Bird Protection in Italy as It Impresses the Italian 159 



but, with the aid of a political press, tries to scatter his ideas among the 

 people. His various articles which have appeared for this purpose in the 

 journal 'II Sole' of Milan present ample details for confirming those prin- 

 ciples which are briefly stated here. He further shows how the destruction 

 of forests, no less than shooting, has led to the decrease of birds and the 

 consequent multiplication of insects." 



Under the heading of "Friends True and Imaginary," Lico continues: 

 "Regarding this maxim a recent entomological school has attempted to 

 establish the two following cardinal ideas: (i)The enemies of injurious 

 insects should be sought in the order of insects, and (2) insectivorous birds 

 destroy not only injurious but useful insects as well. In support of the last 

 thesis, the remarks of the distinguished ornithologist, Dr. T. Salvadori, 

 delivered to the Chamber of Deputies in Vienna, on December 9, 1891, are 

 quoted in part as follows: 'You must have heard, O gentlemen, repeated 

 a hundred times the eternal refrain — "Protect the birds! They are very 

 useful, because they destroy a great quantity of insects!" In regard to this 

 question, I would like to ask upon what kinds of insects do the little birds 

 chiefly feed, since the merit of their activity hangs upon this question; in 

 which of the two warring armies do they select their victims? Do they feed 

 chiefly upon the destroyers of our woods and fields? With all security and 

 determination, I answer. No!'" 



Lico then observes that the birds which devour harmful insects should 

 be preserved, while those which feed upon useful kinds should be destroyed 

 as quickly and as painlessly as possible. It is recognized that the question of 

 the utility of wild birds is a complicated problem, because it embraces various 

 elements. In order to decide whether a bird is useful or injurious, we must 

 inquire, says Lico, first, whether the products of agriculture or insects 

 themselves are its prevailing food, and second, whether such insects are in a 

 greater degree useful or injurious under all conditions. Lists of the useful 

 and harmful birds are then given as approved by an international commission 

 for the protection of birds and agriculture, which sat in Paris in 1895.* 



While this classification of the good and evil may be unjust or inaccurate, 

 on the other hand, says Lico, the figures which Sig. Ohlsen has set down 

 as the measure of the loss to Italy through the abuse of hunting do not have 

 the appearance of accuracy. In this regard the 'Naturalist's Bulletin' 

 (Sienna, 1896) ofifers the following comment: "Dr. Carlo Ohlsen, who 

 has very decided views in regard to the losses of agriculture due to hunting, 

 in an article published in a journal referred to above, recommends, in his 

 usual style, excessive rigors for the sport, and says that while the public 

 treasury received only 25o,000 lire (francs) from the sale of the hunting 



*In the class of birds condemned as injurious to agriculture, to hunting or to fishing 

 are Eagles, Kites, Hawks, Goshawks, Falcons, Owls, Crows, Magpies, Jays, Herons, 

 Bitterns, Pelicans, Moor-hens and Coots. 



