BIRD-PROTECTIVE LAWS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT--HOW LAWS ARE MADE
Laws for the protection of wild birds and animals have been enacted in
greater numbers in the United States than in any other country in the
world. In a Government Bulletin on American Game Protection, Dr. T. S.
Palmer states that the earliest game laws were probably the hunting
privileges granted in 1629 by the West India Company to persons
planting colonies in the New Netherlands, and the provisions granting
the right of hunting in the Massachusetts Bay Colonial Ordinance of
1647. As soon as the United States Government was formed, in 1776, the
various States began to make laws on the subject, and these have
increased in numbers with the passing of years. For example, between
the years 1901 to 1910, North {168} Carolina alone passed three hundred
and six different game laws. As various forms of game birds or animals
showed indications of decreasing in numbers new laws were called into
existence in an attempt to conserve the supply for the benefit of the
people. Not infrequently laws were passed offering bounties or
otherwise encouraging the killing of wolves, pumas, and other predatory
animals, or of birds regarded as injurious to growing crops or to
poultry raising.
State laws intended primarily for the protection of wild life may be
grouped as follows: (1) naming the time of the year when various kinds
of game may be hunted; these hunting periods are called "open seasons."
(2) The prohibition of certain methods formally employed in taking
game, as, for example, netting, trapping, and shooting at night. (3)
Prohibiting or regulating the sale of game. By destroying the market
the incentive for much excessive killing is removed. (4) Bag limit;
that is, indicating the number of birds or animals that may be shot in
a day; for example, in Louisiana one may kill twenty-five {169} Ducks
in a day, and in Arizona one may shoot two male deer in a season. (5)
Providing protection at all seasons for useful birds not recognized as
game species.
_Definition of Game._--Game animals as defined today include bears,
coons, deer, mountain sheep, caribou, cougars, musk oxen, white goats,
rabbits, squirrels, opossums, wolves, antelopes, and moose. Game birds
include Swans, Geese, Ducks, Rails, Coots, Woodcocks, Snipes, Plovers,
Curlews, Wild Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants, Partridges, and Quails.
Sometimes other birds or animals have been regarded as game. Robins
and Mourning Doves, for example, are still shot in some of the Southern
States as game birds.
_The Audubon Law._--Little was done in the way of securing laws for the
benefit of song and insectivorous birds and birds of plumage until
1886, when the bird-protection committee of the American
Ornithologists' Union drafted a bill for this specific purpose. This
bill, besides extending protection to all useful {170} non-game birds,
gave the first clear statutory terminology for defining "game birds."
It also provided for the issuing of permits for the collecting of wild
birds and their eggs for scientific purposes. The States of New York
and Massachusetts that year adopted the law. Arkansas followed eleven
years later, but it was not until the Audubon Society workers took up
the subject in 1909 that any special headway was made in getting States
to pass this measure. To-day it is on the statute books of all the
States of the Union but eight, and is generally known as the Audubon
Law.
_Game Law Enforcement._--In all the States but Florida there are
special State officers charged with enforcing the bird and game
protective laws. Usually there is a Game Commission of three or more
members whose duty it is to select an executive officer who in turn
appoints game wardens throughout the State. These men in some cases
are paid salaries, in others they receive only a _per diem_ wage or
receive certain fees for convictions. License {171} fees are usually
required of hunters, and the moneys thus collected form the basis of a
fund used for paying the wardens and meeting the other expenses
incident to the game law enforcement.
_The Lacey Law._--The Federal Government is taking a share of the
responsibility in preserving the wild life of the Union.
On July 2, 1897, Congressman Lacey introduced in the House a bill to
prohibit the export of big game from some of the Western States. In
1909 amendments were made to the Lacey Law, one of which prohibited the
shipment of birds or parts thereof from a State in which they had been
illegally killed, or from which it was illegal to ship them. The
enforcement of this by Federal officers has been most efficacious in
breaking up a great system of smuggling Quails, Grouse, Ducks, and
other game birds.
_Federal Migratory Bird Law._--Probably the most important game law as
yet enacted in the United States is the one known as the Federal
Migratory Game Law or the McLean Law. A somewhat {172} extended
discussion of this important measure seems justifiable at this time.
[Illustration: Migrative Birds Are Protected by the Government]
When, in 1913, the first breath of autumn swept over the tule sloughs
and reedy lakes of the North-west, the wild fowl and shore birds of
that vast region rose in clouds, and by stages began to journey toward
{173} their winter quarters beneath Southern skies. If the older birds
that had often taken the same trip thought anything about the subject,
they must have been impressed, when they crossed the border into the
United States, with the fact that changes had taken place in reference
to shooting.
