Our Vanishing Wild Life Part 39

"Hearing of this, on my return, I went to the Aldermen, _all of whom were guilty_, and told them that they and all others who were guilty would have to be fined. Three out of the five submitted and paid up, but they insisted that the ordinance be changed to read exactly as it is written here, with the exception that _all could shoot_ robins in the town until the first of March; whereupon I resigned, as was stated."--(_Bird Lore,_ XIV, 2. p. 140.)

The Mayor was quite right. The robin butchers of Pittsboro were not worthy to be governed by him.

THE MEADOW LARK is one of the most valuable birds that frequent farming regions. Throughout the year insects make up 73 per cent of its food, weed-seeds 12 per cent, and grain only 5 per cent. During the insect season, insects const.i.tute 90 per cent of its food.

THE BALTIMORE ORIOLE is as valuable to man as it is beautiful. Its nest is the most wonderful example of bird architecture in our land. In May insects const.i.tute 90 per cent of this bird's food. For the entire year, insects and other animal food make 83.4 per cent and vegetable matter 16.6 per cent.

THE CROW BLACKBIRD feeds as follows, throughout the whole year: insects, 26.9 per cent; other animal food 3.4; corn 37.2; oats, 2.9; wheat, 4.8; other grain, 1.6; fruits, 5; weed seeds and mast 18.2! This report was based on the examination (by the Biological Survey) of 2,346 stomachs, and "the charge that the blackbird is an habitual robber of birds' nests was disproved by the examinations." (F.E.L. Beal.)

FLYCATCHERS.--The high-water mark in insect-destruction by our birds is reached by the flycatchers,--dull-colored, modest-mannered little creatures that do their work so quietly you hardly notice them. All you see in your tree-tops is a two-foot flit or glide, now here and now there, as the leaves and high branches are combed of their insect life.

Bulletin No. 44 of the Department of Agriculture gives the residuum of an exhausting examination of 3,398 warbler stomachs, from seventeen species of birds, and the result is: 94.99 per cent of insect food,--mostly bad insects, too,--and 5.01 per cent vegetable food. What more can any forester ask of a bird?

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK "The Potato-bug Bird," Greatest Enemy of the Potato Beetles From the "American Natural History"]

THE SPARROWS.--All our sparrows are great consumers of weed seeds.

Professor Beal has calculated the total quant.i.ty consumed in Iowa in one year,--in the days when sparrows were normally numerous,--at 1,750,000 pounds.

THE AMERICAN GOLDFINCH as a weed destroyer has few equals. It makes a specialty of the seeds of the members of the Order Compositae, and is especially fond of the seeds of ragweed, thistles, wild lettuce and wild sunflower. But, small and beautiful as this bird is, there are hundreds of thousands of grown men in America who would shoot it and eat it if they dared!

THE HAWKS AND OWLS.--Let no other state repeat the error that once was made in Pennsylvania when that state enacted in 1885, her now famous hawk-and-owl bounty law. In order to accomplish the wholesale destruction of her birds of prey, a law was pa.s.sed providing for the payment of a bounty of fifty cents each for the scalps of hawks and owls. Immediately the slaughter began. In two years 180,000 scalps were brought in, and $90,000 were paid out for them. It was estimated that the saving to the farmers in poultry amounted to one dollar for each $1,205 paid out in bounties.

The awakening came even more swiftly than the ornithologists expected.

By the end of two years from the pa.s.sage of "the hawk law," the farmers found their fields and orchards thoroughly overrun by destructive rats, mice and insects, and they appealed to the legislature for the quick repeal of the law. With all possible haste this was brought about; but it was estimated by competent judges that in damages to their crops the hawk law cost the people of Pennsylvania nothing less than two million dollars.

Moral: Don't make any laws providing for the destruction of hawks and owls until you have exact knowledge, and know in advance what the results will be.

In the s.p.a.ce at my disposal for this subject, it is impossible to treat our species of hawks and owls separately. The reader can find in the "American Natural History" fifteen pages of text, numerous ill.u.s.trations and many figures elucidating this subject. Unfortunately Dr. Fisher's admirable work on "The Hawks and Owls" has long been out of print, and un.o.btainable. There are, however, a few observations that must be recorded here.

