APPENDIX. 
343 
<‘‘‘ Susquehanna . — ‘Favorable to a repeal of the act’ 
“ Tioga. — ‘ The act referred to is a nuisance, and sliould be repealed as soon as 
possible.’ 
“ T'nion. — ‘The commissioners recommend the repeal of the whole bill, except as 
to foxes.’ 
“ Venango. — ‘ We are in favor of the repeal of the whole act, believing that it would 
give entire satisfaction to the taxpayers of our county.’ 
“ Warren. — ‘ Repeal the whole act by all means.’ 
“ Washington. — ‘It is the opinion of the commissioners that the only damage by 
hawks and owls is the destruction of our game birds, which is only felt by hunters ; 
on the other hand, by the destruction of mice and other small vermin, they are 
beneficial to the farmer. The repeal of the whole act would be beneficial to our 
farmers.’ 
“ Wyoming. — ‘ The effect of the repeal would be good.’ 
“ A number of the commissioners have appended to their reports a list of the 
number of each kind of mammal or bird uj)on which bounty has been paid. As in- 
dicative of the relative proportion of the bounties upon each, we give the following : 
“ Chester. — Hawks, 666 ; owls, 60 ; minks, 208 ; weasels, 248, and foxes 107. 
“ Franklin. — Hawks, 678 ; owls, 68 ; wild cats, 25 ; foxes, 425 ; minks, 155, and 
weasels, 83. 
“Several of the commissioners state that the premiums upon hatvks and owls 
constitute more than fifty per cent, of the total amount paid, while several of the 
commissioners call attention to the fact that wolves are enumerated in the title, but 
are not provided for in the body of the bill. 
“ In addition to the collection of data in this direction the ornithologist of the 
Board, Dr. B. H. Warren, of West Chester, Pa , also had his attention directed to the 
actual results of the effect of the law : First, as it relates to hawks and owls, and, 
second, as a whole. The data which was collected by him is partially shown in an 
article in another portion of this report, and in a lecture delivered at the annual 
meeting of the board in January last. 
“As a condensation of a large amount of correspondence upon this subject, which 
has reached the office of the Board during the past year, we give the following as 
covering the main points : 
“ This act should be repealed because — 
“ 1. It causes a drain upon the treasuries of the respective counties which is not 
warranted by the results produced. 
“2. Hawks and owls, by the destruction of insects, confer a benefit which is much 
more than an offset for the poultry destroyed by them. 
“3. Increased duties are imposed upon county officers, for which no additional 
compensation has been provided. 
“4. In a number of cases county officers have been imposed on, and bounties ille- 
gally drawn. 
“5. It encourages a certain class to follow hunting as a means of livelihood, and 
to the exclusion of other labor. 
“6. Self-interest would lead to the destruction of nearly as many of these noxious 
mammals and birds. 
“7. The repeal of the act will, by the increase of the number of hawks, cause 
greater destruction of field mice, which destroy large amounts of clover and clover 
roots each year. 
“The payment of bounties for any purpose is based upon wrong principles, and 
should be discouraged. 
“The act should not be repealed because — 
“ 1. This being the first year of its action, the total amount paid will be greatl}^ in 
excess of that of any subsequent year, and owing to the increased scarcity each year, 
the amount paid will be annually less. 
“2. By a repeal the good efiects of bounties already paid would be practically losi 
“3. The destruction of these birds and mammals protects game. 
