Thus, by gradual stages, from the simple prohibition of 1830 against killing deer and moose, has been developed the comprehensive law in force to-day protecting all the big game and nearly all the birds found within the State, and prescribing the times and methods for their capture. The close seasons have undergone numerous changes during the seventy years, but those for moose and deer are much the same as they were originally, having merely lengthened a little at each end. As a matter of interest, the different close seasons for big game from 1830 to date are here tabulated: The opening year of the new century has witnessed an unprecedented interest in game protection. Nearly four-fifths of the States. and Territories have enacted some amendments to their game laws. These amendments vary from a slight change in the Delaware law regarding close seasons to the adoption of a general game law or code in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. Changes in dates for opening or closing the seasons have been very general, but restrictions on methods of capture, on sale, shipment, and storage, have also been numerous. In many instances the laws have necessarily become more complex, but there has been a strong tendency toward extending protection to more kinds of game, shortening the seasons, limiting bags, and throwing greater restrictions about the trade in game. Nebraska and Missouri, which suffered severely from wholesale shipments of game last year, have joined the great majority of States in adopting stringent nonexport laws, leaving less than half a dozen States now without protection of this kind. (See Pl. VIII.) Other States, notably Indiana, Montana, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Washington, have restricted hunting by requiring licenses of nonresident hunters, a common method, particularly in the Middle West, for providing a game protection fund. Nebraska, South Dakota, and Washington have followed the example of Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin in requiring residents as well as non5037-No. 16-01-2 market hunters. residents to obtain licenses, and Oregon now licenses nonresident All the Northern States from the Alleghenies to the Pacific with three exceptions now require nonresident hunters to secure licenses at a cost of $10 to $40. (See pp. 46-49.) Perhaps the most hopeful sign of the times is the general recognition of the principle that game preservation is a national rather than a local question. The progress made in many States is the outcome of well-directed efforts toward the attainment of a common definite object, rather than the passage of purely local measures. Organized effort has accomplished more this year than ever before. The American Ornithologists' Union, interested especially in the preservation of nongame birds, has secured the enactment of a practically uniform law in eight States and the District of Columbia, and incidentally the adoption of a uniform definition of game birds. The League of American Sportsmen has given attention especially to securing better protection for big game and wild turkeys, and its efforts have contributed to the passage of bills providing a close season of three to ten years for antelope in six States, for elk in five States, and for mountain sheep and wild turkeys in two States. It has supported the principle advocated by several leading sportsmen's journals that protection can best be secured by restricting the sale of game and limiting the amount of a day's or season's bag. The influence thus exerted, combined with the aid of various other game organizations, was largely instrumental in securing the passage of numerous laws embodying these features. The sale of all kinds of game has been prohibited by three States, and that of certain species by seven others. As a result of efforts in this direction, three kinds of game-antelope, elk, and prairie chickens have been practically removed from the markets, except in States where their killing is still permitted. (See pp. 38, 54.) Among the novel features of legislation may be mer tioned a unique statute enacted in Maine to prevent criminal carelessness in hunting, with a view to decreasing the deplorable accidents which have occurred with such unnecessary frequency in the past few years. This law provides that "Whoever while on a hunting trip, or in pursuit of wild game or game birds, negligently or carelessly shoots and wounds or kills any human being shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding ten years or by fine not exceeding $1,000." Other new features include the requirement of Nevada that the game laws shall be read in the public schools at least twice during each year; various measures relative to game introduction; and provisions for establishing game preserves. Maine has adopted the precaution of requiring persons who wish to import live animals or birds to first secure a permit from the State authorities, in order that undesirable species may be prevented 1 Public Laws 1901, chap. 263. 1 from gaining a foothold. New York has made provision for restocking the Adirondack region with moose, and has appropriated the sum of $5,000 for this purpose. Connecticut, in an 'Act concerning the establishment of State game preserves," has authorized the commissioners of fisheries and game, upon petition of five resident landowners of any town, to lease tracts of woodland suitable for propagation of game, for terms of twenty-five or fifty years, at an annual rental not to exceed $5 for each preserve.