852 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Nov. 26, 1910. 
and that the poultry-killing habit when acquired 
is accidental and unusual. However, we must re¬ 
member that any animal under confinement must 
modify its habits to some extent. We may also 
consider the bearing of individual peculiarities. 
I am more and more impressed with the import¬ 
ance of studying the individual habits of ani¬ 
mals. for it is very apparent to me that there 
will be found to be a very wide difference in the 
food habits of individuals of the same species. 
Most individuals of a species of course will be 
found to have similar habits. 
All my observations of the skunk have strong¬ 
ly indicated that the poultry taste was not com¬ 
mon among them. We have had skunks about 
the place unconfined on a number of occasions, 
and while sometimes they have invaded the hen 
roost, it has been only in rare instances, and 
usually in winter when mice are hard to get and 
insects are not to be found. They are not often 
found moving about in severe weather, but seem 
to hibernate for days or even weeks at a time. 
In mild weather they leave their burrows in 
search of food. I have followed the tracks left 
by a skunk in the soft snow to see what could 
be learned of its movements, and have found 
where it apparently surprised a full grown cot¬ 
tontail rabbit in its hiding place within a bunch 
of grass. The blood-stained snow and half-eaten 
carcass told the story of a tragedy. 
Not only do they like mice and insects, but 
fruit as well. I have known skunks to get into 
buildings where apples were stored to feast on 
them. They will eat tomatoes also, although not 
so fond of them as of other fruits. Melons, 
especially watermelons, are relished, and I have 
seen them scrape out the seeds from a broken 
pumpkin and devour them greedily. They will 
even eat cabbage when hungry. Honey, how¬ 
ever, is perhaps the greatest delicacy with skunks 
as with bears. Our captives will eat almost any¬ 
thing in the way of table scraps, from boiled 
potatoes to sour milk. 
The scent glands, as most people know, emit 
a most intolerable odor, and they seem to depend 
almost entirely upon that for defense. They 
have a peculiar habit of stamping the feet 
threateningly when a person or animal comes 
near. I once saw a cow approach a skunk in 
a field. She was curious and seemed to want 
to smell the animal. When she had come with¬ 
in a few feet, the skunk suddenly ran directly 
toward her and began stamping its feet angrily. 
The cow at once took fright and ran away. 
Our tame skunks were taken before they were 
half grown and the scent glands removed to 
avoid possible embarrassment from cultivating 
their acquaintance.- A box was turned upside 
down within the pen for shelter, until such time 
as they should prepare something different for 
themselves. They made a large nest of dry 
grass under the box and used it for sleeping 
quarters until the coming of frosty nights, when 
they set to work industriously to dig a burrow. 
They are rapid diggers and excavated a burrow 
quite to their liking in a single night. As nearly 
as we can estimate the burrow is about six feet 
long. Most of the work was done within twenty- 
four hours of the time of beginning, although on 
one occasion since they have thrown out a little 
more dirt. After it was finished they continued 
to occupy the box, excepting for an occasional 
day passed underground. 
Frank C. Pellett. 
Foreign Birds and Animals. 
Boston, Mass., Nov. 19.— Editor Forest and 
Stream: There are many uneasy persons who 
are always unthinkingly proposing to make reck¬ 
less experiments and to introduce any bird or 
animal into any region whatever without the 
least knowledge of the harm that may result. 
The animal life of any region proves by its 
presence there that it is acclimated and suited 
to its environment. It has “grown up with the 
country” and has its place in the history and 
legend of that country, and is, in most cases, 
best adapted to that country and will maintain 
itself in any desired abundance if properly pro¬ 
tected. 
While there are instances of wise introduction 
of exotic species, the number of such introduc¬ 
tions that have proved unwise and greatly to be 
regretted is large. With the new species there 
is always the danger of the introduction of para¬ 
sitic pests and also of the uncontrollable fecun¬ 
dity of the new species under new conditions, 
where the natural checks on such increase have 
not been developed along with it. 
No one would wish to make it impossible ever 
to introduce a new species into any given region. 
The domesticated animals being under the direct 
control of man may be taken wherever they will 
serve his purpose and eliminated when they cease 
to do that. 
All that is needed is wise and scientific—-and 
not heedless and reckless—procedure. 
