ECONOMIC ORNITHOLOGY. Y 



Indies, and the rabbit in Australia, clearly show that our attempts to 

 improve upon Nature must be directed, not by haphazard methods, 

 but by knowledge gained through a careful study of Nature's laws. 



Few persons realize the value of birds to man. They are the 

 natural check upon the increase of insect life. Consider the incal- 

 culable number of insects destroyed by the birds which pass the 

 greater part of each day hunting through our lawns, orchards, fields, 

 and woods for the pests that destroy vegetation. Of almost equal im- 

 portance are the birds of prey whose food consists largely of the small 

 rodents which are among the farmer's worst enemies. Indeed, it is 

 not too much to say that without birds the earth would not long be 

 habitable. 



As yet we are on the threshold of an exact knowledge of the value 

 of birds to man; but let us cite one easily demonstrable case where 

 ignorance of birds' habits resulted in direct pecuniary loss. Quoting 

 from the report for 1886 of Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Ornithologist and 

 Mammalogist of the United States Department of Agriculture: "On 

 the 23d of June, 1885, the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act 

 known as the 'scalp act,' ostensibly ' for the benefit of agriculture,' 

 which provides a bounty of fifty cents each on hawks, owls, weasels, 

 and minks killed within the limits of the State, and a fee of twenty 

 cents to the notary or justice taking the afiidavit. 



" By virtue of this act about ^^90,000 has been paid in bounties 

 during the year and a half that has elapsed since the law went into 

 effect. This represents the destruction of at least 128,571 of the 

 above-mentioned animals, most of which were hawks and owls. 



" Granting that 5,000 chickens are killed annually in Pennsylvania 

 by hawks and owls, and that they are worth twenty-five cents each (a 

 liberal estimate in view of the fact that a large proportion of them are 

 killed when very young), the total loss would be 1.250, and the poultry 

 killed in a year and a half would be worth $1,875. Hence it appears 

 that during the past eighteen months the State of Pennsylvania has 

 '■•xpended .$90,000 to save its farmers a loss of $1,875. But this esti- 

 mate by no means represents the actual loss to the farmer and the tax- 

 payer of the State. It is within bounds to say that in the course of a 

 year every hawk and owl destroys at least a thousand mice or their 

 equivalent in insects, and that each mouse or its equivalent so de- 

 stroyed would cause the farmer a loss of two cents per annum. There- 

 fore, omitting all reference to the enormous increase in the numbers 

 of these noxious animals when Nature's means of holding them in 

 check has been removed, the lowest possible estimate of the value to 

 the farmer of each hawk, owl, and weasel would be $20 a year, or $30 

 in a vear and a half. 



