6i REPORT 1876. 



of view. The notorious and rapid decrease in their numbers is to be ascribed 

 to causes tha't diay be classed under t^yo heads : — (1) ' Indirect ' and (2) 

 ' Direct.' 



" (1) The indirect causes of the decrease of Wild Fowl are attributable to 

 the diminution of their breeding-haunts by draining, the reclamation of 

 waste lauds, and agricultural improvements generally ; and with these it 

 would of course not only be impossible, but manifestly improper, for the 

 legislature to interfere, for with them the prosperity of the country at largo 

 is intimately bound up. So far, then, as regards thdr effects, the birds must 

 take their chance. 



" (2) The direct causes, on the other hand, arc as plainly capable of 

 control, for they are attributable to tlie destruction of the breeding-stock, 

 and chiefly by the gun. As soon as Inrds pair in the spring they lay aside 

 much of their habitual caution, and become easy victims to the gunner. 

 Long after the pairing-season has begun our markets arc plentifully stocked 

 with Wild Fowl of every description ; and it is obvious that every pair of 

 birds killed at that time of year signifies the destruction, of a whole brood, as 

 well as that of its intending parents. 



" Wild-Fowl shooting gives, as has boon above stated, employment to a 

 large number of men, who make a profession of it. These men, however, 

 are accustomed to certain restraints in pursuing tlieir vocation. They are 

 all compelled to take out a gun-license, and many of them are aware that 

 they are prohibited from exercising their calling in certain waters and over 

 certain lands. The notion of restraint to them is, therefore, not new ; and 

 the Committee believes that the most intelligent of them would gladly re- 

 cognize the propriety of a well-considered and strijigeut measure, that by 

 effectually protecting Wild Fowl during the breeding- season would secure to 

 them a greater abundance at other times of the year. 



" The Wild Fowl, for whose protection a more stringent measure is now 

 about to be proposed, are, it is true, already named in the ' Wild-Birds Pro- 

 tection Act;' but owing to their marketable value being greatly in excess of 

 the penalties which that Act prescribes — very projierly, may be, in regard to 

 the other birds it names — they enjoy little or no real protection tlierefrom. 



" The great success which has attended the working of the ' >Sea-Birds 

 Frescrvation Act,' in which the penalties are much higlior than in the ' "\^'ild- 

 Birds Protection Act,' encourages the Committee to liclievc that an Act on 

 the same principle of the former, but aj^plied to Wild Fowl, would be equally 

 successful; and to this end the Committee recommend the passing of such 

 a Bill as was introduced by Mr. Andrew Johnson in 1872. This Bill, it will 

 be remembered, was the foundation of the existing 'Wild-Birds Protection 

 Act,' but was so entirely altered in its passage through Parliament as to 

 become useless for the protection of the group of birds it was at fii-st intended 

 to protect. 



"The 'Wild-Birds Protection Act' may we'll be left as it is, since public 

 opinion was, and is, decidedly- in favour of some such legislation. Its failing 

 to protect Wild Fowl efficiently gives no room for its repeal ; but the Com- 

 mittee regards it as being virtually ineffective to produce any practical good. 



" The Committee thinks it necessary to state once more, that of the Small 

 Birds which so deeply engage the sympathies of many of the public, there 

 are but few kinds which have been proved, on any good evidence, to bo 

 diminishing in numbers, and that the decrease of these is owing much less 

 to any direct destruction or persecution than to indirect causes, such as have 

 been already referred to, and declared to be uncontrollable by the legislature. 



