‘ornell Universit he decrease of birds in South Carolina. Sa <== BULLETIN (vf the University of South Carolina Decrease of Birds In South Carolina ISSUED MONTHLY _ BY THE UNIVERSITY No. 47 August, 1916 COLUMBIA, §. C. Second-Class Mail Matter PRESS SATE The Decrease of Birds in South Carolina Ue BY BELLE WILLIAMS a Secretary South Carolina Audubon Society Chairman, Bird Protection Sub-Committee Department of Conservation State Federation of Women’s Clubs he @L 6384 S& WtLA 377647 THE DECREASE OF BIRDS IN SOUTH CAROLINA The people of South Carolina are now called upon by the inexorable logic of conditions to face and answer a very serious question. That question is: Shall we take the action necessary to save our remnant of wild birds and game on a reasonable and permanent basis, or shall we re- main passive and permit all of it to be destroyed forever? It is an undisputed fact that the prosperity of the State and nation depends on successful agriculture. Therefore, whatever assists in the production of crops has a money value in proportion to the degree of assistance rendered. The result of the study of the relation of birds to agricul- ture made by government experts shows that birds are among the farmers’ best friends. Mr. Henry W. Hen- shaw, Chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey, is authority for this statement: ‘‘So great is their value from a practical standpoint as to lead to the belief that were it not for birds successful agriculture would be impossible.’’ Birds are busy everywhere and at all times: in the water and on the land; in low bushes and on the tree-tops; on the trunks and branches of trees and in the air. Some work by day, others by night. Some are scavengers; others check the ravages of disease-carrying insects. Some feed on insect pests which attack crops; others are noxious weed seed destroyers. Some protect fruit and forest trees; others are very destructive to harmful rodents such as mice and rats. If the birds’ work in nature be of so much importance, bird conservation should become a part of the constructive work of the State, and any agency or condition which tends to reduce the bird population below the limits neces- sary to hold in check the countless hordes of injurious in- sects, should be considered inimical to the best interests of the whole people. 4 Decrease of Birds Knowledge of Condition Necessary as a Basis for Intelligent Conservation As a basis for intelligent and effective work for conser- ving our valuable wild bird life, a knowledge of the con- ditions under which this wild life exists, in the State today is necessary. In order to obtain an average of fair and unprejudiced opinion approaching as near the actual facts as possible and discover possible remedies which should be embodied in a report on this important subject, the Audu- bon Society of South Carolina made a brief inquiry into conditions affecting bird life. By way of collecting data from persons competent to ' give information, 300 circulars containing the following questions were prepared and submitted to a carefully selected list of names made purposely to include farmers, sportsmen, gunners, naturalists, ornithologists and other intelligent observers: jl. Are the birds decreasing in your locality, county, or in the State generally? 2. How do their numbers now compare with those of fifteen years ago? Three-fourths as many, one-half, one- third, or do they remain about the same? 3. Has the decrease (if any) been continuing for twenty, thirty, forty years or longer? 4. What agencies have been responsible for the de- crease? (1) Sportsmen? (2) Market hunters? (8) Milliners’ hunters? (4) Negroes? (5) Nest robbers? (6) Hunting out of season? (7) Sling-shots and air-guns? (8) Guns in the hands of irrseponsible boys? (9) Draining swamps? (10) Burning over woods and fields? (11) Cutting away fence-rows and hedges? (12) Other causes? 5. Have any species of birds become extinct within recent years, or are any nearing extinction and from what cause? 6. Are the natural enemies of birds such as cats, owls, hawks, jays, English sparrows, foxes and snakes doing appreciable injury, and what species are the most injurious? an South Carolina 5 7. What degree of destruction is done by dogs roaming at large during the birds’ breeding season? 8. What species of birds, if any, are increasing in numbers and from what cause? §. Does dove-baiting or shooting doves over baited fields prevail in your county? 10. Are the game laws (1) Known? (2) Respected? (3) Enforced? 11. Can you suggest any better protection of birds as against man and their natural enemies? One hundred and fifty-five replies containing material of more or less value were received. Many bore evidence of having been prepared most cheerfully and conscientiously. Some respondents consulted with other persons before fill- ing in the blanks. Others turned the circulars over to people whom they considered more competent than them- selves to give the information. Many of the replies were replete with valuable data and were accompanied by let- ters giving additional material. Not a few persons expressed deep interest in the objects of the inquiry and offered further assistance. Several re- plies contained annotated lists and carefully prepared esti- mates of percentages. All the information received can- not be included in a report of this size, but it has done its part in helping to make the estimates and to draw the conclusions set forth here. Methods of inquiry similar to that employed here, were pursued in 1898, by Dr. W. T. Hornaday, of the New York Zoological Society, in order to get an estimate of the decrease of the wild life of the country as a whole, and in 1904, by Mr. E. H. Forbush, state ornithologist of Massa- chusetts, for an estimate of the decrease of birds in this State. The data collected and the conclusions drawn, which were issued in the form of reports, have assisted very materially in shaping the policy of game conservation in the United States and Massachusetts respectively. The present report is a direct result of the information and inspiration received from the above mentioned reports. 6 Decrease of Birds The questions ‘used by Mr. Forbush have been slightly changed to suit conditions in this State. In the form and treatment of the subject matter, the reports of Dr. Horna- day and Mr. Forbush have been very closely followed. Evidence of Former Abundance As an aid to the understanding and appreciation of the results of the investigation into the conditions affecting bird life in this State at the present time, a few extracts will be given from explorers, historians and colonists con- cerning the former abundance of game in South Carolina: Hilton, in his ‘‘Relation of a Discovery’’ (1664) says: “The Country abounds with Grapes, large Figs and Peaches; the Woods with Deer, Conies, Turkeys, Quails, Curlues, Plovors, Teile, Herons; and as the Indians say, in Winter with Swans, Geese, Cranes, Duck and Mallard, and innu- merable of other water Fowls, whose names we know not which lie in the Rivers, Marshes, and on the Sands.’’! Robert Horne, in his ‘‘Description of the Province of Caro- lina’’ (1666) writes: ‘‘The Woods are stored with Deer and Wild Turkey.’’ He also says: ‘““ . . . in the little Winter they have an abundance of wild Geese, Ducks, Teals, and Widgeon—and many other pleasant Fowl.’” In ‘‘An Account of the Province of Carolina’’ (1682) we find: ‘‘On the Rivers and Brooks are all the Winter Months vast quantities of Swan, wild Geese, Duck, Wid- geon, Teal, Curlew, Snipe, Shel Drake, and a certain sort of Black Duck that is an excellent meat and stays there the year round.’”* In John Archdale’s ‘‘Description’’ (1707) he relates: ‘“‘There is also vast Quantities or Numbers of Wild Ducks, Geese, Teal.’’* Lawson, in his account of his travels in Carolina (1718) _1 Hilton (William): A Relation of a Discovery lately made on the Coast of Florida. (From Lat. 31 to 33 deg. 45 min. North-Lat.), Lon- don, 1664. 2 Horne (Robert): A Brief Description of the Province of Carolina, London, 1666. 8 Reprinted in Carroll’s Historical Cellections. 4 Salley’s Narratives of Early Carolina, Scribners, 1911. p. 289. in South Carolina 7 ‘6 says: ‘‘—in the Season good plenty of fowl, as Curleus, Gulls, Gannets, and Pellicans, besides Duck and Mallard, Geese, Swans, Teal, Widgeon, etc.’’ In another .place he speaks of ‘‘great Flocks of Turkeys’’ in the adjacent woods. Of the vast number of passenger pigeons, he says: ‘‘You might see many millions in a Flock. They sometimes split off the limbs of stout Oaks and other Trees upon which they roost o’Nights.’”’ Catesby in his Natural History (1731) writes: ‘‘In the winter season there are great variety of different species of Sea Fowl in numerous flocks feeding promiscuously in open bays and sounds.’’® Eliza Lucas, writing to her brother in England in 1741, speaks of the abundance of wild fowl.’ A most interesting description of the birds of the province is found in Hewat’s account (1779): ‘‘There are also vast numbers of winged fowls found in the country. Besides eagles, falcons, cormorants, gulls, buzzards, hawks, herons, cranes, marsh hens, jays, wood- peckers, there are wild turkeys, pigeons, black birds, wood cocks, little partridges, plovers, curlews and turtle doves in great numbers; also incredible flocks of wild geese, ducks, teal, snipes, mockbird, redbird and humming- bird.’’* - Then another leaf is turned, and in the place of praise for the ‘‘great store of fowl’’ we find expressions of regret for the decrease which begins to be apparent. In a ‘Statistical Account of Edisto Island’’ (1809) is found the following statement: ‘‘Their range, the crowded settle- ments, and cleared state of the island render it unfavor- able to the pursuit of the hunter.’’ The writer continues: “‘Similar causes may have operated to drive and scare away those migratory and aquatic birds which at the 5Lawson’s History of Carolina, London, 1718, p. 8. 6Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina, Florida and Bahamas, London, 1781, Vol. 1. 7Ravenel, Harriott Horry: Eliza Pinckney, Scribner’s, 1886. 8Reprinted in Carroll’s Historical Collections, p. 80. 8 Decrease of Birds early period of its settlement, were known annually to frequent the island in great variety and numbers.’”’ In Mills’s Statistics (1836), after speaking of the former abundance of game in Laurens District, the writer says: “This abundance of wild game has in a measure disap- peared from the rapid population of the country. A few deer and wild turkey remain.’’ In 1850 William Elliott writes: ‘‘I cannot but perceive with regret that there are causes in operation which have destroyed and are yet destroying the game to that extent, that in another generation, this manly pastime will no longer be in our reach.’’ And again he says: ‘“‘It is the wanton, uncalled for destruction of forests and game which J reprehend.’’” A Summary of Reports by Counties A tabulated statement by counties of the reports regard- ing the decrease of birds. Name of — General Decrease Holding Birds In- County Decrease of Species Own creasing Abbeville 3 Aiken 5 Anderson 3 1 1 Bamberg 3 2 1 Barnwell 3 Beaufort 4 Berkeley 2 1 Calhoun 4 1 Charleston 4 J 3 Cherokee 1 1 1 Chester 3 Chesterfield 1 2 1 Clarendon 9Ramsay, David: History of South Carolina, Charleston, 1809. Vol. 2, p. 555. 10Elliott, William: Carolina Sports by Land and Water. New York, 1850, p. 106. in South Carolina 9 A Summary of Reports by Counties (Con.) Name of — General Decrease Holding Birds In- County Decrease of Species Own creasing Colleton 1 Darlington 1 1 1 Dillon Dorchester Edgefield Fairfield Florence Georgetown Greenville Greenwood Hampton Horry Jasper Kershaw Lancaster Laurens Lee Lexington Marlboro Marion Newberry Oconee Orangeburg Pickens Richland Saluda Spartanburg Sumter Union Williamsburg York Total 10 1 * e NDNONNMDNRFNNOAINNWHRHWrwWWN _ e be BOHWNNRPWHNNFWwWNE & DY _ * * 16 16 10 *All except birds of prey. **Resident non-game birds increasing. 10 Decrease of Birds General Decrease. , One hundred: and nine reports show that birds are decreasing generally, following the decrease all over the country. Sixteen reports show decrease of certain species only, mostly game birds; sixteen, birds as holding their own and ten, birds as increasing, three report not knowing. Most of the reports on the decrease of game birds come from hunters, who, because of their knowledge of these species are more competent to report onthem. In addition to the game birds reported as decreasing, viz: Bob-white, Carolina Dove, Woodcock, Killdeer, Wood Duck, Wilson’s Snipe and Wild Turkey, almost every report contained a list of species estimated to be either decreasing or increas- ing. A very careful study of these exceptions shows the decrease of a great many other species, the stationary condition of a few and a slight increase in a few others. The conclusion is reached that the reports stand for a much greater general decrease than is brought out in the table. . Expert Evidence of Decrease The two expert ornithologists who have furnished data for this report are, Mr. Arthur Trezevant Wayne, Mount Pleasant, S. C., and Dr. Eugene Edmund Murphey, Augusta, Ga. Mr. Wayne has been almost continuously in the field for more than thirty years, and has worked the coast counties south of Georgetown county. His valuable book, ‘‘Birds of South Carolina,’’ published by the Charles- ton Museum in 1910, is quoted from freely in this bulletin. For twenty-five years Dr. Murphey has studied the counties of Aiken, Barnwell and Edgefield. What these authorities say may be considered authoritative, and an evidence of the correctness and value of the reports from observers of less experience in these localities is shown by the closeness with which their reports agree with the data furnished by Mr. Wayne and Dr. Murphey. Mr. Wayne reports: ‘‘Doves, Woodcock, Wild Turkeys, an South Carolina 11 Wood Ducks, Wilson’s Snipe decreasing. There are less than one-half as many of the three former as fifteen years ago. Agencies responsible for the decrease are: market hunting; hunting out of season; guns in the hands of irre- sponsible boys; draining swamps; burning over woods and fields; especially negroes, and hunting Wild Turkeys and Woodcock out of season by white men whom I know; deforestation of country which is now rapid. The Wood-: cock is surely approaching extinction. ““Among natural enemies, cats, Cooper’s and Sharp- shinned Hawks are destructive. Insectivorous birds are plentiful, except Pine Warbler, Brown-headed Nuthatch, Red-cockaded Woodpecker and Bachman’s Sparrow, caused by cutting away enormous areas of pine timber. Game laws are not enforced. They are neither known nor re- spected by white men much less negroes. Almost every negro has a gun now and he shoots anything in sight. The. gun should be taken away from the negro as well as the white man who knows the law but disrespects it. Make him pay a heavy fine and game birds will increase.’’ Dr. Murphey finds that bird life is decreasing gradu- ally, there being only about half as many birds as there were fifteen years ago, and that the decrease has been continuing thruout the period of his experience. In his opinion, the decrease is due to sportsmen, market hunters, negroes, nest robbers, irresponsible boys with guns, drain- ing swamps, destruction of fence rows and hedges, wan- dering dogs which destroy the nests of ground-nesting birds, and the English Sparrow by crowding out native birds in towns and cities and extending its range into the country. Locally Woodcock and Wood Ducks are rapidly nearing extinction, due to defective laws in the past. Red- headed Woodpeckers and Meadowlark are increasing; the former by coming into the cities. He reports a great decrease in Nighthawks and Purple Martins up to three or four years ago, but now they are better protected; all other birds are decreasing. 12 Decrease of Birds Records of Decrease The species reported as decreasing very rapidly or ap- proaching extermination in different sections of the State, are given below with the numbers reporting each: Blue- bird, 73; Bob-white, 39: Nighthawk, 32; Herons, 30; Purple Martins, 25; Eagles, 25; Chimney Swift, 22; Hawks and Owls, 21; Mourning Dove, 18; Thrushes, 17; Wrens, 16; Cardinals, 16; Mockirgbirds, 15; Woodpeckers, 15; and all game birds, 15; Ground Dove, 14; Pileated Wood- pecker, 18; Meadowlarks, 12; Wood Duck and Woodcock, 11; Robins, 10; Warblers, 9; Redheaded Woodpecker, 9; old field Sparrows, 7; Blackbird family, 6; Flickers, 6; Wilson’s Snipe, 5; Ducks, 4; Kingbirds, 4; Wild Turkeys, 4: Snowbirds, 3; Blue Jay, 3; Cedar Waxwings, 3; Cat- birds, 3; Chuck-will’s-widow, 2; Curlew, 2; Shore-birds, 2; Sandpipers, 2; Coot, 1; Spanish Curlew, 1; Osprey, 1; Log- gerhead Shrike, 1; Killdeer, 1; Songbirds, 1; Red-bellied Woodpecker, 1; Wood Pigeon, 1; Wilson’s Plover, 1; Wild Geese, 1; Brown-headed Nuthatch, 1; Red-cockaded Wood- pecker, 1. : As the Bob-white is the bird most sought for food and sport, the game bird par excellence, and as it is one of the most useful birds to the farmer, by reason of its appetite for large quantities of harmful insects and seeds of nox- ious weeds, it is interesting to know that 39 observers report its alarming decrease. ‘“There are not half as many Bob-white or Quail as in former years. If they could be protected from the pothunter, market hunter and hunting out of season, in three or four years there would be as many as there were fifteen years ago’’ writes J. P. Dill. Mr. Frank Hampton, president of the Audubon Society, reports: ‘‘I do not believe, taking all birds, there is one bird now where there were ten and in some cases one-hun- dred, thirty or forty years ago. Last fall I hunted over territory where I used to count twelve coveys, and found only one small covey. I can remember when there were countless numbers of Blackbirds in the pine woods and fields. I now see none. I used to see hundreds of Night- hawks and have known three or four men to kill from an South Carolina 13 twenty to thirty each in an afternoon. Last summer I counted only thirteen. Where I have seen Robins by the hundreds or even thousands, I hardly see them by the dozens now. Cedar Waxwings, Snowbirds, Chipping Spar- rows, Flickers, Woodpeckers, Swallows, Martins, Chuck- will’s-widows, and others greatly decreased. As for ducks, we have none except the Wood Duck. These with Woodcock and Wilson’s Snipe are nearing extermination.”’ Length of Time of Decrease As regards the length of time the decrease has been continuing, reports from 95 observers have been tabulated thus: 38 Report Decrease Continuing for 20 Years. 24 is 7 * 40 Ma 18 7 zs a ‘* 30 = 12 im ‘ rr 15 . 4 oe “ce ce 66 95 “ce It is probable that the decrease has been going on thruout the period of observation of those making the reports, and from these figures it is impossible to make any deductions as to the average length of time the decrease has been continuing in the State as a whole. Species Extinct or Nearing Extinction Scientists believe that each and every species of birds has its own particular work to do in nature which cannot be so well done by any other species. A species once extinct is never again reproduced in nature. Therefore the destruction of a species is a very serious matter. Ornithologists generally report the following species as having become extinct since the settlement of the State: Carolina Paroquet, Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Eskimo Cur- lew, and Passenger Pigeon. The range of the Carolina Paroquet extended as far north as the Great Lakes and as far west as Colorado. They were exceedingly abundant but now all are gone. The large, handsome Ivory-billed Woodpecker has been exterminated in this State. The Pileated, which is often mistaken for it, is also fast dis 14 Decrease of Birds appearing. The Eskimo Curlew, a useful, valuable and highly esteemed game bird, has been practically extermi- nated. The most striking example of the absolute extermination of a species is that of the Passenger Pigeon. It was the most abundant of all species, and writers from the very beginning of the settlement of the country speak of its countless numbers. It was subjected to.merciless per- secutions and slaughterings all along its route of migration. The last great flight occured in 1880, after which they rapidly disappeared until the last bird died in the Cincin- nati Zoological Garden, September 1, 1914. Of the long-billed Curlew, a non-game bird whose large size made it an easy target for gunners, Mr. Wayne says: “It is now almost extinct on the South Carolina coast where it once swarmed in countless multitudes.”’ He also reports not having seen one since 1889. The Upland Plover or Bartramian Sandpiper,. one of the most valuable birds to the farmer, is rapidly approaching extermination, and the Ruffed Grouse, which used to’ breed abundantly in the mountainous counties, has been extirpated from this State. The Whooping Crane long since disappeared from the Atlantic coast, and in the interior of the country where it is occasionally found, it is doomed to early extinction. Holding Their Own A careful study of the reports that birds are holding their own or slightly increasing in certain localities, leads to the conclusion that this holdup or increase is due to exceptional and local causes which have been operating for only a short time. It does not mean that birds are as numerous as formerly, or that they have increased to a point above their former abundance. It simply means, in the opinion of the observers making the reports, that after a long and steady decrease, in most cases, there has been a slight holdup in the decrease, and that the numbers are now stationary, or that the birds have begun to increase above their former limited numbers to which in South Carolina . 15 they had been reduced by destructive agencies which have been in operation since the settlement of the country. While in the immediate vicinity of the observer there may be slight change for the better, in the State at large, the forces of destruction are still at work. A reference to the table shows that, in contrast to the sixteen reports from fourteen counties of birds holding their own, there are thirty-seven reports of decrease of birds generally. The following testimony is both instructive and interest- ing as it shows a few of the reasons why, in the opinion of these observers, birds are not decreasing, or are hold-. ing their own in some parts of the State. Mr. C. W. Whisonant, Cherokee, writes: ‘‘As to what has operated to save the birds, I think the law against hunting at certain seasons has done as much as any other agency and there are not as many dogs as there used to be. People generally seem to be trying to take care of the birds, especially the landowners.”’ . Mr. W. B. Ryan, Jasper, asserts: ‘‘Birds are holding their own in this county because they are protected by the various hunting clubs who own in the aggregate, 150 and 200 thousand acres of land. They are all posted and guarded, and in the case of the Okatie Club, have special nesting protection.’’ Mr. Kar] Dargan, Darling- ton, writes: ‘‘Our section is thinly settled and we have quite a lot of woods and swamps that the birds raise in, and we have tried to protect all kinds of birds on our place: for some years.’’ Dr. Wade Stackhouse, Dillon, reports: ‘‘Thoughtless boys with guns kill far fewer birds than they did a few years ago. Extensively cleared fields have done much to diminish bird life. Constant agitation of the subject will have its effect.”’ Mr. M. H. Fripp, Jasper, writes: ‘‘Insect-eating and song birds are the same for the last fifteen years. Salt- water birds, Plovers and Herons, decreasing. Chelsea Plantation Club protects all kinds of birds, especially game birds. On the estates of William and John Fripp there are all kinds of birds. We seldom allow any one to shoot.’? Mr. C. W. Boykin, Williamsburg, reports: ‘“‘I 16 Decrease of Birds have a large area of land upon which I am protecting the birds for a small gun club. We have all the birds we could expect. In the meantime we kill very few during the season.”’ Summary of Reports Showing Increase It is of value to study in detail those reports which show a local increase, in order that we may, if possible, find out the causes and apply them to the sections in which bird life has been reduced. Ten reports from eight counties show increase: Three from Charleston, and one from each of the following counties: Colleton, Dorchester, Jasper, Kershaw, Orangeburg and Union. Capt. Robt. Magwood, Charleston, writes: ‘Birds have been on the increase in this county for the past two years. Before this, decrease had been gradual for the last forty years, but more so last ten years. There are one-half as -many as fifteen years ago. White Herons, Pelicans, Shearwaters and Gulls have increased from protection largely during breeding season. Spanish Curlew all gone. Laws fairly well observed.’’ Mr. L. A. Beckman from the same county says: ‘‘Birds of all kinds decreased rapidly up to four years ago, when private landowners began to enforce the laws on their own Jands, and the people have been educated to value birds. Now they have begun to increase. One-half as many as fifteen years ago, when D. M. Mackintosh began to buy and. ship feathers. American Egret, Wood Duck and Quail have increased on property of Santee Gun Club, caused by protection. Some species of shore-birds have become extinct. Private landowners have prohibited to a large extent shooting on their property. The work of the Audubon Society, thru Mr. James Henry Rice, did much to educate the people, especially the children as to the value of birds and now you rarely see a sling-shot in the hands of boys. Laws are enforced by private landowners but not by game wardens.”’ Mr. T. J. Simons, Charleston, reports: ‘“There is a de- cided improvement. Increase in sea-birds is due to the in South Carolina 17 discouragement by parents and others of young people taking eggs for collection and exchange. A _ better sentiment for protection has been created. Quail and Duck have increased from protection and short season. In some sections there has been vast improvement with the Quail. In others they have decreased. Where increase has been noticeable, they have been protected by land- owners, who have offered and paid premiums for fox ‘heads and hawk claws. Frequently, the house cat which has become wild has: been included in this premium, as they are looked upon as most destructive to young quail. The game laws are neither respected nor enforced.”’ Mr. T. D. Ravenel, Colleton, writes: ‘‘Some species have increased. I think the numbers will compare favorably with fifteen years ago. This is bird paradise. The chief reason, I think, is the tremendous amount of feed all the year round, the large amount of uncleared land with heavy vegetation and few inhabitants—the natural enemies of birds. The game laws seem to have no effect, as they are disregarded by everyone. Blackbirds and Jaybirds have increased. ’’ From Darlington, Mr. J. L. Coker, Jr., reports: ‘‘Gen- eral sentiment favorable to birds. Just as many as fifteen years ago, with nearly all species on the increase, except a few which are molested by Jays, viz: ‘‘Orchard Oriole, Wood Pewee, Summer Tanager, Vireo and Titmouse. No other destructive agency apparent except cats and English ‘Sparrows. Game laws are respected and enforced increasingly.’’ Mr. L. A. Walker, Dorchester, writes: ‘‘Birds appear to be increasing in this immediate locality. About as many as fifteen years ago, except Bluebirds, Catbirds and Quail. Mockingbirds, Nighthawks and Jays are increasing. In this immediate vicinity, there seems to be a different view of bird life taken in town and country, due to the influence of Mr. James Henry Rice who resided here a number of years, and to the winter visitors who take an interest in bird protection. Farmers are beginning to realize that birds are of value to them, and the small boy does not rob 18 Decrease of Birds so many nests, or kill so many with sling shots. The work done in the schools and the talks to the farmers have had their effect. Laws are only in part respected and are not enforced.’’ Mr. L. B. Altman, Jasper, reports: ‘‘In my locality there is a slight increase thruout. I live on a large plan- tation, plant much grain, allow no shooting, and have noticed from year to year, an increased number of birds. Bluebirds have probably decreased. Partridges and Larks have increased. Game laws are known, fairly well respected and enforced.’’ Mr. D. R. Williams, Kershaw: ‘‘Birds considerably increased as a whole. Doves and other game birds have probably decreased. All kinds have increased except game birds, because of a growing appreciation of birds, and an increasing spirit of protection, even by boys. Laws known, respected and enforced.”’ Mr. M. O. Dantzler, Orangeburg, reports: ‘‘Probably slightly on the increase for the past four or five years, except a few species. There are three-fourths as many as fifteen years ago. Mockingbirds are increasing. Yel- low Hammers, Thrushes, Cardinals, and Bee Martins nearing extinction. Laws are half way known, respected by the best class of hunters, and not enforced heretofore.’’ Mr. W. R. Walker, Union, writes: ‘‘Birds are not decreasing in my locality. I think there are more than fifteen years ago. Onmy farm and in my immediate section there has been little hunting done in the past five years. I allow no hunting on my farm whatever, except to kill Hawks and Owls. I have plenty of grain planted each year, and the birds get plenty of food, and besides I have them looked after the best I can. Game laws are enforced.’’ Assigned Causes for Birds Holding Their Own or Increasing The reasons assigned in the reports showing birds hold- ing their own or increasing have been classified thus, with the number reporting each: More interest on the part of the public due almost entirely to the educational ain South Carolina 19 efforts of the Audubon Society, 10; protection by land- owners and hunting clubs, 9; little or no shooting or hunt- ing, 5; plenty of cover and breeding places, 5; protection by law, 4; plenty of food, 3; thinly settled with plenty of woods and swamps, 2; protection during nesting season, 2: post- ing land, 1; feeding birds when snow is on the ground, 1; short open season, 1; closed season, 1; not so many dogs, 1. From this it appears that birds are increasing or holding their own in a few localities, not so much from the enforcement of the law by the constituted authorities, as from purely local causes arising from a growing appreci- ation on a part of the public of the value of birds. Where there is little hunting and plenty of food, safety, cover and nesting sites, birds will increase. In all of the ten reports of increase cited above, except one, evidence is given of the decrease of certain species. They show no general increase of birds over a large dis- trict or thruout a long period of time. Nor is any esti- mate given of the degree of increase. In order that a clear idea may be had of these reports, a concise summary of each is given below. Charleston: 1. Certain species increasing; Long-billed Curlew gone. 2. Certain species increasing; some species of shore-birds have become extinct. 