THE CASE FOR THE HAWK.

Forest and Bird, Issue 21, 1 July 1930, Page 17

THE CASE FOR THE HAWK.

With the development of interest in the propagation of gamebirds for field-sports, there has come into use in this country an old word with a new meaning. It was borrowed from’ the Grouse Moors of Europe. The word is "vermin,” and is applied to all creatures which prey, even to a verv limited extent, on game-birds. Often the attitude is taken that all "vermin” should be destroyed wherever found. The object is to aid in increasing the number of game-birds, not that such birds may multiply so there may be more of them to enjoy the beauties of this earth, perform greater service as insect-destroyers, and give pleasure to more bird-lovers, but primarily that they may exist in sufficient numbers to give the gunner a reasonable opportunity to secure good shooting when in the open season he goes afield. As stated on former occasions I would, therefore, define “vermin,” as “Any wild creature that kills something you want to kill.” It is perfectly natural and altogether commendable that the gamekeeper should desire to protect his birds, that the farmer should seek to guard his poultry, and that the fruit-grower should discourage depredations on his cherry-crop. Self-interest, without which the activities of the workaday world would cease, demand that guardians be zealous in protecting their property-rights, Furthermore, it is wise that they take all means to make effective such guardianship, provided they do not interfere with the selfinterest of their neighbours. The operation of an abattoir is entirely a legitimate business, but should not be conducted in a residential section lest offence be given other people possessing property-rights. If a cherry tree is raided by a Robin, the owner of that cherry tree has the recognised fundamental right to protect his. fruit, but he does not have the right to start shooting all the Robins of the neighbourhood. The bird is of value to all agriculturists and gardeners of the community because of the great numbers of insects and caterpillars it destroys, and such gardeners and agriculturists have property-rights that the cherry-raiser must respect. If a Hawk catches a young Pheasant in a breeding enclosure, we may readily concur in the gamekeeper’s wish to dispose of the Hawk, but there are many who would not agree with the idea that the gamekeeper automatically has the right to make war on all Hawks found within the boundaries of the county or State. Very few people breed Pheasants, but many make their

living by cultivating gardens, orchards, or farms on which Hawks render valuble service as destroyers of rats, mice, and various insects. In short, such people have property-rights which are served by some species of Hawks. If the rights of the whole citizenry of a commonwealth be not taken into consideration when dealing with predacious birds, then, in truth, the game-guardian places himself in an attitude which, stripped of all verbiage, may be stated as follows: “The hunting fraternity has the exclusive authority to preside over the destinies of the game-birds of the State.' As individuals, men have the right to destroy any wild creature that they have reason to believe may be inimical to the interests of the game in their breeding-fields. By the same token, the State should encourage, by bounties or otherwise, as far as possible, the total destruction of all such creatures. This will tend to increase game and give us better shooting.” In truth, the actions of some game-protectors give colour to the thought that if they should carefully analyse their own minds, they would find that this declaration quite accurately describes their point of view. The very fact that game-protective societies of hunters have been the leaders and largely the dominating force in securing game-restrictive laws has very naturally caused many to feel that they have a very large right in the game, much of which exists to-day because of their legislative activities. This may readily be conceded, but there are many people who will strongly oppose the idea that sportsmen have the exclusive right to the game. A strong resentment exists in the minds of many people because of the growing tendency to set in motion campaigns for wholesale killing of Hawks, regardless of species. State bounties ■on all Hawks are regarded as unwise and as unfair to the agriculturist and bird-lover. At our office we receive many complaints of gunners shooting Hawks in their line of flight during the period of fall migration, and of pole-traps, which, because of the habits of the birds, catch chiefly the more useful Hawks as well as occasional Bluebirds, Mockingbirds, and other distinctly useful species. As men we like to feel that we should be judged by the useful duties we presumably perform, rather than by the errors which we make. Why not judge a bird—even a Hawk—by a similar standard? I believe if the people of the country knew of the value of certain Hawks and were familiar with the appearance of these species, they would withhold their fire when a useful Hawk flies over. Will not the responsible leaders in conservation in the various States of the Union exhibit an interest in helping to .educate the people of their States on this subject? The Game

Commissioners are supposed to enforce all the bird and game protective laws of their respective commonwealths, also to take a leading part in educating the citizens to a better appreciation of the value of all wild life to the State. The Biological Survey has published some extremely valuable literature showing much of the feeding habits of* Hawks and Owls based on examination of stomach contents. Here will be found sufficient evidence to show that many of these species are undoubtedly more beneficial to mankind than they are harmful. I conclude, therefore, with this plea: In the interests of agricultural investments of the country, in consideration of the feelings of bird-lovers, for the sake of these great, handsome birds themselves, and in a spirit of fair play, will the game authorities not be willing to discourage State-wide bounty systems on the killing of all kinds of Hawks, and will they not accept the offer of the National Association of Audubon Societies to assist in educating the people of the country, so that they may be better able to distinguish those species protected by law? Is this not a fair proposition?