Mat 15, 1897.J 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
383 
THE FATE OF SOME CARRIER PIGEONS. 
Mr. K, B. Potteb has recently presented to the Ameri- 
can Museum of Natural History the materials for a duck 
hawk group, consisting of an adult female an& three downy 
young, together with the debris of the nesting site. The 
latter consists of various loose twigs and sticks, perhaps ac- 
cidentally present, and the remains of the prey brought for 
the sustenance of the young birds. This includes feathers 
of the bluejay, grackle, flicker, robin and other birds, the 
foot of a woodcock and the feet of blackbirds and pigeons. 
An examination of this material revealed the presence of the 
feet of seven carrier pigeons, still retaining the little metal 
rings bearmg the marks of former ownership. These may 
be transcribed as follows : 
9970-S EX 705 
16 96 5—1894 
P^63.77 C— 30900 
J. r. 53. 
Should these lines chance to meet the eye of any of the 
former owners of these birds, it would be of interest if they 
would report where and when the birds were last seen. 
The duck bawk's nest 'was from the well-known breeding 
locality of this species : on the Palisades of the Lower Hud- 
son, near Englewood, and was taken April 27. 
We have here interesting evidence of the ability of the 
duck hawk to capture the swiftest-flying prey, his destruc- 
tiveness to carrier pigeons, and doubtless of domestic pigeons 
in general, and the variety of his victims. J. A. Allen. 
American Mtjbeum of Natural History, New York City. 
Mr. E. W. Bullinger, of this city, reports that at his home 
in Riverside, Conn., he has a strayed carrier pigeon, which 
is subject to the owner's order, upon giving its letter and 
number. 
THE WEIRD SONG OF THE WOODCOCK. 
Ontabio, Canada. — Editar Forest and Stream: I fully en- 
dorse the remarks of your correspondent Mr. Geo. W. Dear- 
born in FoBEST AND Stbeam, March 20, concerning the 
woodcock's whistle, and will supplement them by a few 
more. When a party of us have been shooting woodcock in 
the moulting season, a time when the birds are not incHned 
to move about much, we oftentimes have remarked to each 
other, "those birds, owing to their slow flight, make no 
whistle when getting up, and as a consequence are out of 
sight before you can shoot at them," all being satisfied that 
the whistle was produced by the wings. 
The lowly revolving saw emits no sound ; the rapidly re- 
volving one, the buzzing sound with which we are familiar. 
The slowly-flying woodcock makes no sound ; the swiftly- 
flying one, the whistle which every sportsman loves to hear. 
Both sounds are due to rapid motion ; the one to the rapid 
revolutions, the other to tbe swiftly-moving wings. 
Another peculiarity of the woodcock which I have not 
seen mentioned in Fokest and Btkeam is its beautiful song 
while mating. 
I will endeavor to describe it. The woodcock generally 
selects for this purpose a field bordering on a swamp, having 
in it a few scattered trees and bushes. The song begins in 
the gloaming, and is continued at intervals until near day- 
light, it is always prefaced by a sound similar to the word 
piXte (ih.e a long) uttered by the bird on the ground, at inter- 
vals of perhaps a quarter of a minute. Then it rises in 
rapid flight at an angle of about 45", the whistling sound 
being distinctly heard — until almost out of sight, when it 
stops its upward flight, and with a slow flapping of the 
wings begins ita beautiful song, which at that elevation is 
plainly heard, describing at the same time a large circle. At 
the completion of the large circle the bird begins to descend, 
describing in its descent a series of concentiic circles, each 
circle being smaller than the one above it ; the beautiful song 
and the flapping of the wings being continued until within a 
short distance of the earth, when they cease, and with a 
sudden dart the bird alights on the ground, immediately ut- 
tering its par,e, pSle, pate, as at the beginning of the song. 
The pste, pate is continued for a short time, when the aerial 
flight is again begun, and the song repeated as before. 
The midnight hour, the pale moonlight streaming through 
the larger trees, the weird surroundings, the ethereal music 
of this bird, interrupted at times by the singing of the frogs, 
the cry of the night hawk or the whippoorwill, or perchance 
the drumming of the pheasant, form a combination of cir- 
cumstances never to be forgotten by one who has experienced 
them. William: Hollidat. 
