196 



NATURE 



[April 15, 1920 



Letters to the Editor. 



{The Editor does not hold himself responsible for 

 opinions expressed by his correspondents. Neither 

 can he undertake to return, or to correspond with 

 the writers of, rejected manuscripts intended for 

 this or any other part of Nature. No notice is 

 taken of anonymous communications.] 



The Plumage Bill and Bird Protection. 



At the present time there is a measure before the 

 House of Commons known as the Importation of 

 Plumage (Prohibition) Bill, the object of which is " to 

 prohibit the importation of the plumage of birds and 

 the sale or possession of plumage illegally imported," 

 excepting the plumage of ostriches and eider ducks, 

 but "the prohibition or importation imposed by the 

 Act shall not apply to any plumage imported in the 

 baggage or as part of the wearing apparel of a pas- 

 senger." The Bill further provides for the granting 

 of a licence, subject to certain conditions and regula- 

 tions, authorising the importation of plumage for 

 natural history museums, for the purpose of scientific 

 research, or for any other special purpose. 



In connection w-ith this measure numerous conflict- 

 ing interests are threatened and grave misunder- 

 standings exist, due very largely to lack of knowledge 

 of the actual facts. Whilst yielding to no one in my 

 love of wild birds and all the aesthetic interests asso- 

 ciated with wild-bird life, I cannot shut my eyes to 

 the fact that a considerable amount of sentimentalism, 

 misrepresentation, and exaggeration has been put 

 forth by supporters or well-wishers of this measure, 

 and sirnilarly by the opposers respecting trade losses, 

 the extent of the employment the trade ensures, the 

 absence of cruelty involved in the trade, etc. Neither 

 of these views helps us to understand the situation or 

 calmly and dispassionately to form an unbiassed 

 opinion, for both of them are far from the actual 

 truth. 



There is now ample evidence to show that a-con- 

 siderable trade is done in the plumage and skins of 

 wild birds which are largely utilised for the decoration 

 of women's hats, etc. In different centres, such as 

 London, Manchester, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, and else- 

 where, this trade affords employment to a number 

 of workers. The " horrors and barbarities of the 

 traffic " have been luridly described by one set of 

 writers and denied by another. Without accepting 

 either of these sets of exaggerated statements, 

 information in my possession shows that gross cruelty 

 is frequently committed. Prof. E. H. Forbush states 

 that brutal savagery is characteristic of this phase 

 of bird destruction, and points out that this "has been 

 well illustrated in the extermination of the egrets of 

 the United States." No unprejudiced mind can 

 exonerate or satisfactorily explain away this highly 

 objectionable side of the question. 



Of the species of birds sought after, we are con- 

 stantlv being assured that they are injurious, that 

 they are "as common as rooks," or that we do not 

 possess any exact information as to the effect this 

 trade has had upon their numbers. The fact is that 

 the majority of the species are beneficial so far as 

 agriculture or horticulture is concerned, and only a 

 very few injurious. There is exact and incontro- 

 vertible evidence that where thirty-five or forty vears 

 ago millions of birds existed, thev are now practicallv 

 extirpated. A single "rookery" of egrets was esti- 

 mated by a well-knovi^n ornithologist to contain three 

 million birds in 1878; in 1888 they were rare, and in 

 i9o8 almost extinct. 



NO. 2633, VOL. 105] 



It is pointed out by supporters of this Bill that 

 prohibition laws exist in America, Australia, India, 

 and elsewhere, but it is not mentioned that, in the 

 opinion of many competent judges, in consequence of 

 such laws certain beneficial species of birds have 

 suffered and injurious ones unduly increased. 



Again, it has been suggested that such birds as 

 egrets might be cultivated in natural reserves, and 

 their plumes or "aigrettes" collected as the birds 

 moult. The most perfect of such feathers, so we are 

 informed, fetch as much as 2I. apiece. That the 

 farming of these birds is a practicable scheme is 

 proved by the fact that the National Association 

 of Audubon Societies in the United States has 

 established such a colony on a small island in the 

 Stono River, near Charleston, and in 1917 it was 

 tenanted by more than four hundred birds. Again, 

 on Avery Island, Louisiana, U.S.A., there is a 

 "rookery" of snowy egrets which in igi6 was care- 

 fully examined by Prof. J. S. Huxley, and reported 

 to contain between eight and nine hundred nests. It 

 mav be well, perhaps, to remind the advocates of 

 such schemes that, like all members of the family 

 Ardeidae, herons and. egrets subsist very largely upon 

 fish, and there is little doubt that the establish- 

 ment of a series of large rookeries would have a 

 disastrous effect upon fresh-water fisheries. 



Whilst in no manner advocating opposition to this 

 Bill, we must face the question : Supposing that it is 

 placed upon the Statute-book, shall we have done 

 anything to stop the trade in the skins and plumage 

 of wild birds? Personally, I have grave doubts 

 whether the object desired, can be obtained by this 

 measure. As an Act of Parliament its example and 

 influence may be for good, but it will certainly not 

 put a stop to the plumage trade. It must be realised 

 that if we prohibit this trade in London, it will still 

 flourish in Paris, Berlin, and elsewhere. The Bill will 

 simply move the venue of the market; it will not 

 bring about a smaller demand. To put an end to 

 this we must educate the public, not by giving cur- 

 rency to wild and often inaccurate statements, but by 

 teaching the rising generation " to view the question 

 of the preservation of wild-bird life from a higher and 

 much truer standpoint than heretofore. That wild 

 birds have a utilitarian value no one can deny, but 

 they also have an aesthetic value far outweighing all 

 others. . . . Surely the general public have some 

 rights where beautiful natural objects are concerned. 

 . . . Posterity will undoubtedly regard us — and who 

 shall say not rightly ? — as stupid people, dull of appre- 

 hension and procrastinating in nature, in that we 

 have permitted various species of wild birds, one after 

 another, to disappear from our land; and our children's 

 children will rise up and ask why we did not secure 

 to them the natuial pleasures which their forefathers 

 could have enjoyed had they had eyes to see with 

 and minds tuned beyond the din and bustle of the 

 highways and byways of commerce " (National 

 Review, 1920, p. 95). 



Whilst the decoration of the person with wings 

 and feathers may be regarded as the vulgar and 

 depraved fancy of a day, the fact cannot escape us 

 that there is a large section of the general public who 

 are willing to pay high prices for these goods ; and 

 so long as this demand continues, so long will a 

 supply be forthcoming. 



By making the Plumage Bill a law of the land we 

 can sav that in this country we will have nothing to 

 do with the trade and that it shall be prohibitory to 

 carry on the trade in the United Kingdom. That it 

 will have any effect on the destruction of wild-bird life, 

 however, is certainly most unlikely. A plentiful supply 



