Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1892-10-13
,7,--N THE ROBIN.
THE FOOD OF THIS BIRD AS
FOUND by THE OHIO
Agricultural Experiment station-It
. Takes More Things That Are Use
full TO Mankind Than of Those
That do us Harm.


During the season Of 1901 and
1892 the Ohio Experiment station
has been investigating the food Of the
robin. The robin has become 50
troublesome to berry growers ia some
sections that the question has been
raised, "dOes he do more good than
harm, or vice versa? Investigations,
more or less extended, carried on else
where have left the question und,-
cidru, uur was 1t hoped that the ques-
ton might be settled once for all, as ii
il known that the robin is somewhat
changeable In his diet, usually eating
that which comes most directly in his
way. When berries are abundant he
lives on them almost exclusively, and
when nothing else offers he can SUBJ
si+t upon insects and various kinds Of
seeds. For example, the first robins
that were shot early in March were
found to have eaten but little else than
ASPARAGUS berries, which were abund-
ant on the station grounds and in good
condition. In April, after the ground
had thawed and it became possible for
the robins to get such food, the larvae
of several species Of insects were found
in their stomachs. In June insect
food was partially given up for berries,
and in July but little else besides ber
ries was taken. Later in the season
the proportion of insect food became
higher again. This shows that the
robin takes the food which is most con-
venient and plentiful, although he
seems to prefer fruit when it is TO be
had. Two hundred and one robins
were shot and their stomachs examin-
ed during the two seasons, and more
than half of the insect and other food
found to have been taken by them was
beneficial; less than ona-fourth were
injurious insects, while the remainder
are classed as natural, !. e., are not
known to do either good or harm.
So far as numbers are concerned, the
robin seems to take more things than
are useful to mankind than of those
that do us harm. This does not give
ground for condemning the robin alto
Vether as some feel like doing, nor does
it show HIM to be so useful as many
have thought him to be. The trouble
isj just here, the law protects the robin
and the fruit grower is liable ifhe seeks
to defend himself with shot gun, and
yet he has the bill to pay for the good
that the robin does for the general
public. The berry grower has much
to complain of against the robin, and
but very little to thank him for; while
those who do not grow fruit have reas-
ons to regard the robin quite as much
OF friend as an enemy. 1t is simply
a matter of unequal taxation and per-
haps quite as difficult to adjust as any
other kind. 1t is easy enough in this
case to determine that the tariff is a
tax, ALSO who pays it; but who shall say
what is to be done about il? An effort
was made year or two ago to repeal
The law which protects the robin, but
facts were scarce and sympathy over
ruled.
When the fruit grower becomes
aware that the robin is overreaching
him there ought to be no question as
to the legality of defending ones
premises. There is no occasion to at
tempt the externination of the robin
but there does seem to be good reasons
for trying to keep it in check, ever
though sentiment pleads the contrary
course If fruit growers choose to secure
legislative action favorable to them
selves regarding the robin the facts IL
the case would seem to bear them ou
in doing so.