Page:Condor5(6).djvu/23

 58 THE CONDOR I VoL. V linery collector, or the lawless boy or man who shoots birds or destroys their nests and eggs in pure wantonness. This law was draughted by the A, O.U. Committee on bird protection in t886 and was adopted by the State of New York the same year. Since that date, through my official connec- tion with the American Museum of Natural History, I have had supervision of the issuance of the permits to collect birds, their nests and eggs for which it provides. 4Fifteen years' experience enables me, therefore, to speak with some authority of its workings and it may be said that so far as bird students in New York are concerned the simple legal requirements connected with secur- ing a permit and the nominal fee of one dollar, far from being considered a "hardship," are wel- comed as a means of protection from undiscrimiuating game wardens. Indeed, so desirable is the permit feature usually considered by oruithologists that with the single exception of California they have uniformly advocated the passage of the A. O. U. law, not only as a measure designed to protect birds from wanton destruction, but as a means of legal- izing their own calling. The atmosphere of liberty-loving California, however, appears to stimu- late a different feeling. .s Especial stress is laid, in the editorial in question, on the hardships inflicted on the non- resident who wishes "to go over the border" for a few weeks' collecting in a neighboring state. In most states and territories of the Union and of Canada the non-resident gunner is required, under current game laws, to take out licenses and pay special permit taxes to kill game, all in the alleged interest of game protection; but when we go to "seek the festive song sparrow or chicka- dee" in a neighboring state our editorial advocate of ornithological freedom resents any "bonded" hindrances believed to be for the public good. 6 Possibly our friends of THE CONDOR have some happy device for a bird law that will protect the little birds from all their human foes (which do not include the "better balanced ornithologists") and be not "un-American nor in any way trammel their dearly cherished ornithological freedom. American Museum of Natural History, New York City. Oct. 6, 19o 3. J.A. ALLI]N. [Dr. Allen has indeed turned upon us the artillery of his strenuous rhetoric, and were his aim less careless we might feel inclined to betake ourselves to tall timber. We had not the slightest notion upon whose special preserves we were trespassing, when we penned the mild criti- cism, for which we are threatened with immediate annihilation. If the Doctor is pleased to term our editorial an "outburst," we might ask what especial epithet he would apply to his present communication. We would like to say at the outset, however, that our editorial die/not abuse the A.O.U. Bird Law, nor the committee, even "incidentally," as anyoue may see who takes the trouble even to skim over the criticism in question, and iust why this positive assertion is made, we are at a loss to understand. Dr. Allen's auimadversions provide good reading for those who delight in the prospect of an impending tilt in polemics. Yet, candidly, we cannot see how anyone could distort our remarks so completely, as put forth such a reply. The only alternative left us is to conclude that our friend- ly critic is suffering from an aggravated case of "misconception" of the main point of our conten- tion. Some of Dr. Allen's items have been numbered by us and will be referred to seriatim. (x) Our "outcry" is most certainly not against the clause granting permits to properly accredited persons for the collection of birds and their nests aud eggs, but is, as stated succinctly in the editorial, directed against the necessity of taking out a 200 dollar bond every time such a permit or license is obtained. We are heartily in favor of special permits, but not the bonds. (2) This is what is called "abuse" a few lines above. (3) We repeat that the taking out of a bond is an expensive hardship, and was not "grossly exaggerated." (See Mr. Nelson's communication on this point). We have no special objection to the $x.oo license-fee, if it is a iust fee, but exactly how the addition of a bond helps to discrim- inate between non-criminals such as reputable bird-students, and the other class, such as pot-hunt- ers, our generalizing opponent of "ornithological freedom" does not specify. Pot-hunters are not recommended by two responsible ornithologists, nor do they bear special licenses. (4) In passing we might casually ask our critic how many bonds have been forfeited during his fifteen years' experience in supervising the issuance of permits in New York state, and if any, were the parties each recommended by two well known ornithologists, as the law requires? We presume "bonds" are in force in New York, tho here again the Doctor dodges the issue. (5) In answer to these points we recommend the careful perusal of Mr. Nelson's remarks, printed below. (6) Yes, Doctor, even your friends of THE CONDOR can offer some timely suggestions for the improvemerit of the 'Model Bird Law' and we repeat the one already given gratuitously: strike out the bond feature from'the clause pertaining to the issuance of. licenses. This, we be-