Each bird of prey is a balanced equation. Each one, I think without a single exception, does _some_ damage, chiefly in the destruction of valuable wild birds. The value of the poultry destroyed by hawks and owls is very small in comparison with their killing of wild prey. _Many of the species do not touch domestic poultry_! At the same time, when a hawk of any kind, or an owl, sets to work deliberately and persistently to clean out a farmer's poultry yard, and is actually doing it, that farmer is justified in killing that bird. But, the _occasional_ loss of a broiler is not to be regarded as justification for a war of extermination on _all_ the hawks that fly! Individual wild-animal nuisances can occasionally become so exasperating as to justify the use of the gun,--when scarecrows fail; but in all such circ.u.mstances the greatest judgment, and much forbearance also, is desirable and necessary.

The value of hawks and owls rests upon their perpetual warfare on the millions of destructive rats, mice, moles, shrews, weasels, rabbits and English sparrows that constantly prey upon what the farmer produces. On this point a few ill.u.s.trations must be given. One of the most famous comes via Dr. Fisher, from one of the towers of the Smithsonian buildings, and relates to

THE BARN OWL, (_Strix flammea_).--Two hundred pellets consisting of bones, hair and feathers from one nesting pair of these birds were collected, and found to contain 454 skulls, of which 225 were of meadow mice, 179 of house mice, 2 of pine mice, 20 were of rats, 6 of jumping mice, 20 were from shrews, 1 was of a mole and 1 a vesper sparrow. _One_ bird, and 453 noxious mammals! Compare this with the record of any cat on earth. Anything that the barn owl wants from me, or from any farmer, should at once be offered to it, on a silver tray. This bird is often called the Monkey-Faced Owl, and it should be called the Farmer's-Friend Owl.

THE LONG-EARED OWL, (_Asio wilsonia.n.u.s_) has practically the same kind of a record as the barn owl,--scores of mice, rats and shrews destroyed, and only an occasional small bird. Its nearest relative, the _Short-eared Owl (A. accipitrinus_) may be described in the same words.

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE BARN OWL Wonderfully Destructive of Rats and Mice, and Almost Never Touches Birds]

The GREAT HORNED OWL fills us with conflicting pa.s.sions. For the long list of dead rats and mice, pocket gophers, skunks, and weasels to his credit, we think well of him, and wish his prosperity. For the song-birds, ruffed grouse, quail, other game birds, domestic poultry, squirrels, chipmunks and hares that he kills, we hate him, and would cheerfully wring his neck, wearing gauntlets. He does an unusual amount of good, and a terrible amount of harm. It is impossible to strike a balance for him, and determine with mathematical accuracy whether he should be shot or permitted to live. At all events, whenever _Bubo_ comes up for trial, we must give the feathered devil his due.

The names "CHICKEN HAWK or HEN HAWK" as applied usually refer to the RED-SHOULDERED or RED-TAILED species. Neither of these is really very destructive to poultry, but both are very destructive to mice, rats and other pestiferous creatures. Both are large, showy birds, not so very swift in flight, and rather easy to approach. Neither of them should be destroyed,--not even though they do, once in a great while, take a chicken or wild bird. They pay for them, four times over, by rat-killing. Mr. J. Alden Loring states that he once knew a pair of red-shouldered hawks to nest within fifty rods of a poultry farm on which there were 800 young chickens and 400 ducks, not one of which was taken. (See the American Natural History, pages 229-30.)

HAWKS THAT SHOULD BE DESTROYED.--There are two small, fierce, daring, swift-winged hawks both of which are so very destructive that they deserve to be shot whenever possible. They are COOPER'S HAWK _(Accipiter cooperi_) and the SHARP-SHINNED HAWK _(A. velox_). They are closely related, and look much alike, but the former has a rounded tail and the latter a square one. In killing them, _please do not kill any other hawk by mistake_; and if you do not positively recognize the bird, don't shoot.

THE GOSHAWK is a bad one, and so is the PEREGRINE FALCON, or DUCK HAWK.

Both deserve death, but they are so rare that we need not take them into account.

