PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
DMC.O. 885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
30
mitch easier to work I am not comparing the two Bills in detail at present, and I only venture to say that because you, Sir, put the two Bills as if they were the same.
Q. Do you know at all why the other plan was adopted this year and Mr. Alden altered Lord Avebury's Bill?—A. I think it was partly on a suggestion made that the trade were willing to help us if we would only do it in that way.
Q. We have had no evidence of that A. The trade have said all along that they were very keen to protect any birds that were at all likely to become rare.
Mr. OGILVIE-GRANT: That is, any individual species!
CHAIRMAN: Yes. But they would suggest, I imagine, that we should do our best to protect the Prince Rudolph bird of paradise without protecting birds of paradise as a whole.
Mr. FAGAN: Yes. They say this particular bird does not affect them. CHAIRMAN: They say these birds are not becoming rare and that the schedule to Mr. Alden's Bill includes 90 per cent. of the species of birds in the world.
Mr. OGILVIE-GRANT: Yes, something of thất kind. I remember it being said but I do not remember it being reported.
Dr. HARMER: Yes, I think it was reported ?—A. As regards our Society, we have not been taking very active steps with regard to Mr. Alden's Bill, or a Bill on that line, because we have been waiting partly for the report we hope to get from the Foreign Office with reference to communications which have passed with other countries and partly in view of this Conference which we understood was taking the matter in hand. Mr. Alden's Bill kept the matter alive, but it was not neces- sarily thought that legislation should be on those lines.
CHAIRMAN: One of their witnesses said to us: Have you had any evidence placed before you as to any species that are really in danger of extermination," and then he went one better and said: "Have you had any evidence before you that 90 per cent. of the birds of the earth are in danger of extermination! That is the point in a nutshell.”—A. With regard to our attitude, we are not, as a Society, in any way responsible for the schedule as drawn up. I would like you to know that. We, as a Society, took the question up very vigorously at one time, especially when the matter was before the House of Lords; but when the question of legislation was dropped proposals were then made by Members of Parliament, and others advising them, on this other line, and we have not felt so satisfied with that particular form of legislation. Of course, the general question of dealing with the matter of impor- tation has been before us, but we have not been directly, if I may use the expression, boldly backing the Bill.
Q. Let us take some of the kinds of birds that are more directly concerned in this question, such as humming-birds, birds of paradise, and egrets. Would your Society suggest that we should do our best to protect. either negatively or positively. from importation into this country all birds of paradise or only the rare kinds, and all humming-birds or only the rare kinds (—A. I think our attitude would he that the only real way to protect them would be to protect all kinds. I think that is the answer I must give. One point which I have not been able to include in my state- ment, and which I wanted particularly to include, was what Mr. Walter Goodfellow said with regard to birds of paradise.
Q. We have had Mr. Goodfellow here -A. It will be printed in the volume, but it is not in this pamphlet. He gave it to us the other day clearly with regard to what the Dutch legislation was. However, I understand you have had that point dealt with by him. The Dutch have now made a law which applies for six months in one place when it is not wanted and for six months in another place when it is not wanted. They did that owing to some intervention, as the Government were anxious to bring about protection there. There is a close season for one six months on the west coast and for the other six months on the north coast of New Guinea.
Mr. OGILVIE-GRANT: While the birds are out of plumage ?—A.
On that point I should like to read Mr. Goodfellow's statement which I have here. He said: "Twelve months last December, when I was going out for the British Ornithological Expedition to the South Coast of New Guinea, I heard that the Dutch were going to stop the shooting not only of paradise birds, but of other species of birds, and even deer, which were getting very decimated; but such a hue and cry was raised in some of the Molucca Islands, where some of the traders lived, that the Dutch Government had not the strength to withstand their demands.” I read that to show that the Governments are active in the matter, but whether they have been strong enough is a point you might, perhaps, take note of. He went on to say: "The native traders
31
said they could not pay their taxes if the killing of the paradise birds was stopped, and the upshot of it all was, as I have heard since I have returned from New Guinea, that the Government closed the shooting during six months of the year. It is closed for six months in the year on the west coast, and for six months in the year on the north coast, but it appears that those two seasons coincide with the time when the paradise birds are out of plumage. That is to say, it is open on the north coast when the paradise birds are in plumage, and the same on the west coast; so that the largest dealer in the skins said to me: We get just the same number of birds, and
it suits our purpose very well. When the birds are not in plumage on the north coast the shooting is closed; and when they are not in plumage on the west coast the shooting is closed, so that we go on with the same number of birds as before.' traders were so anxious about the possibility of the whole of the shooting being closed The that they clubbed together to pay the expenses to a Dutchman to come over to Holland, and so on. I read that from a shorthand report of what was said by Mr. Goodfellow last week. He deals with the matter further, and he speaks very strongly upon it.
CHAIRMAN: Do you know the Australian notification or the proclamation of the Australian Government by which they are trying to protect birds?—A. Q. Do you think that would be suitable in this country ?—A.
Yes. in that particular form?
You mean just
Q. Yes; I do not suggest it is so, but supposing the difficulties of passing either Lord Avebury's Bill or Mr. Alden's Bill were too great, and supposing the evidence, or rather the fear, that a valuable trade, or a trade which people thought was valu- able, would be lost to this country was so great that it was considered advisable not to proceed with the Bill in so large a form as Mr. Alden's or Lord Avebury's, pending a possible international agreement, which would obviate the difficulties felt in connection with those two Bills, what do you think would be the effect of trying the Australian alternative, that is, simply prohibiting the import into this country of skins which were known to come from countries from which their exportation was prohibited --A. I think it would be valuable, but that, again, leads to this transference and smuggling which has been referred to.
Q. Would you think those cases would be large in number -A. I am afraid so from the experience we have. Quite recently we had examples of the smuggling. Q. The Australian Government seem to have found that their proclamation against the import of birds into the Commonwealth from protected areas was not sufficient, and was unworkable.
Mr. STUBBS: I think perhaps there are reasons for that which will not apply in this country.
CHAIRMAN: Instead of the former notification it is now proposed by the Customs' officials to issue a proclamation prohibiting generally the importation of the plumage or skins of these birds except as natural history specimens or society specimens irrespective of the country of export. You consider the only effective means of deal- ing with the matter is, practically speaking, Lord Avebury's Bill?—A. That change proposed in Australia bears out what I was saying before as to the difficulty of it.
Q. Lord Avebury's Bill and Mr. Alden's Bill have this in common, that they make a special exemption in favour of the people who use plumage in the manu- facture of flies for the capture of fish A. Yes, they were urged by representatives of that sport, and the matter was spoken to before the House of Lords Committee. I do not know that we are particularly keen on that point, but we did not directly deal with it because it was raised after we had given evidence before the Committee. I do not think the quantities likely to be used for that purpose can be anything great.
Q. Supposing the Bill became law, what would you like to do with your so- called natural history collectors and people who are really no more than dealers in beautiful objects for putting, under glass shades--the bird stuffers of London ?—A. You are speaking of the commercial side of it?
Q. Yes-A. I do not know that I ought to give my personal view as to collectors. I am afraid that personally I do not view natural history collectors with any great favour. Museums are in quite another category.
A.
Mr. FAGAN: Would you separate private scientific collectors from museums?— Are you thinking of collectors on the spot, or collectors who make collections of bird skins for scientific study? If it is really for scientific study I should not like to interfere directly with it.