236 mJSMtam op A£RictfLTttR£ 



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

 in a year and a half. 



" Hence, in addition to the $90,000 actually expended 

 by the State in destroying 128^571 of its benefactors^ 

 it has incurred a loss to its agricultural interests of at 

 least $3,857,130, or a total loss of $3,947,130 in a year 

 and a half, which is at the rate of $2,631,420 per annum. 

 In other words, the State has thrown away $2,105 for 

 every dollar saved! And even this does not represent 

 fairly the full loss, for the slaughter of such a vast 

 number of predaceous birds and mammals is almost 

 certain to be followed by a correspondingly enormous 

 increase in the numbers of mice and insects formerly 

 held in check by them, and it will take many years to 

 restore the balance thus blindly destroyed through 

 ignorance of the economic relations of oar common 

 birds and mammals."* 



A statement such as this from so reliable an authority 

 as Dr. Merriam should go far towards convincing us 

 of the folly of destroying all kinds of hawks and owls. 



Questions 



1. What is meant by birds of prey? 2. Name the two 

 commonest kinds of birds of prey. 3. Can you explain why 

 such a strong prejudice exists against all hawks and owls 

 alike? 4. How do most hawks and owls benefit farmers? 



5. About how many kinds of hawks are there in the United 

 States that live exclusively on the flesh of other birds? 



6. Name the two commonly found in this country that live 

 on the flesh of other birds. 7. Give an account of the work- 

 ing of the "Scalp Act" in Pennsylvania. 



♦Report of Conn. Board of Agr., 1899, p. 94. 



