Duty Of Parents. —This being the case, it is very necessary that the young people of to-day should be taught, early and often, the virtue and the necessity of wild-life protection. There is no reason that the boy of to-day should not take up his share of the common burden, just as soon as he is old enough to wander alone through the woods. Let him be taught in precise terms that he must not rob birds' nests, and that he must not shoot song-birds, woodpeckers and kingfishers with a 22-calibre rifle, or any other gun. At this moment there lies upon my side table a vicious little 22-calibre rifle that was taken from two boys who were camping in the woods of Connecticut, and amusing themselves by shooting valuable insectivorous birds. Now those boys were not wholly to blame for what they were doing; but their fathers and mothers were very much to blame! They should have been taught at the parental knee that it is very wrong to kill any bird except a genuine game bird, and then only in the lawful open season. Those two fathers paid $10 each for having failed in their duty; and it served them right; for they were the real culprits.

Small-calibre rifles are becoming alarmingly common in the hands of boys. Parents must do their duty in the training of their boys against bird-shooting! It is a very serious matter. A million boys who roam the fields with small rifles without having been instructed in protection, can destroy an appalling number of valuable birds in the course of a year. Some parents are so slavishly devoted to their children that they wish them to do everything they please, and be checked in nothing. Such parents constitute one of the pests of society, and a drag upon the happiness of their own children! It is now the bounden duty of each parent to teach each one of his or her children that the time has come when the resources of nature, and especially wild life, must be conserved. To permit boys to grow up and acquire guns without this knowledge is very wrong.

The Duty Of Teachers And Schools. —A great deal of "nature study" is being taught in the public schools of the United States. That the young people of our land should be taught to appreciate the works of nature, and especially animal life and plant life, is very desirable. Thus far, however, there is a screw loose in the system, and that is the shortage in definite, positive instruction regarding individual duty toward the wild creatures, great and small. Along with their nature studies all our school children should be taught, in the imperative mood:

  1. That it is wrong to disturb breeding birds, or rob birds' nests;
  2. That it is wrong to destroy any harmless living creature not properly classed as game, except it be to preserve it in a museum;
  3. That it is no longer right for civilized man to look upon wild game as necessary food; because there is plenty of other food, and the remnant of game can not withstand slaughter in that basis;
  4. That the time has come when it is the duty of every good citizen to take an active, aggressive part in preventing the destruction of wild life, and in promoting its preservation;
  5. That every boy and girl over twelve years of age can do something in this cause, and finally,
  6. That protection and encouragement will bring back the almost vanished birds.

We call upon all boards of education, all principals of schools and all teachers to educate our boys and girls, constantly and imperatively, along those lines. Teachers, do not say to your pupils,—"It is right and nice to protect birds," but say:—"It is your Duty to protect all harmless wild things, and you must do it!"

In a good cause, there is great virtue in "Must."

Really, we are losing each year an immense amount of available wild-life protection. The doctrine of imperative individual duty never yet has been taught in our schools as it should be taught. A few teachers have, indeed, covered this ground; but I am convinced that their proportion is mighty small.

Text Books. —The writers of the nature study text books are very much to blame because nine-tenths of the time this subject has been ignored. The situation has not been taken seriously, save in a few cases, by a very few authors. I am glad to report that in 1912 there was published a fine text book by Professor James W. Peabody, of the Morris High School, New York, and Dr. Arthur E. Hunt, in which from beginning to end the duty to protect wild life is strongly insisted upon. It is entitled "Elementary Biology; Plants, Animals and Man."

Hereafter, no zoological or nature study text book should be given a place in any school in America unless the author of it has done his full share in setting forth the duty of the young citizen toward wild life. Were I a member of a board of education I would seek to establish and enforce this requirement. To-day, any author who will presume to write a text book of nature study or zoology without knowing and doing his duty toward our vanishing fauna, is too ignorant of wild life and too careless of his duty toward it, to be accepted as a safe guide for the young. The time for criminal indifference has gone by. Hereafter, every one who is not for the preservation of wild life is against it and it is time to separate the sheep from the goats.

From this time forth, the preservation of our fauna should be regarded as a subject on which every candidate for a teacher's certificate should undergo an examination before receiving authority to teach in a public school. The candidate should be required to know why the preservation of birds is necessary; why the slaughter of wild life is wrong and criminal; the extent to which wild birds and mammals return to us and thrive under protection; why wild game is no longer a legitimate food supply; why wild game should not be sold, and why the feathers of wild birds (other than game birds) never should be used as millinery ornaments.