42 LEGISLATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS 



BIRDS IN CAPTIVITY. 



State laws generallj^ prohibit the trapping, netting, or snaring of 

 birds, for it is well known that a rapid decrease in numbers, amounting 

 almost to extermination in the case of certain species, would speedilj^ 

 follow the wholesale capture which is possible under these methods. 

 Such restrictions, aimed mainly at market hunters, are intended pri- 

 marily to insure the preservation of game birds, but they are often 

 needed to protect some of the smaller song or insectivorous species. 

 In the vicinity of some of the larger cities a regular business is carried 

 on in trapping certain native birds which are in demand for pets or 

 cage birds, Mockingl)irds, brown thrushes, bobolinks, cardinals, black- 

 headed grosbeaks, indigo birds, nonpareils, houselinches, goldfinches, 

 and others are captured in large numbers for sale. 



Ordinarily no objection is made to keeping caged birds as pets, 

 although there may be consideral)le ditference of opinion on the ques- 

 tion as regards native l)irds.^ But when large numbers are systematic- 

 cally trapped in any localit}^ to supply the trade the practice is very 

 properly condemned, and steps are usually taken to restrict the 

 operations of the bird trappers. 



Some Stiite laws are so worded as to prevent the capture of song 

 birds for purposes of domestication or propagation, and in a few in- 

 stjincos the matter has been deemed of sutticient importance to warrant 

 making exceptions in favor of owners of captive biids. At least ten 

 Stntesand the Provincesof British C'olumhiaand Ontario have legislated 

 on this point, as follows: 



Alabama: "Nothing herein shall l>e construed to prevent the keeping of song 

 birds in cages as domestic pets." (Gen. Uiws, 1898-5)9, i>. 77, sec. 2.) 



California: " Every person who, in the State of California, shall at any time hunt, 

 * * * take, * * * buy, sell, give away, or have in his possession, <?.rc<-p< 

 for thepurpn^e of projHtgatiou, or for e«lucational or scientific purposes, any Eng- 

 lish skylark, robin, canary, humming bird, thrush, or niocking])ird * * * 

 is guilty of a misdcTueanor," i>rovide(l, however, that the right of possession for 

 the purpose of projiagation shall first be obtaine<l by a permit in writing from 

 the board of fish commissioners of the State of California. (Penal Cotle, 1897, 

 p. 21G, sec. 626.) 



Iowa: " Nothing herein shall l^econstmeflto prevent * * * the keeping of song 

 ])irds in cages as domestic pets." (Annotattnl Code, 1897, sec. 2561, ji. 888.) 



Louisiana: "That no person shall entrap, net, kill, or pursue with such intent, or 

 have the same in possession at any time during the year, any song bird, espe- 

 cially the mockingbird, except domesticated birds, except the birds be entrapped 

 or netted fiir the purjwse of domestii-ation." (Rev. Laws, 1897, p. 247, sec. 6.) 



Maryland: " Provided, that it shall be lawful to have mockingbirds or reilbirds or 

 other song birtls in cages." (Laws of 1898, ch. 206, sec. 15n.) 



' For arguments pro and con on 'the (piestion of the ethics of caging birds,' see 

 Bird Lore, I, pp. 158-162, October, 1899. 



