Page 1 |
Previous | 1 of 20 | Next |
|
|
Loading content ...
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-
Object Description
Title | Indiana farmer, 1907, v. 62, no. 18 (May 4) |
Purdue Identification Number | INFA6218 |
Date of Original | 1907 |
Subjects (LCSH) |
Agriculture Farm management Horticulture Agricultural machinery |
Subjects (NALT) |
agriculture farm management horticulture agricultural machinery and equipment |
Genre | Periodical |
Call Number of Original | 630.5 In2 |
Location of Original | Hicks Repository |
Coverage | United States - Indiana |
Type | text |
Format | JP2 |
Language | eng |
Collection Title | Indiana Farmer |
Rights Statement | Content in the Indiana Farmer Collection is in the public domain (published before 1923) or lacks a known copyright holder. Digital images in the collection may be used for educational, non-commercial, or not-for-profit purposes. |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Date Digitized | 2011-03-23 |
Digitization Information | Original scanned at 300 ppi on a Bookeye 3 scanner using internal software. Display images generated in CONTENTdm as JP2000s; file format for archival copy is uncompressed TIF format. |
Description
Title | Page 1 |
Subjects (LCSH) |
Agriculture Farm management Horticulture Agricultural machinery |
Subjects (NALT) |
agriculture farm management horticulture agricultural machinery and equipment |
Genre | Periodical |
Call Number of Original | 630.5 In2 |
Location of Original | Hicks Repository |
Coverage | Indiana |
Type | text |
Format | JP2 |
Language | eng |
Collection Title | Indiana Farmer |
Rights Statement | Content in the Indiana Farmer Collection is in the public domain (published before 1923) or lacks a known copyright holder. Digital images in the collection may be used for educational, non-commercial, or non-for-profit purposes. |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Digitization Information | Orignal scanned at 300 ppi on a Bookeye 3 scanner using internal software. Display images generated in CONTENTdm as JP2000s; file format for archival copy is uncompressed TIF format. |
Transcript | 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- |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for Page 1