From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been validated.
Bulletin of the Cooper Ornithological Club.

There are species little known, such as the Californian Pine Grosbeak and some others in the Sierras which no collector could be criticised for collecting on sight, but this idea of making a daily killing, shooting everything in sight be it sparrow, warbler, flycatcher, woodpecker or what not, simply to swell the number of skins of the season's work is gory and not compatible with the ideas which a conscientious ornithologist should hold. Many of these birds will never be used for comparison, for the reason that the plumages are constant as a rule in this zone, and many too common to be classed as desirable, will bring only a paltry price when sold. And I ask if it is not a very serious question whether any ornithologist may collect in such a wholesale and random manner and call it science?

Some may contend that only a comparatively small area of the country was worked over, but this does not alter the principle at all. I base my whole criticism on the proposition that if wholesale collecting is wrong, it is doubly so in the breeding season! It was during this time that most of this work was done. All the species were nesting and had either eggs or young, but no attention was paid to this as a rule. Birds were shot anywhere and everywhere without so much as a thought for the welfare of the nestlings and who can say how many young birds thus deprived of one or both parents died from starvation or exposure? This is not an overdrawn picture but what Mr. Carriger, myself and others witnessed daily for almost two weeks, and it went on for several months.

One ornithologist? F. M. Nutting, who was in the party, found the nest of a Pileated Woodpecker in a pine stub, containing young, and promptly shot one parent. This he brought to our camp one Sunday afternoon, evidently proud of his prowess at having stalled a bird which had perhaps lost its fear through duty to its young, and remarked that he should shoot the other bird when he went back! What a damnable sense of decency, let alone humaneness! I ask should such irresponsible beings be permitted to roam the woods, with no more perception of conscience than to commit such brutalities? It was an outrage which I know was not sanctioned by his principal.

The ornithologist should be the birds' best protector, even though he must at times shoot them for study, but what shall we say when he goes among them in nesting time, shooting indiscriminately and leaving the young to perish? Every naturalist owes it to science to protect the natural beauties with which the Creator has blessed the earth, and how can the collector, with never a twinge of conscience, quiet the sweet voices of the woodland in a fashion little less than barbarous, for pecuniary gain? I may be called a "sentimentalist" as a reward for these words, and if so I accept the charge willingly. Well may the man blush who has no sentiment or consideration for bird life when he is in the midst of it; he lacks the higher aspirations of the true naturalist.

In the fall of 1897 large numbers of juvenile Hermit Warblers were taken, amounting in number if I remember correctly to about 100. While the plumages may have been interesting such a series as this was scarcely justified, and I question if it could be attributed to legitimate science. I have painted the picture of bird destruction as I saw and know of it, and totally without personal feeling. That this letter will have the effect of preventing such collecting in the future I have no hope, but if it be the means of drawing a response from those I have criticised or of calling forth the support of others, my object is accomplished. One of the primary inducements of these expeditions is to secure collections of skins to sell, and upon this hinges all the wrong.

In speaking with a well known ornithologist recently, and while talking of bird slaughter, he was frank enough to tell me that he "collected for what was in it." I admired his frankness and respect him for admitting the point without argument. And how shall we meet such frank admission of wrong, if wrong it be? Better that a restrictive law be enacted, even though it inconvenience all, than for such unwarranted destruction go on. Without any attempt at embellishing these facts with sentiment or satire, in both of which my pen might but crudely serve me, I invite open letters on the subject. We shall be glad to hear any Californian plead justification with sincerity, if he has collected in this manner, and the Bulletin will be open to all with partiality who wish to further discuss this question. I believe firmly that the making of large collections during the breeding season should be prohibited, and that the mercenary part of it should be severely condemned.