To the recent researches of the economic ornithologist we must also turn for 

 exact information concerning the food of hawks and owls. No birds have 

 been more maligned and misunderstood than these birds of prey. The misdeeds 

 of two or three species have brought all the members of their family into 

 disrepute. Because one hawk has been seen to catch a chicken all hawks are 

 "chicken hawks," and, consequently, to be killed whenever opportunity offers. 

 Not only is no protection afforded these birds by law, but in some states a 

 bounty has been given for their destruction. Indeed, a law of this nature was 

 passed by the Massachusetts Legislature, and the history of the so-called "Scalp 

 Act" in Pennsylvania furnishes a convincing illustration of the direct pecuniary 

 loss which may follow ignorance of the economical value of birds. Quoting 

 from the report for 1886 by Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Chief of the Biological Survey 

 of the Department of Agriculture : "On the 23d of June, 1885, the Legislature 

 of Pennsylvania passed an act known as the 'scalp act,' ostensibly 'for the benefit 

 of agriculture,' which provides a bounty of fifty cents each on hawks, owls, 

 weasels and minks killed within the limits of the state, and a fee of twenty cents 

 to the notary or justice taking the affidavit. 



"By virtue of this act about $90,000 has been paid in bounties during the 

 year and a half that has elapsed since the law went into effect. This represents 

 the destruction of at least 128,571 of the above-mentioned animals, most of which 

 were hawks and owls. 



"Granting that 5,000 chickens are killed annually in Pennsylvania by hawks 

 and owls, and that they are worth twenty-five cents each (a liberal estimate in 

 view of the fact that a large portion of them are killed when very young), the 

 total loss would be $1,250, and the poultry killed in a year and a half would be 

 worth $1,875. Hence it appears that during the past eighteen months the State 

 of Pennsylvania has expended $90,000 to save its farmers a loss of $1,875. But 

 this estimate by no means represents the actual loss to the farmer and the tax- 

 payer of the state. It is within bounds to say that in the course of a year every 

 hawk and owl destroys at least a thousand mice or their equivalent in insects, and 

 that each mouse or its equivalent so destroyed would cause the farmer a loss of 

 two cents per annum. Therefore, omitting all reference to the enormous increase 

 in the numbers of these noxious animals when nature's means of holding them in 

 check has been removed, the lowest possible estimate of the value to the farmer 

 of each hawk, owl, and weasel would be $20 a year, or $30 in a year and a half. 



"Hence, in addition to the $90,000 actually expended by the state in destroy- 

 ing 128,571 of its benefactors, it has incurred a loss to its agricultural interests 

 of at least $3,857,130, or a total loss of $3,947,130 in a year and a half, which is 

 at the rate of $2,631,420 per annum. In other words, the state has thrown away 

 $2,105 for every dollar saved! And even this does not represent fairly the full 

 loss, for the slaughter of such a vast number of predaceous birds and mammals 



227 



