164 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



[March 25, 1886. 



do not meddle with poultry and rarely prey upon wild birds. 



Of hawks and owls collectively, it may safely he said that, 

 except in rare instances, the loss they occasion by the de- 

 struction of poultry is insignificant in comparison with the 

 benefits derived by the farmer and fruit grower from their 

 constant vigilance; for when unmolested the one guards his 

 crop by day and the other by night. 



It is earnestly to be hoped' that you will succeed not only 

 in causing the repeal of the ill-advised act which provides a 

 bounty for the killing of hawks and owls, but that you will 

 go further, and secure the enactment of a Jaw which will 

 impose a fine for the slaughter of these useful birds. 



Yours very truly, 



0. Hart Mebkiam, 

 Ornithologist of the Department of Agriculture. 



United States National ilosEcnvi, 

 Under Direction of the Smithsonian Institution, 



Washington,- March 3, 1886. 

 Dr. B, II. Warren, Wot Chester, Pa.: 



Df.ar Dr. Wauren — I am just in receipt of your letter 

 of the 1st inst., and therefore fear that my reply cannot reach 

 you in time for use at the meeting to-morrow evening. It 

 affords me much pleasure, however, to comply with your re- 

 quest for my views concerning the food habits of hawks and 

 owls, and their relation to man. 



Of all the species which you name there are only two 

 which, according to my best judgment, are at all seriously 

 destructive to game or poultry, these being Cooper's hawk 

 and the great-horned owl. The rest, with the possible ex- 

 ception of the sharp-shinned hawk, which certainly is de- 

 structive to tbe smaller birds, my experience leads me to re- 

 gard as very decidedly beneficial to man, their food consist- 

 ing very largely, if not chi; fly, of the smaller rodents, field 

 mice especially. The red-shouldered and red- tailed hawks 

 occasionally pick up a young chicken or rabbit, but I feci 

 quite sure that their service to man far outweighs the injury 

 which they thus do. The little sparrow hawk and oiher 

 smaller species destroy large numbers of grasshoppers, 

 locusts, and other large insects. 



Very truly yours, 

 Robert Ridgway, Curator, Dept. Birds. 



Smithsonian Institution, '/ 

 Washtngtom, D. O, March 3, 1886 £ 

 Dr. B. E. Warren, Went Chester, Pa.: 



Dear Sir— In reply to your letter of the 3d inst., asking 

 for my opinion in regard to the food etc., of certain hawks 

 and owls specified, I would state that I have read Mr. Robert 

 Ridgways answer to a similar request from you, and that I 

 agree with him in every particular. The idea of persecuting 

 the majority of hawks and owls systematically is simply 

 preposterous, and any law which has for its object their in- 

 discriminate destruction should be immediately repealed, 

 since most of the birds alluded to are among the very best 

 friends of the farmer. In regard to a few species it is well 

 worth while to suspend judgment until a thorough investiga- 

 tion as to their habits and food in your Slate can be carrii d 

 out, for, as you are well aware, a species which in some parts 

 of the country and at some seasons maybe injurious, in other 

 regions and under altered circumstances may be chiefly bene- 

 ficial. I remain, yours sincerely, 



Leonard Stejneger, 

 Assist. CuratorJ^jiL.jaiEds, U. S. Nat. Mus. 



Washington, March 3, 1886. 

 B. II. Warren, M. D., West Chester, Pa.: 



Dear Sir— In-reply to your favor of the 1st inst. asking 

 for my opinion with regard to the economic utility of the 

 birds of prey, I take pleasure in responding as follows: To 

 the ornithologist, whose business it is to study the habits of 

 birds, the widespread ignorance of the habits of the hawk 

 and owl tribe and tbe mistaken idea as to the amount of in- 

 jury they do are almost inconceivable. 



So common, however, are thes^e erroneous ideas respecting 

 the birds of prey and their relations to the farmer and agri- 

 culturist that it is not at all surprising that laws similar to 

 the one now in force in Pennsylvania should be enacted. 



