Papers on tJic Destruction of Native Bitds. 223 



That several gentlemen have ^'- cried wolf wJicn there icas no 

 wolf,'' the following recent advertisement is, in my opinion, good 

 evidence, as showing the lack of the figures and facts called for : 



"Information wanted upon the needless destruction of birds, with facts 

 and figures, by the Committee on ProtecUon of Birds, of the American Ornith- 

 ologists' Union. Address, 



"Care of American Muskum Natural History, 



• "New York." 



In my remarks respecting the junior ornithologists or "col- 

 lectors" of this country, I made no attempt to justify wanton 

 cruelty by small boys or others; nor do I believe that '-total de- 

 pravity" is a universal characteristic of our boys. I have a better 

 opinion of human nature. Such cases of cruelty as cited by your 

 committee should be discussed by their parents, with a stick if 

 necessary, but better by the instillation of correct moral princi- 

 ples. This, however, is beyond the province of this or the Audu- 

 bon Society. 



I would call your attention to the fact that nowhere have I 

 advocated or justified the useless killing of our native song-birds. 

 I have simply given it as my opinion, based upon the evidence, 

 that such destruction, while deplorable in its sentimental aspects, 

 occurs to such a slight extent as to make it practically, inapprecia- 

 ble in its effects upon the fauna of the country. Neither in the 

 figures quoted by your committee or elsewhere is this view contro- 

 verted. I have not opposed the formation of "Audubon Socie- 

 ties" as such, for the protection of birds, I have simply criticised 

 their extravagant and unsustained claims to economic importance, 

 and would here direct attention to the fact that the "Audubon 

 Societies" are simply the outcome of an advertising scheme on the 

 part of an Eastern journal devoted to the interests of a class of 

 people who are habitual destroyers of birds for mere sport. 



The ornithologists of the country, both amateur and profes- 

 sional, are, as a rule, gentlemen, and as such their statements of 

 facts are worthy of the utmost credence, which I freely accord to 

 them. I censure no man, moreover, for his views, while claim- 

 ing the privilege to criticise opinions when based on false prem- 

 ises. 



Your committee has neither disproved my statement that sta- 

 tistics of destruction of gulls, terns, herons, grebes and shore birds 

 have been misapplied so as to apparently affect song-birds; nor has 

 it brought forward any additional facts of consequence regarding 



