It must not be inferred that the friends of birds in England have been idle or silent in the presence of the London feather trade. On the contrary, the Royal Society for the Protection of Wild Birds and Mr. James Buckland have so strongly attacked the feather industry that the London Chamber of Commerce has felt called upon to come to its rescue. Mr. Buckland, on his own individual account, has done yeoman service to the cause, and his devotion to the birds, and his tireless energy, are both almost beyond the reach of praise in words. At the last moment before going to press I learn that the birds'-plumage bill has achieved the triumph of a "first reading" in Parliament, which looks as if success is at last in sight. The powerful pamphlet that he has written, published and circulated at his own expense, entitled "Pros and Cons of the Plumage Bill," is a splendid effort. What a pity it is that more individuals are not similarly inspired to make independent effort in the protection cause! But, strange to say, few indeed are the men who have either the nerve or the ability to "go it alone."
On the introduction in Parliament of the bill to save the birds from the feather trade, it was opposed (through the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce), on the ground that if any bill against the sale of plumes should pass, and plumes could not be sold, the London business in wild-bird skins and feathers "would immediately be transferred to the continent!"
In the face of that devastating and altogether horrible prospect, and because the London feather dealers "need the money," the bill was at first defeated—to the great joy of the Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Downham; but the cause of birds will win in the end, because it is Right.
The feather dealers have been shrewdly active in the defense of their trade, and the methods they have employed for influencing public opinion have quite outshone those put forth by their brethren in America. I have before me a copy of a booklet bearing the name of Mr. C.F. Downham as the author, and the London Chamber of Commerce has loaned its good name as publisher. Altogether it is a very shrewd piece of work, even though its arguments in justification of bird slaughter for the feather market are too absurd and weak for serious consideration.
The chief burden of the defender of bird slaughter for millinery purposes is on account of the destruction of egrets and herons, but particularly the former. To offset as far as possible the absolutely true charge that egrets bear their best plumes in their breeding season, when the helpless young are in the nest and the parent birds must be killed to obtain the plumes, the feather trade has obtained from three Frenchmen—Leon Laglaize, Mayeul Grisol, and F. Geay—a beautiful and plausible story to the effect that in Venezuela the enormous output of egret plumes has been obtainedby picking up, off the bushes and out of the water and mud, the shed feathers of those birds!According to the story, Venezuela is full ofegret farms, called "garceros,"—where the birds breed and moult under strict supervision, and kindly drop their feathers in such places that it is possibleto find them, and topickthem up, in a high state of preservation! And we are asked to believe that it is these very Venezuelan picked-up feathers that command in London the high price of$44 per ounce.
THE FIGHT IN ENGLAND AGAINST THE USE OF WILD BIRD'S PLUMAGE IN THE MILLINERY TRADE
Sandwich-men Employed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, that Patroled London Streets in July, 1911.
Mr. Laglaize is especially exploited by Mr. Downham, as a French traveler of high standing, and well known in the zoological museums of France; but, sad to say, when Prof. Henry Fairfield Osborn cabled to the Museum of Natural History in Paris, inquiring about Mr. Laglaize, the cable flashed back the one sad word; "Inconnu!" (Unknown!)
I think it entirely possible that enough shed feathers have been picked up in the reeking swamps of Venezuela, on the upper tributaries of the Orinoco, to affordan excusefor the beautiful story of Mr. Laglaize. Any shrewd individual with money, and the influence that money secures, could put up just such a "plant" as I firmly believehasbeen put up by some one in Venezuela. I will guarantee that I could accomplish such a job in Venezuela or Brazil, in four months' time, at an expense not exceeding one thousand dollars.
That the great supply of immaculately perfect egret plumes that annually come out of Venezuela could by any possibility be picked up in theswamps where they were shed and dropped by the egrets, is entirely preposterous and incredible. The whole proportion is denounced by several men of standing and experience, none of whom are "inconnu."
