10 



Bird Notes and News 



THE DESTRUCTION OF ROOKS. 



A VERY large number of complaints have 

 reached the Society from landowners and 

 occupiers who have received letters from 

 local War Agricultural Committees, ordering 

 the destruction of the Rooks on their land, 

 and threatening, if this was not done 

 forth^dth, to enter upon the premises 

 and carry out the slaughter. The following 

 letter was accordingly addressed by the 

 Secretary of the Society to Sir Daniel Hall, 

 K.C.B., Permanent Secretary of the Board of 

 Agriculture, on May 8th : 



" As this Society has niimerous inquiries, and 

 many complaints, from all over the country with 

 regard to the destruction of Rooks, we shall be 

 greatly obliged for definite information as to : — 



( 1 ) Whether a local War Agricultural Committee 

 — county, town or village — has absolute right to 

 demand the destruction of any rookery, and of 

 Rooks perched in trees and feeding on land where 

 there is no rookery, on any person's property ; 

 and, failing consent, absolute right to trespass 

 upon such premises and shoot, or shoot at, all 

 Rooks thereon. 



(2) Whether the right of the local body is 

 arbitrary, requiring no evidence as to a super- 

 abundance of Rooks, no evidence as to harm done 

 by them in the district, and no opinion from a 

 properly qualified person : ha\'ing regard to the 

 fact that this temporary local body may have no 

 knowledge whatever of the economic position of 

 any bird, or of economic ornithology and entomo- 

 logy in general. 



(3) Whether, this being so, there is no right of 

 appeal to some higlier authority which will obtain 

 proper evidence. 



(4) Whether it is the desire of the Board of 

 Agriculture that Rooks should be exterminated as 

 far as possible, although (a) the Royal Commission 

 on Wheat Supphes has recently stated (April 23rd) 

 that ' a certain number of Rooks are beneficial ' ; 

 (b) Professor Newstead in his report on ' The 

 Food of some British Birds ' pubHshed as a Supple- 

 ment to the Journal of the Board, is of opinion 

 that the Rook is, on the whole, ' decidedly bene- 

 ficial ' ; and (c) Messrs. A, C. Cole and A. D. 

 Tmms, in reporting for the Board on the Antler- 

 moth caterpillar plague (August, 1917), stated that 

 a.«i regards the control of this caterpillar, the value 

 that accrues from the presence of Rooks and 

 Starlings cannot be over-estimated." 



The following reply, dated May 22nd, 

 has been received from the Board : 



■' 1 am directed to refer to your letter of the 8th 

 instant, and as to (1), (2) and (3) I am to enclose 

 herewith for your information a copy of the 

 Rookeries Order, 1917, together with the relative 

 circular letter, and to say that the Board are 

 confident that the County Agricultural Executive 

 Committees will exercise their discretionary 



powers judiciously. The Board will, however, be 

 prepared to consider any specific cases brought to 

 their notice of the alleged improper use of the 

 powers conferred on the Committees by the Order. 

 As to (4) I may observe that the Board are satisfied 

 that an imdue number of Rooks do injury to 

 crops, but they have nowhere suggested total 

 extermination." 



The Order merely states that if a War 

 Agricultural Executive Committee " are 

 satisfied that the Rooks in any rookery are 

 so numerous that they cause or are likely to 

 cause injury to crops, the Committee may 

 take such action as in their opinion* may be 

 necessary with a view to diminishing the 

 numbers of such Rooks," etc. The issue of 

 these mandates was not confined to County 

 Committees ; and the Board's confidence in 

 the " opinion " of local bodies possessing no 

 qualification for deciding on such a question, 

 may not be shared by persons who have 

 suffered under the demands and threats 

 of district and village as well as county 

 committees " to destroy the Rooks on the 

 land occupied by you." Even the right of 

 appeal (now first made known) to the Board 

 of Agriculture itself would be more satis- 

 factory if there were any sign that the 

 Board possesses that expert knowledge of 

 bird-life which has been so painfuily absent 

 from its sayings and doings on the subject 

 since it started the anti-bird crusade for 

 which field, allotment, and garden are 

 paying to-day. 



CoincidentaUy with the attack on Rooks, 

 the Food Production Department published 

 the information that " reports from several 

 counties indicate that a considerable amount 

 of damage is being done to com crops by 

 wire worms and leather- jackets." Heavy 

 rolling is recommended and also double 

 harrowing, since " harrowing exposes leather- 

 jackets to the attacks of Rooks, Starhngs, 

 and Plovers, which devour the grubs 

 greedily." Sic ! Yet under cover of the 

 vague and obvious truisms : "an undue 

 number of Rooks do injury," " an excessive 

 number would not seem to be desirable," 

 the Board continued to incite to a general 

 slaughter of the birds by its permission to 

 local officials to invade private property 

 and shoot all Rooks or " kill and diminish " 

 them " in any other manner." In the latest 



* The italics are ours. 



