the crow family. 193 



Some years ago (1S96) Dr. Cobb wrote a paper, published in the Agricultural Gazette, New 

 South Wales, entitled " The Common Crow." the information it contained being based upon the ob- 

 servations he made during a short residence in the Wagga district. 



He. however, generalised upon the American species of crows, quoting copiously from United 

 Stales Bulletins and Reports upon their life history and food habits, and with very little actual 

 knowledge of the different conditions of crow life in the pastoral and fanning districts of Australia. 

 His arguments are not convincing ; and even while advocating the economic value of the crows, and 

 the reason for their protection, he concluded his article with a number of suggestions for destroying 

 or driving them away. 



Early in the following year, the late Mr. William Farrar, our well-known wheat investigator, 

 at that time farming in the Queanbeyan district, wrote a criticism of l>r. Cobb's paper, which appeared 

 in the same journal, under the title " The Too Common Crow." lie treated them from the farmer's 

 point of view ; they were to him an unmitigated pest ; he could say nothing in favour of the Common 

 Crow . 



As a body the pastoralists have waged a war of attempted extinction against the crows on the 

 sheep lands of Australia ; and the fact cannot be disputed that, taken as a class, the crows are re- 

 sponsible for the destruction of manj sicfi sheep and weak lambs, particularly in a bad season. Sheep 

 and lambs, even if only slightly wounded by the stout beak of the crow, seldom recover, but die 

 apparently from blood poisoning, the tilth upon the beak of the carrion-feeding bird producing organisms 

 rendering the slightest wound septic. The fact that in many cases the ewes and lambs that die from 

 the interested attentions of the crows would never get upon their feet again, does not alter the view- 

 point of the sheepowner, and the crows are debited with many murders that they have not committed. 



Many Pastures Protection Boards have a fund allotted to pay for crows' heads ; and large sums 

 are disembursed annually for crows' scalps. Many disputes arise among the members of these Boards 

 when trying to fix a uniform rate of payment all over the country. In some districts, on the other hand, 

 where the landowners have more regard for the good work that crows can do, they refuse to sanction 

 a crow- bonus. 3 



From the many letters on the crow question that appear in the pastoral and country papers, it 

 can be seen that quite a number of the correspondents are in favour of abandoning the destruction of 

 crows ; while many other lukewarm friends admit that the crows are not all bad. 



Allowing for the damage they do in attacking sick sheep and helpless lambs, the value of the crows 

 to the men on the land, under natural conditions, is a very big set-off to be considered. The ordinary 

 food of the crows is insects ; you have only to watch a number hunting over the paddocks or grass 

 lands to realise what a number of grass-feeding insects it must take to daily feed such a large bird as 

 a crow. When a caterpillar or grasshopper plague appears, and crows are about, they soon gather 

 upon the infested areas and do yeoman service in reducing these and other insect pests. 



It is not only, however, as a useful insectivorous bird that the crow should be considered, but as 

 an eater of dead animal matter ; for, as a scavenger the crow stands alone. Where the stockowner 

 skins and opens out all the animals that die on his run, and crows are plentiful, they will soon pick 

 the skeletons clean and prevent the fly maggots, even if deposited on the carcase, from developing 

 to adult flies. This is no small thing to be considered in their favour, and means a great saving in burn- 

 ing or destroying carcases, where crows are active. Under normal conditions, the many smaller eagles 

 and hawks, with the crows, kept the bush lands of Australia clean and sweet. The small eagles and 

 hawks have vanished in all the settled districts through the use of poisoned baits for wild dogs and 

 dingos ; but the crow still holds his own, though in reduced numbers. 



3 . — In this connection the several opinions of Messrs. Henry L. White and Thomas P. Austin, 

 contained in their contributions to this journal (Part V.) are interesting. Both writers are graziers, 

 occupying similar country, and their views are diametrically opposed. — Ed, 



