EASTERN CROW 243 



accustomed to be present. Great numbers of cutworms were found 

 before they dug into shelter for the day. Mr. Horsfall thereupon decided 

 to welcome his much-maligned friends and he had reason to regret his 

 past hasty judgment. He placed ears of corn on the ground and left 

 the fields to the crows. They recognized the change of attitude, returned 

 in numbers, cleared the field of cutworms, and rewarded the owner by 

 giving him a full yield. Since this experience Mr. Horsfall has been 

 a staunch friend of the crow. 



Forbush (1927) relates a similar experience of Gardner Hammond, 

 of Marthas Vineyard, Mass. "Mr. Hammond owned great pastures 

 where many sheep grazed. He told me once that he had offered a 

 bounty of fifty cents each for Crows, as the birds had already killed 

 about 200 of his newly born lambs, and that the native hunters under 

 the stimulus of this bounty had killed nearly all the crows about the 

 Squibnocket region. Notwithstanding my objection he continued to 

 offer the bounty, although he expressed some fear that the expense would 

 leave him bankrupt. About three years later he hailed me one day to 

 see if I could determine what had destroyed the grass in his pastures. 

 The grass was dead, having been cut at the roots by white grubs which 

 had increased so rapidly after the destruction of the crows that they 

 had already ruined a large part of the pastures. The offer of a bounty 

 was withdrawn and the pastures gradually recovered." 



Charles P. Shoffner, associate editor of the Farm Journal of Phila- 

 delphia, sent a questionnaire regarding the economic status of the crow 

 to the readers of the journal who are scattered all over the agricultural 

 districts of the United States. The results of this questionnaire are 

 interesting, since they present a cross section of public opinion of a group 

 of citizens most vitally concerned in the problem. Some of the replies 

 were copied directly from the reports of the Department of Agriculture 

 or other sources, but 9,731 were selected as being apparently based on 

 personal observation or opinion. Among these 1,801 were in favor of 

 the crow and 7,829 against him. Of the latter, 7,573 replies charged 

 damage to crops, 6,937 to poultry, 4,112 to young pigs, sheep, rabbits, 

 etc., 6,796 to song birds, and 6,493 to game birds. As Mr. Shoffner 

 truly says, due weight must be given to the fact that reports were 

 solicited by mail and it would be natural for farmers who had suffered 

 serious damage to write their disapproval, while those who had suffered 

 little or no loss would not trouble to do so. The interesting point is 

 that so many persons defended the crow. 



The conclusions of the Journal were: 



