THE GAME LAWS 



111 1905 legislative sessions were held in 

 41 states and territories, and in all but two 

 of these changes were made in the game 

 laws. Including the local laws of New York 

 and North Carolina, the statutes affecting- 

 game numbered about 180, exclusive of ap- 

 propriation bills. 



Seven states — Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, 

 Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas and Utah- 

 adopted entire new game laws, and Califor- 

 nia, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina 

 passed laws giving complete protection to 

 non-game birds. Important progress in pro- 

 tecting game birds was made in a number of 

 states, among which should be mentioned 

 Montana, Utah and Wisconsin, which cut off 

 spring shooting of waterfowl, and California, 

 Colorado, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Utah, 

 which gave protection to shore birds. More 

 attention than usual was paid to licenses, and 

 a strong tendency was noticeable toward lo- 

 cal legislation, which, in North Carolina, was 

 carried to the extreme of enacting special - 

 laws for a number of different townships. 



Among the novel features of the legisla- 

 tion of the year may be mentioned the adop- 

 tion by Montana of a uniform season for all 

 game, thus greatly simplifying the law; the 

 principle adopted by Oregon and Vermont of 

 fixing certain seasons by days of the week in- 

 stead of the month; the practical prohibition 

 by Minnesota of placing game in cold stor- 

 age; the establishment by Wyoming of a 

 large state game preserve immediately south 

 of the Yellowstone Park; the adoption by 

 Wyoming of a $1 permit for photographing- 

 big game in winter, and the requirement of 

 Wisconsin that each special deputy warden 

 shall carry an identification card bearing his 

 photograph, his signature, the seal of the de- 

 partment and a miniature reproduction of his 

 commission. 



A few important changes were made in the 

 laws regulating the export of game. Mis- 

 souri and British Columbia extended their 

 non-export laws to cover all protected game. 

 Maine, which formerly prohibited export of 

 wood ducks, black ducks, teal and gray ducks, 

 changed its laws so as to include practically 

 all ducks. Utah added shore birds to its pro- 

 hibited list-; New Hampshire, birds, and Ari- 

 zona, ducks. On the other hand, Wyoming- 

 modified its prohibition of the export of any 



big game except under a hunting license, so 

 as to permit the shipment of one head, one 

 hide, one scalp, and one pair of tusks of big 

 game except moose, by any person under cer- 

 tain restrictions. Michigan authorized the 

 export of one deer under the non-resident 

 license, and ducks by non-residents under the 

 special license mentioned above. Missouri, in 

 its new general law, provided for the export 

 of a limited amount of game by non-resident 

 licensees, and Washington extended this priv- 

 ilege to all non-resident licensees instead of 

 restricting it to those from Oregon ; South 

 Dakota reduced the export limit on deer from 

 two to one ; New Hampshire cut off all ex- 

 port of deer, and Manitoba made it necessary 

 for a non-resident to secure an export permit 

 from the minister of agriculture and immi- 

 gration. 



A gentleman in Hanover, Virginia, who 

 announces himself as an independent candi- 

 date for 'the Legislature, seeks to win votes 

 by advocating a repeal of the game laws. He 

 would wipe out all the statutes on that sub- 

 ject and substitute a law giving to every man 

 the right to kill or capture game on his own 

 land at any time. There is not much proba- 

 bility that this candidate will be elected, or if 

 elected that he will make converts enough in 

 the Legislature to enact his proposed law. 

 The land owner is not the only man inter- 

 ested in this matter. The wild animals and 

 birds on his farm do not belong to him. True, 

 he has the right to forbid hunters and others 

 from trespassing on his land, but he has no 

 natural right to destroy game at all seasons, 

 and the law should not give him that right. 

 If such a policy should be adopted it might 

 before long result in the extermination of 

 game in that commonwealth. 



Game birds are already scarce, and if they 

 be not protected in the breeding season they 

 will become still scarcer, if they do not en- 

 tirely disappear. It may be assumed that this 

 gentleman would withdraw protection from 

 all birds and leave them at the mercy of 

 every man or boy with a shotgun. The re- 

 sult would certainly be a slaughter of the in- 

 nocents. The destruction of the song-birds 

 and the insectivorous birds would only be a 

 question of time. Then, when too late, the 

 farmers would find that they were the suffer- 

 ers by the extermination of their most effi- 



