144 DuTCHER, Report of Committee on Bird Protection. fjan 



Louisiana. — Legislation. — There was no session of the legis- 

 lature during 1903, but one will convene in May, 1904, when a 

 renewed and determined effort will be made to pass the A. O. U. 

 model law. It is vitally important that Louisiana should have the 

 very best of bird and game laws, so many of the northern birds 

 make this State their winter home. It is useless to try to pre- 

 serve birds at their breeding homes if they are to be wantonly 

 slaughtered at their winter homes. 



Warden system. — None can be employed by the Thayer Fund, 

 although the extensive coast line, which is an ideal place for water 

 birds, should be systematically patrolled. Without legal backing 

 money spent for warden service is simply wasted. 



Audubon work. — The report of the Executive Committee is 

 here given in full, as it is very interesting and complete: 



"Work accomplished'by the Louisiana Society since the date of 

 incorporation, November 22, 1902. Giving due consideration to 

 the diiScult conditions to be met in .a fight for bird protection in 

 southeastern Louisiana, and especially at New Orleans, the Lou- 

 isiana Audubon Society may be allowed to feel some little satisfac- 

 tion over the work accomplished during the last year. In one 

 particular, the curtailment of the shooting of song birds under 

 fancy French names at certain seasons of the year, the Audubon 

 Society has had to face the prejudices and traditions of at least 

 five generations. The Wood Thrush, or Speckled Caille, the Cat- 

 bird, or Black Caille, the Tanagers (in fall plumage) , or Yellow 

 Cailles, the Kingbird, or Black Grasset, and the Red-eyed Vireo, 

 or Green Grasset, have been the prey of many of the so-called 

 sportsmen of Louisiana, but particularly of New Orleans, since the 

 days of the first French establishments. As far as securing a pro- 

 hibition of this kind of shooting is concerned, so far the Audubon 

 Society has been unsuccessful. The ignorant interposition of the 

 local trappers of birds, and dealers in live birds, men whose inter- 

 ests are affected in the case of only a few species, has defeated 

 practically in toto the Audubon Society's efforts at restrictive legis- 

 lation. The same interests that defeated a bird protection bill 

 introduced at the 1902 session of the Louisiana General Assembly 

 by Mr. Frank M. Miller, now President of the Audubon Society, 

 prevented the passage of a city ordinance introduced before the 



