384 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[May 15, 1897. 
rado, Indiana, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. 
The law in iSTew Hampshire "was repealed in 1881, after being 
in force for four years, but was again revived in 1893; the 
bounty in Colorado remained in force eight years, while the 
Pennsylvania "scalp act" was enforced only a year and a 
half, costing the State ahout $90, 000 for birds of prey alone. 
The extermination of crows was encouraged in New Hamp- 
shire from 1881 to 1883, and in Maine from 1889 to 1891. In 
the latter State 50,707 crows were killed at an expense of a 
little over $5,00(t. Illinois and Michigan have turned their 
attention to the English sparrow. Three acts have been 
passed in Michigan since 1887, and have cost the State 
161,800, while the law in Illinois, enacted in 1891, has in- 
volved an expenditure of $55,600. Premiums for birds are 
perhaps the most pernicious of all bounties. Dr. C. Hart 
Merriam has estimated that the poultry killed by hawks and 
owls in Pennsylvania in a year and a half would be worth 
$1,875. But everj"- hawk and owl kills at least 1,000 mice in 
course of the year, and therefore, estimating the damage 
done by a mouse at 2 cents, each hawk and owl would save 
the farmer $20 per annum. In other words, the expenditure 
of $90,000 caused the destruction of birds worth $3,857,130 
to save a possible loss of $1,875 to the poultry industry * 
Although the crow is almost universally condemned, it is 
by no means certain that it is responsible for all the damage 
that is usually attributed to it. In fact, recent investigations 
by the Department of Agriculture show that the crow is 
rather more beneficial than injurious. The English sparrow 
is recognized everywhere as one of the greatest pests which 
could have been introduced into this country, but the offer- 
ing of rewards for its destruction encourages the killing of 
native birds, which are indistinguishable from it to the un- 
practiced eye of the officer who pays the bounty. 
Expense of the Bounty System. 
In 1895 laws providing bounties on wild animals were in 
force in about thirty States of the Union, but with the ex- 
ception of New Mexico and Texas, practically no rewards 
were offered in any of the States lying south of latitude 37°. 
North of this line bounty laws were in force in all the States 
except Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, and 
possibly West Virginia. In some cases the expenditures 
were small, but in Minnesota, Montana and Wyoming th^ 
expense was heavy. 
It is extremely difficult to obtain accurate statistics regard- 
ing the cost of this legislation, owing to the fact that in some 
cases the rewards are paid from the State treasury, in others 
by counties. State bounties are usually io eluded in the 
reports of the treasurer or auditor, but reports of county 
olficers are seldom published in detail, and it is necessary to 
secure the data from the original records. When a change 
occurs in the office of county clerk or treasurer, the new in- 
cumbent frequently finds difficulty in unraveling the old ac- 
counts, and he may be entirely ignorant of an expenditure 
of thousands of dollars under his predecessor. Old records 
are sometimes inaccessible and sometimes burned, so that 
it is practically impossible to obtain returns for a series of 
years. 
Reports of bounty payments during the last quarter of a 
century have been collected in detail from twenty-nine 
States. As shown in the following table, nearly $2,400,000 
has been spent, but the returns are more or less incomplete 
from all the States except Maine, Michigan, Montana, Min- 
nesota, New York and Wisconsin. No attempt has been 
made to secure statistics from twelve other States in which 
relatively small amounts have been paid, and it is safe 
to say that the total expenditures aggregate more than 
$3,000,000. 
BOUMTIffiS PAID ON NOXIOUS ANIMALS AND BIRDS FROM 1871 TO 1895. 
State or Bounty Total State or Bounty Total 
Territory. paid.* amount. Territory. paid.* amount. 
