STATUTORY BIRD PROTECTION IN 
MASSACHUSETTS. 
By Epwarp Ilowe Forsusu, 
Ornithologist of Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture. 
{Reprinted from the Bulletin of Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture.] 
It is common talk, especially in rural communities, that ‘the more 
laws we pass for the protection of birds and game the fewer birds 
and the less game we see.” A certain section of the press reflects 
this sentiment, even to the extent of advocating the abolition of the 
game laws. This is a popular error, arising from a confusion of cause 
and effect. If we transpose the trite saying, and opine instead that 
the fewer the birds and game become the more laws are passed for 
their protection, we shall then have the proper relation of effect and 
cause. When the fact is thus properly stated it becomes a truism 
which explains at once that the reason of the depletion of birds and 
game is the lack of adequate protection. 
_ A careful examination of the laws that have been enacted for the 
protection of birds and game since the first settlement of Massachu- 
setts, together with a comparison of the records of the numbers of 
birds observed during this period, shows clearly why statutory pro- 
tection has thus far failed to protect, and indicates the remedy by 
which we may save those species of birds which are not already too 
near extermination. to admit of salvation. 
The earlier records of the Massachusetts Bay Colony show no pro- 
vision for the protection of birds; but in 1632 it was ordered “that 
noe pson w'soeur shall shoote att fowle vpon Pullen Poynte or Noddles 
Tleland but that the s* places shalbe reserved for John Perkins to 
take fowle w"" netts.” * 
Thus a single person was given a monopoly of bird destruction on 
certain lands. 
The continued policy of unstayed slaughter had produced so 
marked an effect on the wild ducks, geese and swans during the first 
part of the next century that in 1710 a province law was enacted 
which prohibited the use, in fowling, of boats or canoes with sails, 
or of any kind of disguised craft. The preamble of this act states 
clearly the necessity for its passage as follows: — 
Whereas the water-fowl of divers kinds, which were wont in former years in 
great numbers to frequent the maritime towns of this province were of great 
service and benefit to the inhabitants, both for meat and feathers, but are now, 
in great measure, afirighted and driven away by many persons who have 
nade use of boats or canoes with sails, or canoes or floats trimmed up, covered, 
1 “Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New 
England,” Vol. I., p. 94. 
