THE GAME BREEDER 



19 



poison them and the U. S. Biological 

 Survey assists in this work we believe. 



The owners of farms where poultry is 

 raised are in the habit of destroying 

 foxes, skunks, crows, hawks and other 

 vermin when these predacious animals 

 are observed destroying poultry and eggs. 



In some states, many if not, all 

 skunks, some hawks and other animals 

 classed as vermin are protected by laws 

 prohibiting the destruction of these ani- 

 mals. There are exceptions in many 

 laws permitting farmers to destroy ani- 

 mals when found taking their poultry or 

 damaging their crops. 



Now that game breeding for sport and 

 for profit is a big and growing industry 

 in America the game breeders should 

 have the right to protect their game from 

 animals which are observed to destroy it. 

 They should have the same freedom 

 which ranch owners and farmers have. 



Because the skunks, crows and some 

 hawks are said to be beneficial on some 

 areas, it should not be illegal to destroy 

 them on other areas where they are de- 

 cidedly harmful. 



The fact that certain birds destroy 

 grasshoppers is not a good reason why 

 they should be protected on areas where 

 so many game birds are produced for 

 food that there are not enough grass- 

 hoppers to go round. 



The fact that some predacious animals 

 destroy mice is not a good reason why 

 they should be protected on areas where 

 they sadly interfere with the breeding of 

 game birds for food. The land owner 

 should and usually does, decide the 

 question of the preservation of vermin 

 when it is observed destroying his poul- 

 try, crops or game, provided he is in- 

 terested in producing game. 



Even on State game farms, I am quite 

 sure the game keepers are in the habit of 

 destroying marsh hawks and some or tne 

 smaller hawks, which are classed as 

 beneficial, when they are observed taking 

 young pheasants. 



It is admitted by naturalists that birds 

 which are beneficial and which do not 

 destroy much game in places where there 

 is little or no game to destroy may ac- 

 quire "perveted appetites" and become 

 decidedly harmful in places where they 

 are tempted by a vast array of young 

 game birds on the rearing fields. 



I am quite sure that comparatively few 

 people know what the laws protecting 

 animals classed as vermin are and that 

 many disregard them through ignorance. 

 Few people would favor the jailing of a 

 farmer because he shot a hawk after it 

 had been observed taking a chicken 

 daily. 



A simple amendment to the laws miight 

 well provide that game breeders be per- 

 mitted to destroy any species of vermin 

 on their game farms or preserves when 

 the vermin is observed taking their game. 

 It is evident that game enemies residing 

 on game farms and preserves are not 

 beneficial to people who may reside else- 

 where. They hardly can be expected to 

 desert the abundant food spread out be- 

 fore them. The landowner should decide 

 the fate of such animals. The control of 

 migratory hawks and other birds which 

 do considerable damage on a game farm 

 is a more difficult question. There can 

 be no doubt that some of these birds are 

 more or less beneficial. They probably 

 should not all be destroyed when they 

 visit a game farm. Fortunately it is not 

 possible or necessary to destroy them all. 

 A good rule would be to permit the land 

 owner to destroy them when thev are 

 observed to be decidedly harmful. Per- 

 secution will drive many of them away 

 and they will increase in places where 

 they are regarded as beneficial and show 

 a proper decrease in places where evi- 

 dently they are harmful. 



In closely preserved countries where 

 game is an abundant and cheap food sup- 

 ply there can be no doubt that the good 

 results have been brought about by the 

 destruction of vermin. Thousands of 

 game keepers are kept busy protecting 

 the game against its natural enemies so 

 that it is evident all vermin is not de- 

 stroyed. In England before the war the 

 question of closely destroying vermin 

 often was discussed and the best senti- 

 ment was in favor of only destroying 

 such vermin as was known to be more 

 harmful than beneficial and to only de- 

 stroy "beneficials" when they acquired 

 "perverted appetites." The Audubon 

 Associations and The Game Conserva- 

 tion Society can conduct an educational 

 campaign which will be heeded by intelli- 

 gent game breeders and it would be safe 



