BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



27 



BIRD PROTECTION" ORDERS. 



An article on the Wild Birds Protection Orders 

 appeared in the Times of August 30, from an expe- 

 rienced contributor. After summarising the Bird 

 Protection Acts and the powers of County and 

 Borough Councils under them, the writer deals with 

 the complication and confusion arising out" of the 

 inconsistencies among the many Orders in force, 

 and the want of anything like uniformity of action 

 in adjoining areas. He concludes that little fault 

 is to be found with the statute law, but that with 

 regard to eggs the best plan would be to make 

 them the property of those on whose land they 

 maybe laid, "placing them on the same footing as 

 gooseberries and apples." 



In a sympathetic leading article on the subject 

 the Times says :— 



" A quarter of a century having elapsed since 

 the first Act for the protection of birds received 

 the assent of Parliament, it cannot be matter for 

 surprise that experience should have shown direc- 

 tions in which it might be modified with advantage ; 

 and before this is done it would perhaps be possible 

 to call a conference of ornithologists for the pur- 

 pose of agreeing upon the best methods of com- 

 bining provision for local requirements with general 

 uniformity of enactment. Our wild birds are 

 among the greatest attractions of the country, and 

 their preservation is perhaps better worth striving 

 for than many objects of legislation which fill larger 

 spaces in the popular imagination of the day." 



In succeeding issues the Times further gave 

 space to letters on the subject from Mr. Tomlinson, 

 who pleaded especially for the better protection of 

 Owls, Kestrels, and Jays ; Canon Steward, who 

 protested against the rearing of game and de- 

 struction of flora and fauna in the New Forest ; and 

 Mr. F. E. Lemon, who in the Times of September 

 6th, took up the question of local Orders, and 

 wrote as follows : 



" It must be admitted that much of the detailed 

 criticism and comparison of the Orders is amply 

 justified, and the curious instances given might be 

 multiplied. But it must be borne in mind that 

 this result is due to the fact that the Orders are 

 made on the application of Councils of Adminis- 

 trative Counties and County Boroughs, who have 

 sometimes dealt very freely with the reports of 

 their Committees, and that the Committees them- 

 selves are variously swayed by local feeling. 

 Moreover, the very diversity of the Orders, made 

 by local bodies in accordance with local conditions, 

 or local opinion, is to no small extent their justifi- 

 cation. 



"At the instigation of the Royal Society for the 

 Protection of Birds, the Home Counties were asked 

 in 1898 by the Home Secretary then holding office 

 to make the Orders which apply to the metro- 



politan police district more nearly uniform, and 

 the present position is less unsatisfactory than 

 formerly. Recently, but with only moderate suc- 

 cess, the three Ridings of Yorkshire consulted 

 with a like purpose. This Society has also urged 

 the grouping of counties, where agricultural, geo- 

 graphical, and ornithological conditions are similar, 

 with a view to the simplification of the law and the 

 better enforcement of its provisions. In the 

 Society's report for 1905 a draft Order, with notes 

 and suggestions, was printed, which will be sent 

 with pleasure to any member of County Councils 

 interested in bird protection. 



" The Society can afford County Councils much 

 information from its accumulated store of know- 

 ledge and experience ; details and maps showing 

 the protection of any species throughout England 

 and Wales, and particulars with regard to Orders 

 in force are continually and willingly supplied. 

 The advice and suggestions of our Council are 

 also at the service of county authorities. . . . 



"This Society has for some years stationed 

 watchers in certain districts to secure the protec- 

 tion of the eggs of rare birds, in accordance with 

 County Council Orders, and their experience would 

 suggest a doubt as to whether the proposal to place 

 gooseberries, eggs, and apples on the same footing 

 would always prove satisfactory." 



The correspondence was continued by Mr. C. B. 

 Russell and the Rev. J. G. Cornish. The latter, 

 writing especially on the destruction of Jays, 

 Hawks, and Magpies, together with Owls and 

 Nightjars, by the gamekeeper, suggests a 

 " ' vermin ' preserve." 



" Recently I counted the preparatory work of a 

 keeper. He had on his tree 23 Jays, three white 

 Owls and three brown Owls, and one or two each 

 of Crows, Magpies, Sparrow- Hawks, and Kestrels. 

 This was before his birds were hatched. If we 

 reckon the subsequent number of enemies killed at 

 the same amount we shall probably be not far 

 wrong in the total. 



" Now, of course, from the point of view of all 

 the smaller birds and many of the larger ones, this 

 elimination of the Corvidee and birds of prey is a 

 policy to be much admired. The gamekeeper is 

 their very good friend, and his coverts their favourite 

 nesting-places. But some of us human beings 

 have sympathies with the enemies. We would 

 rather see one Jay than three Starlings, and one 

 Sparrow-Hawk than 100 Sparrows? May we not 

 have, at any rate in the woods that belong to the 

 nation, some preserves for them — some districts 

 where it is illegal to set any trap or to shoot any 

 ' vermin ' ? " 



The Manchester Guardian v September 3rd), in a 

 leader based upon the article in the Times, opposes 

 the whole system of county legislation and 

 advocates Orders for large areas, drawn up on the 

 advice of some recognised body of ornithologists. 

 At the same time the scope of the Acts should, it 

 is urged, be extended in order to deal more 



