The Audubon Societies 



105 



To endeavor to prevent all illegal inter- 

 ference on the part of game wardens with 

 the millinery trade; to refrain from aiding 

 the passage of any legislation that has for 

 its object restrictions against the importa- 

 tion, manufacture or sale of fancy feathers 

 obtained from domesticated fowls or of the 

 plumage of foreign birds, other than those 

 specifically mentioned above. 



It is agreed by each of the parties that 

 this contract shall remain in force for a 

 period of three years from the date of its 

 execution. 



To show how far-reaching the agreement 

 between the members of the Millinery Mer- 

 chants' Protective Association of New 

 York and the Audubon Society of the State 

 of New York really is, it is only necessary 

 to call attention to the following: 



While it was not made a part of the for- 

 mal agreement, yet the members of the 

 committee representing the Audubon So- 

 ciety promised to identify any birds or 

 plumage submitted by the milliners. 



The first specimen submitted proved to 

 be an adult Cattle Heron [Biibulcus liicidus) 

 in full breeding plumage; it will be one of 

 the prohibited birds after January i, 1904. 



In this connection it is interesting to 

 quote the following from ' Bird Notes and 

 News,' the organ of the British Society for 

 the Protection of Birds, the first number of 

 which appeared April, 1903. 



"Killing Down the Buff-Backed Heron. 

 In the last issue of the journal of the Khedi- 

 vial Agricultural Society, attention is called, 

 apparently none too soon, to the great 

 diminution in the number of useful birds in 

 the neighborhood of Cairo. The writer 

 (Dr. Innes) tells of the ' almost total exter- 

 mination ' of the Buff-backed Heron 

 [Ardea biibulcus), which he calls the 

 Cattle-egret, from its habit of attending 

 cattle and relieving them of insect pests. 

 Birds of this species follow the plow and 

 pick up mole-crickets and larvs. Captain 

 Shelley says that they cause ' great havoc 

 among the locusts and other insects'. 

 They were so common in the past, and did 

 so much good that many travelers con- 

 founded them with the Sacred Ibis. Dr. 

 Innes attributes the reduction in the num- 

 bers of this useful species to ' so-called 

 sportsmen, who kill-for the sake of killing'." 

 — Hy. S. — From the Field, Feb. 14, 1903. 



Bird-Protectiora Abroad — II. South 

 Australia 



No better evidence of the world-wide 

 interest in bird -protection can be found 

 than in the laws of the various British 

 colonies. Even in far-distant Australia so 

 much progress has been made in legislation 

 of this kind that the ' Bird Protection Acts ' 

 of some of the states compare favorably with 

 those of any couhtry in the world. In 

 South Australia, the second in size of the 

 Australian states, game -protection has re- 

 ceived attention for thirty years or more, 

 and at least four statutes relating to birds 

 have been enacted; viz., the Game Act of 

 1874, Act No. 337 of 1885, the Game Act 

 of 1886, and the Birds' Protection Act of 

 1900. The last two will suffice for com- 

 parison with the laws of our own country. 



Under the game act of 1886 all birds 

 were divided into two categories : ' Special 

 game,' including Pheasants, Partridges, 

 Grouse, California Quail and White Swans; 

 and ' game,' including other indigenous 

 or imported birds. Special game was pro- 

 tected from September i to April i, and 

 game, during close seasons, beginning on 

 the first of June, July or August and ex- 

 tending, in each case, to December 15, 

 thus covering only the breeding season. 

 Nine groups of birds were excepted from 

 protection. These groups were Crows, 

 Black Magpies, Wattle Birds, Silver Eyes, 

 Yellow-crested Cockatoos, Rosella Paro- 

 quets, Sparrows, Snipe and Cormorants. 

 It is interesting to note that neither Hawks 

 nor Owls, which are so frequently excepted 

 in our laws and which at this time (1886) 

 were being exterminated in some parts of 

 the United States through bounty laws, were 

 given the same protection as other birds in 

 South Australia. The game act of 1886 pro- 

 hibited purchase, sale and possession, as well 

 as killing, and, like the law of New York, 

 provided a double system of penalties for vio- 

 lations of its provisions. The fines, not ex- 

 ceeding ^5 for each piece of special game, 

 and £2 for each piece of game, were supple- 

 mented by fixed amounts representing the 

 value of the birds — £2 in the case of special 

 game and 5 shillings in the case of ordinary 

 game; so that the maximum penalties for a 

 single bird might range from $11 to $35. 



