(Authors are responsible for nomenclature used.) 
ee 
\e 
Tal 
i 
The Scottish Naturalist ~ 
Nos. 115 AND I1I6. | 1921 [ J uLy-Avucust. 
Mites ROPECRON OF WiIELDEBIRDS 
RECENT events have shown that our legislators are not 
insensible to the growing demand for the protection of bird 
life on the part of that great body of the people which takes 
pleasure in the sights and sounds of the country-side. The 
passage through Parliament, after many years of failure, of 
an Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Bill is a first 
step towards the preservation of those beautiful birds of 
foreign lands which have been the object of merciless 
slaughter for the benefit of a sorry trade. 
But while we legislate for the birds of other lands, is 
all well with wild birds’ protection in our own country? 
Apparently others than naturalists think not; for Sir Harry 
Brittain has just introduced to the House of Commons, 
where it has passed a first reading,a Bill “to provide for 
the further protection of Wild Birds in the United Kingdom,” 
the significant provision of which is that: “If any person 
shall use any decoy bird which is tethered or is secured by 
means of braces or other similar appliances, or which is 
blind, maimed, or injured, or shall use bird lime, for the 
purpose of taking or capturing any wild bird, he shall be 
liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten 
pounds, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour 
for a period not exceeding two months.” 
This is all very well so far as it goes, but it leaves many 
difficulties untouched, One such difficulty was suggested by 
PLS AN Ds LL N 