LOCKED MOOSE ANTLERS. 
My brother, Mr. Frederick A. Cheney, made a visit to 
Ontario, Can., latt year, and upon his return told me of 
some locked moose antlers, mounted, in the office of the 
Director of the Bureau of Mines, Mr. I31ue, in Toronto. 
1 was so interested in what he said of the antlers that I 
wrote to Mr. Blue about them, and in reply received the fol- 
lowing letter fi-om Mr. Thomas W. Gibson, secretary for 
Parks of the Province: 
"These antlers were taken from the heads of two bull 
moose, whose bodies were found in May, 1895, on the bank 
of a stream in the Algonquin National Park of Ontario. 
The animals had apparently engaged in a struggle during 
the rutting season of 1894, in the course of which their horns 
became interlocked to such a degree that it was impossible 
for them to extricate themselves. The ground on which the 
conflict took place was a steep bank overlooking the stream. 
After entangling themselves in this manner, the unfortunate 
combatants tumbled down to the edge of the water and lay 
there, unable to rise, until they died from exhaustion. Their 
carcasses were found in a good state of preservation when 
the snow disappeared the following spring, one lying in the 
water and the other on the bank; and two of the park 
rangers, who came across them, removed the heads, the 
horns still being firmly locked together. As they had only 
a canoe with them, and the place was far from headquarters, 
they cut off the antlers, leaving attached to them only the 
frontal bone on each skull. They have since been mounted 
and hang in Mr. Blue's office. I send you a photograph 
taken in the Park; it will show the manner in which the 
horns were interlocked. The lock is a very strong one even 
now, when the antlers have dried out. It bears mute evi- 
dence to the strength of these animals and the terrific shock 
of theh combat. One pair of the antlei'S measures bo^in.from 
to tip, and the other al^,^' 
Forest and Stream has reproduced this photograph in 
this issue of the paper, but my brother says the photograph 
fails to convey what the horns themselves do of the might 
of two bull naoose fighting to their death. 
A Pointing Horse. 
Just about the time the ice was breaking up in Lake ■ 
Champlain I was coming down on the Champlain Division 
of the D. & H. R. R., and ray companion in the smoking 
car was Senator George Chaboo'n, member of the State Sen- 
ate Committee on Forest, Pish and Game Laws. At one point 
he glanced out of the window and remarked that the mer- 
gansers had arrived, and then told me that the female mer- 
gansers remained about the lake all winter, while the males 
migrated in the fall only to return in the spring. This was 
new to me. A few days later I met the Senator in Albany 
as we were both making a social call, and the conversation 
turned to game and shooting, and he told our hostess that he 
had a pointing horse that was as rehable as a pointing dog, 
although the horse pointed by sight instead of by scent. It 
seems that in the fall, in driving about the woods, he carries 
LOCKEB MOOSE ANTLERS. 
a gun in his buggy to shoot such partridges as he may come 
across. The first time he shot over this horse the animal was 
badly frightened, and instead of running simply sat back in 
the breeching, crouchingneartheground on his bind quarters, 
and trembled at the noise of the explosion. This became a 
habit, until now, no longer frightened at the sound of the 
gun, he appears to be on the watch for birds and often dis- 
covers one before his master sees it, and at once sits back in 
the breeching and comes to a dead stand until Senator 
Chahoon shoots, when the horse resumes his normal upright 
position and . goes on till he sees another bird. I told the 
Senator he should call his horse a setter instead of a pointer 
and perhaps he will accept the amendment. 
EXTERMINATION OF NOXIOUS ANI- 
MALS BY BOUNTIES. 
BY T. S. PALMER. 
First Assistant, Biological Survey, U. S. Department of Agriculture. 
The payment of rewards or bounties for killing noxious 
animals is not a new idea. This method of extermination 
was adopted by the colonies of Massachuaetts and Virginia 
before the middle of the seventeenth century, and has been 
continued ever since, but 'neither the results nor the cost of 
such legislation seem to be generally known. Bounty laws 
have been r)assed by nearly evety State and Territory, and in 
1895 were still in force in about thirty States and in six of 
the Canadian provinces. The expenditures have increased in 
the last decade, and more than $3,000,000 have been spent 
during the last twenty -five years. Since the burden of the 
expense falls on the community at large, while the benefit is 
restricted to a comparatively small class, the question natur- 
ally arises as to how far the method has been successful, and 
whether the results warrant its continuance. 
