April 29, 1886.] 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



263 



THE SPARROW HAWK'S SERVICES. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



I perceive that Dr. Ellzey is somewhat incredulous as 

 to the exactness of the information I gave him in the 

 last issue of tbe Forest and Stream relative to the grass- 

 hoppers of this locality, but as he intends to seek counsel of 

 an expert and to put "Professor Riley on the stand," I am 

 quite content, and willingly leave him to the care of the 

 Professor, trusting that the pupil may prove worthy of so 

 good a master. 



If he will apply also for information to Mr. Theodore Per- 

 gandie, Prof. Riley's assistant, who is particularly well 

 posted on the Orthoptera of this vicinity, he will, I think, 

 rind the statements made in my letter fully ' corrobo- 

 rated. 



As the Doctor is on tbe right side of the sparrow question, 

 or as he correctly terms it, the "sparrow nuisance," I shall 

 be able to forgive him even if he puts a strain on his inclina- 

 tion and "forces me to the wall." 



As to what the sparrow hawk did for a living in winter 

 about Washington prior to the advent of the English spar- 

 row, I am unable to say of my own knowledge, as that 

 period preceded my residence here. What evidence has the 

 Doctor that the sparrow hawk wintered here in those by- 

 gone days? If he did— a point I am doubtful upon— I wish 

 I could believe he lived entirely on mice with an occasional 

 grasshopper thrown in, and that his taste for small birds be- 

 gan with the introduction of the English sparrow. I may 

 remind the Doctor that there is plenty of small game to be 

 found about here in winter in the shape of tree sparrows, 

 field sparrows, snowbirds, etc., and a sparrow hawk ambi- 

 tious for such dainties would have had little difficulty in 

 gratifying his preferences. 



I should only be too glad to accept Dr. Ellzey's statement 

 that the sparrow hawk is absolutely harmless, but stern facts 

 forbid it. Too many sparrow hawks have been seen to 

 pounce upon small birds, and too many have been shot with 

 the remains of various species of birds in their stomachs to 

 render such a sweeping statement tenable for a moment. 

 However unwelcome truth may be, it should not be withheld 

 even in so excellent a cause as the establishment of the good 

 character of the sparrow hawk, and the truth is that occas- 

 ionally the little falcon is the reverse of beneficial in that he 

 kills insectivorous birds. Let me hasten to add that the 

 destruction of insectivorous birds by the sparrow hawk is, 

 so far as I have been able to ascertain, an inconsiderable 

 item as compared with the good it does, and that in making 

 up the balance sheet the harm it does in this way weighs but 

 a feather in the scale against the bird's beneficent habits. 

 That the sparrow hawk lives more or less upon field mice I 

 have freely admitted, and the farmer ought to remember the 

 fact to the bird's credit, since there can be no doubt of the 

 mischievous propensities of these small rodents. But while 

 admitting this, I deny that I "overstated my case," and 

 again assert that the bulk of the food of Fako sparverius in 

 the length and breadth of the land consists of insects. Under 

 certain circumstances and in certain localities, as the case 

 cited by Dr. Ellzey, the bird may feed more upon mice than 

 upon grasshoppers, or even exclusively for a time upon the 

 former, but the observations made in no one section will 

 justify a statement of the habits of a species as a whole, 

 especially of a bird so widely distributed as the sparrow 

 hawk. 



It is well known that in fall, owing to a scarcity of food, 

 birds leave their summer haunts and winter South or where 

 food is abundant. Mice cannot be said to migrate. Tbey 

 are as abundant in the North in winter as in summer, and 

 form a very considerable part of the food of several species 

 of owls, whose especial value to the farmer is due to the fact 

 that this warfare against mice is not intermittent, but persist- 

 ent. The owls keep watch and ward when other natural 

 checks upon the mice, as the snakes and most of the hawks, 

 are off duty. One of the hawks, however — the rough legged 

 — stands nearly or perhaps quite at the head of the list as a 

 check to the increase of mice. 



If, then, mice form the chief dependence of the sparrow 

 hawk, as Dr. Ellzey asserts, will he explain why it is that the 

 great majority of sparrow hawks leave home — which birds 

 rarely if ever do so long as $ood is plenty — and go South to 

 winter? If so large a bird as the rough-legged hawk, 

 one of the largest of the family, finds mice enough to live 

 upon far north of the winter home of SpatWrms, why should 

 not the sparrow hawk? The truth is, the majority of Spar- 

 verius go far enough south to find plenty of insect food, and 

 there stay till spring assures them of plenty of their favorite 

 fare at home. 



I have no doubt that were grasshoppers abundant about 

 Washington all winter — which I stated they were not, 

 though some are to be found every month in the year— the 

 sparrow hawk would be a common winter resident here in- 

 stead of being, as it is, a rare one. 