As a sweeping refutation of the fantastic statements regarding "garceros," published by Mr. Downham as coming from Messrs. Laglaize, Grisol and Geay, I offer the written testimony of an American gentleman who at this moment owns and maintains within a few yards of his residence a large preserve of snowy egrets and herons, the former representing the species which furnishes egret plumes exactly similar to those shipped from Venezuela and Brazil. If the testimony of Mr. McIlhenny is not sufficient to stamp the statements of the three Frenchmen quoted by Mr. Downham as absolute and thoroughly misleading falsehoods, then there is no such thing in this world as evidence. I suggest a perusal of the statements of the three Frenchmen who are quoted with such confidence by Mr. Downham and published by the Hon. Chamber of Commerce at London, and then a careful reading of the following letter:
Avery Island, La., June 17, 1912.Dear Mr. Hornaday:—I have before me your letter of June 8th, asking for information as to whether or no egrets shed their plumes at their nesting places in sufficient quantities to enable them to be gathered commercially. I most emphatically wish to state that it is impossible to gather at the nesting places of these birds any quantity of their plumes. I have nesting within 50 yards of where I am now sitting dictating this letter not less than 20,000 pairs of the various species of herons and egrets, and there are fully 2,500 pairs of snowy herons nesting within my preserve.During the nesting season, which covers the months of April, May and June, I am through this heronry in a small canoe almost every day, and often twice a day. I have had these herons under my close inspection for the past 17 years, and I have not in any one season picked up or seen more than half a dozen discarded plumes. Such plumes as I have picked up, I have kept on my desk, and given to the people who were interested. I remember that last year I picked up four plumes of the snowy heron that were in one bunch. I think these must have been plucked out by the birds fighting.This year I have found only one plume so far. I enclose it herewith. You will notice that it is one of the shorter plumes, and is badly worn at the end, as have been all the plumes which I have picked up in my heronry.I am positive that it is not possible for natural shed plumes to be gathered commercially. I have a number of times talked with plume hunters from Venezuela and other South American countries, and I have never heard of any egret feathers being gathered by their being picked up after the birds have shed them.I have heard of a number of heronries in South America that are protected by the land owners for the purpose of gathering a yearly crop of egret plumes, but this crop is gathered always by shooting a certain percentage of the birds. This shooting is done by experts with 22-calibre rifles, and does not materially disturb the nesting colony. I have known of two men who have been engaged in killing the birds on large estates in South America, who were paid regular salaries for their services as egret hunters.Very truly yours,E.A. McIlhenny.
Avery Island, La., June 17, 1912.
Dear Mr. Hornaday:—
I have before me your letter of June 8th, asking for information as to whether or no egrets shed their plumes at their nesting places in sufficient quantities to enable them to be gathered commercially. I most emphatically wish to state that it is impossible to gather at the nesting places of these birds any quantity of their plumes. I have nesting within 50 yards of where I am now sitting dictating this letter not less than 20,000 pairs of the various species of herons and egrets, and there are fully 2,500 pairs of snowy herons nesting within my preserve.
During the nesting season, which covers the months of April, May and June, I am through this heronry in a small canoe almost every day, and often twice a day. I have had these herons under my close inspection for the past 17 years, and I have not in any one season picked up or seen more than half a dozen discarded plumes. Such plumes as I have picked up, I have kept on my desk, and given to the people who were interested. I remember that last year I picked up four plumes of the snowy heron that were in one bunch. I think these must have been plucked out by the birds fighting.
This year I have found only one plume so far. I enclose it herewith. You will notice that it is one of the shorter plumes, and is badly worn at the end, as have been all the plumes which I have picked up in my heronry.
I am positive that it is not possible for natural shed plumes to be gathered commercially. I have a number of times talked with plume hunters from Venezuela and other South American countries, and I have never heard of any egret feathers being gathered by their being picked up after the birds have shed them.
I have heard of a number of heronries in South America that are protected by the land owners for the purpose of gathering a yearly crop of egret plumes, but this crop is gathered always by shooting a certain percentage of the birds. This shooting is done by experts with 22-calibre rifles, and does not materially disturb the nesting colony. I have known of two men who have been engaged in killing the birds on large estates in South America, who were paid regular salaries for their services as egret hunters.
Very truly yours,
E.A. McIlhenny.
I am more than willing to set the above against the fairy tale of Mr. Laglaize.
Here is the testimony of A.H. Meyer, an ex-plume-hunter, who for nineyears worked in Venezuela. His sworn testimony was laid before the Legislature of the State of New York, in 1911, when the New York Milliners' Association was frantically endeavoring to secure the repeal of the splendid Dutcher law. This witness was produced by the National Association of Audubon Societies.