Some of the hawks and owls are very destructive to song-birds, and members of the grouse family. In 159 stomachs of sharp-shinned hawks, 99 contained song-birds and woodp.e.c.k.e.rs. In 133 stomachs of Cooper's hawks, 34 contained poultry or game birds, and 52 contained other birds. The game birds included 8 quail, 1 ruffed grouse and 5 pigeons.

THE WOODp.e.c.k.e.rS.[I]--These birds are the natural guardians of the trees.

If we had enough of them, our forests would be fairly safe from insect pests. Of the six or seven North American species that are of the most importance to our forests, the DOWNY WOODp.e.c.k.e.r, (_Dryobates p.u.b.escens_) is accorded first rank. It is one of the smallest species. The contents of 140 stomachs consisted of 74 per cent insects, 25 per cent vegetable matter and 1 per cent sand. The insects were ants, beetles, bugs, flies, caterpillars, gra.s.shoppers and a few spiders.

[Footnote I: The reader is advised to consult Prof. F.E.L. Beale's admirable report on "The Food of Woodp.e.c.k.e.rs," Bulletin No. 7, U.S.

Department of Agriculture.]

THE HAIRY WOODp.e.c.k.e.r, (_Dryobates villosus_), a very close relation of the preceding species, is also small, and his food supply is as follows: insects, 68 per cent, vegetable matter 31, mineral 1.

THE GOLDEN-WINGED WOODp.e.c.k.e.r, (_Colaptes auratus_), is the largest and handsomest of all the woodp.e.c.k.e.rs that we really see in evidence. The Pileated is one of the largest, but we never see it. This bird makes a specialty of ants, of which it devours immense numbers. Its food is 56 per cent animal matter (three-fourths of which is ants), 39 per cent is vegetable matter, and 5 per cent mineral matter.

THE RED-HEADED WOODp.e.c.k.e.r is a serious fruit-eater, and many complaints have been lodged against him. Exactly one-half his food supply consists of vegetable matter, chiefly wild berries, acorns, beechnuts, and the seeds of wild shrubs and weeds. We may infer that about one-tenth of his food, in summer and fall, consists of cultivated fruit and berries. His proportion of cultivated foods is entirely too small to justify any one in destroying this species.

In view of the prevalence of insect pests in the state of New York, I have spent hours in trying to devise a practical plan for making woodp.e.c.k.e.rs about ten times more numerous than they now are.

Contributions to this problem will be thankfully received. Yes; we _do_ put out pork fat and suet in winter, quant.i.ties of it; but I grieve to say that to-day in the Zoological Park there is not more than one woodp.e.c.k.e.r for every ten that were there twelve years ago. Where have they gone? Only one answer is possible. They have been shot and eaten, by the guerrillas of destruction.

[Ill.u.s.tration: GOLDEN-WINGED WOODp.e.c.k.e.r A Bird of Great Value to Orchards and Forests, now Rapidly Disappearing, Undoubtedly Through Slaughter as "Food"]

Surely no man of intelligence needs to be told to protect woodp.e.c.k.e.rs to the utmost, and to _feed them in winter_. Nail up fat pork, or large chunks of suet, on the south sides of conspicuous trees, and encourage the woodp.e.c.k.e.rs, nuthatches, chickadees and t.i.tmice to remain in your woods through the long and dreary winter.

THE ENGLISH SPARROW is a nuisance and a pest, because it drives away from the house and the orchard the house wren, bluebird, phoebe, purple martin and swallow, any one of which is more valuable to man than a thousand English sparrows. I never yet have seen one of the pest sparrows catch an insect, but Chief Forester Merkel says that he has seen one catching and eating small moths.

There is one place in the country where English sparrows have not yet come; and whenever they do appear there, they will meet a hostile reception. I shall kill every one that comes,--for the sake of retaining the wrens, catbirds, phoebes and thrushes that now literally make home happy for my family. A good way to discourage sparrows is to shoot them en ma.s.se when they are feeding on road refuse, such as the white-throated, white-crowned and other sparrows never touch. Persistent destruction of their nests will check the nuisance.