Arizona.. 188r-1895 t$10.000 New Mexico. .,1891-1895 S6,645 
California Ig86-1895 310,345 New York 1871-1895 41,330 
Colorado 188fi-1895 93,837 North Dakota. 18;6-1895 79,565 
Waho. 1878-1895 46,591 Oregon 18S5-1895 67,7'18 
IlUnois 1877-1895 89,566 Pennsylvania. ,18f5-1887 t:50,000 
Indiana 1875-1P95 22,m Rhode Island.. 1893-1895 a,935 
Iowa. 1871-1895 156,484 South Dakota.. 188 --1895 40,777 
Kansas 1675-1895 126,955 Texas 1891-1892 50,000 
Maiii« 1871-1895 49,.5O0 Utah .....1888-1835 .3,129 
Michigan 1871-1895 80,774 Vermont 1881-1895 32 0^9 
Minnesota 1876-1895 a03,338 WashinKton. . .188i-1895 58,836 
Missouri. 1879-1895 t3B,0C0 Wisconsin 1871-1895 1-313 500 
Montana 1883-1895 175,367 Wyoming 188S-189C± .31.803 
Nebraska 1881-1695 28,148 - 
.Vevada 1 885-1895 26,831 Total $2,387,361 
N. Hampshire. 1874-1895 !>6,738 , , . 
* Short periods show the years for which returns are available and 
do not necessarily include the whole time bounties were in force, ex- 
cept in Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island 
and Dtah. 
t Estimated. 
t To March 31, 
The cost of a law depends of course on the length of time 
that it remains in force; but it is probable that any act which 
offers a sufficiently high premium to insure its enforcement 
will involve an expenditure of from $5,000 to $'^0,000 per 
annum. In the following table are given six of the most 
noted bounty laws passed during the last decade, and it will 
be seen that while all but one remained in force less than 
two years, the expenditures varied from $50,000 to nearly 
$200,000. Such an expense as this could not long be main- 
tained by any State, and, with the exception of the Illinois 
sparrow act and the Montana bounty law of 1895, all the 
laws have been repealed. 
PAYMENTS UNDER SIX KKCENT BOUNTy LAWS. 
State. 
California...,, 
Illinois. 
Montana , 
Do 
Pennsylvania 
Texas,,..,.,,, 
Act. 
Coyote act. 
Sparrow bounty 
act, 
Ground squurel 
act...... 
Wolf bounty law. 
Scalp act,,, ,,.,,4. 
Protection of far- 
mers 
In force.* 
Total 
bounty 
18 mos.: Mfirch 31, $187,485 
3891-Sepc. 30, 19J. 
15 months: Deo. 1,1 55,653 
]89i-Peb. S9, 1856.1 
6 months: March 5, 54,578 
188r-Bept. 13, 1687. 
Umontbs: Feb. -26, 89,871 
1885- April 21, 1896 
23 months; June S3. tl5[),000 
1885-Mayl8, 188?. 
|16 months: April, 50,000 
189i-Aug. 31, iSOi 
Ave. 
per 
month. 
510,416 
8,710 
9,096 
6,419 
6,521 
3,125 
* The time represents the period during which payments were act- 
ually made ; for example, 1 he California coyote law remained in force 
unlit January, 1895. and the claims amounted to nearly $400,00?, but 
payments ceased on Sept, 30, 189;, and only $187,485 was actually 
paid. The Illinois sparrow law is in force "only during December, 
January and February. 
t Estimated. 
Objections to the Bounty System. 
The difficulties encountered in carrying out the provisipns 
* Report Commissioner of AKriculfciire, 1886, page 388. 
of bounty laws are so great as to give rise to serious objec- 
tions to such legislation. No rewards for killing wild ani- 
mals are paid by the General Government in this country, 
for each State has jurisdiction over its noxious as well as its 
useful birds and mammals, and must make its own laws for 
each species. 
Bounty laws may be divided into three mam groups: (1) 
Acts providing for the payment of premiums from the State 
treasury; (2) acts permitting rewards to be paid from county 
treasmles; (3) local acts maintained at the expense of town- 
ship treasuries. Some States have found county bounties 
most effective; others have relied entirely on State bounties. 
