76 



BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



The proposals and suggestions put forth during 

 these thirty-four years were naturally many. Mr. 

 Herman summarises those officially propounded by 

 ornithologists who took part in the discussions. 

 The gist of all was a desire to prohibit the taking 

 of large numbers of birds by nets and traps, and 

 the protection of every insect-eating species. The 

 general hitch was in the framing of schedules of 

 " useful " and " noxious " birds, owing to the want 

 of exact knowledge of the food of birds. The 

 difficulty with birds of mixed diet, and that arising 

 from the useful character of some insects and the 

 noxious character of some seeds, do not seem to 

 have been raised. 



The Convention ultimately signed, lays down that 

 birds useful to agriculture, particularly the insect- 

 eaters, should be unconditionally protected by a 

 prohibition forbidding them to be killed in anyway 

 whatsoever, and forbidding likewise the destruction 

 of their nests, eggs and broods ; but until this aim 

 can be completely achieved it was agreed that laws 

 be passed in the several countries to carry into 

 effect : (i) the complete protection of nests (except 

 thoseon buildings), eggs, and nestlings, thetransport 

 and sale of these as well as their destruction being 

 prohibited ; (2) the prohibition of all traps, nets, 

 etc., for the wholesale capture or destruction of 

 birds ; (3) the enactment of a close time for birds 

 named in the schedule, this to forbid the sale and 

 as far as possible the import and transport of these 

 species. Other clauses empower the contracting 

 parties to add birds to the schedule ; to enforce 

 Clause 2 gradually ; to grant temporary licences 

 to growers of crops for the shooting of birds that 

 cause "real damage,'' and also exemptions for 

 scientific purposes and the keeping of cage birds, 

 " taking all measures of precaution to prevent any 

 abuse of the same" ; etc. The schedule of "useful" 

 birds, and a Black List of "noxious" birds follow. 



The whole conception and intention of the 

 agreement rests on a utilitarian basis, contem- 

 plating only what is described as " rational " Bird 

 Protection— protection, that is to say, undertaken 

 for the material interests of man and independent 

 of any scientific, humanitarian, or sentimental 

 motives. Its object is to prevent the destruction 

 in all countries of birds of economic value, especially 

 migratory species, which are killed in one country 

 to the serious loss of another. " Great Britain's 

 isolation," writes the eminent Hungarian ornitho- 

 logist, " is comprehensible, for the insular conditions 

 of that country are quite different." There are, 

 indeed, only a few migrants that suffer to any great 



extent at the hand of man in Britain, the eating of 

 small birds not being a custom with the masses at 

 present, and hardly any birds being taken wholesale 

 for commercial ends, as is common in southern 

 countries and in Northern Russia. The schedule 

 to the Act of 1880 does not, Mr. Herman notes 

 with surprise, contain the names of those species on 

 whose protection Continental States lay the 

 greatest stress, such as Swallows, Swift, Redbreast, 

 Wheatear, Accentor, all the Warblers, the Fly- 

 catchers, Wagtails, Pipits, and Wrens. The reason 

 is that none of these birds, if we except the Wheat- 

 ear, is persecuted in Britain. As a matter of fact, 

 the only species our statutory schedule shares 

 with the schedule of the Convention are the Owls, 

 Woodpeckers, Roller, Bee-eater, Hoopoe, Nightjar, 

 Nightingale, and Goldfinch ; whereas it includes 

 on account of their rarity and beauty several 

 species which are blacklisted by our neighbours 

 as enemies to fishing. 



The British Bird Protection Act (that of 1880) is 

 not, Mr. Herman adds, what to Continental concep- 

 tions it should be, and was "degraded into a mere 

 game-law by the fact that it did not protect nests and 

 broods," though this was partly amended by the 

 Act of 1894. The Act is not indeed what it should 

 be, but it will be seen that in some respects British 

 legislation is ahead of that laid down by the 

 Convention, especially in the provision of a close 

 time for all wild birds. This is only what would 

 be expected, since a general agreement among 

 many States cannot go so far as individual laws 

 framed to suit each State should do. Moreover, 

 it may be doubted whether in any country that is 

 a party to the Convention, there exists the purely 

 senseless destructiveness that is rampant in rural 

 England ; and the agricultural economists who are 

 answerable for the international compact would 

 certainly hear witf^ amazement that any British 

 agriculturist desired the assistance of the village 

 birdnester, beating the hedgerows for eggs to 

 smash, string, or suck, in the settlement of an 

 economic question. On the Continent the problem 

 is, how to save the hosts of small birds now killed 

 by systematic and elaborate devices for the meat- 

 market and the millinery counter. In Britain we 

 have to fight a heedless destruction for destruction's 

 sake, and a taking of rare birds because they are 

 rare ; our very bird-catching is no organised 

 commercial business, but is carried on chiefly in 

 the cause of sentimentality, that sentimental people 

 may rejoice in caged songsters. 



The main regret that Britain should have with- 



