1 68 Cincimiati Society of Natural History. 



attacks the article, the thing most necessary to tlie ranchman for 

 the preservation of his own Hfe and property. 



Thus we see the legal taking of human life deliberately in 

 civilized communities is founded upon a reason, and upon a de- 

 liberate and thoughtful one. 



The taking of life of animals (other than man) ought to be 

 founded upon good and sufficient reasons. These reasons may be 

 grouped under one great division, viz.: 



The preservation of man himself. 



This includes— first, the destruction of those- animals which 

 either directly destroy the man himself or destroy his food or other 

 things essential to his life and welfare ; and secondly, the taking of 

 the life of animals useful to him for food or clothing. As to wild 

 animals of the cat tribe, from the lion and tiger down to the wild- 

 cat, the various species of wolves, the bears and many other species 

 of quadrupeds, many of the species of snakes, the crocodile, the 

 alligator, the man-eating shark — about all these and others of like 

 ferocity the question of the right to take their lives can not arise. 

 The right is too clear for question. Under this category none of 

 our birds can fairly be classed, it being a remarkably rare instance 

 in which any bird, even though of the hawk kind, or the owl kind, 

 or the eagle, attacks man. 



Hence the right to take the life of our birds can not be based 

 upon the reason that they attack man or that the man needs to de- 

 stroy them because they will directly attack him. 



Let us look at some of the animals in the light of the proposi- 

 tion that the life of those animals which destroy the food of man, 

 or other things essential to his life and welfare, should be destroyed. 

 The weasel and fox and like animals which destroy our domestic 

 poultry, and thus waste, diminish and destroy our food supply, 

 certainly belong to this class. 



How is it as to birds? First, as to the hawks and owls. Not 

 long ago the great State of Ohio, following in the train of some of 

 her sister States, enacted stringent laws for the destruction of 

 hawks, offering a premium for the head of each hawk, delivered, 

 of fifty cents. This bountiful reward attracted great attention, as 

 it amounted to paying more for a rapacious bird than the pot- 

 hunter or country lad could get by sending a duck or quail to . 

 market. Immense numbers of hawks were destroyed. Some 

 were shot and some were trapped. A couple of hunters in New 

 Hampshire secured for bounties a fabulous number of hawks. The 



