APPENDIX. 
341 
“ Bradford . — ‘In the opinion of our county commissioners, hawks and owls are 
more beneficial to farmers than detrimental, but they are of the opinion that the 
whole act should be repealed for the following reasons : 
“ ‘ 1. It encourages hunting as an occupation. 
“ ‘2. Because the motives of self-interest will prompt the destruction of all these 
animals found doing damage. 
“ ‘3. Because of the drain upon the treasury.’ 
“ Blair . — ‘ The general impression is that the act should stand as it now is ; there 
is no doubt that it is beneficial in our county and mountain districts. The effect of 
repealing the whole act would be very injurious, both to crops, domestic and wild 
game. The law, as a whole, meets with general approval. The expense for the first 
year seems to be rather burdensome, but in the future it will be much less. There 
were some three hundred and fifty foxes killed since the law went into effect ; and 
thus it will be a short time until every destructive and noxious animal will be ex- 
terminated. What is true with regard to the fox is also true in relation to the others 
named in the act.’ 
Butler . — ‘ The act as a whole should stand as it is ; that portion relating to hawks 
and owls should not be repealed.’ 
“ Cam &ru6.—‘ We favor the repeal of the whole law, and especially that portion 
referring to hawks and owls.’ 
“ Cameron . — ‘ The law should be repealed so far as it refers to minks, hawks and 
owls. It has a tendency to encourage a certain class of men who devote their entire 
time to hunting.’ 
“Centre. — ‘ We believe the act ought to be repealed as to hawks and owls. The 
effect of repealing the whole act would be a saving of thousands of dollars to the 
taxpayers annually. There would be about as many of the destructive mammals 
and birds killed if the act was repealed, and by persons whose duty it is to protect 
their property. We emphatically favor repealing the entire act relating to bounties 
on scalps.’ 
^‘‘Chester . — ‘The opinion of the county commissioners and farmers generally is 
that the portion of the act referring to hawks and owls should be repealed. As to 
repealing the whole act, there is a difference of opinion. Many do not favor the re- 
peal as to foxes, minks and weasels. We have paid bounties on the following : Six 
hundred and sixty-six hawks, sixty owls, two hundred and eight minks, two hun- 
dred and forty-eight weasels and one hundred and seven foxes.’ 
“ Clarion . — ‘We believe that the entire act should be repealed. Its repeal would 
be a benefit to the taxpayers, and no disadvantage to the farmers.’ 
“ Clearfield. — ‘Two-thirds of the amount has been paid upon hawks and owls; 
minks, hawks and owls should be abandoned ; wolves, wild cats and foxes should 
be retained.’ 
'‘^Clinton . — ‘Think there might be a bounty on wolves, wild cats and minks; 
would be satisfied with the repeal of the whole act.’ 
“ Columbia. — ‘ Repeal it as to owls, as they feed on mice, etc. The bounty should 
be continued on hawks, as they feed mainly upon poultry. Repealing the whole act 
would have no injurious effects ; the foxes would be killed in this county just the 
same. Weasels destroy rats, mice, etc. Those who are injured by minks would 
kill them just the same without the law.’ 
“ Crawford . — ‘The commissioners are of the opinion that the whole law should be 
repealed at the earliest possible moment. The commissioners are all farmers, and 
they consider the destruction of these mammals and birds a great damage to the 
farmers ; they are the farmers’ best friends.’ 
“ Cumberland . — ‘ We do not see that our county will receive any benefit by con- 
tinuing in effect any part of the act, and the repeal of the entire act will relieve the 
county of an unnecessary and unwarranted expense.’ 
“ Dauphin . — ‘ The repeal of the act would not affect the destruction of hawks and 
owls, as farmers, for self-protection, would destroy all they possibly could. Except 
as to wolves and foxes, we think the law should be repealed.’ 