THE Sh.o.r.e BIRDS.--Who is there who thinks of the sh.o.r.e-birds as being directly beneficial to man by reason of their food habits? I warrant not more than one man in every ten thousand! We think of them only as possible "food." The amount of actual cash value benefit that the sh.o.r.e-birds confer upon man through the destruction of bad things is, in comparison with the number of birds, enormous.

The Department of Agriculture never publishes and circulates anything that has already been published, no matter how valuable to the public at large. Our rules are different. Because I know that many of the people of our country need the information, I am going to reprint here, as an object lesson and a warning, the whole of the Biological Survey's valuable and timely circular No. 79, issued April 11, 1911, and written by Prof. W.L. McAtee. It should open the eyes of the American people to two things: the economic value of these birds, and the fact that they are everywhere far on the road toward extermination!

OUR VANISHING Sh.o.r.eBIRDS

By Prof. W.L. McAtee

The term sh.o.r.ebird is applied to a group of long-legged, slender-billed, and usually plainly colored birds belonging to the order Limicolae. More than sixty species of them occur in North America. True to their name they frequent the sh.o.r.es of all bodies of water, large and small, but many of them are equally at home on plains and prairies.

Throughout the eastern United States sh.o.r.ebirds are fast vanishing.

While formerly numerous species swarmed along the Atlantic coast and in the prairie regions, many of them have been so reduced that extermination seems imminent. The black-bellied plover or beetlehead, which occurred along the Atlantic seaboard in great numbers years ago, is now seen only as a straggler. The golden plover, once exceedingly abundant east of the Great Plains, is now rare. Vast hordes of long-billed dowitchers formerly wintered in Louisiana; now they occur only in infrequent flocks of a half dozen or less. The Eskimo curlew within the last decade has probably been exterminated and the other curlews greatly reduced. In fact, all the larger species of sh.o.r.ebirds have suffered severely.

So adverse to sh.o.r.ebirds are present conditions that the wonder is that any escape. In both fall and spring they are shot along the whole route of their migration north and south. Their habit of decoying readily and persistently, coming back in flocks to the decoys again and again, in spite of murderous volleys, greatly lessens their chances of escape.

The breeding grounds of some of the species in the United States and Canada have become greatly restricted by the extension of agriculture, and their winter ranges in South America have probably been restricted in the same way.

Unfortunately, sh.o.r.ebirds lay fewer eggs than any of the other species generally termed game birds. They deposit only three or four eggs, and hatch only one brood yearly. Nor are they in any wise immune from the great mortality known to prevail among the smaller birds. Their eggs and young are constantly preyed upon during the breeding season by crows, gulls, and jaegers, and the far northern country to which so many of them resort to nest is subject to sudden cold storms, which kill many of the young. In the more temperate climate of the United States small birds, in general, do not bring up more than one young bird for every two eggs laid. Sometimes the proportion of loss is much greater, actual count revealing a destruction of 70 to 80 per cent of nests and eggs.

Sh.o.r.ebirds, with sets of three or four eggs, probably do not on the average rear more than two young for each breeding pair.

It is not surprising, therefore, that birds of this family, with their limited powers of reproduction, melt away under the relentless warfare waged upon them. Until recent years sh.o.r.ebirds have had almost no protection. Thus, the species most in need of stringent protection have really had the least. No useful birds which lay only three or four eggs should be retained on the list of game birds. The sh.o.r.ebirds should be relieved from persecution, and if we desire to save from extermination a majority of the species, action must be prompt.

The protection of sh.o.r.ebirds need not be based solely on esthetic or sentimental grounds, for few groups of birds more thoroughly deserve protection from an economic standpoint. Sh.o.r.ebirds perform an important service by their inroads upon mosquitoes, some of which play so conspicuous a part in the dissemination of diseases. Thus, nine species are known to feed upon mosquitoes, and hundreds of the larvae or "wigglers" were found in several stomachs. Fifty-three per cent of the food of twenty-eight northern phalaropes from one locality consisted of mosquito larvae. The insects eaten include the salt-marsh mosquito (_Aedes sollicitans_), for the suppression of which the State of New Jersey has gone to great expense. The nine species of sh.o.r.ebirds known to eat mosquitoes are: