THE SAGE HEN 
To the Editor of Forest and Stream: 
P ROMPTED by an editorial in a re- 
cent issue of Forest and Stream ad- 
vocating protection for the sage hen, I 
am enclosing herewith some notes or ob- 
servations made during a five months’ 
tour of central and western Montana. 
Little light seems to have been thrown 
on the life history of the sage hen; for 
what reason I know not except that they 
inhabit arid and inaccessible regions. 
Present day agitation for the protec- 
tion of the sage hen is indeed timely. 
They are still fairly abundant in certain 
sections of the west, but let us not lose 
sight of the fact that the larger part of 
the public domain has been converted into 
range and as the country becomes settled 
game quickly disappears. 
Last January a report became current 
that a large number of sage hens had 
taken up winter quarters in the “Cr&zy 
Woman’s Pocket,” in central Montana. 
Wishing to verify this report with eye- 
evidence I made a journey through that 
lonely region about the middle of Janu- 
ary, hoping to get some good photographs. 
The region in question is remote from 
populated districts and the artemisia 
grows there in profusion. 
In the dead of winter sage hens become 
sociable and congregate in large flocks 
while at other seasons of the year they 
are not gregarious to the same extent. 
I am sure that the huge flock we saw 
numbered not less than one thousand 
birds. The number was estimated, of 
course, but I believe it was under rather 
than over estimated. 
Crazy Woman’s Pocket is an interest- 
ing formation from a geological stand- 
point. It is almost completely surround- 
ed by rim rock which in places rises fifty 
feet above the enclosed area, forming a 
pocket as the name would signify. Few 
habitations grace the spot. Occasionally 
the lonely cabin of a homesteader looms 
up in the distance, but for the most part 
it is an arid and dreary region. Such a 
region is quite ideal for sage hens, as they 
quickly desert fertile and settled districts 
for sage-covered, remote places. 
A chilly blast was blowing out of the 
north and in the freezing temperature we 
failed utterly in our efforts to get photo- 
graphs, but it was a rare treat to see 
those magnificent birds take wing, rising 
into the wind until about fifty feet above 
the field and then turning down wind like 
scout planes with throttles wide open. It 
is astonishing at what speed such big 
birds can move with a strong wind in 
their favor. 
An old cock bird is perhaps just a trifle 
smaller than the wild, turkey, although 
individual birds in the flock under obser- 
vation varied greatly in point of size. 
The maximum length of hens is perhaps 
not over 22 inches, while cock birds at- 
tain a length of 28 inches and weigh as 
much as 8 V 2 pounds. 
Although balked at the outset in our 
attempt to get pictures we continued our 
efforts. We resorted to stalking, but with 
small success. The birds were wary and 
would not allow a closer approach than 
twenty-five yards. The concealment in 
spots where the wind had cleared away 
the snow was little short of remarkable. 
Even close scrutiny at that distance failed 
to reveal the outlines of birds. It was an 
excellent example of protective coloration. 
Old birds are decidedly unsavory. The 
sage leaves upon which they feed impart 
a rather rank and disagreeable taste to 
their flesh. But this is not true of young 
birds. On the other hand they are tooth- 
some morsels. If old birds are “drawn” 
immediately upon being brought to bag 
they are rendered far more palatable. I 
find this is a precaution old and experi- 
enced gunners invariably take. Many a 
good meal has been spoiled, when birds 
were being prepared for the table, by a 
drop or so of the acrid juices from the 
intestinal tract. 
The antics of cock birds during the 
mating season are decidedly ludicrous. 
The air sacs on the neck are inflated until 
the breast resembles a pneumatic cushion, 
upon which the bird rests or slides over 
the ground. 
The sage hen is the giant among our 
American grouse and it would be a sad 
commentary on conservation if we al- 
lowed this noble bird to be exterminated. 
J. W. Yates, Jr., S. D. 
CROW-SHOOTING 
To the Editor of Forest and Stream: 
T HE economic status of the American 
crow is a subject which has been 
much debated by ornithologists. As in 
the case of several other species of birds 
the harm done by the crow is very evi- 
dent, while the good is not so easily per- 
ceived. 
The crow does good by destroying in- 
jurious insects, small rodents and carrion. 
About 20% of the food of the adults, and 
48% of that of the young, consists of in- 
sects, chiefly of injurious species, while 
rodents make up about 2% and carrion 
3 per cent. • 
This species does harm by eating com 
and other grain, cultivated fruit, small 
reptiles and amphibians, and the eggs 
and young of wild birds and poultry. 
Corn is one of the staple foods of the 
crow, and constitutes 38% of its food 
for the year. Some of the corn taken is 
undoubtedly waste grain, but much of it 
consists of sprouting kernels and com 
in the “milk” stage, while some is de- 
rived from shocks standing in the field 
after harvest. The pulling up of the 
sprouting kernels, whereby the future 
crop is often ruined or greatly impaired, 
is the chief cause of the maledictions 
heaped upon the head of this species by 
the farmer. Grain other than corn, 
chiefly wheat, oats and buckwheat, make 
up 13% of the total food. 
Cultivated fruit makes up only a small 
percentage of the total food for the 
year, but since this species has been re- 
ported as occasioning serious damage to 
apples, pears, cherries, grapes, figs, 
oranges, melons, peanuts, almonds, chest- 
nuts and pecans, and since the loss often 
falls very heavily on individual orchards, 
the crow’s depredations in this 1 line can- 
not be overlooked in any consideration of 
its economic status. 
Crows not infrequently raid the poul- 
try yard and carry off young chickens, 
and a good deal of the loss, for which 
“hen-hawks” are blamed and many bene- 
ficial species of hawks consequently per- 
secuted by the farmer, is undoubtedly 
due to crows. 
The crow’s habit of robbing the nests 
of wild birds of eggs and young is well 
known to every field ornithologist. This 
habit may not have constituted a serious 
menace to the smaller wild birds in the 
days when the country was largely cov- 
ered with forest and well-concealed nest- 
ing sites were abundant. But today, 
when vast stretches of open country ex- 
ist, and nesting sites are scarcer and 
not so well concealed, the effect of the 
crow’s nest-robbing proclivities is far 
more serious. 
From the above brief consideration of 
the economic status of the crow we can 
see that it is not a species which should 
be allowed to increase in numbers, and 
while it would be decidedly unwise to urge 
a war of extermination it is desirable to 
keep it in check. This conclusion is 
borne out by the statement of Mr. E. R. 
Kalmbach of the Bureau of Biological 
Survey in his comprehensive bulletin 
The Crow and its Relation to Man, from 
which source I have derived the data on 
percentages of food given above. He 
says, “It is well that no protection be af- 
forded the bird and that permission be 
