A Southern perspective

Reading Southern agricultural periodicals, one is more likely to see advice on protecting crops from birds than protecting birds themselves. Take, for example, this lesson from the Southern Agriculturalist (November, 1828) on the best way of destroying blackbirds:

The birds which infest rice, corn, and other grain fields can be easily taken in flocks, by a spring net...[I]f this trap were used in November, December, and January, when the flocks are increased considerably, and the wild-grain food scarce, the breed of black birds etc might be considerably diminished in a few years. They are, in the planting season as annoying as certain unconstitutional measures [the tariff] are to the planting and commercial interests.  The bird-minder is desired, in the spring season, to shoot principally the hen bird, this...interrupts propagation, and the gentlemen are induced to go sparking elsewhere, perhaps to your next neighbors field, where there may be better security and a greater redundancy of sweet-hearts. 

Nevetheless, that some farmers in the South were also supportive of some form of bird protection can be gleaned from a piece originally run in the Richmond Enquirer and reprinted in the Agricultural Intelligencer and Mechanic Register (June 9, 1820).

In some parts of the country the young Indian corn has been totally destroyed by innumerable worms of different descriptions; such as cut-worm, wire-worm, grub-worm, etc. ...Until the "Butterfly-hunters," or "Horned Cock Society" shall devise a certain cure, take the following palliative ("in mitigation of damages.")  Nurse your crows and blackbirds, and all birds that devour earth worms or their larvae; of which description, the crow stands foremost, and the crow-blackbird next. That they injure corn by pulling it up, is a vulgar error.... The writer hereof has been a planter five and twenty years, and never lost an ear of corn thereby. It is true that they sometimes destroy a roasting ear by opening the shuck, but, for one thus injured by crows, hundreds are opened by woodpeckers, who do not eat earth-worms, but are useful allies to fruit and timber trees. Planters (they of the Belting system, more especially) who have dead trees in their fields for woodpeckers to build in, are incorrigible slovens, on whom even advice (cheap as it is) is thrown away. The fact is, the crow, like the dog, eats bread when he can't find meat. 

This was later attributed to John Randolph of Roanoke when reprinted in the Farmer's Register in 1834 and there is no reason to doubt this (it certainly matches his lively and digressive style of rhetoric).  Note a couple points of interest.  First, he considered birds a "palliative" but not a "certain cure."  The certain cure would have to be developed by "Butterfly-hunters" (scientific entomology was still in its infancy)  or "Horned Cock Society" (natural philosophers, whom Randolph did not seem to hold in great esteem). Second, while the often persecuted crow and crow-blackbird (grackle) were portrayed as helpers, Randolph drew attention to the woodpecker as a potentially destructive force, which nevertheless could be influenced into usefulness if managed wisely (e.g., don't let them fill up on insects from dead trees if you want them to protect your orchards and timber).

A Judgement from Heaven

On September 6, 1826 the Baltimore Patriot and Mercantile Advertiser collected the following items related to bird protection:

Thirteen hundred woodpeckers were killed in the vicinity of Connersville, Indiana, by a hunting party of twelve. The practice of destroying birds until the species becomes extinct is extremely hazardous; the experiment has been made in different sections of the country, and almost invariably, some destructive insect has multiplied to such an extent as to do tenfold more injury to the crops than the birds were capable of doing. Even the woodpecker in some parts of the country may be a protection to the farmer.  

A writer in the Massachusetts Yeoman, ascribes the excess of flies, worms, bugs, and grasshoppers to the general destruction of birds. And gives an instance of very great benefit experienced by an individual encouraging robbins in his garden.

The Patriot used the items to express a very clear and practical "useful bird" message, but stripped away the rhetorical gestures that made the originals compelling.

The event behind the first item had been celebrated in the Pittsfield Sun on August 31, 1826 (as well as other papers) more for its novelty than the hunting expedition itself, written in the tongue-in-cheek style of the grand squirrel hunt.

The orchards in the vicinity of Connersville, Indiana, being infested with a large banditti of woodpeckers, arrayed in white and scarlet uniforms [red-headed woodpeckers], twelve gentlemen turning out in defence of the settlement, completely armed.  They met their enemies a few miles from town, where a bloody engagement took place, which lasted all day; at length it ended to the great joy of the inhabitants in the part gaining the victory, having slain thirteen hundred of the rogues without receiving a solitary scratch.

The story referenced in the second item from the Massachusetts Yeoman was reprinted in full in the September 1, 1826 edition of the New England Farmer. Credited to "Amicus" (a popular pen-name), it was titled, "Flies, Bugs, Worms, and Grasshoppers." Note below how it used precise military language to describe the insects' "war" against vegetables. [I will address the use of war tropes in future posts].

