Federal protection of migratory birds

NRLF

FEDERAL PHOOSCTIOIT OF
MIG-RATOHY B 153)2

By Geo. A, Lav;yer

U.S.D.A. Ho* 785

1919

v'ldi:: fV

FEDERAL PROTECTION OF
MIGRATORY BIRDS

BY

GEORGE A. LAWYER
Chief U. S. Game Warden, Bureau of Biological Survey

CONTENTS

Page

Bird Protection an Economic Question 3

State Protection of Birds 3

Federal Migratory-Bird Law of 1913 and Its Repeal 6

The Migratory-Bird Treaty 7

The Migratory-Bird Treaty Act 8

Regulations Under the Treaty Act 10

Game Farming 13

Control of Bird Depredations 14

Administration of the Law 15

Future Outlook for Migratory Birds . 16

Separate from Yearbook of the
Department of Agriculture, 1918

No. 785

WASHINQTON : QOVERNMENT PRINTINQ OFFICE : I9I9

/1/§>S

;§trip..-I'oie=u3 . xviaiaiitoiy

fcl

FEDERAL PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY BIRDS.

*""* By George A. Lawyer,

*f< Chief U. S. Game Warden, Bureau of Biological Survey.

^ BIRD PROTECTION AN ECONOMIC QUESTION.

THE MYRIADS of migratory birds that fairly astounded
the early explorers of this country before its virgin
forests had been destroyed, its green fields trodden to dust
by the feet of tramping millions, or its silences broken by
the din of thousands of cities, have inspired the writing of
volumes of literature. These volumes have told of the
wanton and thoughtless slaughter of the birds, and have
given warning of their certain disappearance with the set-
tlement of the country and the usurpation of the forests,
fields, and streams that had f-urnished shelter, food, and
breeding places for these feathered hosts. Other volumes
have set forth the steps that should be taken to save the birds
from the ultimate extinction threatened by the acts of people
ignorant of their real economic value, and have told of
the annual destruction of millions of dollars' worth of for-
ests and crops by injurious insects formerly kept under sub-
jection by the birds. Yet all the while the birds were actu-
ally being exterminated, in spite of such protection as could
• be afforded by the law^s of various States.

The food value and economic importance of the migratory
birds of the United States, amounting to many millions of
dollars annually, justify the widespread interest in their
preservation. Not less important is the esthetic value of
birds — the inspiration and stimulus which they give to the
moral sense, and the charm and beauty which they lend to
the life of all our people. Researches by the Bureau of
Biological Survey into the economic value of insectivorous
birds have proved that they insure the farmer against out-
breaks of insect pests, a most serious menace to the agricul-
tural wealth of the country. Valuable in other ways are the
game birds, which not only furnish delightful and pleasing
recreation to the great army of American sportsmen, but add
materially to the food supply of millions of people.

STATE PROTECTION OF BIRDS.

The measures necessary to insure adequate protection for
bird life have been well known, but diversified and selfish

104429°— 19 1 3

^

y

4 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

interests have prevented the States from putting these meas-
ures into effect. The protection of birds during the mating
season and while on their way to and from their breeding
grounds has been of prime importance, but until recent years
few States have given much attention to this important
matter. In fact, any protection by a closed season on hunt-
ing is in a large number of States comparatively recent,
owing to the generally accepted but erroneous belief that
migratory birds need no protection and can be hunted when-
ever present from the time they make their first appearance
in spring and fall.

The growth of sentiment for the conservation of so valu-
able a resource by preventing destruction through spring
shooting of game birds, and by enacting other protective
measures, has been notable in the last half century. The
number of States affording waterfowl no legal protection
has come to be in invei*se ratio to the number prohibiting
all spring shooting, wliile between these extremes are all
gradations, including partial protection of all species and
the permission of more or less spring shooting. The various
phases are readily compared by decades in the accompanying
tabulation covering the 10-year periods since 1870 :

mate protection of waterfowl at the end of lO-year periods from 1870
to 1910 and in 1912 and 1918, us reflected hy various phases of legis-
lation of the 48 States or of legislation for the territory now covered
by them.

Phases of legislation.

Number of States in the years—

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1912

1918

Prohibiting all spring shooting.

