The Audubon Societies 
Russia.—F. E. Stoll, Grosse Kiiterstrasse 
18, Riga; Baron Harald Loudon, Lisden 
bei Wolmar, Livland. 
Sweden.—Prof. Dr. Einar Lénnberg, 
Vetenskapsakademien, Stockholm. 
United States—Wm. Dutcher, 141 
Broadway, New York City; T. S. Pal- 
mer, Department of Agriculture, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 
The Proceedings of the Congress will 
be published before the close of the year 
and will be for sale by the permanent 
officers of the Congress.—W. D. 
Some Reasons Why International Bird 
Protection Is Necessary * 
By Witi1am Dourcuer, F. A. O. U. 
After reading the admirable and com- 
prehensive historical sketch of the de- 
velopment of international bird protec- 
tion in Europe, written by Otto Herman, 
and published by the Royal Hungarian 
Minister of Agriculture, Ignatus de 
Daranyi, I was greatly astonished to 
discover that during the half century in 
which the subject had been considered by: 
the great powers of Europe, through 
their scientific representatives and their 
learned ornithologists, that one of the 
greatest causes of bird-destruction, not 
only in Europe but in all other parts of 
the world, had never been discussed. I 
refer to the slaughter of birds for milli- 
nery purposes. The only mention of the 
millinery trade may be found on page 122 
in the report of the International Orni- 
thological Congress, held at Paris in 1900, 
which reads as follows: “The first, event 
was that the delegates of the Paris 
feather merchants and of the millinery 
houses,—two branches which demanded 
and still demand the sacrifice of billions 
of poor birds,—appeared at the Orni- 
thological Congress to raise their voices 
in opposition to the cause of bird protec- 
tion, which threatened to injure their 
material interest.” 
Surely if the members of the several 
Congresses which have met in the past 
*Presented at the Fifth International Ornitholo- 
Bical Congress, Berlin, May 30 to June 5, roto. 
169 
could not agree upon any schedule of 
birds that were beneficial to agriculture, 
or, on the contrary, were supposed to be 
noxious, it would seem that the destruc-- 
tion of birds for millinery purposes would 
have been a common ground upon which 
the delegates from the different countries 
could have agreed, and might have been 
in harmony in any drastic measure that 
would prohibit the use of birds for this 
wasteful purpose. The Paris milliners 
protested against any movement which 
threatened to injure their material in- 
terest. I ask whether the milliners have 
any interest that is paramount to the 
interest of agriculture and its allied in- 
dustry, forestry. These two industries 
need the live bird, and necessarily must 
advocate their protection and increase. 
On the other hand, the milliners demand 
a dead bird, and require that it shall be 
killed at a season of the year when it is 
in its best plumage, that is, during the 
period of reproduction; the result being 
decrease and eventual extermination. 
There is a legal side to this question: 
In America, wild birds are considered the 
property of the state, and the milliners 
have no legal right to kill them, as they 
are thus depriving the state of one of 
its most valuable assets. I am not suffi- 
ciently informed about the laws of Euro- 
pean countries to know whether wild 
birds are considered the property of the 
state, but if they are, the milliners of 
Europe have no more property rights in 
birds than have.the milliners of the 
United States. 
I am happy to be able to say that in 
the United States, and in fact, the greater 
part of North America, the traffic in wild 
birds’ plumage by the millinery dealers 
has been greatly restricted through the 
efforts of the Audubon Societies; however, 
to make this restriction more effective, 
we need the help of all the great world 
powers. 
America cannot protect her own birds, 
if the countries of the Old World offer a 
market for the plumage of American birds, 
as they are now doing. 
Twenty-five years 
ago, there were 
