:i20 



will iicNcr (l(t, hccniisc ]K>]Mil;ir i^iHuaiicc of birds, ((!- 

 jictlui' wiili iium's yrtt'd foi* peciiiiiMrv ^ain, would 

 bi'inj^ jiboul the t-xterminalioii of great iiuiiib(;rs of 

 beneficial soug- and other birds which would be called 

 "English Spairows.'*' 



HAS AGRICULTURE PROFITED? 



Willi a view of "beuefiting agriculture" and ju'olecl- 

 ing i»aulti7 and game in Pennsylvania bonuty acts 

 have been enacted which alloAved hunters to slay with 

 indisci'iniinate liand many of the most useful birds and 

 mammals. This legislation, brought about by popular 

 prejudice and a deplorable ignorance of the habits of 

 animals placed under ban, has cost thousands and 

 thousands of dollars in cash paid out of the county 

 funds. While it is true the original money outlay was 

 great (indeed, it proved a senous burden to taxpayers 

 in some sections of the Commonwealth) the loss or 

 fruit of such folly will be much more from a money 

 standpoint to our faimers than the large sums first 

 expended. Even dui'ing the past three or four years, 

 as an echo of the odious scalp act of 1885, we hear, 

 from different sections of this State, of the great dam- 

 age done by Meadow ^fice, Rats and Rabbits. Strange 

 is it not that many ])eo']>le who now complain of ro- 

 dents and insects doing so much harm to their pi'Oi)erty. 

 were^ and are even yet, firm believers in ]taying l)oun- 

 ties? 



When a man goes to the «hop or market place to 

 make a purchase, it is a common saying, "He pays his 

 money and makes his choice:" so it is with the bounty 

 question. Continue to ])ay ])remiums foa- beneficial 

 birds of l>rey and mammals which live largely on del 

 rimental forms of animal life, and we will have more 



