62 TLHESAUDWBON?: BULUE Tie 
Association had, from the beginning of efforts to secure protection for 
migratory birds, led in the various campaigns which had been con- 
ducted. It was invited to lead in this movement and in an issue of its 
bulletin of January 1921 published an editorial urging the necessity of 
providing places for waterfowl to rest and feed during migration and 
during their winter sojourn in the South. The editorial urged the 
creation of a fund for the purchase of such lands and also for the better 
enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Under conditions at 
that time securing adequate appropriation for this purpose seemed 
entirely hopeless, so the idea of a federal shooting license to finance the 
purchase and care of refuges was advocated. Dr. E. W. Nelson, Chief 
of the Biological Survey, in a report on the extension of drainage in the 
United States and resultant destruction of waterfowl areas, directed the 
attention of the country to a critical situation. 
First Brit INTRODUCED 
The first bill providing for the establishment of federal refuges was 
introduced in the 67th Congress. S. 1452 was introduced in the Senate 
by Senator Harry S. New May 2, 1921, and H. R. 5823 was introduced 
in the House by Congressman Dan R. Anthony on May sth. The bill, 
as introduced, provided for the purchase of lands from funds accumu- 
lated from the sale of federal shooting licenses to be used_ both for refuge 
and sanctuary and for public shooting grounds, the view taken by the 
promoters of the measure being that in order to avoid monopolization 
of shooting privileges near refuges and to provide for the necessary 
regulation of shooting in their vicinity, the establishment of so-called 
public shooting grounds would be advisable. This provision has always 
been a bone of contention and the purpose of it has never been fully 
understood in Congress nor by a large segment of the public. Under 
the Act as passed there is no provision for public shooting or for federal 
regulation of shooting in the vicinity of the refuges; consequently, 
whatever such regulations may be necessary must be provided by the 
states. 
A vigorous campaign was undertaken under the auspices of the Ameri- 
can Game Protective Association for the New-Anthony Bill and the 
support of most of the state game officials of the country and nearly all 
‘leading conservation organizations was promptly secured. Following 
a hearing on the Bill in the House Committee on Agriculture on Febru- 
ary 16-17, 1922, the bill was favorably recommended. 
VICTORY AND DEFEAT 
This bill met with opposition in the House and was defeated in that 
body on February 13, 1923, by a vote of 135 to 154. The opposition 
was led by Frank Mondell of Wyoming, Republican floor leader, and 
Finis J. Garrett of Tennessee, Democratic floor leader. Mr. Garrett 
