23 



(2) The taking or destroying the eggs of any specified 

 kind of wild birds within the county or part or parts thereof.* 



Under the Convention of 1902 the same absolute protection is 

 to be given to eggs, nests and broods as to the birds themselvesf ; 

 but it wiW be recollected that this merelj^ affects the species 

 useful to agriculture. 



The Act proposed in America runs as follows : — " No person 

 shall, within the State of * * *, take or needlessly destroy 

 the nest or the eggs of any mid bird other than a game bird, or 

 have such nest or eggs in his or her possession, except as per- 

 mitted by this Act. "J The last exception referred to is that 

 made by a later section§ in favour of collectors for scientific 

 purposes. The proposed law therefore resembles the suggestion 

 of the Convention in that both provide protection to the eggs 

 and nests of all protected species. 



On comparing the laws of the various European countries, it 

 will be seen that wherever the subject has been seriously treated 

 protection has generally been extended to eggs and nests. 



A suggestion has been made that since so many difficulties 

 present themselves in carrying our law into effect — difficulties 

 in identifying the eggs and in connection with boundaries — it 

 would be better if we adopted the principle of the Dutch and 

 Norwegian laws, Avhich recognise the right of owners and 

 occupiers in respect of eggs on their land.|| An owner of land 

 has always been legally considered to have a qualified riglit of 

 property — " ratione soli " — in the wild animals on his land, 

 and this right has to some extent been recognised by the Sect. 3 

 of our Act of 1880, by which it will be recollected that the owners 

 and occupiers are exempt from punishment for the offences 

 mentioned in the section in respect of wild birds not included in 

 the Schedule to the Act, But whether the land owners and 

 occupiers in this country could be trusted to give proper pro- 

 tection to the eggs, if they were to be regarded as being as much 

 their property as fruit, may be open to question. Difficulties 

 have sometimes arisen in connection with prosecutions of bird- 

 catchers, who, when caught in the close season trapping in a 

 wholesale manner birds not included in the Schedule to the Act 

 of 1880, have shown that they were acting with the full authority 

 of the owTier of the land. Now, owners were given a special right 

 under the Act of 1880 in order to protect their crops and fruits ; 

 it is an abuse of privilege to carry on a business for profit in the 



* 57 & 58 Vict., Chap. 24, Sect. 2 (1), (2). t Article 1. J Sect. 2. 



§ Sect. 5. 

 il See Sir Digby Pigott, C.B., op. cit., p. 594 ; also in " Times," 13th April 



1894 ; see also " Zoologist," 1894, p. 179, et seq. 



