16 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[July i, 1911. 
Nature’s Disturbed Balance. 
W. G. DeGroot, who is passing through New 
York on an extended trip, has handed us the 
following comments received from E. P. Robin¬ 
son, of Packerville, Conn., on the articles re¬ 
cently printed in Forest and Stream entitled, 
“Nature’s Disturbed Balance.’’ These comments 
bring up some ideas that are rather novel and 
well worth considering: 
I have read your article on “Nature’s Dis¬ 
turbed Balance,’’ and found it interesting. I 
wish to call to your attention some thoughts of 
my own, revived by the reading of yours. 
I do not believe you have over-estimated 
the damage to our game birds that is 
done by dogs and cats, but I believe you 
under-estimate the damage done by foxes 
and- crows. Both are ever hungry for either 
adult, young or eggs of game birds. No, that is 
too strong as to crows, as they do not kill adult 
game birds, I believe. I have often seen where 
a fox had crept up softly in tho night and 
jumped into a bevy of quail, sometimes getting 
only one bird and again getting two, as the re¬ 
jected feet showed. I have also seen in the 
snow where a fox caught ruffed grouse in the 
same way, and often where a rabbit paid with 
his life for his inability to outrun a fox. The 
fox hunts every night in the year, and the crow 
hunts every day for eggs or young, while sports¬ 
men may do so only a few weeks. 
One matter you did not mention that is hav¬ 
ing its effect on our woodcock particu’arlv, and 
on partridge and quail in less degree, is the 
largely increased number of telegraph and tele¬ 
phone wires. 1 have found several woodcock 
dead under wires, and have known of many 
others being found. Flying by night, I presume 
they cannot see as well as quail and grouse do 
in daylight. My dog picked up a grouse under 
wires that I believe had killed itself by flying 
against them. I have heard of quail being found 
in the same way. 
1 do not know how familiar you are with farm 
literature, but will say I am well versed there¬ 
in, and weeds are not an unmixed curse as so 
frequently inferred by writers on birds. Culti¬ 
vation is necessary, and few fie’ds get all they 
need, and millions of farmers have been forced 
by weeds to cultivate, where if it were not for 
weeds they would neglect. The editor of The 
Rural New Yorker, an able farmer and writer, 
has said he wishes more weeds would grow on 
his farm. 
Not one insect in twenty is injurious to agri¬ 
culture. The nineteen either prey on the in¬ 
jurious ones, or are neutral. Our birds are far 
too often not fond of injurious insects, and too 
fond of the good ones, and by eating either are 
apt to disturb nature’s balance to our detriment. 
Birds by eating bad insects prevent the breed¬ 
ing of those that prey upon this class, and by 
eating the good ones give the bad ones a chance. 
As to damage done by insects, which is stated 
at a billion dollars a year to the farmers of our 
country, any shortage in any crop is usually 
more than made up in the enhanced price it 
brings the producer. If you will examine the 
Government statistics on potatoes, corn, cotton, 
or any other crop, I believe you will agree with 
my statement. 
Prof. F. M. Webster, of the United States De¬ 
partment of 'Agriculture, an eminent entomolo¬ 
gist, says: "Hundreds of different kinds of in¬ 
sects inhabit every acre of farm land. Com¬ 
paratively few actually prey upon the grain or 
grasses, the remainder being either enemies of 
the few destructive species or of each other. 
The insects that actually destroy crops are few, 
while the number engaged in holding them in 
check is enormous. Probably not 5 per cent, of 
the different kinds of insects that inhabit a farm 
are injurious, while many times as many are 
the farmer’s friends, because they are engaged 
in destroying the pestiferous ones.’’ Of many 
thousands of words written by Prof. Webster 
on combatting insects injurious to agriculture, I 
have never known him to commend birds. 
Government statistics show that during the ten 
years, 1890 to 1900, the five largest crops of 
potatoes totaled 1,223,000,000 bushels, worth to 
the producers $404,000,000, while the five smallest 
crops tota’ed 821,000,000 bushels, selling for $503,- 
000,000. Thus the five smallest crops were 402,- 
000,000 bushels less to dig, store, handle and haul 
than the five largest crops, but brought the grow¬ 
ers $99,000,000 more money. The 1900 crop was 
211,000,000 bushels, worth $91,000,000, while the 
1901 crop was 187,000,000 bushels, worth $144,- 
ooo.ooo; 24,000,000 bushels less, but worth $53,- 
ooo.coo more money. Do these figures show that 
insects damage farmers greatly? 
