The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-11-16
Destruction of Birds in France.

France ought to be a warning to us.
In England We do restrict the title of
game" to a very small number of birds
and beasts, even excluding the rabbit
from the category. Consequently, when
an English sportsman goes out with his
gun, he never dreams of shooting any
thing but game, rs he understands the
word, and the ordinary wild birds may
fly in safety through the fields, as far
as he is concerned. But in France,
some years ago, any bird, no matter
what its species, was considered in the
light Of game, aud a sportsman would
be inordinately proud of his success If
he brought back half dozen robins,
as many sparrows, couple of black
birds and IL thrush in his gorgeously
embroidered and betasseled game bag.
well remember, when | was living
in France, taking my first country walk.
The weather was perfect, the landscape
beautiful, but something was wanting.
1t was the song or twitter of birds.
Not a bird was to be seen for mile after
mile, the "sportsmen" having shot
every one that dared to show itself.
The natural result followed. Rocks and
starlings being destroyed, the insects
had everything their own way, the trees
being stripped bare by cockchaters, and
the corn blasted by the wire-worms.
After time France discovered her
error. and is now wisely doing all in her
power to bring back her banished allies.
But it is always easier to destroy than
to restore, and years must yet pass
before disturbed nature can regain her
equilibrium.
Although we have not wrought such
wholesale destruction as France did, we
have very strong tendency in that
direction. Man invariably tries to en-
plov destruction when endeavoring to
find a remedy for any evil, be it real or
fancied See what would happen ifevery
one could have his destructive will.
The farmer who chafes at the ravages
made by landlords hares, rabbits and
pheasants on his crops would like moth
ing better than to shoot them all. The
Camekeeper, who thinks that evey crea-
ture which is not game is destructive to
game, does his best to exterminate every
living creature that might interfere with
his ''head Of game, and | would not DO
too sure that the thrice sacred fox
might not accidentally eat something
which disagreed with him, if he took
to robbing the pheasant and partridge
nests. Then, the agriculturists, gener-
ally, whether on large or small scale,
believe that all the predacious birds,
owls included, eat their poultry, and
that all the non-predacious birds devour
their grain and fruit. So they indis-
crminately kill every bird that comes
within their reach.
Only few days before these lines
were witten l read an account Of far
mer who found that his men were
stfrozan ont - and so set than to Wnrlr
at killing the fnches. The men sOme-
times brought in as many as seventy
dozen in single day, and both they
and their employer thought they were
doing the best for the land. Still more
lately l was reading a leading article in
an evening newspaper. 1t treated OF
insects, and the writer summed up the
snbiect by saying that the world would
oct on much better without them, and
that we might cheerfully spare the bee
and the silk worm, if by so doing we
could get rid of the insects that bit and
stung us, or spoiled our clothing or ate
our food. The depths Of ignorance and
presumption in this suggestion are
simply appalling, and l cannot trust
myself to do more than mention IT.
Rev. j. G.. Wood, in Good Words.