22 



Bird Notes and News 



years ago, and now fast extending and increasing 

 all over the country. 



Dr. Collinge has examined the contents of 

 194 birds and 16 nestlings, as well as 267 

 pellets or " castings." His investigations have 

 extended over three years, and his birds came 

 from nineteen counties, taken during every 

 month of the year except September. He 

 concludes that the amount of game taken is 

 inconsiderable and has been greatly exaggerated 

 and that the main food consists of insects, 

 injurious and netltral, voles and mice. The 

 month of June only gave traces of game birds, 

 while the most wild birds (including Starlings, 

 Blackbirds, Missel Thrushes, young Wood 

 Pigeons, and House-Sparrows) were seemingly 

 taken in March and January. Of the mammals 

 killed the commonest was the long-tailed field 

 mouse. Respecting the value of the Little 

 Owl to farmers, Dr. Collinge is not in any doubt. 

 He states that after sixteen years' experience 

 he knows of no other bird except the Lapwing 

 or Peewit, which destroys so large a percentage 

 of click beetles and wireworms. 



Upon this report " Cheviot " comments in 

 the Field (May 15th, 1922) :— 



This is all very well, and if I were a working 

 farmer with no other interest in the countryside 

 except the welfare of my crops, no doubt I should 

 accept Dr. CoUinge's report as it stands and encourage 

 the presence of Little Owls in the trees about my 

 farm. But there are other people besides farmers 

 who have their views as regards the Little Owl, and 

 mine, at all events, have not been changed by Dr. 

 CoUinge's report. I have no real grievance against 

 him as regards young pheasants and partridges, 

 though most people who have watched pheasants 

 know that he can be a sinner on the rearing field, 

 and I had an instance myself last year of young 

 chickens carried off one by one from the coop until 

 the farmer lay in wait with a gun and shot the pair 

 of Little Owls which were taking them. My grievance 

 against the Little Owl is not that of a game preserver, 

 but of a naturalist. In the first place he is not a native, 

 but a foreigner, and I object to our English fauna 

 being, so to speak, adulterated by foreign species. 

 It would give me no pleasure to see an American Robin 

 in Sussex, and I dislike the American grey squirrels, 

 which have spread from the London parks into our 

 English woods, for the same reason as I dislike the 

 Little Owl. But, in the second place, too, I dislike 

 the Little Owl for the reason that he kills English 

 singing birds. A Dutchman who kills Blackbirds 

 and Missel Thrushes is a detestable presence in the 

 countryside, and Blackbirds and Thrushes are not the 

 only singing birds on his list. So that, so far as I am 

 concerned, the situation is " as you were." So long 

 as I hear him yelping and mewing from the ivy, and 

 find the remains of Blackbirds and Hedge-Sparrows 

 along the hedges where he hawks, so long will he 

 remain a fit subject for discussion in columns devoted 

 to shooting. 



On the other hand, " G. B." writes to the 

 Editor of Bied Notes and News from 

 Hampshire : — J 



" Now that Dr. W. E. Collinge has definitely 1 

 come to the conclusion that the Little Owl 

 is not the danger to game that some people 

 tried to make him out to be, perhaps a few lines 

 from one who has studied this bird both in 

 the Near East and at home may be of interest 

 to your readers. The writer has had continual 

 opportunities of observing this bird both in 

 the wild state and in confinement. 



" This first point is as regards his destruction 

 of young Pheasants and Partridges. The Little 

 Owl does undoubtedly, but in isolated cases, 

 take young birds of these species, as against 

 that so do other birds (even Owls) against 

 whom this same hue and cry is not raised. 

 Some birds start to hunt game in the same 

 way that some — and only some — tigers become 

 man-eaters. 



" An unfair warfare has been brought against 

 the Little Owl, presumably by landowners 

 who are influenced by the reports of their 

 gamekeepers. In my opinion all keepers 

 should be made to render their masters a 

 detailed account of their ' larder,' and then, 

 presuming the owner has any interest in natural 

 history and the protection of birds, he can check 

 destruction of harmless birds, which in most 

 cases also benefit the farmers. The point is 

 this, a great many keepers are not naturalists, 

 and in addition are only too glad to make an 

 excuse, however frail, as to the loss of birds 

 and cloak their own laziness or incompetence. 

 The suggestion that the Little Owl will kill 

 fuUy-grown Pheasants and Partridges is absurd, 

 both from their diminutive size and the great 

 disparity in pace of flight. And now as regards 

 their food ; from my observation, 1, in the 

 wild state ; 2, in captivity. 



"1. In the wild state their staple diet is 

 beetles, cockroaches, grubs, frogs and small 

 birds such as Greenfinches and, the largest, 

 say. Blackbirds. 



"2. In captivity the Little Owl is easily 

 tamed and makes a charming pet. The writer 

 obtained a pair of them only a few weeks old 

 on Salisbury Plain in 1921. They were placed 

 in a store tenant for the first night and the old 

 birds quickly located their offspring and were 

 hanging about all night trying to get them away. 

 They became tame almost at once, and spent 

 their time sitting on the back of a wooden chair. 

 When they learned to fly they used to wander 

 about, but never made any attempt to go far 