Your own investigations into the nature of the food of the 

 biids of prey of your country might be cited in support of 

 the statement that such enactments are based upon erroneous 

 conceptions. 1 may add that wherever such investigations 

 have been systematically conducted they have resulted in a 

 verdict favorable to the birds of prey. In almost every por- 

 tion of this country I have found the opinions of all field 

 ornithologists to be in favor of the preservation of the hawk 

 and owl tribe on account of the good they do. I believe the 

 time will come when the farmers as a class will carefully 

 protect the hawks and owls on the ground of their beneficent 

 1S6I' vices. 



Following is the list of species most numerous in your 

 State: 



1. Marsh hawk (Circus eyaneus hudsomus). 



2. Sparrow hawk (Fako sparverius). 



3. Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). 



4. Red-tailed hawk (Buteo horealis). 



5. Cooper's hawk (Aceipiter cooperi). 



6. Sharp-shinned hawk (Aceipiter fuscus). 



7. Broad-winged hawk (Buteo pennsyloanicus). 



8. Rough legged hawk (Archibuteo lagopus sancti-joTiannis). 



9. Short-eared owl (Asia accipitrinus). 



10. Screech owl {Scops asio) 



11. Long-eared owl (Asio wilsonianus). 



12. Barred owl (Slrixnebulosa). 



13. Horned owl (Bubo virginianus). 



Of this list, the marsh hawk, red-shouldered hawk, red- 

 tailed hawk, broad-winged hawk, rough-legged hawk, short 

 and long eared owls, screech owl, barred owl and horned owl 

 are of verv great value to the agriculturist because of the 

 immense numbers of meadow mice and other small rodents 

 they annually destroy. The mice when unchecked increase 

 with amazing rapidity, and the hawks and owls above named 

 are among the chief natural means for their destruction, 

 mice and other rodents forming a large percentage of their 

 food. The harm the hawks do in the destruction of small 

 birds is inconsiderable compared with the benefits deiived by 

 the farmers from the destruction of the four-footed pests. 

 The owls particularly work by night, and hence the benefits 

 they confer are easily overlooked. 



The sparrow hawk is one of the most harmless of birds and 

 one of the most beneficial to man. He lives almost exclu- 

 sively on grasshoppers and crickets, and the number of the 

 former destroyed by these birds is incalculable. 



I mention the Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks last 

 because they unquestionably kill many small birds and they 

 also commit dt predations upon the poultry yard. I believe, 

 however, that they can safely be left to be dealt with by the 



class they injure, chiefly poultrymen. To place all the hawks 

 and owls under ban, and "to attempt their extermination sim- 

 ply because one or two species are injurious, is certainly not 

 good policy. 



After more thau twenty years' study of birds, I am 

 decidedly of the opinion that the hawks and owls as a class 

 are of great economic value, and that no State in which agri- 

 culture is pursued to any extent can afford to dispense with 

 their services. They not only ought not. to be exterminated, 

 but they should be placed upon the list of birds protected by 

 law. 1 am, very truly yours, H. W. Eenshaw. " 



Smithsonian Institution, '/ 

 Washington, D. C, March 3, 1886. S 

 B. H. Warren, MB., Ornithologist Pennsylvania State Board 

 Agriculture, West Chester, Pa.: 

 Dear Sir— Your letter of recent date requesting my opin- 

 ion of the act (No. 109) of the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- 

 vania relative to the premiums paid for the destruction of 

 certain species of birds and mammals, alleged to be injuri- 

 ous and classed as noxious within the meaning of that act. 

 is at hand. 



I must confess a surprise at the truly lamentable ignorance 

 of the framer of that act in regard to the supposed noxious 

 character of the hawks and owls, upon whose lives a pre- 

 mium has been set for their destruction. 



