Vol. XXIV. 
1925 
Bird Protection 
307 
stated that “during 1924 the association had fewer complaints 
regarding breaches of the act than in any previous year. I hat 
being so, it was right to conclude that the association must be 
doing good. A few prosecutions and heavy fines had had the 
desired effect. The police should carry out this work, con¬ 
tinued the speaker, “it is their work, not that of the association, 
but as they do not carry it out to our liking, we undertake it on 
our own behalf.” 
The following extracts from the annual report of the asso¬ 
ciation are of general interest, and show what valuable work the 
association performs:— 
During the year an attempt was made by lownsville spoils¬ 
men to open the shooting season a month earlier in No. 2 dis¬ 
trict, namely, June 1st. A special meeting of your association 
was held for the purpose of opposing the proposal, and a motion 
was passed, asking the Minister to stand firm against including 
June in the shooting. 
It was considered that opening a month earlier meant the 
slaughter of thousands of ducklings and flappers. At this meet¬ 
ing a further request was made to the Minister for Agricul¬ 
ture to add an extra month on to the breeding season by com¬ 
mencing it on December 1st, this making seven months close and 
five months open. Eventually an Order-in-Council was issued 
agreeing to the proposal. The breeding season now opeiates 
from the first day of December to the thirtieth day of June in 
each year, inclusive, and we are pleased to be able to say that 
the majority of sporting men are in sympathy with the change, 
and gave your committee much valuable assistance town ids 
bringing it about. 
Your committee had occasion during the year to institute pio- 
ceedings against the Rockhampton hresh hood Supply Co., and 
obtained a conviction for unlawfully carrying on the business 
of buying and selling native birds without first having obtained 
a license or permit to do so. Tour committee was successful in 
another case against a young man for unlawfully killing a total 1\ 
protected bird, namely, a ‘Tee-wit,” or Magpie Lark. In con¬ 
nection with these prosecutions we are very dissatisfied with the 
light view taken of the offences by the local police magistrate, 
for in both cases the offenders were let off practically without 
any punishment. In the latter case it might be stated that, after 
getting a conviction, your association was amazed at being called 
upon to pay its own professional costs, and had even great diffi¬ 
culty to obtain witnesses’ expenses in the case. The bird that 
was destroyed is exclusively insectivorous, and is one of the most 
valuable species to the man on the land, and it is the greatest 
folly for anyone to destroy such useful birds. Our magistrates 
should wake up to the fact that bird life so essential to farmers 
