Notes & News 



ISSUED QUARTERLY BY THE ROYAL SOCIETY 

 :: :: FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS :: :: 



Vol. VII. ] 



AUTUMN, 1916. 



[No. 3. 



Game Preservation and the Protection of Birds. 



By Frank Bonnett ("East Sussex"). 



Ai^YONE who sets himself the task of dis- 

 cussing the question of Wild Bird Preserva- 

 tion in its relation to Game Preservuig must 

 needs tread upon ground that is often 

 difficult and sometimes dangerous. In his 

 list of " Vermin " the game-keeper includes 

 a large number of birds, some of which may 

 at times be harmful to his interests, wliile 

 others may actually do him more good than 

 harm, and others again may be entirely 

 harmless so far as he is concerned. Of 

 recent years game-keepers — or at least some 

 of them — have shewn a better discrimina- 

 tion in dealing with this question of so- 

 called " vermin " destruction — a result 

 which may be attributed partly to the good 

 efforts of individuals and societies and 

 partly to the better legislation on these 

 matters that has been introduced. The 

 modern game-keeper, as a rule, is also a man 

 of better education than his predecessors, 

 and very frequently he is something of a 

 naturalist as well. 



At the same time, a good deal of ignorance 

 and foolish prejudice still undoubtedly 

 exists, and it is to be feared that in out-of- 

 the-way parts of the comitry where things 

 may . be done imseen, the laws regarduig 

 the protection of v\dld birds generally are 

 not only often ignored or never thought of 

 but sometimes wilfulty transgressed. The 

 difficulty of enforcing these laws can readily 



be imagined, but it is much to be regretted 

 that when offenders are caught — and the 

 breaking of these laws is by no means con- 

 fined to gamekeepers — they are not more 

 heavily dealt with. Rare, .useful, or harm- 

 less birds would be destroyed much less 

 often if the penalties for being in illegal 

 possession of such birds as these were in- 

 creased. Taxidermists' shops should be 

 subject to periodical inspection by the 

 police, while it should be compulsory on 

 all bird-stuffers to keep a register — ^similar 

 to that which game-dealers are obliged to 

 keep — sheT\ing full particulars of every 

 bird brought to their establishments. Such 

 a regulation as this would do far more 

 good than all the rest of the laws put 

 together. 



But while other persons besides game- 

 keepers — not excepting even those who in 

 the guise of "collectors" are often instru- 

 mental in bringing about the extermination 

 of many species of birds — have done a 

 great deal of harm in the matter of destro}^- 

 ing bird-life generally, it is the game-keeper 

 who is mainly responsible for the disappear- 

 ance of so many of our once common birds 

 of prey and for 1 educing the numbers of 

 other species which we can ill afford to lose. 

 Birds like the Peregrine, the Hobby, the 

 Merlm, the Common and Honey Buzzards, 

 and the Raven are now, as everyone knows, 



