The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1907-03-14
Explains Position.

EOICOr IihCl6r'
As president Of the Oregon Audu-
bon society and lecturer for the Ma
tional Association of Audubon socie-
ties, | hope you will allow me space
to explain why we used every effort
to defeat House Bill 367, which was
introduced by Representa- We j. w.
Perkins, of jackson county. We un-
derstand many OF the orchardists in
the state wanted this law in order to
prtect themselves from the ravages of
certain birds. 1t passed the house
aud the senate, but vas vetoed by
Governor Cham berlain.
Our present model bird law was
passed 10 1908. This law has been
adopted anil 10 used in every state in
the union except 13. 1t is strongly
recommended by he Biological Sur
vey of the Department of Agricul-
ture. AT the time it was passed, it
was SO amended to meet the needs OF
Oregon. Provision is made in this law
undex the clause, "Birds Not Protect
ed" to exclud. such birds as are
proved to be more harmful than help
ful IN the economy OF nature. When.
ever this Is proved against bird, it
should be added to the list But we
are emphsticslly opposed to abolish
ing protection to all our useful birds
on account of the sins of three or four
spsciss. This Is what House Bill 367
proposed to do.
The last prHviso in this bill read !:
"Provided fuitber, that this act shall
not be construed ~ preventing farm
ers, gardeners and orcbardists from
destroying any birds, other than game
birds wien necessary to prevent the
destruction of crops from the ravages
of birds" This seems fair at first
glance, bnt it is in direct conflict to
tbe spirit of the very law TO which 1t
was added. because this law precludes
that many song birds are not injur-
Gus. but of positive benefit to the
farmers, gardeners and orchardists,
and the general good of the state de
mapds that they shall not be killed.
This proviso is too sweeping to be.
come O law, because it nullit'es all
preceding song bird legislation. Un-
der it. any land ownerkcan claim any
bird on his premises | harmful to bis
crops. People can shoot any OF all
song birds on their own property and
pursue these birds to other parts.
This bill opens oul song birds
throughout the state to the slaughter
of Italian gardeners, gunneis and all
Others who wish to shoot larks, rob-
jps, thrushes and other species for
pot pie. n,u oo-
Another proviso of House Bill 1867
reads: "Provided, that the protection
afforded birds under this act shall not
apply to crows, bluejays, owls, hawks,
butcher birds, magpies, black birds,
the English or European house spar
row, woodpeckers and apple BIRDS. y j.,
Their are six or seven. varieties OF
owls that inhabit Oregon, only one OF
which. fhe horned owl, is in any
way detrimental to poultry interests.
The Other owls are recognized by all
ss birds OF the greatest econnmic I'M
portsnce. Our present law protects
All owls except the horned owl.
House Bill 367 permits the so called
"appIe bird to be destroyed without
limit. "Apple bird" is a local sppli..
cation known only to the farmers OF
this bill. 1t may refer to robin,
obickadee. sparrow, fly catcher,
thrush, grosbeak, or any other bi1d
that lives about an apple tree. Many
of these species are of the hiehest
economic value, why permit tneir
destruction?
The work of the Audubon society
and the efforts of humane societies
and other organizations are educa-
tional. They try to encourage chll
dren and to teach them to protect
and love wild birds, and in this con
nection there ia a side to the ques-
tion that has its Importance, even
thorph it may be called sentimental.
Under our present law, we nave q
check on The tendency of the boy to
kill useful song birds for sport. Un
der House Bill S87, the gate we have
relied upon is thrown wide open and
the boy may roam the helds ano
woods with sling-shot and gun TO
shoot all owls, blackbirds, wood-
peckers, and under ths term apple
birds' the tanagers, robins, chipping 9
sparrows. fly catchers. waxwings,
tbrushes, grosheaks, chickadees, sno
ali Others that live about our or
chards. a ,b..
We wish it clearly understood ihst
the Audubon society Is not defending
birds merely from a sentimental
standpoint We are defending song
birds AZ a class because the Depart
mant of Agriculture at Washington
has proved beyond doubt that tney
are of real economic valne TO man.
We cannot agree with Mr.. Perkins
Of MedforI, who told MS tha, ne con
sidered birds more harmful than pen
eficial. He told ME further that ne M
could get along better without the
birds than with them because they