dii INTRODUCTION 



On the other hand, provision must be made for collecting birds 

 for scientific purposes, both for educational institutions and for 

 private collections, and also forkeeping birds in captivity for study 

 or as pets. These requirements can readily be met by having per- 

 mits issued under the supervision of some state ofiicer to properly 

 accredited collectors and students. In case it is desirable to allow 

 certain birds to be kept in captivity, sale and shipment out of the 

 state should be prohibited in order to avoid abuse of the privilege 

 and prevent wholesale bird-trapping for market, i 



Injurious Species. — In every state there are a few injurious spe- 

 cies from which protection should be withdrawn. In general these 

 species comprise the English sparrow, great horned owl, goshawk, 

 duck hawk, sharp-shinned hawk. Cooper hawk, crow, linnet or 

 house finch, and occasionally some of the blackbirds. Sweeping 

 provisions excluding hawks and owls from protection should be 

 carefully avoided, as most of the species are beneficial, and a clause 

 covering birds of prey in general without naming the injurious 

 species will result chiefly in the destruction of those which are bene- 

 ficial. It is useless to attempt anything more by legislation than 

 simple removal of protection. No means have yet been devised by 

 which an injurious species can be legislated out of existence, and the 

 various methods which have been advocated have almost uniformly 

 resulted in failure. Bounties for birds and eggs have little effect 

 except to drain the state or county treasury. The Colorado hawk 

 bounty, which was in force from 1877 to 1885, seems to have re- 

 sulted chiefly in the diminution of the sparrow hawk, one of the 

 most useful birds in destroying grasshoppers. The Utah bounty on 

 English sparrows, in force since 1888, has not exterminated the spar- 

 row in the state, and the provision of 1896, offering five cents per 

 dozen for eggs, must have resulted disastrously to the native birds, 

 for a year or two after it went into effect reports showed that in 

 Weber County alone payments had been made on 990 dozen (nearly 

 12,000) eggs, while during the same period only 640 sparrows had 

 been presented for bounty. The sparrow bounties in Illinois and 

 Michigan and the hawk and owl bounty in Pennsylvania all failed 

 to accompbi^h their objects, although each cost the state from 

 $50,000 to $100,000. The expense attending bounty legislation can 

 be readily illustrated by the records of payments for coyotes and 



1 The bill prepared by the Committee on Protection of Birds of the American Orni- 

 thologists' Union covers all of these points. See " Legislation for the Protection of 

 Birds other than Game Birds," Bulletin No. 12, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. Agricul- 

 ture, pp. 56-60, 1902. 