So far as we know the introduction of the 
reindeer into Alaska, Labrador and Newfound¬ 
land seems likely to prove an unmixed good, 
while the proposal—put forward a short time 
ago with apparent seriousness—to introduce seals 
into Lake Superior properly called forth vigor¬ 
ous protest. 
One consideration should always be borne in 
mind, viz.: the irrevocable character of such a 
thing when once the deed is done. The islands 
of Porto Rico and Jamaica will forever harbor 
the undesirable mongoose, and the English rab¬ 
bit is as ineradicable from Australia as the house 
sparrow and the European house fly now are 
from pretty much all the rest of the world. 
Who would not if he could free American 
waters from the carp, and original trout waters 
of New England from the bass and pickerel that 
have been put into them? 
But to the end of time—so far as we can 
judge—these undesirable importations must re¬ 
main. There were original bass and pickerel 
waters aplenty, and we knew where to go for 
bass and pickerel when we wanted them—and I 
am saying nothing against bass or pickerel, both 
of which have afforded me much sport in my 
time—but there were many Northern lakes, ponds 
and streams famous for trout and where no 
enemies of trout existed. Many of these waters 
have been ruined for all time for trout fishing 
by the introduction of bass and pickerel, and in 
not a few cases, as I happen to know, by men 
who acted thoughtlessly and were moved by a 
desire for novelty or variety, and who lived to 
see the folly of their acts and bitterly regret 
them when all too late. 
I confess I never hear of the introduction of 
such birds as the Hungarian partridge or the 
Mongolian pheasant into the domain of our 
native ruffed grouse or prairie chicken without 
regret and an earnest wish that the zeal of the 
importers might be spent in efforts to restore 
and protect our own noble birds, dear to us by 
a thousand associations, native to our soil, best 
adopted to thrive here and most worthy of our 
regard. Is not this a right sentiment and one 
to be borne in mind? 
Beyond the scientific and economic sides of 
the question there is the sentimental one. Do 
we not like to associate certain species with cer¬ 
tain localities and like to go to their proper 
places to find them? We may be glad to have 
the lobster and the shad introduced into Pacific 
waters for very proper but utterly unsentimental 
reasons, but who would, if he could, introduce 
the tarpon and the tuna into Lake Superior? 
What traveler in foreign lands has not regretted 
the dying out of old customs and the vanishing 
of old and picturesque costumes and rejoiced 
when he found some out of the way nook where 
these things are preserved and where the ever¬ 
lasting commonness of the world has not pre¬ 
vailed ? 
To restore old forms of life to regions which 
were once their home is of course constructive 
and commendable. Who would not rejoice to 
see the prairie chicken and wild turkey flourish¬ 
ing again over all their once vast domain? Is 
there not in work like this subject enough for 
all our enthusiasm? 
Indiscriminate introduction of foreign forms 
is likely to result in the destruction of the most 
valuable and the survival of the least desirable. 
The following from one of your letters from 
New Zealand will illustrate this: 
“The first Eastern brook trout eggs brought 
to this country were imported by a Mr. John¬ 
son, of Christchurch, in the South Island, about 
1882, and from Mr. Johnson’s importation vari¬ 
ous acclimatization societies obtained eggs from 
which they subsequently raised stock fish for 
their hatcheries. From these hatcheries large 
numbers of young fish of various sizes have been 
planted in streams both in the North and South. 
They made a good showing in a few streams 
for a time, but since the introduction of the rain¬ 
bow and English brown trout into these streams, 
the brook trout in some instances have wholly 
disappeared, aand in others have been greatly re¬ 
duced in numbers. Our people think highly of 
this beautiful fish and are much disappointed be¬ 
cause better success has not attended the efforts 
made to thoroughly establish them in our waters.” 
What American-—who knows his brook trout 
—does not sympathize with this writer and the 
people of whom he speaks? C. H. Ames. 
Special British Committee for Bird 
Protection. 
At the suggestion of Lord Crewe, Secretary of 
State for the Colonies of the British Empire, a 
committee has been formed of representatives of 
the Colonial Office and of the Natural" History 
Museum of South Kensington (to which have 
recently been added the Parliamentary Under¬ 
secretary for India, and a representative of the 
London Board of Trade) to consider how far it 
may be possible ito devise means, either by legis¬ 
lation or by departmental control, “to prevent in¬ 
discriminate slaughter of plumage birds now rife 
in certain parts of the British Empire.” It is 
understood that the committee has decided to 
recommend very strong measures to suppress 
the plumage trade in England. 