In Michigan all three kinds are in operation; bounties for 
wolves are paid by the State, rewards for English sparrows 
from the county treasuries, and premiums on wood chucks, 
hawks, crows and moles by townships. Each method has 
its advantages, and each its defects. The advantages claimed 
for the Slate bounty are greater uniformity and efficiency; 
if the bounty is paid by counties, its maintenance depends 
entirely on the interest manifested by each county, and the 
law is seldom enforced in all. A more serious defect lies in 
the varying rates which are sure to be paid, and the conse- 
quent danger that scalps will be carried where the highest 
rate is paid, and thus increase the expense in counties which 
offer high premiums. The objection, of inequality may l5e 
urged even m,ore strongly against township "bounties. 
Trouble is sometimes caused in States which have large for- 
est or Indian reservations where animals can increase, as the 
adjoining counties are almost sure to receive scalps taken on 
the reservations, and are thus compelled to bear an expense 
which does not belong to them. 
Considerable difficulty is sometimes experienced in raising 
sufficient funds for paying rewards. In some Slates the pre- 
miums are paid from the general fund without limitation; 
in others the bounty law carries a specific appropriation. 
Tire latter method has been adopted in Colorado, Minnesota, 
Montana. New Mexico and Wyoming, but payments have 
not always been kept wilhin the limit, and in case of an ex- 
cess a deficiency appropriation is necessary To obviate this, 
a clause was inserted in the Texas law of 1891, providing that 
Ihe act should become inoperative as soon as the appropria- 
tion of $50,000 was expended. This had the desired eflect 
of limiting the payments, but it practically repealed the law, 
as the fund became exhausted some months before the next 
meeting of the legislature. Payments from the general fund 
are open to the objection that the counties which contribute 
least toward the expenses of the State are usually the ones 
which draw most heavily for bounties. As such a burden is 
not only unequal, but the benefit which it confers is re- 
stricted to a comparatively small proportion of the taxpayers, 
some States require a special tax for the bounty fund. 
In Montana, where bounties benefit the caUle and sheep 
men almost exclusively, the law of 1895 authorizsd a special 
tax of one and one-half mills per dollar on the assessed valu- 
ation of all horses, cattle and sheep, in addition to the reeu- 
lar proportion of taxes, stt aside as a State bounty fund. The 
same principle has been adopted in Ohio and some of the 
counties of Virginia, where the rewards are paid from a dog 
tax or some other special fund. 
One of the most difficult matters to regulate in connection 
with bounty legislation is the rate allowed for scalps. If the 
reward is too low, there is no inducement to destroy noxious 
animals, and the law becomes practically inoperative. This 
was the case with the Montana act of 1879, which apparently 
failed entirely, as the reports of the county treasurers fail to 
show the expenditure of a single dollar for bounties during 
the four years the law remained on the statute books. If, on 
the other hand, the rate is too high, the results are most dis- 
astrous. No treasury can stand the drain caused by a high 
bounty for any length of time. The coyote act of Califor- 
nia went into effect March 31, 1891, but payments were 
stopped Sept. 30, 1892, after $187,485 had been expended. 
The prairie dog and squirrel bounty law of Montana, passed in 
1887, remained in force but six months before the funds in the 
treasury were exhausted. The coyote bounty of 1892 not 
only exhausted the regular appropriation of |13,000, but 
necessitated a deficiency appropriation of $17,343 to pay tbe 
claims which were presented against the State. The Colorado 
bounties of 1889 involved suca a heavy outlay that other ap- 
propriations from the same fund could not be paid, and the 
law was finally declared unconstitutional by the Supreme 
Court of the State. 
Inequality in the rates offered in adjoining States or coun- 
ties is almost as bad as a high premium, since scalps are 
likely to be taken fn^m localities where the rewards are low 
to the nearest county which pays a high premium, and which 
is thus compelled to" pay for animals which do not belong to 
it. In 1895 bounties on wolves and coyotes varied from $i.50 
to $5 in the Black Hills region of South Dakota, while the 
rewards were $2 in North Dakota, $3 in Montana and Wyo- 
ming, and $5 ia Iowa. Not only were scalps sent from one 
county to another, but rewards were claimed in Iowa for 
coyotes taken in South Dakota, While the coyote law was 
in force in California the premium was $5, but in Nevada 
only 50 cents was a'lowed. Nevada reported the destruction 
of comparatively few coyotes, but thousands of scalps were 
presented for payment in California, and it was notorious 
that man}' were i mported from neighboring States, and even 
from Lower California. 
