396 University of California Publications in -Zoology [VOL. 11 



into the State Legislature on January 11, 1909. The bill, which 

 proposed to amend section 637 of the penal code of California, 

 passed through the committee, but was refused passage, the vote 

 standing 32 to 28. On the motion to reconsider, the bill was 

 again brought to a vote and passed with a vote of 41 to 28. The 

 Committee on Fish and Game of the Senate reported favorably 

 on the bill, but it was refused passage on a vote of 17 to 12. 



In 1911 Assemblyman Stuckenbruck, at the request of his 

 constituents, introduced a similar bill with the proviso that in 

 the counties of Tehama, Butte, Sutter, Sacramento, Yolo, Colusa, 

 Glenn, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Kings the meadow- 

 lark be not included among the birds protected by the act, hoping 

 thus to allay the opposition met from other parts of the state at 

 the former session of the legislature. This bill, being referred 

 to the Committee on Fish and Game, was returned to the Assem- 

 bly with a majority report in favor of its passage and a minority 

 against its passage. It failed of passage on March 20. 



Continued complaints from the farmers and fruit growers 

 of the state have been made to the State Fish and Game Com- 

 mission regarding the losses to crops caused by the depredations 

 of birds. The commission has been repeatedly urged to take 

 strong measures to avert the damage done. The usual measure 

 urged is that the particular bird in question should be placed 

 on the unprotected list. On the other hand, many scientists and 

 others interested in birds have pointed out the fact that birds 

 confer a great benefit in keeping down the number of injurious 

 insects and weed seeds, and thus they fill a niche in the economy 

 of nature most suited to mankind which is not and can not be 

 filled by any other form of life. Experience has shown that 

 many belonging to the first class have based their complaints on 

 circumstantial or partial evidence or on evidence not sufficiently 

 reasoned out. Furthermore, these complaints have brought out 

 the fact that really very little is known of the food habits of 

 birds of California. Certain it is that a knowledge of the food 

 habits of a bird is necessary to a determination of its economic 

 status. As a result, therefore, the commission thought it wise 

 that legislation should be based on scientific investigation as to 

 the value of birds, and not on circumstantial evidence. Conse- 



