VOL. LXII
INDIANAPOLIS, MAY   4,   1907.
NO. 18
Exterminate Hawks.
Editors Indian.  F.rm.r:
In the Indiana Farmer of December 22,
1906, page 24, appeared an article commending your previously published statement that the State Game Warden had
recommended a bounty on dead hawks because ot hawks being very injurious to
quails. The article commended the proposal to protect the farmer's friend the
quail, and added that such a law would al-
York the supporters of oleo and beef packers' interests, represeuted or rather misrepresented the interests of farmers In
Cong-ess, And if he is typical of the
sentiment in Audubon Societies then these
organizations are enemies of progress and
agriculture, and their influnece will soon
cease as their true character is discovered.
From youth up I have been an ardent defender of birds and wished to belong to
some branch of the Audubon society, as I
of Vermont, yet even there the law permits the killing of the "English sparrow,
crow, blackbird, jay, or birds of prey,"
which last Includes hawks of all sorts.
But this subject of obnoxious and oppressive game laws requires a letter by itself.
Mr. Butler's proposal to fine a
man for shooting a hawk carrying off a
chicken is enough for this article. Pure-
blooded chickens sell commonly for $2 to
same way; both are animals of prey.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for
llie gander, also dogs ami hawks. I
hasten to say 1 am considering dogs here
solely as beasts of prey, their virtues as
pets, friends, defenders of man are in
addition to their mice-killing proclivities
whereas hawks are defended solely on
their mice-killing efforts. Wolves als.)
destroy mnch vermin and yet bounties are
offered for their extermination, and hawks
so protect the farmer's poultry, ns hawks
are in many sections most serious pests,
and stated tbe large amount of loss from
their depredations and the efforts that
should be made for their utter extermination. In your January 5 issue, Amos
W. Butler, President of the Indana Audubon Society, opposed killing hawks claiming their incomparable value of injurious
tnre. The great quantity of injurious
rodents, insects, etc., they eat is surprising. Penalties should be provided for
their destruction." This is the only claim
the defenders of hawks attempt to make.
Undoubtedly, when, because of the season and the size of chickens or the confinement of chickens in wire covered runs
(to tbe detriment of their health as they
need range), hawks are unable to eat
thickens, then hawks will of conrse
eat quail, small birds, or any other small
animal which they can most easily catch.
In passing, I might remark that one who
has seen crows and martins chase hawks
and heard the frightened cries of other
birds when their young are attacked by
hawks, can not help but wonder what
the insectivorous birds, the song birds,
the birds of beautiful plumage, would say
about an officer of an Audubon Society
who would defend what these birds regard as their dire enemy, birds of prey
—hawks. Such an officer of a bird protection society evidently represents the interests of birds in the snme way that the
lately removed chairman of the committee  on  Agriculture,  Wadsworth  of  New
Tliis is a view of Harvey's Crystal Spring at Candler Pia. The spring lias aliout
one aere of water, is 25 feet deep in the center, and is perfectly round. It is
clear, eold spring water aud is connected with under ground streams. It is surrounded with beautiful palms, and a walk. The water raises ami falls several feet
every seven years. There are many such small lakes, and sinks and others 50 to
100 feet deep, in Marion Co. Pia. Some have water, and some are perfectly dry.
are like the "pot holes" of Wisconsin. They are underlaid with porous shell
and  phosphate  rock. A.  <'.  Harvey.
heretofore understood its efforts were to
defend the useful, the beautiful, and the
sweet singing birds from their enemies,
not to defend birds of prey. This latter
object is of interest only to the scientist
aud naturalist, and is opposed to the interest of birds, lovers of birds, and agriculturalists. If Audubon societies have
ceased to lie composed of lovers of birds
and become mere cliques of scientists, interested in preserving the subjects of their
studies, then these societies must hereafter be fought vigorously whenever they
attempt to influence legislation. Scientists of the acadamic rather than practical
type, sentimentalists, fish and game
leagues, and bird societies are being complained of by farmers writing to various
agricultural   papers. The   influence  of
such persons in securing laws burdening
the farmer with pests, instead of laws pro-
tecting liis property and protecting useful
animals and birds, has become a serious
thing in several eastern states and complaints are becoming loud. Let the
farmers of Indiana take warning and take
an active part in securing all necessary
laws against birds and beasts of prey. A
recent writer complains against the laws
$10, choice specime^ for $25 to $100, and
show winners havesneen sold for $.'500 to
$1000 each. Will Mr. Buller and "Sub
Bcriber," who comes to his aid, offer a
law licensing hawks and pay poultry
losses from the fee fund? Dogs catch
many mice, rats, minks, weasels, rabbits;
yet dogs, who have all ihe virtues of
hawks and who exercise those virtues
around the house, chicken-house, barn,
nnd orchard, where their acts count for
much good, instead of off in forest and
swamp, where hawks do their good deeds,
must pay a license fee or be killed, aud
from this fee fund sheep losses are paid.
Again, if a dog goes onto the property of
some person who is not his owner he be
comes a trespasser and if he kills a sheep
or chicken is shot immediately. If Mr.
Butler and "Subscriber" wish to keep a
hawk to catch rabbits .on their places,
they must pay a sufficient high license fee
to pay fnr all poultry losses and must als i
expect the hawk to be shot as a trespasser, when it goes onto a neighbor's land.
First, of course, they must domesticate
their hawks. Wild dogs are recognized
as a menace and either promptly tamed or
killed. Wild hawks should be treated the
lii'i'V- wild animals of prey should in the
laws be classed as wolves are, suitable
for bounty.
Much more argument against
hawks conld be given, but it is unnecessary, because the defenders of hawks are
not only limited to one point, tbe destruction of vermin or 'varmints," but also usually rest their whole case on the antiquated report of Dr. Fisher, issued as Mr.
Butler states "years ago." Any fact collected by Dr. A. K. Fisher, or by any
(armer or anybody else is an irrefutable,
undisputed thing. But Dr. Fisher's
conclusions or deductions are not facts,
and his assumptions on negative evidence
are  still   less  facts. We  may  use  his
facts and in addition use facts gathered
by other competent observers and on this
basis utterly refute his erroneous con-
elusions. Further, both Mr. Butler
and "Subscriber" claim that the "United
States government" stands behind and defends hawks.
The Agricultural Department has
done much good and its employees have also often made mistakes.
Not everything the Depatment of Agriculture has done is to be commended, and
quite often we read in the best agricultural papers severe critcisms, made by
competent men, against statements or
work of the Department and its "half-
baked science." Yet in spite of the fact
that the Department sometimes endorses
and pushes incorrect conclusions of its
employees,   it has not tried to push Fish-