crops and doruestic animals for food and clothing, it was important that 

 tne settlers "be ahle to supplement their supplies from the ai.j?.cent vjil- 

 derness. They endeavored to conserve conveniently available reso\irces 

 of game and fish "by regulating individual use. This form of regulation, 

 however, did not produce the desired results. Game and fur soon "beceme 

 scarce in the vicinities of the settlements, and hunters and trappers 

 were compelled to go farther and. frrther into the wilderness. 



Since that early effort thousands and thousands of similar laws 

 have heen enacted and many millions of dollars have Deen spent in at- 

 tempts to prevent the individual from taking more than specified quan- 

 tities of game, fishes, and f^x:■ from the common supplies. It has "been 

 only in recent years tha-t results have heen even partially satisfactory 

 or have seemed to justify the trouhle and expense involved, Many thought- 

 ful and informed conservationists reached the conclusion t.iat game Icaws 

 were utterly ineffective to chock the decrease of wild-life. The hunters 

 and trappers, the courts, and the puhlic alike regarded such legislation 

 as teing of little consequence. Politicians were interested in the gcmc 

 codes only "because they gave wildlife a irarket value in exchange for votes 

 and preference — values that would oth'.rwisc have oeen lacking. Even the 

 individual sportsman fo-und it hard to convince himself that his observance 

 of the laws would he "benefici^il in perpetuating game hirds ajid mammals, 



Attitv-de F'a vo rr.hle in R estoration 

 as Government Junction 



Within the past few yeers a change has taken place in the American 

 attitude toward legislation designed to regulate the use of gace and other 

 v/ildlife, and a new and more wholesome sentiment is rapidly developing. 

 The reasons are many, and some of them arc ohscure, hut -among the most im- 

 portant has heen the general realization "by the States of the great value 

 of their resources of fish and game, accompanied oj a determination to re- 

 move wildlife administration from the danger of political interference. 

 Another reason for the growth of new confidence is that in many parts of 

 the country it has heen demonstrated that laws controlling the utilization 

 of wildlife need not he ineffective; that they are, in fact, indispensihle 

 in programs for the restoration and maintenance of this great resource. 

 Wherever game animals have heen estahlished in suitahlo cnvironm.ent and 

 the kill has heen rcgj-lstod so as to he somewha-t loss than the rate of 

 production, the species hp.s invariahly increased. 



In the past, and even at the present time, th:? Siajor part of laws 

 and regulations to control utilization of wildlife is of a sort ths.t at- 

 tempts to restra.in the individual from taking more than a specified num- 

 her of hirds or maramals in a day, or a week, or during an entire open 

 shooting season. These lawe prohihit the use of certain weapons and de- 

 vices; they prescrihe certain hours each day when the taking of game is 

 permitted; and in many other ways they work to reduce the kill hy limit- 

 ing the activities of the indiA''idual hunter or trapper, Tnc principle 

 is quite similar to a system of phj^sical handicapping, and liKe such a 

 system it is not invariahly equitahle or satisfactorj'-. 



- 6 