Much has been said and written, this season, on the destructive operations of the foraging parties here introduced.  In the early part of the season the plants in the gardens surrendered at discretion to the three first Divisions above-named. Since that time, the field has been stormed and taken by the light-horse or flying artillery, in the rear--a sort of corps de reserve. Sword, famine and pestilence never made such ravages among the race of men, as these have made among the vegetables in some southerly parts of Vermont and New Hampshire, and the northern parts of Massachusetts, where every green thing has been devoured.  

The explanation for this pestilence? An old one. This was a judgment from Heaven.

But while every tongue has been employed in uttering useless complaints, I...have been "thinking to myself," the result of which is, the belief that the unusual number of those destroyers is occasioned by the destruction of those feathered tribes which were designed by the Creator as a check upon the increase of insects and worms, by making them an article of food. In other words, I consider those insects as a judgment from Heaven upon the land, for the wanton cruelty of its inhabitants in shooting and killing birds.

The writer didn't suffer from this pestilence because he lived in harmony with Creation.

Illustration. My neighbors expressed their astonishment that every thing in my gardens should look so thrifty and flourishing, while every plant and vine in theirs was cut down and destroyed, almost as soon as out of the ground, by the bugs and worms; and begged to know how I preserved mine from these devourers. "O, Sir, I have no concern about it; my robins see to that." I preserve these from their enemies, the boys and cats; and they preserve me and mine from the enemies before mentioned. In one corner of my garden near my dwelling, is a tree on which a couple of these friends of mine have reared their little families for eleven successive years. 

There has ever been a harmony between my birds and me. The dawn of day is ushered in by the song of praise to their Creator, much to the delight and instruction of the humble instrument of their protection. The inference I would draw is that birds are intended by the great Author of Nature as a double blessing to man, by enlivening the scenes around him by their melodious songs, and by feeding on those insects which devour the fruit of his labour. By killing birds, man preverts and contumeliously rejects his blessings and thus brings upon himself a curse 

One bird will destroy ten or twenty small flies or bugs in a day [an editorial footnote suggested the number was surely larger]. Grasshoppers, in the early stage of their existence, and for some weeks after their appearance, are not larger than small flies: and ten or twelve birds would clear a whole field of them before they would be large enough to do any considerable injury. Parents, as you value property, or the blessing of Heaven, prevent your boys from shooting birds.

The explicit religious framing of the bird protection issue was relatively common during this period but it would not endure, replaced by the more practical "balance of nature" argument, that nevertheless maintained a touch of the religious frame, at least implicitly.

Note that the idea that songbirds sing in order to praise God is a notion dating back to Psalms (148:10 is the usual reference), and reinforced in the Christian tradition by the tales of Francis of Assisi and John Milton's account of the Garden of Eden in Paradise Lost.  That birdsong was intended by God for the pleasure of human beings can be found in one of the earliest British bird books, Eleazer Albin's A Natural History of English Song-Birds.

They were undoubtedly designed by the Great Author of Nature, on Purpose to entertain and delight Mankind, who, for the Generality, are well pleased with these pretty innocent Creatures. 

This, indeed, was another "useful" feature of songbirds--their home entertainment value. In addition to describing characteristic attributes of each species, Albin provided detailed instructions for capturing and raising wild songbirds.

Following the British example

As we have seen previously in the case of swallow protection, American farm papers, as well as agricultural societies, occasionally reprinted British material. Given the difference in agricultural conditions between the two countries, this wasn't always to Americans' advantage, and could (as in the case of the robin) lead to confusion, especially during a time when first-hand knowledge of the British context was beginning to fade. A case in point is the following example, from a 1822 issue of New England Farmer (originally published in Plymouth's Old Colony Memorial) in which the writer identified the "insect that has annoyed us so extensively" with the larva of the "cock chaffer," a notorious European pest. (It was probably actually a june bug that was causing the problems in the United States).

Nevertheless it was yet another opportunity to talk about birds as a control mechanism and this time, given the putatively European origin of the pest, the writer could resort to British encyclopedias for help. 

In Rees' Cyclopedia, for example, he found this passage:

[The larva of cock chaffers] are eagerly sought after and devoured by crows, rooks, and other birds, as well as animals; it is the larva of this insect that is so frequently turned up in ploughing, and in quest of which the crows are often seen following the track of the ploughshare.

Despite the fact that the American crow and the European carrion crow are different species and that the U.S. lacks rooks, he could draw a reasonable parallel and suggest that American crows "following the plough" had the same function as their British counterparts. Thus they should be protected, for our own good:

   In the first place, I will suggest the policy of ceasing our hostility to the crow, and the rest of the feathered tribe which subsist on the larva, and grubs of such insects of such insects as prey on our fields; and even extend to them the protection of legislative provision.
   It is true they are an impudent and mischievous race, and are frequently trespassers on the cultivated fields of the husbandman; but their mischief is limited to a few days after planting, and seldom extends to the ripe corn, as they have at that time other means of subsisting; and should they be driven to resort to our corn fields when nearly ripe for the harvest, is it not far easier to guard against the ravages of an enemy, tangible and that announces his approach by the sound of trumpet, than against the one which is invisible, is preying at the roots of all our hopes, of all our means of subsistence, and in such "innumerable multitudes as no man can number."

