34 
BY THE WAY BIDE 
care to their home life. So, if this be 
permitted season after season, ulti¬ 
mate destruction is the certain end. 
It is no argument for a “spring 
shooting” measure to say that it pro¬ 
poses an open season for only such 
birds as do not nest in the vicinity. 
Any such assertion does not over¬ 
throw the above considerations. Fur¬ 
thermore birds nowadays do not breed 
where they formerly bred because 
they have learned that in the past to 
breed there was to court destruction. 
Hence, we repeat, it is either from a * 
desire to kill or from short sighted¬ 
ness that a hunter urges an open sea¬ 
son in spring. We assert furthermore 
that, if there is to be any hope of re¬ 
storing our bird-life to a safe number, 
spring and summer shooting must he 
abolished forever. 
STATUTORY GAME PROTECTION 
One not infrequently hears the com¬ 
plaint that “the more laws for the pro¬ 
tection of birds, the fewer birds there 
are in the country-side.” But as Mr. 
Forbush points out, this sentiment is 
a reversal of cause and effect, and that 
the real state of affairs is rather, “the 
fewer the birds, the more laws concern¬ 
ing them.” And this case is not with¬ 
out its parallels in other matters of 
human concern. 
If we go back in the annals of our 
country, we find that at the time of its 
discovery a great abundance of wild 
life flourished. Indeed, the birds espec¬ 
ially were so numerous that the reports 
of early observers, travellers, and set¬ 
tlers, seem incredible, and those of us 
who are acquainted only with present 
day conditions,find difficulty in conceiv¬ 
ing of the former hordes of bird life. 
It may be said without fear of contra- 
diction that, not more than three or 
four centuries ago, the region of North 
America was endowed with more bird- 
life than any other continent. 
It is not surprising that, with such 
a wealth of game, fowling should have 
been unrestricted and carried on on an 
ever increasing scale as the colonies 
grew, for that has ever been character¬ 
istic of the American people. Even 
from the first our avifauna has been 
considered as a, resource belonging to 
the state, and its exploitation subject to 
the state’s statutory control and super¬ 
vision. But this control has not al¬ 
ways been exercised judiciously. For 
many years shooting and the conse¬ 
quent destruction of wild life continued 
hnabated and unrestrained. Wholesale 
« 
shooting, snaring, and netting at all sea¬ 
sons had their inevitable effect,—the 
marked decrease of bird life. Then be¬ 
gan a long struggle between the forces 
of protection and the forces of 
slaughter. With varying fortunes, 
the battle went on. Protection would 
be granted one year by the legislatures, 
only to be removed at the next session. 
Often such protection as was granted 
was given only at such times of flic 
