Auk, XV, April, 1898, pp .<?//'«?. 
The Short-eared Owls of Muskeget Island. 
Editors of ‘ The Auk ’ : — 
Dear Sirs : — I quite agree with Mr. Miller ( cf. Auk, XV, No. i, Janu- 
ary, 1898, pp. 75-77) that the killing of the family of Muskeget Owls in 
1896, merely because they were preying on the Terns, was ill-judged. If 
Muskeget were my private property I should encourage and protect the 
Owls, and they would be made welcome to as many Terns as they chose 
to eat, for I should feel confident that however fast they might increase 
the Terns would outstrip them in the race. As Mr. Miller says, bird pro- 
tection should not be made one sided for if it be so it is certain to lose 
not only its scientific but much of its aesthetic value, as well as some- 
thing, even, of its practical usefulness. Bird protectors, whether they be 
sportsmen or pure bird lovers, would do well to study more closely the 
balance of nature, for it concerns the success of their enterprises far 
more closely than they seem to realize. Even the naturalists do not as 
yet fully understand the complex workings and delicate adjustments of a 
system which, when not interfered with by man, seems invariably to 
result in the production and maintenance of the richest possible fauna, 
of which the predatory and non-predatory forms increase together to the 
full limits of the capacity for food and shelter which the country fur- 
nishes. No one who has ever visited a primitive region, well timbered, 
well watered and not too cold, can deny the truth of this, but it is cer- 
tainly difficult to understand or explain how Hawks, Owls, Herons, 
1 ~ »***-»*~ v* uiv-ni me wuiu away 
almost to the shaft. But even the lighter two birds have a number of 
scapulars and interscapulars which are perfect in outline and which are 
not only much darker than the worn portions of the plumage, but nearly 
or quite as dark as corresponding feathers of birds taken in autumn or 
winter at places hundreds or even thousands of miles distant from 
Muskeget. These feathers may have been of recent growth at the time 
when the birds were killed but it is more probable that they were old 
feathers which had been protected by the overlapping plumage from the 
bleaching and disintegrating effects of the tail- and sunlight, for the inner 
quills, as well as the inner webs of the outer primaries and tail-feathers, 
are almost equally fresh and perfect, in striking contrast with the frayed 
and bleached outer portions of some of the wing and tail-feathers. 
It is, of course, quite safe to assert that at some time earlier in the 
season the general coloring of these birds must have been not unlike that 
which the unworn parts of the plumage now exhibit, and it seems not 
unreasonable to assume that even these unworn feathers must have lost 
something of their original depth and richness of tint. If this be granted, 
and a very slight allowance made for fading, I do not see how it can be 
maintained that the Short-eared Owls taken by Mr. Maynard and my- 
self on Muskeget Island in 1870 were in any respects peculiar. Even if 
the allowance for fading be not conceded it is quite possible, as I have 
ah eadj stated, to match the unworn feathers by corresponding feathers 
