1

Audubon societies, now represented in twenty-three States. While these different organizations naturally overlap one another in their fields of labor, they work harmoniously for the common cause. The fish and game associations are naturally most active in protecting game birds within their respective States, while the Audubon societies are interested more especially in the protection of birds that are not game. The activities of the latter societies are not necessarily limited by State lines. Efforts are constantly made to extend the work in new fields, and recently the Pennsylvania Audubon Society has done effective work for the protection of insectivorous birds in Delaware. The labors of both game associations and Audubon societies are supplemented by those of the League of American Sportsmen and the committee of the American Ornithologists' Union. The League has a membership of over 2,700, and one of its main objects is the enforcement of game laws; it not only prosecutes violations of State laws, but offers rewards to wardens in any State who secure convictions. The American Ornithologists' Union committee now has a special fund at its disposal which will be devoted this year largely to protecting gulls and terns along the Atlantic coast. In States where the importance of protection has long been recognized and is strongly supported by public sentiment, fish and game protection is in charge of a board of commissioners and regular wardens are employed by the State to enforce the game laws. New York includes forestry in the duties of its board, and has five commissioners of fisheries, game, and forests, but the majority of the States combine fish and game matters, although a few consider the subjects of sufficient importance to require the attention of separate officials. Thus, Illinois has a State game commissioner, Pennsylvania has a board of seven game commissioners distinct from its fish commission, Rhode Island a board of five commissioners of birds, and North Dakota, Oregon, and Wyoming have special game wardens.

NECESSITY FOR FURTHER STATE LEGISLATION.

In a suggestive paper on "The destruction of our birds and mammals," Mr. William T. Hornaday has made estimates of the decrease in bird life in the United States during the last fifteen years, based on reports from observers in thirty different States.

Such estimates are of course merely matters of opinion, but nevertheless are interesting. Naturally there is a wide range in the opinions of the various observers, and the alleged decrease of birds varies from 10 to 77 percent, while the average for the thirty States is 46 percent. Nebraska shows a decrease of only 10 and Massachusetts of 27 percent,

1 For a list of these commissions and the more important State associations, with their officers, see Appendix to the Yearbook Dept. Agr., 1899, pp. 710–717.

2 Second Annual Report New York Zoological Society, p. 95, 1898.

NECESSITY FOR FURTHER STATE LEGISLATION.

45

but the percentage runs up to 67 in Texas, 75 in Connecticut, Indian Territory, and Montana, and to 77 in Florida. Evidently existing State laws are defective or are not properly enforced!

Some States and Territories, as Idaho, Alaska, Arizona, Indian Territory, and New Mexico, apparently afford no protection at present to birds other than game; and while the necessity for such legislation may be small in unsettled portions of the West, still it will be more and more urgent as the country becomes developed. Other States which have bird laws on their statute books really afford very little protection, because these laws apply to only a small number of species, are limited to only part of the year, or are restricted to only part of the State. Aside from game birds and the young of sea birds, Florida protects only ibises, herons, egrets, cranes, and curlews; North Carolina only doves, larks, mockingbirds, and robins. Kansas and Virginia name but 10 birds each, and Delaware but 20. Louisiana, while mentioning 8 (whippoorwill, nighthawk, blackbird, oriole, sparrow, finch, swallow, and bluebird), really has a somewhat more extended list, since each of the terms blackbird, oriole, sparrow, finch, and swallow includes a number of species. Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee treat all birds alike in protecting them for only part of the year, and providing open seasons, as in the case of game, when they can be killed.1 In exceptional cases, so many counties are exempted from the provisions of a law that the act becomes operative in only a small part of the State. Thus, Texas exempts 56 out of 244 counties from the operation of the act of 1895, so that a comparatively large part of the State is no better off than if there were no bird law (see fig. 8). Alabama exempts 60 out of 66 counties from the act of 1899, and thus the law actually applies to only 6 counties.

Another difficulty lies in the diverse and oftentimes contradictory laws in force in neighboring counties in the same State, as in Maryland, Virginia, and Tennessee. Special county laws have long been popular in Maryland and Virginia, but the Maryland act of 1898 did much to harmonize conflicting game regulations. Mississippi gives county boards of supervisors full jurisdiction over such matters, and her bird protection therefore depends mainly on local regulations. Under the constitution of Tennessee game legislation may be enacted

1The open seasons are as follows: Alabama, November 1 to March 1 (except redheaded woodpecker, catbird, pewee, and vireo, which are protected from August 1 to March 1, and mockingbirds which are protected at all seasons); Georgia, November 1 to March 15; North Carolina, October 15 to April 1; Tennessee, varying from three to eight months, according to the county.

2New York has special laws for Long Island, Michigan for the Upper Peninsula, and Washington for that part of the State east of the Cascades, but these regulations apply chiefly to game birds. In Canada, also, there are special regulations in Quebec for the two 'zones' into which the Province is divided at the river Saguenay. Art. XI, sec. 13.

in favor of certain counties or geographical districts, and various sections of the State, availing themselves of this provision, have different laws. Nowhere are protective measures more needed than in the South and

FIG. 8.-Map of Texas showing counties exempted under law of 1895 (the excepted counties are

Burnet, 39.

