IO SEVENTH RETORT OF THE FOREST, FISH AND CAME COMMISSION. 



sist of caterpillars, the stomach of a single individual containing the remains of 217 

 web-worms well known to be one of the most destructive forms of insect life to 

 trees. These are only two illustrations, among the hundreds which might be cited, 

 of the service rendered by the birds to our forest. 



Birds are of value to the forest, however, not only as the destroyers of their 

 insect foes, but the birds with the squirrels, help plant the forest by distributing 

 seeds. The seeds which are encased in a pulp} - covering, those of the berry or fruit- 

 bearing trees, are voided unharmed by the birds often at a point far distant from 

 the parent tree, the bird thus acting as their distributor. Acorns, beech-nuts, and 

 chestnuts are frequently dropped or hidden by birds, and the seeds of pines are 

 released and scattered by the birds that seek them in their cones. In short, we 

 believe it can be clearly demonstrated that if we should lose our birds we should 

 also lose our forests. 



The Bird and the Fruit-grower. 



In considering the relations of birds to the fruit-grower we encounter an artificial 

 set of conditions which renders an attempt to determine the birds' position exceed- 

 ingly difficult. In growing certain fruits, for example pears and apples, a natural 

 forest environment is closely approximated, the trees furnishing a home for the 

 birds which are not attracted by their fruit but by the insects that prey upon them. 

 With smaller fruits (<-. g., berries), however, exactly the reverse occurs, that is, they 

 furnish food but no shelter for the birds which, during the periods of fruitage, 

 tempted by an abundant food supply, abandon their usual fare and may prove 

 positively harmful. Catbirds and Robins in the cherry trees and strawberry beds, 

 and Orioles in the vineyards undeniably cause considerable loss to the fruit-grower. 



There are two sides to this question, however, and no species of birds should be 

 condemned for the depredations of one month until we known its value during the 

 remaining eleven. The bird, we repeat, is the property of the State, not of the indi- 

 vidual. The State seeks to secure the greatest good for the greatest number of its 

 citizens, and if it can be shown that a Robin or Catbird, in spite of its fruit-eating 

 proclivities, is, on the whole, far more valuable than harmful, then assuredly he 

 should not be sacrificed. 



It does not necessarily follow that the fruit-growers' complaints are to be ignored. 

 Their cause should be thoroughly investigated by qualified experts under the super- 

 vision of the Forest, Fish and Game Commission in order that no hasty or undesir- 

 able measures may be taken. 



In the spring of 1900 the peach trees of the Hudson Valley were visited by large 



