416 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[March 18, 1911. 
Game Legislation of the 61st Congress 
Washington, D. C., March 11 .—Editor Forest 
and Stream: The record of the sixty-first Con¬ 
gress is chiefly interesting on account of the 
large number of bills introduced and the com¬ 
paratively small number of general laws enacted. 
During the three sessions about 45,000 measures 
were under consideration, including 33,015 House 
bills, 10,906 Senate bills, and more than 1,000 
resolutions. 
In this avalanche of bills it is by no means 
easy to find the very small number which relate 
to game protection. The record of those intro¬ 
duced in the first two sessions has already been 
given (Forest and Stream, Vol. LXXV., p. 136, 
July 23, 1910), and of the nine bills enumerated 
in this list as in committee at the close of the 
second session none apparently received favor¬ 
able consideration. 
BILLS WHICH PASSED. 
Of the nearly 8,000 bills which were intro¬ 
duced during the third session which adjourned 
March 4, apparently only eight can properly be 
considered game bills and only three of these 
became laws. The most important one was the 
so-called Appalachian Park bill, entitled “ An 
act to enable any State to co-operate with any 
other State * * * for the protection of the water¬ 
sheds of navigable streams,” etc. (Public No. 
435 ) finally approved March 1, 1911. This act 
opens the way for the acquirement of National 
forests in the White Mountains and in the 
Southern Alleghenies in which it is hoped Na¬ 
tional game refuges may some time be estab¬ 
lished. The other two bills are of minor im¬ 
portance, affecting antelope in Arizona and game 
birds in Alaska. The former is entitled “An 
act providing for the levying of taxes by the 
tax officials of Arizona” (Public No. 379), but 
contains a section extending the territorial law 
of Arizona protecting antelope at all seasons 
until March 1, 1913. The latter entitled “An 
act for the protection of game in Alaska” (Pub¬ 
lic No. 520) merely corrects a defect in the law 
of 1908 by establishing an open season for game 
birds in Northern Alaska between Sept. 1 and 
March 1, and thus making the game birds sea¬ 
son uniform throughout the Territory. 
APPROPRIATION S. 
The items in the appropriation bills for 1912 
are of more interest than usual, as they contain 
several substantial increases and authorize work 
in new directions. The agricultural appropria¬ 
tion bill (Public No. 478) includes several ap¬ 
propriations for game protection under the Bio¬ 
logical Survey. The amount provided for the 
enforcement of the so-called Lacey Act was in¬ 
creased from $9,420 to $12,000; that for the main¬ 
tenance of the bison range and bird reserva¬ 
tions from $7,000 to $14,500, of which amount 
$2,500 is available for the purchase and trans¬ 
fer of game to Federal reservations. An emer¬ 
gency appropriation of $20,000, immediately 
available, was also made for the feeding and 
transportation of elk in Jackson Hole, Wyo. 
The Sundry Civil Bill (Public No. 525) carries 
an increase of $5,000 in the item of game warden 
service in Alaska, making the amount available 
for this purpose $15,000. 
The total appropriations for game protection 
made by Congress for the ensuing year are as 
follows: 
Agricultural Appropriation Bill: 
Administration . $10,200 
Enforcement of Lacey Act. 12,000 
Maintenance bison range & reservations. 14,500 
Elk in Jackson’s Hole, Wyoming. 20,000 
Wichita Nat’l Forest & Game Preserve.. 11,978 
- $68,6 to 
Sundry Civil Bill: 
Game warden service in Alaska.$15,000 
Maintenance of buffalo in Yellowstone Pk 3,000 ^ 
Grand total for game protection. $86,678 
When it is remembered that at the time of 
the passage of the Lacey Act in 1900 not a dol¬ 
lar was specifically appropriated for game pro¬ 
tection, and that the first appropriation of this 
kind seems to have been that in 1902, for the 
purchase of the buffalo herd for the Yellowstone 
Park, the appropriations for 1912 are very 
gratifying, notwithstanding the fact that they 
are still inadequate and relatively small in com¬ 
parison with the amounts provided for protec¬ 
tion of game in several of the States. 
BILLS WHICH FAILED TO PASS. 
Among the bills which failed to pass were the 
following: 
S. 9959. A bill to amend an act entitled “An 
act to protect the seal fisheries of Alaska, and 
for other purposes,” approved April 21, 1910. 
(Prohibits killing of fur seals on the Pribilof 
Islands for five years.) 
