Contact

Home

H. J. McCooey part 12

Yowie / Bigfoot

BIRDS PROTECTION ACT.
The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: July 29, 1893
Page Number: 10

TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD.
     Sir,—I have just been handed a copy of the Birds Protection Act of 1893, and desire, with your kind permission, to say a few words with reference to it. The new Act is undoubtedly a great improvement on the old one, and in a general sense will be hailed with satisfaction by all lovers of Australian birds , but nevertheless I consider—and every one acquainted with the nidification of several Australian birds will and must, I am sure, consider—it in too many particulars clumsily framed, ineffective, and faulty.
     Kindly allow me just to give one instance in support of the foregoing assertions. Let us simply take the emu—a bird which is known to everybody, and whose graceful, noble form adorns our present two penny stamp—and what do we find ? In order that it may lay its eggs and hatch its young in safety and peace it is "protected" by this new Act from the 1st August—mark this—to the 31st January. Now, every schoolboy who resides in districts where the emu occurs, knows that the bird begins to lay, not on the 1st August, as the framers of the Act seem to have imagined, but in May, and that by the 1st August, and often before that date, dozens of young emus may be seen running about with their mothers on the plains. No one in the Narrabri, Coonamble, or Coonabarabran districts will attempt to deny this. I have seen it myself 50 times. In June, 1886, when travelling to Coonamble, I met at Warren a bird and egg collector returning from Coonamble district, who had in his cart no less than 1600 fresh emu eggs. Now, what is the good, or where is the sense, of extending protection to a bird when all its eggs are laid and stolen? The thing is simply a farce—a bit of make-believe—and everyone must know it. The Sydney Morning Herald with considerable kindness has allowed me during these last 10 years a vast amount of space to denounce the old Game Protection Act over and over again and to point out its wretched inapplicability aud faultiness ; and I say emphatically, and with little fear of being refuted, that in many particulars—altogether too many—the new Act is little less faulty, inapplicable, and ineffective. It is perfectly annoying to me to think that so clumsy and ineffective, so slipshod and farcial, an Act could be framed by a body of legislators who claim to be Australians. Had the Act been framed in Japan by a Japanese Legislature it could scarcely be more haphazard or ludicrously clumsy, ineffective, and inapplicable. I am ashamed to find that our legislators know so little and display such a gross and unpardonable ignorance of the habits and nidification of so common an Australian bird as the emu. And let me distinctly say that I am not speaking as an expert, as I am not an authority on Australian birds. Now, is it too late to alter this Act in order that the emu, which is being destroyed with a rapid relentlessness that is not only undeniable, but is freely and generally admitted, from early extermination ? I repeat that the new Act in its present for is worse than worthless as a means of protection. As far as the emu—the noblest of our many noble birds—is concerned the Act is a miserable farce and an egregious failure, and for all the protection it will afford the emu—not to speak of other birds, and there are several—it might just as well be instantly swept from the statute book. What, I ask, is the use, and wherein is the sense, of protecting the emu itself when egg dealers are allowed to cart away thousands of the eggs before the Act comes into operation to protect them ?
     Where is the sense of this sort of thing? Where is the logic? A mere schoolboy cannot fail to comprehend, to grasp, the sense of my argument. Was this Act framed merely as a joke, or must we regard it as a serious piece of legislation ? Why was not Dr. Ramsay asked simply when did the emu begin to lay its eggs ? This is the case in a nutshell: A ludicrous attempt has been made to compel the emu to lay its eggs at a certain time of the year by Act of Parliament ! I am heartsick and weary of contemplating and denouncing this Act. May I hope that some intelligent Australian politician—if we have one—will immediately take this matter in hand and effect a change for the better ?

I am, &c.,
July 28. H. J. M'COOEY.

BIRDS PROTECTION ACT.
The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: July 31, 1893
Page Number: 6

TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD.
     Sir,—It is always a pleasure to read the contributions of your correspondent, Mr. H J. M'Cooey. He is an eminent authority on the natural history of this country, and his work with the pen and in the field is valuable in the extreme. The nidification of our birds has lately engaged much attention, and no one questions Mr. M'Cooey as an authority on nests. His most recent discovery in that line is a veritable "mare's-nest," which he has just found in the Birds Protection Act. The peculiar feature of a "mare's-nest" is that the finder never recognises its identity with the real article until some observing friend calls his attention to certain material points which are typical of the thing. On this occasion Mr. M'Cooey has found his nest, but so far has failed to recognise its species. Let me in all kindness, and with due respect, help him.
     Mr. M'Cooey rates Parliament severely for having dared to display its ignorance in passing an Act which only protects the emu from the 1st August to the 1st February in each year, and then he goes on to prove that this close season is quite wrong according to the nesting and breeding of the bird. Mr. M'Cooey writes, too, with a copy of the Act in his hand. May I ask Mr. M'Cooey and your readers interested to read the Act again, and it will be seen that the emu is one of those birds protected absolutely from year's end to year's end for a period of five years. This protection extends likewise to the eggs and brood. As the whole of your correspondent's letter turns on this one discovery of his, now shown to be a veritable mare's-nest, perhaps he will be less hasty in condemning as ignorant men those who assisted in framing what he himself admits to be the best Birds Protection Act yet passed.
     For further information, I may add that Dr. Ramsay was consulted on the Act, and materially helped to frame it, while the Hons. James Norton, H. C. Dangar, G. Thornton, W. Campbell, R. Hill, and W. J. Lyne aided, with their practical and scientific experience, in improving it. The Act is designed so as to be elastic in its character, providing for an alteration of close season by proclamations, and protective of those birds least able to protect themselves, and most easily destroyed by pothunters.

I am, &c.,
J. H. CARRUTHERS.

Sir Joseph Hector McNeil Carruthers
(1856–1932)
Politician, solicitor and investor.

DESTRUCTION OF AUSTRALIAN BIRDS.
LECTURE BY MR. M'COOEY.
The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: August 8, 1893
Page Number: 5

OAKS, Monday.
     Mr. H M'Cooey, the naturalist, addressed a large meeting of ladies and gentlemen in Mr. John James's Assembly Hall, Burragorang, on Saturday evening, his subject being "Australian Birds: Their Wanton and Ruthless Destruction." Mr. B. P. Carlon, J.P., occupied the chair, and the large hall was crowded to overflowing. Mr. M'Cooey spoke with vigour and earnestness. He denounced in unmeasured terms the Birds Protection Act of 1893, and Mr J. H. Carruthers, ex-Minister of Education, came in for a severe handling. In denouncing the Act Mr M'Cooey pointed out amid cheers that while the brush turkey, mallee hen, wood ducks, black ducks, pigeons, and bustards were practically unprotected by what he termed the ineffective Protect on Act, still the Act with marvellous inconsistency protected the king parrot, a bird which was more destructive to corn crops than even the white cockatoo, because it was far bolder and much more aggressive. Farmers looked upon the king parrot as their greatest and most persistent enemy, for not only did it work destruction in corn crops, but it devoured fruit and fruit blossoms, and in Burragorang alone wrought annually hundreds of pounds worth of destruction. Mr. M'Cooey announced that if the Birds Protection Act was not re-cast and revised at once, and the king parrot removed from the list of the scheduled birds and outlawed in the coast district at least, and sensible legitimate protection extended to really valuable birds such as are turkeys, pigeons, and ducks, he would oppose Mr. Kidd for his seat in Parliament at the next general election. The proceedings terminated with the customary votes of thanks.

John Kidd
(1838–1919)
Store-keeper, dairy farmer and politician.

BIRDS PROTECTION ACT.
The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: July 29, 1893
Page Number: 10

The Maitland Mercury & Hunter River General Advertiser (NSW)
Date: August 10, 1893
Page Number: 3

Mr. H. McCooey, a naturalist, has declared war against the Birds Protection Act, in so far as it shielded the king parrot-stated to be one of the most destructive of native birds and has announced his intention of opposing Mr. Kidd at the next election if the measure is not in the meantime recast. So, after all, the question before the country will not be the method of taxation, federation, or the payment of members, but simply and solely the utility of king parrots. Of such is the political history of the colony.

The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: August 12, 1893
Page Number: 3

Mr. M'Cooey has launched a dire threat against the devoted head of the gentleman who represents the district in which he delivered a speech the other evening—who happens to be the Postmaster-General. A member of Parliament is often called to account for strange things, and the possession of a seat in the House has often been known to hang on exceedingly weird possibilities. But it it is not often, fortunately for the even balance of the popular mind, that the representation of the people depends on the safety of the feathered creation, or that the seat of a responsible Minister of the Crown is at the mercy of a king parrot. It has been left to the perfervid ingenuity of Mr. M'Cooey to create a precedent in this matter. That gentleman has been for some years past persistently intruding and amusing the community with disclosures respecting the habits and failings of snakes, and spiders, and striolated lizards, and the like; and if he has now turned his attention to members of Parliament, it is perhaps no more than might have been expected. In a weak moment of indiscretion members of the Legislature interloped in Mr. M'Cooey's peculiar domain by passing a Birds Protection Act, and now Mr. M'Cooey retaliates by entering theirs, and with that object he has fulminated a threat that if the king parrot is not outlawed he will oppose Mr. Kidd at the next election. This is as it should be. The king parrot, Mr. M'Cooey proclaimed at The Oaks the other evening amid the ringing cheers of a bucolic audience, is the enemy of the farmer and his crops; and yet the desperado is let go free, while the bustard and the mallee hen, the brush turkey, pigeon, wood duck, and black
duck are left practically unprotected. If Mr. M'Cooey is as exact in his facts as the well-known attention he has given to these subjects and the applause of his hearers would imply, he has done well in calling attention to what certainly looks like a glaring oversight in a very well-intentioned Act.

