16 THE A U DU BOON BU Db eerie 
The effects on bird life of insecticide spraying have been well-documented 
in previous Audubon Bulletins. See Mrs. A. E. Montgomery’s article on 
“Bird Mortality in Elmhurst” (Sept., 1956) and Karl Bartel’s article on 
“Japanese Beetle Control and Effect on Birds” (June, 1960). Village coun- 
cilmen who argue that D.D.T. spraying is the only effective means of Dutch 
elm disease contro] are misstating the facts. Sanitation — removal and de- 
struction of diseased and dead trees, elm logs, and elm bark by burning — 
has proved to be effective and does not harm birds. In a private communi- 
cation, Dr. Thomas G. Scott of the State Natural History Survey Division 
has stated: “Dr. Cedric Carter, who is in charge of elm disease studies for 
the Illinois Natural History Survey, recently advised me that sanitation 
ranks ahead of spraying. He advises that spraying be carried out only if 
money remains after completely adequate sanitation has been provided for. 
... Dr. J. G. Matthysse ... recommends sanitation only, no spraying, for 
New York.” 
A recent development, and a most alarming one, is the implication that 
there may be a human health hazard in the indiscriminate and continued 
spraying of chlorinated hydrocarbon poisons in oil solutions. Speaking be- 
fore the 23rd Annual Convention of the National Wildlife Federation in 
New York on Feb. 27, 1959, Dr. M. M. Hargraves of the Mayo Clinic, 
Rochester, Minn., stated his personal opinion as follows: “‘There is a health 
hazard to existing individuals in the habitat, both from the effect of actual 
personal contact with the agent and from the need for habitat readjust- 
ment. ... In my opinion it is this susceptible or hypersensitive individual 
who runs the greatest risk of reacting adversely to the various hydrocar- 
bons used as pesticides. It has long been known that chronic intoxication 
by benzol will produce aplastic anemia, leukemia, or lymphomas in certain 
susceptible individuals. . .” 
There is a grave possibility that the village councils and park districts, 
in carrying out their undeclared war against wildlife, may in truth be 
conducting war against the human race itself. When your village council 
or similar governing body next meets to consider an appropriation for 
pesticide spraying, it will behoove you to speak in protest. It now appears 
that you will not only be speaking in defense of birds . .. you will be 
speaking for yourself. 
22W681 Tamarack Drive, Glen Ellyn, IIil. 
“BLACKBIRD CONTROL” SCHEME PROPOSED 
EARLY IN APRIL the United Press-International news service carried a story 
quoting a statement by Rep. E. C. Gathings of Arkansas that “birds were 
doing $100 million dollars worth of damage” annually to agricultural crops 
— rice crops in particular — and that an appropriation would be sought 
to “eliminate or control these depredations.” Director John Bayless saw the 
story in his newspaper office and immediately forwarded it to our Con- 
servation Vice-President, Raymond Mostek. He in turn sent an air mail 
letter to the National Audubon Society warning them of this threat to 
songbirds. 
Within a few days Mr. Carl Buchheister, President of the National Audu- 
bon Society, had written to Congressman Gathings, the U.P.I., and the 
Arkansas Audubon Society, protesting the suggestion that the Federal 
government should embark upon a wholesale bird destruction campaign. 
Mr. Buchheister pointed out that the $100 million figure was highly ex- 
aggerated; that songbirds do far more benefit than harm to crops by de- 