Dr. Ellzey appears to overlook the important fact that 

 from an economic point of view, the destruction of grass- 

 hoppers entitles the sparrow hawk to the gratitude of the 

 farmer no less than does the destruction of mice. This is 

 not the case, of course, in "the East, where the grasshopper 

 is not seriously destructive: but it is the case in the West, 

 where the insects have proved a veritable plague, and it is 

 precisely in the grasshopoer-infested portions of the far West 

 that this little hawk is most numerous, more so than it is 

 anywhere east of the Mississippi. In many sections of Col- 

 orado, Arizona and New Mexico, for instance, the sparrow 

 hawk is found, or perhaps I should say was found, in sur- 

 prising numbers, and rarely indeed are they to be seen feed- 

 ing upon anything but grasshoppers and crickets. The 

 number of insects destroyed by these hawks and by 

 their young — for I have seen them feeding their 

 young with grasshoppers— is simply beyond calcula- 

 tion. Notwithstanding this fact, and the no less 

 important one that when grasshoppers are abundant the large 

 Swainson's hawk also feeds almost exclusively upon these 

 insects, the Legislature of Colorado passed a law a few years 

 ago offering a bounty on hawks without discrimination of 

 species. The result was that in 1883 I found that the spar- 

 row hawk had been almost exterminated in districts where 

 several years before they were exceedingly numerous. What 

 a spectacle! A great State expending thousands of dollars 

 to exterminate birds whose value to agriculture is almost 

 incalculable! For admitting, as must be done, that certain 

 species of hawks destroy more or less insectivorous birds, 

 game birds and poultry, there is no room to doubt that the 

 economic value of the hawk tribe as a whole is very great. 

 In one part or another of the country the various species of 

 hawks and owls are busy the year round in checking the 

 increase of mice and grasshoppers. In this silent and ill- 

 requited service of man the little sparrow hawk plays a con- 



spicuous part, and, as Dr. Ellzey says, it is shameful folly 

 to destroy them. A. W. Henshaw. 



Washington, D. C, April 24, 1886. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



I notice that Dr, Ellzey is inclined to doubt the exist 

 ence of warm sunny days around Washington during ,Jau 

 uary and February, and especially the presence of grasshop- 

 pers thereon, as asserted by Mr. Henshaw. He asks, sar- 

 castically, how many grasshopper days there are between 

 Dec. 1 and May 1, and announces his intention of calling 

 Prof. Riley to the stand. I have a record in my note book 

 under date of March 18, 1883, of finding three grasshoppers, 

 of tbe species Aeridium alustaceum, in lively condition, while 

 passing through an open field near the Aqueduct bridge. At 

 the same time there was ice under the shadow of a rock in 

 Spout Run. One of Prof. Riley's assistants was in our 

 party. While I have no other record, I am sure that I have 

 seen grasshoppers in February. 



Henry Litchfield West. 



Washtnton, April 23, 1886. 



An Old and Vexed Question. — When I was a boy, a 

 long time ago, I read in the brilliant pages of "Frank For- 

 ester" that the partridge could withhold his scent at will, 

 and I thought to myself how much more F. F. knows about 

 hunting and shooting than any other man in the world. 

 Lewis and Hallock repeat the same thing; and, in my humble 

 opinion, a more fanciful thing never took hold of men's 

 minds. It is about on a par with the idea that at the first 

 white frost the sora, every one, turns to a frog and lives in 

 the mud all through the winter. I have never seen a covey 

 of birds settle and marked the spots at which they alighted 

 with accuracy that I did not find all or nearly all if I went 

 straight after them. But whenever I have waited to give 

 them time to let go their scent, which I have frequently 

 done in close cover in order to take advantage of goou hunt- 

 ing ground between me and them, I have always been left. 

 Like the Arabs they have folded their tents and silently 

 stolen away, knowing full well that that is the sensible thing 

 to do. It may be true that from excessive fright the part- 

 ridge will press his feathers so close to the body as to sup- 

 press all exhalations, but I doubt it. I have all my life been 

 hunting with intelligent huntsmen (who, however, were not 

 up in sporting literature), and I have never yet seen one who 

 would leave a flock of birds that had been flushed and 

 marked down and go off after another flock so as to give the 

 other fellows time to let off the effluvium. The truth is, 

 hardly half of the men who hunt partridges are good at 

 marking them down. They see 'em flying in a certain direc- 

 tion and imagine they are going to alight in a particular 

 swamp or slosh or brush. Off they go and fail to find. 

