stated that the damage done by Wallabies was infinitesimal, and 
that the "real motive" was "to let those with guns have'a
free 
hand to shoot the few Wallabies left." He said, further, "If the

shooters would confine their attention to the real pest, the rabbits, 
some good would be done." 
The Council sent along a strong protest to the Chief Secretary 
of New South Wales, who, after having made enquiries, refused 
the requests for an open season, the applicants being informed 
that, if it could be proved "that the animals were proving destruc-

tive on any particular holding, the position could be met by the 
issue of a license to destroy a limited number on that holding during 
a specified period." 
This case is presented in this Annual Report as a further 
example of the need for constant watchfulness in many directions 
and in almost every department of our work, if our fauna is to 
survive. 
(c) Mutton Bird Plumage.-In mid-November, 1936, we re- 
ceived from Captain MacCunn' London-acting on behalf of the 
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Eng- 
land-an urgent cablegram informing us that "the Trade" was 
trying to add the skins of the Australian Shearwater or Mutton 
Bird to the list of birds allowed to be imported into Great Britain 
under the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921. The 
Society asked for our support to their opposition to the proposal, 
In reply thereto, we sent the followirqg telegram:- 
"Wild Life Preservation Society of Australia strongly 
opposes admission of Shearwater, or other Petrels', plumage, 
and urgently requests the authorities to refuse applications 
in the interests of bird conservation." 
In their following letter, of 31/12/36, the London R.S.P.C.A. 
said, inter alia, "Every exemption, of course, from an Act, weakens

its effectiveness; every addition makes the Customs Authorities' 
work more tiresome and difficult, and smuggling easier."  The 
application was made to the Board of Trade Advisory Committee. 
In due course, by letter dated 14/1/37, we were very glad to 
learn that the application had been refused, and so one more pos- 
sible avenue for the encouragement of trade in our native fauna 
was closed.   In the RSPCA    letter, we were informed that the 
application had been rejected by six votes to three. The letter con- 
tinued: Your Organisation's splendid support on behalf of this bird, 
and in maintaining the integritv of the Act, contributed to this 
success." And, further, "The fact of your Organisation being Aus-

tralian carried great weight, and its views are held to be highly 
important." 
We are sure it will be realised that had we not been success- 
ful, not only would a new market, intended to stabilise an increased 
destruction of this bird, have been created, but the resultant sales 
in England would have greatly undermined the British Act.