"My attention has been called to the fact that certain commercial interests in this city are circulating stories in the newspapers and elsewhere to the effect that the aigrettes used in the millinery trade come chiefly from Venezuela, where they are gathered from the ground in the largegarceros, or breeding-colonies, of white herons.
"I wish to state that I have personally engaged in the work of collecting the plumes of these birds in Venezuela. This was my business for the years 1896 to 1905, inclusive. I am thoroughly conversant with the methods employed in gathering egret and snowy heron plumes in Venezuela, and I wish to give the following statement regarding the practices employed in procuring these feathers:
"The birds gather in large colonies to rear their young. They have the plumes only during the mating and nesting season. After the period when they are employed in caring for their young, it is found that the plumes are virtually of no commercial value, because of the worn and frayed condition to which they have been reduced. It is the custom in Venezuela to shoot the birds while the young are in the nests. A few feathers of the large white heron (American egret), known as theGarza blanca, can be picked up of a morning about their breeding places, but these are of small value and are known as "dead feathers." They are worth locally not over three dollars an ounce; while the feathers taken from the bird, known as "live feathers," are worth fifteen dollars an ounce.
"My work led me into every part of Venezuela and Colombia where these birds are to be found, and I have never yet found or heard of anygarcerosthat were guarded for the purpose of simply gathering the feathers from the ground. No such condition exists in Venezuela. The story is absolutely without foundation, in my opinion, and has simply been put forward for commercial purposes.
"The natives of the country, who do virtually all of the hunting for feathers, are not provident in their nature, and their practices are of a most cruel and brutal nature. I have seen them frequently pull the plumes from wounded birds, leaving the crippled birds to die of starvation, unable to respond to the cries of their young in the nests above, which were calling for food.I have known these people to tie and prop up wounded egrets on the marsh where they would attract the attention of other birds flying by. These decoys they keep in this position until they die of their wounds, or from the attacks of insects. I have seen the terrible red ants of that country actually eating out the eyes of these wounded, helpless birds that were tied up by the plume-hunters.I could write you many pages of the horrors practiced in gathering aigrette feathers in Venezuela by the natives for the millinery trade of Paris and New York.
"To illustrate the comparatively small number of dead feathers which are collected, I will mention that in one year I and my associates shipped to New York eighty pounds of the plumes of the large heron and twelve pounds of the little recurved plumes of the snowy heron. In this whole lot there were not over five pounds of plumes that had been gathered from the ground—and these were of little value. The plume-birds have been nearly exterminated in the United States and Mexico, and the same condition of affairs will soon exist in tropical America. This extermination will come about because of the fact that the young are left to starve in the nest when the old birds are killed, any other statement made by interested parties to the contrary notwithstanding.
"I am so incensed at the ridiculously absurd and misleading stories that are being published on this question that I want to give you this letter, and, before delivering it to you, shall take oath to its truthfulness."
Here is the testimony of Mr. Caspar Whitney, of New York, formerly editor ofOutingMagazine andOutdoor America:
"During extended travel throughout South America, from 1903 to 1907, inclusive, I journeyed, on three separate occasions, by canoe (1904-1907), on the Lower Orinoco and Apure rivers and their tributaries. This is the region, so far as Venezuela is concerned, in which is the greatest slaughter of white herons for their plumage, or more specifically for the marital plumes, which are carried only in the mating and breeding season, and are known in the millinery trade as 'aigrettes.'
"There is literally no room for question. The snowy herons are killed exactly as I describe. It is the custom of all those who hunt for the millinery trade, and is recognized by the natives as the usual method."
Here is the testimony of Mr. Julian A. Dimock, of Peekamose, N.Y., the famous outdoor photographer, and illustrator of "Florida Enchantments":
"I know a goodly number of the plume-hunters of Florida. I have camped with them, and talked to them. I have heard their tales, and even full accounts of the 'shooting-up' of an egret rookery. Never has a man in Florida suggested to me that plumes could be obtained without killing the birds. I have known the wardens, and have visited rookeries after they had been 'shot-up,' and the evidence all pointed to the everlasting use of the gun.It is certainly not true that the plumes can be obtained without killing the birds bearing them.
"Nineteen years ago, I visited the Cuthbert Rookery with one of the men who discovered the birds nesting in that lake. He and his partner had sold the plumes gathered there for more than a thousand dollars. He showed me how they hid in the bushes and shot the birds. He even gave me a chance to watch him kill two or three birds.