1

5

2
3

5
1

1
1

9

1
1
1

14

18

31

Prohibiting all spring shooting but protecting
only a few species

Prohibitiiig spring shooting of a few but pro-
tecting aU species

2
1

1

24
6

1

Permitting spring shooting but protecting only
a few species

2

-

Permitting spring sheeting but protecting a
few or all species locallj'

1

25
3

1

13
3

Permitting spring shooting but protecting all
species

6
36

17
24

23

17

26
10

ACfording no l€^al protection whatever

Federal Protection of Migratory Birds. 5

The number of States making efforts to prohibit spring /
shooting fluctuated from year to year, and some States fre-
quently changed columns. Furthermore, the progress was
slow and uncertain, and the laws were not always well en-
forced. In this progress, our shorebirds have been among
the most sadly neglected. Many of the smaller species have
not been protected in spring. It thus appears that while
birds are adequately protected by the laws of some States,
their migratory instincts and seasonal movements are such
that the open seasons under State laws added together per-
mit birds to be killed over parts of their entire range during
every month of the year.

Unreasonably long open seasons for wild fowl prevail in
13 States, varying in length from five to seven and one-half
months. No species can long withstand the drain of inces-
sant shooting during such long open seasons; and the de-
struction of the breeding grounds of the birds, the increased
number of hunters, modern firearms, and improved methods
of transportation to regions hitherto remote have made prac-
tically certain the utter extermination of our migratory
birds if they receive only such protection as the States alone
are able to afford.

FEDERAL MIGRATORY-BIRD LAW OF 1913 AND ITS REPEAL.

The long and futile efforts of the States finally convinced ^
State game commissioners, sportsmen, conservationists, and
others that the uniform and adequate preservation of mi-
gratory birds and an equalization of hunting opportunities
depended upon the exercise of a supervisory jurisdiction on
the part of the Federal Government. To this end a bill
was introduced in Congress in 1904, but it was so novel in
its objects and legal character that it failed of passage, y
From the time of its introduction, however, the subject was
kept before Congress in one form or another almost con-
tinuously until the enactment of the migratory-bird law
of 1913.

This Federal statute merely conferred on the United States /
Department of Agriculture the power to fix closed seasons
during which it would be unlawful to capture or kill migra-
tory birds. For this reason, it proved very imperfect and

6 Yearhooh of the DepartTnent of Agriculture.

quite incapable of effective enforcement, but it exerted a
wonderful influence upon the public mind, ai^d its passage
laid the first real foundation for the actual preservation of
our migratory birds.

The regulations adopted under this act enjoined spring
shooting throughout the United States, and the extent of
their observance is a splendid tribute to the sportsmen of the
/country. Fully 95 per cent of the sportsmen abided by this
^ mandate and refrained from hunting during the closed sea-
sons. The result was almost instantaneous. Waterfowl and
other migratory game birds at once not only showed a
marked increase in numbers, but, owing to the cessation of
spring shooting, remained unmolested in ever-increasing
numbers to breed in places from which formerly they had
been driven every spring by incessant shooting. At the end
of the 5-year period during which this law was in opera-
tion. State game commissioners, leading sportsmen, and con-
servationists were practically unanimous in their expression
that wild fowl were more abundant than at any time in the
25 years preceding, and in attributing this increase to the
abolition of spring shooting and the general observance of
the Federal statute.

The very marked improvement in conditions under this
law instilled a new spirit- into sportsmen and showed the
wonderful possibilities under a Federal law broad and com-
' prehensive enough not only to protect the birds during the
mating and breeding season, but to equalize hunting privi-
leges and opportunities by removing the incongruities still
existing under State laws.

The constitutionality of the law was attacked in the
courts, but before it was passed upon by the United States
Supreme Court the law was repealed by the enactment of
more effective legislation in 1918. The constitutionality of
the law of 1913 thus became a dead issue and on motion of
the Attorney General the appeal in the case ^ was dismissed
on January 6, 1919. In its action the court did not pass
upon the constitutionality of the law and this, now remains
a moot question.

* United States V9. Harry Shanver.

Federal Protection of Migratory Birds. ' 7

THE MIGRATORY-BIRD TREATY.