 Then they say they have all corked up their scent bottles, 

 just as "Frank Forester" tells us is their habit. I would like 

 very much to hear from Dr. Ellzey on this subject. He is 

 not only a gentleman of culture and scientific information, 

 but withal he thinks and observes for himself, and don't 

 take his opinions at second hand.— Old Timer. 



Spring Notes.— Salem, Neb., April 16.— Cranes arrived 

 here March 18, killdeer plover March 19, golden-wing wood- 

 pecker April 3, blackbirds and robins about a week earlier, 

 bluebirds (Sialia sialis) have been here nearly all winter. I 

 saw the first turkey buzzard this season April 9. There is 

 another bluebird sometimes seen here that is smaller and 

 darker blue than Sialia sialis. What are they? — J. F. L. 

 [Perhaps Sialia arctica, a common species in the mountains 

 to the west of you, but only accidental on the plains.] 



Address all communications to the Forest and Stream Publish- 

 ing Co. 



THE TRAJECTORY TEST. 

 / T>HE full report of the Forest and Stream's trajectory test of hunt- 

 ing rifles has been issued in pamphlet form, with the illustra- 

 tions and the tabular summary, making in all 96 pages. For sale at 

 this office, or sent post-paid. Price 50 cents. 



GAME AND FISH PROTECTION, 



SECTION 4 of Chapter 317, Laws of 1883, provides that 

 "the game and fish protectors shall be subject to the 

 supervision and direction of the Commissioners of Fisheries," 

 and directs that the Commissioners shall divide the territory 

 of the State into protection districts, and shall assign to each 

 protector his district, and shall have authority also to assign 

 for temporary duty in any district a protector from any other 

 district. The protector is to make, at the end of each cal- 

 endar month, a report, giving "an account of the suits com- 

 menced at hia instance, the disposition made of such suits, 

 the result of any brought to trial, and the condition of any- 

 undisposed of," and no payment of salary or traveling ex- 

 penses is to be made except on the certificate of the Commis- 

 sioners that such reports have been made, and that the pro- 

 tector has in all other respects faithfully performed his duty. 



For three years previous to the act above referred to there 

 were eight game and fish protectors, appointed especially to 

 attend to the enforcement of the laws for the protection of 

 game and fish. They were selected without particular ref- 

 erence to geographical locality, and had equal territorial 

 jurisdiction throughout the whole State. They were at 

 libertyto proceed according to their own pleasure in the 

 execution of their duties, and were in fact under no official 

 supervision. Under such a system there was of course im- 

 perfect performance. In but few localities was there any 

 persistent attempt to enforce the law, and what was done 

 was of a spasmodic rather than a systematic character. 

 Most of the protectors did, in the line of official duty, what 

 fell in their way to do, but there was no concerted action, 

 so directing head, and practically no official accountability. 

 That their work was not more thorough was not altogether 

 the fault of the protectors. Reformation of long tolerated 

 abuses must of necessity be gradual, even when they have 

 the support of moral sentiment. When they lack this pow- 

 erful backing the task is formidable indeed. 



The game laws of the State had been, up to the time of 

 their appointment, dead letters. It was true there were game 

 constables in every town that chose to elect them, but in 

 most cases these officers, if not poachers themselves, were in 

 the interest of poachers. The office was sought principally 

 by those who wished to secure immunity for their own off end- 

 ing. ^ The law, too. made it the duty of every sheriff, deputy 

 sheriff, constable and policeman to take cognizance of this 



class of offenses, but as obedience brought unpopularity 

 rather than profit, there were few arrests and fewer punish- 

 ments. 



Game laws were regarded as infringements upon natural 

 right, and until the rapid disappearance of game from the 

 forests and fish from the waters awakened the attention of 

 thoughtful economists, the laws were violated with impun- 

 ity. In some places the choice of game constables was made 

 in good faith, and the enforcement, which followed, of laws 

 long set at naught, gradually led to a more wholesome pub- 

 lic sentiment. It was to this sentiment that the passage of 

 the law was due, creating the office of game and fish pro- 

 tector and the amendatory act increasing tbe number and 

 making them accountable to the Fish Commissioners was 

 the result of the defects discovered in the first three years' 

 working. 



The monthly reports in full of the protectors would take 

 up too large a space and furnish more of detail than is ne- 

 cessary in a document like this. The Commissioners have, 

 therefore, called on each protector for a summary of his 

 work for the last year, which will be found at the proper 

 place in the appendix. 



A statement of the unlawful devices seized and of the 

 penalties recovered during the last year, is furnished in the 

 following tables: 



NETS AND OTHER ILLEGAL DEVICES DESTROYED IN 1885. 



s i 



3 15 98 70 1C6 



150 00 

 170.00 

 426.00 

 477.00 

 88.00 

 1.267 50 

 3,830.00 

 567.00 



i.aa&.oa 



130.00 



1 3 16 3 $8688.50 



Value 

 of nets. 