Not less important than the rate is the proof (which must 
be submitted before the bounty is paid) that the animal has 
been killed as claimed. 
Many States require the scalps, including the ears, to be 
produced as evidence, and it is important that these scalps 
should be sufficient to identify the animals without question 
ia order to leave no chance for fraud. It will suffice merely 
to mention a few of the ways in which rewards have bsen 
obtained fraudulently. Skins of dogs or other domesticateci 
animals have been turned in for scalps of wolves or coyotes, 
and in the case of small species, when the heads have been 
accepted in one county and th'i tails demanded in another, 
the bounty has been coUecled on the same animals twice. 
One of the counties in North Dakota, which paid consider- 
able sums for ground squirrels, first required the heads as 
"scalps" ; then the tails ; a year or two afterward all four 
feet, and finally withdrew the bounty altogether. Ignorance 
on the part of the bounty official sometimes results in the 
payment of premium for species to which the law was never 
intended to apply. Dr. B H. Warren, who has made a 
careful study of the "scalp act" of Pennsylvania, states that 
the heads of domesticated fowls, partridges, pheasants, 
cuckoos, butcher birds, and even night hawks were accepted 
in some counties as those of hawks and owls 
Such cases as these emphasize the importance of protect- 
ing the State against imposition. If the bounty is paid by 
county officers, it should be limited to species which, are 
readily recognizable. New Haqipshire offered rewards for 
hawka supposed to be destructive to poultry and other 
birds, and endeavored to meet the difficulty of identifica- 
tion by requiring the selectmen of the town to certify that 
the hawks were injurious before th^ bounties were paid, but 
as the State Treasurer remarked in a recent report, it is not 
likely that boards of selectmen were elficted on account of 
their proficiency in ornithology! British Columbia, which 
claims almost complete immunity from fraudulentpaymenls. 
restricts the premiums to wolves, coyotes and panthers, and 
requires the skull of the animal to be presented at the Pro- 
vincial Museum, where it in examined by the curator before 
the bounty is paid. In some States the law demands the 
entire skin to be brought in for examination ; such skins are 
canceled to prevent them from being presented a second 
time, and then returned to the owner. In practice, this 
method is likely to increase rather than diminish fraud, for- 
the reason that skins are not canceled uniformly. In Ver- 
mont wolf skins are marked by punching two holes Jin in 
diameter in the ear; in Wyoming a single hole ^in. in diam- 
eter is punched in the ear, or sometimes a small hole in the 
foot; ia Utah the skins are canceled by cut'ing the letters 
B P l|in. in length in the neck. Thus, Wyoming skins, 
which had been canceled by a hole in the foot, might be pre- 
sented in Utah if the feet were removed, and the heads could 
then be cut off and sent to a State which required only the 
scalps, It is true, the applicant is usually required to state 
under oath where the animal was killed, and in Montana he 
must also file affidavits of two resident taxpayers of the 
county who are acquainted with him and who believe the 
animal to have been killed as claimed. 
The Montana law of 1895 declares the alteration or coun- 
terfeiting of scalp certificates to be forgery ; swearing falsely 
to affidavits, perjury, punishable by impri'sonment from one 
to ten years, while patching or presenting punched skins is 
d-'fined as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding 
$500 or imprisonment for not more than three months. With 
all thtse pre cautions against fraud no reference ismade to rais- 
ing animals for bounty, a matter which has sometimes given, 
rise to serious trouble, but which is expressly mentioned in 
the laws of only a few Slates. Cases have been recorded in 
which eggs of hawks and owls were taken from the nest and 
hatched under hens in order to secure premiums on the 
young birds. It was said to be more profitable in Iowa a 
few years a?o to rai^e coyotes for the bounty than to raise 
sheep, and Kentucky and New Mexico, recognizing the pos- 
sibility of breed irg wolves, required affidavits showing that 
the animals had not been raised for tbe rewards. 