3. Incertain sections Quail increasing, in others, Quail decreasing, Colleton: Some species have increased; Bluebirds scarce. Darling- ton: Most species increasing; a few decreasing. Dor- chester: All species increasing except Bluebird, Catbird and Quail. Jasper: slight increase throughout; Bluebirds scarce. Kershaw: All increased except game birds. Orangeburg: Some species increasing. Yellow Hammer, Thrush, Cardinal and Bee Martin nearing extermination. Union: Birds increasing; more than fifteen years ago. From the counties with ten reports of increase, there are sixteen reports of general decrease. If the evidence of decrease given in the above reports on increase be added to the evidence found in the sixteen reports on decrease, the conclusion is reached, that the increase is far less than is brought out in the table. 20 Decrease of Birds Increase of Species One hundred and thirty-four replies were received to the request for information as to the increase in numbers of any species of birds and the causes. Twenty-six reported none as increasing. The following list was given by the remaining 108 observers, with the number reporting each: English Sparrows, 64; Blue Jays, 10; Meadowlarks, 9; Quail and Doves, 7; Crows, 5; Mockingbirds, 5; Catbirds, 3; Blackbirds, 2; all where protected, except game birds, 2; all birds protected at all times, 1; Flickers, 1; Orioles, 1; Wood Ducks, 1; Bluebirds, 1; Brown Thrasher, 1; Red- headed Wookpecker, 1; Nighthawk, 1; Wood Thrush, 1; Summer Tanager, 1; Grackles, 1; White Herons, 1; Indigo Buntings, 1; Chipping Sparrows, 1. Itis alarming that the only bird which the reports show to be increasing to any extent is the English Sparrow, the most undesirable of all species. The decrease of our native song birds is due largely to the advent, rapid increase and aggressive qualities of this - pest. A careful comparison of the number of observers report- ing increase in other species mentioned with the number reporting these species as decreasing leads to the con- clusion that the Blue Jay is the only specie which is hold- ing its own or increasing over a wide area. Destruction by the Elements While no direct question was asked concerning the injury to bird life from the extremes of weather, .twenty-two ‘observers report decrease from heavy sleet and snow storms, three cite extremely wet and dry breeding seasons and one extremely cold breeding season as preventing the increase of birds. Many young birds starve during long- continued rains which prevent the parent birds from finding food for their nestlings. In order to maintain their great activity, rapid circula- tion and high temperature, birds require a large amount of food. When, therefore, everything is encased in ice or in South Carolina 21 covered with snow for many hours, and the birds cannot . find food, they suffer severely, and sometimes great mor- tality regults, either from actual starvation or from their inability, because of their weakened condition, to escape their enemies. Mr. B. D. Dargan, Florence, writes: ‘‘During every snow there are hundreds of small birds such as Sparrows, Cardinals, Thrushes, etc., caught by negroes under dead- falls.”’ Mr. Keith Dargan, Darlington, reports that on his plantation during a sleet or snow storm, the negroes are taught not to kill the birds, but to feed them. Mr. West Harris, Spartanburg, says: ‘‘The hard rains and wind storms that generally come about the time the young birds are wanting to try their wings, do great damage to all our birds from the Wild Turkey to Hummingbird.’’ Concerning Bobwhites, Mr. Orville Calhoun, Abbeville, writes: ‘‘When an extremely wet season comes, they sud- denly decrease in numbers, and the next year they do not recover their original numbers, tho the season is good.” . Doubtless, this is due to the fact that the causes of decrease of bird life have operated to decrease the breed- ing stock in the interval between the bad and good breeding seasons. If after a decrease of this kind the remaining birds are closely shot by gunners, as is usually the case, it will be impossible for them to recover their former abun- dance. Dr. Hornady cites instances of Quail shooters who de- plore the killing of Quail by the severities of the weather, but who will not stop Quail shooting on account of it. Mr. Wayne records a notable destruction of Woodcock near the coast: ‘“‘The Woodcock arrived in countless thousands. . . . They were everywhere and completely bewildered. Tens of thousands were killed by would-be sportsmen, and thousands were frozen to death. The great majority were so much emaciated that they were practically fearless and of course were unable to withstand the cold. One man killed two hundred pairs in a few hours. . . . It will 1Hornady, W. T., Our Vanishing Wild Life, p.89. 22 Decrease of Birds be many years before this fine bird can establish itself even under the most favorable conditions. ’’? The species mentioned as most affected by unfavorable weather conditions are: Bluebirds, Purple Martins, Chim- ney Swifts, Cardinals, Kingbirds, Ground Doves, Bob- whites and other species more or less. No advantage should ever be taken of any form of useful wild life which is suffering from the severities of weather or other natural causes. In many parts of the country it has become the custom to feed the birds as long as snow is on ground. A close season should be put on any species of game bird which has been greatly reduced from any cause. Native Natural Enemies The following is a list of the native natural enemies given as causing a decrease in bird life with the numbers reporting each: Natural Enemies Number Reporting FLA WIS acted oct teray srt cee as 48 DNAKES ee eh ee ine 24 TOROS) orvee sacs cise pans dea ee 20 OWISiiicepiceiid aiid Onde Gers 18 LYS dr cist abetted eacien lorsre nee Seemed 16 CROWS ood cava tas id ee 5 Wild Cats......0........000..,. 1 DMMKS 55.5 asctesic diene tae ed 1 SKUNKS: ca caw igaccs aversion eee 1 Opossums ................... 1 In a state of nature undisturbed by man the native natural enemies of birds do not cause any great reduction in their numbers. When the first settlers came to this country the native natural enemies were very abundant and so were the birds. In a state of nature undisturbed by man, the native natural enemies are the friends of birds. By killing off the weak and unfit they keep birds strong, alert and active. 2Wayne, A. T., Birds of South Carolina, p. 45. an South Carolina 23 The larger natural enemies destroy the smaller ones: Crows and Jays destroy smaller birds; Hawks and Owls destroy Crows and Jays, thus preserving what is known as the balance of nature, or the adjustment of nature’s laws. But thru man’s interference, this balance or adjust- ment is often upset, and the native natural enemies of birds may become so numerous as to be positively harmful. When this happens these native natural enemies should be reduced in numbers but not wholly destroyed, for it is not known what disastrous results might follow the des- truction of a single species. Forty-eight observers report Hawks and eighteen report Owls as very injurious. It is most unfortunate that two families of birds having so many good members as the Hawk and Owl families should be so hated and persecuted because of the evil ways of a few exceptions. Detailed examinations of the food habits of these birds show that only three Hawks, viz: Cooper’s, Sharp-shinned, and Duck Hawks, and one Owl, the Great Horned, do more harm than good. The Duck Hawk is so rare in this State, it need searcely be taken into consideration.! Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawks destroy many birds and most of the poultry for which all hawks are persecuted. The Great Horned Owl is found only in deep woods. Nearly all the common snakes are said to eat birds and eggs, but the most destructive is the pilot black snake. Crows and Jays are destructive to bird life by robbing the nests and destroying the eggs and young of other birds. The Crow and Jay have some useful habits which atone for this destruction, tho neither should be allowed to become so numerous as to be seriously destructive. The native four-footed enemies of birds do some harm: Foxes, wild cats, minks, skunks and opossums. But they do some good in other ways. The natural enemies intro- ‘duced into this country which have become very injurious to native birds are: English Sparrow, dog, horse, cat and hog. As the destruction caused by them is due indirectly to 1Wayne, A. T., Birds of South Carolina, p. 77. 24 Decrease of Birds man, the reports concerning them will be tabulated and discussed in the section devoted to the causes of decrease which are traceable to man. Causes of Decrease As effectual as the above mentioned causes may be in reducing bird life under certain conditions, they cannot be compared with the destruction caused both directly and indirectly by man. History teaches that no species has ever been exterminated by native natural enemies or by the elements. Those species which have been so ruth- lessly and recklessly blotted out of existence owe their destruction to the agency of civilized man. The reports on the diminution of bird life caused by man are tabulated to show the relative importance of each cause in the judgment of those reporting: Tabulated List of Causes Cause Number Reporting Sportsmen and so-called ‘‘Sportsmen’’............... 97 N@ST06S os:asestane Gos snisar wens Sieee ee Rate 96 Hunting out of season............ 0... 69 Burning over woods and fields...................... 68 Guns in the hands of irresponsible boys (and men)... 67 Cutting away fence-rows and hedges............. ... 58 Nest robbers................0000005 is cepereict aaceenetiebas OV 54 Market Hunters............ rae hat Cea ictinrs eats 54 Slingshots and airguns.................0......005. 37 Draining Swamps..............00 0... cc asec ee eee ees 32 Milliners’ hunters.............00.. 000. cece cee ences 17 Clearing land ...... diester ices Lila feces yc Sth Dye Vt nat and 12 Increase-in number of hunters...................... 7 POtsHUNteEs 2a nacunie shoe Osea A raditbe eran nace 7 Destruction of cover and nesting sites............... 