A good beginning has already been made toward securing the general adoption of a uniform definition of game birds. The definition proposed by the American Ornithologists' Union, which restricts the term to four easily recognized groups, has now been accepted by the District of Columbia and ten States-Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. It has been slightly modified by adding reedbirds and blackbirds to the list of species in the District of Columbia, reedbirds to the New Jersey list, and doves to the Florida and Illinois lists.

HISTORY.

Laws relating to game in America date back almost to the first settlement of the colonies. One of the earliest is found in the Massachusetts Bay colonial ordinance of 1641, as amended in 1647, which provides that "for great ponds lying in common, though within the bounds of some town, it shall be free for any man to fish and fowl there, and may pass and repass on foot through any man's property for that end, so that they trespass not upon any man's corn or meadow." This law was in force in the whole Colony of Massachusetts, which at that time included much of the territory now covered by the State of Maine. It has been the basis of several decisions rendered in recent years by the Maine courts, which have held that anyone may go to great ponds on foot through uninclosed woodlands, but may not cross tillage or mowing land; that a great pond is one containing more than 10 acres,' and that such ponds belong to the State. As early as 1699 Virginia passed an act (II William III) prohibiting the killing of deer between January and July under a penalty of 500 pounds of tobacco. Maryland followed in 1730 with a provision prohibiting "any person (Indians in amity with us excepted), between January first and July last, to kill any deer under the penalty of 400 pounds of tobacco;" and South Carolina, in 1769, prohibited killing of deer during the same period under a penalty of 40 shillings proclamation money. Both the Maryland and South Carolina acts prohibited night hunting with fire light, as did also the early statutes of Mississippi Territory. The earliest game laws in Kentucky were passed in 1775, and their author was Daniel Boone; the earliest in New York in 1791. The New York law fixed a penalty of 20 shillings for killing heath hen, partridge, quail, or woodcock on Long Island or in the city and county of New York. In the nineteenth century game laws multiplied rapidly. In 1864 they were in force in eighteen States and the District of Columbia, in 1874 in twenty-four, and during the last quarter of the century they

1 Auburn v. Water Power Co., 90 Me. 576.

3

286 Me. 319.

'Whitehead, 'Game Laws' in Hunting in Many Lands, p. 364, 1895.

were extended to practically every State and Territory and to most of the Provinces of Canada. The simple provisions of the earlier statutes are no longer sufficient, and the modern game laws of some of the States are really codes covering such subjects as seasons, methods of capturing game of all kinds, conditions for shipping to market, sale, permits to collect scientific specimens, taking, keeping, and shipping birds and animals for propagation, employment of guides, duties of game commissioners and wardens, besides various provisions necessary for enforcement, such as search, seizure, and disposition of game. These laws are subject to such frequent change that in certain States scarcely a session of the legislature passes without the enactment of amendments of some kind. In 1879 New York adopted a complete and carefully prepared statute which remained in force for fifteen. years or more, but by 1895 no less than 214 amendments or special acts had been passed, and the original law was greatly obscured.1

Without attempting to follow the development of game legislation in detail, the growth of game laws may be illustrated by briefly sketching the changes in those of Maine, now one of the foremost States in legislation of this kind. The first State law of Maine was apparently that of March 16, 1830, which prohibited killing deer and moose between January 1 and September 1, under a penalty of $15. This season was subsequently modified at intervals (see below), but the list of protected game was not extended until 1863, when a close season was provided for quail between March 1 and September 1, and for woodcock between March 1 and July 4. In 1866 protection was given fur-bearing animals, including mink, beaver, sable, fisher, otter, and muskrats. In 1870 protection was accorded caribou, and the bird list was extended by the addition of grouse or partridges, snipe, and a few insectivorous birds, such as larks, robins, swallows, and sparrows. The capture of ducks except with firearms was prohibited. In 1879 plover were added to the game list and a close season (May 1 to September 1), which remained in force for twenty years, was established for wood ducks, dusky or black ducks, and sea ducks. In 1883 the nongame bird list was extended to include orioles or other insectivorous birds, and finally, in 1901, was made to include all wild birds other than game, except crows, hawks, owls, and English sparrows.

As early as 1852 it became necessary to have special officers to enforce the game laws, and county moose wardens were appointed, but in the following year these were replaced by county and town moose wardens. In 1880 the board of commissioners of inland fisheries and game was established, now consisting of three commissioners.

2 It is interesting to observe that this early law recognized the importance of making no distinction between State and imported birds and prohibited buying or selling birds taken in Maine or elsewhere.

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

residents to obtain licenses, and Oregon now licenses nonresident market hunters. 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 mentioned 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.

།

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.

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.

* 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.