THE CONDOR 
15B 
I VOL. V 
linery collector, or the lawless boy or man who shoots birds or destroys their nests and eggs in 
pure wantonness. 
This law was draughted by the A. O. U. Committee on bird protection in 1886 and was 
adopted by the State of New York the same year. Since that date, through my official connec- 
tion with the American Museum of Natural History, I have had supervision of the issuance of the 
permits to collect birds, their nests and eggs for which it provides. ^Fifteen years’ experience 
enables me, therefore, to speak with some authority of its workings and it may be said that so far 
as bird students in New York are concerned the simple legal requirements connected with secur- 
ing a permit and the nominal fee of one dollar, far from being considered a “hardship,” are wel- 
comed as a means of protection from undiscriminating game wardens. 
Indeed, so desirable is the permit feature usually considered by ornithologists that with the 
single exception of California they have uniformly advocated the passage of the A. O. U. law, 
not only as a measure designed to protect birds from wanton destruction, but as a means of legal- 
izing their own calling. The atmosphere of liberty-loving California, however, appears to stimu- 
late a different feeling, 
5 Especial stress is laid, in the editorial in question, on the hardships inflicted on the non- 
resident who wishes “to go over the border” for a few weeks’ collecting in a neighboring state. 
In most states and territories of the Union and of Canada the non-resident gunner is required, 
under current game laws, to take out licenses and pay special permit taxes to kill game, all in the 
alleged interest of game protection; but when we go to “seek the festive song sparrow or chicka- 
dee” in a neighboring state our editorial advocate of ornithological freedom re.sents any “bonded” 
hindrances believed to be for the public good. 6 Possibly our friends of The Condor have some 
happy device for a bird law that will protect the little birds from all their human foes (which do 
not include the “better balanced ornithologists”) and be not “un-.A.merican nor in any way 
trammel their dearly cherished ornithological freedom. 
American Museum of Natural History, 
New York City, Oct. 6, 1903. J. A. Ai.len. 
[Dr. Allen has indeed turned upon us the artillery of his strenuous rhetoric, and were his 
aim less careless we might feel inclined to betake ourselves to tall timber. We had not the 
slightest notion upon whose special preserves we were trespassing, when we penned the mild criti- 
cism, for which we are threatened with immediate annihilation. If the Doctor is pleased to term 
our editorial an “outburst,” we might ask what especial epithet he would apply to his present 
communication. We would like to say at the outset, however, that our editorial did not abu.se the 
A. O. U. Bird Law, nor the committee, even “incidentally,” as ain^one may see who takes the 
trouble even to skim over the criticism in question, and just why this positive assertion is made, 
we are at a loss to understand. 
Dr. Allen’s animadversions provide good reading for those who delight in the prospect of an 
impending tilt in polemics. Yet, candidly, we cannot see how anyone could distort our remarks so 
completely, as put forth such a reply. The only alternative left us is to conclude that our friend- 
ly critic is suffering from an aggravated case of “misconception” of the main point of our conten- 
tion. Some of Dr. .Allen’s items have been numbered by us and will be referred to seriatim. 
(1) Our “outcry” is most certainly not against the clause granting permits to properh' 
accredited persons for the collection of birds and their nests aud eggs, but is, as stated succinctly 
in the editorial, directed against the necessity of taking out a 200 dollar bond every time such a 
permit or license is obtained. We are heartily in favor of special permits, but not the bonds. 
(2) This is what is called “abuse” a few lines above. 
(3) We repeat that the taking out of a bond is an expensive hardship, and was not “grossly 
exaggerated.” (See Mr. Nelson’s communication on this point). We have no special objection 
to the $1.00 license-fee, if it is a just fee, but exactlv how the addition of a bond helps to discrim- 
inate between non-criminals such as reputable bird-students, and the other class, such as pot-hunt- 
ers, our generalizing opponent of “ornithological freedom” does not specify. Pot-hunters are not 
recommended by two responsible ornithologists, nor do they bear special licenses. 
(4) In passing we might casually ask our critic how many bonds have been forfeited during 
his fifteen years’ experience in supervising the issuance of permits in New York state, and if any, 
were the parties each recommended by two well known ornithologists, as the law requires? We 
presume “bonds” are in force in New York, tho here again the Doctor dodges the issue. 
(5) In answer to these points we recommend the careful perusal of Mr. Nelson’s remarks, 
printed below. 
(6) Yes, Doctor, even your friends of The Condor can offer some timely suggestions 
for the improvement of the ‘Model Bird Law’ and we repeat the one already given gratuitously: 
strike out the bond feature from the clause pertaining to the i.ssuance of licenses. This, we be- 