* Washington has followed the initiative taken by Colorado in cooperating with the Federal authorities to secure better enforcement of the game laws on the forest reserves by making all forest rangers er officio game wardens. Forest rangers in Colorado have been invested with the same authority as deputy wardens for two years, but this was done by a regulation of the State game commissioner and not by a provision in the game law, as is the case in Washington. South Dakota has adopted a provision allowing only deputy game wardens to serve as guides. 3 Among the numerous changes it is but natural to find some examples of retrograde legislation, but these are partly due to errors of omission in the new laws, by which certain birds are deprived of the protection they formerly enjoyed. Arizona has failed to provide a season for killing doves, but has, however, prohibited their sale. Connecticut has extended the open season for rail from January 1 to April 1, apparently for the sake of conformity with the newly established season for plover and snipe, thus permitting sale, if not shooting, in the spring. Illinois, through an unfortunate omission, failed to provide any close season for quail, woodcock, or rail, but the sale of quail is still prohibited under the old law. Indiana and Kansas, which formerly protected doves at all times, have established open seasons from August 15 to January 1, and from July 15 to September 15, respectively. New Jersey has omitted deer, and Oregon, snipe from the new laws. Rhode Island, in amending the duck season, has removed protection entirely from rail, snipe, plover, geese, and certain ducks, and has lengthened the open season for other ducks to April 1, thus permitting spring shooting. 4 On the whole, the legislation of 1901 is a distinct advance over that of any previous year, but much still remains to be done in the way of 1 Public Acts 1901, chap. 65, pp. 1215-1217. 2 A somewhat similar provision has been in force for several years in Ontario, by which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is authorized to designate certain counties or portions of counties in which it is unlawful to hunt or kill deer at any time, thus in effect establishing deer preserves. Regulation No. 9, May 1, 1899. Division A, sec. 7, of the game law of 1899 provides that the commissioner shall have power to prescribe such regulations as may be required to carry out the true intent of the act. 'See footnote, p. 12. making proper provision for transportation of live game for propagation, in extending greater protection to shore birds, woodcock, and turkeys, which are becoming greatly diminished in numbers and are threatened with extermination in certain localities, and especially in protecting wild fowl during the spring when they are on the way to their breeding grounds. A comparison of Plates I and II will show that in the greater part of the United States ducks have very little protection. Many of the species breed in the far North and do not occur in the United States during summer. Yet nine States in the South and West accord wild fowl practically no protection, and a number of others have close seasons of only four or five months duration, chiefly during the time when the birds are absent from the State. On the other hand a few States realize the necessity for greater protection and are making strenuous efforts in this direction. During the present year Wisconsin has successfully maintained the anti-spring shooting law on its statute books and its example has been followed by Michigan, which has closed its season a full month earlier than before. Maine also has put an end to spring shooting of ducks. Including these, six border States and three provinces of Canada-Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Manitoba-have now united in prohibiting spring duck shooting. Public sentiment against spring shooting is gradually gaining ground, but the States which have been able to crystallize this sentiment into law are still few in number. It seems difficult to make the public appreciate the fact that migratory game must receive at least as much protection as is accorded resident game if it is to be saved from extermination. Many persons who are strongly in favor of prohibiting spring shooting, and who appreciate the difficulty of passing such a law in their own State, have suggested a national law as the only solution of the question. This is impracticable, since the fixing of times and seasons for taking game is a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the States, a prerogative which they jealously guard, and one which both State and Federal courts recognize. Only five years ago the Supreme Court of the United States expressly declared that "the power of the State to control and regulate the taking of game can not be questioned." The remedy lies in concerted action on the part of individuals and associations in neighboring States, all working for the attainment of a common object. In such a movement the Provinces of Canada have shown their willingness to join by making their laws conform in many respects to those of adjoining States. The Province of Ontario has even gone so far as to provide in its game-protection act of 1900 that when any migra 1 Ward . Race Horse, 163 U. S. 507. 2 The recent steps toward uniformity in the laws of the border States and Provinces are doubtless largely due to the efforts of the North American Fish and Game Protective Association, which was organized January 30, 1900. |