July 12, 1913 
FOREST AND STREAM 
43 
The Feather Trade’s “Amendments” 
2,342 Species of Birds Involved, not Counting Any Song 
Birds Killed as “Food” or “Pests” 
By W. T. HORNADAY 
A SMALL and innocent looking “amendment” 
to the clause in the new tariff bill pro¬ 
hibiting the importation of wild birds’ 
plumage for milliners’ use is now before the 
United States Senate (Schedule N, Section 357). 
Already the majority of the Senate Finance 
Committee has approved it. It looks so harm¬ 
less and reasonable. 
It provides that the feather trade shall have 
the right to import the feathers of all birds 
killed as “game” for food, and of all birds 
killed because they are “pests.” As a matter 
of fact, there is no commercial product consist¬ 
ing of the feathers of hawks and owls that have 
been shot because they are “pests.” But for the 
moment we will pass that point. 
Let us proceed in this matter with our eyes 
wide open. How many species of foreign 
“game” birds and “pest” birds would be sub¬ 
ject to slaughter for the feather trade in case 
that “amendment” prevails, and finally is en¬ 
acted into law? 
Following is a list of species endangered, 
prepared by Lee S. Crandall, Assistant Curator 
of Birds, New York Zoological Park, from the 
British Museum Catalogue of Birds: 
GAME BIRDS OF THE WORLD, EXCLUSIVE OF TIIE 
UNITED STATES. 
Species. 
Tinamous . 71 
Upland Game Birds: 
Megapodes or brush turkeys 28 
Curassows, guans and chach- 
alacas . 59 
Ptarmigan and grouse.26 
Old world partridges and 
quail .153 
Pheasants . 92 
Jungle fowl . 4 
Pea fowl . 3 
Guinea fowl . 23 
Turkeys . 1 
New world quail . 59 
--- 448 
Hemipodes or button quail. 27 
Sand grouse . 15 
Pigeons and doves. 540 
Rails and gallinules. 195 
Shore birds . 242 
Cranes and their allies. 30 
Ducks, geese and swans. 54 
- 1,622 
“pest” BIRDS OF THE WORLD, EXCLUSIVE OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 
Eagles, hawks, kites and falcons.. 437 
Owls . 283 
- 720 
Grand total of species available 
under the amendment de¬ 
manded by the feather trade. 2,342 
No wonder the feather trade is satisfied 
with their little three-line amendment. 
Now the question is: Are the American 
people and the Senators of the United States 
willing to leave the 2,342 species of birds listed 
above subject to slaughter by the head hunters 
of the feather trade? 
The way to preserve the birds of the world 
is to stop the killing of them. 
New York Zoological Society, June 20, 1913. 
Migratory Bird Protection. 
Essex, Conn., June 30. — Editor Forest and 
Stream: I have just read the regulations as 
adopted by the Department of Agriculture re¬ 
garding the restrictions placed upon taking 
migratory game birds, and insectivorous birds 
as well, for I see that they are not to be en¬ 
tirely protected by these laws. Personally I 
think they could be much improved upon. Just 
why a different law should govern the taking of 
ducks in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut 
and Long Island is hard to understand. Are 
ducks in better condition in Connecticut on 
Sept. 1 than in New Hampshire on the same 
date? For I see the law goes off in the latter 
State a month later. I presume these regula¬ 
tions were made to correspond somewhat with 
the laws now in force in the different States, but 
the idea to me seems totally wrong. A law 
for Massachusetts or Long Island or New York 
is good for Connecticut or vice versa, so long 
as it affords adequate protection. A three 
months’ open season, I am quite sure, begin¬ 
ning Oct. 1 and ending Dec. 31, would answer 
admirably for all the States in zone one. This 
cutting up of laws for the benefit of a few in 
various States is, I think, entirely wrong, and 
is not in accord with the idea of a uniform law 
that most of us were looking for. 
Again, if it is unlawful to kill the beautiful 
woodduck in its summer home, why shouldn’t 
it be in its winter home? Or still again, why 
should the people in Pennsylvania and the peo¬ 
ple in West Virginia be debarred from killing 
them when in the State between—Maryland—no 
law governs their killing, save as it governs the 
taking of others wild fowl? 
The daily closed season on migratory birds 
as defined in Regulation 2 discriminates, I think, 
against the hunters of this section of the coun¬ 
try, as it means practically no shooting at all at 
black ducks. Anyone at all familiar with the 
habits of the blackduck knows that we will get 
no shooting at all in ordinary weather if he puts 
up his gun just as the sun goes down over the 
hill. A just law to govern this branch of shoot¬ 
ing and one that I never heard criticized is a 
law that we have in this State, and I dare say 
in most of our Northeastern States, permitting 
shooting an hour after sundown. 
I notice in the list of migratory birds the 
name of bobolinks occurs first, and yet in Regu¬ 
lation 3, provision is made for the taking of 
these same birds under the name of reed or 
rice birds in a few States adjacent to or near 
the District of Columbia. Again, how is it that 
North Carolina is left out when its two sister 
States are accorded special privileges? I would 
like to ask if some pressure has been brought 
to bear upon the body who drafted these rules 
by some of the Potomac River bobolink hunt¬ 
ers? And I would further ask why bobolinks 
should be killed, anyway? Why not give the 
people of some of our Southern States the 
privilege of killing our robins? Certainly, no 
birds brighten our fields and meadow lands as 
do the bobolinks during the spring and early 
summer months. His song is a delight, and as 
he is one, and the chief one, of our birds that 
sing on the wing, he should be afforded all the 
protection there is. I, myself, would as soon 
kill a robin, a bluebird or a veery as one of 
these beautiful birds, and would never, under 
any consideration, sanction their killing. 
I hope these regulations, some of them at 
least, will never become laws, for I feel that 
they do not answer the purpose. They should 
certainly be more uniform and there should be 
absolutely no killing of insectivorous birds of 
any kind whatsoever. 
George W. Comstock. 
Feathers and Tariff. 
. New York City, June 22. — Editor Forest 
and Stream: A new device of the people who 
use bird feathers commercially, and are, there¬ 
fore, endeavoring to defeat that provision of 
the new tariff law which forbids the importation 
of the skins or feathers of wild birds, except 
for scientific and educational purposes, is to en¬ 
list the anglers on their side. Letters in the 
daily newspapers show this, and I am told that 
certain firms of tackle dealers are sending out 
letters broadcast to anglers, declaring that the 
enacting of this provision will put a stop to the 
use and sale of flies for angling in the United 
States. 
Such a statement, I should suppose, would 
appeal only to the most thoughtless. The pas¬ 
sage of this law would presumably prevent the 
importation of foreign flies, but would give a 
strong impetus to the manufacture in this coun¬ 
try of flies for angling. Already, as I believe, 
there are numbers of fly tiers in the United 
States—many people who tie their flies for 
recreation, and others who earn their living by 
this industry. Certainly the trade of all these 