6, Increase in number of gunners from factories....... 4 _ Excessive hunting..................... beep seas bse ee 4 Decrease in amount of grain sown.................. 83. Hunting season too long................ Pah aA al vs ciate 3 in South Carolina 25 Tabulated List of Causes (Con.) Case Number Reporting Increase in number of guns.....................000. 3 Rapid transportation afforded by automobiles ..... som, Cm Use of automatic and pump guns.................... 2 Outside hunters from North......................... 2 RAD DIG fis sh Sek sd tte Sida hae he aha Gere 2 Negro houses in corners of woods ................... 1 Improvement in fire-arms and use of smokeless powder 1 Cheap UNS ac acshee Cae edie etn ee see daria 1 Fishermen who carry guns and shoot promiscuously.. 1 Imported Enemies Cates hencud cope Groves sure conan iene A et 52 English Sparrows .................00000000- 82 POSS hi it See a Sete a aes eh i de cedi 81 TOSS ood cpeterintererre sss aster taathssies vam auntie oe arom as 1 Sportsmen and So-called Sportsmen ‘Among all the forces which destroy bird life, in the opinion of those reporting on this question, the man who shoots takes first rank, ninety-seven votes placing him at the head of the list. Of the thirty-three causes of destruc- tion given, twenty relate to shooting, six to man’s activi- ties which result in the destruction of food plants, nesting sites and cover, four to harmful species of animals which man has turned loose on birds. Of the three remaining causes given, nest robbing and trapping result in direct destruction while the decrease in the amount of grain sown would affect a species locally only. - Under present conditions, the only excuses which man can offer for his direct destruction of bird life are those of food and sport. Doubtless much barbarity is often practiced and many crimes committed in the name of sport. Today much is being heard of the ‘‘Ethics of Sportsmanship,’’ and in, at least one of the sportsmen’s 26 Decrease of Birds clubs of the country no dove shooter can enter,' and in others, no man is eligible for membership who uses a pump or an automatic gun.” With Mr. Forbush, the true sportsman recognizes that even a bird has some rights, and he is willing to give it, at least a chance for its life. True sportsmen observe the spirit as well as the letter of the law. They recognize and respect the rights which others share in the birds equally with their own: The rights of the agriculturist, nature lover, student and teacher. True sportsmen are found in the ranks of con- servationists, ‘for not only do they wish the supply to last as long as they live, but they wish to hand down the heri- tage of wild life unimpaired to future generations. Hunting Out of Season That birds suffer an all-the-year-round persecution is shown by the reports of sixty-nine observers, who con- sider hunting out of season a great factor in the reduction of bird life. So-called sportsmen, negroes, pot-hunters and factory men and boys are mentioned as offending in this respect. Most of these persons are uninformed as to the value of birds and the provisions of the game laws. Many do not know the game from the nongame birds. Mr. E. C. Epps, Williamsburg, considers hunting out of season the greatest cause of decrease. Mr. H. M. Stuart, Beaufort, writes: ‘‘Negroes are especially destructive to non-game birds and out of season.’’ Mr. F. M. Weston, Jr., Charleston, reports: ‘‘Wild Turkeys and Doves dimin- ishing from being continuously hunted, and out of season.”’ Mr. A. T. Wayne, Charleston, adds as a cause of decrease: “Hunting Wild Turkeys and Woodcock out of season by white men.’’ In this connection, Mr. J. G. Chafee, Aiken, reports: “‘The greatest enemy of the Bob-white is the rabbit hunter who hunts at all seasons. During the nesting season and after the young are hatched, the woods are full of rabbit 1Hornaday, W. T., Our Vanishing Wild Life, p. 106. 2Ibid, p. 152. in South Carolina 27 hunters with a pack of curs and hounds (half-fed) and every covey of young and every nest of eggs is eaten up. The next greatest enemy is the negro with his single bar- rel shot gun. He shoots at any season. He is no respec- ter of the mother bird on her nest or while caring for her young.’’ Plume Hunters Seventeen reports show that certain species of birds are still being destroyed by milliners’ hunters, despite the fact that such birds are on the protected list. In open defiance of the law, plumes from the American Egret are still displayed in the windows of some of the millinery stores in Columbia, and perhaps other cities, and the head- gear of some women bear evidence that the bloody work is still going on. This is a reproach to the State of South Carolina! Several years ago the Least Terns on Bull’s Island were exterminated by plume hunters. The American and Snowy Egrets were fast disappearing when the National Associ- ation of Audubon Societies thru its secretary, Mr. T. G. Pearson, located the remnants of a few colonies and em- ployed special wardens to protect them during the nesting season, when the plumes are worn. The Charleston Museum also protects one colony and Mr. L. A. Beckman, superintendent of the Santee Gun Club, rigidly protects the fine colony which nests on the preserve in his care. But for the protection afforded by these private agencies there is no doubt that the white herons in this State would be exterminated in one season. Mr. H. M. Stuart, Beau- fort, writes: ‘“Where I could show the nests and eggs of 500 white herons in season twenty-odd years ago, I could not show one now.. There are a few small ‘“‘hammocks’’ and ponds where the commoner species of herons breed yet, but I fear they will not last long.’’. 28 Decrease of Birds Factory Men and Boys Much of the decrease in the communities where there are factories is attributed to the numbers of guns in the villages, and the numbers of men and boys who use them against everything which moves. If factory men and boys were instructed concerning the value of birds, the provis- ions of the game laws and which are game and which are non-game birds, much of this destruction could be. pre- vented. In this connection Mr. Alex R. Taylor, Lexington, says: “Factory men and boys hunt irrespective of season, from June to June, and the fishermen usually carry guns and often destroy rare birds.”? Mr. G. E. Holland, Green- ville, reports: ‘‘The negro and factory element go out in squads and kill everything in’ sight, in winter when they have nothing to do.’? Mr. James MacEnroe, Greenwood, writes: ‘“‘There seems to be a gun in every house in our village and an inborn desire to kill everything that moves.”’ Nest Robbers, etc. Nest robbers and irresponsible boys with slingshots, airguns and rifles are ranked high among the agencies most destructive to bird life. In some places an enlight- ened public sentiment has reduced the number of nest rob- bers, while in other sections the practice still receives public sanction. It is unlawful to take eggs from the nests of birds pro- tected by law, except for scientific purposes, and only after having procured the necessary permit from the Secretary of State, which permit holds good for only one year. During the year 1915, only three permits were issued in this State. Notwithstanding this fact, collections of bird eggs are being made, to say nothing of the eggs which are stolen and destroyed in pure wantonness. No bird skin is to be prepared without a permit from the Secretary of State. Nevertheless many would-be collectors are making bird skins without permits. in South Carolina 29 -- Boys who are allowed to run amuck with slingshots, airguns, .22 caliber rifles, ete., slay their thousands. Dr. W. C. Kollock reports that a boy was seen near the Charleston Country Club on Thanksgiving Day with five Mockingbirds. Mr. F. L. Willcox, Florence, believes that next to the cat, the greatest enemy of song and insectiv- orous birds generally, is the small boy. Mr. R. B. Belser, Sumter, considers that, in the destruction of small birds, boys with the above mentioned weapons will take front rank. It is deplorable that the young in the most formative period of their lives are permitted and encouraged to expend upon the destruction of a public resource the energy and means which should be used in its conserva- tion. If civilization rests on obedience to law, the young who engage in this slaughter in defiance of the law, are worse than savages. There should be an age limit for shooters, and children should be taught at home and in school, the reasons why the State and Nation protect birds, and the seriousness of breaking of these laws. Such in- struction could be made one of the best means of training in good citizenship.* Destruction of Cover, Nesting Sites, Ete. Burning over woods and fields, cutting away fence-rows and hedges, draining swamps, clearing land, cutting away undergrowth, shrubbery and vines affect birds injuriously thru the destruction of their nesting sites, cover and food plants. Burning over woods and fields in the spring destroys the nesting sites, nests, and often the young of many birds. Sixty-eight observers report great destruction from this source. As population increases, the forests must give way to cultivated fields. Fortunately few species inhabit deep forests. Most of them prefer small wooded ‘areas near cultivated fields, gardens and dwellings, provided they 1Hodge, C. F., Nature Study and Life, p. 306. 30 Decrease of Birds find enough nesting sites, shelter, food, water and safety to make it attractive to them. Every scheme for clearing or draining land or for replanting land which has already been cleared, should take into consideration the requirements necessary for attracting and holding the bird population. It should be an easy matter for every farmer to leave fence-rows, hedges, tangles of blackberry vines, wild honeysuckle, bamboo and plum thickets for his friends, the birds. Use- less burning of woods and fields should cease. The Exterminative Practice of Market Hunting That the deadly and iniquitous practice of market hunt- ing is resulting in the steady slaughter of our game birds is shown by the reports of fifty-four observers from almost every county in the State. Mr. D. H. Trezevant, Calhoun, considers this to be one of the most potent causes of decrease. Dr. W. T. Hornady says: ‘“There is no influence so deadly to wild life as that of the market gunner who works six days a week from sunrise until sunset hunting down and killing every game bird that he can reach.’’