When the migratory-bird law was passed, sportsmen and
conservationists had in mind the enactment not only of a
more comprehensive Federal statute but of uniform inter-
national legislation, such legislation as would insure ade-
quate protection to birds on their breeding grounds and in
their winter homes. To this end the United States Senate
in 1913 adopted a resolution memorializing the President to
negotiate treaties with other countries for the protection of
migratory birds. As a result of negotiation thus initiated
a treaty between the United States and Great Britain for the
protection of birds migrating between the United States and
Canada was concluded at Washington, August 16, 1916, and
ratified December 7 of the same year. Altogether, 537 i/
species 'of migi^atory birds are included in the various fami-
lies protected by the treaty, and all individual birds of
each of these families or species are included, even though
a few individuals may be found within the borders of any
State the entire year. In other words, if a few individuals
of any species of migratory bird remain for an indefinite
period in a particular State this fact does not take from
them their migratory character and thus remove them from
the operation of the law.

BIRDS NOT PROTECTED BY THE TREATY.

The treaty does not, however, include the gallinaceous
birds, as quail, pheasants, grouse, and wild turkeys, and
these still remain wholly within the jurisdiction of the sev-
eral States. Approximately 220 species of migratory birds /
also are excluded from the terms of the treaty because they
are not specifically named or do not feed chiefly or entirely
on insects. Included among the unprotected birds are the
skimmer, albatross, tropic bird, anhinga, cormorant, pelican,
man-o'-war bird, flamingo, roseate spoonbill, ibis, jabiru,
limpkin, hawk, owl, parrot, trogon, kingfisher, becard, horned
lark, crow, jay, starling, blackbird, sparrow, phainopepla,
thrasher, and mockingbird.

••••• •• ••

•• ••• ••••••

8 Yearbooh of tJie Department of Agriculture.

TERMS or THE TREATY.

The treaty provides for continuous protection for migra-
tory insectivorous birds and certain other migratory non-
game birds; special protection for 5 years for wood ducks
and eider ducks; a 10-year closed season for band-tailed
pigeons, little brown, sandhill, and whooping cranes, swans,
curlews, willet, upland plover, and all other shorebircls (ex-
cept black-bellied and golden plovers, Wilson snipe or jack-
snipe, woodcock, and the greater and lesser yellow-legs) ; and
confines hunting to seasonable periods of not exceeding three
and one-half months for the shorebirds not given absolute
protection, and other migratory game birds.

THE MIGRATORY-BIRD TREATY ACT.

The treaty provides no machinery to enforce its provisions,
but the High Contracting Powers agreed to enact necessary
legislation to insure its execution. In pursuance of this
agreement, the Government of the Dominion of Canada
passed the migratory-birds' convention act, which became a
law on August 29, 1917; and the Congress of the United
States passed the migratory-bird treaty act, approved by
the President on July 3, 1918. The enactment of this legis-
lation rounded out the most comprehensive and adequate
scheme for the protection of birds ever put into effect.

Under the migratory-bird treaty act, it is unlawful to
hunt, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, ship, or transport
at any time or by any means any migratory bird included in
the terms of the treaty except as permitted by regulations
which the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and di-
rected to adopt, and which become effective when approved
by the President. The act provides police and other powers
necessary for its effective enforcement.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TREATY ACT.

If it is conceded, as it must be, that valuable game and
insectivorous birds which migrate between the United States
and Canada are a proper subject for the negotiation of a
treaty, there seems to be little likelihood that the migratory-

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1918.

PLATE I.

° 2

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1918.

PLATE II.

PHOTO BY HERBERT K. JOB. BII47M

FIG. 1.— SCENE IN A TYPICAL HUNTING SECTION OF THE NORTHWEST.
Mallards in slough by Lake Winnipegosis, Manitoba.

PHOTO BY HERBERT K. JOB. BII46M

FIG. 2.— LESSER SCAUP DUCKS, PALM BEACH, FLA.
When protected, wild ducks become remarkably tame.

1» •*

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1918.

PLATE III.

\^^

f 1

-J o

I- 2

-1- rs

< o

I

tu '3
CO -

Federal Protection of Migratory Birds. 9

bird treaty act of July 3, 1918, will be effectively attacked on
the grounds of constitutionality, because the Constitution of
the United States provides that "... all treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority of the United States
shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitu-
tion or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

EFFECT OF THE TREATY ACT ON STATE LAWS.

The migratory-bird treaty act renders inoperative all State
and local laws that are inconsistent with it, but it authorizes ^X^
the several States to make and enforce laws not inconsistent
with the terms of the act or of the treaty, which shall give
further protection to migratory birds and their nests and
eggs ; but the open seasons may not be extended by the States
beyond the dates fixed by the Federal regulations.