What Have Bounties Accomplished? 
Advocates of the bounty system seem to think that almost 
any species can be exterminated in a short time if the pre- 
miums are only hia:h enough. Extermination, bowever, is 
not a question of months, but of years, and it is a mistake 
to suppose that it can be accomplished rapidly except under 
extraordinary circumstances, as in the case of the buffalo 
and the fur seal. Theoietically, a bounty should be high 
enough to insure the destruction of at least a majority of 
the iadividuals during the first season, but it has already 
been shown that scarcely a single State has been able to 
maiatain a high rate for more than a few months, and it is 
evident that the higher the rate the greater the danger of 
fraud. Although Virginia has encouraged the killing of 
wolves almost from the first settlement of the colony, and 
has sometimes paid as high as $25 apiece for their scalps, 
wolves were not exterminated until about the middle of this 
century or until the rewards had been in force for more than 
200 years, Nor did they become extinct in England until the 
beginning of the sixteenth century, although efforts toward 
iheir extermination had been begun in the reign of King 
Edgar (959-975) France, which'has maintained bounties 
on these animals fur more than a century, found it necessary 
to increase the i-ewards to $30 and $40 in 1882, and in 
twelve years expended no less than $115,000 for nearly 8,000 
wolves. 
Attention has already been called to some of the requisites 
of a successful method of extermination, and particularly to 
the fact that rewards should be paid wherever the animal is 
found. The bounty on wolves and coyotes most nearly 
satisfies these conditions, as it has been more generally paid 
than that on other species. 
Every State and Territory west of the Mississippi, except 
Arkansas and the Indian Territory, has enacted laws for the 
destruction of these animals, but the results have not been 
altogether satisfactory, and the rates have frequently been 
changtd. High premiums have been tried in California, 
Montana and Texas, and found impracticable. Each of 
these States offered $5 for coyote scalps for some time, and 
the outlay aggi'egated hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
Iowa and Minnesota are the only Western States which now 
pay more than $3 per scalp, and in Iowa the rate on young 
wolves is $2. It has, moreover, been impossible to secure 
the active cooperation of all the States, and where the bounty 
depends on the order of the board of county sui^ervisors it 
may, as in the case of Idaho, become inoperative. 
The larger animals are gradually becoming rare, particu- 
larly in the East, but it cannot be said that bounties have 
brought about the extermination of a single species in any 
State. Wolves are now almost extinct east of the Missis- 
sippi River except in Florida and a few other States, but 
their present rarity is due rather to the settlement of the 
country than to the number killed for rewards, On the 
Great Plains, where civilization has not yet encroached on 
their domain to any great extent, they have not decreased 
rapidly nor even perceptibly in some places, notwithstanding 
the high rewards for their scalps. It is perhaps safe to say 
that Cviyote^ have increased in California in the four years 
which have elapsed since bounties were withdrawn, and 
that the eft'ects of the law of 1891 are hardly perceptible. 
Maine has encouraged the killing of bears ever since 1830, 
but the returns of the last five years do not show any decided 
decreas in the scalps presented for bounty. New Hamp- 
shire has been paying for bears about as long as Maine, but 
in 1894 the State treasurer called attention to the large num- 
ber reported by four or five of the towns, and added that 
should the other 234 towns "be equally successful in breed- 
ing wild animals for the State market, in proportion to their 
tax levy, it would require a Stale tax levy of nearly 
$2,000,000 to pay the bounty claims." Even New York 
withdrew the rewards on bears in 1895, not because they 
had become unnecessary, but because the number of animals 
killed increased steadily each year. 
If this is the result when bounties on large animals are 
paid by many States, what can be expected in the ease of 
squirrels, gophers and rabbits, which are immensely more 
numerousthan wolves or bears, and against which legislation 
has been at best extremely desultory'/ Ada county, Idaho, 
waged war on rabbits for seventeen years, but after destroy- 
