Paper read before the First Congress of I. O. A.
The question how to prevent the depopulation of our feathered friends is
beginning to be agitated by many ornithologists and it might be well for
us to spend a few moments in discussing the problem. For convenience
sake let us consider the subject under three heads: Are birds useful? Is
there an unnecessary destruction of them? And if so, how can they be
protected?
I am sure that nearly everyone enjoys listening to the song birds, but
here in America we often do not consider the beauty of anything or the
pleasure it furnishes, as much as the dollars and cents it produces or
saves. So the first thing to be decided is, are birds, financially
speaking, beneficial? A recent number of the Youth’s Companion had an
article on the protection of birds. It says “We have thirty species of
insects which subsist on our common garden vegetables and our apple
orchards have fifty kinds of insect enemies.” It then names the birds
that are making steady warfare against the pests, and adds, “The
estimated annual destruction of crops by insects in the United States is
more than four hundred millions of dollars.” Now the more birds that are
killed, the greater becomes the damage done by vermin, and it is plain
to be seen that if the birds were allowed to multiply it would not be
long before they would save to the United States this four hundred
million dollars. Would not this be a benefit?
Concerning the usefulness of birds many persons, especially culturists,
seem to have erroneous ideas. Every farmer keeps one or more cats to rid
his buildings of rats and mice, and he willingly compensates them for
their services by giving them a liberal supply of food; but many of
these estimable men fairly get beside themselves if a hawk robs them of
a chicken. Now I claim that the hawks kill enough noxious animals to
more than recompense them for the loss of their chickens. To sustain
this statement let me refer you to the time when the legislature of
Pennsylvania passed the “Scalp Act.” This act placed a bounty of fifty
cents on every hawk and owl that was killed. What was the result? Well,
in eighteen months the state paid out no less than ninety thousand
dollars in cash and saved to the farmers one thousand, eight hundred and
seventy-one dollars in chickens.
This made eighteen dollars apiece for every chicken that was saved.
Rather expensive poultry. But this was not the worst, for as fast as the
hawks and owls decreased, the rodents and other pernicious animals
increased, and that year the loss of crops which the department of
agriculture attributed to the excessive number of injurious animals was
estimated to be about two million dollars. Does this not prove that the
raptores as a class are beneficial?
The robin is a bird that has incurred the enmity of gardeners. The
horticulturists near Boston sent a petition to the legislature
requesting that the robin be taken from the list of protected birds. An
investigating committee was appointed who found by examining robins’
stomachs that nine-tenths of its food consists of an injurious larvæ,
proving beyond all doubt that the bird was a great benefactor.
A gentleman from Michigan who signs himself “Amicus Avium” has given
special attention to the phœbe and has estimated the amount that this
bird annually saves the state. One pair of birds from March 15th to
October 1st, rears two broods or ten birds. Each bird eats thirty
insects an hour eight hours a day. The gentleman then finds the entire
number of insects destroyed and estimates that if they were permitted to
live, each one would do one-thousandth of a cent damage to fruit, grain
or lumber. Allowing one and a half pair of birds for every square mile
in the state, would make a saving of over three and one-fourth million
dollars.
I have dealt with only a few species, but have tried to select those
that deal with the entire feathered tribe.
Now if we grant that birds are useful, let us turn to the second head of
our subject.
No one wishes to leave the forests and prairies in their primitive
condition for the sake of the birds, even when he knows the progress of
civilization has caused and will continue to cause a decrease in
American bird population. We know that there were the same avicular
cannibals before the advent of the white man, as there are to-day, but
it will take a long time before the hawks or blue jays or cow birds can
exterminate a single species. It is of greater evil-workers that I wish
to speak.
First is the English Sparrow. These disreputable Britons were brought
here to destroy the span-worm, and they must be credited with having
done their work well. A limited number might be a good thing, but surely
their introduction has proved a case where “remedy is worse than
disease.” A few years ago these birds were sold for four dollars a pair,
and now I do not know but what one could be supplied with them at four
cents a pair, so rapidly have they increased. These foreigners are of
such a quarrelsome and pugnacious nature that the native songsters have
had to retreat from place to place before them. And now our feathered
friends are far from their favorite haunts, and greatly reduced in
numbers; unless a helping hand is given they will be compelled to follow
in the footsteps of the Great Auk. Of course we have no statistics to
show the number of birds that the sparrow destroys, but it is evident to
the observer that unless war is declared against him, we must say
good-bye to many of our native songsters.
Many birds are used every year to supply the demand of fashion. Mr. A.
