were given to such birds during the 
time that they are in United States 
territory. In other words, our 
migratory birds cannot be ade¬ 
quately protected from continued 
decrease without co-operative pro¬ 
tection in Canada and the United 
States. 
It is a well-known fact that while 
some of the states of the Union had 
excellent laws, which they enforced, 
others failed to protect their birds. 
In some states the shooting of wild 
fowl in the spring was permitted; 
this involved the killing of birds, 
usually mated at that time of the 
year, on their way to their breeding 
grounds in the north. This dis¬ 
couraged many Canadians, who 
naturally asked why they should 
protect their wild-fowl for the market 
gunners in the south. The existence 
of such market gunners, who annually 
killed enormous quantities of 
Canadian-bred ducks and geese for 
the markets of the big cities in the 
United States, constituted one of the 
greatest causes of reduction and one 
of the chief obstacles to any rational 
attempt to prevent such reduction 
and to maintain our stock of wild¬ 
fowl. Not only were game birds 
affected, but insectivorous birds were 
likewise killed by thousands during 
their winter sojourn in the south; 
this destruction has been particularly 
serious in the case of the robin, one 
of our important cutworm de¬ 
stroyers. 
As a result of the efforts of 
sportsmen, game protective associa¬ 
tions and other organizations inter¬ 
ested in the conservation of the wild 
fowl and other migratory birds in the 
United States, the Federal Migra¬ 
tory Bird Law was enacted in 1913 
for the purpose of securing more 
adequate protection for migratory 
birds which by reason of their 
migratory habits could not be suc¬ 
cessfully protected by the efforts of 
individual states so long as other 
states were derelict in the matter. 
The objects of the Federal regula¬ 
tions were: To reduce the open 
seasons, which varied greatly in 
different states; to secure a more 
uniform open season, not exceeding 
three and one-half months, fixed in 
accordance with local conditions, so 
that the sportsmen would have 
shooting at the best time of the year; 
and to prevent the shooting of 
migratory birds in the spring. A 
close season for a period of years was 
given to certain birds, particularly 
shorebirds, and the shooting of 
insectivorous birds was entirely for¬ 
bidden. The majority of the states 
amended their laws to conform with 
the Federal regulations, and al¬ 
though certain states, in which the 
influence of the market hunter and 
gunners with no thought of the 
future appeared to predominate, 
objected to Federal interference, the 
outcome of this increased protection 
and elimination of spring shooting 
has been a noticeable increase in the 
numbers of wild fowl. This in¬ 
crease has also been observed by 
Canadian sportsmen. 
The results of the Federal Migra¬ 
tory Bird Law in the United States 
indicated the possibilities and served 
to emphasize the need of inter¬ 
national co-operation. The ques¬ 
tion of international co-operation 
was first informally discussed by the 
writer with the Biological Survey of 
the United States Department of 
Agriculture at Washington in Jan¬ 
uary, 1914. Later in the same 
month the subject was discussed in 
Ottawa at the annual meeting of the 
Commission of Conservation and the 
following resolution was passed: 
“Resolved, that the Provincial Govern¬ 
ments of Canada be urged to solicit the 
good offices of the Dominion Government 
in obtaining the negotiation of a conven¬ 
tion for a treaty between Great Britain and 
the United States, for the purpose of 
securing more effective protection for the 
birds which pass from one country to 
another.” 
In the following month (February, 
1914) the United States Government 
submitted to the Canadian govern¬ 
ment for its consideration the draft 
of a convention between Great 
4 
