not repealed, 

 possibly those who trap wild fowl under 

 permits issued by Uncle Sam may be 

 arrested by State wardens. The States 

 should recognize the United States per- 

 mits, and all sensible State officers, no 

 doubt, will. 



AN IMPORTANT V. 



Midnight of March 31, 1919, has been 

 made an important date in the life of 

 migratory water fowl by paragraph 2 of 

 regulation 8 of the amendments and ad- 

 ditions to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

 Regulations. 



After the clock strikes 12 on the night 

 of the date mentioned, "no migratory 

 water fowl killed by shooting shall be 

 bought or sold unless each bird before 

 attaining the age of four weeks shall 

 have had removed from the web- of one 

 foot a portion thereof in the form of a 



