April 20, 1912 
FOREST AND STREAM 
497 
Protection of Migratory Birds. 
In view of the interest in this subject, and 
the fact that the proposed manner of bringing 
about Federal protection is not clearly under¬ 
stood by the general public, we print below a 
portion of the testimony and arguments heard 
recently before the Congressional Committee 
on Forest Reservations and the Protection of 
Game: 
[H. R. 36, Sixty-second Congress, first session.] 
A Bill to Protect Migratory Game Birds of the United 
States. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa¬ 
tives of the United States of America in Congress 
assembled. That all wild geese, wild swans, brant, wild 
ducks, snipe, plover, woodcock, rail, wild pigeons, and 
all other migratory game birds which in their Northern 
and Southern migrations, pass through or do not remain 
permanently the entire year within the borders of any 
State or Territory, shall hereafter be deemed to be with¬ 
in the custody and protection of the Government of the 
United States, and shall not be destroyed or taken con¬ 
trary to regulations hereinafter provided for. 
Sec. 2. That the Department of Agriculture is hereby 
authorized to adopt suitable regulations to give effect 
to the previous section by prescribing and fixing closed 
seasons, having due regard to the zones of tempera¬ 
ture, breeding habits, and times, and line of migratory 
flight, thereby enabling the department to select and 
designate suitable districts for different portions of the 
country within which said closed seasons it shall not 
be lawful to shoot or by any device kill or seize and 
capture migratory birds within the protection of this 
law, and by declaring penalities by fine or imprisonment, 
or both, for violations of such regulations. 
Sec. 3. That the Department of Agriculture, after the 
preparation of said regulations, shall cause the same to 
be made public, and shall allow a period of three 
months in which said regulations may be examined and 
considered before final adoption, permitting, when 
deemed proper, public hearings thereon, and after final 
adoption to cause same to be engrossed and submitted 
to the President of the United States for approval: 
Provided, however. That nothing herein contained shall 
be deemed to affect or interfere with the local laws of 
the States and Territories for the protection of game 
localized within their borders, nor to prevent the States 
and Territories from enacting laws and regulations to 
promote and render efficient the regulations of the De¬ 
partment of Agriculture provided under this statute. 
[H. R. 4428, Sixty-second Congress, first session.] 
A Bill to Protect migratory wildfowl in the United 
States. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa¬ 
tives of the United States of America in Congress as¬ 
sembled, That it shall be unlawful for any person to 
kill or capture any wild goose, wild swan, wild pelican, 
wild crane, wild duck, snipe, plover, woodcock, or rail 
from Jan. 10th to Aug. 15th, inclusive, of each year. 
Sec. 2. That this act shall also be deemed to apply 
to ail migratory wildfowl and other migratory game 
birds whose habitat is not fixed but is of a migratory or 
interstate character, which in their Northern and South¬ 
ern migrations pass through and do not remain the 
entire year within the borders of any Sate or Territory; 
and such birds shall hereafter be deemed to be within 
the custody of the Government of the United States as 
well as of the various States; Provided, That nothing 
in this act shall be construed in conflict with the laws 
of any State which already has upon its statute books 
laws providing for the adequate protection of migratory 
wildfowl during their springtime migration from the 
South to the North. 
Sec. 3. That any person violating the provisions of 
this act shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to a 
fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more 
than one thousand dollars, and upon second conviction 
to imprisonment for not less than thirty days and not 
more than six months. 
[S. 2367, Sixty-second Congress, first session.] 
A Bill to Protect migratory wildfowl in the United 
States. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and Blouse of Representa¬ 
tives of the United States of America in Congress as¬ 
sembled, That it shall be unlawful for any person to 
kill or capture any wild goose, wild swan, wild pelican, 
wild crane, wild duck, snipe, plover, woodcock, or rail 
from Jan. 10th to_ Aug. 15th, inclusive, of each year. 