It is true that in Minnesota, for instance, the firing of guns began in
September, as in other years; but those Ducks that reached the
Mississippi River below St. Paul found no one waiting to kill them. As
they proceeded, by occasional flights, farther down the river there was
still a marked absence of gunners. The same conditions prevailed all
the way down the valley until the sunken grounds of Arkansas and
Mississippi came into view. What did this mean? Heretofore, at this
season, hunters had always lined the river. This had been the case
ever since the oldest Duck could remember. The Missouri River, too,
was free from shooting throughout the greater part of its length, which
was sufficient cause for many a grateful quack.
{174}
What was the reason for this great change? Had the killing of wild
fowl suddenly lost its attraction for those who had been accustomed to
seek pleasure afield with gun and decoys? No, indeed, banish the
thought, for it is written that so long as man shall live, Wild Duck
shall grace his table and gratify his palate.
The remarkable changes which had so affected the fortunes of the wild
fowl were due to the enactment of a United States law known as the
Federal Migratory Game Law. Let us see something of this law and of
what led to its establishment.
_History of Game Laws._--When the United States of America became a
free and independent nation the lawmakers in various commonwealths soon
addressed themselves to the task of enacting protective measures for
insuring the continuance of the supply of desirable game birds and
animals. But as the years went by, and the game showed every
indication of continuing to decrease despite the measures that had been
adopted for their benefit, other and more stringent game laws were
enacted.
{175}
In the fullness of time there came into being in every state in the
Union an extensive, complex system of prohibitive measures regarding
seasons for hunting, methods of killing, size of bag limit,
restrictions on sale, and limiting the kinds of game that might be
killed.
Many states also went into the business of rearing, in a condition of
semi-captivity. Pheasants, grouse, Hungarian Partridges, Quail, Ducks,
and some other species of birds highly esteemed as food, the object of
this being to restock covers that had been depleted of bird-life by
excessive shooting, or to supply new attraction for field-sports in
regions where other game was limited.
Theoretically the methods adopted by the several states were sure to
keep the numbers of game birds up to a point where a reasonable amount
of sport might be engaged in by those of our citizens who enjoy the
excitement and recreation of going afield with gun and dog. It could
easily be proven on paper that by judiciously regulating the shooting,
{176} and having this conform to the available game supply, every state
could at one and the same time preserve the different species, and
furnish satisfactory shooting for its sportsmen.
But in practice the theory failed to work as expected; the gunners were
on hand every fall in increasing numbers but the birds continued to
grow scarcer.
In the vernacular of the sportsman, birds that may legitimately be shot
are divided for convenience into three groups, viz., upland game birds,
water fowl, and shore birds. It is in reference to the fortunes of the
water fowl and shore birds that the greatest apprehension has been
felt. Approximately all of the species concerned are of migratory
habits. The open seasons when these may be hunted vary greatly in
different states and all attempts to get anything like uniform laws in
the various hunting territories have been attended with failure.
It became clear in time that the most important action that could be
taken to conserve these birds {177} was to prohibit shooting during the
spring migration, when the birds were on their way to their northern
breeding grounds. Some states adopted this measure and the results
bore out the predictions of those who urged the passage of such laws.
New York State, for example, tried the experiment, and within two years
thousands of Black Ducks were breeding where for a long time they had
not been known to occur in summer. So the feeling became general among
bird protectors that it would be an excellent thing if spring shooting
of all migratory game birds should be stopped everywhere. But the
legislatures of many states paid small heed to the little minority of
their constituents who voiced such sentiments, and the problem of how
to bring about the desired results remained unsolved.
[Illustration: Egret brooding on a Florida island owned and guarded by
the Audubon Society.]
_The Theory of Shiras._--In the year 1904 a United States Congressman
announced to the country that he had found the proper solution for
settling once and for all the question of spring shooting, and for
putting to an end the ceaseless wrangling that {178} continually went
on in the various legislatures when the subject was brought up. This
gentleman, George Shiras, 3rd, planned to cut the Gordian knot by
turning over to the Federal Government the entire subject of making
laws regarding the killing of migratory game birds.
In December that year he introduced a bill in Congress covering his
ideas on the subject. This radical proposition created merriment in
certain legal circles. Was it not written in the statutes of nearly
every state that the birds and game belong to the people of the state?
