The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1911-02-02
PROTECTION OF
MIGRATORY BIRDS.
Mr.. F'Orbush Advocates Control by
National Laws.

E. H. Forbush, the New England
agent Of the National Association Of
Audubon Societies. writes as follows
on '"The Protection Of Migratory
birds:
1t is said that our game and bird
laws have failed. If so the fault
lies primarily in our Republican
form of governm emit. A wise and
have conserved the game and birds
He would have compelled us to pro-
tect them. The trainers of the con-
stitution showed no forethought re-
garding the protection of our nation
al resources, but left such matters to
evolved at haphazard by the people of
the different states and so there came
about a heterogeneous tumble of con-
1icting statutes, continually juggled
and arranged not so much to protect
the game and birds as to protect the
them. This hodgepodge Of game
laws applied to states or to counties
towns, streams, lakes, bays or shores
only gave real protection to certain
kinds of resident game until recent
years. The people never see the ne
cessity of protecting migratory bird
until the species is nearly extinct and
sometimes not even then. Real pro-
tective laws for the passenger pigeon
and the wild turkey were enacted in
d lew states dlteT TIE DlTuS were
practically gone The great flocks
of the Eskimo curlew have passed
away, and when they were nearly ex-
tinct a few states gave them a little
protection. These birds were extir-
pated before the people realized the
aroused for their protection until it
was too late.
Our people are now awakening to
theh fact that our resident game
that we have with us the year round
must be taken care of, but thus
equate uniform legislation to protect
migratory birds The pendulum of
legislation swung back and forth. Ger
tain birds were protected one year
and not protected the next, and there
was no great change for the better
until the United States biological sur
vey was given some supervision over
game protection. Before that we
/ had absolutely no system of game
protection. Since then there has been
a growing tendency toward uniform
ity. Laws prohibiting spring shoot
ing have beeen passed and retained
| in many states. Nonexport and nom
sale laws are increasing. The hunt
ers' license law which provides means
for the enforcement of bird and game
laws has swept the country. The Au-
dubon societies, the sportsmen and
the farmers are beginning to work
along similar lines The tendency
now is toward centralizing the powe~
of making regulations for the con-
servation of game and birds. Bills
have been introduced in Congress
| with the intent of placing the control
of migratory birds in the hands of
the federal government. This is the
best solution of the problem. The
nations experts have full informa-
ton regarding the numbers, distribu-
ton and migration of these birds.
They know where and how much pro-
lection is needed. Why should a bird
be protected at all times in one state
and unprotected in another? The
people of one state often refuse pro-
tection-not because they do not real
ize it's necessity but because the
neighboring states do not protect.
There are two methods by which
uniform regulations for the protec-
ton of migratory birds may be Sc
cured. The first is national control.
cieties like the Audubon Society, all
| working together to influence public
sentiment throughout the land. The
first is best. The second the only al
tentative. The Weeks bill for the
protection of migratory birds now in
the national House of Representa-
tives, aims to bring about federal
| control. This plan is equitable and
right. The migratory birds are not
the property of any one state. Their
range is continental. They should
be protected by national laws and
agreements between nations should
secure their conservation throughout
this hemisphere.