It is well known that no more beneficial bird exists than 

 the owl, whose nocturnal habits render it specially fitted to 

 pursue the smaller rodents, such as the mice, whose ravages 

 udou the field, grain, root and orchard 'are so wed known 

 that all farmers have from time immemorial exclaimed 

 against the deslructiveness of those quadrupeds whose an- 

 nual devastation causes the money value of the losses sus- 

 tained through their ravages to swell into countless thou 

 sands of dollars. 



The tender growths of the orchard are decorticated by tbe 

 mice and rabbits, which are in turn devoured by the owls 

 sought to be destroyed simply because some one desires to 

 become notorious as a lawmaker, and through utter ignor- 

 ance of the subject endeavors to deprive the farmer of his 

 best nocturnal friends, which guard the growing crop with 

 zealous care while the owner sleeps to regain a strength to 

 enable him to continue the daily toil of protecting his crops 

 from the devastation of his sleek-furred enemies, mo3t insidi- 

 ous at night. There is not a species of owl but that amply 

 repays for the few incursions made at irregular periods upon 

 isolated hen roosts. Where a single fowl is thus lost, a thou- 

 sand mice pay the penalty of their lives to the same owl. 



The nocturnal habils of the owls render their services far 

 more beneficial than may be accurately ascertained. 



In regard to the hawks, their reputation is much exagger- 

 ated so far as their injurious propensity is concerned, yet, 

 when truthful evidence is placed in the scales, the beneficial 

 services of the hawks will preponderate in a most satisfac- 

 tory manner. 



Certain species of the diurnal birds of prey are well-known 

 to feed almost exclusively upon small rodents, and in fact, 

 differing but little from the owls in regard to their food. 

 Two or three species of hawks (those belonging to the genus 

 Archibuteo) are notoriously the best diurnal mouse catchers 

 ot all birds. Their habits to soar over the level tracts de- 

 voted to grasses and search for their food are so well-known 

 that further consideration of them is but repetition of estab- 

 lished facts. The bolder species of hawks so rarely commit 

 depredations upon the farmyard fowls tbat these instances 

 are, without doubt, the result of an individual predeliction 

 for which the entire family should not be branded. The 

 number of rabbits and mice which the hawks annually de- 

 stroy is simply incredible, as any really observant person 

 will admit. 



In my own opinion the destruction of the hawks and owls 

 within the State of Pennsylvania will, ere many years, result 

 in an incalculable injury to the farmer, who will be overruu 

 with hordes of mice,' which he will be powerless to limit, as 

 their reproductiveuess, when undisturbed, progresses with 

 astonishing rapidity. 



It would, in my opinion, be a wise measure to have the 

 act relating to the alleged noxious birds totally rep. aled 

 Very truly yours, 



with a small quantity of hair, evidently that of a young 

 rabbit. 



Rev. Dr. Clemson spoke deprecatingly of the merciless 

 .slaughter sanctioned and rewarded by law of these harmless 

 animals, as he called them, particularly those bsautiful 

 creatures, easily domesticated, habitants of the woods and 

 meadows. 



THE TENDER HEART. 



SHE gazed upon the burnished brace 

 Of plump ruffed grouse he showed with pride; 

 ^ Angelic grief was in her face: 



"How could you ao it. dear?'' she sighed. 

 "The poor, pathetic, moveless wings! 



The songs all hushed— oh. cruel shame!" 

 Said he, "The partridge never sings." 

 Said she. "The sia is quite the same." 



"You men are savage through and through. 



A hoy is always bringing in 

 Some string of bird's eggs^ white and blue, 



Or bu tterfly upon a pin. 

 The angle worm in anguish dies, 



Impaled, the pretty trout to tease—" 

 "My own, we fish for trout witli flies." 

 "Don't wander from the question, please'" 



She quoted Burns's "Wounded Hare." 



AU'I certain burning lines of Blake's, 

 And Ru<kinon the fowls of air. 



And Colt- ridge n the water snakes. 

 At Emerson's "Forbearance" he 



Began to feel his will benumbed: 

 At Browning's "Donald" utterly 

 His soul surrendered and succumbed. 