J. Allen claims that there are ten million American women of a “bird
wearing age and proclivity,” and that it takes five million perfect
birds to supply them. The greater number of these are killed during the
breeding season and someone, I do not know who, will have to answer for
the hundreds of little birds that are left in the nest and allowed to
starve to death. Let us count one little bird for each pair of old ones,
this will make two and a half million. (Now some will say that this is
too many. Certainly! Not near all are breeding, but all that are, have
from one to six to a dozen offspring.) This makes in all seven million,
five hundred thousand birds that are annually used to decorate hats and
bonnets. Wholesale dealers count one hundred birds to the bushel. This
would make seventy-five thousand bushels, or more than enough to fill
ninety-three box cars. It is difficult for the mind to conceive of such
vast numbers of birds, and to think that they are used for what seems to
us, a worse than useless purpose. But what arouses the greatest
indignation in the lover of birds, is to see these same feather-bedecked
women go to Sunday School, get up before a class of boys or girls and
say, “You mustn’t rob birds’ nests, because it is wicked and only bad
boys do that.” It is to be hoped that the “New Woman” will bring with
her new and better ideas for decorating her head-gear.
Other destroyers of birds are the Great American Egg Hogs—the imitation
naturalists who cover up their crimes with a veil they call science.
These might be divided into two classes; those who collect for mercenary
purposes and those who collect simply to amass a great variety of birds
and eggs. Then we find a sub-class, those who are always collecting and
have not time to study just then, but expect to do that after awhile.
Why it is that these persons collect so many birds and eggs of the same
species is a mystery. One complains about his hard luck, saying he got
only one hundred eggs all day, one brags about taking one hundred and
seventy-five eggs of a rare bird; another boasts about “scooping” as he
called it, one hundred and twenty dozen in one day. What is the object
of this wholesale destruction?
If it were permissible for me to criticize so eminent a naturalist as
Dr. Coues, I would say I do not agree with him. He says in his “Key,”
“How many birds of the same kind do you want? All you can get. At least
from fifty to one hundred, and more of the commoner varieties.” That is
all right for colleges and museums, where there are many persons to
examine the specimens, but not for the private collector. I am afraid
that the worthy gentleman himself would soon object if each of the
several thousand collectors in the United States would follow his
advice. It is difficult to see how he expects to advance science so much
more by his one hundred stuffed birds than by the student who goes out
and takes notes from life. I will quote from Emerson, “The bird is not
in its ounces and inches, but in its relation to nature, and the skin or
skeleton you show me is no more a heron, than a heap of ashes or a
bottle of gases into which his body has been reduced, is Dante or
Washington.” We cannot tell about the character or habits of a person by
examining his body after he is dead and embalmed, yet it is by preserved
specimens of birds that the worthy gentleman attempts to work. What is
needed is more students and less collectors.
We all know of the great damage done by the pot hunters and the small
boy who robs nests and kills birds “just for fun,” but this can be
remedied by proper laws. It is the question of how to protect the birds
against other enemies, that we are to discuss.
What is to be done with the English Sparrow? One man suggests that if
every collector would invest in an air-rifle and use it on them it would
reduce their numbers. This might help, but I am afraid that it would
take more air and patience than could be found. Out of the many ways
which have been suggested, the only feasible one—at least in my mind—it
now employed by a few of the states, paying a bounty on the pests.
To prevent or rather change the fashion for wearing birds, some advocate
legislative action against hats trimmed with feathers. It is a question
in my mind whether such a course would prove feasible, for the ladies
have as much right to use the birds that way as some of our collectors
have to hoard them away in their cabinets. It is quite generally agreed
that the only way is to appeal to the better nature of the ladies and
trust them to put away the fashion and take up something more in keeping
with the close of the nineteenth century. Many ways are suggested for
bringing the subject before the public. One is by placing placards in
street cars, another is by distributing slips in churches, on which are
printed a few statistics showing the number of birds that it takes to
supply the demand, etc.
The next and most difficult question to solve is how to convince the
farmer that he is injuring himself every time he kills an owl or robin
or the other birds that he probably believes to be his enemies. Now we
all know that there are some “black sheep” among the birds. It seems to
me that one of the objects of our association is to point out to the
farmer just which these “black sheep” are. It is perfectly natural and
right for a man to protect his property, and even if he knows that many
of the raptores are beneficial, he does not like to have them take his
poultry. I do not know how to prevent the hawks from taking toll for
their work, but if the farmers would build respectable chicken-coops,
they would not be troubled with owls, for they being nocturnal are not
out until the chickens have gone to roost and it is only the farmer who
allows his poultry to sleep in trees that suffers, and we might say in
the words of the small boy, “It’s just good enough for him.”
Finally, I would say that the only way to preserve our birds is to
present facts to the people showing them the true character of each
bird. They can then distinguish how the {} should be treated, protecting
their friends and destroying their enemies.
Thus by awakening the farmer to his own interests, securing needful
laws, and with a never-ceasing warfare against the pseudo-naturalists
and English Sparrow, we may in time hope to recall to their own homes,
our favorite friends, the pursued and persecuted birds. As they return
to our door yards and take up life as in the days of yore, we will
become better acquainted and realize more fully their great mission in
this world.
This return will serve as a death warrant to the avaricious collector
and as an impetus to the student who devotes his life to the exploration
of the characters and habits of these, the favorites of nature.
Notes on the Birds of Iowa.