Therefore what had the Government to do with the subject? Furthermore,
were there not numerous court decisions upholding the authority of the
states in their declarations of ownership of the birds and game?
Others saw in this move only another attempt toward increasing the
power of the central government, and depriving the states further of
their inalienable rights. This remarkable document was discussed to
some extent but nothing was done. Four years later {179} Congressman
John W. Weeks reintroduced the bill with slight modifications. Nothing
came of this any more than of the bill that he started going in 1909.
In 1911 he again brought forward this pet measure toward which Congress
had so often turned a cold shoulder. Senator George P. McLean set a
similar bill afloat in the troubled waters of the Senate. Nothing
happened, however, until the spring of 1912, when committee hearings
were given on these bills in both branches of Congress.
Representatives of more than thirty organizations interested in
conservation appeared and eloquently sought to impress the national
lawmakers with the importance and desirability of the measure. Both
bills were intended for the protection of migratory game birds only,
but the representative of the National Association of Audubon Societies
urged that the bills be extended to include all migratory insect-eating
birds, because of their value to agriculture. This suggestion was
adopted and after a stiff fight in Congress the McLean Bill became a
law on March 4, 1913.
{180}
This new federal statute did not in itself change any of the existing
game laws, but it gave authority to certain functionaries to make such
regulations as they deemed wise, necessary, and proper to extend better
protection to all migratory game and insect-eating birds in the United
States. The Secretary of Agriculture, to whose department this unusual
duty was assigned, read the law thoughtfully, concluded that the task
did not come within the bounds of his personal capabilities, and very
wisely turned the whole matter over to a committee of three experts
chosen from one of the department bureaus and known as the Biological
Survey.
_The Work of the Committee._--This committee at once began the
preparation of a series of regulations to give effect to the new
statute. Drawing extensively from the records stored in the Survey
offices, and seasoning these with their own good judgment and knowledge
of existing conditions, they brought out in a period of three months
and nine days, or to be more precise, on June 23, 1913, a set of ten
{181} regulations which, in many ways, have revolutionized shooting in
the United States.
These were printed in pamphlet form and distributed widely; for before
they could have the effect of laws it was necessary that they should be
advertised for a period of at least three months in order to give all
dissatisfied parties an opportunity to be heard.
The whole idea of the Government taking over the matter of protecting
migratory birds, as well as the startling character of some of the
regulations promulgated by the committee was justly expected to bring
forth either great shouts of approbation or a storm of disapproval, and
possibly both sounds might be heard. As long experience has shown that
it is necessary to have public opinion approve of a game law if it is
to be effective, one can well understand that, following the mailing of
the circular of rules, these gentlemen of the committee stood with hand
to brow and anxiously scanned the distant horizon. Nor did they have
long to wait before {182} critical rumblings began to be heard in many
directions, for it is always hard for men to give up privileges which
they have once enjoyed.
In fact, as the committee waited, the sky began rapidly to fill with
interrogation points; for it has ever been the case that the
dissatisfied ones of earth are louder in their objections than are the
satisfied ones in their commendations.
As a matter of fact, the regulations on the whole were remarkable for
their clearness, directness, and fairness. They came nearer being
formed for the benefit of the birds instead of for the pleasure and
convenience of the hunters, than any general far-reaching
bird-protective measure, which has been enacted in this country.
For the purpose of the regulations, migratory game birds were defined
as Ducks, Geese, Swans, Rails, Coots, Pigeons, Cranes, and shore birds,
which included Plover, Snipe, Woodcock, and Sandpipers. Migratory
insectivorous birds were enumerated as Thrushes, Orioles, Larks,
Swallows, Wrens, {183} Woodpeckers, and all other perching birds that
feed entirely or chiefly on insects.
Having thus conveniently classified migratory birds into two easily
comprehensible and distinguishable groups, the way was open to deal
with them separately and distinctively. Therefore, after declaring it
to be illegal to kill any bird of either class between sunset and
sunrise, the regulations went on to state that insect-eating birds
shall not be killed in any place or in any manner, even in the daytime.
Among other things this provision, by one stroke, completed the
campaign which the Audubon Society had been waging for long years on
behalf of the Robin. In Maryland, North Carolina, Mississippi,
Louisiana and Tennessee, the Robin-potpie-loving inhabitants must in
future content themselves with such game birds as Quail, Grouse, Wild
Turkeys, and Ducks. The life of Sir Robin Redbreast has now been
declared to be sacred everywhere. He and his mate are to dwell beneath
the protection of the strong arm of the United States Government.