The Demand for Bounty. 
More than a score -of animals in the United States are con- 
sidered sufficiently injurious to require radical measures for 
their extermination. Wolves, coyotes, panthers, bears and 
lynxes are very destructive, but perhaps do not cause greater 
loss than ground squirrels, pocket gophers, rahbits and wood- 
chucks. A few birds also, such as blackbirds, crows, Eng- 
lish sparrows, hawks and owls, are sometimes included in 
the category of noxious species. The most plausible and per- 
sistent demands for protection from the depredations of wild 
animals have come from owners of sheep and cattle, and 
many of the bounty laws have been enacted ostensibly to en- 
courage sheep raising. No doubt this industry has many 
claims for this protection, but it may be noted that the most 
urgent demand for bounties in the West have come, not 
from the farmers or owners of small flocks, but from cattle 
and sheep men whose immense herds and flocks are pastured 
on Government land, and who claim that the cost of protect- 
ing their herds and flocks should be borne by the county or 
State. In some regions the losses on account of wolves and 
coyotes are so serious as to threaten the success of the sheep 
industry. 
It was estimated in 1892 that in New Mexico, where the 
sheep were valued at $4,556,000, such losses varied from 3 to 
7 per cent.; in Nebraska the value of sheep was about 
t$3,00(),000, while the losses amounted to 5 per cent., or 
$100,000; and sheep owners in centi'al Texas suffered losses 
on account of wild animals to the extent of 10 to 25 per cent.* 
Farmers, too, have just cause for complaint. In eastern 
Washington the grain fields and orchards are damaged every 
year by ground squirrels to the extent of hundreds of thou- 
sands of dollars, and the losses are scarcely less in some 
parts of California, Montana and North Dakota, while in 
most of the Western States orchardists and vineyardists suf- 
fer from the depredations of rabbits and pocket gophers. 
The value of bounties is not admitted by all, and those 
who are supposed to be the moat benefited by them are often 
♦ Hefttli,lSpe(!iftl Report on Sheep Jadustiy in the United States, 1893, 
the ones who complain most of the failure of the laws and 
the lack of real protection which they afford. Just previous 
to the passage of the present bounty law in Iowa a promi- 
nent sheep owner of Grinnell stated that it was impossible to 
raise sheep in some parts of the State on account of the 
wolves, and he attributed the unsatisfactory conditions to 
the low rates and unequal bounties 
Any scheme intended to bring about the extermination of 
a species must fulfill certain conditions before it can prove 
successful in practice : (1) It must be applied over a wide 
area practically covering the range of the species, otherwise 
the animals will increase in the unprotected region; (2) it 
should be uniform {i. e., the rates should be the same) in all 
localities; (3) it should provide some inducement for carry- 
ing out its provisions; (4) it should be economical, for if ex- 
pensive, the cost will exceed the losses which it seeks to 
avert; (5) it should provide so far as possible against fraud 
or the misappropriation of public funds. In ' order to see 
how far bounties have met these requirements, it will be ne- 
cessary to review briefly the history of this legislation and to 
note the operation of some of the recent laws. 
Under the bounty system a fixed sum is offered for each 
animal, and the reward is paid to the claimant upon deliv- 
ery of the skin or scalp. The amount of money which an 
individual may receive therefore depends entirely on his 
own efforts or on the condition of the public funds. It is 
urged in support of this method that the State or county 
pays only for the animals actually killed, and that it suffers 
no other expense, as the rewards are drawn from regular 
funds of the county and are disbursed by county officers 
oftentimes without additional compensation, It is some- 
times claimed that this inducement to capture animals fur- 
nishes employment to men and boys who do not desire or 
cannot get other work, and are thus encouraged to labor for 
the benefit of the community, and that by increasing the re- 
wards the extermination can be hastened whenever neces- 
sary, 
Simple and economical as this method appears theoreti- 
cally, it has proved extremely unsati 'factory and very costly 
in practice, and the mere fact that between 300 and 400 laws 
have been enacted in the United States would seem to show 
that bounties have not accomplished all that was expected 
of them. 