The Federal Government in effect has assumed a limited ^
jurisdiction over migratory birds in order to insure their
adequate protection. The States may not permit anything
to be done which is prohibited by the Federal Government,
but they may enact and enforce laws or take other measures
conforming to the provisions of the Federal regulations or
not in conflict with the operation of the Federal law.

It seems quite clear that no State or subdivision of a State
can permit migratory birds to be hunted, killed, possessed,
sold, or transported at times, by means, or in numbers made
unlawful by the Federal act, but confusion arises from the
existence, at the time of the enactment of the Federal statute,
of closed seasons under State laws which overlapped either
wholly or in part the open seasons prescribed by the Federal
regulations. If it is clear that a person is not authorized to
hunt migratory birds during that portion of a State open
season which is a part of a Federal closed season, it must be
equally clear that a person may not hunt during that por-
tion of the Federal open season which is included in the
State closed season, as hunting during that time would be
in violation of a law which the State is authorized to make
and enforce.

To ascertain the period when migratory birds may be
hunted without violating either Federal or State laws, there

10 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

must be deducted from the Federal open season that portion
of a State closed season which is included in it.

The right of a State to circumscribe the privileges per-
mitted by the Federal regulations extends also to daily bag
limits, possession, transportation, and export of birds. Per-
sons committing acts permitted by the Federal regulations
but prohibited by State laws are amenable, however, to the
State, and are not subject to prosecution by the Federal
Government.

INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN BIRDS.

That portion of the United States Penal Code known as
the Lacey Act, which prohibits the illegal interstate ship-
ment by common carrier of dead bodies of wild birds, has
also been superseded by the treaty act, which prohibits the
carriage or shipment of both dead and live birds (migratory
as well as nonmigratory) out of a State by any means what-
ever contrary to the laws of the State in w^hich the birds
were killed, or from which they were carried or shipped.

The provision of the Lacey Act relating to the interstate
shipment of wild animals and parts thereof and the penalty
for knowingly receiving illegal shipments still remain in
force.

REGULATIONS UNDER THE TREATY ACT.

The first regulations under the migratory-bird treaty act
were adopted by the Secretary of Agriculture, after careful
consideration of recommendations and suggestions, and be-,
came effective on the approval of the President, July 31,
1918. Amendments were adopted effective October 25, 1918.

The regulations are prepared by the Secretary of Agricul-
ture, with the assistance of the Bureau of Biological Survey
and an advisory board of 21 members representing all sec-
tions of the country, a majority being State game commis-
sioners or their representatives and the remainder well-
known sportsmen and conservationists of wide experience.
The members of the board possess no administrative or ex-
ecutive powers, but their thorough knowledge of conditions
and requirements enables them to offer valuable suggestions
in connection with the preparation of the regulations. Reg-
ulations thus prepared are calculated not only to give ade-

Federal Protection of Migratory Birds. 11

quate protection to the birds, but also the highest degree of
satisfaction to the greatest number of sportsmen and others
interested in the conservation of our migratory birds.

SEASONS FOR KILLING MIGRATORY BIRDS.

The only migratory game birds that under the regulations
may be lawfully hunted are waterfowl (except wood duck,
eider ducks, and swans), rails, coot, gallinules, black-bellied
and golden plovers, greater and lesser yellow-legs, woodcock,
Wilson snipe or jacksnipe, and mourning and white-winged
doves. Practically uniform periods, not exceeding three
and one-half months, between September 1 and February 1,
are prescribed as the open seasons for hunting these birds,
except that the open season for black-bellied and golden
plovers and greater and lesser yellow-legs in the States
bordering on the Atlantic Ocean and situated wholly or in
part north of Chesapeake Bay is from August 16 to Novem-
ber 30 (figs. 1 and 2).

RESTRICTIONS ON TAKING, POSSESSING, AND TRANSPORTING BIRDS.

Under the law and regulations, it is unlawful to capture
or kill migratory game birds, except with a gun not larger
than No. 10-gauge, or to hunt, kill, or attempt to hunt or kill
birds from airplanes, power boats, sailboats, or any boat under
sail. Power boats and sailboats may be used to take gun-
ners to and from the hunting grounds, but shooting or at-
tempting to shoot migratory birds from them is prohibited.
Nor can such boats be used to harry, worry, or disturb the
birds in any manner.

