BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



41 



ucT ucT Economic Ornithology, ucr ucr 



THE PROTECTION OF OWLS 



Tlio Eat Plague in Suffolk, with its 

 attendant scare, lias drawn attention once 

 more to the necessity for forbidding the 

 destruction of Owls. Captam Tailb}^ as a 

 member of the Council of the Royal Society 

 for the Protection of Birds, attended the 

 meeting on the rat question held at the 

 Royal Institute of Public Health in London 

 on November 2nd, and strongly urged the 

 rigid enforcement of the law for the protec- 

 tion of Owls and Kestrels. Other speakers 

 and writers in the Press have endeavoured 

 to drive home the same common-sense 

 argument. The plea is of course no new 

 one. Investigations have proved again and 

 again that all four species of British Owl feed 

 on rodents which are the cause of heavy 

 loss every year to the agricultural com- 

 munity, and consequently to the country 

 at large. At the time of the great Vole 

 Plague in Scotland, in 1892, the Secretary of 

 the Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry 

 (Mr. Harting) rei)orted on suggested 

 remedies : 



" Finally, there is a plan which most people seem 

 very unwilling to try, namely, to abstain from 

 killing the natvu-al enemies of the rat — weasels, 

 stoats, polecats. Kestrels, Owls and Buzzards." 



Since 1892 the value of the Owl has, it is 

 true, been outwardly and as it were conven- 

 tionally recognized. In a large majority of 

 English counties all species of ths bird are 

 protected the year through by County Bu-d 

 Protection Orders, as is sliown by the map 

 prefacing the present number of Bird Notes 

 AND News. This means that no person 

 whatsoever may lawfully kill or take an Owl 

 at any time or season under any excuse or 

 pretence whatever. In three counties the 

 protection is partial as regards species, but is 

 given fully to the Bam or White Owl. In 



all other counties and indeed throughout the 

 United Kingdom, the killing of Owls is 

 absolutely ilbgal during the Close Time. 



In spite of this legal protection, the des- 

 truction of Owls and of every other bird-of- 

 prey goes on. Tlie prejudice or obsession of 

 the game-keeper has defied the teaching of 

 every naturalist from Waterton onwards ; and 

 both the keeper and his master are disposed to 

 consider that the preservation of game places 

 them above the law of the land, even though 

 in their stupidity they are killing the best 

 friends of both farmer and game-preserver, 



A writer in the Observer (November 13th 

 1910) says : 



" One can never imderstand the unreasoning 

 hostility of many coiuitry folk, and especiallj' of 

 gamekeepers, to the Owl. Only a few daj's ago 

 I was shooting in an Essex wood, and the keeper 

 pointed with pride to his well stocked vermin larders 

 — cats, stoats, weasels, hedgehogs, Jays, Magpies, 

 Jackdaws, Crows, rats. ' But why these OwLs — five 

 in number — what harm do they do you or your 

 game ? ' Needless to say, no satisfactory reply 

 was forthcoming." 



The rei)ly is usually given promptly enough — 



the birds •' disturb " the Pheasants, or have 



been " seen " to take chicks ; the fact 



probably being that rats and mice haunt the 



coop and rick, and Owls come after the rats 



and mice. Even if they took an occasional 



Pheasant chick, the country could better 



spare the Pheasants than the Owls. 



The chairman of the Hadham (Herts.) 



Rural District Council is reported to have 



said at a meeting of that body on December 



1st : " Until we get rid of gamekeepers who 



upset the balance of Nature by shooting foxes, 



stoats, \\ easels, Jays, Magpies, and Hawks, 



we shall never get rid of the enormous 



number of rats in rural districts." But 



what about Owls ? Hertfordshire is tlie only 



Home County in which these birds are not 



fully protected. 