The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: August 18, 1893
Page Number: 6-7

OAKS, THURSDAY.
     Considerable indignation is expressed by the farmers of Burragorang at the inclusion in the Birds Protection Act of that dreadful pest the king parrot, and farmers and fruitgrowers openly state that they will set the Act at defiance, and shoot the king parrot down on every occasion that offers. Burragorang this year produces 94,700 bushels of maize, and on one farm alone, which is owned by Messrs Hayes Brothers, £50 worth of maize was destroyed by king parrots. Mr. Henry James M'Cooey's action in bringing this matter prominently before the country is hightly commended. The opinion among farmers and fruit-growers is that the king parrot must be at once removed from the list of scheduled birds and outlawed.

ABORIGINES' PROTECTION BOARD.
The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: September 1, 1893
Page Number: 7

...
     A letter was received from the Principal Under Secretary referring to a copy of a letter from Mr. H. J. M'Cooey relative to an alleged case of hardship in connection with an aboriginal named Jack Reilley, at Burragorang.
     The secretary was instructed to report to the Chief Secretary that Reilley was a half-caste married to a European woman, and as a selector he had means of subsistence. The board therefore did not consider that his claim for assistance came within the conditions on which assistance was granted. The board further appended a minute to the effect that if they relieved the aboriginal as suggested by Mr. M'Cooey there would be numberless similar cases which the funds at disposal would be wholly inadequate to relieve.
...

The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: September 12, 1893
Page Number: 6

The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: September 22, 1893
Page Number: 6

CAMDEN, THURSDAY.
     Dr. Cullen has written to the editor of the local paper to say he is going to contest the new electorate of Camden. Mr. J. H. M'Cooey is also a candidate in the interest of democracy, and has already issued his address.

The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: October 13, 1893
Page Number: 3

The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: April 10, 1894
Page Number: 6

STRANGE ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE.
The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: December 18, 1894
Page Number: 5

BLAYNEY, MONDAY.
     At the police court to-day a man named M'Cooey, a naturalist, received a sentence of two months' imprisonment in Bathurst Gaol for attempted suicide. From evidence it appeared that he engaged a room at Tattersall's Hotel on Friday night, and drank a whole bottle of whisky. When taken in custody on Saturday he was very ill, and upon him was found a telegram addressed to the Sydney Morning Herald, intimating that he had committed suicide by the above means.

Bowral Free Press and Berrima District Intelligencer (NSW)
Date: September 26, 1894
Page Number: 3

MR. H.J. McCOOEY'S LECTURE.
Bowral Free Press and Berrima District Intelligencer (NSW)
Date: October 3, 1893
Page Number: 2

We consider that the committee of the School of Arts acted wisely in postponing until next Friday evening, the 5th inst. Mr. McCooey's lecture: "Australian Birds: their Wanton and Ruthless Destruction." As journalists we have been acquainted for many years with Mr. McCooey as a masterly exponent of the interesting truths of Australian natural science. Indisputable as his ability and success as a newspaper controversialist are, from the numerous press reports we have read of late, it would appear that as a platform lecturer he is even a greater success; therefore, we have no hesitation in predicting that his lecture on Friday evening next will be numerously attended and will prove a novel intellectual treat to a Bowral audience. Those who heard Mr. McCooey lecture at Mittagong, on Friday evening last speak of the lecturer as a master of ridicule, and his denunciation of the Hon. J. H. Carruthers, the author of the "Game Protection Act" and the professional bird-catcher, kept his audience, the chairman, and even the press reporters in roars of laughter. Mr. McCooey good-naturedly lectures in aid of the funds of the School of Arts, and as admission is by silver coin we confidently expect he will have a crowded house on Friday evening next.

The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW)
Date: September 22, 1893
Page Number: 6

CAMDEN, THURSDAY.
     Dr. Cullen has written to the editor of the local paper to say he is going to contest the new electorate of Camden. Mr. J. H. M'Cooey is also a candidate in the interest of democracy, and has already issued his address.

