The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1912-10-19
NATIONAL PROTECTION
Advocated by Audubon Society for
Migratory Birds.

| rNONOSdbC0 Wy FtGQuOOU OOCIClI IOI
Migratory Birds.
1t is said that our game and bird
laws have failed. If so the fault lies
primarily in our republican form of
government. A wise and powerful
monarch, ruling here, would have
conserved the game and birds. He
would have compelled us to protect
them. The trainers of the Constitu-
ton showed no forethought regarding
the protection of our natural re-
sources, but left such matters to pos
terity. Our game laws were evolved
at haphazard by the people of the
different states and so there came
about heterogeneous tumble of con-
ficting statutes, continually juggled,
and arranged not so much to protect
the game and birds as to protect the
rights of certain classes in hunting
them. This hodge-podge of game
laws, applied to states or, to counties,
towns, streams, lakes. bays or shores
Olllg save iCdi DlOlEklAOn W CCl TAIN
kinds of resident game until recent
years. The people never see. the
necessity of protecting a migratory
bird until the species is nearly eX-
tinct, and sometimes not even then.
Real protective laws for the passen-
ger pigeon and the wild turkey were
enacted in few states after the
birds were practically gone. The
great docks of the Eskimo curley
have passed away, and when they
were nearly extinct few states gave
them a little protection. These
birds were -extirpatsd before the peo-
pie realized the danger and no public
sentiment was aroused for their pro-
lection unit. it was too late,
Our people are now awakening to
the fact that our resident game
that we have with us the year round
must be taken care of; but thus far
it has been impossible to get ade-
quate uniform legislation to protect
migratory birds. The pendulum of
legislation swung back and forth.
Certain birds were protected one
year and not protected the next and
there was no great change for the
better until the United States Biolo-
gical Survey was given some super
vision over game protection. Be
fore that we had absolutely no sys-
TEN of game protection. Since then
there has been growing tendency
toward uniformity. Laws prohibiting
spring shooting have been passed and
retained in many states. Non-eXport
and non-sale laws are increasing. The
hunters license law which provides
means for the enforcement OF bird
and game laws has swept the coun-
try. The Audubon Societies, the
sportsmen and the farmers are be-
ginning to work along similar lines.
The tendency now is toward centra-
lizing the power of making regula-
lions for the conservation of game
and birds. Bills have been introduc-
ed into Congress with the intent OF
placing the control OF migratory
birds in the hands of the Federal
Government. This is the best solu
tion of the problem. The nations
experts have full information regard
ing the numbers, distribution and
migration of these birds. They know
where and how much protection is
needed. Why should a bird be gro
tected at all times in one state and
unprotected in another? The people
of one state often refuse protection,
not because they do not realize its
necessity, but because the neighbor-
ing 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
The second is control by National
Societies like the Audubon Society,
all working together to influence
public sentiment throughout the land.
The first is best. The second the on
ly alternative.
The Weeks bill for the protection
of migratory birds, now in the Ma
tional House of Representatives aims