Sec _ 2. That this act shall also be deemed to apply to 
all migratory wildfowl and other migratory game birds 
whose habitat is not fixed, but is of a migratory or 
interstate character, which in their Northern and South¬ 
ern migrations pass through and do not remain the en¬ 
tire year within the borders of any State or Territory; 
and such birds shall hereafter be deemed to be within 
Bie custody of the Government as well as of the various 
States; Provided, That nothing in this act shall be con¬ 
strued in conflict with the laws of any State which al¬ 
ready has upon its statute books laws providing for the 
adequate protection of migratory wildfowl during their 
springtime migration from the South to the North. 
Sec. 3. That any person violating the provisions of 
this act shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to a 
fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more 
than one thousand dollars, and upon second conviction 
to imprisonment for not less than thirty days and not 
more than six months. 
[S. J. Res. 39, Sixty-second Congress, first session.] 
Joint Resolution Proposing An Amendment to the Con¬ 
stitution Providing That Congress Shall Have the 
Power to Protect Migratory Birds. 
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled 
(two-thirds of each House concurring therein). That the 
following be proposed as an amendment to the Con¬ 
stitution, which shall be valid to all intents and pur¬ 
poses as part of the Constitution when ratified by the 
Legislatures of three-fourths of the States: 
“Article XVII. 
“Section 1. Congress shall have power to protect mi¬ 
gratory birds and prohibit and regulate the killing 
thereof. 
“Sec. 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce 
this article by appropriate legislation.” 
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL MCLEAN, OF NEW YORK 
CITY, MEMBER OF THE CAMP FIRE CLUB. 
Mr. McLean: We are strongly in favor of 
the principle of Federal control of migratory 
birds, as evidenced in either the Weeks bill or 
the Anthony bill. In some quarters there has 
been doubt expressed whether Congress, by 
giving to a department the power to fix sea¬ 
sons, is delegating its legislative powers. 
The Chairman: Have you any fixed ideas on 
that as to its constitutionality? 
Mr. McLean: I think it is constitutional. 
The Chairman: The serious trouble in pass¬ 
ing the bill through Congress would probably 
be in regard to the question of its constitu¬ 
tionality. 
Mr. McLean: Of course we believe the 
fundamental question involved here is the pro¬ 
tection of the birds. It is the consensus of 
opinion that the wild migratory life, along with 
other wild life in this country, can not stand 
the strain and pressure that is being placed upon 
it by the hunting, the modern inventions in the 
way of firearms and all of the dangers to which 
it is exposed from the most northerly to the 
niost southerly points on the coast, and we be¬ 
lieve that it should be under Federal control 
for the reason that the local condition is often 
such that the people in a locality can not them¬ 
selves appreciate the need of protection. 
I have here a letter from the chairman of the 
board of commissioners of the State of Louisi¬ 
ana, which will clearly illustrate this point, and 
with your permission I will read it. 
Mr. McLean read the letter, as follows: 
State of Louisiana, Board of Commissioners for Protec¬ 
tion of Birds, Game and Fish. 
New Orleans, January 9, 1912. 
Mr. Ottomar H. Van Norden, President Long Island 
Game Protective Association, New York: 
Dear Sir—Replying to your inquiry of the 3d instant. 
While the question of the prohibition of the spring 
shooting of wildfowl is all right in theory, yet, never¬ 
theless, it does not work out well in our State, for the 
reason that practically all the ducks of the United States 
are crowded within our borders from early in the fall 
until late in the spring. In consequence of this, our 
sportsmen cannot understand the scarcity of the ducks 
and_ geese existing in other parts of the country. Then, 
again, our best spring shooting comes in the month 
of March on the Northern migration of the blue-winged 
teal ducks, which are with us all during that month. 
Nearly all ducks leaving our State in the spring are 
mated, and I believe that most of the females have 
fertile eggs. Under these circumstances I would like 
to see our season close down much earlier than it does, 
but hitherto the conditions noted above have operated 
against any change in the present law, a copy of which 
I send you herewith. 
Yours very truly, 
Frank M. Miller, President. 