The crow was a better enemy to have than the worm. [Remember that his call for legislative protection ran completely counter to the law at the time, which tended to reward crow killers.]

Here again he drew on the Cyclopedia for support:

the crow feeds on grain and sometimes trespasses on cultivated fields; but his good services overbalance these little depredations, in the extirpation of the maggot of the Chaffer Beetle, which feeding at the roots of the corn, would oftentimes destroy whole crops, were they not destroyed by these useful birds. 

The Cyclopedia was not unique in its perspective. The writer pulled another passage, from William Marshall's (1787) Rural Economy of Norfolk showing local support for birds often considered pests:

the method of frightening rooks in practice there, is simply to stick up a tall bough in the field infested, and to fire a gun near the place; this simple expedient seldom fails of being effectual; they being seldom shot at in Norfolk; where a notion prevails, that rooks are essentially useful to the farmer in picking up worms and grubs, especially the grub of the Cock Chaffer, which it is believed is frequently injurious to the meadows. This opinion also prevails in other districts, as they are often seen to follow the plough close, to pick up such grubs.

The writer didn't believe birds were a total solution; skunks, e.g., also ate the grubs and regular ploughing helped. Nevertheless, British advice was relevant and useful for the current situation.

Another widely disseminated article making use of British material was published July 20, 1827 in the New England Farmer, titled "Usefulness of Birds," and credited to P. (Pemberton) Musgrave, "a practical gardener," who had "treated the subject of vermin in a scientific manner." Musgrave, in short, called for gardeners to be more discriminating in their destruction of birds in the garden:

It is a too common practice amongst gardeners to destroy without discrimination, the birds which frequent their gardens. This, in my opinion, is bad policy. Although I am aware some of the kinds of birds are great enemies to some crops, it certainly must be a trifling crop indeed, that will not bear the expense of a person to watch it, or a net to protect it, until it is out of danger; thus the gardener preserves the birds to perform a double office,--eating up the vermin from the trees, and the seeds of weeds and eggs of insects from the ground. I have often stood and observed the male bird, while the female was sitting upon her eggs or her young, fly to the spot with his bill full of caterpillars to feed his mate or young; and when the young ones become so strong as to accompany their parents in quest of food, it is really astonishing the number of caterpillars they destroy. I can say, from my own observations, that if it was not the cast that the birds destroy a large number of caterpillars, our trees in general would exhibit nothing but bare stumps, for the insects would become as numerous as the locusts of Spain and America. It is from that circumstance that we find so few flies in comparison of the great number of caterpillars. I one day followed a nest of young ox-eyes [tom-tits], which had just flown, in order to see how the old ones acted. I saw them fly from branch to branch, and pick from the curled leaves the caterpillars, with which they flew to their young to feed them. From these considerations, it is my opinion that should the gardener, instead of pursuing a system of indiscriminate warfare against the feather tribe, avail himself of the services of these useful allies, he might, with their exertions and his own united, soon rid himself of those insects that have hither-to set his efforts at defiance.

This passage is from the Memoirs of the Caledonian Horticultural Society (1825) and comprised the closing remarks of a paper, "On the destruction of the moth that infests fruit trees," originally read in 1823.  The source of the passage for the New England Farmer was likely J.C. Loudon's An Encyclopedia of Gardening, which reprinted it verbatim in a section titled, "The feathered enemies of gardens." Regardless, these two examples are useful reminders that the American agricultural and horticultural scenes were still very much influenced by discourse in the British scene.

Incidentally, for a sense of how economic ornithology progressed in the British context, it is interesting to compare the passage above with the entry on birds in the 1834 version of the same encyclopedia. 

"Feathered enemies" is now headed "Birds are both injurious and beneficial to gardens," and instead of Musgrave's global recommendation based on anecdotal evidence the encyclopedia makes clear distinctions, between the likes of Hedge Sparrows (completely desirable), Robins (currant plunderers), and Bullfinches (raspberry thieves). Musgrave was quoted simply in support of the tom-tit. 

A Vermont Farmer defends Robins

In the history of agricultural periodicals and the bird protection movement certain texts stand out as achieving particular prominence, reprinted widely in newspapers and farm papers over a long period of time. An article originally appearing in the "Farmer's Journal" and printed in the American Farmer on September 13, 1822 under the heading, "Agricultural," is a case in point.