The Wild Camels in Spain. 
Boston, Mass., June 3. —Editor Forest and 
Stream: Your editorial notice of a book on 
"Wild Life in Spain’’ contains data remarkably 
interesting to me. I find myself wondering about 
the origin of the wild camels and the wi’d bulls 
reported to be still found in the mountain fast¬ 
nesses of Spain. Must we not suppose that these 
wild camels are the descendants of once tame ones 
like some reported to be still existent in the Ari¬ 
zona desert, and that the same could be .said of 
the wild bulls mentioned? Can it be possible 
that specimens of the original wild bull of 
Europe, the aurochs, now supposed to be con¬ 
fined to a few examples preserved in the Lithu¬ 
anian forests, are sti 1 to be found in this same 
Spanish wilderness? 
This question is akin to that as to whether, 
as is persistently reported, the last examples of 
the wild monkey of Europe are still to be found 
on the Rock of Gibraltar. Has anyone really seen 
any of these monkeys in recent years? Surely 
some of the British officers stationed at Gibraltar 
could give positive answer to this question. As 
it happens, I have never gone ashore at Gibraltar, 
but have often thought that if I did, one of the 
reasons which would most induce me to do so 
would be to find out the truth about the Gibraltar 
monkey. „ C. H. Ames. 
[The wild camels, as suggested, are the de¬ 
scendants of camels imported from Africa. They 
were introduced to Spain in the year 1829 by the 
Marquis de Villafranca, who purposed to use 
them in transport and agriculture, as they are so 
commonly used on the opposite shores of Africa. 
In the same way it will be remembered camels 
were imported by the United States Government 
to Texas, and for the same purpose. These last 
were the ancestors of the wild came’s of Ari¬ 
zona, now extinct. The history of that importa¬ 
tion was given in Forest and Stream in 1904. 
Owing to the intense fear felt by the horses 
for the camels in Spain, their use was abandoned, 
and they were set free in the marshes where ever 
since they have lived and done wed. It seems 
extraordinary that these animals, which we always 
think of as inhabiting waterless deserts, should 
thrive in a country where much of the time they 
have to wade through water and to browse on 
water plants. Nevertheless, they did so. 
However, in modern times they had increased 
enough to attract poachers who destroyed them 
in such numbers that they became greatly re¬ 
duced in numbers, so that a letter received in 
1910 by Messrs. Chapman and Buck says that they 
are fast disappearing. 
The wild bu Is are nothing more than domestic 
bulls in a feral state. 
We know of no recent mention of the Barbary 
ape in Europe in which a small colony existed 
twenty-five or thirty years ago. They were said 
at that time to be holding their own. We be¬ 
lieve that it is by no means well established that 
they have always been there. Some people be¬ 
lieve that they were introduced perhaps one or 
two centuries ago. — Editor.] 
Waxwings. 
Delanson, N. Y., June 8 .—Editor Forest and 
Stream: I had not seen or heard a waxwing 
since the summer of the previous year till of a 
sudden, on the morning of May 30, waxwings 
were the prevailing birds. Whichever way I 
turned or listened there flitted before me the 
fawn-colored coat or breathed the sharp sighing 
note of these erratic wandering birds. We 
heard them along the Norman’s Kill, "Where we 
celebrated the day, and by mid-afternoon on our 
return home, they were all about the house, in 
elm and maple and shadbush. 
There was a mating pair in our shadbush and 
we thought at first that they were already pick¬ 
ing the unripe berries, for I had seen the robin 
eat this fruit thus early in the season. The 
waxwings were perched on a small branch 
facing us, perhaps a foot apart and their fine 
crested heads were often turned toward each 
other, so that we saw them in profile. One 
picked at a leaf, turned and sidled along the 
branch toward its companion and went through 
the motions of feeding it. Then the other bird 
picked at a leaf or twig, turned and faced its 
mate and repeated the act. 
We were so near them that we knew they 
were not picking the berries. The sturdy robin 
had struggled long to loosen one, and the wax¬ 
wings seemed to gather their food, whatever it 
was, without special effort. We doubted if there 
were enough worms or insects on the whole 
tree to furnish the smallest sparrow with such 
a lengthy banquet as we witnessed. We saw 
no food in their bills. It seemed to be nothing 
but pantomime, just a delightful make-believe. 
Will W. Christman. 
