18 DIGEST OF GAME LAWS FOR 11)01. 
nmkiiiir projuM- provision for tninsportiition of live ^aiiie for propaga- 
tion, in extending greater pi'otection to .shore birds, woodcock, and 
turkeys, wliicli are becoming greatly diminishcHl in numl)ers and are 
threatened with extermination in certain k)calities, and especiall}^ in 
protecting wild fowl during the sj)ring when they are on the way to 
their breeding grounds. A comparison of Plates I and II will show 
that in the great(»r part of tlie 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 })rotection, and a rmm- 
ber of others have close seasons of only four or five months duration, 
chiefly during the time when the ])ii(ls are absent from the State. On 
the other hand a few States realize the necessity for greater protection 
and are making stremious eflorts in this direction. During the present 
year AVisconsin 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 ))efore. 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 INIanitoba — have now luiited in prohibiting spring duck shooting. 
Pu])lic 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 gtune must receive at least as much protection 
as is accorded resident game if it is to be saved from extermination. 
Many persons who are strongl}' in favor of prohibiting spring shooting, 
and who appreciate the difficulty of passing such a law in their own 
Stiite, have suggested a national law as the only solution of the (juestion. 
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. Only five years 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 ))e (juestioned." ^ 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 Pi'ovince of Ontario has even gone so far as 
to provide in its game-protection act of 1900 that when any migra- 
» Ward r. Race Horse, 163 U. S. 507. 
' The recent steps t^oward imiforinity in the laws of the border States and Provinces 
are <l()n))tl('ss largely due to the efforts of tlie North American Fish and Game Protec- 
tive Association, which was organized January 30, lUOO. 