"I know personally the man chiefly responsible for the slaughter of the birds at Alligator Bay.He laughed at the idea of getting plumes without killing the birds!I well know the man who shot the birds up Rogers River, and even saw some of the empty shells left on the ground by him.
YOUNG EGRETS, UNABLE TO FLY, STARVING
The Parent Birds had Been Killed by Plume Hunters
SNOWY EGRET, DEAD ON HER NEST
Wounded in the Feeding-Grounds, and Came Home to Die. Photographed in a Florida Rookery Protected by the National Association of Audubon Societies
I have camped with Seminoles, whites, blacks, outlaws, and those within the pale, connected with plume-hunting, and all tell the same story:The birds are shot to get the plumes.The evidence of my own eyes, and the action of the birds themselves, convinces me that there is not a shadow of doubt concerning this point."
This sworn testimony from Mr. T.J. Ashe, of Key West, Florida, is very direct and to the point:
"I have seen many moulted and dropped feathers from wild plumed birds. I have never seen a moulted or dropped feather that was fit for anything. It is the exception when a plumed bird drops feathers of any value while in flight. Whatever feathers are so dropped are those that are frayed, worn out, and forced out by the process of moulting. The moulting season is not during the hatching season, but is after the hatching season. The shedding, or moulting, takes place once a year; and during this moulting season the feathers, after having the hard usage of the year from wind, rain and other causes, when dropped are of absolutely no commercial value."
Mr. Arthur T. Wayne, of Mount Pleasant, S.C., relates in sworn testimony his experience in attempting to secure egret plumes without killing the birds:
"It is utterly impossible to get fifty egret plumes from any colony of breeding birds without shooting the birds. Last spring, I went twice a week to a breeding colony of American and snowy egrets, from early in April until June 8. Despite the fact that I covered miles of territory in a boat, I picked up but two American egret plumes (which I now have); but not a single snowy egret plume did I see, nor did my companion, who accompanied me on every trip.
"I saw an American egret plume on the water, and left it, purposely, to see whether it would sink or not. Upon visiting the place a few days afterwards, the plume was not in evidence, undoubtedly having sunk. The plumes are chiefly shed in the air while the birds are going to or coming from their breeding grounds. If that millinery plume law is repealed, the fate of the American and snowy egrets is sealed, for the few birds that remain will be shot to the very last one."
Any man who ever has been in an egret rookery (and I have) knows that the above testimony istrue! The French story of the beautiful and smoothly-running egret farms in Venezuela is preposterous, save for a mere shadow of truth. I do not say thatnoegret plumes could be picked up, but I do assert that the total quantity obtainable in one year in that way would be utterly trivial.
No; the "ospreys" of the British feather market come from slaughtered egrets and herons,killed in the breeding season. Let the British public and the British Parliament make no mistake about that. If they wish the trade to continue, let it be based on the impregnable ground that the merchants want the money, and not on a fantastic dream that is too silly to deceive even a child that knows birds.
The use or disuse of wild birds' plumage as millinery ornaments is another of those wild-life subjects regarding which there is no room for argument. To assert that the feather-dealers want the business for the money it brings them is not argument! We have seen many a steam roller go over Truth, and Right, and Justice, by main strength and red-hot power; but Truth and Right refuse to stay flat down. There is on this earth not one wild-animal species—mammal, bird or reptile—that can long withstand exploitation for commercial purposes. Even the whales of the deep sea, the walrus of the arctic regions, the condors of the Andes and alligators of the Everglade morasses are no exception to the universal rule.
In Mr. Downham's book there is much fallacious reasoning, and many conclusions that are not borne out by the facts. For example, he says that no species of bird of paradise has been diminished in number by slaughter for the feather trade; that Florida still contains a supply of egrets; that the decrease in bird life should be charged to the spread of cities, towns and farms, and not to the trade; that the trade was "in no way responsible" for the slaughter of three hundred thousand gulls and albatrosses on Laysan Island!
I have space to notice one other important erroneous conclusion that Mr. Downham publishes in his book, on page 105. He says:
"The destruction of birds in foreign countries is something that no trade can direct or control."