Callahan, 26

Camp, 20.

Hopkins, 14.
Jack, 12.
Jackson, 56.

Williamson, 40.

Wilson, 53.

Wise, 13.
Wood, 19.

Southwest, and more especially in the South Atlantic and Gulf States. So many northern birds pass the winter in this part of the United States, and so many resident species begin to breed here early in spring, that it is particularly important to have the laws comprehensive

NECESSITY FOR FURTHER STATE LEGISLATION.

47

and rigidly enforced. This question is one of general interest, for migratory birds, even if effectually protected during the breeding season in New England and the Northern and Middle States, may yet be killed to such an extent during their stay in the South as to render protection on their breeding grounds of comparatively little avail. The smaller land birds now receive but little protection during their sojourn in the South, with no applicable laws in Florida, and open seasons in winter in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. However important it may be to secure protective legislation in States which now have none, or in those which restrict it to a few months of the year, it is almost equally important to amend the imperfect laws of other States in order to render them more effective. The most striking defects of existing legislation have already been discussed, and, as suggested, they may be remedied best by securing greater uniformity. This may be accomplished—

(1) By extending the list of protected species to all birds other than game birds and a few specially excepted species.

(2) By removing all insectivorous birds from the game list.

(3) By reducing the list of species excluded from protection. (4) By restricting special legislation, and as far as possible bringing all the counties in a State under one common law.

(5) By making proper provisions for collecting specimens for scien

tific purposes.

(6) By harmonizing the penalties for violations of the law.

As a suggestion of what a comprehensive law should be, the text of an act prepared by the American Ornithologists' Union is given in full below. This act was originally prepared and published early in 18861 by the Committee on Bird Protection, composed of ten active members of the Union, with the late George B. Sennett as chairman. While it can hardly be expected to meet the needs of all the States without change, it can easily be adapted to local requirements by making the necessary modifications, as suggested under the head of 'Remarks.' This act is not an experiment, for it has been tested in several States, has been adopted almost literally by Illinois and Indiana, and has been in force in the latter State for nearly ten years. Its main features have also been incorporated in the laws of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, and the provisions regarding permits in those of Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

1Supplement to Science, No. 160, February 26, 1886.

ACT PROPOSED BY THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION.1

An Act for the protection of birds and their nests and eggs.

SECTION 1. No person shall, within the State of kill or catch or have in his or her possession, living or dead, any wild bird other than a game bird, nor shall purchase, offer, or expose for sale any such wild bird after it has been killed or caught. No part of the plumage, skin, or body of any bird protected by this section shall be sold or had in possession for sale. For the purposes of this act the following only shall be considered game birds: The Anatidæ, commonly known as swans, geese, brant, and river and sea ducks; the Rallidæ, commonly known as rails, coots, mud-hens, and gallinules; the Limicolæ, commonly known as shore birds, plovers, surf birds, snipe, woodcock, sandpipers, tatlers, and curlews; the Gallinæ, commonly known as wild turkeys, grouse, prairie chickens, pheasants, partridges, and quails. SEC. 2. No person shall, within the State of take or needlessly destroy the nest or the eggs of any wild bird nor shall have such nest or eggs in his or her possession.

SEC. 3. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to a fine of five dollars for each offense, and an additional fine of five dollars for each bird, living or dead, or part of bird, or nest and eggs possessed in violation of this act, or to imprisonment for ten days, or both, at the discretion of the court.

SEC. 4. Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this act shall not apply to any person holding a certificate giving the right to take birds and their nests and eggs for scientific purposes, as provided for in section 5 of this act.

SEC. 5. Certificates may be granted by [here follow the names of the persons, if any, duly authorized by this act to grant such certificates], or by any incorporated society of natural history in the State, through such persons or officers as said society may designate, to any properly accredited person of the age of fifteen years or upward, permitting the holder thereof to collect birds, their nests or eggs, for strictly scientific purposes only. In order to obtain such certificate the applicant for the same must present to the person or persons having the power to grant said certificate written testimonials from two well-known scientific men, certifying to the good character and fitness of said applicant to be intrusted with such privilege; must pay to said persons or officers one dollar to defray the necessary expenses attending the granting of such certificates; and must file with said persons or officers a properly executed bond, in the sum of two hundred dollars, signed by two responsible citi zens of the State as sureties. This bond shall be forfeited to the State, and the certificate become void, upon proof that the holder of such a certificate has killed any bird, or taken the nest or eggs of any bird, for other than the purposes named in sections 4 and 5 of this act, and shall be further subject for each such offense to the penalties provided therefor in section 3 of this act.

SEC. 6. The certificates authorized by this act shall be in force for one year only from the date of their issue, and shall not be transferable.

SEC. 7. The English or European house sparrow (Passer domesticus) is not included among the birds protected by this act.

SEC. 8. All acts or parts of acts, heretofore passed, inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of this act, are hereby repealed.

SEC. 9. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

1The original wording of the sections 1 and 2 has been modified in accordance with suggestions made by Mr. William Dutcher, and approved by Mr. Witmer Stone, chairman of the committee on protection of North American birds. These sections have been recast and somewhat elaborated, the penalties combined as section 3, but the other sections have been merely renumbered.