THE LIBRARY

OF

THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

Biology Library

BEQUEST OF

Theodore S, Palmer

Comparative
Legislation for the
Protection of Birds.

The Gold Medal Essay

OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS

With Preface by

The Right Hon.

Sir Herbert Maxwell, Bart., F.R.S.

London :

THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE

PROTECTION OF BIRDS,

23, Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster.

PRICE ONE SHILLING NETT

(Postage Twopence extra).

Legislation

FOR THE

Protection of Birds

Af'HOLTE MACPHERSON.

B.C.L.. F.i^.S., M.B.O.U..
AND

Lt.-Colonel GUSTAVUS ALBERT MOMBER,

F.Z.S.

Being the Essay for which the GOLD MEDAL of the ROYAL SOCIETY
FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS was awarded in 1909. with
Extracts from the Essay which obtained the SECOND PRIZE.

With 'Preface b\)

^he Right Hon. Sir Herbert Maxwell, Bart.,

LONDON :

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
23, Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster, S.W.

1909.

BIOLOGY LIBH,

GIF!

SOCIETY'S NOTE.

The Gold Medal of the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds was ofiFered in 1908 for an Essay or Treatise on
Comparative Legislation for the Protection of Birds, the
Essay to take the form of an epitome of the Legislation in
force in the various countries of Europe (Great Britain
excepted), together with a comparison of this legislation with
the Laws and Regulations in Great Britain, the Model Law
of the United States of America, and the proposals of the
International Convention for the Protection of Birds useful
to Agriculture signed at Paris in 1902.

The following points were suggested for consideration : —

1. The Close Time appointed for all Wild Birds, or its limitation to certain

species.

2. The protection afforded (a) to Birds throughout the whole or part of

the year ; (6) to what Birds ; (c) to Nests and Eggs ; (d) to special
areas or sanctuaries.

3. The prohibition of the sale or possession of protected Birds, Eggs or

Plumage.

4. The schedules of "useful" or "injurious" Birds published by any

Government or under Protective Laws, and the basis upon which
such hsts are and should be drawn up and published.

5. The local option allowed for the adoption or modification of the

Law of a country within its several States, Provinces, Districts, or
Municipalities.

6. The working of the existing Laws for the Preservation of Wild Birds,

and their enforcement by the Police and Courts, nature of penalties,
forfeiture of nets, guns, etc.

7. The permission to take specimens for PubUc Museums.

8. The injiu-y caused by the wholesale destrviction of Migratory Birds

when on migration.

9. The comparative economic value attached to particular species of Birds

in different covmtries.

388

iv. Society^s Note.

The competing Essays were sent in on the last day of
1908 ; and at the Annual Meeting of the Society on February
18th, 1909, the Gold Medal, with accompanying honorarium
of Twenty Guineas, was presented by the Duchess of
Portland, President, to Mr. A. Holte Macpherson, B.C.L,,
F.Z.S. (London), and an award of Ten Guineas to Lieut.-
Colonel G. A. Momber, F.Z.S. (San Remo). On the same
occasion Mr. Macpherson was elected a Life Fellow, and
Colonel Momber a Life Member of the Society in recognition
of the service rendered to the cause by their work. Both
these gentlemen have generously returned the money awards
to the Society, for the furtherance of its objects.

The Judges appointed by the Council of the Society
included the Right Hon. Sir Herbert Maxwell and Mr. H. E.
Dresser (author of " The Birds of Europe").

PREFACE.

Those who have watched with satisfaction and, each in
his measure, done their best to promote the growth of
modern feehng in favour of protecting wild birds cannot
have failed to feel some dissatisfaction at the complexity
of the legislation which is the outcome of that feeling.
Besides the Game Laws there are, as Mr. Holte Macpherson
has pointed out (p. 18), eight public Acts in force in the
United Kingdom applying to bird-protection, " in addition
to endless County Protection Orders and the enactments of
the local legislative bodies of the Channel Islands and the
Isle of Man." Herein, if anywhere, is a crying case for
codification, and Mr. Macpherson has rendered excellent
assistance to any one who shall be charged to undertake it
by his careful abstract of the laws in force in foreign
countries. For, in dealing with so mobile a population as
birds, legislation in one country ought to dovetail with that
of other countries. For instance, the Dutch law which
prohibits the capture, killing or sale of peewits (p. 6), if it
is to secure protection for that most beneficent species,
ought to have a parallel in the United Kingdom, where tens
of thousands of peewits are offered for sale annually in
London, to be eaten in restaurants as golden plovers.
Again, the French edict for the Department of the Seine,
prohibiting the placing of nets or traps for taking birds
en masse ought to be reflected in a British edict which should
put a stop to the destructive shore nets, whereby ruffs and
reeves, once so abundant, have become one of our rarest
species, and many other desirable kinds of fowl are massacred
every winter indiscriminately. Inasmuch as most of the
birds of Western Europe pass seasonally from one country
to another in that region, it follows that protective legislation,
to be effective, should be homogeneous.

vi. Preface.

When we come to deal with local option in protection
within the United Kingdom, the complexity of regulation is
still more apparent. Mr. Macpherson's observations on
this point are particularly well worthy of perusal (pp. 33-36).
He neither overlooks nor underrates the hardship which
would be inflicted upon fruit-growers in certain districts by
enforcing uniform protection, say, of bullfinches, although
that beautiful bird may be encouraged in other districts
where corn and turnips are the principal.

To mention another instance : upon no class of birds
has protective legislation taken more notable effect than
upon gulls. Various species of gull have multiplied to such
an extent in certain districts as to cause serious destruction
of other desirable forms of life ; for gulls are practically
omnivorous. It would be unreasonable to enact that,
because gulls are innocuous in Middlesex and Warwickshire,
that they are not to be interfered with when they assemble
in multitudes, as I have often seen them, on the shallows
of Scottish salmon rivers in April and May, picking out
thousands of salmon smolts descending to the sea. To
enforce their protection when so engaged is to bring discredit
upon all bird-protection whatsoever.

When I was conducting the Act of 1904 through the House
of Commons, I was strongly urged to make the restrictions
uniform throughout the United Kingdom. I declined to
do so, for the very reasons so well expressed in Mr.
Macpherson's essay ; and although I cannot complain of
his criticism of the discretion of some County Councils in
exercising their powers of local option, on the whole I
consider that their action has been beneficial and that, as
time goes on and experience accumulates, still better results
may be expected. I have known several County Councils
anxious for guidance in drafting regulations and most
willing to accept advice from experienced ornithologists,
such as are to be found in most counties.

I am very glad that the Society has decided to print
extracts from Colonel Member's essay as well as Mr.

Preface. vii.

Macpherson's. I can only say that, although I have had
weightier and more irksome tasks, I never had a more
dilBficult one in proportion to its scope than was assigned to
me by the Council of the Society when they invited me to
act as umpire between the competing essayists. All of
them, and especially the winners of the first and second
prizes, may feel satisfied that they have done good and useful
service to the cause which the Society has undertaken.

Herbert Maxwell.
Monreith, 17th June, 1909.

The Council of the Society, while strongly urging consideration of these
Essays, do not hold themselves responsible for the exactitude of the statements
regarding foreign laws, nor do they necessarily endorse every opinion expressed
within these covers.

INDEX TO COUNTRIES.

PAGE

Austria . .

. .

12, 58

Belgium . .

4

Bulgaria . .

15, 57

Cyprus

17

Denmark . .

3

Finland . .

57

France

9, 55

Germany , .

6

Gibraltar

17

Great Britain . .

18, 58

Greece

15, 57

Holland . .

5

Hungary . .

13

Italy
Luxemburg

15, 52

17

Monaco

17

Montenegro

15

Norway . .

2

Portugal . ,

13

Roumania

14

Russia

3

San Marino

17

Servia

14

Spain

13

Sweden

3

Switzerland

10

Turkey . .

15, 56

COMPARATIVE LEGISLATION

FOR THE

PROTECTION OF BIRDS,

BY

A. HOLTE MACPHERSON,
Winner of the Gold Medal Essay Competition, 1908.

THE subject of the protection of birds has in recent years
assumed a position of considerable importance chiefly owing
to the recognition of the great effect exercised by birds
upon agricultural conditions. Not only have the legislatures of
most European countries devoted attention to the subject, but
both on the European Continent and in the United States of
America we find Governments seriously working at the subject
through their Departments of Agriculture. Wliether a given
bird should be protected or not is usually a hard problem to
decide ; but it is still harder to determine the extent of the pro-
tection to which it is entitled ; and when we further come to
approach the question of how to give the requisite protection,
the problem presents difl&culties which are almost insuperable
OMing to our woeful ignorance.

In years to come no doubt we may have learnt more of the
relationship between birds and their surrounding conditions, and
more of the effect of the disturbance caused directly and in-
directly to the balance of Nature by the destruction of some
mammal, bird or insect, or by the introduction of some insect,
bird or mammal. But at present the best that can be done is
to observe and collect facts, and to watch the character and
effect of the legislation for the protection of birds in other lands,
in hopes of being able to build a surer foundation for future
legislation in our own country.

In a recent address to the Bar Association of New York State,
the British Ambassador referred to the difficulty of modern
legislation owing to the complexity of modern life, the growth of
commerce and industry and of new methods of production and
distribution. Many problems, he pointed out, are too difficult
and involved even for the abler members of legislative bodies to
master, and it has become " desirable to have some organised
system for the gathering and examination of materials for legisla-
tion, and especially for collecting the laws passed in other

countries on subjects of current importance." To no subject
are Mr. Bryce's words more applicable than to legislation for the
protection of birds.

It is obviously impossible within the limits of this treatise to
give more than a very brief sketch of the legislation of Europe
on such a subject. We shall in most cases, therefore, merely
give an outUne of the laws in force, only touching upon details
when the particular enactment referred to is of special importance.
We shall then be in a position to compare the extent of the pro-
tection given to birds on the Continent with that ajfforded to them
by our own laws ; with that advocated by the " Convention pour
la Protection des Oiseaux utiles a 1' Agriculture," signed at Paris
in March, 1902 ; and with that recommended by the model law
prepared in America in 1886.

NORWAY.

Commencing with the north of the Continent, the position in
Norway rests on the Shooting and Trapping Act of the 20th May,
1899. This gives the owner of ground the sole right to trap and
shoot on his property*. All birds are protected from shooting
and trapping from the 15th March to the 15th August ; formerly
the close time extended to the 14th Septemberf. Exceptions
are however made in the case of birds of prey. Ravens, Crows,
Magpies and certain other species which are deemed harmful ;
and it is also permitted to kill birds of the protected species in
the close season when they are doing injury to gardens, corn-
fields or fruit treesj. The use of steel traps and certain other
contrivances for trapping is forbidden, though to catch a bird of
prey, a steel trap may be used, provided it is carefully covered
and placed at a height of at least two yards above the ground§.
Nests may not be disturbed, nor eggs taken off the property of
another ; nor may the owner of the ground take or allow the eggs
of protected birds to be taken. On common land or high moun-
tains, all nests and eggs are protected, except those of the birds
which are excepted from the close season prescribed by Sec. 17||»
The penalties for infringement of the law are fines of varying
amounts.

There is not much shooting or trapping of birds in Norway ;
and as far as small birds are concerned, they are not often
destroyed or taken. The law provides no exceptions for persons
who collect for public museums or for scientific objects.

* Sect. 1. t Sect. 17 as amended by Law of the 14th May, 1902.

X Sect. 17. § Sect. 22. || Sect. 28.

SWEDEN.

In Sweden the governing law is that of 1907 :* it makes it an
offence punishable by fine to catch or kill certain birds between
the 1st March and the 15th September, while certain birds of the
wading class are protected between the 1st March and the 20th
July. The hst of birds in the first class contains some Owls,
the Woodpecker, Hoopoe, Goatsucker, Nuthatch, Swallow,
Martin, Creeper, Flycatchers, nearly all the Warblers, Stonechat,
Wliinchat, Wagtails, Pipits, Goldfinch, Chaffinch and Starhng ;
also the White and Black Storks. The second hst contains the
names of most of the commoner waders. The passing of the law
seems to have been the result of a wish to conform to the terms
of the Convention of Paris ; but, as in Norway, there is very httle
destruction of bird Kfe, and certainly the smaller species are but
rarely disturbed.

RUSSIA.

In Russia there has been, apart from local regulations, no
legislation on the subject since 1892, when the last edition of the
Agricultural Code was issued. Under this Code game birds of
all sorts have close seasons provided ; and all other birds, with
the exception of birds of prey, are nominally protected from the
1st May to the 15th July.f It is also forbidden during the
whole year to trap birds of the genus Tetrao, Partridges, Franco-
lins or Pheasants, or to destroy the nests or remove the eggs or
young of any wild birds other than birds of prey.J

There is, nevertheless, a considerable destruction of bird-life
in Russia ; and Moscow has long been well-known for its bird-
market, where in spring large numbers of small birds are offered
for sale. §

DENMARK.

In Denmark the chief regulations are that " singing birds "
may not be shot at any time ; but exceptions are made in the cases
of the Thrush and the Fieldfare, which are granted a close season
from the 1st February to the 16th September.

The Starling may only be destroyed between the 1st July and
the 20th August, and then only in gardens where it is injurious
to the fruit. Swallows are protected at aU times. For Seagulls

» Law dated 27th March, 1907. f See Article 169, Code of Laws of

the Russian Empire, Vol. XII., Part 2. — Statute on Agriculture.
X Article 170. § See Otto Herman's Historical Sketch relating to

the Paris Convention (Budapest, 1907), p. 78.

there is a close season from the 1st February to the 1st October,
and for Terns from the 1st February to the 16th September.
Sparrows, Rooks and Crows receive no protection. Fines varying
from two to two hundred kroner (2s. 3d. to £11) are inflicted
for infringement of the law, while the culprit has the option of
imprisonment instead of paying the fine.*

BELGIUM.

The subject is dealt with in Belgium by a Royal Ordinance of
the 15tli August, 1906. This is a consolidating measure, very
comprehensive in its scope, bringing the law into harmony with
the terms of the Paris Convention of 1902 and repealing various
prior enactments. f Bird protection had been dealt with by
legislation in Belgium for a good many years, the first law having
been made over thirty years ago, J and by a Game law of the
28th February, 1882, the Government was expressly empowered
to prevent the destruction of insectivorous species. §

The Royal Ordinance of 1906 forbids the taking, shooting,
exposing for sale, hawking and transporting of insectivorous
birds, as well as their eggs and young. 1]

The list of birds considered insectivorous is divided into two
parts. ^ First, those Avhich are to be considered insectivorous
at all times ; these include the Cuckoo, Goatsucker, the Swallows,
SA\ift, Hoopoe, the Tits, Warblers, Wryneck, Woodpeckers,
Nuthatch, Wagtails, Redstarts and others. Secondly, all other
wild birds apart from those named in Article 6, except from the
15th September (included) to the 15th November (excluded).
The birds referred to in Article 6 are the diurnal birds of prey,
the Eagle, Owl, the Jay, the Magpie and the Crows ; also exotic
species, water and shore birds, and those birds to which certain
sections of the Game Law of 1882 applies. Certain further excep-
tions are made in favour of live birds and Linnets and Chaffinches
destined for prize competitions. Birds on the property of another
may not be taken, shot or destroyed at any time or in any way
without his consent,** nor any Owls, lime, traps or gins be used to
take birds. Certain exceptions to this are allowed with regard to
Thrushes generally, which may be taken in the manner described
by the Articles in question from the middle of September to the
middle of November ; while the taking of Fieldfares and Mistle

* Law of the 11th May, 1894. f These repealed enactments are dated

14th August and 5th September, 1889, 28th April, 1891, 6th September,
1896, 6th June, 1904, and 16th January, 1906. J 21st April,

1873. § Law of the 28th February, 1882, Article 31. || Article 1.
1[ Article 2. ** Article 3.

Thrushes is permitted up to the end of the hunting season. The
right is reserved to owners and occupiers of destroying the birds'
eggs and young in their estabhshments and gardens.* The
Minister of Agriculture can grant special permits for scientific
objects or for the advantage of certain localities, but he must
define the duration of the authority and specify the appUances
which may be used.f

In a Circular Letter which was sent to the Grovernors of the
various Provinces by the IMinister of Agriculture, J it was explained
that this Article could be utfiised not only for work for scientific
objects, but also for " la tenderie aux ortolans," and to enable
certain birds to be destroyed, such as Sparrows, Starhngs, Wood-
pigeons and Rooks in cases where their numbers are so great as to
become a local danger to gardens, orchards and fields.

In addition to fines for infringement of the law, it is provided
that traps and appHances illegally used are to be confiscated,§
and so are the birds illegally killed or taken or exposed for sale.||
It is worth noticing that there is no pro\'ision for the confiscation
of eggs taken in contravention of the law.

HOLLAND.

In the Netherlands the chief law is that of 1880^ for the Protec-
tion of Animals useful for Agriculture and Forestry, as amended
by the law of 1886.** It is proliibited to catch, kill, remove, sell
or offer for sale, dehver, or have in stock for sale or dehvery,
any birds useful to agriculture or forestry. It is further forbidden
to collect, destroy, carry away, or deal in the eggs of protected
birds, or to destroy or disturb their nests.

Exemption from the penalties for the infringement of the law
is given to the o\\aier and occupier of isolated properties {i.e.,
gardens or fields surrounded by a substantial wall, fence, hedge or
ditch).

This law of 1880 also provides that the birds and eggs taken and
aU articles used for the commission of any detected offence shall be
confiscated, and captured birds, if aHve, are to be set at hberty.ft
The punishments are fines of fifty cents to twenty guldens.
A repetition of the offence ^-ithin two years, or repeated offences,
may be dealt A^dth by doubhng the maximum fine or by imprison-
ment for from one to seven days.

By the combined operation of further enactments J{ certain birds

* Article 5. f Article 7. '% Dated the 16th August, 1906.

§ Article 8. || Article 9. ^ 25th May, 1880 (Staatsblad, No. 89).

** 15th April, 1886 (Sect. 64). ft Article 7. Jt These are

laws of 24th October, 1892 (Sect. 236) ; 9th June, 1893 (Sect. 87) ;
14th April, 1898 (Sect. 105) ; 3rd February, 1902 (Sect, 15).

6

are to be considered useful to agriculture and forestry throughout
the year. These include the Cuckoo, the Swallows, Martins,
Swift, Nightjar, Tree Creeper, Warblers, Pipits, Hedge Sparrow,
Golden and Fire-crested Wrens, and the Tits ; while the Black-
bird, Song Thrush and Skylark are to be considered useful during
the first nine months of the year.

There is also an old Hunting Law of the 13th June, 1857, in
force in Holland, by which, amongst other things, it is pro-
hibited— *

(a) To catch, kill, transport, sell or offer for sale or to have
in stock for sale. Peewits or Nightingales ;

(6) To disturb or destroy the nests of Nightingales ;
(c) To lay traps to catch or kill Nightingales or Peewitsf ;
{d) To place traps for catching Thrushes within a certain
height from the ground ;

(e) To catch Thrushes, Larks or Finches on another man's
land without the permission in writing of the owner or in
his company.

This law also prohibitsj collecting or deahng in the eggs of wild
birds ; this prohibition, however, does not apply to Wild Ducks.
Eggs of aquatic game birds and Peewits may, however, be taken
during February, March and April in the presence of the OAvner
of the land or with his permission. No eggs of the Peewit may
be bought, exposed for sale, or removed after the 5th May.

Provision is made for persons who have special leave to collect
for scientific purposes. §

The Dutch laws have a special interest from the fact that
Holland was one of the European Powers not a party to the Paris
Convention, though her representative had signed the Minutes
submitted to the Conference on Bird Protection at Paris on the
25th June, 1895, which formed the basis of the terms of the
Convention,

The Dutch legislation is more elaborate than that of any country
which did not subscribe to the Articles of the Convention, except
that of Great Britain. It is also important from its recognition
of special rights appertaining to owners and occupiers of land, a
feature to which we shall have occasion to refer shortly.

GERMANY.
In Germany the position is somewhat peculiar ; the protection
of birds is governed by the Imperial Law of 1888,|| but there are

* Article 21. ■]• As to catching Nightingales and^eewits in Holland,

see Rev. H. A. Macpherson's History of FowUng, pp. 124 and 464.
X Article 22. § Law of 1880, Article 4. || Sanctioned on 22nd

March, 1888.

also local laws (Landesgesetze*) which remain in force as well as the
Imperial Law. The latter is an extremely interesting enactment,
and, curiously enough, contrary to the general practice, contains
a Schedule not of useful species but of noxious ones. This com-
prises the diurnal birds of prey (except Falcons), the Eagle, Owl,
Shrikes, Crossbill, Sparrow, Crows, Pigeons, Moorhens, Coots,
Herons, Goosanders, Gulls, Cormorants and Grebes. The Act
also forbids generally the destruction of nests and the taking of
eggs and young birds and all traffic in them. No general protec-
tion is extended to the eggs of shore-nesting birds, including Gulls,
and Terns and also Lapwings.

No bird-catching of any kind may take place by night. The Act
also fixes a general close season from the 1st March to the 15th
September, to w^hich exceptions may be made in special cases.

The local regulations in the various Federal States and towns
are numerous, and some are of considerable antiquity, as the
foUowdng facts will show.f

Of the more important of these local laws, that of Alsace-
Lorraine protects at all seasons, among other species considered
useful, the Rook, the Jackdaw and the Starling. BadenJ pro-
tects as useful very much the same birds as SA^itzerland ; of
Thrushes, the Fieldfare alone may be shot. Bavaria§ protects
practically the same birds as Baden. In the Grand Duchy of
Hessell it has long been forbidden to destroy birds useful to agri-
culture. Crows and Sparrows are not included in this category.
Eggs and nests are protected, and the practice of hedge-chpping
is restricted by a later Act. In Prussia nobody may take birds
(other than game birds) or their eggs or young, or destroy nests,
on property which does not belong to him. The law of Saxony^
exempts the Thrush during part of the year, and all small singing
birds from the operation of its stringent Game Law ; but no
protection is extended to Crows, Pigeons or Sparrows. Wiirtem-
burg** protects the same birds as Bavaria, but excludes the Storks
as harmful. It is worthy of mention that in Bremen the Sparrow
is protected.

The net result of these various federal laws is that 152 species
are locally protected as useful. The Falcons, which are con-
sidered worthy of protection under the Imperial Law, are not
protected in a single case ; while some Federal States have

* The chief of these is the " Preussische Feld-vind Forstpolizeigesetz " of
the 1st April, 1880. f This hst and much of the information as to

the law in Grermany is taken from Herman's Historical Sketch relating
to the Paris Convention, previously referred to. J Law of 13th

July, 1888. § Decree of 19th November, 1889. || Law of

7th April, 1837. ^ Law of 22nd July, 1876. ** Decree of

1st October, 1890.

8

extended protection to the Crow, the Moorhen and the Hawfinch,
all of which species are under the Imperial Law branded as
noxious !

It would be out of place in such a treatise as this to enquire
deeply into the historical side of the question under discussion,
but it seems to be generally recognised that the present position
of bird-protection in Europe originated in the movement A\ith
this object started in Germany in 1868. In the early part of 1908
a great discussion took place in the German Imperial ParUament
on the question of the abohtion of the springe-traps used so much
for capturing Fieldfares on their autumn migrations. The debate,
which ended favourably to those who desired to have the use of
the trap forbidden, was chiefly remarkable on account of the
strength with which the humanitarian side of the question was
argued. The Chancellor in this connection stated that the
protection of animals from cruelty was to be regarded not only as
the outcome of a love of Nature, but as a matter of moral educa-
tion.* The abolition of this cruel trap is, however, only part of
a far wider scheme for the better protection of birds in Germany
which has been the subject of consideration by a Committee
appointed by the Reichstag ; the deliberations of this Committee
resulted in the preparation of a measure forbidding the taking or
destruction of nests, eggs or young birds and the sale, transit,
export and import of nests, eggs or young birds of European
species, exceptions being made in the cases of birds nesting on
buildings and of the eggs of plovers and gulls. Great restrictions
are also placed on bird-catching, while the use of cruel devices,
such as poisoned food and bhnded decoys, is absolutely prohibited.
The measure also proposes to estabhsh a close time from the 1st
March to the 1st September, during which the taking, killing,
sale, purchase, import, export, transit and transport of all
European birds, dead or ahve, is forbidden.f Tits, Nuthatches
and Treecreepers are to be protected at aU times. Game birds
and certain other species are not affected by the measure, though
these may not be trapped or snared. We do not at present
know the fate of this measure, but the mere fact of its preparation
is a good and significant omen.

* This was the subject of an animated article by Dr. Ludwig Staby in the
" Berliner Lokal Anzeiger " of the 17th May, 1908. The learned
Doctor declares that the result of the division on this question of the
springe-trap shows his countrymen to be in advance of all civilised
nations. Our Pole-trap Act was, however, passed in 1902, and an
Act to prevent the taking of birds by hooks has been passed this
year (1908).

t The framers of this clause had obviously Sect. 1 of the American Model
Law (hereinafter referred to) in their minds.

FRANCE.

France is a country which has until recently done but little
practical work for the protection of birds, although she has taken
an important part in discussions on the subject. At the Inter-
national Conference which met at Paris in June, 1895, the French
Government presented a draft Agreement which had been care-
fully prepared for the consideration of the delegates of the various
Oovernments represented. This draft was taken away for
consideration by the delegates, and eventually formed the basis
of the Convention signed at Paris in 1902. Up to this time Uttle
had been done in practice to prevent the killing and taking of
birds, though laws on the subject existed, but since the date of the
Convention various decrees have been issued by the Prefects
of Departments for the protection of species useful to agriculture,
and the number of " garde-forestiers " has been increased.

The chief law is that of the 3rd May, 1844, as amended by the
law of the 22nd January, 1874, by which it is provided that the
Prefects of Departments shall resolve and determine not only
the time for taking birds of passage (other than the Quail) but
also the names of the birds to be treated as migratory, and the
various methods of taking them.* The older enactment also gave
the Prefects a general power to make decrees to prevent the
destruction of birds ; while the latter law added the words : " ou
pour favoriser leur repeuplement." When the original measure
became law two Circulars were published by the Government,
dated the 8th and the 20th May, 1844, which show that even at
that time grave fears were entertained in some quarters as to the
result of the persecution to which the birds of France were
subjected. These circulars draw attention to the fact that there
were a large number of Departments where the increase of insects
was such that whole areas were devastated, and that this fact
was attributable to the destruction of birds. The position is
therefore this. It rests with the Prefects to publish local decrees
for the protection of birds, fixing at the same time (a) the dates at
which the shooting of migratory birds is to begin and end ;
(b) what birds are to be considered migratory ; and (c) what
means may be employed to destroy or take them. These local
regulations when enforced are construed very strictly. For
instance, it has been decided that authority to use a net for
taking birds of passage mil not justify the capture in that net
of a sedentary species. f Again, where a man has been caught

* Article 9.

f By the Court of Cassation, 26th July, 1897 ; reported in the Dalloz
Repertory, 1898, Part I, p. 89.

10

taking larks with a mirror at migration season* after the close of
the time for general sport, but during the time appointed by the
Prefect for the taking of birds of passage, it is no defence to prove
that he was taking a migrating species in the season appointed
for that purpose, unless the Lark is specifically mentioned as a
bird of passage in the Prefect's regulation. f

On the 30th June, 1903, another law was passed approving
of the terms of the Paris Convention. " Le president de la
Republique est authorise a ratifier et, s'il y a heu, a faire executer
la Convention." Since this date more interest seems to have been
taken in the subject, and, as already stated, a good many Prefects
have issued decrees prohibiting the kilhng, taking, export,
import, hawking and sale of certain birds deemed useful to agri-
culture. One of such Departmental Decrees is now before us,
and well repays study. J It is most complete in its provisions.
It fixes the periods and methods of chase relating to water-
game and birds of passage ; contains a Hst of protected birds,
which includes, besides those named specifically, all small birds
of a size inferior to that of the Quail, Thrush or Blackbird ;
extends protection to the eggs, nests and young of the protected
species, and prohibits the placing of traps§ of any kind for the
purpose of taking birds " en masse." The decree further gives
a hst of birds which are to be considered harmful, and contains
regulations as to their destruction by the owners and occupiers
of the properties affected, who may obtain special permits to
shoot Sparrows in cases where this bird— which is not included
in the hst of harmful species — causes " par sa surabondance un
reel dommage a 1' agriculture." Sparrows, however, which have
been thus destroyed may not be sold.

Hunting birds at a prohibited time and the use of prohibited
implements are punishable by fines ranging from fifty to tw^o
hundred francs and in addition by imprisonment from six days
to two months. II

SWITZERLAND.

In Switzerland the law for protecting useful birds is very
definite and stringent. For a good many years past the subject

* For the use of mirrors to attract Larks in England see Pennant's British
Zoology, Vol. I., pp. 299-300. The mirror is also used for this purpose
in Italy and in Russia, as well as in France.

t Decided by the Court of Rennes on 20th May, 1863 ; reported in Dalloz,
1865, p. 71.

J The Decree for the Department of the Seine of the 19th August, 1907.

§ This article of the Decree in question (9) only prohibits " la pose " of
traps. Article 3 of the Convention of 1902 prohibits " la pose et
Temploi " ; apart from this difference the two articles are identical.

II Law of 1844, Article 12.

11

has received much attention, and though the RepubHc was a
party to the Paris Convention of 1902, laws were at that date
already in existence in Switzerland which went quite as far as
those tvhich the signatory Powers recommended. The law now
in force is the " Loi Federale sur la chasse et la protection des
oiseaux " of the 24th June, 1904, taken in conjunction with
the Regulations for carrjdng it into effect (Reglement d' execution)
of the 18th April, 1905. The provisions of these combined are
so comprehensive that, notwithstanding the small amount of
space at our command, they deserve examination in some detail.
Certain birds are protected ; they may not be killed or taken,
and the protection is extended to their eggs and young. The
hst of protected birds comprises all the small insectivorous species,
the Lark, Starling, all Thrushes (except the Fieldfare, the Red-
wing and the Mistlethrush), many of the Finches, the Cuckoo,
Tree-creeper, Nuthatch, Wryneck, Hoopoe, all the Woodpeckers,
the Jackdaw, Roller, Kestrel, all nocturnal birds of prey (except
the Eagle Owl), Storks and Swans. The destruction of Starlings,
Blackbirds and Thrushes, which do damage to the vines and
orchards, may be authorised in autumn, but must not be continued
after the vintage or fruit picking is over.* Moreover, the birds
so killed may not be sold or purchased. "f

The importation and transportation of protected birds is-
prohibited, though the Department of the Interior may grant
exceptions in certain cases in respect of a Hmited number of birds
to be kept in cages. {

Bird-catching, whether by means of traps, decoy birds, little
Owls,§ limed twigs, or any kind of snare, is strictly forbidden. ||

The authorities of the various Cantons may give facilities to
persons for collecting birds, eggs and nests for scientific objects,
provided they do not make a trade of it.^

The penalties for breaking the law are fines ranging from ten*
to sixty francs ; ** and confiscation of the birds and eggs and of
the implements used.H

There is also an interesting clausefj which provides that
children should be taught which birds are protected, and
encouraged to spare them.

* Article 17 of the law. f Article 18 of the Reglement d'ex^cution.

X Article 17 of the Reglement.

§ The use of Owls by fowlers to attract birds, which is here prohibited,,
is not only a very old custom, being described by Aristotle (History
of Animals, Book IX., Chap. 2, Sect. 3), but is also very widespread,
being well-known in almost every European country and commonly
practised in Japan.

II Article 19 of the law. ^ Article 20 of the law. ** Article 21 of

the law. -j"! Article 24 of the law. J J Article 18 of the law.

12

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

In dealing with Austria-Hungary it is necessary to take the
two portions of the Empire separately. The central governing
body of Austria is the Reichrath, but the separate Austrian
Provinces have their own Diets (Landtage) with local legislative
powers. The local laws in force for the protection of birds have
not undergone much change recently, and these laws are so
numerous that for present purposes we must rest content with a
reproduction of an extract from the Report on European legisla-
tion which was presented to the Ornithological Congress at
Budapest in 1891 by Professor Liebe and Herr von Wangelin : —

I. In Istria, Dalmatia, the seaboard and the Tyrol, the destruc-
tion of nests and taking of eggs is forbidden, but in autumn and
winter bird-taking is permitted by hcense. Parishes have a
monopoly in the taking of birds, and impose a tax which ranges
from two to nine florins.

II. In Bukovina, Gorz, Gradiska, Carniola or Krain, Moravia,
Silesia, Vorarlberg and Upper Austria, the laws forbid the destruc-
tion of nests, and distinguish between the useful and noxious
birds. Bird-catching is conditional on producing a hcense.

III. In Bohemia, Galicia, Carinthia or Karnthen, Salzburg,
Stjn^ia and Lower Austria, the laws forbid the taking of useful
birds, which are scheduled, and the taking of other species is
restricted.*

The chief laws are those of Bohemia of 1870 and 1882t ;
Dalmatia, 1874 and 1895$ ; Gorz-Gradisca, 1870, 1890 and 1892§ ;
Carinthia or Karnthen, 1870, 1883 and 1908|| ; Lower Austria,
1899 and 1908^ ; Upper Austria, 1890** ; Salzburg, 1888 and
1899tt ; Tyrol, 1899Jt ; and Trieste, 1892§§. It is clear from

* The above extract is taken from Herman's work on the Convention of

1902.
+ Gesetz, 30th April, 1870; L. G. BL, No. 39; and 9th January, 1882;

L. G. Bl., No. 9.
t 20th January, 1874, L. G. BL, No. 5 ; and 14th January, 1895, L. G. BL,

No. 6.
§ 30th ApriL 1870. L. G. BL, No. 37 ; 21st November, 1890, L. G. BL,

No. 9 ; and 11th September, 1892, L. G. BL, No. 26.
II 30th November. 1870, L. G. BL, No. 54 ; 28th March, 1883, L. G. BL,

No. 11 ; and 12th ApriL 1908, L. G. BL, No. 10.
T[ 28th August, 1899, L. G. BL, No. 27 ; and 10th March, 1908, L. G. BL,

No. 42.
** 6th February, 1890, L. G. BL, No. 6.
tt 31st July, 1888, L. G. BL, No. 29 ; and 26th August, 1899, L. G. BL,

No. 20.
tj 18th Jime, 1899, L. G. BL, No. 34.
§§ 28th August, 1892, L. G. BL, No. 25.

13

this that Austria has long appreciated the importance of bird-
protection, but only two provinces have since 1902 passed
measures which bring their laws more into harmony with the
recommendations of the Paris Convention, namely, Lower Austria
and Carinthia.

In Hungary the question of bird-protection has received much
careful consideration by the Government. The chief Act was
until recently that of 1894,* but a Circular Decree of great im-
portance, which had the force of law, was issued on the 18th
March, 1901, by the Royal Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture.
By this, certain mammals and birds are to be afforded due pro-
tection. The list of birds is of considerable dimensions, com-
prising 132 names. f The taking of the eggs and nests or young
of the protected species, or exposing them for sale, without leave
from the authorities, is made a penal offence. J Facilities are
given for the taking of specimens alive, killing and taking eggs
and nests for scientific objects and for their transport, but licence
must be obtained from the authorities, and the restrictions under
which the necessary leave will be granted are somewhat severe. §

On the 26th January, 1906, sanction was given to an Act by
which the whole terms of the Paris Convention became in-
corporated in the law of Hungary, ||

PORTUGAL.

Little or nothing is done to protect useful birds in Portugal ;
this is all the more disappointing because Portugal signed the
Paris Convention. There are, it is true, laws for the protection
of game birds at certain times of the year, but the penalties
provided by these laws are not only very light but are rarely
rigidly enforced.

SPAIN.

The chief Spanish law dates from 1902,^ and the rules made for
its appUcation came into force in 1903.** The sale of insectivorous
birds is entirely prohibited, with the exception of certain species,
which are only protected during a specified portion of the year.

The shooting of birds which are considered to be at all times
insectivorous is absolutely forbidden. A list of the birds deemed
to come within this category is given, and includes the Kestrels,

* Act XII. of 1894. t Sect. 1 of Decree of 1901. J Sect. 2 of Decree.

§ Sects. 3-8 of Decree. || Act I. of 1906. See also Herman, op. cit.
^ La Ley de Caza of 16th May, 1902.
** Reglamento para la applicacion de la Ley de Caza of 3rd July, 1903.

14

Honey Buzzard, Buzzard, nocturnal birds of prey, Goatsucker,
Swift, Martins, Swallow, Oriole, Bee-eater, Hoopoe, Wren, Tree-
•creeper, WaU-creeper, Nuthatch, Tits, Pipits, Wagtails, Warblers,
Redstarts, Chats, Flycatchers, Cuckoo, Wryneck and Wood-
peckers.

The law further provides that certain species may be shot
between the 1st September and the 31st January. The Ust of
these contains Buntings, Finches, Larks, Crows, Thrushes and
Starlings ; while the Thrush and Starling may during this period
be exported.

The destruction of nests of any kind of bird is forbidden ;
and if an offender is an infant, the parent or guardian must pay
the fine.

Traps and decoy birds used for the purpose of catching pro-
tected species are liable to be confiscated and destroyed.

In all adult schools notice-boards must be exhibited caUing
attention to the law for protecting insectivorous birds.*

Birds in Spain, therefore, would, as far as the law is concerned,
appear to be fairly well protected. In practice, however, the
law is not very strictly observed. Large numbers are killed to be
eaten, and eggs taken in considerable quantities for the same
purpose.

ROUMANIA.

In the Kingdom of Roumania the practice of killing birds for
food is extensively carried on. There is a law in force, which
was only passed in 1906,t but it seems to be of little or no effect.

SERVIA.

In the Kingdom of Servia there is a Shooting Law, by one
clause of which { the pursuit and kiUing of useful animals and
birds is only allowed when carried out with a gun and dog.
■Catching birds by means of Ume, traps, nets and all other like
means, is prohibited ; the catching and chasing of birds during
heavy snowfalls and the destruction of eggs and nests are also
forbidden. Penalties of fines from five to one hundred and fifty
<iinas (francs) are imposed, or one day's imprisonment for every
rfive dinas. But the killing and trapping of birds is not as exten-
sively practised in Servia as in the neighbouring countries.

* There has been a law in force in favovir of insectivorous birds in Spain
for twelve years. The reference on the notice-boards in schools is to
Sect. 2 of the Law of 19th September, 1896.

-f Law of 28th March, 1906, with rules of 28th May, 1906. J Article 7.

15

BULGARIA AND MONTENEGRO.

In the Principality — or perhaps we should say Kingdom — of
Bulgaria there are no laws on the subject of bird-protection and
birds of all kinds are shot, trapped and eaten in large numbers ;
nor are there any protective laws in the PrincipaHty of Montenegro.

TURKEY.

In Turkey there is practically no protection of birds ; and the
laws on the subject, such as they are, are treated with but scant
respect. It is true that a hcense to shoot is necessary, and the
trapping and snaring of small birds, other than the Quail, is
prohibited. But those who break the law are rarely interfered
with. In the neighbourhood of the to\vns birds of all kinds
are shot and caught for food in large numbers, and the practice
seems to be increasing ; while in the country districts shooting
and catching are mainly practised by professional hunters.

Even in the close season, which extends from the middle of
March to the middle of August, game birds can generally be bought
in the open market.

The Turk is said to regard the man who liberates a captive
bird as virtuous, though he does not hold the converse view
and consider it wrong to rob a bird of its liberty.

GREECE.

The state of affairs is no better in Greece. There are various
game laws, but these are not observed. Outside the large towns
nearly every man has his gun ; the hcense to carry firearms
costs, roughly, three shiUings and eight pence, but few trouble
to pay for a license, and nobody enforces the law, which is openly
disregarded. Birds of all kinds are regularly destroyed, and
most of them find their way into the native dish of " pilaff."
There is also a good deal of trapping in addition to the ceaseless
shooting, the clapnet being in common use. This is aU the more
disappointing as Greece was a party to the Convention of Paris.
An attempt was indeed made to make the recommendations of
the Convention law, but the measure met with such spirited
opposition in the Legislative Assembly that it was eventually
withdrawn by the Government.

ITALY.

Of the kingdoms of Europe it only remains for us to consider
the position in Italy. This country has always been the stumbling
block in the way of any effectual protection of useful birds on the
Continent. Her position on a great highway of migration gives

16

her an immense importance ; so much so that it is no exaggeration
to say that no legislation on the subject in Central Europe can
be really effective unless the stream of bird-life which passes
through Italy is properly protected. From time immemorial
the Italians have been inveterate fowlers. With the curious
exception of the duck-decoy* there is hardly any known apparatus
or device for encompassing the destruction of birds with wliich
the Italian is not familiar ; while the number of victims annually
claimed by the " Roccolo " and the " Brescianella " is almost
incredible. It is not merely that the Italian peasant is poor
and eagerly welcomes any addition to his pot, but the catching of
birds is in him a deep-rooted instinct, a habit inherited from his
ancestors.

There is a popular belief that there are no regulations in Italy
which bear on the subject of the protection of birds ; this, however,
has no foundation in fact. On the contrary, many of the
Provinces have laws, and some of these are of considerable
antiquity, dating from the period prior to the unity of the
Kingdom. Thus, in the Venetian Provinces there are still in
force laws of 1804, 1805 and 1816 ; in Tuscany, a law of 1856 ; in
the Duchy of Parma, laws of 1824, 1828 and 1835 ; in the Duchy
of Modena laws of 1815 and 1826 ; in Naples and Sicily, the law
dates from 1819 ; in the Papal States there are laws of 1826 and
1839 ; Piedmont, Lombardy, Sardinia and Marches have laws of
1836, 1844, 1845 and 1853 respectively. A perusal of these laws
will disclose that close seasons are provided for breeding birds,
and that licenses are necessary for permission to catch or destroy ;
but not only is there no uniform law applicable to the whole
sixty- nine provinces, but there is no really effective law in any
single one of them. The result is that wholesale massacre of
useful birds continues, especially at the seasons of migration and
in the northern provinces.

It should be mentioned that by Section 217 of the Communal
and Provincial Law, approved by the Italian Parliament on the
4th May, 1898, Provincial Councils are given power to fix the
months within which shooting is forbidden ; but this tends to
produce less uniformity than ever.

In spite of this unsatisfactory state of affairs, Italy has on
various occasions considered the question of putting her own
laws on a uniform scientific basis, and has also shown some
sympathy with international schemes for the protection of birds.
When the Austro-Hungarian Government endeavoured to call
attention to the subject in 1869 Italy expressed her approval ;
in 1875 she even signed a joint Declaration by which Austria

* See Macpherson's " History of Fowling," p. 255.

17

Hungary and Italy declared themselves in favour of strict and
comprehensive legislation with a view to securing the protection
of birds useful to agriculture. On the occasion of the First
International Ornithological Congress at Vienna in 1884, however,
her enthusiasm seemed to have somewhat cooled, while the
name of her representative is not to be found amongst the
signatures appended to the Paris Convention. There is, however,
some reason to believe that among the better educated ItaHans
bird-protection is slowly making headway, and several publica-
tions now advocate the cause.

MONACO, SAN MARINO, AND LUXEMBURG.

To make this short survey of European legislation more com-
plete mention should perhaps be made of the small Republics
of Monaco and San Marino and the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg ;
of these neither of the two first mentioned are of sufficient size
to be of much importance. Monaco is only about three miles long
and one and a- half miles broad, and as the ground is to a great
extent covered \vith buildings, birds are not much molested.
The representative of Monaco was, however, one of those who
signed the Paris Convention.

San Marino is a miniature Republic in the hiUs near Rimini,
has an area of rather more than thirty square miles, and is under
the protection of Italy. The inhabitants carry on the usual
Italian pursuits, including that of bird-catching, without restric-
tion.

The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg covers an area of a little under
a thousand square miles. In 1867 it was declared by the Treaty
of London to be neutral territory under the sovereignty of the
King of the Netherlands. On his death in 1890 it passed to the
Duke of Nassau. In so far as the land is not devoted to the
production of iron ore it is mostly agricultural, and the Grand
Duchy is an advocate of the principles laid down by the Paris
Convention, which was signed by her representative.

The legislation in two British possessions should also be referred
to, for each occupies a commanding geographical position on a
well-marked route of European migration.

GIBRALTAR.

One is Gibraltar, where nobody may kill, take or use a decoy or
any kind of instrument for the purpose of taking any bird without
leave.*

CYPRUS.

And the other is Cyprus, where there is a close season for birds
during the locust season, from the middle of February to the

* Ordinance of 1885.

18

beginning of August* ; while to export skins or eggs of any bird
without permission is forbidden. f There are also in Cyprus
several areas in which birds are absolutely protected, though the
killing of birds and taking of eggs may be allowed even in these
areas by the High Commissioner for scientific objects. J

GREAT BRITAIN.

The chief laws on the subject in Great Britain will shortly be
referred to. It is sufficient here to say that we have now in force,
apart from Game Laws, Statutes of 1880, 1881, 1894, 1896, 1902,
two of 1904§ and one of 1908, in addition to endless County
Protection Orders and the enactments of the local legislative
bodies of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. 1 1

On paper the number of laws to ensure the protection of birds
in Europe appears perfectly astounding. If we except Turkey,
Greece and the Balkan States, the subject has everywhere been
more or less seriously treated by legislation, and this has been
especially the case in Central Europe. In practice, however, birds
cannot be considered adequately protected in the southern parts
of the Continent, and any laws which exist there seem to be
" more honoured in the breach than the observance."

CLOSE TIME PROTECTION TO BIRDS.

The idea of protecting birds by the establishment of a close
season is by no means modern. It originated with sportsmen,
who long ago recognised the fact that unless the objects of chase
were allowed to reproduce their kind without interference, sport
would soon be either seriously curtailed or would entirely cease.

It is not within the restricted scope of this treatise to consider
the historical side of the question of bird-protection, though it is
interesting to note that a close season was first established in
England as far back as the reign of Henry VIII. by an Act " to

* Act of 1883 (No. 2). f Act of 1904 (No. 13). J Act of 189.5 (No. 3).

§ These two Acts of 1904 are not of any very general importance ; the first
made the use of the pole-trap illegal, while the second has enabled
protection to be given in the Island of St. Kilda to the eggs of the
insular form of Wren and the Fork-tailed Petrel.

!| In Jersey an Act of 1879 protects sea-birds and forbids their sale or
transport from 1st April to 1st August ; and Gulls may not at any
time be destroyed. In the Isle of Man an Act of 1868 prohibits the
killing of all Gulls and the taking of their eggs (" Gulls " includes the
Gannet, Shag, Guillemot and Skua). Another Act of 1887 makes a
general close time for all wild birds and extends protection to their
eggs and nests from 1st February to 1st September, and forbids nets,
snares or traps being at any time used to take them.

19

avoide destruction of wilde-fowle."* But our birds, apart from
those classed as game, did not obtain any protection from Parlia-
ment until the Sea-birds Preservation Act of 1869, f which has
since been repealed.

Of the Statutes now in force, the Wild Birds Preservation Act
of 1880} is the earhest and in most respects the most important —
" the Magna Charta of British Birds," as it has been called. §
The provisions of this Act v.i.th regard to a close season are shortly
as follows : —

It estabhshed a close time for all wild birds between the 1st
March and the 1st August. The Schedule which is appended to
the Act contains a hst of species in respect of which an infringe-
ment of the law is to be punished ^\ith a heavier penalty than in
the case of species not so included.

The close time is established by the third section of the Act,
a section which is in some ways very curiously framed, as we shall
see later. It should, however, be noted that to a certain extent
it does not apply to owners or occupiers of land ; these persons
and their agents being at hberty to kill or take any A^ild birds
on their land, provided that they are not included in the Schedule.
It ^\ill be observed that the close time is " between " tlie 1st
March and the 1st August, not " from " one date to the other ;
so that neither of the two dates mentioned are included in the
period to which protection is extended.

Po^^■er is given to a Secretary of State in Great Britain and
the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, on the appHcation of the
Justices in Quarter Sessions assembled in any county, to vary
the close time ; but no power to alter or add to the Schedule
was given till an Act of 1894,|| though the small addition of
" Lark " was made to the hst of birds named in the Schedule
by a short Statute in the follo^\'ing year.^

The terms of the Convention of Paris do not extend to all
"species. Article 1 says : —

" Les oiseaux utiles a I'agriculture specialement les insectivores
et notamment les oiseaux enumeres dans la liste No. 1 annexee
a la presente Convention laqueUe sera susceptible d'additions
par la legislation de chaque pays, jouiront d'une protection
absolue, de fa9on qu'il soit interdit de les tuer en tout temps et
de quelque maniere que se soit, d'en detruire les nids, oeufs, et
couvees." This was the recommendation of the Convention ;
the Articles wliich followed only suggested measures to be adopted

* 25 Henry VIII., chap. 11. f 32 & 33 Vict., chap. 17. $ 43 & 44

Vict., chap. 35.
§ By Sir Digby Pigott, C.B., in a paper read at the Fourth International

Ornithological Congress held in London in 1905.
11 57 & 58 Vict., chap. 24. ]| 44 & 45 Vict., chap. 51.

20

temporarily until the sweeping proposal contained in the first
portion of Article 1 could be carried into effect.

" En attendant que ce resultat soit atteint partout, dans son
ensemble, les Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent a prendre
ou a proposer a leurs legislatures respectives les dispositions
necessaires pour assurer 1' execution des mesures comprises dans
les articles ci-apres."

The parties to the Convention included Austria- Hungary,
Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, Greece, Portugal, Sweden
and Norway and Switzerland. The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg
and the Principality of Monaco were also represented. In spite
of the Convention several of the signatory Powers have failed
to pass laws based on the principles they undertook to adopt.

In 1886 a model law for the Protection of Birds was propounded
in America by a Committee of ten members appointed by the
American Ornithologists' Union. This model law, with slight
modifications approved by Mr. WilHam Dutcher, Chairman of
the Committee on Protection of North American Birds, was
adopted by the Audubon Societies, and its claim to the attention
of State legislatures was strenuously urged. As a result, it
has formed the basis of the laws which many of the States have
since passed.* It gives protection throughout the year to all
species, except the English Sparrow and game birds. f This has
the disadvantage of necessitating a statement of what are to be
considered as game birds. Such a statement is indeed discreetly
supplied by the law ; in practice, however, the definition is
apt to become somewhat widened. To give a single instance,
DoUchonyx orizivorus, the BoboUnk or Reedbird, which is
carefully preserved in the Northern States, is treated as a game
bird as soon as it makes its appearance further south in its
autumn plumage. It is there slaughtered for food in large
numbers, although it is no larger than a Sparrow. But the
matter does not end here, for enormous masses of other small
birds are at the same time indiscriminately killed, and are all
put on the market under the name of Reedbirds.J So the effect
of careful protection of a species in one place during its nesting
season may be thus nullified by the treatment received elsewhere
on its subsequent migration.

We have therefore several examples of protection by close
season represented. First, that in Great Britain, limited in

* Laws in many respects somewhat similar have also since been made in
various Provinces of Canada, e.g., British Columbia, Manitoba, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Qviebec.

t Sects. 1 and 7.

% T. S. Palmer on Legislation for the Protection of Birds (Washington,
1902).

21

duration but universal in the species to which it apphes, subject
to the right of the owner and occupier of land to kill unscheduled
species ; secondly, that recommended by the Convention of
1902, unlimited in duration but hmited in its application to
species useful to agriculture ; and, thirdly, the close season of
the American Model Law, unlimited in duration and universal
in its apphcation to all species, except the EngHsh Sparrow
and game birds. The objection to the last form of protection
has already been touched upon : the recommendation of the
Convention, which has been adopted in Switzerland, Hungary,
Belgium and elsewhere, rests entirely on utilitarian principles,
is regardless of all claims to protection based on aesthetic or
sentimental grounds, and leaves a good many species unprotected
which we should be sorry to lose ; while our law is the most com-
prehensive so long as the close season lasts, but in a country
inhabited during the winter by birds much in demand for the
feather trade or for food, such a law as that of 1880 would not
by itself have the desired effect, for the end of the close season
would be the signal for the commencement of slaughter.

TO NESTS AND EGGS.

Much animated discussion has taken place and various opinions
have been expressed on the question of the protection of eggs and
nests. Many authorities say : " Protect only the birds, and
the eggs, or enough of them, will be hatched." Certainly it
would appear that if the choice merely lay between protection
of the birds on the one hand and protection of the eggs on the
other, preference should be given to the former course ; many
species are fairly common although their eggs have long been
largely taken. The old Levitical law said : " If a bird's nest
chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree, or on the ground,
whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon
the young or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the
young."* A very learned authorityf referring to the old Act of
1534, to which we have already alluded, has pointed out that it
made it a penal offence to take the eggs of Herons, Spoonbills
(Shovelars), Cranes, Bitterns and Bustards, though the parent
birds might be killed Avith impunity even in the breeding season.
All these species, except the Heron, have passed away from the
list of British breeding birds.

The last record of the Spoonbill breeding in England is
probably Sir Thomas Browne's reference (1662, circ.) to their

* Deuteronomy XXII., 6.

t The late Professor Alfred Newton. Article " Spoonbill," Encycl. Brit.,
XXII., 430.

22

nesting at Trimley in Suffolk. Cranes bred in Fenland in the
time of William Turner (1544), mIio writes " earum pipiones
scepissime vidi," but they had probably ceased to nest in this
country by the end of that century. The Bittern bred in England
throughout the greater part of the nineteenth century and would
probably do so still if permitted, while the Bustard is said to have
vanished from Norfolk, its last British stronghold, in 1838.
Perhaps some of these grand species might still have remained
with us had the birds and not merely their eggs been protected
by the old law.

Those who are opposed to protection being given to eggs
usually base their views upon the assumptions that if the first
set of eggs are taken more will probably be laid and that the
second set will be hatched. With this view we venture to dis-
agree. The first assumption may be true enough, but, un-
fortunately, it cannot safely be assumed that the second set of
eggs will be left undisturbed. An unscrupulous collector has
just as little hesitation in appropriating the second clutch as
the first ; wliile another more scrupulous collector may come
along and discover the second clutch and take it, not knowing
the parents have previously been robbed.

There can be no doubt that the eggs of many of the larger and
rarer species in our country have suffered terribly, and few will
deny that in certain cases at any rate protection should be
extended to them.

Each year a large and perhaps increasing number of men
invade certain parts of the British Isles in order to obtain clutches
of the eggs of our rarer nesting species. These eggs, destined
either for the collection of the raider or for sale or exchange,
are taken in defiance of the law, sometimes by men who have
travelled long distances at great expense for the express purpose,
sometimes by poor local shepherds, to whom half-a-guinea is
an irresistible temptation. In neither case does the risk of a
small fine act as the slightest deterrent ; while the rarer the bird
has become the greater is the value set upon a British-taken
clutch of its eggs and the fiercer the competition to acquire
specimens before the extinction of the bird as a nesting species.

Protection of eggs is not mentioned in the Act of 1880 ; it
was not till the Act of 1894 that the present law on the subject
came into existence. It provided that a Secretary of State
may, after the passing of the Act,* upon application by a County
Council, make an Order prohibiting —

(1) The taking or destroying of any wild birds' eggs in
any year or years, in any place or places within the county ;

* i.e., after the 20th July, 1894.

23

(2) The taking or destroying the eggs of any specified
kind of wild birds within the county or part or parts thereof.*

Under the Convention of 1902 the same absolute protection is
to be given to eggs, nests and broods as to the birds themselvesf ;
but it wiW be recollected that this merelj^ affects the species
useful to agriculture.

The Act proposed in America runs as follows : — " No person
shall, within the State of * * *, take or needlessly destroy
the nest or the eggs of any mid bird other than a game bird, or
have such nest or eggs in his or her possession, except as per-
mitted by this Act. "J The last exception referred to is that
made by a later section§ in favour of collectors for scientific
purposes. The proposed law therefore resembles the suggestion
of the Convention in that both provide protection to the eggs
and nests of all protected species.

On comparing the laws of the various European countries, it
will be seen that wherever the subject has been seriously treated
protection has generally been extended to eggs and nests.

A suggestion has been made that since so many difficulties
present themselves in carrying our law into effect — difficulties
in identifying the eggs and in connection with boundaries — it
would be better if we adopted the principle of the Dutch and
Norwegian laws, Avhich recognise the right of owners and
occupiers in respect of eggs on their land.|| An owner of land
has always been legally considered to have a qualified riglit of
property — " ratione soli " — in the wild animals on his land,
and this right has to some extent been recognised by the Sect. 3
of our Act of 1880, by which it will be recollected that the owners
and occupiers are exempt from punishment for the offences
mentioned in the section in respect of wild birds not included in
the Schedule to the Act, But whether the land owners and
occupiers in this country could be trusted to give proper pro-
tection to the eggs, if they were to be regarded as being as much
their property as fruit, may be open to question. Difficulties
have sometimes arisen in connection with prosecutions of bird-
catchers, who, when caught in the close season trapping in a
wholesale manner birds not included in the Schedule to the Act
of 1880, have shown that they were acting with the full authority
of the owTier of the land. Now, owners were given a special right
under the Act of 1880 in order to protect their crops and fruits ;
it is an abuse of privilege to carry on a business for profit in the

* 57 & 58 Vict., Chap. 24, Sect. 2 (1), (2). t Article 1. J Sect. 2.

§ Sect. 5.
il See Sir Digby Pigott, C.B., op. cit., p. 594 ; also in " Times," 13th April

1894 ; see also " Zoologist," 1894, p. 179, et seq.

24

birds killed or taken under such circumstances. By Article 6
of the Paris Convention or under a law such as that of S\vitzer-
land specimens so obtained cannot be sold. Perhaps one day
Sect. 3 of our Act of 1880 will be amended by adding a similar
proviso. It may well be urged that an owner who abuses his
rights in connection with the birds on his property is not likely
to properly protect the eggs ; but as far as Holland is concerned,
and also in Norway, the principle of recognising rights in an
owner over the eggs on his land seems in practice to work well.

TO SPECIAL AREAS.

The formation of protected areas or sanctuaries in this
country was initiated by the Wild Birds Protection Act of 1896,
introduced by Lord Jersey.* Before the passing of this Act
very beneficial results had followed various private efforts to
protect birds in certain districts in the breeding season ; the
Fame Islands may be mentioned as an instance. The new Act
extended the powers of a Secretary of State under the Act of
1880, enabhng him by Order to prohibit the taking or killing
of all wild birds in particular places. It also extended to
Councils of County Boroughs the powers already given by the
Act of 1894 to County Councils. Lord Jersey's Act, however,
does not apply to Ireland. f

Neither the Convention of Paris nor the Model American La\^-
suggest the formation of sanctuaries ; as we have seen, they
respectively advocate absolute protection to the species deemed
useful to agriculture or to those not included in the category of
game. The idea of estabHshing such areas does not appear
to appeal strongly to continental nations. In the United States,
however, the famous Yellowstone Park and the Mount Rainier
National Park form examples of the finest sanctuaries which
legislation has anywhere established, J and there are in the States
ten other such parks, covering with the two named an area of
upwards of 70,000 square miles.§ No doubt the establishment
of sanctuaries of such size is a splendid tiling in a country in
which wide tracts of mid uninhabited land exist ; but even in
our ouTi densely crowded land much good work has been done
on a modest scale during the nesting season, especially in the
eastern counties. It is remarkable, however, that the splendid

* 59 & 60 Vict.. Chap. 56. f Sect. 6.

I Yellowstone Park is governed by an Act approved on 7th Maj'', 1894
(28 Statutes at Large, pp. 73-75), and Mount Rainier Park by an Act
approved on 2nd March, 1899 (30 Statutes at Large, pp. 993-995).

§ Palmer, op. cit., p. 70, n.

25

efforts of the watchers at such places as Wolferton, Blakeney
and Cley, Wells and Breydon, to name but a few, are entirely
supported by the voluntary subscriptions of a comparatively
small number of bird-lovers. It is not always realised how much
can be done in this way by land owners in England merely
enforcing the law of trespass without the aid of any Acts of
Parliament for the protection of wild birds. The smallest covert
carefully shielded from trespassers as a pheasant preserve becomes
a little sanctuary for many small species.

PROHIBITION OF SALE OR POSSESSION.

The question of the sale and possession of protected specimens,
whether of birds or eggs, has received a good deal of attention all
over the world. Our law* makes it penal to expose or offer for
sale or to have in control or possession after the 15th March
any wild bird " recently killed or taken." It is worthy of notice
that this does not apply to skins or plumage, but only to any
" wild bird recently killed or taken." The use of such a vague
expression as " recently killed " in a Statute cannot be too
severely deprecated. What is meant by " recently " has never
been clearly established, but, as already pointed out, the other
offences referred to in the same section become penal after the
1st March, so that " recently " probably was intended to mean
" within a fortnight. "f

In 1881, however, it was provided that to a charge for exposing
or offering for sale, or having control or possession of a recently
killed bird after the 15th March, it should be a good defence to
prove either that the bird had been lawfully killed here or that
the bird had been killed abroad and imported ; and if the accused
can now prove it was imported, the onus of proving it was
killed here is thrown on the prosecution, f To any but a
lawyer this may appear involved. The effect is as follows.
A man may kill a hundred Lapwings in April in defiance
of the Wild Bird Protection Act of 1880, send them abroad,
get them sent back to him, and then expose them for sale
at Leadenhall Market. When prosecuted, all he need do is to
prove that they came to him from abroad, and leave his accusers
to prove that the birds were killed in a place to which our Act
of 1880 extends. How often the prosecution could perform
such a feat may be left to the imagination. §

* 43 & 44 Vict., Chap. 35, Sect. 3.

t See Marchant and Watkins' Wild Birds Protection Acts, pp. 40-41.

J 44 & 45 Vict., Chap. 51, Sect. 1.

§ The law on this point had previously gone through various changes.
Prior to 1880 exposing for sale during the prohibited season was a
penal offence, and under the Act of 1876 (one of those repeated in

26

From what we have already said on our law of 1894, which
established protection for eggs, it will have been observed that
the offences which the County Councils may prohibit are
" taking " and " destroying." The penalty clause to Act,
Sect. 5, however, goes a little further, and adds to the list of
persons who may be punished anybody who shall " i7icite any
other person to take or destroy " the protected eggs. Many
people think it a pity that the Act did not go a step further still,
and, following the lines adopted in America, make it a punishable
offence to possess, sell or expose for sale or to exchange any eggs
illegally taken. At this suggestion the indignant, but un-
scrupulous, collector will perhaps exclaim : " That would mean
that if I put up my valuable collection for sale, containing
British clutches of the eggs of the Kite and other protected
species, which I have acquired at great trouble and expense, the
collection could be raided and the prizes seized and forfeited."
The reply of the equally indignant protectionist is : " Why not ?
It is a criminal offence to receive stolen goods, knowing tlaem to
be stolen ; why should a man be allowed to receive, possess or
perhaps make a profit by selling illegally taken eggs, knowing them
to have been illegally taken ? " Of course specimens of many
kinds of birds and eggs may be illegally acquired without en-
dangering the stability of the species ; the gravity of the offence
committed by the collector or dealer who has defied the law
varies according to the status of the species involved. In many
directions we think our law has extended protection quite un-
necessarily ; but, on the other hand, it is hardly possible to deal
out too severe punishment to the wretches who have helped in
recent years to reduce such birds as the British Kites, White-
tailed Eagles and Ospreys to their present pitiable plight.

Under the Paris Convention one of the Articles* provides that
it shall be forbidden from the 1st March to the 15th September
to sell or offer for sale any of the birds mentioned in Schedule of
useful species. The importation and delivery and transportation
of these birds is also to be forbidden within the same dates.
Another articlef forbids the importation of nests, eggs and nest-
lings, their colportage or exposure for sale, their sale and their
purchase.

1880) it was held to be no defence to prove that such birds had been
bought or received from abroad. (Whitehead v. Sinithers, 2 C. P. D.,
553). This case was decided in 1877. Then came the Act of 1880,
under which it was held in 1881 that birds killed abroad could not be
exjiosed for sale in England after the 15th March by a person who
had bought them from a dealer in Leadenhall Market, who had
received them from abroad (Taylor v. Rogers, 50 L. J. M. C, 132).
* Article 5. f Article 3.

27

It must, however, be remembered that the first article is the
important one, the follo\^ing clauses merely containing recom-
mendations to be carried into effect temporarily until the absolute
protection given by Article 1 can be enforced.

Turning to the American Model Law. we find it most far-
reaching and explicit ; its prohibitions relating to protected
species extend to (a) having them in possession, living or dead ;
(6) purchasing, selling or exposing them for sale ; (c) transporting
or shipping them within or without the State ; and (d) selling or
having in possession for sale any part of the plumage, skin or
body.* In addition to this, possession of the nest or eggs of any
protected species is an offence. f

The mention of plumage is of interest partly because it reminds
us of the omission of all reference to plumage in our own Act of
1880, and partly because it calls attention to one of the chief
points in connection witli the subject — the appalhng massacre of
what our American friends call " plume birds " for millinery
purposes. This subject has not up to the present received the
attention it deserves in Europe.

In a discourse on the legislation for protection of birds it would
be out of place to give many details of the horrible and loathsome
extent of the butchery wliich takes place to meet the demands of
fashion ; the records of the wholesale slaughter of nesting egrets
in order to obtain their nuptial plumes, of Gulls, Terns, Grebes
and other birds are only too familiar to all of us. Nobody
possessing a spark of humanity can read the weU-kno^vTi account
by the American naturalist Mr. W. E. D. Scott of his visit in
1887 to the nesting ground of the beautiful and once numerous
Ardea egretta in Florida M-ithout acute pain and disgust. J But
though recent legislation has done something to protect plume
birds in America, the massacre goes on gaily in many other
parts of the world.

Each year fabulous numbers of bird-skins and packets of
feathers are imported and sold in London ; and though our
resident birds do not suffer very much, the demand for the
destruction of Seagulls for miUinery purposes has apparently
not been stamped out, although without doubt the Sea Birds
Act of 1869 and subsequent legislation have done much to check
their slaughter, which was a profitable trade. § The records

* Sect. 1. t Sect. 2.

t See " The Auk," 1887, pp. 135-144, 213-222. 273-284 ; 1888, p. 128.

There is special legislation no\v in Florida to protect plume birds ;

but the stable door has been shut after most of the horses have left.
§ See Rev. Juhan G. Tnck, " Zoologist," 1903, pp. 353 and 395 ; also

article " liittiwake " in Nelson's " Birds of Yorkshire," Vol. II.,

p. 689.

28

clearly point in the cases of many of the imported skins to the
speedy extermination of the species involved.* And all to
satisfy cruel and thoughtless female vanity !

The attention of the British public has been drawn to this
important matter by the Bill introduced into the House of
Lords in the spring of 1908 by Lord Avebury. By the time it
left the House of Lords after its third reading, it was a Bill
prohibiting the possession for the purpose of sale or exchange
of imported birds or their plumage ; it did not, however, apply
to the plumage of Ostriches or Eider Ducks. Exceptions were
also made in favour of wild birds imported for use as articles of
diet, imported birds held under licence of the Board of Trade
for supplying museums or for scientific research, plumage forming
part of the wearing apparel of any person entering the United
Kingdom, and plumage imported for use solely in the manu-
facture of flies for the capture of fish.

In spite of its critics, the Bill was a long step in the right direction,
and the greatest credit is due to those responsible for its intro-
duction. We are sure it " hit the right nail on the head " in
making " possession " the key note.

The objection most strongly put forward against the Bill was
that such a law would not affect its object so long as markets for
sale in other lands remained open. This objection is probably
more specious than real ; at any rate such a law would go a long
way towards the accomplishment of its object by destroying
the best market of this revolting and detestable trade.

Appalling evidence was given before the Select Committee
appointed to consider Lord Avebury's Bill showing the enormous
extent of the sales of skins and feathers. The catalogues of
feather sales in the Commercial Sale Rooms in London in 1907
contained entries of over 28,000 skins of Birds of Paradise, and
the feather packages catalogued during the last half of that
year contained the plumes of 115,000 birds, mostly Herons.
The figures given to the Committee were subjected to somewhat
severe criticism by representatives of the millinery trade, and
no doubt considerable allowance must be made for the fact that
articles not sold at one auction are frequently included in the
catalogue of the next ; but it was clearly proved that wholesale
butchery takes place on a scale so gigantic, so sickening, that it
makes the brain reel to think of it.

It is of course true that many of these feathers are sent here
from coimtries over which Great Britain has not control, and

* How near some of the Birds of Paradise are to extinction was shown by
Mr. Walter Goodfellow at the meeting of the British Ornithologists'
Club on 19th June, 1907.

29

from which we cannot proliibit exportation. But if the im-
portation into our country is stopped other Governments may
follow suit. Representations to foreign countries are much
more likely to be effectual if made by a Government which has had
the courage of its convictions, and has already put its principles
into practice. Unfortunately, owing to pressure of other
business, the Bill has not succeeded in receiving a second reading
in the Lower House.

The wearing of plumes for ornament is a survival of a barbaric
age ; just as much as the wearing of such adornments as nose-
rings and ear-rings, which usually entail mutilation. It Mill
be a long time before such forms of female decoration cease,
but when the point is reached at which the extermination of rare
and beautiful species is threatened, interference on scientific
and humanitarian grounds is amply justified. Nevertheless
great care must be exercised in interfering with any practice
which is ancient and widely spread. Not very long ago a South
American tribe was found whose members wore no clothes
whatever, but they hung shells from the nose, ears and under-lip,
and stuck a Macaw's feather into a hole made at each corner of
the mouth.* Now those Macaw's feathers represent the fashion
of feather ornament for the head in its simplest form. How
great a distance separates them from the last link in the chain of
development — the " Merry Widow " hat !

There is no reason why the preparation of the plumage of
birds used as articles of diet and the manufacture of artificial
feathers should not between them provide in the future all that
fashion can demand and give employment to at least as many
hands as are now engaged in the millinery trade. Judging by the
development of artificial flowers for the same purpose, the manu-
facture of feathers appears to be an industry which has hitherto
been neglected, and one which should have a considerable future.
Moreover, unless the fashion greatly changes, it is one of the
few futures bound to come ; for even if the present perpetual
massacre cannot be checked by law, it must sooner or later
cease, as the late Professor Newton said, " for want of
victims."

SCHEDULES OF "USEFUL" OR "INJURIOUS" BIRDS.

In much of the legislation on the subject an attempt has been
made to indicate by lists or schedules the particular species of
birds deemed to be worthy of protection or otherwise. The
former course is the one generally adopted, though, as we have

* See Dr. E. B. Tylor's " Anthropology," p. 241.

30

seen, in Germany the Imperial Law of 1888 took the more
unusual line of simply declaring what species should be considered
noxious. It is merely a matter of convenience which course to
adopt, although personally we are not much in favour of
schedules of " noxious " birds, for the publication of a list of
birds bi-anded as " noxious " is apt to cause their wanton
slaughter by thoughtless and ignorant persons. Almost all
legislation on the subject is framed with the ultimate object of
preserving something of use or value to men. This gives rise
to the question — Valuable in what way ? Now birds are valuable
in various ways. They often have a very distinct aesthetic
value, for in most cases their flight is beautiful ; their forms are
often lovely beyond all powers of human description ; their
colours are frequently exquisite, and their songs mean some-
times more to us than anything M'hich our own language can
convey. Think for a moment of the Blackcap singing on its
first arrival in an English spring. Who has had the fortune to
listen to that song and not felt unworthy of the privilege ?
Birds have also a great economic value. Those of certain orders
are regular articles of food throughout the universe, and have
been objects of the chase as long as hunting has existed. The
value of birds has, moreover, now become generally recognised
in relation to agriculture in its wider sense, including forestry
and horticulture. The sportsman has for many generations in-
sisted on his game being sufficiently preserved during the breeding
season ; the legislation in favour of birds useful to agriculture
has practically all come into existence during the last century,
while protection given by law on aesthetic or humanitarian
grounds has been granted quite recently, such legislation being
the result of disgust at the ruthless slaughter of certain beautiful
and harmless species.

Speaking generally, it is by devouring insects that birds are
most directly useful to agriculture, and the majority of the
schedules proceed upon the basis of including as useful all in-
sectivorous species. It is not, however, always easy to say
whether a species should be included in a schedule of useful birds.
It may be considered decidedly useful in one district and decidedly
harmful in another ; or, as is more usually the case, partly
harmful and partly useful in each. In the latter case the
evidence must be very carefully weighed. To take a common
instance, Skylarks are often accused, and rightly so, of attacking
freshly-drilled oats and autumn-sown ^^'heat ; but in many dis-
tricts hardly any wheat or oats are grown, and everywhere they
destroy large numbers of insects and seeds of weeds. Or again,
let us take the case of the Chaffinch, a bird of which many

31

complaints are made. We are told by one student of economic
ornithology that the Chaffinch does great harm to fruit by
destroying buds* ; another authority refers to the damage it
does to young turnips, radishes and similar crops. f But there
is equally no doubt that it is a great consumer of insects, and it is
interesting to see that IVIr. He^vitt in his Report to the Water-
works Committee of the Corporation of Manchester, referring to
the damage done by the ravages of the Larch Sawfly in the plan-
tations of the Thirlmere district, advocates as a remedy the
encouragement of the Chaffinch and certain other birds. { Our
own view, based on careful observation, happens to be somewhat
strongly in favour of this bird, but there is evidently a good deal
to be said on the other side. ]VIr. Theobald, an impartial judge,
says : " There seems so much difference of opinion in regard to
this Finch that it is probably best left in its present condition,
but any undue increase must of necessity be checked by shooting
the birds after their nestlings are mature. "§ Such cases as those
of the Skylark and Chaffinch, both very common birds, are
sufficient to illustrate the kind of difficulty M'hich arises at every
turn in the compilation of a schedule of useful or insectivorous
species.

Our Act of 1880 is provided A\dth a rather curious Schedule.
The Act itself, it ^^'ill be remembered, provides a close season for
all ^\'ild birds ; an offence in respect of a scheduled species being
more heavily punished than an offence Avith regard to a species
not included in the Schedule. Now, if we peruse this Schedule,
we look in vain for the names of any Warblers other than the
Nightingale ; and insect feeders, such as the Swallow, Robin,
Wheatears, Flycatchers, Wagtails, are all omitted. The
Schedule horrifies some of our neighbours on the Continent,
who do not perhaps appreciate the fact that so many insec-
tivorous birds find a paradise in England, and that a large
portion of our country s\Aarms ^nth them throughout the
summer months.

The Schedule to the Act of 1880 seems in fact to include
cliiefly the larger birds, which are the more likely to be interfered
with ; the numerous species of small insectivorous birds being
omitted, partly, no doubt, because they are so numerous, and
partly because they can under prevalent conditions very well

* F. Smith, " The Fruitgrower and the Birds " (Maidstone, 1906).

t Charles F. Archibald, " Wild Birds Useful and Injurious," Journ. Roy.

Agric. Soc, 1892.
1 C. Gordon Hewitt's Report to Waterworks Committee of the Manchester

Corporation, November, 1907.
§ Fred V. Theobald, Economic Ornithology in " Science Progress," October,

1907, p. 274.

32

look after themselves. The number of thick hedges and woods
in this country, combined with the large amount of the land
given up to game preserving, enable innumerable small insect-
eating species to breed practically undisturbed.* These species
have no need of legislative protection in this country ; and,
with certain notable exceptions, we have but few small birds
which do require it. In spite of the criticism levelled at it, we
venture to think that under existing circumstances the Schedule
of our Act has not much wrong Mith it.

The Paris Convention has a Schedule of the birds for which it
recommends absolute protection ; it also has a provisional
Schedule of noxious birds. These Schedules have, generally
speaking, formed the basis of the laws of such countries as have
carried out the obhgation they undertook in 1902 to bring their
laws into conformity with the terms of the Convention within
three years.

The Schedule of species designated by the Convention for
special protection is however somewhat limited. The Cuckoo,
for instance, is mentioned for special protection in almost every
country in Europe in which there has been important legislation.
It is named not only in the Schedule to our Act of 1880, but also
in the Hungarian Decree of 1891 and in the laws of many of the
Federal German States ; it is particularly selected for protection
in the Belgian enactment of 1906, in the SaWss law of 1904, in
the amended Dutch law of 1880, and in the Spanish law of 1902.
Yet when we look for the name of the Cuckoo in the first Schedule
to the Convention, we search in vain !

Allusion has been made to the position in Germany, where the
Imperial Statute gives merely a list of noxious birds, leaving the
rest by imphcation to be protected as useful ; whereas most of
the Federal German States have their own independent laws
with list of species to be protected as useful. This leads to a
confusing result in many cases. For, as already pointed out,
some species are not included as " noxious " in the Imperial Act,
and are therefore impliedly worthy of protection as useful ;
but neither are they included in the Schedule of any federal law
as useful, and are therefore by imphcation noxious !

The American Model Law has no Schedule as it gives universal
protection except to game birds, which are otherwise provided
for, and to the Sparrow. This method requires, as already pointed
out, a definition or a list to show what is included in the term
" Game." Such comprehensive terms are apt to be too widely
construed ; we know, for instance, what a generous interpretation
our gamekeepers give to " vermin."

* See Report of Select Committee appointed by House of Commons on
Wild Birds Protection, 1873. Appendix, pp. 188-193.

33

On the whole, the balance of practical opinion in Europe seems
in favour of Schedules of protected species being confined to
those which are insectivorous ; to which a few which deserve
protection for aesthetic or scientific reasons should be added.
But in every country of large extent there is such variety in the
physical features and in the nature of the cultivation, and
consequently in the avifauna of the various districts, that con-
siderable scope should be allowed in all legislation for altering the
Schedule either by omission or additions, in order to suit the
needs of particular localities.

Notices of schedules of protected birds, together -with the
prohibitions relating to them, should be conspicuously posted
throughout the districts affected ; and local names of the birds
should be always given to prevent offenders pleading the excuse
of ignorance.

LOCAL OPTION FOR ADOPTION OR MODIFICATION

OF LAWS.

We have already indicated the futility of protecting a species
while nesting in one country, if it is destroyed in another country
through which it has to pass on migration to reach or leave its
breeding ground. No international system of bird protection
can be really successful unless there is some uniformity in its
apphcation. And what is true with countries holds good on
a smaller scale with counties. We find advantage has been
taken in most British counties of the power to apply for Pro-
tection Orders. Even had we space at our command for the
purpose no useful object would be served by a comparison of
the various Orders applied for and obtained by the various
Councils of counties and country boroughs.* The applicants are
bodies of men who rarely have much knowledge on the subject,
few of them " know a Hawk from a handsaw," and in the end we
see a vast number of Orders, many of them astounding in them-
selves but still more peculiar when compared with the Orders
in force in the surrounding counties. It is impossible to refrain
from doubting whether the economic side of the question has
been considered at all by some of these Councils. The Bullfinch,
for example, is undoubtedly terribly destructive. One of our
best field-naturalists, Mr. J. Whitaker, tells us how he once
gave the Bullfinch a " free run," and describes the result : —
" Not a dozen gooseberries did we get, and we have not had a
score of plums in ten years, in fact two good trees are half dead,
the result of not only almost all the flower buds being taken

* See Sir Digby Pigott, op. cit., pp. 604-606.

34

but half the leaf ones, and this year they gave the apple trees
a good dressing, and when the flowers were just opening the
ground underneath was covered "with shattered buds. Some
say they are taking those which have an insect in them, but I
think they take the buds because they hke to eat them. I find
the only ones left are those on the end of the thin tA^igs, wliich they
cannot reach."*

It would be difficult to find a fruit-grower express any other
opinion. Yet the eggs of the Bullfinch are protected by Orders
obtained by County Councils in a considerable number of districts.
It is pleasant to think that it is so, for so handsome a bird is a
pleasure to see. But it is impossible to discover any principle
underlying the treatment which this and other species receive
in the various counties.

In Scotland the Protection Orders show far more uniformity
and inteUigence than in England. There can be no doubt that
^\itllin certain hmits it is desirable to have power to exclude or
modify the operation of a general law to meet the requirements
of a particular district. Tliis fact, which has been recognised,
as far as birds are concerned, by our Act of 1896, f had previously
been recognised with regard to eggs by the Act of 1894. J

The Paris Convention contains a clause§ by which o's^Tiers of
\dneyards, orchards and gardens are to be allowed to shoot birds
which are harmful, but the right is merely to be temporary.
It is provided! I that exemption from the protection given by the
Convention may be granted in the case of birds deemed injurious
to sport and birds considered injurious to the agriculture of any
country. Apart from this, there is no special provision for partial
adoption or modification of the terms of the Convention.

Nor do we find any provision for modification in the American
Model Law, though it is, of course, open to any State to enlarge
or curtail the definition of game birds which is contained in
Sect. (1) and to omit or add to Sect. (7), which excludes the
Sparrow from protection. The remarks which originally
accompanied the proposed law, however, urged its adoption as
prepared. This advice was perhaps due to the great danger in
allo^^ing local option to control the adoption or modification of
laws of this nature, o\\'ing to the crass ignorance of the average
persons or bodies to whom the exercise of such option is generally
entrusted.

In theory such local option is excellent ; for counties, and even

* " Xotes on the Birds of Xottinghamshire," p. 102.

t 59 & 60 Vict., Chap. 56, Sect. 1.

X It is interesting to compare one of the English County Orders with a

French Departmental Decree.
§ Article 6. || Article 9»

35

districts within a county, often vary enormously in their physical
features and in their agricultural conditions, and consequently
present various problems of economic ornithology. But local
Councils should always act in such matters on competent advice
of those who are acquainted, not only -uith the needs of the county
or district in question, but also with the position in regard to
bird-protection in the neighbouring counties. Moreover, an
ideal system should be elastic, so as to enable alterations to be
made when and where required. For the number and dis-
tribution of any given species are liable to considerable variation
mthin a comparatively short space of time. We are constantly
hearing sad accounts of the disappearance of tliis or that bird
from some district in which it was once common, but there are
other species which are undoubtedly increasing, and these are
not always bu'ds which can be considered useful to agriculture.

Let us consider, as an example, the case of the Ha\vfinch,
which not long ago was looked upon as an autumn or Avinter
visitor to the British Isles. Whether, on account of its supposed
rarity or otherwise, the Hawfinch has been given a special close
time in many parts of England, and its eggs have also been
protected in many districts. Now, though this bird takes a
certain number of caterpillars and insects, cliiefly for feeding its
young, the damage it does to green peas is astounding, while
there is also unanswerable evidence of the great havoc A\T0ught
by it on apples, pears, damsons and nuts. A well-known
authority says : " There certainly does not seem any evidence
to entitle it to the protection afforded it by some County
Councils."* We have rarely heard a good word said for the
Hawfinch by the gardener who has received visits from it.
Speaking of its ravages on the kitchen garden, Mr. Wliitaker
says : "I don't hesitate to say, and I speak from experience,
that where peas are not protected, or birds not shot, fully half
the crop will be taken." f And yet, possibly to a certain extent
on account of protective legislation, the Ha\\'finch has increased
enormously in numbers and has also increased its range. To
the west it is rapidly spreacUng through Wales, while to the north
it has now extended as a breeding species to Northumberland,
where it was first found nesting in 1901, and even to Scotland,
where its nest was discovered in 1903 near Newport in Fife.
When it is possible for the status of a species to completely alter
in the course of a few years, the advisability of giving local bodies
a certaLa amount of latitude, within which to exercise their
discretion, becomes evident ; but the exercise of that discretion

* F. V. Theobald, op. cit. See also Bulletin British Ornithologists' Club,
Vol. XXIII, p. 24. t J- Whitaker, op. cit., p. 86.

36

should be based on evidence carefully weighed by those com-
petent to deal with it, and should, we think, be subject to the
supervision of a central authority,

THE WORKING AND ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTIVE

LAWS.

In spite of the mass of legislation for protecting birds which
exists in Europe, the laws are apt to be disregarded, and to
depend for their enforcement upon the energy of a few individuals
who are interested in the subject. This is certainly the case in
our own country, where but for the efforts of a few enthusiastic
persons and societies the proportion of offenders brought to
justice would be infinitesimal. We must, remember, however,
that not only has the person who assumes the role of prosecutor
to undergo considerable inconvenience, but that in many cases
great difficulties have to be encountered, and that our law is in
some respects very imperfect and confusing.

Imagine, for instance, proceedings against a man who has taken
the eggs of the Cole-Tit in Derbyshire — a county in which the
eggs of this species were the subject of a Protection Order, while
those of the Blue-Tit were not. Unless the prosecutor in such
a case had actually seen the bird on the nest, how could he swear
to which species the eggs belonged ? How many oologists
would care to face the always unpleasant ordeal of cross-
examination on such a subject ?

Again, it is difficult to imagine anything more likely to cause
perplexity and confusion than the chief section of the most
important Act, that of 1880. Only those who have carefully
read Sect. 3 realise that it is not an offence under the Act to kill
a wild bird except by shooting it ; nor is it an offence to take it,
though it is forbidden to use any lime, trap, snare, net or other
instrument for the purpose of taking.

The form of this section is all the more curious when it is seen
that under the earlier Statutes of 1872 and 1876, which were both
repealed by this Act, " taking " is made an offence.

No doubt it was intended to make the taking of birds punishable
under our Act of 1880 ; the marginal note to the section is,
" Penalties for shooting or taking wild birds," but in construing
an Act of Parliament the marginal note may not be considered
as part of the Act.*

Now it is quite true that under the first section of the Act of
1896 an Order may be made prohibiting the taking or killing of

* Att. Gen. v. G.E. Railway Co., 11 Ch. Div., 449.

37

all wild birds in a given district. But no penalty is fixed by this
Act for the infringement of such an Order, and there are no
penalties under any earlier existing Act either for taking A\-ild
birds or for kilUng, except by shooting them ; therefore a man
may in these respects infringe the Order and go unpunished.*

Another point which frequently arises is the difficulty of
proving the birds in the possession of the person charged to be
wild birds.

Over twenty years ago we remember a man being charged under
the Act of 1880 with having in his possession some young Wild
Duck in dowTi from the nest. It was believed he Avould in defence
allege that they were the young of one of his own domestic ducks.
An ornithologist friend and ourselves were visited by the officer
in charge of the prosecution, who required us to state then and
there whether one of the wTctched Httle downy dead birds
produced to us was of wild or domestic origin. We had not seen
the nest from wiiich it had been hatched, and w^e had no specimens
for comparison. We hurriedly referred to a few' standard books
on birds, wiiich helped but Httle, and to Darwin's great work on
" Animals and Plants under Domestication," and took some
measurements. We both inclined to the behef that the specimen
was a recently hatched duckling of Anas boscas, but would have
been sorry to have been asked to swear to the fact without
further investigation and consideration. The officer, however,
did not require our presence at the tribunal before which the
case was to be tried, but merely w^anted an opinion in wiiting.
A very guarded expression of our view was therefore wTitten,
with which he contentedly retired. We afterwards heard that
any difficulties presented by the case w^ere overcome by the
possessor of the birds pleading " guilty." We have often since
wondered to what use it was intended to put that unsworn
opinion in the absence of the persons who wTote it. It is said
that nearly four hundred cases under the Wild Birds Protection
Acts are heard each year, and that convictions result from about
half of them. How interesting it would be if the evidence upon
which all these convictions are obtained was pubHshed !

The penalties fixed by the Act of 1880 are very light, the
maximum fine is only one pound for each scheduled bird in
respect of w^hicli an offence has been committed, and m respect
of each unscheduled bird a reprimand and payment of costs on
the first offence, and a maximum penalty of five shilHngs for every
subsequent offence. f The punishment for taking, destroying
or inciting any other person to destroy eggs protected under the
Act of 1894 extends to a fine of one pound for every egg taken or
destroyed. J
* See Marchant and Watkins, op. cit., p. 34. f Sect. 3. J Sect. 5.

38

The Statute of 1896 went a step further m giving the Court
power on a conviction, in addition to any fine, to order any trap,
net, snare or decoy bird used for taking any wild bird to be for-
feited.* And more recently still, in 1902, another Act was
passed, still further extending the po^ver of ordering forfeiture
to the birds or eggs illegally taken.!

The Paris Convention does not suggest any particular form of
penalty ; it simply leaves the contracting parties to enforce the
terms in such manner as they maj^ think fit. But under the
American Model Law the penalties suggested are severe : fines
in respect of each offence and additional fines in respect of each
specimen unlawfully taken, or imprisonment, or both. J Im-
prisonment is a drastic punishment, and has, as far as we know,
never been proposed in Great Britain, though it might well be
added to our list of penalties for second or very gross offences,
and, as we have seen, imprisonment can be ordered in some cases
in France. The introduction of forfeiture of specimens in 1902
was, however, a most salutary move, and this punishment is
likely to prove a more effectual deterrent than the infliction of
fines. Much of the havoc among birds, and even more so among
eggs, has been wrought either by amateur collectors in comfortable
circumstances, to whom a small fine means nothing, or by the
professional dealer, to whom it only means slightly raising the
market value of the specimen.

In the matter of punishment, our law is now on very much the
same footing as that of Switzerland, where, as we have seen,
in addition to fines, the specimens taken and the traps and im-
plements used for the purpose may be confiscated. It will be
remembered that similar provision is made by the laws of various
other lands — by Spain, Belgium and Holland.

In America, as in England, a great deal of work in the cause of
bird-protection has been done by Societies ; but we have here
nothing to correspond to the Wardens in the United States of
America or the Field- Police of Hungarj'^ ; or, in our own colonies,
to the Rangers in Queensland, the Wardens in some parts of
Canada, or the Inspectors in West Australia, whose duty it is
to see that the law is observed.§ It is, unfortunately, the fact
that many of the private individuals most enthusiastic in their
support of bird-protection have a not unnatural horror of legal
proceedings, and are insufficiently informed in the laws relating
to the subject ; they are therefore not competent to procure
convictions even in cases Avhere the law has been flagrantly
broken. However stringent a law on any subject may be, it

* 59 & 60 Vict., Chap. 56, Sect. 4.

t 2 Ed. VII., Chap. 6. f Sect. 3. § See page 50.

39

is worse than useless if it is allowed to become a dead letter,
and not until the subject of the protection of birds is more
seriously considered in this country, probably not until it has
a department of the Board of Agriculture exclusively devoted to
it, as ought to have been the case long ago, are we likely to have
any organised system for bringing offenders to justice or for better
disseminating amongst those engaged in agriculture and horti-
culture reliable information upon a matter which touches them
far more nearly than they at present realise.

PERMISSION TO TAKE SPECIMENS FOR MUSEUMS, Etc.

However closely any country may preserve its Avild birds,
there can be no two opinions as to the advisability of making
exceptions in favour of bona fide collectors for museums or for
other directly scientific purposes. This fact has been widely
recognised for some time past ; we find provision made for the
scientific collector as long ago as 1837 in the laws of the Grand
Duchy of Hesse, and this matter was alluded to in the proceedings
at the International Economic Congress at Vienna in 1873, and
was the subject of Sect. 8 of the Declaration between Austria-
Hungary and Italy in 1875, to which allusion has already been
made. In countries where the law compels the attention of
children and students, as in S\^itzerland and Spain, to be dra-wTi
to the subject of bird-protection, reference to specimens must not
only be most useful but almost a necessity. In our oa^ti country
" Nature-study " has made considerable advance, and the value
of well-arranged museums is becoming recognised ; and yet our
law, with characteristic disregard of the claims of science,
permits of no exceptions in favour of the scientific collector.

The Paris Convention* provides that authorities should have
power to grant exemptions from the enactments of the Con-
vention for scientific purposes in particular cases, after taking
all necessary precautions to prevent abuse of the privilege ;
and permits may be extended to the taking of \^dld birds for
breeding and keeping them in captivity. Permits to persons
with scientific objects may, as we have seen, be obtained now
under the laws of various European countries, for instance, in
Belgium, Holland, Hungary or Switzerland.

It is somewhat surprising to find that about one-third of the
American Model Law is devoted to this subject, and its provisions
are very elaborate. Certificates may be obtained by persons
of fifteen years of age or upwards. Such certificates are to be

* Article 7.

40

granted on the recommendation of two well-known scientific
men, and the collector must enter into a bond in the sum of
two hundred dollars, mtli two responsible sureties. These
certificates are to be issued on payment of a fee of one dollar,
and are to remain in force for one year only. If the privileges
granted by the certificate are abused, the bond is to be forfeited,
the certificate rendered void, and penalties may be exacted.*
In practice, upwards of thirty States give facilities to the
scientific collector, and in most cases certificates are issued as
recommended by the Model Law. Some States, however,
grant them for three years {e.g., Maine), others for less ; some
limit the number of permits in force at any one time. Colorado,
Maine, Minnesota and Wisconsin issue certificates only on con-
dition that the specimens collected shall be kept or exchanged,
and not sold or disposed of by gift ; in Michigan they can neither
be exchanged nor sold. Again, the minimum age for the holder
of a certificate varies from that of fifteen, recommended by the
Model Law, to twenty-one, required in Massachussetts and New
Jersey, t But in one form or another the suggested law has
been very generally adopted. The restrictions placed by some
States upon the sale and exchange of specimens collected is
a noteworthy and A\ise precaution, for it is obvious that the
liberty to collect might be abused by the subsequent disposal of
the specimens, a point which has not altogether escaped notice
in Europe. J

It is certainly a flaw in our own law that no facilities are given
to the collector for museums, though it may be doubted whether
the system of certified collectors prevalent in America could be
successfully established in a land which is small and mostly
cultivated. At any rate such certificates should specify the
nature and number of specimens to be obtained ; added to
which the number of certificates in force at any one time would
have to be very limited, and the utmost care and discrimination
exercised in their issue, otherwise the professional dealer would
soon be masquerading as the disciple of Science in order that
he might supply greedy and often very unscientific collectors mth
British-taken specimens.

* Sects. 5 and 6 of Model Law.

t For Maine, see Public Laws of 1901, Chap. 222, pp. 2.31-233, Sect. 7;
for Colorado, see Laws of 1897, Chap. 8, pp. 40-49, Sect. 31 ; for
Minnesota, see General Laws of 1897, Chap. 221, pp. 413-427, Sect. 41 ;
for Wisconsin, see Laws of 1901, Chap. 1-56, pp. 190-191, Sects. 5 and
6 ; for Michigan, see Public Acts of 1901, No. 217, pp. 335-339, Sect
21 ; for Massachusetts, see Supplemental Public Statutes, 1882-
1888, Chap. 276, p. 435, Sect. 4 ; and for New Jersey, see Laws of
1901, Chap. 76, pp. 176-178, Sect. 5.

t E.g., Switzerland has provided against this possible abuse in Article 20
of the law of 1904.

41

WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION OF MIGRATORY BIRDS.

When a bird is considered useful for food, we usually find
that it is slaughtered, and the farmer has to do without its
services however useful it may be to agriculture. In such cases
the slaughter generally takes place during migration, when the
members of the species are gregarious ; and the deadly certainty
with which migration follows the same routes year by year has
rendered the task of the fowler with regard to many species a
comparatively easy one, and the success which attends his efforts
is often staggering.

In England this wholesale destruction of migrating birds, as
practised in some parts of the European Continent, does not
take place. Time was when in autumn there was a great capture
of Wheatears for food on the South Downs, but these birds are
not now taken in large numbers ; and though in certain places
many birds are still netted for caging, it is doubtful whether
this is done on the same scale as formerly, when near Worthing
alone over 1,100 dozen Goldfinches were said to have been
caught annually.*

The Paris Convention forbids the construction and employment
of traps, cages, nets, lime-twigs and any other instruments
used to facilitate the capture or destruction of birds " en masse. "f
This provision has no parallel in our law, but is amply justified
by what goes on in South Europe, and to a lesser extent even
in France, where, as Ave have seen, " la chasse des oiseaux de
passage " receives statutory recognition.

An instance may be given of the havoc played amongst the
Thrushes in the Bouches-du-Rhone, which has been recorded by
two French authors. { The birds, chiefly Song Thrushes, are
practically all obtained on their autumn migration during the
last week of September to the middle of October. It was calculated
that 326,000 are annually shot, while many thousands more
are caught by bird-lime. But these figures, startling as they are,
fade into insignificance when we turn to the records of North
Italy. It has been stated by Professor Vallon that in October,

* " Zoologist," 1860, p. 7144.

f Article 3. See also evidence of W. Swaysland in Report of Select Com-
mittee of House of Commons on Wild Birds Protection, 1873, pp. 102-
108; also G. D. Rowley, Ornithological Miscellany, Vol. II., p. 84.

J Jaubert and Barthelemy-Lapommerage in " Richesses Ornithologiques
du Midi de la France." See also " Zoologist," 1898, p. 285, on the
report of Mr. Consul Hearn on the trade of Bordeaux, in which he
comments on the disastrous effects on the vineyards of the destruction
of insectivorous birds ; also E. C. Mitford in " Zoologist," 1889,
p. 185, as to slaughter of birds in Biarritz.

42

1890, alone, over 400,000 small birds passed through the hands of
the customs-house officials at Brescia, and Count Salvadori
has shown that a single Italian " roccolo " has in twenty years
been responsible for the destruction of over 135,000 small birds.*
When one considers the number of these apparatus in North
Italy and the various other devices employed regularly and at
almost every suitable point at the season of migration, along
each of the recognised routes, it becomes evident that massacre
must take place on a scale which is too appalling to contemplate.
It is a second nature to the Italian to repair annually to the
neighbouring valley to destroy the migrating flocks of birds ;
yet he can only ply his trade successfully owing to the even more
firmly rooted hereditary instinct which leads those flocks —
never profiting by experience — year by year, at the same season,
through the same valleys.

No discussion on the slaughter of migratory birds can omit
reference to the wholesale capture of Quails wliich takes place in
the south of Europe. This bird is a poor flyer, and, crossing the
Mediterranean Sea in spring at its narrowest points, arrives
exhausted and is easily taken. Some cross to Spain by the Straits
of Gibraltar, some cross the ^gean Sea to Greece and Turkey,
and the main body cross to Italy. Wherever they land after
their journey they are caught in thousands. The captures on
the return journey in autumn are also enormous. A large volume
might be written on the catching of the Quail. This bird has
been celebrated as an article of diet from time immemorial.
There has admittedly been a great reduction in their numbers,
and the only wonder is that any Quails exist. Some years ago
a well-known French naturalist, the Baron d'Hamonville,
wrote : "Si les gouvernements ne prennent pas des mesures
pour empecher cette destruction periodique la Caille dans peu
d'annees ne sera plus qu'a I'etat de souvenir."f Eighteen
years have elapsed since this was written, and still large, though
diminished, numbers are taken. The mortality of the birds in
the long narrow cages in which they are transported is sufficient
evidence of the misery they must endure.

In America the Model Law, \^dth its sweeping protective
provisions, makes, of course, no specific reference to wholesale
destruction of migratory birds, but in some of the Southern States
hideous slaughter of certain species still takes place, and no more
terrible instance of the effects of the wholesale massacre of a

* These figures are quoted from Herman's work on the Convention of
1902, previously referred to. Instances could be multiplied almost
indefinitely. See also Professor Giglioli's " Avifauna Italica," Part
III. (Firenze, 1891), pp. 2-36.

f See " La Vie des Oiseaux," p. 217.

43

species can be given than the case of Ectopistes migratorius,
the Passenger Pigeon of America. To reahse the vast hordes in
which this bird was found is quite beyond the bounds of human
imagination. Their movements were not due to the famiUar
impulse of seasonal migration, but seemed to be governed solely
by abundance of food. A nesting colony in Michigan in 1877
was twenty- eight miles long and three or four miles wide in
a thickly wooded district ; yet every tree had a nest, and many
trees were covered ^\'ith them. But the birds were attacked
wholesale. In one year, 1881, no less than five hundred men
were engaged in netting these pigeons in Michigan, and they are
said to have captured 20,000 birds apiece during the year. A
few years ago we heard of the countless millions in which this
species existed ; now we hear of the likelihood of its absolute
extermination !*

According to Mr. Palmert : "In some sections of the south,
particularly in l^ew Orleans, all kinds of small birds, even
Thrushes, are considered legitimate game, and are offered for
sale in the markets." He also quotes Professor H. Nehrling,
who says : " One main cause of the fearful decrease of our small
migratory birds must be looked for in our Southern States.
There millions of all kinds of birds are killed to satisfy the palate
of the gourmand." The species which suffers most is the well-
known Thrush commonly called the American "Robin"
{T Urdus migratorius), which it is legal to kill in North Carolina
from the 1st November to the middle of March, and which is
slaughtered in large quantities just before its northward
migration begins. ' With open seasons in winter in Alabama,
Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee the smaller birds receive
but little protection during their sojourn in the South." {

Wlien we contemplate the number of noxious insects which
may be consumed by a bird in a single hour and the rate at which
most insects can increase in numbers ; and when we further con-
sider the rate at which most birds can under suitable circum-
stances increase, it becomes possible to appreciate how terribly
the balance of Nature must be upset by the wholesale slaughter
of birds during their migratory wanderings.

COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC VALUE ATTACHED TO

SPECIES.

As far as legislation in Europe has gone it has proceeded but
little on aesthetic grounds. Virtually all the birds protected
are those deemed useful to agriculture and those deemed useful

* See W. Brewster, " The Auk," October, 1889. f T. S. Palmer, op. cit.,
p. 29. X T. S. Palmer, op. cit., p. 56.

44

for food, the latter being dealt with by game laws. Even as an
article of diet a particular species may be held in esteem in one
place and disregarded in another. Let us take the case of the
Starling. Few care to eat StarUngs here, though in the south of
Europe they are considered quite a dainty. Pennant stated
that " their flesh is so bitter as to be scarce eatable."* Old
Willughby said : " Stares are not eaten in England by reason
of the bitterness of their flesh ; the ItaHans and other out-
landish people are not so squeamish, but they can away with them
and make a dish of them for all that."! And the taste for Star-
lings is not confined to Europe, for the inhabitants of North
West Africa kill and eat thousands of them in mnter, when they
arrive in vast hordes to feed on the ripe fruit in the date forests. {
This same bird, looked at from an agricultural point of view, has
also caused considerable difference of opinion. On the one hand,
the damage Starlings do to cherry orchards is said to be enormous,
and they do much harm to the trees and plantations in which
they roost in huge flocks in winter§ ; on the other, the amount
of injurious insects and small molluscs which they consume is
very great, so great indeed that, except in districts almost
entirely devoted to fruit, it is generally admitted that they do far
more good than evil.||

Sparrows are so assertive and so numerous that they have
more enemies among mankind than any other species. Wlierever
they have been introduced they have upset the balance of
Nature. They have been honoured with a separate clause of
the American Model Law, a clause which deprives them of all
protection. The case of the sparrow is a reminder to those who
would attempt to vary local fauna, and shows that introduction
of a foreign bird may do as much harm under certain circum-
stances as destruction of a species which is indigenous. Those
responsible for the introduction of the Sparrow into America
never dreamt of the disastrous effect of their action. The
report published in 1889 under the direction of Dr. C. Hart
Merriam, Ornithologist to the United States Department of
Agriculture, is a warning to those who would improve on Nature.

* British Zoology, Vol. 1, p. 255.

t Ornithology of Francis Willughby by John Ray (London, 1678), p. 196.

t See the late Canon Tristram, " Ibis," 1859, p. 293.

§ At Kammerforst in Germany the extensive cherry orchards are said to
escape from the attentions of the thousand Starlings which nest in
boxes in the adjoining wood. Facilities are provided to enable the
Starlings to rear their young early in the season, and the birds are
said to leave the district before the cherries ripen.

II See Observations in France by M. Florent Prevost, " Zoologist " (1863),
p. 8762 ; also J. Cordeaux, " Zoologist," p. 9280 ; also Riley Fortune
in " Ornithology in relation to Agriculture and Horticulture," p. 134.

45

Yet even for the Sparrow there is occasionally something to be
said. We have all heard how a price was once set on its head
in the vicinity of Baden, and how subsequently the Cockchafer
and other insects increased so much that the very men who had
sought its destruction offered a still higher price for its re-in-
troduction. There is no doubt that they consume a good many
insects during portions of the year, though in most places they
are far too numerous, and in districts devoted to corn crops
the damage they do is sometimes incalculable. In such places
the numbers should be reduced by destruction of the requisite
number of eggs, not by killing the birds ; if the farmers of a
district declare war on the birds and begin to shoot them, all
small brown birds are likely to be indiscriminately destroyed as
Sparrows. It is curious to find that in Germany the Imperial
Law schedules the Sparrow as noxious, while that of Bremen
protects it as beneficial.

The truth is, as already pointed out, that whether the benefits
which a bird confers on mankind outweigh the evils is a question
which can only be answered by considering the surroundings and
circumstances in each district inhabited by it.

A species may have claims to protection on scientific, aesthetic
or economic grounds. Assuming the guiding principle of the
Paris Convention to be right, and that in general, protection
should be extended for economic reasons to such species as are
useful to agriculture, we are still confronted with the very great
difficulty of ascertaining the position which a species occupies in
relation to agriculture. Now, the chief service rendered by birds
to agriculture appears to be, as already indicated, in the
destruction of insects, but even this may be stating the case too
broadly. We must not generalise and assume that all insects
are injurious : some undoubtedly perform useful services.
Moreover, insects which are common in one district may be rare
in another; while crops, fruit and trees common in one district
may not be cultivated or wanted in another ; and a bird which
chiefly devotes its attentions to a particular insect in one place
may in another partake of an entirely different food. It follows
that to compare the economic value attached in different places
to any one species is in most cases a very hard and discouraging
task, and often ends in hopeless confusion. A statement shomng
the treatment of each species by the various laws now in force
throughout Europe would be most interesting could we be sure
that such treatment was the result of exact study ; but as
mattery stand such a comparison would be futile and profitless,
for it is impossible to assign adequate reasons for the differences
of treatment. Many curious cases can be cited, but we search in

46

vain for rational explanations. Why, for instance, do we find
the Jackdaw protected by the Hungarian Decree, and in some
of the German Federal States and in Switzerland, when it is not
recommended as worthy of protection by the Convention and
when the German Imperial Law of 1888 actually convicts it of
being noxious ? Again, why should this same German Imperial
Law brand the Crossbill as noxious, when the bird is said to be
worthy of special protection by the Paris Convention ? And
why, when the signatories to that Paris Convention refused
to place the Bullfinch in their Schedule of useful birds, did
Hungary extend protection to it by her Decree of 1901 ? Or
why did the Hungarian Decree protect the Red-\\ing, when
Switzerland, by her law of 1904, particularly excluded this bird
from the list of protected species ? We can only attribute these
facts either to a great variation in the birds' habits in different
peaces or to the lack of a uniform scientific basis to the legis-
lation. Probably the latter is the origin of most of the apparent
differences in the estimate of the economic value of so many
species. Even in cases where European legislation displays
practical unanimity it would be rash to assume that throughout
the Continent the economic value of the species has been care-
fully studied by experts in each locality, and that the legislation
simply follows a verdict uniformly favourable or the reverse.
The treatment of the Blackcap Avill serve as an illustration.
Taking the more important European enactments, we find that
in Switzerland " toutes les especes de fauvettes " are included
in the protection given to insectivorous birds, and all the
Warblers are protected in Belgium. They are omitted from the
Schedule of noxious birds appended to the German Imperial Law
of 1888, and therefore by implication are to be protected as
useful in Germany. The Hungarian Circular specifically directed
their protection, and the Schedule of useful species appended to
the Paris Convention includes " fauvettes de toutes sortes."
In many districts in our country the Blackcap has had special
favours extended to it ; in some places this bird has been given
a special close time, and in others its eggs are also protected. Yet
in the face of all this, there is a strong body of opinion among
those who in this country have studied economic ornithology
in condemnation of the Blackcap on account of the damage done
by it to raspberries and currants and other fruit.* It is one of
the few species which Mr. Theobald considers clearly proved
guilty of doing more harm than good."]" Now it may be, and

* See F, Smith, op. cit., and Charles F. Archibald, op. cit.

f See article on Economic Ornithology in " Science Progress," 1907, p. 276.

This is not, however, the opinion of Mr. O. V. Aplin ; see " Ornithology

in relation to Agriculture and Horticultiu'e," i^. 150.

47

probably is, the case that in places where fruit is not much
grown, the Blackcap's insectivorous habits are more con-
spicuous, and it is there considered undoubtedly useful ; but
a perusal of the list of districts in which special protection has
been given to it in this country will certainly not support the
natural inference that these must be districts in which fruit is
not grown. One is therefore driven to the conclusion that the
estimate of economic value is not always based upon a study of
the facts, it is often purely arbitrary or founded possibly on
sentiment.

CONCLUSION.

When we presume to interfere with a species, it should be
remembered that in the course of time Nature has arrived at
her own natural level ; and when we declare that some particular
bird is too numerous for us, it has usually become so because man
has upset the natural condition of things. In considering the
protection of birds we have perforce had to confine ourselves
chiefly to legislation which deters their destruction, though we
have also alluded to the important kindred subject of their
introduction. A treatise of very limited dimensions can but deal
with the fringe of so gigantic a subject, and many important
matters must be left practically untouched. Thus there is a
wide field for discussion on the closely allied question of the
encouragement of species in order to re-establish the balance of
Nature in places where their presence is valuable, but where
they have become scarce, often owing directly to the action of
man. We refer to cases in which mere protection is insufficient ;
cases in which the useful resident species should be directly and
physically encouraged to reside and to breed by feeding them in
winter, when their natural food is hard to obtain, by planting
suitable trees and shrubs in which they may nest, or in some
cases by the supply of nesting boxes. How much can be done
in this way is difiicult to say, but there can be little doubt that
the vast numbers to which the Starling has attained are due to
a great extent to the encouragement it has received. For many
years past it has had nesting places prepared for it in parts of
Germany, Scandinavia and Russia,* and we all know how
speedily it avails itself of similar opportunities here. In
Germany especially this branch of our subject has received
much attention, chiefly through the energy of Baron Hans von
Berlepsch. And wonderful results are said to have followed
the fixing of artificial nesting-boxes on stakes on sandhills in

* See Dresser, " Birds of Europe," Vol. IV., p. 411.

48

North Germany, nine out of ten of the boxes being tenanted by
Tits, which had previously been rare in the district. The fact
that in Hungary the manufacture of artificial nesting-boxes has
actually been started under Government support, while there
are several factories in Germany and at least one in Switzerland,
sufiiciently indicates the importance which is elsewhere attached
to a branch of the study of bird-protection which is with us still
in its infancy.*

When we make laws to regulate bird life we must remember
that the selection of one species for special preservation, or
another for destruction, is an act which entails no slight re-
sponsibility, for it is a very dangerous thing to upset the balance
of Nature. It is easy to do it, but it is supremely difficult to
accurately estimate the results. Destroy one species and another
may become too numerous. If a species becomes too numerous
for its means of subsistence, it is either apt to change its habits
and devote its attention to some new article of diet, or it may
have to spread to new districts where its presence is not desirable.
Birds of prey are in most cases considered harmful ; many
kinds have been practically exterminated in this country chiefly
omng to the ignorance of game-keepers. To what extent the
vole plague, which did such damage in South Scotland in 1892,
was due to the destruction of Hawks and Owls and Weasels
we cannot tell, but the Report of the Departmental Committee
of the Board of Agriculture, after taking the evidence of a large
number of persons on the subject, stated that " nearly every
witness who was examined " gave it as his belief that the out-
break was due to the destruction of the natural enemies of the
voles. t Now, the only object of those who destroyed the
" vermin " was no doubt the preservation of game ; the devas-
tation of large tracts of land by voles probably never entered
their minds as a possible result of their action. Such matters
cannot be successfully studied from a single point of view ; on
the other hand they cannot be studied in all their aspects, for
there is no limit to their number. For the better protection of
birds in general and the prevention of their senseless destruction
there is no doubt that education may be an important factor.
Boys are born hunters ; their natural instincts lead them to
destroy. And whether a boy is destined to become a jockey,
jeweller, bookmaker, bishop, poet or politician, much good can
be done by training him to acquire a proper attitude towards
Nature. The importance of education in this respect was pubhcly

* In connection with this matter see " How to Attract and Protect Wild

Birds," by M. Hiesemaim (London), 1908.
t p. VIII. of Report.

49

advocated as long ago as 1873 by Dr. Alfred Brehm at the
International Agricultural Congress at Vienna. Teaching on
the subject has, as we know, since become compulsory by law
in some European countries, as in Switzerland ; while in America,
laws have been enacted for the observance of "Bird and Arbor"
days in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut, Delaware and Ohio.
A similar institution was introduced in Hungary in 1906 by
decree of the IVIinister of Public Instruction ; and in Great Britain
the importance of this question of education is by slow degrees
becoming generally appreciated, and we hear more and more of
the advantages of " Nature-study."*

But training the cliildren in this way will not do all that is
wanted. It is certainly hopeless to expect to arrive at anything
like a satisfactory conclusion as to which birds to protect or how
to protect them until the main points of the situation — and
especially the food of birds — have been widely and methodically
investigated. Up to the present time there has been practically
no such systematic study in this country. Good work has
certainly been accomplished on a very small scale by a few
energetic individuals — Mr. John Gilmour's paper in the Journal
of the Higliland Agriculture Society for 1906 may be cited as an
instance — but the subject is far too vast to be tackled except
by a considerable number of men working methodically and in
concert. Such investigations are not likely to be carried out
until the Board of Agriculture has a department which devotes
its attention entirely to the subject. f Until such work has for
some years been done in tliis country as is being carried on in the
United States and Hungary, we shall not possess the materials
for satisfactory legislation. Nevertheless, our laws have on the
whole proved fairly effective. The increase in many species
can undoubtedly be traced to them, and if they were relaxed
many birds would at once have a very hard time. Only this
year Larus ridibuiidus was removed from the list of species
whose eggs Avere protected in Cumberland. What was the con-
sequence ? It is said that the immediate result was a raid on
its breeding stations, the eggs being gathered for local con-
sumption or despatched to London as Plovers' eggs, the poor
birds being driven to fresh nesting grounds. J But although
our Statutes have produced some good results, there are far too
many of them and they are too cumbersome. We cannot but
envy the concise enactments by which the subject is regulated
in such countries as Switzerland and Belgium.

* See page 50.

f The importance of the study of this subject was \irged at the recent

meeting of the British Association at Dublin by Mr. C. Gordon

Hewitt.
X See T. Harrison in " Field," 1st August, 1908 (p. 238).

E

60

In revising and consolidating our laws we would suggest
amendment of the Act of 1880, so as to make it an offence to
take or kill wild birds in the close season ; abolition, or at any
rate definition, of the " recently taken " puzzle ; extension of
Sect. 3 of the Act so as to make it cover possession not only of
any wild bird illegally taken but possession of the skin or plumage
of any such bird, and also extension of the Act of 1894 to cover
possession of eggs which have been illegally taken ; prohibition
of any deahngs for profit in unscheduled birds which have been
killed or taken by owners or occupiers of land or their agents
during the close season ; provision for the granting of permits
under most stringent and limited conditions to the bona fide
collector for museums or definite scientific objects ; and thorough
investigation, and where necessary drastic revision, by a central
expert authority of the numerous existing Protection Orders.
We would further advocate a large increase of the maximum
fines and the additional penalty of imprisonment without the
option of a fine in the event of a second or a flagrant offence.
Such a revision of our laws on the subject would, we beheve,
accompHsh as much as can be at present expected for the reason-
able protection of birds.

We must not, however, lose sight of the fact that in our present
state of crass ignorance the stricter enforcement of our existing
laws is quite as important as their alteration or revision. This
being so, a considerable number of trained officials might with
advantage be appointed to enforce observance of the law and
to assist those private individuals and societies upon whom this
burden has hitherto so largely fallen. Beyond this, careful
observation should be kept on the nature and practical working
of the laws of other countries, and much study should be devoted
to the food of birds and to their relationship to the animal and
vegetable world around them.

Note. — In reference to Mr. Macpherson's comments on certain branches
of Bird Protection work, it should be mentioned that the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds includes a special Watchers Committee for the
appointment and payment of watchers (p. 38) ; supplies nesting -boxes for
the encouragement of useful birds (p. 47) ; and has introduced " Bird and
Arbor" day into Great Britain by means of Covmty Challenge Sliield
Competitions (p. 49).

51

Extracts from the Essay by

Lt.-Colonel MOMBER,

Winner of the Second Prize in the Gold Medal Essay
Competition, 1908.

The need of Bird Protection is an inevitable sequel to in-
creasing population. In wild nature, the balance of necessary
and superfluous takes good care of itself. But when a country
becomes populated its features alter ; and the felled forest,
the drained marsh, the cultivated land are only the beginning
of the change worked by man upon fauna and flora. Agricul-
ture and pasturage further certain kinds of insect and plant
life, whilst hindering others, with an immediate effect on the
birds dependent on them, since, in general, the numbers of birds
of each species are proportionate to the supply of the particular
food the species depends upon for subsistence.

Perhaps no class of statutes is harder to enforce than that
relating to wild creatures and plants. When person and property
are offended against, when there is assault or fraud or theft,
the injured individual and his house do their utmost to further
the conviction of the offender. In the more serious crimes all
society bands itself against the culprit, and everyone has a
personal interest in helping the law to punish. But the stake
in Nature, which is every man's birthright, must be made clear
to him before he will trouble himself to defend it.

The haunts of birds are not the haunts of the police, nor
much affected by the public. The public is indifferent, and dis-
inclined to go to pains to institute proceedings against the mis-
doings it may witness. The great majority of offences is
unwitnessed ; the victims lay no information ; and only
afterwards the silent groves and desecrated banks chant a mute
threnody to the ornaments they have lost. It is for this reason
that the people require to be told, and often retold, what are the
claims of birds on man, and why most birds require to be jealously
guarded against persecution, whether thoughtless or rapacious
or malicious.

Wild birds should be everywhere, as they are under the Audubon
Societies' laws, the property of the State ; an asset and a benefit
in which every citizen may share, and to help in preserving which
benefit every citizen should be taught and encouraged. For,
indispensible as are laws of protection, they can only be effective
if the public itself co-operates to carry them out.

52

ITALY,

No less than twelve different kinds of licences for different
kinds of fowling are sold, ranging in price from 6 lire, for carrying
about a decoy bird and limed twigs, to 100 lire, for every hectare
of ground occupied by springes and nooses and for flight nets
along the sea shore. The licence to carry a firearm costs 18 lire;
other permits cost respectively 15, 20, 25 and 40 lire, and their
sale brings in a considerable revenue to the Government. The
President of each " Deputazione provinciale " issues every
summer the rules for the following season, specifying the dates
of close time for various species. These rules, which seem
based on the agreement of 1875 between Italy and Austria,
are printed on posters and exposed in certain pubhc offices ;
and they differ in each Province as to dates and details. There
is no doubt that the compilers of the laws, the " Deputazione,"
are accessible to the mayors of the communes ; who, in their
turn, do their utmost to maintain their popularity with their
electors ; and these latter are the sportsmen against whose
excessive sport the laws are framed. In the Province of Naples
the close season for 1908 was April 1 to August 31, but Quail
were excepted until the end of May ; and " birds of passage "
until the end of July along the seashore and on uncultivated
lands ; the object being presumably to protect the crops from
trespassers whilst granting the fullest possible licence to sports-
men. The taking of nests of any kind is forbidden at any time
and place ; also the killing of Swallows and Swifts, and the use
of nooses, trammels, and certain kinds of nets. A reward is
promised the poHce and customs officers for the greatest number
of convictions of illegalities.

The follo^ving is a translation of the laws prescribed for 1907
in the Province of Porto Maurizio, and may be taken as a fair
sample of any of the others : —

1. The caccia is prohibited on the territories of this province from
February 1 to August 31, 1907, both days inclusive. Exceptions : The
pursuit, with the gun only, of Quail, Turtle Dove, Ortolan, and of Lapwing,
Thick-Knee, and other waders, as also of aquatic birds and birds of passage,
will be permitted along the banks of rivers and streams beyond the 2 kilo-
metres of the seashore. For Ortolans permission remains to use the
" retina," clap net and trench. The pursuit of Thrushes, with the gun
only, is allowed vmtil March 31 inclusive.

2. The taking of Orioles at a fixed spot will be permitted from August 1.
The fowler must declare the stand he intends to take up two days before-
hand at the Commimal Office. Whoso is found exercising the pursuit
away from this spot, or off roads or beaten tracks, will be punished according
to law.

3. FowHng with limed twigs, either stationary or ambulatory, is per-
mitted from October 1 to November 30 (tree and decoy for robins).

53

4. Fowling with limed grass, with nets, and the use of limed twigs in
bushes and shrubs is permitted only on the day of December 25.

5. The pursuit of Partridges with caged call birds ends September 16.
A reward of 30 Lire for information leading to conviction of destroyers of
nestlings and brooding birds, and of persons using limed grasses and nets.

A reward is offered of 10 lire for information resulting in conviction of
hixnting in close season, or of selling or being in possession of game.

During the close season it is forbidden to expose for sale, to sell, buy, carry
or keep any kind of game. Any person discovered in the country ofi the
roads or paths, carrying nets or trammels of any description, or with
decoy birds, foods, or baits, or any other artifice for taking wild creatures
(selvaggina), during the close season, or without a regular permit, will be
considered in the act of hunting.

Here we have many words, but little meaning. The bold
fiat of Rule 1 is quahfied by exceptions so vague and so
loosely worded, that it is sapped of most of its force. The birds
excepted are not harmful, rather the contrary, but they are
sizeable and esculent, and obviously it is the fowler, not the
fowl, who is studied.

" Aquatic birds " is a mde term to legislate ^^ith, and as for
" birds of passage," what bird is not, at some time or another ?
It is clear that here are endless loopholes for escape, and oppor-
tunities to raise technical difficulties. What chance of nesting
is left to the survivors of the birds named ?

Rule 2 is commonly disregarded ; nor is its significance
apparent. Moreover, the months of March, April, and May
are specially allowed gunners to patrol streams — along which
there is always a right of way — and such places are favourite
resorts of most kinds of birds.

Some of the Italian fowling devices are elaborately prepared.
The "roccolo " consists of a shrubbery — sometimes with a pool —
some 15 metres in diameter, surrounded by nets 3 metres high.
In the centre is a tree, at the foot of which are caged or braced
decoys. The passage birds, attracted by the call of the decoys,
which often are bhnded, pitch in the shrubs or on the tree, from
the top of which a dummy Hawk can be made to appear, wliich
scares the birds into the nets. Or an Owl is fastened on the
ground, and some caged Thrushes placed near by, whose harsh
cries attract the migrating wild birds. This practice is much in
vogue in the provinces of Turin, of Alessandria, and Novare.

The " passata " is still more comphcated, and there exist
permanently three celebrated ones in the Brescia district, which
annually make immense captures during the spring and autumn
migrations. Springes and nooses, sometimes baited with, five
insects, and skilfuUy placed in those districts among the moun-
tains, where birds are knoA'toi to pass, are responsible for the
taking of great numbers of songbirds. Any and all of these

54

appliances may be seen at suitable places over most parts of
Italy. An Italian military officer in uniform has been seen pur-
suing small birds with a fowling piece, and the late Pope was
reported much addicted to liming the warblers in the Vatican
gardens. It must be seen to be realised to what an extent fowling
is a national pastime of Italians, whether with a Hcence or without
one, and what a drain on the avifauna of Europe Italy must be.
Hunting, formerly the pastime of the great, has degenerated into
birding, the amusement and profit of the masses, and the mal-
practice seems to have gained in popularity of late years. Even
when they emigrate, the Italians take their ornithophagous
propensities with them. In the United States of America
they give so much trouble that some of the Audubon Societies
issue and disseminate leaflets, printed in ItaHan, exhorting the
immigrants to respect the laws and to conform to the usages of
their hosts, and appealing to them to practise kindness, not
cruelty, to wild creatures. These leaflets seem to have good
results. It has been found necessary in some States to impose
a I5-dollar gun licence on non-naturalised aliens.

The one good law in Italy — if only it were enforced — is that
prohibiting the selling, buying, carrying, or possessing every sort
of " cacciagione " — huntable creatures — during close season.

Totally inadequate as the Italian legislation is in every respect,
it is chiefly unsatisfactory in that it seems based on no sort of
recognition of either the utiHty of birds, or of their beauty or
moral value. No effort is made to retain the choicest songster.
Goldfinch and Blackcap and Robin, at one penny each, hang in
bunches in the markets.

The refusal of the Italian Government to agree to the articles
of the Paris Convention in 1902 is difficult to reconcile with its
attitude during the initial stages which led to that Convention.

Some allowance for their insufficient legislation must be made
to the ItaUans, if it is remembered how young a country is
United Italy ; in many other respects besides birds, their laws
are not united into one code.

Lovers of Nature must hope that the Italian Government
will no longer delay to protect the people against itself,
and will initiate, by a wise legislation, the stamping out of
customs which are an anachronism and a stain on the civility of
the nation, besides constituting a grave injustice to other nations.

The importance of the question and the conditions under
which migratory birds pass, make it imperative that there should
be general international agreement for their protection when on
migration. And no scheme of international protection can be
efficacious without the co-operation of Italy.

55

A crumb of comfort lies in the fact that the customs we now
so deplore in Italy were pretty general all over Germany 150
years ago. A book published about the middle of the eighteenth
century — Naumann : Der Vogelsteller — gives explicit instruc-
tions for the taking of almost every kind of bird, explains many
methods still in vogue in Southern Europe — some of them very
cruel — describes the table merits of different species, and even
recommends the most approved mode of burning out the eyes of
call birds. So let us not abandon hope.

FRANCE.

A noteworthy instance of the failure of the 1902 Convention,
so far as France is concerned, occurred in the Basses Pyrenees
in the spring of 1908. Yielding to representations made by
communal Mayors, the Prefect extended the open season,
nominally for the hunting of Larks, with the result that all small
birds were mercilessly persecuted until late spring. 0^ving to
the poaching proclivities of the French peasant — who generally
has an old gun, ready loaded, handy — in some Departments
kiUing goes on almost throughout the year.

In the Departments of the Centre, larks are taken in enormous
numbers in drag nets at night, and in horsehair nooses. In the
south, especially in the Lot-et-Garonne, millions of insectivorse
are taken in nets and nooses — Warblers, Larks, Swallows, and
also Goldfinches. M. Henri de Parville in Le Correspondent,
June 10, 1892, states that in two communal forests of Meuthe-et-
Moselle, there were destroyed in a season a total of 15,544 birds,
of which 13,999 might rank as useful insect-eaters. These include
10,015 Warblers, Nightingales, Robins, Redstarts, Wrens, and
Goldcrests, 2900 Tits, 1180 Blackbirds and Thrushes. The
Journal des Dehats, April 30, 1908, pubUshes an article quoting
M. Xavier Raspail, who opines that the unusual meteorologic
phenomena of 1907 are not more responsible for the dearth of
birds this year than the deplorable destruction which increases
despite the Convention of 1902. He continues : —

" The weakness, the culpable complaisance of the administration, will
do more for the extinction of birds than the weather. In 1906 in Loir-et-
Cher, tmder pretext of hunting Larks, thousands of small birds were
destroyed, and picked up in sacksful and sold at 25 to 30 centimes a dozen.
One peasant declared that he alone had taken a hundred dozen, and,
as he could only dispose of half, the remainder had been thrown into the
maniire. If one reflects that these appalling hectacombs are effected
in the east, centre, and south of France, and in Italy, during the spring
and avitumn migration, one may expect to see, in the near future, the dis-
appearance of those birds which are the best auxiliaries to the prosperity

56

of agriculture. The consequences of this furious destruction, which has
lasted for years, are visible everywhere. Aroiuid Paris birds are rare.
In oiu" days the number of Nightingales and Swallows unceasingly
diminishes."

It is difficult to foresee how any improvement on this state of
things can come about whilst the vicious circle remains com-
plete, and the paid deputies and paid mayors dance to the piping
of the proletariat. There are even signs of matters becoming
worse. At the present moment (November, 1908) a congress
of " chasseurs," deputies and mayors of Bayonne and district
is being organised with the object of doing away with all re-
strictions on shooting and netting. Argument : that all birds
are bred in other countries and killed in other countries, and so
they had best be killed here. The mayors and deputies attend,
of course, to catch votes. It is bad that there is little law, but
it is worse that its enforcement is a figment. Corruption and
favouritism quash the prosecution for offences against the game
and bird and cruelty to animals laws to such an extent that the
police and keepers do not trouble to look into matters, as their
papers disappear in the waste basket. A keeper in the Alderdes
district this year took out twenty-five summonses for illegal
trout netting, and obtained one conviction, and in this case the
offender was fined because the clerk of the court was away,
so that the legal document which had to pass through his office
went on to headquarters, and the law took its course.

TURKEY.

In Turkey, where hunting in all its branches is controlled by
a police regulation of December 30, 1882, a 10 piastre permit
(equals about Is. 9d.) is all that is necessary to hunt wild animals
and birds on Government lands, woods, and forests. Each
province fixes its own date for beginning and ending the season.
Close time is usually from April 1 to July 31. Bird-lime, nets,
and snares are allowed only for Quail. To the provincial
authorities is allotted the prohibition of the destruction of birds
useful to agriculture, and of others. The sale, purchase, and
transport of all game during the close season is punishable with
a fine of T£l to T£5 ; as is also the trespass in search of game,
and the taking of the eggs of partridges and pheasants. Land-
owners may hunt on their o^vn land at all seasons ; but Turks are
not great poachers. Villagers hunting, for their own consump-
tion, in the communal woods and jDastures, require no licence ;
and officers and men of the Imperial navy and merchant service
are allowed to shoot aquatic birds on sea, lakes, rivers, and

57

streams, for pleasure or profit, after obtaining a tezkere, or
authorization.

In the case of Grebes, Cormorants, and other birds utiUsed
in any industry, twenty per cent, of their value, or a fifth part
in kind, must be paid to the Government. It is forbidden to
destroy passage birds on the lakes which are administrated by
the State, but the State is generally AviUing to lease these lakes.
The laws are not enforced, and there is practically no bird pro-
tection in Turkey.

GREECE.

The actual laws prohibit the kilHng of birds from March 15
to July 20 ; hares, partridges, etc., from February 1 to July 20.
But no notice is taken of either of these laws, and killing goes on
all the year round.

BULGARIA.

Article 4 of the Game Laws imposes a fine of from 5 to 100
francs on anyone killing the foUoAving birds useful to agriculture
or taking their nests, eggs, or broods : — Vultures, the Kestrel
tribe, the smaller Owls, the Woodpeckers, Roller, Bee-Eater,
Hoopoe, Cuckoo, Nightjar, all small singing birds, Starhng, Rosy
Pastor, Turtle, and also marsh birds, with, the exception of
those the law allows to be hunted.

FINLAND.

The Russian Code does not obtain in the Grand Duchy of
Finland, but the Swedish Code of 1734, modified by a number
of more recent regulations. Birds are divided into three classes :
(a) Useful game, which includes all birds usually considered such ;
(6) noxious birds, specifying Eagle, Osprey, Vulture, and Eagle
Owl ; (c) birds not in the two previous classes.

A close season from March 15 to July 15 protects classes (a)
and (c), and special dates are fixed for certain species of class (a),
namely, all the Tetraonidse, the Grey, Red-legged and Mountain
Partridge, Swans, Geese, Eider, all Wild Duck, Woodcock,
and Double Snipe.

In a law passed June 20, 1870, sanction is given to hunt the
white male Eider Duck throughout the year, a decree strangely
at variance \vith the Scandinavian statutes. The close season
allowed wild fowl in Russia seems surprisingly inadequate —
six weeks to Woodcock and sixty days to Geese and Swans,
which take half that time to incubate, and whose young require

58

the guidance of both parents for months. The hostility to Owls,
too, seems unaccountable.

WORKING OF LAWS.

A glance at the above summaries suflfices to show that Austria,
Hungary, Germany, and Switzerland are the countries of Europe
that have the most complete and sufficient schemes of bird-
protection. In respect, too, of the education in bird lore of the
school children excellent work has been, and is being, carried on.
It is in these countries, too, that the laws are observed. The nations
that treat wild birds as food or vermin are also indifferent as to
the laws, w^hether they are upheld or not. So that the esteem
in which birds are held seems to give a scale by which the civiliza-
tion of a people can be measured.

EXCEPTIONS IN FAVOUR OF SCIENCE.

The statutes of the four above-named countries, equally
with those of the Audubon Societies, allow for the exceptional
taking or kilHng of specimens for scientific purposes, and there
seems every reason to believe that these regulations are answering
well. They all compare weU with our Wild Birds Protection
Act.

THE LAWS IN FORCE IN GREAT BRITAIN.

It is not surprising that foreign ornithologists should be puzzled
at the British schedule omitting most of the best songsters,
and most of the specially useful insect-eaters, whilst it includes
many fish-eaters considered noxious in other countries. For
elasticity the Act is unsurpassable, because of the powers given
the Secretary of State to extend the time of protection, or to
protect any species for any period or in particular places, on
application from local authorities giving special reasons. The
basis of the Act is local option, but it may well be doubted
whether in our small populous island this system affords to birds
the protection they need. It certainly complicates the adminis-
tration of the law, and renders prosecution difficult in cases of
offences committed on the borders of districts having different
laws.

That a general legislation %vill not alw^ays meet a local require-
ment is undoubtedly true. But, instead of allowing local authori-
ties to ask for increased legislation, when they deem it necessary —
a process entailing certain delay and possible refusal — better

69

protection would surely be attained in having central and more
comprehensive legislation, and in allowing individuals to obtain
permission to defend crops or stock from depredation, as is done
in Central Europe. With the present Act in force, there is a
risk of losing one or another species of the rarer summer
migrants, whose increasing scarcity has been frequently com-
mented on of late years. These birds do not invade England
at a venture during the spring migration : but the birds reared
in a district return to it. If adverse meteorologic conditions
and other untoward influences combined to destroy all, or
nearly all, the emigrants of one autumn, there might possibly
be no immigrants in the following spring, and the species would
be in jeopardy of being lost to our isles. Moreover, if those
summer migrants which are abundant on the Continent, but
only exceptional in England, the Oriole, Hoopoe, Black Redstart,
Bluethroat, were preserved in earnest, there is every reason for
believing that they would nest with us, that their descendants
would return in spring and that with time we should be the
gainers of some beautiful and useful species. By the Medi-
terranean no bird is safe from being cooked. In England no
bird is safe from being collected. An epitaph might read : —

Whether to fill a glass bell or a pot.

In being stuffed each bird must find his lot.

Legislation will come too late if it waits for a general demand
for it. The fullest protection should be accorded now.

The penalties for offences under the British Act are light
compared with the fines and imprisonment meted out in Central
Europe and in the United States of America. In view of the
difficulty of obtaining convictions, it seems trivial to reprimand
for a first offence, and to fine subsequent offences five shillings,
or, in the case of the scheduled species, one pound. In Hungary,
where money is certainly no cheaper than in England, the taking
or selhng of eggs or young of the scheduled species is fixed up
to 100 crowns (£4 3s. 4d.). In America the lowest fine is five
dollars for the offence, and five additional dollars for each bird
or part of a bird.

At home, there is a large and growing demand for the rarer
birds of our list as cage exhibits at shows, which entails rearing
nestlings by hand, with the attendant mortality. Whole broods
of young are taken and lost, in the attempt to rear a few to
maturity ; and districts have been depleted of certain species
through the systematic taking of their nests and fledglings by
professional bird-dealers. The toll levied on the commoner
and hardier varieties, too, the snaring of Linnets, Larks,

60

Chafl&nches, is excessive, and the usages in vogue inflict much
unnecessary suflfering besides waste of life. Thousands of these
seed-eaters, overcrowded and ill-tended, die whilst stUl in the
shops of the catchers and dealers ; and few long survive their
sale, because of the want of knowledge and want of care of the
purchasers. A Linnet and a cage complete for sixpence — vide
the advertisements in the trade journals. How many last
three months in their mouse-trap prisons ? Large numbers of
Goldfinches, Siskins, and also insect-eaters, are imported from
abroad. Austria has now prohibited the export of wild birds,
but nevertheless they still arrive thence in London, usually
mixed mth canaries, to give colour to the description of the
consignment. Woodlarks, those superlative songsters, never
common anywhere, are imported from Belgium during October,
and retailed in London at eighteenpence each. They are delicate
larks, ill-adapted for popular keeping, and those from Belgium
usually bear traces of bird-lime, which in itself seems to break
the spirit of the more fragile species, and from which they often
do not recover ; just as cats will pine from disgust after having
become soiled with a substance they cannot remove.

