The Bismarck tribune., 1931-08-31
Refutes Charges Made by Farm.
ers That Birds Cause DAM
age to Crops
EDITORS NOTE: This Is the
fourth Of an Associated Press
series Of articles by state officials.
~ ~
By BURNIE MAUREK

By BURNIE MAUREK
State Game and Fish Commissioner
The impression Is prevalent In some
places that pheasantS cause consider
able damage to the growing crops Of
farmers and gardeners and some
prejudice has arisen against their
distribution on this account.
The planting Of pheasants in North
Dakota covers q period Of but few
years and no investigation has been
made In this state to determine the
truth Or fallacy Of the arguments
made against their distribution, but
in other states Of the union where
the pheasant has been introduced over
. longer period, study has been
made Of their feeding habits and con-
siderable information on that sub
ject has been compiled and made
available.
The statements made in this article
are taken from the findings Of those
who are In q position to know some
thing Of. the subject.
In the April issue Of Field and
Stream. q nationally known sports
mems magazine. Is an article written
by Paul Brown. Brown writes that
In New Jersey:
"PheasantS were also charged with
digging into potato hills, preventing
Q normal yield and spelling many Of
the new 'spuds' which were then SELL
Ing for fancy prices in the great
nearby markets Of Philadelphia and
New York. The investigation made
in connection with this complaint
showed that the potatoes were prob
ably exposed by faulty cultivation.
No trace Of the tuber was ever found
in the viscera Of any bird examined,
while 1t was showing that the birds
were beneficial-for the crop Of every
one examined contained numerous
potato bugs. Few birds will eat this
hard -shelled insect at all. and the
pheasant is the only bird present In
any numbers where potatoes are
grown that is of the slightest value
to the farmer"
In order that some testimony might
be introduced with respect to the ac-
tivities of this bird in neighboring
state, we again quote from Mr..
Browns article as follows:
I'm Minnesota where there was
much remonstrance against the in
nocent and harmless pheasant. sur
vey that extended over practically the
entire state showed essentially the
same situation that has always been
found-that the bird is actually and
decidedly beneficial rather than in
furious"
The conservation department Of the
state of Pennsylvania has made a
most thorough investigation of these
complaints on the part of the farm
ers against the pheasant, and their
findings are as follows:
I'm Pennsylvania there we're such
bitter and frequent complaints. espe-
cially throughout the southeastern
part Of the state, that the game COM
mission conducted what Is probably
the most exhaustive field examination
that has even been made as q result
of farmers objections to pheasants
Leo A. Luttringer Jr.. investigating
for the commission, covered circuit
GUS route of nearly 800 miles to visit
the farms whose owners had COM
planned of the harm done by pheaS-
ants. In every case he admitted the
contentious made by the farmer. went
with him into the field which had
suffered most-and then demonstrated
that the pheasants were not to blame. y