History of Bounty Legislation In the United States 
The first laws providing rewards for. the destruction of 
wild animals seem to have been passed in Massachusetts 
about 1630, and in Yirginia about 1633. Bounty legislation 
has therefore extended over more than two centuries and a 
half— a sufficient length of time, it would seem, to test its 
merits or defects. But so little attentioa has been paid to 
the matter that almost every State has bpen compelled to ex- 
periment for itself, instead of profiting by the experience of 
others, and has learned the limitations of the method only 
after spending thousands of dollars. 
The history of bounty legislation may be oonvenientlv di- 
vided into three periods: (1) From 1630 1775; (2) from 1776- 
1865; (3) from 1866-1895 These three periods are unequal 
in length (146, 00 and 30 years), but the payments during 
the last period probably exceed those of the other two com- 
bined, although the number of years is only one-eighth as 
great. This is not due entirely to higher rates in recent 
years, for the payments in Maine between 1830 and 1865 
were almost exactly the same as those from 1866 to 1895, 
During the colonial period bounties were confined mainly 
to wolves, and in Virginia for more than a century and a 
half the rewards were paid in tobacco, which was the usual 
medium of exchange in that colony. The general bounties 
were supplemented by special rewards paid by the counties, 
and the Indians were encouraged to aid in the work of ex- 
termination. In some of the colonies, crows, squirrels and 
blackbirds caused so much damage that rewards were 
offered for their scalps, and in South Carolina means were . 
taken to protect the planters from the depredations of rice 
birds. The necessity fogr such protection was quaintly ex- 
pressed in the act of 1695, as follows: 
Whereas, The planters of this province do yearly suffer 
considerable damage by birds and beasts of prey in their 
stocks and crops, whereby, notwithstanding their continual 
care, they are impoverished and discouraged, be it enacted 
* * * that every person or persons who shall kill and 
destroy the small blackbirds and rice birds shall receive half 
a royall per dozen; and for crows, jackdaws and larks, shall 
receive one royall and a half per dozen. 
Prom 1776 to 1865 numerous laws were passed in the 
original thirteen States, and the bounty system was extended 
over most of the territory east of the Mississippi River. 
Most of the rewards were paid for wolves, and the work of 
extermination, begun in Ohio and Kentucky in 1795, ex- 
tended gradually westward to Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska, 
and even to Washington. 
As time went on and the country gradually became settled, 
attention was paid to getting rid of other animals, such as 
bears, panthers, wildcats and foxes. In New England great 
numbers of crows were killed, particularly in Maine and 
New Hampshire, and in the latter State the killing of hawks 
was encouraged at the expense of the public treasury. With 
the beginning of the war more important matters claimed the 
attention of legislators, and in most of .the States little 
thought was given to bounties on wild animals. 
Since 1866 bounty laws have been passed in increasing 
numbers by nearly all the States and Territories. With the 
development of the West and the increase in cattle and sheep 
raisit g, the necessity for exterminating wolves and coyotes 
has become more apparent. Immense numbers of these ani- 
mals have been killed in Montana, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado; but they still seem to be 
very numerous. Several States have also offered premiums 
for foxes, wildcats, minks, and even weasels. The success 
of the sheep men in their warfare against predatory animals 
encouraged the farmers of the Mississippi Valley and the 
Great Plains region to demand appropriations from State 
and county treasuries for killing ground squirrels, gophers, 
and rabbits. This Ipgislation has proved not only ineffect- 
ive, but extremely expensive. The experiment has been tried 
in Minnesota, Montana, California and North Dakota, and 
in each case the result has been disastrous to the treasury; 
in fact, no State thus far has been able to pay a general 
bounty on ground squirrels and gophers for any length of 
time. 
Bounties On birds, which were by no means uncommon in 
colonial times, have recently been revived in several States. 
Since 1875 an unusual interest has been manifested in the' 
extermination of hawks and owls, notwithstanding the fact 
that it has been demonstrated that most of these bii'ds are 
actually beneficial instead of injurious. Hawk laws were 
passed iu Pelawpe, New IJ^ampsbire, Permsylyama, ColOf 
