Mar., 191' 



COMMUNICATION 



COMMUNICATION 



To the Editors of The Condor: 



From the standpoint of the rarer birds, 

 one of the greatest desiderata is a League 

 for the Extermination of Amateur Ornithol- 

 ogists. I do not mean mere bird-lovers or 

 "bird-chasers" — in their increase lies the 

 birds' best hope — nor the professional or- 

 nithologist, who is a necessary minor evil. 

 I refer to the man who collects bird-skins or 

 eggs as a boy collects stamps; who is sure 

 death to any rare bird that crosses his path, 

 because he wants it either to complete his 

 set or to trade. This includes the "no spe- 

 cimen, no record" man, who will sacrifice 

 anything that flies for the satisfaction of 

 clinching his claim to an unimportant rec- 

 ord. It goes without saying that the ban 

 should cover that noxious by-product of the 

 accumulating instinct, the collector for rev- 

 enue only, who ethically occupies a far lower 

 position than the ordinary market hunter. 

 I know, of course, that the number of birds 

 and eggs that the amateur destroys is small 

 in comparison with those that fall victims 

 to natural agencies, but the latter are not 

 supposed to be open to conviction. 



Moreover, in the case of a rare bird, the 

 collector becomes a relatively far more im- 

 portant influence in the process of extermi- 

 nation; and where a declining species is un- 

 dergoing a sectional re-adjustment to chang- 

 ed conditions, he may well be the factor 

 that turns the scale toward extinction. 



So it is to be hoped that in the near fu- 

 ture the man who collects bird-skins or eggs 

 for private gratification or gain will be 

 classed with the plume-hunter and be ban- 

 ished from respectable ornithological soci- 

 ety. 



To the hardened collector, this will of 

 course seem like idle chatter, but it is writ- 

 ten with the hope that it may appeal to 

 some who are not too far gone in evil ways. 

 Yours sincerely, 



H. Gifford, 

 Omaha, Nebraska, January 5, 1917. 



[The above does not, of course, in any de- 

 gree represent the views of the Editors of 

 The Condor. We give it space for the rea- 

 son that it well represents the particular 

 angle of view of the extreme bird-protection- 

 ist, the person whose field of vision is nar- 

 rowed until he can see optimum good only 

 in the conservation of each and every indi- 

 vidual bird. He does not seem to realize 

 that with the extermination of the amateur 

 ornithologist, scientific ornithology is doom- 

 ed to die out inside of one generation! — 

 Editors.] 



PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 



The Biological Survey Bird Enumera- 

 tions. — The United States Biological Survey 

 has recently issued its "Second Annual Re- 

 port of Bird Counts in the United States, 

 with Discussion of Results." 1 This has to 

 do with the season of 1915. The method of 

 securing data was practically the same as 

 used in 1914, and upon which the "prelimin- 

 ary report" (Bulletin 187, U. S. Dept. Agric.) 

 was based. A circular of detailed instruc- 

 tions was issued to those persons who re- 

 sponded to the general call for volunteer 

 observers. A total of 315 reports for 1915 

 was received, covering every state in the 

 Union except Utah and Nevada. 



In summarizing, emphasis is placed upon 

 the concordance of results of the 1915 enum- 

 eration with those of 1914. This would ap- 

 pear to establish an average, in the north- 

 eastern United States, of 124 breeding pairs 

 of birds on the average farm of 108 acres. 

 The censuses further indicate that there is 

 an average smaller number of birds per unit 

 of area throughout the region west of the 

 100th meridian than there is in the eastern 

 states; but no exact numerical statement is 

 yet attempted. 



Increase in bird population is observed on 

 those farms or grounds where special pains 

 have been taken to provide increased food, 

 shelter, and protection from enemies. 



One feature of the present Report is to be 

 regretted, namely the citation of a census, 

 of dubious authenticity, contributed by some 

 person, not named, from "near Gilroy, Gal." 

 The area treated is comprised in a single 

 farm of 38 acres, and this area is reported 

 as having supported, in 1915, 176 breeding 

 pairs of birds, of 34 species. The species 

 are named, with the result that the reader 

 is invited to believe that the "Western Win- 

 ter Wren" and "Western Blue Grosbeak" 

 were there breeding side by side, as also the 

 "Allen Hummingbird" and "Pacific Night- 

 hawk"! 



These and several other obvious blunders 

 in determination cannot help but bring sus- 

 picion upon the whole list; if such careless- 

 ness be displayed in reporting species, how 

 can reliance be placed upon the enumera- 

 tion? 



It is this thing that we would call atten- 

 tion to, as a danger incurred in the Biolog- 

 ical Survey method of gathering data: 



bulletin No. 396, United States Department 

 of Agriculture (Contribution from the Bu- 

 reau of Biological Survey). By Wells W. 

 Cooke. October 23, 1916. Pages 20. 