This is an amazing declaration; and absolutely contrary to experience. Let me prove what I say by a fresh and incontestable illustration:
Prior to April, 1911, when Governor Dix signed the Bayne law against the sale of wild native game in the State of New York, Currituck County, N.C., was a vast slaughter-pen for wild fowl. No power or persuasion had availed to induce the people of North Carolina to check, or regulate, or in any manner mitigate that slaughter of geese, ducks and swans. It was estimated that two hundred thousand wild fowl were annually slaughtered there.
We who advocated the Bayne law said: "Close the New York markets against Currituck birds, and you will stop a great deal of the slaughter."
We cleaned our Augean stable. The greatest game market in America was absolutely closed.
Last winter (1911) the annual killing of wild fowl was fully fifty per cent less than during previous years. In one small town, twenty professional duck shooters went entirely out of business—because theycouldn't sell their ducks! The dealers refused to buy them. The result was exactly what we predicted it would be; and this year, it is reported over and over that ducks are more plentiful in New England than they have been in twenty years previously! The result is wonderful, because so quick.
Beyond all question, the feather merchants of London, Paris and Berlin absolutely control the bird-killers of Venezuela, China, New Guinea. Mexico and South America. Let the word go forth that "the trade" is no longer permitted to buy and sell egret and heron plumes, skins of birds of paradise and condor feathers, and presto! the killing industry falls dead the next moment.
MISCELLANEOUS BIRD SKINS, 8 CENTS EACH
Purchased by the New York Zoological Society from the Quarterly Sale in London, August, 1912
Yes, indeed, members of the British Parliament: it is easily withinyour powerto wipe out at a single stroke fully one-half of the bird slaughter for fancy feathers. It can be done just as we wiped out one-half the annual duck slaughter in wickedly-wasteful North Carolina!
The feather trade absolutelydoescontrol the killing situation! Now, will the people of England clean house by controlling the feather trade? If a hundred species of the most beautiful birds of the world must be exterminated for the feather trade, let the odium rest elsewhere than on the people of England.
The bird-lovers of America may rest assured that the bird-lovers of England—a mighty host—are neither careless nor indifferent regarding the wild-birds' plumage business. On the contrary, several bills have been brought before Parliament intended to regulate or prohibit the traffic, and a measure of vast importance to the birds of the world is now before the House of Commons. It is backed by Mr. Percy Alden, M.P., by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, by the Selbourne Society, and by Mr. James Buckland—a host in himself. For years past that splendidly-equipped and well-managed Royal Society has wagedceaseless warfare for the birds. Its activity has been tremendous, and its membership list contains many of the finest names in England. The address of the Honorary Secretary, Frank E. Lemon, Esq., is 23 Queen Anne's Gate, London, S.W.
Naturally, these influences are opposed by the Textile Trade Section of the London Chamber of Commerce, and their only argument consists of the plea that if London doesn't get the money out of the feather trade, the Continent will get it! A reasonable, logical, magnificent and convincing excuse for wholesale bird slaughter, truly!
Mr. Buckland has been informed from the Continent that the people of France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium are waiting and watching to see what England is going to do with the question, "To slaughter, or not to slaughter?" For England has no monopoly of the birds' plumage trade, not by any means. Says Mr. Buckland ("Pros and Cons of the Plumage Bill," page 17):
"As regards the vast majority of fancy feathers used in millinery, the Continent receives its own supplies. The feathers of the hundreds of thousands of albatrosses which are killed in the North Pacific all go to Paris. Of the untold thousands of 'magpies,' owls, and other species which come from Peru, not one skin or feather crosses the Channel. The white herons of the Upper Senegal and the Niger are being rapidly exterminated at the instigation of the feather merchants, but not one of the plumes reaches London. Paris receives direct a large supply of aigrettes from South America and elsewhere. … The millions of swallows and other migratory birds which are killed annually as they pass through Italy, France and Spain on their way north, supply the millinery trade of Europe with an incredible quantity of wings and other plumage, but none of it is distributed from London. … London, as a distributing center, has no monopoly of the trade in raw feathers."
Mr. Buckland's green-covered pamphlet is a powerful document, and both his facts and his conclusions seem to be unassailable. The author's address is Royal Colonial Institute, Northumberland Ave., London, W.C.
The duty of the civilized nations of Europe is perfectly plain. The savage and bloody business in feathers torn from wild birds should be stopped, completely and forever. If the commons will not arise and reform the odious business out of existence, then the kings and queens and presidents should do their plain duty. In the suppression of a world crime like this it is clearly a case ofnoblesse oblige!