Uniform bag and export limits are fixed by the regula-
tions. Under the export regulations, not exceeding two days'
bag limit may be sent out of a State by one person in one
calendar week. No restrictions are placed on the number of
birds that may be shipped within the limits of a State, such
shipments being governed entirely by State laws.

Any package in which migratory game birds or parts
thereof are transported or carried, whether within or with-
out a State, must have conspicuously marked on the outside
the names and addresses of shipper and consignee and an
accurate statement of the numbers and kinds of birds con-
tained.

12 Tearbooh of the Department of Agriculture.

V-'-y-'A OCT.l-J/iN, 15
^M OCT. I6-J/1N.3I

SEPT.I6- DEC.3I
NOV. I -J/^N. 31

Fig. 1. — Open seasons fixed by Federal regulations adopted in 1918 for
waterfowl (except wood duck, eider ducks, and swans), coot, galliuules, and
Wilson snipe or jacksnipe. Wood ducks, eider ducks, and swans are pro-
tected for a term of years under the provisions of a treaty between the
United States and Great Britain for the protection of birds migrating
between the United States and Canada.

SEPT.I6-DEC.3I
\SEPT.I-DEC.I5

]0CT.I-J/JN.I6

/1UG.I6-N0V.30
NOV.I-J/IN.31

Fig. 2. — Open seasons fixed by the Federal regulations adopted in 1918 for
black-bellied and golden plovers and greater and lesser yellow-legs.

Federal ProtecHon of Migratory Birds. 13

SALE OF MIGRATORY BIRDS PROHIBITED.

The hunting of migratory game birds for the market has
contributed perhaps more than any other cause to the de-
pletion of the supply, and has created an almost universal
demand for laws prohibiting their sale. As a necessary
measure to conserve the supply and increase the breeding
stock, the regulations do not provide for the sale of any
migratory birds, except for scientific or propagating pur-
poses under permit, and as a consequence it is unlawful to
sell wild ducks or other migratory birds for commercial
purposes anywhere in the United States. For many years
most States have had laws prohibiting the sale of game dur-
ing part or all of the year, but the open markets in near-by
States made it profitable for the market hunter to continue
in his destructive vocation, as it was always possible for him
surreptitiously to ship the birds to the markets where they
could be sold lawfully. The closing of the markets will
make it more difficult to dispose of the birds and will remove
the incentive to slaughter them in such large numbers. This
prohibition against the sale of migratory birds has been very
generally approved by sportsmen and conservationists and
by the United States Food Administration.

GAME FARMING.

'The general prohibition against the sale of migratory
birds has created a great demand for domesticated birds to
supply the market. To meet these demands, the regulations
under the treaty act make suitable and liberal provisions for
the propagation of migratory waterfowl. These provisions
apply to all persons who possess migratory waterfowl for
any purpose.

Permits are issued free of charge by the Secretary of Ag-
riculture, through the Bureau of Biological Survey, author-
izing persons to acquire a limited number of wild water-
fowl, to be used as the nucleus of a breeding stock or to
strengthen the strain of birds already possessed, and to pos-
sess and traffic in domesticated migratory waterfowl for food
purposes.

Aside from the necessity of obtaining Federal permits,
marking packages in which the birds or eggs are shipped,
and reporting to the Secretary of Agriculture on operations

14 Yearbook of the DepartTnent of Agriculture.

under the permits, the breeding and traffic in the birds is
carried on entirely under the supervision of the several
States.

The fact that many States have enacted no laws on the
subject, together with lack of uniformity in the laws of
other States, has deterred many persons from engaging in
the business, but it has been demonstrated that many species
of waterfowl, particularly black and mallard ducks, can be
raised profitably on lands unsuited to agriculture and
also in connection with agricultural pursuits. There seems
to be a growing sentiment in favor of more uniform leg-
islation on the subject in order that domesticated birds
may reach the markets with the least inconvenience to the
breeders, while at the same time the protection of wild birds
may be safeguarded properly. This could be accomplished
in a simple and inexpensive manner if a marking and tag-
ging system, similar to one that has been in successful op-
eration in New York State for many years, were adopted.
Enactment of proper laws by all States, giving full recog-
nition to this legitimate business, would encourage persons
to propagate wild fowl in captivity, thus materially adding
to the food supply and affording a pleasant and profitable
occupation for a large number of people.

