
Bos NS SSS 
G > “SMS ~ SUR 
y SSSA SS Na)" 

Game Law Legislation of 1906 
The summary of the game laws of the United 
States and Canada, which has been compiled 
by T. S. Palmerand R. W. Williams, Jr., of the 
U. S. Biological Survey, reveals that, although in 
1906 legislative sessions were heldin only fourteen 
States and in eight Provinces in Canada, the 
legislation of the year is remarkable for the 
unusual number of bills affecting game under 
consideration by Congress and the small num- 
ber of changes in State laws, in marked contrast 
with the activity in the Canadian Provinces, 
where game bills were passed in Alberta, Mani- 
toba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and 
Quebec. The number of new laws passed, so 
far as known, is 60, while the number of bills 
under consideration was probably not less than 
150. The most important measures enacted 
were entirely new game laws in Mississippi and 
Prince Edward Island; the adoption by the 
new Province of Alberta of a law prohibiting 
spring shooting of waterfowl and establishing a 
game preserve; statutes creating a large forest, 
fish and game preserve and making certain de- 
cided changes in the game laws of Quebec; laws 
protecting nongame birds in Iowa and Prince 
Edward Island, and radical amendments in the 
sale laws of Massachusetts. The passage of the 
Mississippi statute marks the completion of a 
chain of nonexport laws in every State in the 
Union and provision for the appointment of 
special officers to enforce the game laws in 
every State except Alabama, Arkansas and 
Texas. 
The failure of all general game bills and the 
passage of eighteen local measures in Maryland 
is a striking example of the reluctance of that 
State to abandon the confusing system of 
county laws in favor of uniform laws for the 
whole State, such as have proved so successful 
in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vir- 
ginia and elsewhere. The amendments made 
this year tend toward uniformity in seasons in 
several cases, but the adoption of five new stat- 
utes for a single county in one year, as in the 
vase of Anne Arundel County, is likely to de- 
crease the effectiveness as well as the popularity 
of the game law. It should be noted, also, that 
he defeat of such bills as those extending sale 
in Kentucky, permitting the sale of certain 
foreign game throughout the year in New York, 
and permitting spring shooting on Long Island, ~ 
was a distinct gain, and was due only to unre- 
mitting vigilance and activity on the part of 
friends of game protection. Such vigilance is 
always necessary to insure the continuance of 
good laws, not only in the States immediately 
concerned, but in others which would be di- 
rectly affected by the passage of retrograde 
legislation. A résumé of the findings of Messrs. 
Palmer and Williams is as follows: 
Licenses —The only changes in licenses were 
the establishment of a $25 nonresident license 
in South Carolina and a $20 nonresident license 
in Mississippi, both good only in the county of 
issue; a $15 nonresident license in Prince Ed- 
ward Island, and a uniform $10 license in 
Quebec. Minor changes were made in Mary- 
land, so as to require a license from every non- 
resident hunting on the Patuxent River, 
whether a member ofa club or not, and exempt- 
ing landowners in Somerset County hunting on 
their own premises from the requirement of a 
resident license and requiring citizens of Mary- 
land who are not residents of Somerset County 
to secure a $5 license when hunting in that 
county. 
Shipment.—Nonexport laws were extended 
in Canada by the enactment of the Prince Ed- 
ward Island statute, prohibiting export of all 
game except geese and brant, and the adoption 
of a coupon system in Quebec by which tags are 
required for all shipments of game. 
Sale.—Mississippi prohibited the sale of all 
protected game in the State, a provision thus 
far adopted by no other State east of the Missis- 
sippi River, except Michigan. The neighboring 
States of Arkansas and Missouri, however, have 
similar laws, and Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Min- 
nesota and Montana likewise prohibit sale of 
all protected game. In Massachusetts three im- 
portant laws were passed, one prohibiting the 
sale of imported quail except in November and 
December, another prohibiting sale of imported 
ducks except in the open season, and the third 
prohibiting all sale of prairie chickens and 
sharp-tailed grouse. These laws are likely to 
be far-reaching and to affect game shipments 
