No one wishes to leave the forests and prairies in their primitive condition for the sake of the birds, even when he knows the progress of civilization has caused and will continue to cause a decrease in American bird population. We know that there were the same avicular cannibals before the advent of the white man, as there are to-day, but it will take a long time before the hawks or blue jays or cow birds can exterminate a single species. It is of greater evil-workers that I wish to speak.
First is the English Sparrow. These disreputable Britons were brought here to destroy the span-worm, and they must be credited with having done their work well. A limited number might be a good thing, but surely their introduction has proved a case where “remedy is worse than disease.” A few years ago these birds were sold for four dollars a pair, and now I do not know but what one could be supplied with them at four cents a pair, so rapidly have they increased. These foreigners are of such a quarrelsome and pugnacious nature that the native songsters have had to retreat from place to place before them. And now our feathered friends are far from their favorite haunts, and greatly reduced in numbers; unless a helping hand is given they will be compelled to follow in the footsteps of the Great Auk. Of course we have no statistics to show the number of birds that the sparrow destroys, but it is evident to the observer that unless war is declared against him, we must say good-bye to many of our native songsters.
Many birds are used every year to supply the demand of fashion. Mr. A. J. Allen claims that there are ten million American women of a “bird wearing age and proclivity,” and that it takes five million perfect birds to supply them. The greater number of these are killed during the breeding season and someone, I do not know who, will have to answer for the hundreds of little birds that are left in the nest and allowed to starve to death. Let us count one little bird for each pair of old ones, this will make two and a half million. (Now some will say that this is too many. Certainly! Not near all are breeding, but all that are, have from one to six to a dozen offspring.) This makes in all seven million, five hundred thousand birds that are annually used to decorate hats and bonnets. Wholesale dealers count one hundred birds to the bushel. This would make seventy-five thousand bushels, or more than enough to fill ninety-three box cars. It is difficult for the mind to conceive of such vast numbers of birds, and to think that they are used for what seems to us, a worse than useless purpose. But what arouses the greatest indignation in the lover of birds, is to see these same feather-bedecked women go to Sunday School, get up before a class of boys or girls and say, “You mustn’t rob birds’ nests, because it is wicked and only bad boys do that.” It is to be hoped that the “New Woman” will bring with her new and better ideas for decorating her head-gear.
Other destroyers of birds are the Great American Egg Hogs—the imitation naturalists who cover up their crimes with a veil they call science. These might be divided into two classes; those who collect for mercenary purposes and those who collect simply to amass a great variety of birds and eggs. Then we find a sub-class, those who are always collecting and have not time to study just then, but expect to do that after awhile. Why it is that these persons collect so many birds and eggs of the same species is a mystery. One complains about his hard luck, saying he got only one hundred eggs all day, one brags about taking one hundred and seventy-five eggs of a rare bird; another boasts about “scooping” as he called it, one hundred and twenty dozen in one day. What is the object of this wholesale destruction?
If it were permissible for me to criticize so eminent a naturalist as Dr. Coues, I would say I do not agree with him. He says in his “Key,” “How many birds of the same kind do you want? All you can get. At least from fifty to one hundred, and more of the commoner varieties.” That is all right for colleges and museums, where there are many persons to examine the specimens, but not for the private collector. I am afraid that the worthy gentleman himself would soon object if each of the several thousand collectors in the United States would follow his advice. It is difficult to see how he expects to advance science so much more by his one hundred stuffed birds than by the student who goes out and takes notes from life. I will quote from Emerson, “The bird is not in its ounces and inches, but in its relation to nature, and the skin or skeleton you show me is no more a heron, than a heap of ashes or a bottle of gases into which his body has been reduced, is Dante or Washington.” We cannot tell about the character or habits of a person by examining his body after he is dead and embalmed, yet it is by preserved specimens of birds that the worthy gentleman attempts to work. What is needed is more students and less collectors.
We all know of the great damage done by the pot hunters and the small boy who robs nests and kills birds “just for fun,” but this can be remedied by proper laws. It is the question of how to protect the birds against other enemies, that we are to discuss.
What is to be done with the English Sparrow? One man suggests that if every collector would invest in an air-rifle and use it on them it would reduce their numbers. This might help, but I am afraid that it would take more air and patience than could be found. Out of the many ways which have been suggested, the only feasible one—at least in my mind—it now employed by a few of the states, paying a bounty on the pests.
To prevent or rather change the fashion for wearing birds, some advocate legislative action against hats trimmed with feathers. It is a question in my mind whether such a course would prove feasible, for the ladies have as much right to use the birds that way as some of our collectors have to hoard them away in their cabinets. It is quite generally agreed that the only way is to appeal to the better nature of the ladies and trust them to put away the fashion and take up something more in keeping with the close of the nineteenth century. Many ways are suggested for bringing the subject before the public. One is by placing placards in street cars, another is by distributing slips in churches, on which are printed a few statistics showing the number of birds that it takes to supply the demand, etc.
The next and most difficult question to solve is how to convince the farmer that he is injuring himself every time he kills an owl or robin or the other birds that he probably believes to be his enemies. Now we all know that there are some “black sheep” among the birds. It seems to me that one of the objects of our association is to point out to the farmer just which these “black sheep” are. It is perfectly natural and right for a man to protect his property, and even if he knows that many of the raptores are beneficial, he does not like to have them take his poultry. I do not know how to prevent the hawks from taking toll for their work, but if the farmers would build respectable chicken-coops, they would not be troubled with owls, for they being nocturnal are not out until the chickens have gone to roost and it is only the farmer who allows his poultry to sleep in trees that suffers, and we might say in the words of the small boy, “It’s just good enough for him.”
Finally, I would say that the only way to preserve our birds is to present facts to the people showing them the true character of each bird. They can then distinguish how the birds should be treated, protecting their friends and destroying their enemies.