Wanton destruction of Birds.
Bowral Free Press and Berrima District Intelligencer (NSW)
Date: October 10, 1893
Page Number: 2

Mr. H. J. McCooey, of Burragorang, lectured in the School of Arts, Bowral, on Friday evening last, on the subject of "Australian Birds, their ruhless destruction." There was a large attendance for a lecture, quite half of the audience consisting of public school boys who had been invited by the secretary of the School of Arts, Mr. A. J. Turner. Mr. McCooey explained that he was suffering from an attack of influenza, and did not therefore feel quite up to his work. Alderman Mackenzie occupied the chair. Mr. McCooey's lecture lasted about an hour and a quarter.
     The speaker, whose interest in the subject extends over a period of many years, in advocating the caue of Australian birds, denounced in forcible language the Birds Protection Act of 1890 as being utterly worthless and inapplicable. Mr. McCooey, whilst admitting that the Act protected the emu to a certain extent, pointed out that, there was nothing to prevent egg-dealers from, carting away the eggs in thousands, and instanced the fact that in June, 1886, he met an egg-collector in the Coonamble district who had no less than 1000 fresh emu eggs in his possession, worth in England from 5s to 10s each. Mr. M'Cooey informed his hearers that there were 800 distinct species of Australian birds, which included not less than nine families absolutely unknown and unrepresented in any other part of the world, namely, the honey-eater, bower-bird, emu, cat-bird, lyre-bird, satin-bird, rifle-bird, &c., all absolutely unique in the domain of ornithology, and the most remarkable, most beautiful, and the most interesting in the world. He regretted that owing to its egregious defects, the Act was powerless to protect "our bright feathered friends from a speedy extermination." Before concluding, Mr. McCooey ridiculed that the laughing jackass, attacked snakes in organised bands, remarking that it only did so, in common with other birds, when its nest was in danger. He also expressed the opinion that on account of its destructive habits, the king parrot should be outlawed.
     The Chairman said they must agree with the lecturer as to the destruction of the birds in the way described being a reproach to us, and he hoped some means would be taken to remedy them. It was a revelation to him that jackasses did not attack snakes in groups, that being a very general impression.
     The lecturer, in answer to Mr. Sam Piggott, said he was quite sure the lyre bird only laid, one egg a year, and quoted eminent authorities in support.
     Mr. Pugh objected to the expression "Johnny Raw" as frequently used during the lecture, and said Mr. McCooey would gain the sympathy of his audience by omitting the expression.
     Mr. McCooey said if he had known that a "Johnny Raw" had been listening to him he would have been more careful.
     Mr. Pugh replied that Mr. McCooey had no doubt made a very funny remark, but he had proved himself very offensive.
     Mr. McCooey said he had no intention of being offensive. "Johnny Raw" was applied to a man who comes out here, stays a few days, and presimes to know more about us than we do ourselves. They sneer at everything Australian. They run away and write against us. He regarded Max O'Rell as a "Johnny Raw."
     In reply to Mr. Pugh, Mr. McCooey quoted Mr. A. J. Campbell, member of the Linnean Society, as his authority for saying that sparrows had been destroyed in the West of England, and were afterwards replaced at considerable cost.

Max O'Rell was the pen name of Léon Paul Blouet (March 3, 1847 – 24 May 1903), French author and journalist.

He was considered the bestselling foreign lecturer of his time. His techniques on the lecture platform were in inspired by Mark Twain, resulting in the nickname of the "French Mark Twain". In 1894, O'Rell did a world lecture tour which brought him to in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa over the period of almost two years.

CAN ANYONE TELL US ?
Bowral Free Press and Berrima District Intelligencer (NSW)
Date: October 10, 1893
Page Number: 2

...
IF Mr. Pugh is satisfied with Mr. McCooey's definition of what a "Johnny Raw" is?

How many dictionaries Mr. McCooey
has swallowed ?

And has Mr. T. H. Carruthers's attention ever been drawn to Mr. McCooey's denunciation of his Birds Protection Bill of 1893 ?
...

Evening News (Sydney, NSW)
Date: August 11, 1893
Page Number: 8

Wild Birds Protection Act.
Evening News (Sydney, NSW)
Date: August 22, 1893
Page Number: 6

The Act for the protection of native wild birds is causing much annoyance to the farmers of the coastal districts, and is likely to find plenty of employment for the police. Mr. H. J. M'Cooey informs us that the residents of Burragorang
and neighborhood intend to openly set the law at defiance as regards the king parrot, and kill all that they can. They say that the maize crop amounts to about 100,000 bushels, and that some 5000 bushels have been destroyed by the birds. Messrs. Hayes Brothers estimate their loss at £50. Mr. M'Cooey asserts that what the rabbits are to the squatter in the west, so are the parrots to the farmer, as they not only destroy corn and fruit, but also the blossom.