Off. Doc.] Pennsylvania State Board of Agriculture. 9 
111 relation to the above recommendations a few remarks may not 
be out of place. 
By reference to the summary of legislation which follows, it will be 
seen that the existing laws which alfect the sparrow are not sufficiently 
explicit in most cases. 
In only seven states do the laws mention the English sparrow speci- 
fically. In the State of New York it is a misdemeanor to feed or shel- 
ter the sparrow, and in Michigan a bounty of one cent per head is paid. 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio 
simply except the English sparrow from the protection afforded most 
other small birds. 
In twenty-two other states and territories which afford more or less 
protection to small birds, the English sparrow stands on the same foot- 
ing with harmless or beneficial bird^i. In the laws of fifteen states the 
word sparrow ’* is used without qualification, the birds so designated 
being entitled to protection, except that in the States of Illinois, Ken- 
tucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Nebraska, any person may kill birds 
on his own land when they endanger his crops. 
In Iowa, Kansas. Mississippi. South Carolina, Tennessee and Wis- 
consin, most small birds are protected, and sparrows are not among 
those excepted. 
Eighteen other states and territories have no laws which have any 
bearing on the case. 
It is evident therefore, that prompt and vigorous legislation is needed 
in all states where the Engli-^h sparrow has become established, and 
even those states and territories not yet infested [if there be any 
suchj would do well to take measures to keep the x^est out. What- 
ever may have been the intention of the framers of laws which pro- 
tect native sparrows, there can be no question that many peoj^le re- 
frain from taking active steps against English sparrows, through the 
belief that they are protected under the law, and states whose laws 
are thus open to misinterpretation ought at once to define clearly the 
position of t^*^ English sparrow. Moreover, since the most effective 
warfare on this bird can be waged during the breeding season, any act 
intended to accomplish its destruction should distinctly authorize the 
destruction of its nest, eggs, and young. 
It will be difficult doubtless, to enforce strictly a law which makes 
it a misdemeanor intentionally to feed or shelter the sparrow, but 
some such law will be found necessary in order to prevent the system- 
atic propagation of sparrows in i^laces where otherwise they might 
be completely extirpated, while it will serve also as a wholesome 
check on those individuals who do not believe the sparrow to be in- 
jurious, and would be glad to frustrate any plan for its destruction. 
From what has been said you readilv see that birds play a great 
part in the economy of our husbandry, and we cannot doubt that it is 
just as essential to protect the good birds as it is to destroy the bad 
ones. 
Now let us examine the existing laws of our State as they pertain 
to the non-game birds. From Purdon’s Digest, page 833, etc., under 
Game, I find that the only sections that interest us in our present dis- 
cussion are sections twelve, thirteen, fourteen and twenty-nine. 
These laws, as compared with many state laws, are wonderfully simple 
and good. But in our experience of to-day, are somewhat vague and 
in one instance not strong enough ; for instance, section twelve, as 
Vi’'9s the old custom, mprOinr;.'^ bv cornrnc:i name families ?r cyn 
