i6o Bird - Lore 



permits, agriculture incurred a loss of 25,000,000 lire at least. How does 

 the distinguished Sig. Ohlsen prove his estimate of this damage? Besides 

 proof to the contrary, we maintain that this sum is wholly imaginary, 

 because we believe that this gentleman cannot be in a position to distinguish 

 the utility from the harm which birds bring upon the cultivated plants by 

 feeding on insects, some of which are certainly of much more use to agricul- 

 ture than a few birds." 



The same sheet for November 15, 1897, further expresses its views upon 

 the subject as follows: "As we have remarked on other occasions, there 

 are most estimable persons and distinguished writers who fall into contra- 

 diction in their efforts to prove the utility of birds and the need of excessive 

 measures in order to protect them, the outcome of which would bring more 

 harm than good to Italy. Here is another example of their efforts: 'An 

 esteemed sportsman and writer upon sporting matters has published in a 

 periodical of sport a plea for a single hunting law, and in it we find the fol- 

 lowing remarks: "The immense slaughter of little birds which is carried 

 on in autumn by means of nets, especially in upper Italy, arouses every- 

 where even in foreign countries the fiercest protests." ' 



"There are millions of pretty little birds which hunters destroy every 

 year by carefully crushing the cranium. In order to form an idea of this 

 slaughter, it is sufficient to walk at this season (October and November) in 

 the market place at Bergamo and at Brescia. There are to be seen, Robin 

 Redbreasts, Thrushes, Sparrows, and other kinds piled up like grain along 

 the walls. Pass at once one good law that shall put an end to such bar- 

 barity and such insane destruction. And here it is understood that this good 

 law should be of such a character as to prohibit absolutely the use of the 

 nets in hunting everywhere." 



Now hear Lico's comment upon these sane remarks: "Let us ask if, 

 after so many, many years that hunting has been carried on by the use of 

 nets, after our fields have become less and less suited as covers for the poor 

 little birds, after that the government has shown that it is absolutely unable 

 to protect the birds during their reproductive period among us, — if after all 

 this there can still regularly occur that enormous slaughter of millions of 

 little birds, so that they can be seen in the markets like sacs full of grain, 

 then why condemn absolutely hunting by means of nets, since by this very 

 showing the method of hunting has not yet caused grave damage? Why 

 renounce a thing certainly useful in order to substitute another which is 

 very problematical ? " 



I have given this long and almost verbatim translation in full, because 

 it illustrates the kind of argument which is sometimes used, and used no 

 doubt with a certain degree of sincerity, to bolster up a bad cause. It is a 

 sad case of the blind leading the blind, for the entire bottom of this kind of 

 argument drops out the moment we consider the fact that the present great 



