ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY BULLETIN 



988 



good judgment and the force of their campaign 

 is beyond all ordinary terms of praise. They 

 have published three numbers of a "Western 

 Wild Life Call," packed full of forcible facts, 

 arguments and cartoons, and they have been 

 widely circulated. It seems impossible that so 

 splendid a campaign should fail to succeed, but 

 in any event, the complete success of the move- 

 ment is only a question of time! 



While the California struggle was entering 

 its most active stage, eastern defensive organi- 

 zations were invited to subscribe to the cam- 

 paign fund of the Associated Societies and the 

 Zoological Society promptly forwarded $400. 

 In order further to promote the interest of the 

 occasion, the Society forwarded 175 copies of 

 "Our Vanishing Wild Life," to all members of 

 the legislature and other persons in a position 

 to influence the result. 



The Struggle in Louisiana. 

 In the early summer of 1912 a legislative up- 

 heaval of game laws and game commissioners 

 occurred in Louisiana. Certain conditions had 

 become so obnoxious to the people that the new 

 legislature threatened the complete destruction 

 of the state game warden system under a state 

 commissioner, and the delegation of game pro- 

 tection to the counties, independently. Such a 

 retrogression would have been a calamity of 

 considerable magnitude. In the face of this 

 crisis, the Zoological Society was called upon 

 for help to avert a disaster. Recognizing the 

 need of some one at the storm-centre who could 

 speak from experience and with great authority 

 regarding warden systems and game-protection 

 principles in general, the Society engaged Mr. 

 James S. Whipple, of Salamanca, New York, 

 for seven years State Game Commissioner of 

 New York, to go to Louisiana. Mr. Whipple 

 went as the Society's special representative, and 

 placed his services at the disposal of Mr. E. A. 

 Mcllhenny, who was directing the compaign. 



Mr. Whipple's presence and influence proved 

 of great value to the cause. As a final result of 

 the struggle, not only did Louisiana take no 

 steps backward, but Mr. Mcllhenny's bill, ma- 

 terially limiting the possibilities in the sale of 

 game, and doing many other good things, was 

 enacted into law. Thus was a victory achieved 

 in the place of what jDromised to be a calamity. 



Other Causes. 



The Society's campaign to suppress the im- 

 portation of millinery plumage, and in behalf 

 of the McLean Federal migratory bird bill, will 

 be mentioned in other articles in this Bulletin. 



THE FEDERAL MIGRATORY BIRD LAW. 



THE Shiras-Weeks-Anthony bills for the 

 Federal protection of "migratory game 

 birds," started by Mr. Shiras as far back 

 as i904, made no substantial headway until the 

 insectivorous migratory birds were included. On 

 September 18, 1912, the Zoological Society forc- 

 ibly pointed out the strong prospect that no mi- 

 gratory bird bill ever would be passed by Con- 

 gress until driven through by an overwhelming 

 public demand for the safety of the crop pro- 

 tecting birds. It was also pointed out that the 

 progressive destruction of insect-eating birds 

 rendered the passage of a Federal protective bill 

 a matter of vital interest to every producer and 

 consumer of farm products! It was claimed 

 that much valuable time had been lost by talk 

 about the game-bird feature of the bill, when 

 the necessity to protect the insectivorous birds 

 should have constituted the leading line of at- 

 tack. 



On March 6, 1912, the date of a public "hear- 

 ing" on three bills for the protection of "mi- 

 gratory game birds" or "wild fowl," not one 

 of those bills provided for the federal protec- 

 tion of our insectivorous birds! At that hear- 

 ing thirteen men appeared, nine of whom rep- 

 resented organizations, and out of the entire 

 number only one man, Mr. T. Gilbert Pearson, 

 addressed the Committee in behalf of the in- 

 sectivorous non-game birds, or even mentioned 

 them. 



On April 24, Senator George P. McLean, 

 of Connecticut, introduced a bill (S. 6497) "to 

 protect migratory game and insectivorous birds 

 in the United States," which was immediately 

 reported to the Senate, without amendment. 



During the remainder of that long and quiet 

 session of Congress, it was not deemed wise to 

 risk a vote on either of the migratory bird 

 bills. The people who do not shoot had not 

 yet spoken. 



On the floor of the House, February 27, 1913, 

 Mr. Cox, of Indiana, uttered this significant 

 declaration regarding the comparative motive 

 powers of the game birds and the insectivorous 

 birds in passing the McLean bill: 



"The whole bill is a delusion and a snare. 

 It would have been impossible to put the bill 

 through simply to protect the game birds; and 

 in order to get it through they had to couple 

 with it a provision about which the fathers 

 of the measure cared nothing whatever!" 



