Forest and Stream 
A Weekly Journal. Copyright, 1906, by Forest and Stream Publishing Co. 
Terms, $3 a Year, 10 Cts. a Copy. 
Six Months, $1.50. 
NEW YORK, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1906. 
( VOL. LXVII.—No. 21. 
1 No. 346 Broadway, New York. 
The object of this journal will be to studiously 
promote a healthful interest in outdoor recre¬ 
ation, and to cultivate a refined taste for natural 
Objects. Announcement in first number of 
Forest and Stream, Aug. 14, 1873. 
FEDERAL FROTECTION OF WILD¬ 
FOWL. 
We print to-day in supplementary pages a brief 
prepared by Mr. Shiras in support of the consti¬ 
tutional basis for his measure to intrust to the 
Federal government the protection and conser¬ 
vation of migratory game birds and of fish in 
interstate public waters. The paper gives a com¬ 
prehensive survey of the principles involved in 
a determination of the relative powers of State 
and Nation. No one can read the brief without 
perceiving that it is the fruit of long study and 
matured thought; nor can one fail to note the 
spirit of frankness which pervades the document 
and the judicial weighing of the several proposi¬ 
tions submitted. 
All thoughtful students of the difficult problem 
of the preservation of our migratory species share 
the conviction, we believe, that endeavor to se¬ 
cure requisite protection by concurrent action of 
the numerous States concerned is hopeless. Quite 
as general is the conviction that if the task of 
wildfowl protection could be intrusted to Con¬ 
gress and to the executive agents of the United 
States, the problem would be solved and the wild¬ 
fowl supply would be perpetuated. The one 
obstacle which has seemed to stand in the way 
of attaining this end has been a popular accept¬ 
ance of the belief that all game protection 
was an exclusive function of the State, and one 
in which Congress could have no part. The task 
to which Mr. Shiras has set himself, is to show 
that this popular notion is erroneous, and that 
Congress rightly may and should legislate for 
migratory fowl. He has sought to demonstrate 
this by showing that in numerous instances the 
National government already does actually exer¬ 
cise that police power in which branch of au¬ 
thority game and fish protection belongs; and 
therefore that for the Nation to assume the task 
of legislating for migratory game would be an 
exercise of a power in no wise different from 
that which it already exercises, and in the exer¬ 
cise of which it has the acquiescence of the States. 
We bespeak for the paper the careful reading 
and consideration it should have. We believe that 
Mr. Shiras’s introduction of his wildfowl pro¬ 
tection measure in Congress, the awakening of 
popular interest which followed, and the dis¬ 
cussion of the subject which has ensued, mark a 
turning point in the history of the protection of 
the migratory game of our continent. 
n 
It hardly need be remarked that the paper 
contains evidence of having been written by one 
who is not only a student of constitutional law, 
but a sportsman as well, and one deeply con¬ 
cerned in the subject from a sportsman’s and 
naturalist’s standpoint. Geo. Shiras, 3d, a son 
of Geo. Shiras, Jr., of the U. S. Supreme Court 
(retired), was born in Pittsburg, Pa. He was 
a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature in 
1880-90, serving on the Judiciary General Com¬ 
mittee; and after a practice of twenty years at 
the Pittsburg bar, went to Congress in 1902. where 
as a member of the Committee on Public Lands 
he made a special study of forest reserves, game 
refuges and the National parks in their relation 
to game protection. For thirty-five consecutive 
years he has hunted big game in the Middle 
West; and has been also much interested in wild¬ 
fowl shooting, being personally familiar with 
existing conditions from the south Florida coast 
to Newfoundland. In later years he has used 
the camera more than the gun, his wild game 
negatives now exceeding one thousand. In this 
field he was the pioneer, and in it has made 
wonderful achievements. Thus it will be seen 
that his environments have been peculiarly favor¬ 
able to the development of such a study as that 
with which the present paper is concerned ; and 
that the brief is not the outcome of hastily con¬ 
ceived notions. 
FOR THE PROTECTION OF SHORE BIRDS 
The practical lack of protection had by all our 
shore birds, including the snipe, plover, sand¬ 
pipers, peeps and others, is a survival of the old 
feeling that migratory birds needed no protection, 
and that it was the business of each gunner to 
get for himself all of them that he possibly could. 
Happily this feeling has passed away among en¬ 
lightened persons, though it still exists among 
the ignorant. It appears, however, that a cam¬ 
paign of education is about to be set on foot in 
behalf of the shore birds, and that it is to have 
the backing of two of the most influential pro¬ 
tective associations of the country, the A. O. U. 
and the National Association of Audubon So¬ 
cieties. 
During the meeting of the American Ornitho¬ 
logists’ Union, held in Washington last week, the 
protection of shore birds was brought up by Mr. 
Wm. Dutcher, of New York, the president of 
the National Association of Audubon Societies, 
who called attention to the practically continuous 
destruction of shore birds all along the Atlantic 
coast from Maine to Florida, to the greatly les¬ 
sened numbers of these birds, and to the danger 
of the extinction of some species. 
With the increased population and the les¬ 
sened supply of game, comes a constantly in¬ 
creased demand for shore birds as food and so 
an increased destruction of the birds. To offset 
this destruction, efforts are to be made to induce 
the different States to shorten the seasons during 
which the shore birds are to be killed. 
' Through the generous legacy of Mr. Willcox 
the National Association of Audubon Societies 
has now an income which may be devoted to the 
dissemination of literature on this subject, and 
it is purposed to spread abroad information show¬ 
ing the desirability of protecting shore birds and 
other birds from undue slaughter. 
A SATISFACTORY SEASON. 
Sportsmen coming home to New York city 
from railway journeys have been impressed at 
the number of rabbits carried on local trains 
by New Jersey sportsmen returning from a 
day’s hunt. Evidently there is no dearth of 
rabbits in that State this season, and the game 
is fat and sleek. 
Comments on the fine condition of the gray 
squirrels, grouse and woodcock found in vari¬ 
ous places in both New York and New Jersey 
are frequently heard, too. 
It is noticed that the daily papers frequently 
comment on the scarcity and high price of 
grouse in the hotels and restaurants of this 
city. They claim from this fact that grouse 
are not abundant this season, whereas our re¬ 
ports have shown that the present season has 
been a favorable one, and that sportsmen have 
had fairly good grouse shooting in the best 
known coverts. Furthermore, it is evident that 
there will be a sufficient number of birds left 
in the woods to insure a good season’s shoot¬ 
ing next autumn. 
The growing sentiment against the sale of 
game, the difficulty in safely procuring and dis¬ 
posing of it under the law, and other reasons, 
account for the situation complained of. The 
markets make very meagre displays of game 
compared with other years, and too many per¬ 
sons are ready to conclude from this that game 
is much more scarce than the facts warrant. 
THE BIG LAKE DECISION. 
It was erroneously reported recently that 
through a court decision the Big Lake shooting 
Club had been restrained from exercising ripar¬ 
ian rights to some fifteen miles of land lying 
along Big Lake, Arkansas, which is in reality an 
expansion of Little River. 
The case was finally decided in the United 
States Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 
in St. Louis. The appeal was from a decree per¬ 
petually enjoining the defendants, Frank G. Fite 
et al., from trespassing upon the property of the 
Big Lake Shooting Club. This decree was 
affirmed by this court in an opinion written by 
Judge Hook. The court also approved the con¬ 
clusion of the trial court that Little River is not 
navigable in any real and substantial sense. 
