Bird Notes and New^ 



than they appear to be." These ninepins were 

 speedily knocked down in the columns of the 

 Times by the letters of Mr. W. P. Pycraft 

 (Natural History Museum), Sir Harry Johnston, 

 Sir Thomas Mackenzie (High Commissioner for 

 New Zealand), Mr. A. Trevor-Battye (Member 

 of Council of the Zoological Society, etc.), Mr. 

 Montagu Sharpe, K.C. (Chairman of Council, 

 R.S.P.B.), Mr. Holbrook Jackson (Editorial 

 Director, National Trade Press), and Mr. 

 Julian Huxley. 



A few excerpts only from the correspondence 

 can be given. 



Mr. Pycraft on « Egret Farms " (March 23rd). 



Wo are told that " there are some birds (e.g., the 

 Egret), which can be farmed and the feathers obtained 

 without any cruelty." " Can " be farmed. We have 

 been assured many times during the last few years 

 that these birds are farmed, though no one has yet 

 succeeded in obtaining any information whatever as 

 to the number of such farms or in what part of the 

 world they exist. Statements of this kind are not 

 even the ghosts of half-truths — unless we are to regard 

 rights of private ownership over areas of country 

 haunted by Egrets in a wild state, if any such owner- 

 ship exists, as " farming " rights. But as well might 

 the owner of the English duck-decoy be said to be 

 farming wild ducks. He simply kills the birds enticed 

 into the decoy, and trusts to nature to make good the 

 slaughter. . . . Having regard to the fact that 

 these birds possess extraordinarily good powers of 

 flight, it would further clear him of the charge of 

 employing half-truths if he would explain how such 

 " farmed " birds can be captured, so as to enable the 

 work of depluming to be carried out painlessly, and 

 without either killing the bird or spoiling the plumes. 



Sir H. H. Johnston on the Economic Question 

 (March 24th). 



The majority of beautiful or impressive birds are 

 insect-eaters of the tropical or sub-tropical regions, 

 the term " insect " for convenience and brevity being 

 taken to include ticks, centipedes, scorpions, and 

 land mollusca. Birds are almost the only effective 

 foes of mosquitoes and flies, of ticks and snails, of the 

 chief germ-carriers that spread the devastating diseases 

 of man, of cattle, sheep, deer, horses, swine, of valuable 

 food plants and useful trees. . . . Reduce seriously 

 in numbers . . . and we shall suffer terribly by 

 an increase of those germ-diseases affecting our health 

 and our food supply. The sea-birds of the tropics and 

 sub-tropical regions, now shot in thousands at a time 

 for their plumage, are the great producers of guano. 

 Already numerous guano islands have lost their bird 

 colonies. 



Sir Thomas Mackenzie on New Zealand Birds 

 (March 24th). 



Of conditions in New Zealand I am able to speak 

 with knowledge ; there we have had the greatest 

 difficulty in preserving from extinction some of the 

 most unique birds that are to be found on the surface 

 of the globe, and the Government have gone to very 

 considerable expense in this connection. Previous to 



my leaving the Dominion, when I became aware that 

 plumage and specimen hunters were about to make 

 a raid upon what was practically the last sanctuary 

 set aside for our birds, I had to take steps to prevent 

 their depredations, especially in regard to the Egrets. 



Mr. Trevor-Battye on the Story of the Egret 

 (March 24th). 



I have seen photographs taken on the spot, and 

 have read the scientific reports of ornithologists ia 

 the U.S.A., which point to the undeniable fact that 

 vast numbers of Egrets are being annually slaughtered 

 at their nests for the sake of their plumes, the nestlings 

 are left to die of starvation, to the peril of the extinc- 

 tion of this species. . . . When Professor Lefroy 

 has formed his company, and the Egret Farm is a 

 " going concern," on a sufficiently large commercial 

 scale to supply the plumage trade, it will be very 

 interesting, only he must not delay too long, or there 

 will be difficulties about a breeding stock. 



Mr. Montagu Sharpe on the Bill and Trade 

 Profits (March 25th). 



The Bill, says your correspondent (Professor Lefroy), 

 " protects nothing." An Act preventing profiteering 

 from the slaughter of birds by prohibiting the im- 

 portation and sale of their skins and feathers would 

 protect the birds in the one practical way, since no 

 one can maintain that they are killed for any other 

 purpose than sheer profit. The proposal to "de- 

 velop " the exploitation of other species (while " really 

 protecting rare ones ") is a suggestion that the trader 

 should be allowed to bring these within measurable 

 distance of extinction before he is interfered with. . . . 

 If England does not continue to encourage the trade, 

 we are told, some other nation will do so. This appeal 

 to England's dishonour, always the final argument of 

 the trade, is enough to characterise the business. 

 There is sure to be thieving ; let us, therefore, secure 

 the benefits of the theft. Not to share in the plunder 

 is to be, Professor Lefroy assures us, a hypocrite. To 

 take the cash and cover the deal by a bogus Bill is, 

 then, to be an honest Briton ? But even in point of 

 fact, waiving the moral issue, the probabilities are all 

 the other way. No port presents the facilities offered 

 by London ; otherwise the trade, being wholly alien 

 and almost wholly German, would have left England 

 long ago. 



Questions concerning the ostrich-feathers farmers 

 and the labour market have been fully answered. 

 The ostrich-farmers of South Africa have declared 

 their desire for the measure. Statistics have shown 

 that the labour employed on " fancy " feathers is 

 seasonal and ill-paid, and the workers numerically 

 negligible. 



Mr. Holbrook Jackson on the Industrial 

 Question (March 25th). 



The trade interest in plumage vetoed by the BUI in 

 this country is so small as to be negligible from the 

 point of view of finance. ... At the present time 

 not more than 700 workers are employed in the con- 

 tested plumage industry in Great Britain. If the 

 trade were abolished these workers could readily find 

 other employment. On the other hand, the negation 

 of the traffic in brightly-coloured tropical feathers and 

 aigrette plumes would stimulate the manufacture of 

 substitutes, which may reasonably be expected to 



