THE USE OF OWLS AND HAWKS

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5808, 1 October 1880, Page 3

THE USE OF OWLS AND HAWKS

The following, from the London Globe, has some bearing upon the recent controversy in the Herald as to the advantages of killing hawks: — "A scientific journal reproduces a letter from a correspoudent who deprecates the folly of which he considers gamekeepers are guilty when they shoot owls because they are supposed to kill game. He says that a few years ago a pair of barn owls built their nest in the thatchted roof of his house, from which he had to eject them on account of the noise they made at night. He had them removed to his stable loft, where his attention was attracted by certain of their movements which led him to go and examine their nest. He was astonised to find that no loss than nine rats and mice of various sizes, and three small birds of the hedgesparrow kind, -wore left over from their night's feast. Ho afterwards repeatedly went to examine the quarters of his feathery friends, and was gratified to find that their food was invariably composed of vermin, and never once comprised game of any kind. He thinks it would be far wiser to fine a man for killing an owl than for shooting a rabbit. After twenty years of farming he believes the common barn rat to be more destructive to partridges and pheasants than all the birds of prey and weasel kind of animal put together. In the summer time he says they go into fields and find nothing but green corn to feed on, and then it is that they prey on the young birds. Ducks and chickens he has lost many times, and often had his birds lose nearly all their young ones. He was a long time before discovering the cause, but when he did obtain a clue, he always traced his losses to rats. He reasonably argues that if they will kill young chickens they will kill young game. It is, of course, very well known that they do if they got the 1 chance, but the conclusion arrived at by this observer is that the mischief done by the rat is often attributed to his mortal enemies, and that, in destroying hawks and owls, those concerned in the preservation of game are extirpating their best friends. This may be rather an extreme way of putting the case, but it probably presents some amount of truth, and is worth a passing notice. The owl has such a well-known iieneJiant for rats and mice that he, at any rate, should have his case carefully considered by all who think they have prima facie evidenco against him.