S. 9969. A bill to establish a Bureau of Na¬ 
tional Parks and for other purposes. 
H. R. 28628. A bill for the protection of game 
in Alaska and for other purposes. (Replaced 
by H. R. 32170, which became a law—Public No. 
5 20 -) 
H. R. 30572. A bill to protect certain migra¬ 
tory wild birds during their spring migration. 
(Lacey modification of the Weeks bill.) 
H. R. 32316. A bill to authorize the establish¬ 
ing of a National park in the Territory of 
Hawaii. 
Examination of the bills which failed to pass 
show's that most of them naturally fall into two 
groups, those relating to refuges and National 
parks, and those relating to Federal protection 
of migratory birds. The Weeks bill (H. R. 
10276 attracted much attention, and the Lacey 
modification (H. R. 30572) forms the subject 
of an article by the author, Hon. John F. Lacey 
in the current number of Field and Stream 
(March, 1911, pp. 1024-1025). Notwithstanding 
the widespread interest in both subjects, none of 
the bills made any substantial progress or were 
even reported by the committees to which they 
had been referred. T. S. Palmer. 
the month of September and open the month of 
January, leaving the length of time during which 
ducks may be shot the same as at present. 
It is possible on the other hand that there will 
be no change. It is reported that an article re¬ 
cently published in Forest and Stream on the 
shooting of ducks in Connecticut, and the tak¬ 
ing of 800 at the mouth of the Connecticut River, 
prevented a delegation from the river from at¬ 
tending the hearing. It is said that they were 
afraid that someone would ask them how many 
birds they had killed during the past season. 
An effort has been made to oblige persons 
having licenses to collect birds and eggs for 
scientific purposes and to report on the birds and 
eggs they take. There are about thirty-five per¬ 
mits in the State, and no one knows what the 
collectors have done or are doing. 
Connecticut Legislative Prospects. 
Reports from Connecticut as to changes in the 
game laws are confined at present to rumors 
which are more or less vague. 
It is believed that a bill will be reported from 
committee, opening the season for deer for four 
days in November, and limiting the take to one 
buck per individual to be killed with a shotgun. 
There was an effort made in the hearing before 
the committee to prohibit the carrying of arms 
by aliens in the woods, and it is possible that 
in some form or other such a provision may be 
incorporated in the law. 
On March 8 there was a hearing on the duck 
bill, the question of spring shooting being dis¬ 
cussed at length. It seems possible, if not prob¬ 
able, that the law will be so changed as to close 
The Use of Game. 
Albany, N. Y., March 11 .—Editor Forest and 
Stream: I have read with interest the sugges¬ 
tions appended to the report recently made by 
the Game Preservation Committee of the Boone 
and Crockett Club. The suggestions are sound 
and are made from a broad viewpoint. 
We people interested in game protection are 
apt to be too dogmatic. I have never been an 
enthusiast in game protection solely for the 
sake of protection. I believe in protection 
which serves some beneficial economic purpose. 
Game protection by all means should be based 
on common sense motives. 
I do not believe any species should be pro¬ 
tected when there is no public necessity for 
such protection. When the supply is in danger 
and more protection is required, the season for 
taking may be shortened or the more destruc¬ 
tive methods prohibited. But there should be 
no continuous protection for any wild species 
which has increased to the extent of becoming 
a nuisance, when such protection is not re¬ 
quired. 
As a general proposition it is better to thus 
limit the taking of the game rather than to re- • 
sort to close seasons running over a period of 
years. I believe it extremely unwise to make 
laws where there is no public necessity for 
them. The game protector has his work cut 
out to enforce the vital protective measures, and 
he should not be burdened with unnecessary law 
enforcement. Not only this, but laws which 
are not demanded by public necessity are bound 
to meet with public disapproval. The game 
protector has no option other than to enforce 
them to the best of his ability, and the result is 
sure to create bad feeling against game laws. 
The game protector groans in spirit over 
some of the measures rushed through State 
Legislatures. He knows that the sentiment he 
has worked patiently to build up in favor of 
game protection will be endangered by an ill 
advised message, and that hostility will be 
awakened, making it difficult or impossible to 
procure convictions of violators, not only of 
the law in question, but also of the older 
fundamental laws. No one comes more closely 
in touch with the people than the game pro¬ 
tector who enforces the law, and his opinion 
as to the necessity for any particular measure 
of legislation should have weight. 
John B. Burnham, 
Deputy Commissioner. 
