4 
or disguised with hay, sedge, sea-weed, ice, cloths or other materials, therein 
to go off to shoot at them at distances from the shoar upon the flatts and feeding 
ground, which practices if continued are likely to have the ill affect to cause 
the fowl wholly to desert and disuse the said towns. } 
The fine imposed for infractions of the law was 40 shillings, half 
to go to the informer and half to the poor of the town, and the culprit 
was estopped from shooting for three years after conviction, on penalty 
of a similar fine. The act continued in force until March 10, 1713, 
and was re-enacted from time to time until the revolutionary period, 
after which it lapsed. During provincial times there appears to have 
been no other statute enacted for the protection of any species of 
bird; but the towns were empowered to raise money to pay bounties 
on the heads of birds and mammals, and bounties were paid on the 
heads of crows, blackbirds, and ruffed grouse or partridges. 
After Massachusetts became a State apparently no attention what- 
ever was paid to the protection of birds for more than a quarter of a 
century, for it was not until 1818 that any statutory regulation of 
shooting was enacted. The preamble to the act of 1818 follows: — 
Whereas there are within the Commonwealth, many birds which are useful 
and profitable to the citizens, either as articles of food, or as instruments in the 
hands of Providence to destroy various noxious insects, grubs and caterpillars, 
which are predjudicial or destructive to vegetation, fruits and grain; and it is 
desirable to promote the increase and preservation of birds of the above de- 
scription and to prevent the wanton destruction of them at improper seasons. 
This shows that even in those early days there was an intelligent 
appreciation of the value of birds to man. 
At that time the effects of unrestricted shooting had become evident, 
not only upon the upland game birds, but even on such smaller species 
as robins and meadow larks. This act (chapter CIII., 1818) protected 
partridges and quail from March 1 to September 1, and woodcocks, 
snipe, larks and robins (which evidently were regarded as fair game 
for all) from March 1 to July 4, but it was nullified to some extent 
by local option, as the voters of any town could suspend the law’s 
provisions within the town limits for one year by taking action at the 
regular town meeting. This act, inadequate as it was, signalized the 
first attempt of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to protect her 
upland game birds, notwithstanding the fact that some of these birds 
had been decreasing in numbers for many years. Dwight wrote in 
his “Travels in New England and New York,” published in 1821, 
that wild turkeys had then greatly lessened in numbers. Notwith- 
standing the noticeable decrease they were never protected by law, but 
were killed off rapidly, and the last bird of the last flock recorded in 
Massachusetts was killed on Mount Tom in 1851. Evidently pro- 
tective laws were not the cause of the extirpation of the wild turkey. 
Like the great auk, it was the victim of unrestricted persecution by 
man at all seasons. 
It will be impossible, within the limits of this paper, to give even 
the briefest abstract of the bird laws passed by this Commonwealth 
since 1818; therefore no attempt will be made to show more than 
their general purpose and effect. For the convenience of the reader 
the legislation for each group of birds will be treated separately. 
ee eee 
1 “Acts and Resolves of the Province of Massachusetts Bay,” Vol. I., p. 667, 
, 
