February 26, 1886.] 



SCIENCE. 



203 



the present laws now generally are, they would, 

 if thoroughly enforced, prevent the disgraceful 

 slaughter now so general, and untrammelled by 

 any legal interference. As already so many times 

 reiterated in this series of papers, the fault is not 

 so much lack of laws, or inadequate legislation, as 

 the absence of nearly all effort to interpose any 

 obstacles, legal or otherwise, in the way of free 

 slaughter. So apathetic is the public in all that 

 relates to bird-protection, that prosecution under 

 the bird-protection statutes requires, on the part 

 of the prosecutor, a considerable amount of moral 

 courage to face the frown of public opinion, the 

 malignment of motive, and the enmities such 

 prosecution is sure to engender. 



None of the bird -laws are above improvement, 

 even in so far as they relate to the protection of 

 game-birds ; but, in respect to the non-game birds, 

 nearly all require more or less change. If possible, 

 it would be well to have uniform laws throughout 

 all the states and territories, varying only in re- 

 spect to the time of the close season, and such 

 other points as difference of season, kind of game 

 to be especially protected, etc. , according to local 

 conditions. At present, certain birds are protected 

 in some states which are outlawed in others, or 

 are treated as ganie-birds in some, and not so 

 treated in others. 



Birds, as regards legislation, may well be di- 

 vided into two classes, — game-birds, and birds 

 which are not such ; and the laws relating to each 

 class should be separate and distinct. The game- 

 birds should be left to the care of sportsmen and 

 game-protective associations, since self-interest on 

 the part of the more intelligent sportsmen will 

 dictate more or less wise legislation for the pres- 

 ervation of the birds on which their sport depends. 

 But in respect to game-birds, public opinion should 

 be so far enlightened as to secure the enforce- 

 ment of proper legislative enactments ; which is 

 notoriously not the case at present. All other 

 birds should be left to the care of bird-lovers and 

 humanitarians, who should see that proper laws 

 for their preservation are not only enacted, but 

 duly enforced. As already shown in preceding 

 pages of this Supplement, those who know best, 

 from having scientifically investigated the subject, 

 are convinced that none of our native birds should 

 be outlawed as unqualifiedly, or even to any 

 serious degree, injurious. A few exceptions might 

 be made, were it practicable ; but, in the general 

 ignorance of legislators and of the public general- 

 ly, — or their inability to make proper distinction 

 through inability to recognize by proper names 

 one kind of hawk, for instance, from another, — 

 the safe way is to attempt no such discrimination 

 in legislation. The slight harm resulting from 



protecting half a dozen species more or less harm- 

 ful would be more than offset by the indiscrimi- 

 nate destruction which would necessarily result 

 from such a loophole. 



The reason for keeping legislation respecting 

 game-birds distinct from that relating to the other 

 species is mainly to avoid conflict of interests 

 respecting such legislation, which is more or less 

 sure to follow ia any attempt at combined legis- 

 lation respecting all birds in one act. Sports- 

 men's clubs and game-protective associations in 

 attempting to provide proper game-laws often 

 find strong opponents in the game-dealers and 

 market-gunners, who often succeed in defeating 

 judicious legislation. If all birds are treated 

 under the same act, attempts to improve the por- 

 tions of such acts as relate to useful birds are 

 often prevented through opposition to certain 

 clauses of the game-sections obnoxious to pot- 

 hunters and game-dealers, as has recently been 

 the case with atteuipted judicious amendments to 

 the bird-laws in the state of Massachusetts. 



There should also be some provision for collect- 

 ing birds, their nests and eggs, for scientific pur- 

 poses, in behalf of our natural history museums 

 and of scientific progress in ornithology. As 

 already shown in these articles, the birds de- 

 stroyed in the interest of science, notwithstanding 

 the outcry to the contrary from certain sources, 

 are relatively few in comparison to the number 

 destroyed for millinery and other mercenary 

 purposes, — so small as not to materially affect the 

 decrease of any species. But such license, unless 

 rigidly guarded, is liable to abuse, and should be 

 hedged about with every practicable safeguard. 

 The number of such licenses issued in any state 

 should be very small ; they should be granted 

 with strictest regard to the fitness of the recipient 

 to be allowed such a favor ; and their abuse or 

 misuse made a misdemeanor subject to severe 

 penalties. Obviously, the power to grant them 

 should, so far as possible, be vested in persons 

 having some knowledge of ornithology, or who 

 are able to recognize the difference between col- 

 lecting birds for scientific purposes and as 'curiosi- 

 ties,' or for traffic other than strictly in the interest 

 of science. It should be further understood that 

 these licenses grant no immunity from the ordi- 

 nary laws of trespass, or laws against the use of 

 tire-arms at improper times or places, or in viola- 

 tion of any of the provisions of game-protective 

 acts. The system of issuing such licenses has 

 needlessly been brought into disrepute through 

 the gross ignorance and apathy of the general 

 public a - to their real purpose and limitations. 

 For most of the abuses of the system there is 

 already abundant remedy. Any person holding 



