Correspondence.



283



AN INFLUENTIAL Member writes:—“I am sure Dr. Butler’s article

‘ 1 is against the views of the very large majority of the members of the Avi-

“ cultural Society.


‘ ‘ However correct his views may be as to Bird-catching and the collection

“ of large series of eggs as he knew it when he was a lad, it is not so now !


“ No place is so remote that it cannot be reached by motor-car, cycle, or

‘ ‘ steamboat; and the number of collectors and of Field Clubs and Museums is

“very largely increased during the last twenty years; while the increase of

“population, the development of seaside places and golf courses in localities

“hitherto derelict, and a higher standard of farming as well as closer game-

“ preserving, have all contributed to make many species—fairly common 20 or

“ 30 years ago—extremely rare now.”


A MEMBER writes—“I do not approve of Dr. Butler’s article. From an

“ aviculturist of his experience I should have expected more sound reasoning.

“ He deplores the restrictions placed by the modern bird protection regulations

“ on the study of Oology and Ornithology generally, but suggests no means by

“which a legitimate amount of scientific research may be made compatible with

“the .effective preservation of rare and desirable species. In the matter of

“ allowing the taking and hand-rearing of nestlings he is equally vague ; he

“ forgets too that all persons who attempt hand-rearing are not possessed of the

“skill and knowledge of an M.B.O.U.,and are only too likely to make a horrible

“mess of the business—and can he quote a single instance of a person being

“ prosecuted for acting as he did towards his Pied Wagtail by saving it from an

“untimely end? He preaches moderation in all things, but displays an attitude

“ of immoderate hostility towards the domestic cat—a very estimable beast with

“many supporters !—though not good for birds, I admit. Then his remarks on

“the feather trade are doubtful in facts and do not harmonize at all with your’s

“ (i.e. the Editor’s). A thoroughly undesirable industry cannot be defended

“ solely on the ground that it gives employment—you might as well argue that

“ the slave trade ought never to have been abolished because it gave occupation

“to seamen employed on the slave ships.*


“Lastly, his picture of the starving children of the ex-birdcatcher is

“over-drawn, and his remarks about the evil effects of in-breeding, fanciful.”


“ Why cannot Members of the R.S.P.C.A. and bird-keepers act together

“ for the promotion of the welfare of birds in captivity—or otherwise ?


“ If the former would only realise that the keeping of birds in cages is not

“ necessarily in the least cruel, and the latter would admit that the bird-trader is

“ oftentimes in need of drastic reform and better regulation, how much improved

“things would be! I should have thought it would be quite easy for those who

“ take an interest in the birds of a particular country or continent, to arrange to

“ pay the wages of an experienced man who would undertake all the catching,



* I wrote this same line of argument, before receiving the above letter. ED.