' Oh, gentlest of all gentle girls,'' 



Trie thought, "beneath the blessed sun!" 

 He saw her lashes hung with pearls 

 And swore to give away his gun. 

 She smiled to find her point was gained 

 And went, with happv parting words 

 (He subsequently ascertained). 

 To trim her hat with hiimining birds. 



—Helen Gray Cane, in the Centura. 



Massachusetts Birds —Salem, March 18.— Bluebirds, 

 redwings, cow buntings, song sparrows are with us again. 

 A coot (F. amerieana) was recently shot near Boston, I saw 

 the bird. Gulls occasionally seen in flocks on Lvnn marshes. 

 -X. Y. Z. 



A RAILROAD IN THE PARK. 



POOD EXAMINATIONS. 



From a report entitled "Diurnal Rapacious Birds" (with 

 special reference to Chester county, Pa,), prepared by B. 

 Harry Warren and published in the annual report for 1883 

 of the Pennsylvania Stale Board of Agriculture, is taken the 

 following reference to the stomach examinations of the 

 species of hawks most commonly found in Pennsylvania: 



The Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo horealis).— My examination 

 of one hundred and two birds of this species, revealed in 

 eighty-one chiefly mice and small quadrupeds, also some few 

 small birds; nine, chickens; three, quail; two, rabbit; one, 

 ham-skin; one, part of a skunk; one, a red squirrel; one, a 

 gray squirrel; three, snakes. 



' The Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus).— Of thirty-six 

 examinations which I have made of this species, twenty- 

 three showed mice and small quadrupeds, grasshoppers and 

 coleopterous insects; nine revealed frogs and some few in- 

 sects in two, snakes and portions of frogs were present, and 

 from the remaining two small birds, particles of hair and a 

 few orthopterous insects were taken. . v _ 



Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo pennsyhamens).—\n twelve 

 specimens examined by myself, four revealed mice; three, 

 small birds; four, frogs; one, killed the 22d ot May this pres- 

 ent year, 1882 was gorged with crayfish, with which were 

 traces of coleopterous insects. 



The Sparrow Hawk (balm sparverius).— Ihe stomach 

 contents of twenty-nine of this species, which I have dissected, 

 showed, in fifteen, principally mice, with frequent traces of 

 various insects; six, grasshoppers; two, coJeoptera and 

 grasshoppers ; two, medow larks; four, small birds— sparrows. 



Cooper's Hawk (Aceipiter cooperi).— 01 twenty-seven birds 

 which I have examined, fourteen showed the iood taken to 

 have been chickens; live revealed small birds— spairows and 

 warblers— Dendmca-t wo, quail; one, bullfrogs; three, mice 

 and insects; two, hair and other remains of small. quadru- 



Sharp-shinned Hawk (Aceipiter fuscus).— I have dissected 

 fifteen of these falcons. Six of this number showed small 

 birds; .three, quail; one, mice; four, remains of young 

 chickens; one, grasshoppers and beetles. 



The Rough-legged Falcon {Archibuteo lagopus sa.ncti- 

 joheennis.— Kmc birds all showed their food to be exclusively 

 field mice. , , . ^ 



The Marsh Hawk (Circus eyaneus hudsomus )— Of eleven 

 birds examined, five revealed mice; two, small birds— Den- 

 drceca;— three, frogs; one, a large number of grasshoppers 



THE Senate bill granting to the Cinnabar and Clark's Fork 

 Railroad Company aright of way through the Yellowstone 

 National Park has been favorably reported by the Commit! ee 

 on Railroads of that body. The action is lamented by every 

 one interested in the region. Mr. W. Hallett Phillip*, who 

 under the direction of the Secretary of Ihe Interior, devoted 

 two months last summer to an investigation of the Park, has 

 written to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Rail- 

 roads the following letter: 



Washington, D. C March 18. 18S<S. 

