366 
FOREST AND STREAM 
March 22, 1913 
Heron Protection in Pennsylvania. 
There is now before the Legislature of the 
Stale of Pennsylvania Senate Bill No. 46, whose 
passage all Pennsylvania sportsmen and bird 
protectors- should favor. 
The bill is being bitterly opposed by the 
millinery interests of Pennsylvania, and these 
interests have tried to enlist as their supporters 
some of the sportsmen of Pennsylvania. The 
purposes of the bill are to put back on the list 
of protected birds certain species including the 
herons, from which protection was removed in 
1909, and to stop the sale of egret plumes in 
Pennsylvania. 
Concerning the bill, Mr. Witmer Stone of 
the Academy of Natural Sciences, of Philadel¬ 
phia, has written a letter to the Philadelphia 
Press, from which we quote two paragraphs; 
“The bill is simply an amendment to the 
present bird law covering only the two points 
mentioned, and the game laws of the State are 
in no way affected by it. The statements about 
its effect upon pigeon shooting or dealing in 
domestic poultry is absurd. The game and bird 
laws have nothing to do with domestic birds. 
These points have all been passed upon by Dr. 
T. S. Palmer, of Washington, the highest au¬ 
thority on game legislation in America, and he 
unqualifiedly indorsed Bill No. 46 before the 
Senate Committee at Harrisburg and urged its 
passage. 
“All the opposition to the bill has originated 
with the millinery interests. The traffic in aig¬ 
rette plumes was absolutely suppressed in New 
York a few years ago, and immediately the New 
York firms transferred their business to Phila¬ 
delphia, where the law of 1909 made it possible 
to continue their operations. They are now 
making every effort to prevent the suppression 
of this trade in Pennsylvania and are trying to 
use the sportsmen of the State in their behalf 
by circulating misleading information about the 
bill. It is time that sportsmen were looking 
into this matter in order to learn the true pur¬ 
pose of the bill and also the source from which 
the opposition springs, so that they may not be 
made a catspaw for millinery interests.” 
The Delaware Valley Ornithological Club 
has issued a statement, which is backed by the 
Committee on Conservation of Wild Life. It 
says : 
As some points of the bill have been mis¬ 
construed and misunderstood, the following facts 
are submitted as expressing the- views of a so¬ 
ciety which for twenty-two years has been en¬ 
gaged in the scientific and economic study of 
bird life. 
T. The object of the bill is to put back on 
the list of protected birds the heron family and 
certain other species which, owing to a miscon¬ 
ception. were removed from protection in 1909. 
The bill also strengthens the clause relating to 
sale of wild bird plumage so as to prohibit the 
trade in aigrettes, which has already been stopped 
in New York, Ohio, Louisiana, Florida, all the 
Pacific States, etc. This is part of a world-wide 
movement to stop the slaughter of the white 
herons, and Pennsylvania should do her part. 
2. The bill in no way affects the game laws, 
as has been claimed by the millinery agents. 
These remain absolutely as before. Neither 
does it affect the trade in ostrich feathers and 
manufactured feather ornaments from plumage 
of domestic fowls or any birds regularly raised 
for their plumage. The milliners are only forced 
to give up the trade in the aigrette and some 
other plumage of wild birds which will have to 
be given up in a few years anyway, if the slaugh¬ 
ter continues, as the birds will be e.xtinct. 
3. The claim that the wdiite herons are not 
killed to secure the plumes is absolutely wdthout 
foundation. Members of our club have seen the 
slaughter in Florida wFen the bird was all but 
exterminated there, and we have seen the affi¬ 
davits of plume hunters, describing the slaugh¬ 
ter in South America. 
The plumes are only valuable at the nesting 
time, and the birds must be killed when they 
have young depending upon them. So that their 
slaughter means extermination. 
4. The claim that herons are destructive to 
the fish-raising interests has been used in an 
attempt to mislead fishculturists and specialists. 
