Correspondence.



279



personal knowledge, but if it is suggested that the gathering of moulted plumes

is the custom of the plume hunter in other parts of the world, I can assure him

from personal knowledge that that is a delusion and a lie. In a district with

which I am acquainted, and from which large quantities of Egret plumes are ex¬

ported, every single plume is plucked from freshly-shot birds. But in those

countries (unlike Venezuela apparently) Egrets do not moult their plumes in a

condition in which they could be of any conceivable use for the adornment of

hats.


Again, though no allusion is made by him to the ravages of the bird and

egg collector as a factor in the extermination of British species, we find that the

blame for the serious diminution of ‘ ‘ one or two species ’ ’ is accounted for by the

“well-known fact that farmers and others ” have so persecuted them “ that they

have been well-nigh exterminated.” And yet memory fails to recall one single

species, in this country at any rate, whose disappearance has been brought about

by farmers, or in the agricultural interest.


We are treated, too, to such logic as the following. A collector in 1872

took 42 eggs from one Wryneck’s nest, “ which proved at least that the removal

of a single sitting could have no injurious effect upon such fertile creatures as

birds ” !


Finallv, in conclusion, we are warned that unless we take the place and

do the duty of the birds of prey who formerly “ broke up bird families to a

certain extent, the protection afforded to these favoured species, rendered

“ immune from man’s action,” will assuredly result in the final extinction of

these species through inbreeding.


This latter argument requires no comment, but it is so laughable that one

is tempted to believe that he is indulging his sense of humour at the expense of

his readers.


There are probably few of us who will be found to disagree with Dr.

Butler that the regulations of the Wild Birds Protection Act leave much to be

desired, and fewer still of us who are collectors in any shape or form, wlro are

not continually hampered and irritated by the lack of discrimination—and often

the folly—of the provisions of the Act; but futile lamentations on the part of

the provisions of the collector, or for the matter of that on the part of the

protectionist, are not very helpful contributions to the attainment of a better

regulated system of protection—and for this reason.


The subject of bird protection is approached, both by the protectionist and

the collector, solely from the point of view of the aims and aspirations of each,

and neither the one nor the other claims the sympathy of the mass of the public.


On the one hand, we have articles from the hand of the humanitarian

bird protectionist, of the ill-informed and always narrow-minded. He would

desire to see all birds allowed to increase unchecked, regardless of the interests

alike of the agriculturist and the game preserver, and of any other interest that

clashes with his views.


On the other hand, we have the equally selfish complaints of the collector,



