Fel5. 1889.] 



ANT> OOLOGIST. 



31 



six weeks, one could drive for miles and hardly 

 see a fence. 



The bugs and other insects that hide under 

 logs, and in bark and decayed stnmps, have a 

 good, thick blanket. Methinks that a Shrike, 

 to dine off snch grub in this county, must pro- 

 vide itself with a snow shovel and entomolo- 

 gist's chisel. The Shrike's motto probably is, 

 hunt shrike or die, for I cannot believe that it 

 ever roots through two or three feet of snow to 

 get under a log, or digs into an old dead tree 

 that is frozen hard. 



My theory (slight proof), that how the Shrike 

 obtains what few insects and worms they may 

 get in winter (not in October, for in this month 

 they might get plenty of insect food in freshly 

 plowed fields), is this: During the winter 

 months farmers are engaged, more or less, 

 cutting wood and chopping down useless fruit 

 trees. The woods are thinned out so much 

 that dying or dead trees are used mostly. In 

 cutting and splitting such timljer, the grubs 

 and beetles are exposed. 



I agree with Mr. Gaboon that Tern draw up 

 their feet when flying. I have noticed it in two 

 species of Tern, and more particularly with the 

 Herring Gull. During cold snaps they hover 

 over the river, oftentimes clearing the bridges 

 by less than thirty feet. 



If Mr. Arthur H. Howell will refer to the 



Laws of State of New York, 1886, page (JO!), 



chapter 427, he will gain the desired informa- 



t\yn\ regarding a permit. Most respectfully, 



B. D. Stone. 

 Oswego, N. Y. 



P. S. — Let me ask Mr. Edward Tennant a 

 question, — Sept. 1888, O. & (). — Why do crows, 

 when pulling corn, almost invariably take the 

 soft kernel of corn, if they are only after cut- 

 worms, etc.'? D I). SfdHf. 



Editor of O. <t O.: 



I notice many are interested in the laws per- 

 taining to the collection of birds, their nests 

 and eggs. It is a matter which has received 

 tlie attention of few who are able to handle it 

 wisely. In the December number of this maga- 

 zine, Mr. Howell speaks of the law in New 

 York. It certainly is defective, as all will admit. 



In Bulletin No. 2 of the American Ornitholo- 

 gists Union, is given a "Revised Draft" — mod- 

 elled after the law in New York, but modified 

 in some respects, (me is that of which Mr. 

 Howell complains — the refusal to grant per- 

 mits to tht)se under eighteen years of age. 



A bill patterned after, and almost identical 

 with the revised draft, to which I referred. 



was introduced in our Legislature, the session 

 of '87. It went the way of most of its kind — 

 was referred to a committee on game laws, of 

 which there was an abundance. 



When it was released from the "friendly 

 protection ' ' of the committee, one would never 

 have supposed it ever had anything to do with 

 the bill that was introduced, for it provided 

 for "the fine or imprisonment, or both, of all 

 persons convicted of taking birds for millinery 

 purposes." Not a word was said about collect- 

 ing for any other purpose. 



All right as far as it goes. Now, the old law 

 l^rovides for the fine, etc., of persons "want- 

 only molesting birds, their nests or eggs." It 

 has proved to be troublesome to convince some 

 of the justices of the peace (before whom the 

 supposed law-breakers were taken) that the 

 accused were not wantonly molesting the birds. 



Why cannot we have a law that will protect 

 the ornithologists? The sportsmen, in this 

 state at least, have game laws enough to please 

 most anyone — a state warden under salary, 

 and deputies (on commission) appointed by 

 him, and are under his directions. 



It is not very pleasant to have a deputy war- 

 den swoop down on you, especially as he is led 

 to such activity by the "almighty dollar," his 

 share of the fines. 



There are plenty of people who say, "Oh, 

 give us a good law and all will go well." That 

 is just the point. What is a '■'■good law?'''' 

 It can't be expected to put in an appearance 

 ready to battle with an unsympathetic legisla- 

 ture, without thought and work from some 

 source. If the hunters can have law upon 

 law, why can't the ornithologists have one. 



Now, Mr. Editor, I suggest that we take 

 something as a starting point, and, through 

 your magazine, build upon it. The Revised 

 Draft of New York law, of which I have 

 spoken, may be objectionable to some. Then 

 let them suggest a better way out of the diffi- 

 culty. But it must not be expected all will be 

 pleased with the result. It will take thought 

 to gain a good foundation and work to bring 

 about the desired result. Very truly, 



Walter B. IIvll. 

 Milwaukee, Wis., .Tan. 14, 1889. 



Editor of O. & O.: 



Dear Sir: — Will you kindly allow me to cor- 

 rect an error in a letter from Mr. Arthur H. 

 Howell, of Lake Grove. L. I., published in the 

 O. & O., December, 1888. Mr. Howell, in pur- 

 porting to quote from the New Y'ork law for 

 the protection of birds, says: "The law^ states 