? The market hunter kills as many birds in a day as pos- sible. That is his ‘‘business.’’ The higher the price per bird that he receives in the market either for food or hat trimmings, the more birds he tries to kill. The lower the price, the more he must kill. The reports of more than half a hundred observers show that the few restrictions placed upon the killing and sale of game are successfully evaded. The game of the State belongs to the whole peo- ple of the State and market hunting is a class privilege and a robbery of the people at large. Pothunting The pothunter is also one of the most pernicious enemies of bird life. Neither the market nor pothunter has any scruple as regards how or where they procure their prey. 1Hornaday, (W. T.) Our Vanishing Wild Life. p. 64. in South Carolina 31 Several reports show that pothunting goes on all the year round, in season and out. Mr. J. G. Chafee, Aiken, con- siders the pothunter one of the worst enemies of the Bob- white, and reports: ‘‘The pothunter shoots them on the ground, traps them, etc.’’ Food is so plentiful and so easy to obtain with a little work, that there is no excuse for pothunting. The birds which still remain to us are too valuable as crop-protectors and as objects of sport and study, to be exterminated by the pothunter and market hunter. Automobiles, Etc. Decoys, blinds, traps, baits, automobiles, improved fire- arms and smokeless powder all have their part to play in the drama of destruction. Mr. W. A. Klauber, Bamberg, says: ‘‘The automobile is the bird’s worst enemy, as it enables sportsmen to go from fifteen to twenty-five miles from town in one afternoon.’”? Mr. A. L. Youmans,. Hampton, believes that the automatic and pump gun and hunting out of season are the greatest causes of decrease of game birds. Mr. A. J. Cox, Williamsburg, writes: ‘‘So-called sports- men who live in town, own automobiles, kennels of dogs and automatic guns cause the greatest destruction.’’ Mr. F. L. Willcox, Florence, considers the decrease of Bob- white due to hunters and the greater facility for transpor- tation afforded by automobiles. Michigan is one of the first States to restrict hunting of game by automobiles. The game laws as amended by the last legislature of that State prohibit the use of automobiles. in hunting Bob- whites. : The army of gunners which takes the field every fall is larger and better equipped than the one which preceded it. Speaking of conditions of thirty or more years ago, Mr. Frank Hampton, Richland says: “‘In and near Colum- bia, not more than twenty people did much shooting. Two-hundred would be a conservative estimate now, and with better guns and ammunition and automobiles to take them thirty miles into‘the country, instead of from two to 32 Decrease of Birds six miles of thirty years ago, it is going to be a hard job to check the slaughter. Short season and strict enforce- ment of the law may help.’”’ Mr. B. D. Dargan, Florence, estimates that gunners have increased two-hundred per cent in the last four or five years. In the meantime, improved guns, and other mechanical agencies of destruc- tion, dogs, cats and English sparrows have increased in proportion. Negroes The reports show that as an agency of destruction, the negro, armed with his cheap gun, and with packs of half- starved, mongrel dogs at his heels is a terrible scourge to wild life. He kills in season and out of season, non-game as wellas game birds. He is a pot hunter of the worst type. He robs nests, shoots Bob-whites on the ground and kills the parent birds. His cabins are often built in the corners of woods and other isolated places, and thus he is enabled to roam the country and shoot indiscrimi- nately without fear of detection. During the nesting season his half-fed dogs scour the woods and fields and destroy all the eggs and young of ground nesting birds which they can find. Why do sportsmen permit such slaughter? , In the judgment of ninety-eight observers, awful des- truction results from this source. Maj. Harry Hammond, Aiken, reports, that gunners have been trippled since the negro acquired the use of the shotgun, and that dogs have also greatly increased. Mr. G. A. Jennings, Bamberg, writes: ‘‘Decrease in Bob-whites caused principally by breech-loading shot-gun and the accuracy of the negro’s aim which he has acquired in the last twenty years.”’ Capt. S. G. Stoney, Charleston, reports: ‘‘The negro with the single barrel breech-loader is responsible for the great- est destruction of song and all other kinds of bird life.’’ Mr. Cleveland Saunders, Colleton, writes: ‘‘The Partridge is killed in mating season with a shot-gun. Every negro owns a single barrel shot-gun.’’ Mr. B. D. Dargan, in South Carolina 33 Florence, says: “Negroes do a great deal of harm by shooting and trapping.” Mr. M. S. Haynesworth, Florence, writes: ‘‘All kinds of birds are indiscriminately slaughtered by negroes just for the fun of it.’”’ Mr. F. L. Wilcox, from the same county, reports: ‘‘Numbers of Bob-whites are killed in mating season along the roads which are favorite places for wal- lowing, and which the negro travels nearly always with a single barrel gun.’’ Mr. J. F. Bamberg, Bamberg, writes: “Every negro in this section carries a gun in his buggy or wagon.’’ Mr. H. M. Stuart, Beaufort, reports: ‘“The negro carries his cheap gun instead of a walking stick all times of the year. Everything not tame is his game.’’ Mr. Karl Dargan, Darlington, says: ‘‘Destruction is done by negroes who do not know the value of birds.’”’ Mr. J. E. Singletary, Berkeley, writes: ‘‘Negroes are very destructive to bird life.’’ Mr. E. L. Wells, reports from the same county: ‘‘The negro is more destructive to bird life, in season and out of season, than all other causes com- bined.’’ Mr. Patrick Wall, Beaufort, reports: ‘“There are negro pot hunters who shoot game of all kinds at all seasons.’’ Mr. Wayne writes: ‘‘The greatest enemy is the negro who never passes a nest of this fine bird (Bob- white) without taking the eggs even when they are on the ~ point of hatching.’” The killing of Cardinal or Redbird for use as fish bait has come under the writer’s observation. Negroes have never been taught the value of birds, neither have they systematically restrained from promiscuously killing them. Natural Enemies Introduced by Man The most harmful of all natural enemies of bird life are those which have been brought into this country by man. The destruction caused by hawks is not to be compared to that done by cats because the latter are so much more numerous. Fifty-two correspondents report the cat as one of the worst enemies of birds. 1lWayne, A. T, Birds of South Carolina, p. 64. 34 Decrease of Birds Dr. W. R. Eve, Beaufort, writes: ‘‘Cats destroy a great many birds especially Mockingbirds.’”’ Mr. J. C. Dye, Chester, reports: ‘‘House cats are one of the worst ene- mies.” Mr. H. E. Ketchin, Fairfield, writes: ‘‘Cats do most harm by catching young birds just after they leave the nest.’’ Not only is harm done by homeless stray cats, but by well-fed house cats, also. Cats prowling at night destroy many nests. Mr. E. H. Forbush, State Orintholo- gist of Massachusetts, estimated that in good hunting ground each mature cat will kill on an average fifty birds a year. He reports that a well cared-for pet cat killed fifty-eight birds in one season, including the young in five nests. Every cat found hunting out in the open should be killed at once, and all homeless cats and superfluous young kittens should be disposed of kindly and painlessly. A great injury was done many species of smaller birds when the English Sparrow was introduced a little more than sixty years ago. Owing to its rapid increase it has spread all-over the country and has driven many song birds away from towns and cities. Mr. J. M. Johnson, Jr., Marion, writes: ‘‘The purple Martin visits this community in small numbers, while not more than three years ago they were by thousands. I believe the English Sparrow is largely responsible for the searceness of the martins, for the almost imperceptible recovery of the Bluebird from the effects of the 1898 blizzard, and for the banishment from the city districts of almost all bird life.’”’ Mr..F. L. Will- cox, Florence, reports: ‘‘The Purple Martin has been driven out largely by English Sparrows. English Sparrows mob other birds, take the nesting sites, break up the nests, destroy the eggs, kill the young and make themselves so thoroly despicable that no self- respecting bird wishes to live near them. The Mocking- bird, Bluebird, Wren, and Purple Martin have suffered especially from this pest. Any plans for attracting and protecting our native song birds, especially those nesting near dwellings, must include warfare against this enemy. Persons interested should write to the U. S. Department Be in South Carolina 35 of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., for bulletin entitled, “The English Sparrow. as a Pest.’’ The dog is reported as being one of the most potent causes of the destruction of certain birds. This subject will be discussed in connection with the reports concern- ing the destruction done by dogs roaming at large during the birds’ breeding season. Doubtless more destruction than is realized is done by hogs to ground nesting birds. On this subject Mr. C. J. Epps, Horry, says: ‘‘Owing to no fence law, hogs destroy many partridges, breaking up nests and eating young ones.”’ The Awful Destructiveness of Dogs. To the request for reports concerning the degree of injury done by dogs roaming at large during the birds’ breeding season, 138 replies were received. Of these 8 correspondents report not knowing and 5 report no dam- age in their localities. Mr. C. S. Saunders, Colleton, writes: ‘‘None to my knowledge and I own 12 hounds and 2 bird dogs.”’ Counties reporting the least destruction from this souree are: Colleton, Dorchester, Horry, Jasper, Georgetown, and Oconee. All are on or near the coast except one. Forty respondents report damage ranging all the way from ‘‘none hardly’’ (6), ‘‘not much’’(18),to ‘‘not a great deal’ (16). The degree of injury estimated by the remain- ing 85 ranged all the way from 20%, 50% and 75% to “destruction of all nests and young found.’’ Of this last number many hesitated to make an estimate of percentage, describing the destruction as “‘vast’’, ‘‘immense’’, ‘‘tre- mendous’’, and “‘more than from any other source.’’ In an estimate of the damage done by either cats or dogs the personal element will enter largely. It is diffi- cult for the owner of a cherished pet cat or a well beloved dog to believe that the animal in question is destructive to the nests and young of birds. But the evidence derived from this investigation and from investigations conducted by others in other parts of the country shows that the 36 Decrease of Birds well-fed cat and the well-cared-for dog take their toll of bird life, to say nothing of the injury done by the count- less numbers of homeless cats and half-starved, half-breed dogs which overrun the country. The reports show that the destruction is great to ground nesting birds, the noble Bobwhite being the chief suf- ferer. The following varieties of dogs are mentioned as doing the harm: Bird dogs, half-breed pointers and set- ters, roaming dogs, curs, hounds, mongrels, the “‘yaller dog’’, half-fed curs, half-breed dogs, half-starved curs of bird dog. mixture, stray dogs, loose curs, half-starved hounds, ete. Most of these except bird dogs are spoken of as ‘‘belonging mostly to negroes and irresponsible par- ties, living off the country and generally escaping tax- ‘ation.”’ Mr.-Patrick Wall of Beaufort estimates that they do 20% of the injury. He writes: ‘“These dogs belong to negroes who do not feed them. They break down our corn and eat it from the time it is in the mutton until it is harvested.”’ ; Mr. E. C. Epps, Williamsburg, says: ‘‘It is impossible even to estimate this loss.’’ Mr. J. H. Steele, York, says: ‘‘The negro and his dog do more damage to birds than natural enemies, both in a direct and an indirect way.”’ Mr. C. W. Boykin, Williamsburg, reports: ‘‘Yellow dogs and starved out negroes’ dogs are very destructive to the nests and young of birds.’’ Mr. L. W. Boykin, Kershaw, believes: *‘50% of the destruction to Bobwhites is done by stray or half-breed dogs belonging to negroes. They have a good chance to break up nests on account of the scarcity of cover.”’ Mr. B. D. Dargan, Florence, writes: ‘Considerable destruction is done by poorly fed and half-breed dogs which have to get their living the best they can.’’ Mr. E. | M. Andrews, Darlington, writes: ‘‘Fifty per cent of destruction is done by bird dogs- loping around in spring and summer.’’ Dr. L. B. Bates, Calhoun, reports: ‘‘“Very great destruction is done as negroes own a great many dogs which have to hunt for their living. Not only bird dogs but all kinds of dogs do this destructive work.’’ Mr. in South Carolina 37 F. M. Weston, Jr., Charleston, writes: ‘“‘Dogs destroy a number of Bob-white nests, but the destruction does not seem to have any marked effect upon the numbers of species.’? Mr. Orville Calhoun, Abbeville, says: ‘‘Poorly fed dogs which live in summer by hunting eggs, ete. and generally escape tax, are the most important cause of decrease, especially to those which nest on the ground.’’ Mr. H. C. Summers, Anderson, reports: ‘‘Considerable damage is done by countless half-fed dogs which roam the. fields night and day, owned mostly by negroes.’’ Mr. R. B. Belser, Sumter, writes: ‘“Very considerable destruction is done by roaming dogs of negroes, which suck the eggs and break up the nests of ground-nesting birds.’’ Mr. A. ..R. Taylor, Lexington, believes: ‘‘Dogs belonging to negroes and other irresponsible parties who let them roam the fields to forage do immense damage.’’ Mr. J. M. Whitehead, Union writes: ‘‘Roaming dogs do as much damage perhaps, as any two or three other destructive agencies combined.’’ Mr. W. C. Shaw, Anderson, reports: “Bird dogs hunt the nests of bi:ds and destroy hundreds of them.” Mr. W. R. Smith, Sr., Newberry, is of the opinion that half-starved mongrel dogs owned by negroes and irresponsible parties, by breaking up the nests and destroying the young of birds, cause seventy-five per cent. of the decrease.”’ Mr. A. A. Coleman, Greenwood, reports the following case as convincing evidence in his opinion, of the harm which stray dogs do: ‘‘On a ‘farm of about six thousand acres where practically all the tenants are negroes who own various kinds of dogs, there is a very strict rule that.all dogs running loose in summer shall be shot. Altho there is about as much hunting on this place as on adjoining places, with cleared land and cover about the same, there is twice as much game.”’ There seems to be no doubt that the State is full of worth- less dogs which escape taxation. An interesting and enlightening illustration has been furnished by the city of Florence. Last September, a census was taken of the Florence school district, as required under the compulsory education law. To the one hundred and twenty dogs 38 Decrease of Birds reported to the auditor, five hundred and forty-four more were added by the census taker. Mr. Hartwell M. Ayer, a member of the school board, writes: ‘‘The census taker did not get half the number as it is. I, for one, can add a dozen to their list, but they got all they could see around the places, and that the people would admit they had. They would deny owning a dog that barked at the census taker when he went into the yard.’’ It is probable that this condition of affairs is typical of what exists in other parts of the State. Not only do hungry roaming dogs do immense damage in summer by destroying birds and living on the community generally, but they are a great menace on account of hydrophobia. The dog population of the State should be reduced, not only from principles of economy and as a safeguard to the health of the community, but from humane sentiments also. The Barbarous Practice of Dove Baiting There are only two States in the South in which dove baiting, or shooting doves over baited fields, is practiced. South Carulina is one of them. The sportsmen of Georgia brought about the cessation of the custom in their state several years ago. Doves flock to baited fields in large numbers. In order to have the birds come within easy range, gunners erect blinds from which they~pour forth a murderous fire with pump and automatic guns. The doves which escape the first deadly assault return for the next volley, and this they continue to do, in reduced numbers thruout the day, giving the shooters an opportunity to fire at each dove time and time again. The reports show that the counties in which dove baiting prevails to a large extent are: Aiken, Bamberg, Barnwell, Calhoun, Orangeburg, Spartanburg, Edgefield, Hampton, Jasper and Kershaw. To a lesser degree it is practiced in Abbeville, Saluda, Anderson, Lexington, Beaufort, Rich- land, Sumter, Charleston, Clarendon, Darlington, Dillon, Horry and Lee. in South Carolina 389 Mr. John G. Chafee says that dove baiting prevails to a large extent in Aiken county and that doves seem doomed to extermination. Mr. Ashton Head of the same county writes: ‘“Wheat fields have been sown for the last fifteen years for dove shoots. I have known as many as four hundred doves to be killed in one wheat field in one day.’’ Mr. H. M. Stuart of Beaufort says on this subject: ‘‘Dove baiting prevails in my county in only a small way, but they are overshot and their nesting places are becoming searce.’’ Mr. Idis Brabham, Barnwell, writes: ‘‘Doves will be exterminated in a very short time if dove baiting continues. Dr. L. B. Bates of Calhoun believes that doves are near extermination from baiting and shooting. He writes: ‘‘Hundreds are killed in one afternoon. When ground is plowed over and food is scarce they flock to baited fields and are subjected to a merciless slaughter.’’ Mr. A. L. Youmans, Hampton, writes: ‘‘Dove baiting is practiced in this county, is very destructive and should be stopped.’’ Mr. F. H. Arrants, Kershaw, believes that the practice should be stopped. It prevails in his county to some extent. Mr. B. F. Taylor, Richland, reports: ‘‘No baiting, but fields uncut draw droves and they are then shot in large numbers.’’ Mr. W. C. White, Chester, writes: ‘‘No real baiting but a good many are shot in their feeding places, such as wheat and stubble weed fields.”’ In allowing doves to be slaughtered over baited fields, the reduction in numbers may not only affect South Caro- lina, but other States as well. A letter for information on this subject was sent to Dr. Wells W. Cooke, of the Bureau of Biological Survey, the authority on bird migra- tion in this country, and the following reply was received: “Concerning the doves which winter in your neighborhood, it is absolutely impossible to say where those particular individuals nested. The probability is that you have with you thru the winter some individuals which nested in South Carolina, and also others which nested all the way from there to southern Canada.’’ If this be true, this State not only depletes her own crop of doves but that of other States, also. Doves are among 40 Decrease of Birds the most valuable weed seed destroyers, and South Caro- lina should follow the good example set by Georgia and speedily enact proper legislation for their protection. Knowledge of, Respect for, and Enforcement of the Game Laws The replies to requests for information concerning the knowledge of, respect for and enforcement of the game laws have been classified thus: Yes To a Certain Extent Only No. KNOWN 66 43 38 RESPECTED 34 53 AT ENFORCED 18 20 65 While the laws are very probably well known to all true sportsmen, it is almost absolutely certain that they are unknown not only to the vast majority of those who contri- bute to the many ways of destroying bird life but to the public at large. A reference to the summary of causes of decrease of bird life on a preceding page leads to this con- clusion. . A public uninformed as to the provisions of State and National game laws can hardly be expected to demand the enforcement of these Jaws, or to support the game war- dens in the discharge of their duties. Many persons who make an honest effort to acquaint themselves with the State game laws are discouraged by the barriers presented by the lack of uniformity of these laws. One report reads: ‘The laws are respected by the better element of gunners where known and understood.”’ Of the one hundred and thirty-three who responded to that portion of the question in regard to the enforcement of the laws, eighteen report the laws enforced; fifty report enforcement to a certain extent only; sixty-five report non-enforcement. As regards enforcement, the answers which have been placed under the head, ‘“Toa certain extent only,’’ include such terms as ‘“‘fairly well,’’ ‘‘reasonably well,’’ ‘‘per- in South Carolina 41 functorily,’’? ‘‘partially,’’ ‘‘slightly,’’ ‘‘scarcely ever,’’ “‘seldom,’’ ‘‘not much,’’ ‘‘very little,’? and on down to “absolutely disregarded.’’ Five correspondents report laws enforced by private landowners; 3, laws known, res- pected and enforced better than formerly; 3, laws enfor- ced better recently; 2, prospects better for enforcement this season than ever before; 2, not enough game wardens; 1, law as to partridges better enforced than law as to small birds; 1, game laws very complicated and no effort toward enforcement; 1, enforced by private landowners, conscientious sportsmen, and law-abiding citizens; 1, bet- ter spirit developing toward the game laws; 1, game laws not generally understood; 1, negroes, small boys and fac- tory class know no difference between game and non-game birds. Col. J. C. Stribling, Anderson, writes; ‘‘Laws known but not respected as they should be, altho better than they ° have been for several years.’? Mr. J. G. Chafee, Aiken, reports: ‘“Game laws of South Carolina very complicated. In Aiken county, absolutely disregarded. No effort toward enforcement.’’ Mr. J. E. Singletary, Berkely, believes: “Laws disregarded. No one to enforce them.’’ Mr. C. S. Saunders, Colleton, reports: ‘‘Laws not enfor- ced.’’ Mr. J. D. Holstein, Edgefield, writes: ‘‘Laws not well known, still less respected and not enforced.’’ Mr. Jas. E. Bryan, Horry, says: ‘‘Laws relating to migratory birds not generally known.’’ Mr. J. W. Canty, Kershaw, reports: ‘‘Laws not accurately known, but little respected except by sportsmen, and not at all enforced.’’ Capt. S. G. Stoney, Charleston, writes: ‘‘Laws not known, respect- ed or enforced.’’ Mr. L. A. Beckham, Charleston, reports: ‘‘Laws gener- ally known, respected by law-abiding citizens and enfor- ced by private landowners, but not by game wardens.’’ Mr. F. M. Weston, Jr., Charleston says: ‘‘Laws not widely known, not at all respected and seldom enforced.’’ Mr. A. K. Smoak, Calhoun, believes: ‘“‘Laws enforced; we have a very efficient game warden.’’ Mr. W. C. White, Ches- 42 Decrease of Birds ter, writes: ‘‘Game laws not well known, reasonably well but very rarely enforced.”’ Mr. R. S. Rogers, Dillon, reports: ‘‘People do not gen- erally hunt out of season. Fish are netted in open viola- tion of the law.’’ Mr. L. A. Walker, Dorchester, writes: ‘Laws not well known, only in part respected, and not enforeed.’’ Mr. W. B. Ryan, Jasper, says: ‘‘Laws known, but neither respected nor enforced.’’ Mr. A. R. Taylor, Lexington, reports: ‘‘Laws are known and respected by the old hunters but not by the factory class. Not en- forced.’”’ Mr. W. L. Sanders, writes: ‘‘Only partially enforced and not generally understood.’’ Mr. H. W. Beall, Sumter, says: ‘‘Laws very well known, slightly respected and hardly ever enforced.’’ Mr. A. J. Cox, Williamsburg, reports: ‘“‘Laws not known, respected or enforced.’’ Mr. W. H. Wylie, Chester, reports: ‘‘Laws not fully known, ‘and where known, are not respected by even white people who claim to be Christians. ’’ Several reports show that the game laws are being enforced better than ever before, especially during the last three years, or since there has been a regularly sal- aried officer; that the laws protecting game birds are bet- ter enforced than the laws protecting non-game birds; and there are not enough paid game wardens. Mr. C. F. Dill, Greenville, writes: ‘‘Birds decreasing from lack of en- forcement of the laws. No warden except the chief’ is paid a salary for lack of funds.’’ The further conclusion is reached that the public is wofully ignorant of the game laws and that these laws are neither observed nor enforced as they should be. Suggestions by Observers for the Better Protection of Birds If any further doubt exists that an average or fair and unprejudiced opinion places on man responsibility for the greater part of the destruction of our valuable bird life, a _ reference to the tabulated list given below of the suggest- ions by observers for the better protection of birds against man and their natural enemies will be convincing. in South Carolina 43 Of the 112 suggestions received, only 8 are for coping with the causes for which man is neither directly nor indi- rectly responsible (natural enemies). The suggestions for better protection have been arranged under the following heads, with the numbers reporting each: Education, 33; Enforcement of law in general, 37; Tax on dogs, 46; Tax on guns, 15; Cats, 7; Game wardens, 19; Hunting license, 12; Season limit, 18; Natural enemies, 14; Miscellaneous, 22. Education Educate people to appreciate good that most birds do, 12; Educate thru schools, newspaper publicity bureaus, etc.,8; Teach children thru public schools the value of birds, 5; Teach importance of birds to agriculture, 2; Have every school in the State teach the value of birds, 2; Education of boys as conducted by the Charleston Museum, 1; Farm- ers teach negroes the value of birds, 1; Have Bird Day in schools, 1; More publicity, 1. Enforcement of Laws in General Enforce laws on statute books, 15; Better enforcement of present laws, 7; Strict laws, 4; More stringent laws, 2; Enforce laws protecting small birds, 2; Appreciation and enforcement of game laws, 1; Enforce game laws by im- prisonment, no fines, 1; Rigid enforcement of present laws, especially against nest robbers, 1; Enforcement of laws protecting non-game birds, 1; Enforcement of laws as regards season, 1; Enforcement of laws against white man as well as negro, 1; If possible enforce law but juries will not convict, 1; Rigid enforcement of present laws, 1. Tax on Dogs Confine dogs during birds’ breeding season, 11; Kill all mongrel roaming dogs, 10; Tax dogs $5 each, 3; Dog tax, 3; Tax dogs $2.50 each, 3; Dog and gun tax, 2; State and county tax on all dogs from $1 to $5 each, 2; Dog law, 1; Tax dogs $3 each, 1; Dog and gun license, 1; Higher tax 44 Decrease of Birds on dogs, 1; Tax bird dogs $5 each, 2; Heavy tax on bird dogs, 1; Keep dogs muzzled during birds’ breeding season, 1; Heavy tax on female dogs and premium on every one killed after having been seen three times without tax- col- lar, 1; Curtail numbers of negroes’ half-fed dogs, 1; High dog license to prevent negroes from having so many, 1; Strictly enforced dog and gun license, 1. Tax or License on Guns Tax guns $2.50 each, 1; Shot gun tax, 1; High tax on guns, money to be used for school purposes, 1; Gun and dog license, 1; Gun and dog tax, 1; Tax shot gun and rifles, 1; Gun tax and hunting license, 1; Tax with license on every shot gun and sporting rifle $2.50 per year, 1; Statewide hunters or gun tax, 1; Statewide gun license, 1; Every shot gun $1 license, 1; Statewide hunting or gun tax no exemptions, 1. Hunting License Resident hunting license, 3; Make hunting license $25, 1; Hunting license $8, 1; License for merchants who sell guns, 1; License for carrying gun at all, 1; Hunting license in addition to gun tax, 1. . (As the material from which this report is complied is drawn from replies to a questionaire sent out before the resident hunting license law became effective, in order to get an average of opinion as to the effects of the said law and bring the subject matter up-to-date, requests for infor- mation were submitted to those men who had been public- spirited enough to reply to the former inquiry, in those counties fortunate enough to have the resident hunting license law. A discussion of the matter contained in these replies will be given later. Season Limit Short hunting season, 6; Closed hunting season, 3; Uni- form open season for all coast counties, 1; Closed hunting ain South Carolina 45 season from 3 to 5 years, 1; Closed season for several years, 1; Five year close season for Wood Duck, 1; Close season for 2 years, 1; Reduction of open season to two months, December and January, 1; Close hunting for 2 years, 2; Close hunting season from 2 to 8 years, 1. Game Wardens Paid game wardens, 10; Game wardens who will do their duty, 6; Active wardens in every township or locality,. 3; Better game wardens, 8; More game wardens, 2; Game wardens appointed by reason of fitness, 2; Wardens work- ing in conjunction with rural police, 1. Cats Kill stray cats, 2; Kill nine-tenths of the house cats, 1; Cat tax, 1; Tax cats fifty cents, 1; Confine cats during -birds’ breeding season, 1; Better laws as to cats which run at large, 1. Natural Enemies Bounty on hawks, 3; Bounty on English Sparrows, 2; Destroy natural enemies, 2; Rigid warfare on natural - enemies, 2; Bounty on skunks and other vermin, 1; En- courage destruction of hawks, 1; Reduce number of crows, 1; Reduce number of jays, 1; Reduce number of foxes, 1. ! Miscellaneous Prohibit use of traps, 5; Limit number of hunting days a week, 3; Limit number of birds killed in a day, 1; Post land, 3; Restore forests, 1; Do away with modern fire-arms and eall back old muzzle-loading shot gun, 1; Completely stop man, 1; Make it a serious crime to kill any bird and reward the informer, 1; Limit number of birds to each gun including ducks, 1; Let the birds alone, 1; Make game and fish laws intelligible, 1; Prohibit Sunday hunting, 1; Pro- vide more nesting sites, 1; Co-operation of county, town and city officials in the enforcement of the game laws, 1; 46 Decrease of Birds Make it a chain gang offense to kill any bird at any season, 1: High non-resident hunting license, 1. A Discussion of Some Suggestions Given by Observers for the Better Protection of Birds The three most important suggestions given in the above table are: 1. Education of the masses as to the value of birds. 2. Uniform game legislation. 3. Paid officers to enforce the law. Education Thirty-three observers report education as the most vital need in solving the important problem of bird protection. The suggestions made for effecting this are: schools, news- papers, lectures, bulletins and discussion and agitation of the subject whenever and wherever possible. Mr. Neils Christensen, Beaufort, sums up the matter thus: ‘‘Edu- cate the people. As soon as they know the facts they will demand laws and their enforcement.’’