Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1914-02-02
Letters to the Editor
HUNTING OF BIRDS
Harrisburg.


was published in one Of the Harris
burg papers, the Patriot, and signed
"A Hunter" complaining about the
law that imposes penalty upon the
people of the State who might de-
! stroy certain birds that he, the hunter,
| considered injurious. If this gentle
man had signed his name so that peo-
pie might know him l might be able
his conclusions. I might be able to
say that in my opinion this man had
I never spent one hour of his time in the
investigation of the subject upon
which he writes. 1 might say that he
had not examined the contents of the
stomach of one of the birds that he
desires to kill. and might have point
ed out other reasons why this hunter
writes as he does, but l must take con-
ditions as they are.
Almost every State in this Union
has an officer known as zoologist.
We have in Washington an organiza-
tion known as the Biological Survey,
who have scientists devoting their
time, day in and day out, year in and
year out, to the consideration of SUBJ
jects that mean benefit or injury to
the nation. 1t Is their duty to inves-
tigate, and these officers from the
various States agree with the officers
in Washington. that through their in
vestigations made they are in position
to prove beyond question that the
great majority of hawks and the great
majority of owls found in Pennsylva-
MIA are far more beneficial than harm
full. These men are not making such
statements except after the surest and
most complete investigation that could
possibly be made. They have not gone
into the field and reported that certain
hawks were killing this or that kind
of game because they saw a hawk sit
ting on tree, but they are making
their reports after a careful eXamina-
ton in field work and laboratory work,
in which the contents of the stomachs
of hundreds of each of the species of
birds under consideration have been
examined, and also the droppings of
these birds have been carefully inves
tigated and examined.
There are some people in this State
who seem to think they have an in
herent right to destroy anything they
may choose, and they are disposed to
justify their action by the declaration
that the bird killed was destroying
their property OF was injurious in some
way. When y comes down to proof.
they are absolutely without evidence.
Upon the contrary, the evidence Is
overwhelmingly in the other direction.
This morning one Of our officers ar
rested and had convicted before an
alderman Of this city a farmer who
had dubbed poor, little screech owl
in his barn, had broken it's wing,
brought 1t in to Harrisburg, and sold
it for quarter, his action apparently
indicating that he was after the quar-
ter rather than anything else, but
when approached upon the subject he
declared he has right to protect him
self, that this bird was destroying his
young pigeons. 1t might be that an
owl of this character and size, little
bird not over seven inches in height,
and weighing less than half what
pigeon would weigh, might destroy
pigeon, but investigation made by or
nithologists in all directions show that
these birds are not disposed to harm
either domestic fowls or birds of any
size.
The owl apparently bolts it's food;
that is, swallows whatever may come
before 1t, whole, where that is posi-
BILE, feathers, bones, and all. After
a while the feathers and the bones,
through some natural provision, are
elected through the mouth of the
bird, they fall to the ground, many
thousands OF these bolls having been
collected in various sections. Through
the tearing apart of these bolls the
examiner is able to say exactly what
the bird has been eating, and the unit
ed statement of the scientists regard
ing this question is that the great ma
jority of our hawks and the great
majority of our owls, and especially
the screech owl, do far more good
through the destruction of rodents
and insects than they do harm in any
way.
am going to cite but single Illus
tration from the Biological Survey at
Washington, where 255 stomachs
taken from screech owls were ex-
amined, the report showing that 1
had eaten part of pigeon; 81 had
eaten mice; Il had eaten other small
mammals; 3S contained the remains
of small birds, principally English
sparrows; 100 contained insects alone;
and some few We're empty. The eX-
animation of tens of thousands of
bolls dropped by the screech owl in
various sections of the United States
tell the same story, so that after
careful investigation of these questions
the Legislature of this State made
the law as it is, concluding that more
credit should be given to the state
ments made by the man who had
given his time and attention to con-
sideration of these questions, rather
was either ashamed, or afraid, to sign
his own name to the article he might
publish.
We have twelve kinds of hawks in
Pennsylvania, 5 of which are consid-
cred injurious, the remainder being
beneficial. We have ten kinds of
owls in PENNSYLVANIA, eight of which
are far more beneficial than destruc-
tive, each one of these beneficial birds.
hawks or owls, doing a work that
can't be done by any other bird, for
the benefit of the people of this State,
yet this hunter thinks the law oppres-
sive and unjust that will not permit
him to destroy as he pleases. He has
asked for the opinion of hunters re-
garding this subject and I hope those
who may agree with him will give
their reasons for their position, tell
how many days they have spent in
following hawk, how many stomachs
they have dissected, what the contents
of the stomachs were, IL they know,
how many of the bolls elected by
owls they have dissected so that the
scietlst and these gentlemen NAV
be brought together and this question
be finally settled
Respectfully yours,
JOS KALBFUS.