1914] Bryant: Economic Status of the Western Meadowlark 465 



It will be seen from this table that there is a considerable 

 difference of opinion as to whether the western meadowlark 

 damages crops. The astonishing fact is that many grain growers 

 in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys report that western 

 meadowlarks do not injure their crops, or that the injury is 

 negligible. 



The kinds of crops reported as being damaged ranged from 

 garden truck, melons and grapes to corn and sprouting grain. 

 Damage to garden truck, melons and grapes was reported by 

 three or fewer men. Damage to oats was reported by over 

 twenty, barley by less than this number, and wheat by less than 

 ten. Most of the reports did not designate the kind of grain, 

 simply stating that meadowlarks damaged sprouting grain. An- 

 swers as to the extent of damage varied from "none" to "total 

 crop." The number of meadowlarks seen was reported as being 

 from two or three up into the thousands. The answers to this 

 question cannot be considered reliable. A large majority of those 

 who considered the meadowlark a nuisance answered the question 

 whether the meadowlark was prized as a song bird in the nega- 

 tive, whereas those answering the former question in the negative 

 almost unanimously answered the latter in the affirmative. 



Reports of damage were most numerous from the Sacramento 

 and San Joaquin valleys. This seems natural, for grain is the 

 crop most widely grown in this section and meadowlarks are 

 most numerous. Southern California is most unanimous in its 

 verdict of "not guilty." Two reasons can be made to account 

 for this: the comparatively small amount of grain raised and 

 the comparatively small number of meadowlarks. Few reports 

 of damage have come from the northern coast region, in spite 

 of the fact that meadowlarks are very numerous in this section. 



The majority of those reporting have not had crops damaged 

 by meadowlarks and do not consider the bird a nuisance. It does 

 not seem reasonable to believe that all of these men based their 

 report on sentiment. Evidence seems to point rather to the fact 

 that many of those complaining of damage have based their judg- 

 ment on circumstantial evidence and have somewhat exaggerated 

 the real damage done. 