 Hon. Philetus Sawyer, Chairman Senate. Committee oh Railroads: 



^ie— I observe that there has been a favorable report from your 

 comua'tte on a bill granting 10 the Cinnabar and Clark's Fork Rail- 

 road Company the right of way through the Yellowstone National 

 Park. 



Thinking perhaps that the attention of the committee has not been 

 sufficiently drawn to the importance of the measure as affecting the 

 Park, I take the liberty of preseniing to you some reasons why, in my 

 estimation, the bill should not be enacted into a law. 



Last summer I was instructed by the Secretary of the Interior, 

 under an appointment from him, to proceed to the Yellowstone Park 

 with a view of placing before him for executive action and recom- 

 mendation such informati n as I might acquire in reference to the 

 protection, improvement and preservation of the Park. My report to 

 the Secretary was communicated by him to the Senate under a ea'l 

 made by that body, and is printed as S. Ex. Doc. 51. present Congress. 



In that report I remark: "Interested parties have for some years 

 brought to bear a constant pressure upon Congress and the Depart- 

 ment to induce action in favor of a railroad through the Park. The 

 railroad is sought ostensibly for the purpose of bringing to market 

 t" t 7<"t-> v"mt"t itrts wtr LI ore from Cooke City, a mining camp adjacent to the northeast 

 LUUE? » M. 1DHN BK. '^ >8iindary liBe of lne Park . if there is one object which should be 

 Kept in view more than any other, it is that of preserving the Park as 

 much as pos?ible ia a state of nature. A railroad through it would 

 go far to destroy its beauty, and besides, it is not demanded by the 

 public. The roads are being improved yearly, and soon will make 

 every portion of the Park easily accessible. The distance between 

 the points of interest is not great, and transportation is good and 

 plentiful. Apart from the consideration that a railroad i< not needed 

 i i the Park and that it would deface its beauty, is the further con- 

 sideration that t he two objects of Congress in creating the Park, to 

 wit, the. preservation of the game and the forests, would be unattain- 

 able should a railroad be allowed within its limits. I think the Depart- 

 ment should strenuously oppose the project. If the parties interested in 

 the mines really are desirous of a railroad, I am satisfied from dnigen i 

 inquiry that a. route from Billings, Montana, to Cooke, is practicable. 

 Such a route would be entirely outside the boundaries of the Park." 



By the bill rf ported by the committee a railroad is authorized to 

 run its line through one of the most interesting portions of tlie Park. 

 1 refer particularly to that part of the route along the Yellowstone 

 River to its junction with the East ForK of said river. To my mind 

 the whole charm of this beautiful and interesting region will have 

 departed when once a railroad is established through it. and "sta- 

 tion houses, depots, machine shops" are placed along the route. It 

 is needless to say that the game will be driven off, and the dani3ge 

 to the timber by the increase of forest fires would be incalculable. 



By the organic act establishing the Park the land embraced within 

 its boundaries was reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occu- 

 pancy or sale, and set apart as a public Park or pleasure ground 

 "for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." 



The proposed bill, should it become a law, would go far to nullify 

 this provision by allowing an occupancy by a private railroad corpo- 

 ration for tbe benefit of private interests, while tbe pleasure and 

 enjoyment of the Park by the whole people would be seriously inter- 

 fered with. 



It is needless to say that the introduction of a railroad would bring 

 with it a settlement along the line of the road, and so practically the 

 whole benefit of the original dedication would be greatly diminished 

 if not extinguished. In my opinion the passage of the bill in ques- 

 tion would be a most serious blow to the interests of the Park, and 1 

 may state that this opinion is shared by the officers of the Govern- 

 ment whose duties are connected with the Park. I refer particularly 

 to Mr. Wear, the Superintendent of the Park ; Mr. Arnold Hague, in 

 charge of the geological survey in the Park, and Lieut. DaniekKing- 

 man, of the Engineer Corps, the officer in charge of the roads in the 



^It^is sincerely to be hoped that the hill will not be enacted into a 

 law. Very respectfully, W. Hallett Phillips. 