CONTROL OF BIRD DEPREDATIONS.

Despite the almost general usefulness of birds, certain
species at times become seriously injurious to crops in some
localities. Recognizing the importance of controlling such
, / depredations, the regulations make suitable provision for the
issuance of permits to kill any migratory birds which become
seriously injurious to agricultural or other interests, but the
birds so killed can not be shipped or sold.

The control of the depredations of wild ducks in the rice
fields of California during the fall of 1918 furnishes a strik-
ing example of the successful operation of this provision of
the law. After a careful investigation of conditions in the
rice belt, a blanket Federal permit was issued authorizing
rice growers to kill wild ducks when necessary to protect the
rice from damage. This permit insured the rice growers
protection from the destruction threatening their crops,
while the restrictions carried in the permit regarding ship-
ment and sale afforded the birds ample protection.

Federal Protection of Migratory Birds. 15

In the Southeastern States a similar destruction of rice
fields has threatened in the invasions of hosts of bobolinks,
commonly known there in fall as rice birds and farther
north as reed birds. During the spring and summer months
the bobolink renders valuable services as a destroyer of
injurious insects, but late in the summer and in fall it
changes its habits and inflicts serious damage to crops, espe-
cially in certain Southeastern States, where rice growing
has again begun to flourish. An investigation by the Bio-
logical Survey showed that the depredations of the bobolink
in the fall of 1918 resulted in losses to rice growers in this
section of about $150,000. The birds descended on the rice
fields in such numbers and were so heedless of efforts to
drive them away that it was apparent that the only effectual
remedy would be to shoot them when in the rice belt and
when migrating in that direction.

The Secretary of Agriculture, therefore, issued a permit
on January 17, 1919, authorizing the shooting of bobolinks
from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset from September
1 to October 30 in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, and the District of Columbia ; and from August
16 to November 15 in Virginia, North Carolina, South Caro-
lina, Georgia, and Florida. Birds so killed are not to be
sold, offered for sale, shipped for sale, or wantonly destroyed.
They may be used as food by persons killing them or they
may be transported for the use of hospitals or charitable
institutions. It is believed that action taken under this
permit will insure rice growers against the depredations of
the bobolink without endangering the species.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.

In the Bureau of Biological Survey, which has direct
charge of the enforcement of the law, are many unusual
advantages for administering its provisions. For years this
bureau has been investigating the relation of birds to agri-
culture, their breeding habits, and the times and lines of
their migratory flights. It now has about a million and a
half migration cards covering a period of nearly 35 years,
constituting undoubtedly the most valuable record of this
kind in existence. It is also well equipped through its corps
of experts and hundreds of collaborators in all parts of the

16

Yearbook of the Department of Agricultn/re.

country to carry on these investigations. A situation pre-
sented by unusual conditions occurring in any part of the
country is carefully investigated and its relation to condi-
tions in other localities determined. The results of these
investigations are disseminated through bulletins and other
channels for the benefit of the people of all parts of the
country. The bureau is now maintaining most cordial rela-
tions with the game authorities of nearly all States, and
its entire policy is along the line of assisting States to build
up and maintain their bird resources.

FUTURE OUTLOOK FOR MIGRATORY BIRDS.

The Federal laws that have been enacted for the protec-
tion of migratory birds will, without doubt, go a long way
toward insuring a supply for all time, but the interests of the
several States are so inseparably related to the interests of
the National Government that all efforts to conserve these
birds should be coordinated if the fullest measure of success
is to be attained. Much already has been done along this
line. The open seasons for wild fowl in 25 States have been
made to conform to the seasons under the Federal regula-
tions, and in many other States game commissioners and
sportsmen have manifested a spirit of cooperation in game
conservation that fairly indicates a very general sentiment
favoring uniformity in State and Federal laws.

"V^Hiile the results already achieved are very gratifying, the
future promises to restore our migratory birds to such num-
bers as will afford abundant legitimate sport, recreation,
and enjoyment for all the people.

RETURN TO the circulation desk of any
University of California Library
or to the
NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station
University of California
Richmond, CA 94804-4698

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS

• 2-month loans may be renewed by calling
(510)642-6753

• 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing
books to NRLF

• Renewals and recharges may be made 4
days prior to due date.

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

APR 2 6 2003

12.000(11/95)