CARNIVORA 221 



campaign are too intensive, extensive, indiscriminate, more or less 

 harmful, and based upon too slight investigation of the facts and of 

 local conditions. Many believe also that it is unwise to wholly extermi- 

 nate any of the species. A year or two ago a committee was appointed 

 by the American Society of Mammalogists to ascertain the facts con- 

 cerning the Biological Survey's campaign of poisoning and to study 

 the problems involved, in cooperation with the Survey and various 

 organizations and institutions. It is quite probable that the recent 

 criticisms and discussion may result in more thorough investigation 

 of the whole subject, with some improvement in the methods used 

 and a better understanding all around. 9 



The following table is based chiefly upon examinations of coyote 

 stomachs by hunters, trappers and poisoners in the employment of 

 the U. S. Biological Survey. Though an attempt is made to distinguish 

 between carrion and the flesh of freshly-killed animals, this cannot be 

 done with any degree of accuracy, especially in cold weather, when 

 meat keeps without spoiling for a long time. Consequently, the coyote 

 being to a considerable extent a carrion-eater, no one knows what 

 proportion of the meat found in the stomachs is from animals killed 

 by the coyotes themselves. Furthermore, one dead horse, sheep or cow, 

 killed by a mountain lion, may conceivably furnish the meat found in 

 a dozen coyote stomachs. Hence, no one can tell how many carcasses 

 were fed upon by the coyotes whose stomachs were examined. This 

 illustrates the difficulty of such investigations. The table is condensed 

 from W. C. Henderson's defense of the Biological Survey poisoning 

 campaign. 10 



"Consult: Howell, At the cross roads, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 377-389, 1930; The 

 poison brigade of the Biological Survey, Outdoor Life, LXVI, 30-33, 1930; The 

 borgias of 1930, Outdoor Life, pp. 17, 85-87, Oct., 1930. Hall, Predatory mammal 

 destruction, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 362-372, 1930. Dixon, Furbearers caught in traps 

 set for predatory animals, Journ. Mammalogy, xi, 373-377, 1930. Tooker, Sidelights 

 on the poison brigade in Arizona, Outdoor Life, p. 37, Oct., 1930. Quinn, Facts about 

 the poison brigade, Outdoor Life, pp. 26-27, 77-82, Nov., 1930. Petit, Howell, Huey, 

 Moon and Walker, Discussion, pro and con, of the poisoning campaign, Outdoor 

 Life, pp. 36-37, Nov., 1930. Natural History, xxx, 662-663, 1930. Avery, Bounties 

 or government trappers, Field and Stream, p. 8, Dec., 1930. Henderson (W.C.), 

 The other side of the poison case, Outdoor Life, pp. 22-23, 65-67, Dec., 1930; a 

 strong defense of the activities of the Biological Survey by its Assistant Chief. 

 Linsdale, Further facts concerning losses to wild life through pest control in 

 California, The Condor, xxxiv, 121-135, 193^; summaries of reports from 285 

 observers on birds and mammals other than squirrels and coyotes killed by pest 

 control. Kellogg, The California ground squirrel problem, California Dept. Agric. 

 Special Pub. No. 109, 1931 ; a well-considered reply to criticisms of pest control 

 operations in California. 



"Henderson, W. C., The other side of the poison campaign, Outdoor Life, 

 Dec., 1930, pp. 22-23, 65-67. 