As is well kno\Mi, many A\dld birds mil thrive for long years as
cage pets, and it is not the taste for chamber birds that needs
discouraging, but the wholesale catching of them, and dealing
in them, and the lessened value and appreciation caused thereby.
The present \vriter lately saw in the shop of a London dealer
a Hoopoe, Avhich had been sold to a lady a few days previously.
She had brought it back dead, saying she had tried it with every
kind of seed, but it would not eat. Such an abuse of a beautiful
creature would hardly be possible in Austria-Hungary or
Germany, where the taking and keeping of song birds, in itself
justifiable, is properly restricted and controlled.

A side issue of the question of preservation has received
recognition in some parts of Germany by the imposition of a tax
on cats. Ornamental as a cat is in a parlour, and useful as it
may be in a stable or warehouse, in the garden and in the country
it is an inveterate hunter ; and by reason of its agility and in-
credible patience it is very destructive, especially as a nest
robber. A boon would be conferred on men and ground game,
on birds and on cats, if such a tax were made general in aU
countries. Cats themselves would gain in being better cared for,
and the payment of the tax could be easily-controlled by issuing
a numbered metal disc, of different colour or shape each year,
to be affixed to the animal's collar. Stray cats, generally half-
starved, often mischievous to poultry, etc., would thus soon
become rare. In Germany the tax is only one mark for the first
cat, two for the second, and so on.

61

SANCTUARIES.

The increase of special areas of protection will presumably
become more marked in the future. The recognition of the
importance of preserving bird life, and the difficulty of recon-
ciling it with large and increasing population, make sanctuaries
desirable, even necessary. In Switzerland they have long
existed for game, and chains of such districts are being established
in the United States of America. In Great Britain the number
of large estates, usually also game preserves, must have done
much in the past to uphold our avifauna, notwithstanding the
shortcomings of keepers. And, with the growing interest in
ornithology, let us hope that in the future owners and keepers
win more generally respond to the needs of the wild birds that are
not game. No State action could be so effective as the well-
directed sheltering and watching carried out on large private
estates, and at the present day there must be many such
sanctuaries available by the use of a little diplomacy and arrange-
ment.

CONVENTION, 1902.

One would like to know Great Britain's reasons for holding
aloof from the Paris Convention. The moral weight of British
support would have done service to the cause ; in fact, the
whole scheme is weakened and made ineffective by the want of
unanimity among the Powers. To this may probably, in part
at least, be ascribed the fiasco the Convention made in France,
which would hardly have stultified itself as it did after signing
the Convention, if England and Italy had endorsed the proposals..
The stultification lay in the passing of the " tolerance project of
resolution " of November 20, 1906, eighteen days before the
Convention proposals became law ; which " resolution "
virtually strangled the law at birth. England, Russia, and
Italy hold back from the international scheme. The geogra-
phical positions of the former two, and the usages of their people,
make their concurrence of shght importance to the European,
avifauna compared with the concurrence of Italy, one of the high
roads of migration and a winter sojourn of many species of
European birds. This is the real severed artery in Europe's
avine circulation.

The greater part of the proposals of the 1902 Convention was
already in force as law in Austria-Hungary, Germany, and
Switzerland before the Convention was signed. If all Europe
would codify this scheme into law, the cause of bird-preservatioix
would be assured.

62

Article 9 wisely admits of each Power making its own exemp-
tions ; and bird-lovers would like to see the true Falcons
omitted from the black list, if only for the sake of their flight,
which is an added beauty to the landscape, and the apotheosis
of motion. Nature offers no more graceful spectacle of power
and skill than their soaring ; nothing comparable to their stoop,
for speed, and headlong impetuosity. " Their very crimes are
deeds of daring." None of these birds are so common that
their nesting season should not be respected. The short-winged
Hawks are more destructive, and could better be dispensed
with. And, owing to the rewards paid by pigeon clubs in
Germany, and by local authorities in Scandinavia, these are in
some districts heavily suppressed. The Tiere Borse states that
in 1907 premiums were paid in Germany for the feet of 103
Peregrines, but of 1152 Goshawks and 2152 Sparrow Hawks.

AUDUBON SOCIETIES' PROPOSALS.

No laws could be more concise, complete and drastic than those
proposed by the Iowa Audubon Society, and adapted by most
of the United States of America. They declare all wdld birds
to be State property, and after defining the winged game, which
have a special legislation of their own, they decree that no bird
shall be taken, killed, conveyed, sold, or bought, nor its nest and
brood interfered with, nor any part of the bird or its plumage
sold, under a fine of five dollars for each offence, and an addi-
tional fine of five dollars for each bird or part of a bird, or nest
or set of eggs. Permits, under binding conditions, are granted
accredited persons to collect for scientific purposes ; birds may
be taken and kept as pets, but not sold, exchanged, or transported.
The list of unprotected species contains three or four names
only, amongst them the European Sparrow. The several States
differ in the names of the few species which land occupiers may
kill in defence of property. No European legislation can vie
with this for thoroughness. Its comprehensiveness leaves the
critic no word, and causes the bird-lovers to rejoice that one
country has had the courage to make such an experiment. The
Act claims to have stood the test of the courts. It remains to
be seen whether it will stand the test of time, and whether
amendments will become necessary later on.

USEFUL AND INJURIOUS BIRDS.

Experience shows that certain kinds of birds can become over
numerous under protection ; but the question as to which birds

63

are to be proscribed has been a stumbling stone at every ornitho-
logical congress, and the wide differences of opinion among
experts has led to heated debate, and a regrettable postpone-
ment of the matter at issue.

THE COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC VALUE ATTACHED
TO PARTICULAR SPECIES IN DIFFERENT
COUNTRIES.

The contradictory pronouncements for and against certain birds,
in different countries of Europe, are almost startling. Russia
bans all Owls. Switzerland will none of the Missel Thrush.
Hungary holds the Brambling useful, which Germany classes
\vith the harmful Sparrow. The Convention, Schedule I., en-
rols among the useful birds Bee-Eater and Crossbill. Germany
holds the Crossbill noxious, as also the Hawfinch, which the
Convention and Hungary ignore. Denmark proscribes the Rook.
The Convention upholds all the Crows but the Raven. Austria
protects the Jackdaw, and bars the Great Tit. The poor,
beautiful Kingfisher is in favour with no one. The Convention
condemns it, and so does Austria, equally udth the Dipper.
But in Austria and Hungary legislation is somewhat microscopic,
witness the excepting of the Water- Shrew from the protection
decreed for the other Shrew-Mice. In Holland it is forbidden
to shoot the Lapwing, no doubt in recognition of its services to
agriculture, and of the already heavy tribute laid upon it in the
collecting of its eggs.

A number of groups of the small Passerines, the Chats, Wag-
tails, Pipits, Goldcrests, the large family of Warblers, Swallows,
Accentors, Flycatchers, are so entirely insectivorous as to
preclude any doubt as to their beneficence. Similarly, some
of the smaller Finches and Buntings are above suspicion, and are
kno^vn as consumers of weed seeds. In every legislation the
Eagle, Owl and the diurnal Raptores share with the Crows
the brunt of public odium, chiefly, it may be assumed, because of
their destructiveness to game ; the Heron tribe and the fish-
eating Palmipeds being equally branded for the harm they cause
fish. The fish-eaters, however, seem to be more tolerated in
Great Britain, perhaps because pisciculture is not a serious in-
dustry there, as in inland countries with less seaboard. Winged
game and a few species, such as the Eider Duck, apart, it may
be said that, in general, European legislations value birds as
they profit agriculture

In Germany there has been much examination of crops and
stomachs, and research of this kind is to-day being carried on in

64

England. But scientific inquiry into the mode of living of
certain debatable birds — debatable as to their usefulness or
harmfulness — will never conclusively settle the question, because
of the impossibility of weighing the profit against the loss, and
because the adaptibility of Nature defies a rigid category.
Certain birds are useful in some countries and some seasons,
and harmful in others. They change their habits and their
food -with their circumstances — like men. Here, again, it would
seem that the laws of the Audubon Societies are right in making
no long roll of noxious aves.

Harm to the household of man is done by birds only when they
assemble in large numbers. Rudolf Blasius insists that those
birds that remain with us throughout the year are the most
important as insect destroyers, especially those that nest in
hollows — Tits, Nuthatch, Creeper ; and he rules the summer
migrants in a secondary place. But the winter birds are perforce
more omnivorous than the typical fine-billed migrants. The
fact that these migrants and the imagos of most insects appear
simultaneously, each ready for the reproduction of its kind, and
that they disappear synchronously, gives a clear hint as to the
uncompromising encouragement they should receive. Who shall
say which is the better friend to man, they, or the stay-at-homes ?

Sometimes a little rough must be taken with the smooth.
Agriculturists would not banish the sun because at times the
crops are scorched, nor the rain because floods have brought
disaster. There has been, in the past, too great a readiness to
take hasty reprisals against birds which, though at most times
useful, do on occasion work harm, or, as often happens, are
thought to work harm. Song and beauty and counterbalancing
good should be taken into account in judging.

INJURY CAUSED BY WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION ON
MIGRATION.

The legislation of one country sometimes tends to a certain
harshness towards the migrants from other countries. It is the
wish to be good to oneself at someone else's expense, or to get
something gratis. In France, and throughout Southern Europe,
wherever birds pass, there the pot shooter and the netter and
the limer await them ; more especially in autumn, when the
travellers make a leisurely progress, with frequent stops by day
for food and rest. The spring migration is a rush for the breeding
haunts, and less is seen of the birds on their way. The heartless
slaughter done in France ; the carefully prepared gardens of

65

death, the roccolo and passaia of Northern Italy, have been
referred to.

In the Pyrenees wild pigeons are netted in quite a scientific
way. Nets some 20 metres high, and 20 metres broad at the top,
and 30 metres broad at the bottom, are stretched between two
specially selected trees, in valleys where the pigeons habitually
pass. The approach of a flock is signalled by outposts some
2 kilometres off, and the direction, right or left or centre, is
indicated by calls on a bugle. Boys with flags, posted on the
hills, guide the flocks in the required direction. As the birds
arrive at the nets, men lying in wait in huts throw a wooden
" disquin," rather resembling a palm-leaf fan, into the air, and
the Pigeons, mistaking these for some peril, possibly Hawks,
dive into the nets. Many see the net, and rise over it, and big
catches are made only when Rock Doves are flying with the Ring
Doves. Then the Rock Doves always lead, and they plunge
into the nets, and are followed by the Ring Doves. At Sau,
at the foot of the Rhune, there were caught in this way on three
successive autumn days of 1907 fifty-six dozen, sixty-four dozen,
and ninety-six dozen respectively. On the last day the head
man, on one occasion, signalled with his whistle not to throw
the disquin, as he feared the nets would be broken down or torn.
A 4-centimetre mesh is used, probably because a smaller mesh
would not entangle the pigeons. It is curious that small birds,
which pass in large numbers, take no notice of the flag scouts,
and invariably fly over or round the nets. Nevertheless it is
their adherence to the same route and to the same passes through
mountainous districts which leads to their greatest destruction.
Thrushes are taken in Liguria in a similar way to the Pyrenean,
but without the signallers and flag scouts. The birds roost in
the woods on the hills, and swing down the narrow ravines on their
way to the olive trees at daybreak, returning at sunset, still
flying low, and the nets, sometimes of great length, are stretched
across the ravines. The practice is illegal in most provinces,
but nevertheless poachers flnd it profitable all through the
winter. In some parts of Italy, where wild Pigeons are known
to pass on migration, there are cordons of stone-built towers
commanding the valleys along which the flights usually take
place, and the procedure is similar to that of the Pyrenees, just
described. A favourite sport for boys and minor sportsmen in
Liguria is Robin hunting. It is legahsed by a 6-lire licence —
usually dispensed with — and the operator carries a robin in a
cage surrounded by Hmed twigs. At a likely spot he sets it
down, and the wild Robins, numerous during October and
November, perch upon the cage, are limed, and duly eaten with

66

polenta. Large numbers are taken. In the south gunners
often carry an assortment of tiny cages containing bhnded
decoys — Chaffinches, Greenfinches, Linnets — which call and
sing incessantly, and, by attracting their kind, sa\«e the gun a deal
of walking, while securing sitting shots. They leave few sur-
vivors of the birds that come every A^dnter to the shelter of the
coast, especially Goldfinches, Siskins, and Blackcap Warblers.
Every few years an immigration of Coal Tits takes place, and
these are so easy to catch with lime that they are sold by hundreds,
and one wonders whether any ever get out of the country again.
CiAdlization will have made a good advance when man
throughout the globe can endorse the welcome to the spring
birds we read in " May Day," and can —

" Greet with joy the choral trains,
Fresh from palms and Cuba's canes.
Best gems of Nature's cabinet,
With dews of tropic morning wet.
Beloved of children, bards, and spring,
O birds, your perfect virtues bring.
Your song, your forms, yoiu" rhythraic flight,
Your manners for the heart's delight.
Nestle in hedge, or barn, or roof.
Here weave your chamber weather-proof.
Forgive our harms, and condescend
To man, as to a lubber friend,
And, generous, teach his awkward race
Courage, and probity, and grace ! "

INDEX.

Agriculture, birds useful to, 5, 7, 9,

12, 19, 30, 43, 57
Alsace-Lorraine, 7
Aquatic birds, 52, 56
Areas, protected, 24, 61
Audubon Societies' Model Law, 20,

27, 32, 34, 39, 62
Austria-Hungary, 12, 58

Baden, 7

Bavaria, 7

Bee-eater, 4, 63

Belgium, 4

Berlepsch, Baron von, 47

Birdcatching, methods of, 8, 10, 11,
41, 53, 55, 65; licences for, 12,
16, 52, 56 ; prohibition of, 8, 11,
14, 17, 41

Bird and Arbor Day, 49

Bird protection, need of, 51

Birds of prey, protected, 11, 14;
exempted from protection, 2, 3,
4, 7, 57, 63

Bittern, in England, 22

Blackbird, 6, 11

Blackcap, 30, 46, 54

Blasius, Rudolf, quoted, 64

Bobolink, 20

Bremen, 7

Bryce, Right Hon. James, on com-
parative legislation, 1

Bulgaria, 15, 57

Bullfinch, 33, 46

Bustard, in England, 22

Buzzard, 14

Caging of birds, 11, 59

Cats, proposed tax on, 60

Chaffinch, 3, 4, 30, 60, 66

Channel Isles, 18

Children, education of, 11, 48, 58

Conference, International, at Paris,

6, 9
Confiscation of birds and eggs

illegally taken, 5, 11, 38; of

traps, etc., 5, 11, 38
Close time, 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 17, 18, 52,

57
Collectors, 22, 26, 40
Coot, 7
Convention, International, 9, 10,

11. 13, 15, 23, 26, 32, 41, 61
Cormorant, 7, 57
Crane, in England, 22
Creeper, 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 64
Crossbill, 7, 46, 63
Crow, 2, 4, 7, 8, 14
Cuckoo, 4, 6, 11, 14, 32, 57
Cyprus, 17

Decoj's, 11, 14, 17, 66
Denmark, 3
Dijjper, 63
Duck, wild, 6, 37

Economic value of species, 43, 63
Education of children, 11, 48, 58
Eggs, protection of, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,

10, 11, 13, 18, 21, 26, 37
Eider duck, 59
Encouragement of birds, 47

Falcons, 7, 62

Fieldfare, 3, 4, 7, 11

Field police, 38

Finland, 57

Flycatcher, 3, 14

Food of birds, systematic study of,

49
France, 9, 55

Germany, 6
Gibraltar, 6
Goldfinch, 3, 41, 54, 55
Goosander, 7
Great Britain, 18, 58
Grebes, 7, 57
Greece, 15, 57

Gulls, 3, 7 ; Blackheaded, eggs of,
49

Hawfinch, 8, 35, 63

Hedge-clipping, restricted, 7

Heron, 7

Hesse, Grand Duchy of, 7

Holland, 5

Hoopoe, 3, 4, 11, 14, 57

Hungary, 13

Importation of Plumage Proliibition>
Bill, 28

Injiu-ious birds, definition of, 29, 63 ; .
destruction of, 2, 5, 7, 11

Insectivorous birds, protection of, 4,
5, 11, 13, 14. 19,45, 63; destruc-
tion of, 53, 55

Italy, 15, 42, 52

Jay, 4

Jackdaw, 7, 11, 46, 63

Kestrel, 11, 13
Kingfisher, 63

Legislation in England, proposed

amendment of, 50
Licences for birdcatching, 12, 16,

52, 65
LiGURiA, birdcatching in, 65

68

Linnet, 4, 60, 66

Local option in bird protection, 33

LUXEMBUKG, 17

Magpie, 2, 4

Martin, 3, 8, 14

Man, Isle of, 18

Millinery, destruction of birds for,

27
Migratory birds, 9, 41, 52, 59, 64
Mirrors, use of, for bird-catching, 10
Mistle-thrush, 4, 11, 63
Model Law, The, of the United

States, 20, 27, 32, 34, 39, 42,

62
Monaco, 17
Montenegro, 15
Moorhen, 7
Museums, specimens for, 2. 12, 18,

39, 58, 62

Nests, protection of, 2, 3, 5,- 7, 10,

11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 52
Nesting boxes, 47
Nightjar, 4, 14
Nightingale, 6, 31, 55
Norway, 2
Nuthatch, 3, 8, 11, 64

Oriole, 14, 52

Owls, 2, 4, 7, 63 ; taking birds with,

4, 11
Owners, rights of, 4, 5, 6, 9, 23, 24,

34

" Passata," capture of birds by, 53

Passenger pigeon, 43

Penalties for infringing the law, 59

Pewits, 6, 63

Pipits, 3, 6, 14

Plume trade, 27

Portugal, 13

Possession and sale of illegally taken

birds, 25
Prussia, 7
Pyrenees, netting pigeons in, 65

Quails, netting of, 15, 42, 56

Raspail, M. Xavier, quoted, 55

Raven, 2, 63

"Recently taken," 25

Redstart, 14, 55

Redwing, 11, 46

Reedbird, 20

Robin, 54, 55 ; hunting of, 65

Roller, 11

Roccolo, use of, 16, 42, 53
Rook, 4, 7, 63
roumania, 14
Russia, 3

Sale of protected birds and eggs, 25

San Marino, 17

Sanctuaries for birds, 24, 61

Saxony, 7

Scientific specimens, permits for,

2, 12, 18, 38, 58, 62
Scotland, B.P. Orders, 34
Servia, 14
Shrike, 7

Skins of birds, export forbidden, 18
Skylark, 6, 11, 30, 55; catching by

mirrors, 10
Song-birds, protection of, 3, 7, 57
Spain, 13
Sparrow, Hedge, 6 ; House, 4, 7, 10,

20, 44 ; protected in Bremen,

7, 44
Spoonbill, in England, 21
Starling, 3, 7, 11, 14, 44, 57
Staby, Dr. Ludwig, 8
Stonechat, 3, 14
Stork. 3. 7, 11

Swallow, 3, 4, 6, 14, 44, 52, 57, 63
Sweden, 3
Swift, 4, 6, 14, 52
Switzerland, 10

Thrush, 3, 6, 11, 14; wholesale

taking of, 41, 52, 65
Tits, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 55, 63, 64, 65
Tern, 4
Traps, use of, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14,

18, 41.
Turkey, 15, 56

" Useful birds," attempt to define,
29

Vole plague in Scotland, 48

Waders, protection for, 3 ; ex-
empted from protection, 52

Wardens for bird protection, 38

Wagtail, 3, 14

Warblers, 3, 4, 6, 46, 55, 63

Wheatear, destruction in Sussex, 41

Wild Birds Protection Acts, sug-
gested amendments, 50

Woodlark, caging, 60

Woodpeckers, 4, 11

Wrens, 6, 14

Wurtemburg, 7;

Wryneck, 4, 11

RETURN

1

2 :

3

4

5 t

D

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

SENT ON !LL

SEP 2 0 1994

U. C. BERKELEY

FORM NO. DD 19

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CA 94720

®s