MU'IIKiAX AinrHON S()(’IK'rY. 
25 
portation from Europe. lUit in spite of this fact the birds do 
hel]) in destroying them. When we read of the immense 
destruction to Kansas crops and the crops of other Western 
States caused by the migration of locusts during some years, 
we can imagine what we would suffer from this insect alone 
if it wxre not for the hundreds of millions destroyed yearly 
by the birds. The birds work for man and it is only fair that 
we should protect them. The odd thing is that man, the 
greatest benefactor of the birds, should be their worst enemy. 
]\lany who shoot birds for sport advance the argument 
that the birds they kill make good eating, and that the 
hunter is entitled to the enjoyment. This argument is con- 
sidered legitimate by Audubonists when applied to the purely 
game birds, such as ducks, provided they are not taken dur- 
ing the })eriod of gestation or nesting. But the writer has 
known many sportsmen to kill meadr)w larks and quail as 
game birds. What do they get? A little bit of flesh the size 
of a couple of fingers. And what do they destroy and rob 
you and the public of? The meadow lark is stated upon re- 
liable authority to be worth twelve dollars yearly to the 
State, and the quail twenty dollars. They will live on an 
average of five or six years if not molested. The result is 
that the sportsmen get a few cents’ worth of meat and the 
state loses a force worth from fifty to one hundred dollars. 
If one desires to persist in a habit, arguments can be 
brought forth and dressed up in logical form. Some col- 
lectors who are smitten with the fad argue that it is absurd 
to protest against the taking of common birds, because they 
are so numerous as to make extermination out of the ques- 
tion. Wdien rare birds are taken, these collectors argue that 
these birds are so few as to make their taking of little conse- 
quence. These arguments remind one of the darkey’s ’posum 
trap, which was set near the animal’s home, so he could 
'Totch the ’posums a-goin’ and a-comin’.” 
It would seern too bad to make the economic value of 
birds the only argument for protecting them. To do so 
would belittle our civilization. It is unnecessary, however, 
to enter into the esthetic value of birds, as that is commonly 
understood if not appreciated. Our literature is filled with 
reference to birds, which shows their influence for good over 