The bill provides that herons found catching fish 
from ponds, preserves, etc., may be shot. So 
far as fish in streams are concerned, the herons 
have little effect upon them. For the twenty 
years that the birds were protected, there was 
no decrease in fish charged against them. They 
do, moreover, destroy snakes and other enemies 
of fish, vast numbers of grasshoppers, and in¬ 
jurious insects, as proven by the investigation of 
e.xperts of the LI. S. Biological Survey. 
5. One clause in the bill has been especially 
attacked, i. e., that which extends protection to 
all birds of the same family, as birds occurring 
wild in Pennsylvania. 
This is absolutely necessaiy. It is easy to 
smuggle plumes out of Florida and Louisiana, 
and it is impossible to say whether a plume 
offered for sale in Pennsylvania came from the 
United States or abroad; furthermore, many 
other native birds so closely resemble the for¬ 
eign species, that plumage taken from them can¬ 
not be distinguished. Without this portion of 
the clause the plumage of our meadow lark 
could be sold here and claimed to be that of the 
Mexican meadow lark, and even a skilled orni¬ 
thologist could not be sure to which bird it be¬ 
longed. So, the sale of plumage of all the birds 
of the meadow lark family must be prohibited, 
and all of the heron family, etc. This does not, 
however, affect domestic birds, ostriches, etc. 
The members of the Committee on Conser¬ 
vation of Wild Bird Life are: George Spencer 
Morris, Olney, Pa.; William L. Baily, Ardmore, 
Pa.; Charles Platt, 3d, Chestnut Hill, Pa.; Dr. 
Spencer Trotter, Swarthmore College, Pa.; 
George H. Stuart, Girard Trust Co., Philadel¬ 
phia; Dr. Cornelius Weygandt, University of 
Pennsylvania; Wm. E. Roberts, West Philadel¬ 
phia High School; Samuel Wright, Consho- 
hocken. Pa.; Robert P. Sharpies, West Chester, 
Pa.; Dr. Howard J. Pennell, Downingtown, Pa. 
J. Fletcher Street, Sec’y. 
Pennsylvania Audubon Society. 
To the Members of the Pennsylvania Audubon 
Society and the Friends of Birds in Penn¬ 
sylvania: 
Senate Bill No. 46 has been introduced by 
Senator Enos M. Jones at the request of the 
Audubon Society to amend the non-game bird 
laws of Pennsylvania in such a manner as to 
place them on a par with the advanced and ef¬ 
fective laws of New York and New Jersey. 
As the Pennsylvania law now stands, Phila¬ 
delphia is made a market for the inhuman traffic 
in aigrettes in the Eastern United States, and the 
wholesale plumage dealers of New York city, 
who seized the Philadelphia market, even reach 
out from there by mail for business into the far 
States of California and Oregon, where the 
traffic is prohibited. Moreover, under the pres¬ 
ent laws, many of Pennsylvania’s valuable birds 
are left inadequately protected. 
In the interests of the protection of Jiird life, 
for the welfare of the agricultural and horticul¬ 
tural interests, and for the best interests of the 
whole people of Pennsylvania, it is imperative 
that the changes incorporated in Senate Bill No. 
46 should become the law. Against these changes 
there is no one arraj'ed save the few milliners 
who serve their own selfish interests and those 
who have been duped by the milliners’ misrepre¬ 
sentations. 
We urge, therefore, that you use immediately 
your whole influence in behalf of this measure 
both by writing to your Senator and members of 
the Assembly, and by influencing your friends 
to do likewise, urging your legislators to vote 
and work in behalf of this measure. The mil¬ 
liners will fight it with their utmost strength, 
and those who are not active in its behalf are 
not true friends of bird life. 
Please act at once and continue to co-operate 
with us until the fight is won. 
Wither Stone, President. 
Words of Appreciation. 
Hanover, N. H., March 5. — Editor Forest 
and Stream: Inclosed find post office money 
order for three dollars for subscription to Forest 
and Stream during 1913. I have always liked 
your paper, and believe in the work that you 
are doing in the interests of the conservation 
of all our natural resources and particularly our 
game. I have had three years’ enjoyment from 
your paper, and hope to have many years more. 
With be t wishes for continued success, I 
remain, Joseph M. Larimer. 