{184} Another feature of the Audubon work was also completed by this
section of the new regulations. This is the safeguarding of all song
and insect-eating birds in the States of Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah,
Arizona, Nebraska, Kansas, and New Mexico, constituting the group of
states whose legislatures had thus far withstood the importunities of
the Audubon workers to extend protection to such birds.
Regulation Number Four provided for an absolute closed hunting season
on sixty-two species of water birds until September, 1918.
The above includes what we might call some of the minor regulations
proposed by the Biological Survey Committee. Then comes the big
regulation, the one which was of absorbing interest to every member of
the vast army of five million hunters in the United States. This is
the regulation which divides the country into zones and prescribes the
shooting seasons in each. Touching on this point the Government
experts already mentioned gave out this statement by way of explanation:
{185}
_Government Explanations._--"More than fifty separate seasons for
migratory birds were provided under statutes in force in 1912. This
multiplicity of regulations of zones to suit special localities has
apparently had anything but a beneficial effect on the abundance of
game. The effort to provide special seasons for each kind of game in
each locality merely makes a chain of open seasons for migratory birds
and allows the continued destruction of such birds from the beginning
of the first season to the close of the last. It is believed that
better results will follow the adoption of the fewest possible number
of zones and so regulating the seasons in each as to include the time
when such species is in the best condition or at the maximum of
abundance during the autumn. For this reason the country has been
divided into two zones, as nearly equal as possible, one to include the
states in which migratory game birds breed, or would breed if given
reasonable protection, the other the states in which comparatively few
species breed, but in which many winter. {186} Within these zones the
seasons are fixed for the principal natural groups, water fowl, Rails,
shore birds, and Woodcock. In no case does the zone boundary cross a
state line, and except in very rare cases the seasons are uniform
throughout the states."
With few changes the regulations were finally adopted. Wherever the
federal law conflicted with a state law, the former was regarded as
supreme, and to make things more generally uniform the states have
since been changing their laws to conform to the Government
regulations. After being tried out for three years these rules
recently were modified by making five shooting zones and altering
certain other provisions. These last regulations which became
effective on August 21, 1916, to-day stand as the law of the land
affecting migratory birds.
To the United States Biological Survey was intrusted the task of
enforcing the law by means of game wardens and other officials. That
is, the survey was to collect the evidence in cases of violations, and
the prosecutions were to be conducted {187} by the Department of
Justice. To enable these officials to execute the law, Congress has
appropriated $50,000 annually--which is just about one tenth the
minimum amount needed for the purpose. This paltry sum has been
expended as judiciously as possible with marked results for good.
Trouble, however, soon developed in the courts. One autumn day Harvey
C. Schauver went a-hunting on Big Lake, Arkansas, and finding no Ducks
handy he shot a Coot, which was against the law. When the case came up
in the Federal Court of Eastern Arkansas, the judge who presided
declared that the federal law under which the defendant was being tried
was unconstitutional, and wrote a lengthy decision, giving his reasons
for holding this view. Within the next two months two other federal
courts rendered similar decisions.
At this point the Department of Justice decided to bring no further
cases to trial until the United States Supreme Court should pass on the
constitutionality of the law, the Arkansas case having {188} already
been brought before this tribunal. At this writing the decision has
not been rendered.
_Only Bird Treaty in the World._--Early in the history of the
operations of this law the possibilities of an adverse decision by the
Supreme Court were considered by those interested in the measure, and a
plan was found whereby all might not be lost if such a catastrophe
should occur. The first movement in this new direction was made by
Elihu Root on January 14, 1913, when he introduced in the Senate a
resolution requesting the President to propose to the other governments
the negotiation of a convention for the protection of birds. A
proposed bird treaty between this country and Canada was then drawn up,
and after much effort was brought to a successful issue and was finally
ratified by Congress on September 29, 1916.
This treaty broadly covers the provisions of the Migratory Bird Law in
this country, so if the Supreme Court declares the latter to be invalid
the Government still stands committed to the {189} principals of
migratory bird-protection by virtue of the treaty.
So the long fight to stop spring shooting and provide short uniform
closed seasons for shooting shore birds and wild fowl is drawing to a
glorious conclusion.
To-day, in the history of wild-life conservation, we have before us the
unusual spectacle of the United States Government taking a serious hand
in a problem which had been found to be too difficult of solution by
the different states working separately. Many of us believe this
predicts a brighter day for the perpetuation of the wild life of our
country.
{190}