102 The President's Address: [ .sf"jaii 



acres " of waste land or water, as the case may be, safe hiding 

 places for beautiful, interesting, and valuable birds. 



(4.) The mention of reserves naturally brings us to the upkeep 

 of such places. State reserves would need paid rangers, or 

 " wardens," as they are termed in America, while I apprehend 

 private reserves would be properly protected by their respective 

 owners. There would be no wisdom in creating reserves merely 

 in name, without proper supervision. Supervision of some sort 

 is necessary, if only to keep down vermin, for it must be 

 remembered that such sanctuaries will undoubtedly harbour 

 undesirable as well as desirable creatures. 



(5.) Reserves and paid rangers bring us to a very important 

 matter — the necessary " ways and means." It has been 

 humorously said that there is nothing surer in this world than 

 " death and taxes." Sooner or later, and I venture to say the 

 sooner the better, there must be a " gun tax," if only a nominal 

 one, in every State. It would bring in much righteous revenue, 

 which could be devoted to " bird protection." I observed with 

 satisfaction that Mr. D. Le Souef, at the last Adelaide session 

 (1905), referred to the subject of a gun tax in Victoria. I 

 concur with him that the introduction of a gun licence, not only 

 in Victoria but in the other States where it does not exist, 

 would, besides raising revenue, as I have already mentioned, lead 

 to the better preservation of Australian birds. So many would 

 not be destroyed by irresponsible persons carrying guns. Still 

 more taxes : we have a dog tax. No person objects to pay a 

 few shillings annually in return for the companionship of a faithful 

 or useful dog. Why not have a cat tax too .'' It would even be 

 more equitable than a dog tax, because cats are responsible for 

 the destruction of much bird-life. I am glad that Mr. A. J. 

 Campbell introduced the subject of cats at the Adelaide meeting 

 also, by reading a brief paper — " Domestic Wild Cats v. 

 Native Birds" {Ejiiu, v., p. 201). The paper has not only 

 attracted notice here but in America, where our bird-loving 

 friends are seriously contemplating the cat question in relation 

 to bird protection — vide Bird-Lore, " Annual Report Audubon 

 Societies for 1905," and TJie Auk (January, 1906). 



I am aware I am breaking new and perhaps questionable 

 ground when I state that every natural history collector might 

 be required to pay a nominal licence fee — not only collectors of 

 birds and animals, but also collectors of plants, shells, &c. If 

 argued to its logical conclusion, such a fee would only be a fair 

 return for the pleasure and profit of outings and a courteous 

 acknowledgment for value acquired from " Dame Nature," 

 besides indirectly providing "ways and means" for the protection 

 of invaluable native birds. Farmers, fruit-growers, and others 

 who are practically benefited by birds should also be required to 