20 00 

 335.00 



RECAPITULATION — KINDS OP NETS AND OTHER DEVICES. 



2 Trout. 



3 Night-Lines. 

 8 Squat. 



13 Fjat. 

 1 Dip. 

 1 Leader. 



3 Spears. 

 1 Scissors. 

 1 Scoop. 

 1 Scrap. 

 3 Shad Drifts. 

 15 -eines. 



88 Fyke. 



76 Trap. 

 106 GUI. 



2 Hoop. 

 IS Set Lines. 



345 of aU kinds valued at $3,688.50. 



PENALTIES RECOVERED. 



The following table shows the amount of penalties recov- 

 ered in suits brought by protectors for the year ending Dec. 

 31, 1883. There are other suits pending, the penalties under 

 which amount to upward of $5,000: 



Dist. No. Names of Protectors. Amounts. 



1 G. W. Whittaker None. 



2 J. H. Godwin, Jr None. 



3 Matthew Kennedy $230 00 



4 Francisco Wood loo 00 



5 8. (J. Armstrong HO 00 



6 John Liberty 165 00 



7 P. R Leonard 235 00 



8 Thomas Bradley, and $33.40 costs 50 00 



9 J. N. BrinkerhoiT, and g5 costs 515 00 



10 N. C. Phelps 150 00 



U F. P. Drew loo 00 



12 W. N. Steele None. 



18 W. H. Lindley 75 00 



14 John Sheridan, and costs 25 00 



15 George M. Schwarta 16i 00 



16 8. A. Roberts ]0 00 



Total.. 



$1,927 00 



The protectors have been hampered a good deal by the in- 

 sufficient allowance for travel, a difficulty to which attention 

 was called in the last report of the Commissioners, but which 

 the Legislature has failed thus far to relieve. It is idle to 

 expect that a protector can each month travel his district of 

 perhaps two thousand square miles, in some places where no 

 wagon roads penetrate, on the pittance of twenty dollars and 

 forty cents. Often that amount is expended in a single trip, 

 and the protector is powerless to make another during the 

 month, however urgent the case may be. Discretion should 

 be given to the Commissioners to make extra allowances for 

 travel in such cases, and money should be appropriated ac- 

 cordingly. The number of protectors provided by law is 

 sixteen. It was thought at first that thirteen would be suf- 

 ficient for the duty, and that number only was appointed. 

 The need of the full number became apparent before the end 

 of the first year's service, and in May, 1884, the additional 

 three were appointed. At that time a reapportionment of 

 districts was made to correspond with the full number of 

 protectors. These districts stand at present as follows: 



First District —Counties of Suffolk, Queens, Kings and 

 Richmond. G. W. Whitaker, protector, South Hampton, 

 Suffolk county. 



Second District.— New York, Rockland and Orange. J. 

 H. Godwin, Jr., protector, Kings Bridge, N. Y. 



Third District —Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Col- 

 umbia, Greene, Ulster. Matthew Kennedy, protector, Hud- 

 son, Columbia county. 



Fourth District.— Albany, Schenectady, Schoharie, Dela- 

 ware, Sullivan. Francisco Wood, protector, Schoharie, Scho- 

 harie county. 



Fifth District.— Rensselaer, Washington, Warren, Sara- 

 toga, and the town of Indian Lake in Hamilton county. 

 Seymour C. Armstrong, protector, Weavertown, Warren 

 county, N. Y. 



Sixth District.— Essex, Clinton and all the town of Long 

 Lake in Hamilton except that part lying west of the east line 

 of great lots 4, 5, 4l and 42. John Liberty, protector, Eliza- 

 beth) own, Essex county, N. Y. 



Seventh District.— St. Lawrence and Franklin. Peter R« 

 Leonard, protector, O^densburg, St. Lawrence county. 



Eighth District.— Montgomery, Fulton and the towns of 

 Hope, Wells, Lake Pleasant, Arietta and Morehouse, except 

 that portion of Arietta and Morehouse lying north of the 

 south branch of Moose River. Thomas Bradley, protector, 

 Rockwood, Fulton county. 



Ninth District.— All that part of Lewis lying east of the 

 Black River and of the west lines of the towns of Diana and 

 Croghan ; all that part of Wilmurt, Herkimer county, and of 

 Morehouse and Arietta, Hamilton county, lying north of the 

 south branch of Moose River, and all that part of the town 

 of Long Lake, Hamilton county, lying west of the east line 

 of great lots 4, 5, 41 and 42. John L. Brinckerhoff, pro- 

 tector, Boonville, Oneida county. 



