Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1900-04-10
ThE paoTEcTIoN OF eIRDs.


How many Of the women who wear
birds on their hats know whether they
are violating law of the state Of Maine
in so doing? Chapter ~, Section IL, Of
the Laws Of 1899, reads ss follows:
Section ls. whoever kills. or has In his
possession. any birds commonly known as larks,
robins, swallows, sparrows. woodpeckcrs or
orioles, or other inscctivorous birds, crows.
English sparrows and hawks excepted. 'orfeits
not less than one dollar, nor more than 1--WE dol
lars, for each such bird killed; and the posses.
sion by any person OF auch dead bird, is prima
facie evidence that he killed such bird. Whoever
at any time wantonly takes or destroys the nest,
eggs or unhedged young OF any Wild bird, ex.
cept crows. hawks, herons, looms and owls, or
TAKES any eggs OF young from such nests forfeits
not less than one dollar nor more than ten dol.
lars, for each nest, egg or young 20 taken or de
stroyed. Whoever carries or transports from
place 20 place. any Of the birds named In this
chapter during the period In which the killing OF
such bird is prohibited, forfeits Ave dollars for
each bird 30 carried or transported
That Is quite sseeping law. After
enumerating certain species OF birds, u
Includes In geuersl terms "other In
sectivorous birds" Who can tell Off
hand how many OF the birds used for
ornamental purposes that Includes ?
Furthermore there Is double penalty
attached. There IL fine Of one TO five
dollars for each such bird killed, and the
possession Of the dead bird Is regarded
AS priu.d fdcie evidence that the possessor
killed IL; and there is 4 fine OF five dol
lars for transporting such birds from
place 10 plsce-which most women who
wear them on their hats are doing at
frequent intervals.
Another section Of the laws Of 1899
lays special fine on the killing Of tern.
The tern Is a sea bird, rarely seen inland,
and probably few In this section OF the
state would know tern from any other
unfamiliar bird. In Bangor, town
where the "msn-made laws" according
TO Bishop Codmsn's characteriz ttiou)
are notoriously poorly enforced, an
active campaign 10 protection Of the tern
has been begun by the game wardens,
and the milliners OF the city have been
visited and warned. II Is said that the
campaign will be kept up, and rs Com
missioner Carleton, who Is we'll known
as being something Of "ramrod", Is be-
hind Il, 1t IL likely that the report is true.
The agitation OF this question Of bird
protection IL not new, but bird lovers
are making \ more determined effort
than ever before TO see that our little
festhered friends are secured against
moleststion, and Il IL to be hoped that
their endesvors will have q moral II not
Il legal effect. In the present age OF the
world, art and money can make almost
that can be Imagined In the
line OF ornament; but no art or money
can replace the birds which bring 80
much pleasure TO our lives, after they
have been once exterminsted.
Aside from the matter of sentiment,
there Is practical side to the question.
The law suggests one feature OF this.
when IL names ''insectiyorous birds"
But there Ia smother feature still. We
say much, and say IL truthfully, OF the
charms OF sesshore, woods, lakes and
streams. which make Maine the play
ground Of the nation; and among the
features which attract visitors may be
named the birds. Ii will be remembered
that the Democrat some time since pub
lished list OF over sixty varieties Of
birds observed ny bird lover who was
\ summer guest at Andover. Do any
thing which will reduce the number OF
our birds, aud you have by so much re-
duced the attractions OF our state for
that bird lover as well "a hosts OF others.
Sentimental and material considers
tions both require the protection OF our
birds. aud all effort In that direction
should have the moral support OF the
people.