Of course the second reason is a selfish one, 
but the first reason is right there. Through 
the geographical conditions of the country the 
presence of food in the marshes and swamps 
of Louisiana and Florida, as the commissioner 
says, practically all the birds congregate there 
during the winter and you can not convince 
the people of Louisiana that there is any 
scarcity of ducks and geese. You can not blame 
them, for they look at it from a local stand¬ 
point, and they can not appreciate that through¬ 
out other parts of the country all the birds are 
being depleted, and that those left are congre¬ 
gating in those places referred to. 
For that reason I believe that all migratory 
birds, and particularly the wildfowl, should be 
susceptible of Federal control, and the Camp 
Fire Club stands squarely for that principle. 
The Chairman: Have you made any esti¬ 
mates of the percentages of decrease in the 
numbers of these birds? 
Mr. McLean: I have not. There are a num¬ 
ber of birds that have become extinct in our 
own time, among them the great auk, the pas¬ 
senger pigeon; the parrokeet has become nearly 
extinct except in the extreme southern part of 
the United States. 
Senator Perkins: On the Pacific Coast they 
say game birds are increasing. 
Mr. McLean: Here is a letter from the Vir¬ 
ginia association. The writer says, “Ducks are 
notably decreasing each year in our waters, 
from present indications.” We have a great 
many letters showing that a decrease has been 
noted. But, of course, the percentage of de¬ 
crease is very hard to calculate. 
Senator Lodge: There is a great decrease 
along the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina 
to Chesapeake Bay, and that has been going 
on for years. 
Mr. McLean: Yes. I personally do most of 
my shooting on Long Island, and in the fifteen 
years I have been shooting there, there has been 
a decrease until the last two or three years 
birds are holding their own better. We have 
stopped spring shooting there. 
Senator Poindexter: Is that a decrease in the 
number of birds or a change of their habitat? 
Mr. McLean: I think, sir, we are perfectly 
safe in saying it is a decrease in the number of 
birds. The habitat does not change. The wild¬ 
fowl will go where there is food. That is the 
experience, I think, of all men who have fol¬ 
lowed them. 
Senator Perkins: We have a game law in 
California prohibiting spring shooting, and the 
birds are increasing there. 
Mr. McLean: Yes. We have felt that in 
New York since we have prevented this spring 
shooting, we have more birds. We can 
not tell yet whether it is because there are 
more birds than are bred there coming back or 
whether it is because the birds are undisturbed 
in the spring and feed there then and find the 
food good and come back in the fall. 
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. HASKELL, OF NEW YORK 
CITY, COUNSEL OF THE AMERICAN GAME PRO¬ 
TECTIVE AND PROPAGATION ASSOCIATION. 
Mr. Haskell: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen 
of the committee, I represent an association re¬ 
cently organized to assist in the protection of 
game on the continent of North America. The 
officers of this association within the last few 
weeks have interviewed or _ written game 
officials, game protective associations, and in¬ 
dividuals in all of the States of the United States, 
and have asked for an expression of opinion on 
the propriety and necessity of the legislation 
proposed by these bills now under considera¬ 
tion. 
Practically every State has been heard from 
and in every instance the principle of Federal 
protection of migratory birds has been approved 
and the hope expressed that the bills under 
consideration will be passed by Congress. 
The following resolution was passed by the 
Legislature of the State of New York on 
March 4, 1912, without a dissenting vote: 
State of New York—In Senate. 
^^'hereas three bills (Nos. H. R. 36, H. R. 4428, S. 
2367) to afford Federal protection to migratory game 
birds, bave been introduced in Congress, and 
Whereas there is a general sentiment in this State in 
favor of such protection and an urgent request for the 
enactment of such a law has been made, as appears by 
numerous petitions received: Now, therefore. 
Resolved (if the Assembly concurs). That Congress 
be, and hereby is, requested to enact a law giving 
ample protection to migratory game birds. 
Resolved, That the Legislatures of all other States of 
the United States now in session or when next convened, 
be, and hereby are, respectfully requested to join in this 
request by the adoption of this or an equivalent resolu¬ 
tion. 
