Connecticut western news., 1917-01-11
OUR GOLDEN EAGLE


 The golden eagle is very Fare bird everywhere and especially so in Con. necticut; however one was caught in Prospect few days ago, and presented to Robert Palmer, Waterbury's town clerk, who in tu1n gave it to Thomas Walker, superintendent of parks.
 The Greenwich News and Graphic asks:
 To whom does the golden eagle recently captured in Prospect belong -the city of Waterbury through gift, or the state of Connecticut through it's rights in game birds caught out of season?
 It is surprising how ignorant some people are of the .sstate laws-when they want to be. First, eagles are not game birds, as is explained ill Chapter l33. acts of 1918, which is found on page 82 of the little game law book The only question, as we understand it, is whether or not an eagle is hawk. If so, it might be construed as included among those birds mentioned in the latter part of the act referred to, as being not protected. This law makes no reference whatever to eagles, but mentions hawks as not protected, except the fish hawk, or osprey, which is protected. Webster's latest Interna- tional Dictionary gives this definition of "hawk:"
 "A general name for all the diur- nal birds of prey belonging to the family Falconidae, excepting the very large species, which are known as eagles, and the vultures. It is thus applied to the falcons. buzzards, harriers, kites, and caracaras.
 According to Webster, an eagle is not hawk. and this ruling makes the eagle protected bird in Connecticut, and Chapter 133, referred to above, reads:
 "No person shall kill, catch or have in his possession, living or dead, any wild bird other than a game bird; nor shall purchase, offer, or expose for sale any such wild bird after it has been killed or caught"
 Is not any man who catches an eagle in Connecticut subject to arrest and fine? Is he not liable for possessing it? or for offering" it to the Water bury town clerk Is not Robert Palmer liable to arrest for possessing a golden eagle, diving or dead ?" and how about the superintendent of parks who possessed the bird
 It seems to us there is no question whatever as to whom that eagle be- longs. If the wild birds within the boundaries of the state are not state property what right has the state, through the legislature. to make laws restricting their being taken ? In other words, if the wild birds are not state property show us by what authority or statute law they belong to anyone else.
 Section 31O9 of the statutes reads:
 "The commissioners, or any per son duly authorized by them, may take fish, crustaceans, birds, or animals at any time and place and as they choose, for the purpose of science. cultivation and dissemina. tion."
 Does this not make it plain to whom that eagle belongs? If these laws are not to be obeyed what are they made for?
 The penalty for taking protected birds as that eagle was taken is "a fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than fifty dollars"
 If the city of Waterbury, or anyone else in the state, except the commits sioners, as provided in section 3109, have legal right to possess that eagle we would like to be shown by what statute law they are entitled to it. We have shown above why it does not be- loug to them, and, if we are mistahon, "rc'-e from Missouri and want to be shown"