THE CONDOR 
VOL. V 
136 
THE COCSDOa 
An Illustrated Magazine of Western 
Ornithology 
Published Bi=monthly by the Cooper Ornitholo§i= 
cal Club of California 
WALTER. K. FISHER., Editor, Palo Alto 
JOSEPH C 1 R.INNELL, Business Manager and 
Assistant Editor, Pasadena 
FRANK S. DAGOETT, Associate Editor 
Palo Alto, California; Published Sept. 16,1 903 
SUBSCRIPTION RATES 
Price in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and U. S. 
Colonies one dollar a year; single copies twenty-five cents. 
Price in all countries in the International Postal Union 
one dollar and a quarter a year. 
Subscriptions should be sent to the Business Manager; 
manuscripts and exchanges to the Editor. 
EDITORIAL NOTES 
Subscribers are requested to note that the 
address of the Business Office has been 
changed, as published in the last issue. Here- 
after, subscriptions, dues, requests for sample 
copies, and advertisements should be forwarded 
to JositPH Grinnell, Pas.^dena, Cal. Other 
communications should be sent, as usual, to 
the Editor at Palo Alto, Cal. 
Now that the time is approaching when the 
A. O. U. Committee on Bird Protection will 
assail the legislatures of still unconquered 
states with its “model bird law,” it is perhaps 
opportune to voice a rapidly growing senti- 
ment against one objectionable feature of this 
measure. 
If we mistake not the A. O. U. Bird Bill pro- 
vides that everyone who wishes to secure a 
permit to collect non-game birds (or even to have 
them in his possession) for scientific purposes 
must first furnish bond to the amount of $200, 
besides paying a fee for the procuring of a 
permit. In other words if we wish to go over 
the border from our free state into Oregon, for 
a week’s collecting, we must first spend $s.oo 
or so in hard cash and some two weeks in good 
time negotiating with a Security Company for 
the bond. Then we are in a position to pay 
an additional fee for an annual permit, which 
makes it lawful for us to take a few little 
song sparrows or wren-tits to determine their 
particular race. Presumably this clause of the 
bill was introduced in order that the state 
might have some hold on the recipient of the 
permit. But if the latter ever transgressed his 
rights so far as to forfeit his bond, why would 
he not equally fall under the penalt}' of the law? 
As a matter of fact everyone knows that the 
bonds are a piece of red-tape and that no one 
issuing them runs a bit of risk. Why then 
make them a necessity when they serve no use- 
ful purpose, and are besides decidedly expensive, 
particularly to non-residents who may not 
have any good natured friends to come forw'ard? 
In Florida, for instance, it is not lawful for a 
Surety Company to go on such a bond, so that a 
visitor may have to do some soliciting before 
he can lawfully ‘ornithologize.’ 
The particular “zeal” of the A. O. U. Com- 
mittee on Bird Protection is made up of erstwhile 
collectors, who, we should think, would have 
an eye for the interests of their fellow scient- 
ists. Almost without exception it is a positive 
hardship to secure a permit to collect in states 
where the A. O. U. bill has been accepted, par- 
ticularly in the case of non-residents. 
All the hue and cry for bird protection is 
well enough in its place, but the better bal- 
anced ornithologists are already beginning to 
ask, “Where is Ornithology to come in?” In 
some states, Vermont for example where only 
three permits to collect can be in force at once, 
the matter has been carried to absurd lengths. 
In Virginia there is no provision for granting 
permits whatsoever, so that the ornithologists 
of Washington City must and do continue to 
collect unlawfully. And Washington is an 
“Audubonian” center! These two examples 
among others are mentioned to show' that even 
in bird protection intemperance is possible. 
Our objection is not to sane Bird Protection. 
We do think, however, that it is a little far- 
fetched when a recognized student of birds 
must be subjected to delay, annoyance, and 
highway robbery if he wishes to collect for his 
own purposes, or for those of the Government. 
As a prominent bird man recently said; “I 
would rather see 1000 birds killed through lack 
of laws, than have one promising Ornitholo- 
gist discouraged through hardships imposed by 
arbitrary legislation.” 
Fortunately our own state is still free, and it 
is largely to this fact that its exceptional or- 
nithological activity is due. We need a good 
bird law here, but we of the Cooper Club are 
not criminals and do not require to be bonded 
when we seek the festive song sparrow or 
chickadee. 
The A. O. U. Bird Bill with its present un- 
American and objectionable bond feature is a 
menance to legitimate ornithological activity, 
wherever in force: take this feature away and 
it is a good law. 
At the July meeting of the Northern 
Division it was voted that hereafter in Club 
publications, more particularly in THE COR- 
DOR, vernacular names when used should be 
followed by the scientific name, the sense of 
the resolution being in every case to establish 
the identity of the bird beyond a doubt. In 
popular articles where many names occur the 
Editor would suggest that contributors append 
a list of species at the end of the article, as in 
Mr. Kaeding’s paper in the present issue. A 
text cluttered with trinomial profundity is 
often bombastic quite beyond the remedy of 
the author. 
In a recent examination for an important 
ornithological position, the following answer 
was given, by one candidate, to the question, 
“Define migration.” “Migration is the impor- 
tation of birds and mammals for propagation”! 