 It was introduced as follows:

The following observations of a Vermont Farmer show that we should consult our real interest, as well as the finer feelings of our nature, by defending the innocent robin from the attacks of both boys and men. There are also other kinds of birds who prey on the insects which devour our crops and whose industry would amply reward us for protecting them--Farmer's Journal

Note the dual lines of argument: utilitarianism and an appeal to "the finer feelings of our nature." And the farmer's arguments could be extended to other birds as well.

The farmer began by describing the worm problem plaguing farmers, then turned to possible solutions:

   ..I know of no method whatever to extirpate this larger [worm] species, which human ingenuity can devise. But Providence seems to have provided an antidote to this evil, in the rubecula [sic--this is actually the Latin name of the European robin] or common Robin. 

  This innocent and useful bird preys with peculiar avidity upon this species of worm. This fact may be ascertained by visiting a nest of young robins in the vicinity of a corn field, when it will be perceived that they are fed lavishly upon this kind of worm. At other times, this bird feeds upon different species of worms and bugs which are found upon the surface of the ground, which services are of immense value and benefit to the farmer, and ought to recommend it to his particular care and patronage. 

Human ingenuity was not equal to "Providence" when it came to the control of corn-destroying worms.

But its innocence and utility are inadequate to protect it from the wanton cruelty of boys and sportsmen. What an immense numbers of these, our benefactor, are annually destroyed through mere wantonness and cruelty, while we are constantly hearing of the ravages of worms and bugs in the various departments of vegetation. Even whole corn fields have been laid waste the present season by this larger species of worm, which calamity might have been obviated by having spared and fostered the robin.

Hunting was framed as "wanton cruelty," wastefully destructive to the larger agricultural community.

The utility, in fact, of this invaluable bird, is so obvious, that even legislative interference is imperiously demanded to rescue it from the bloody fangs of the fowler. Other states have their protecting laws for the benefit of innocent and useful birds, and why should we be distanced in the sacred cause of humanity? The subject may appear trifling and novel at first, but a little reflection will convince any one that it is by no means unimportant. "

The writer was evidently referring to Massachusetts's useful bird act of 1818 (and perhaps New York's game bird laws). Why should Vermont not join this  progressive movement? Note that the writer did acknowledge that many readers at the time might find it trivial, at least at first glance....

This article circulated for the next two years through general newspapers and the farm press, from New England all the way to Evansville, Illinois and Augusta, Georgia. The Providence Gazette (September 14) ran it with the headline, "Don't shoot the birds!" [Note that the exhaustive Stuntz's bibliography lacks an entry for a Vermont paper titled "Farmer's Journal" (or any other Vermont agricultural periodical) during the 1820s. It appears to have been published out of Windsor, VT.]

Jeremiah Simple shares some advice about birds

Far from being a staid, information-driven medium (unlike ultra-serious agricultural society memoirs), farm papers could be fun; they encouraged lively, engaging articles and correspondence as a complement to more serious items. A case in point is the popular correspondent to early issues of the American Farmer, "Jeremiah Simple."  Simple, donning the persona of an uneducated but clever farmer, offered a series of novel solutions to typical agricultural problems. The use of sticky paper cones to trap the heads of curious rats and thus control infestations is one dubious example. These solutions would in turn be tested and criticized by other correspondents. J.S. Skinner enjoyed Simple's letters (and, one might conclude, the engaged controversy that ensued).

On July 7, 1820, The American Farmer published a letter from Jeremiah Simple about useful birds. Simple had solved his problem with cutworms in the garden by installing house wren boxes

... I have been troubled with many pests well known to farmers. Cut-worms destroyed my corn...they destroyed my cabbages...worms and insects of various kinds infested my garden, my vines, my orchard, etc....I began to look around to see what was to be done, some remedy, said I, must be applied; for these devils, these natural enemies of mankind, this bane of our happiness, there certainly must be some antidotes, they must also have their enemies, their destroyers; nature never intended that they should remain useless after thus gorging themselves to fatness. While these things were running in my mind I noticed the children and gardener driving away the wrens and blue birds which were hopping about the garden, and as they supposed, picking up the seeds: but in watching more closely, I observed that they were after the insects which infested the plants. I immediately directed twenty or thirty wren boxes to be put up in different parts of the garden, they were soon taken possession of, and their inhabitants are the most useful force employed there, and I have never had a cabbage or any other plant cut down or injured there since they were erected and occupied....

 This recommendation is straight out of Barton, sharing Barton's blind-spot about wrens' often destructive territoriality. Indeed, it is probably too good to be true.

Simple extended his story to blackbirds and crows. How did he protect his corn and vines?

I do it simply by feeding the worms, and inviting the crows and blackbirds; I cannot place houses for them, but I give them every inducement to come, and never suffer them to be disturbed; for they seem to be sensible of their security, for you may see them in numbers following the plough, and picking up the worms from the fresh ground, as it is turned out of the furrows...They [crows] also destroy field mice...but do they not destroy your corn? I answer no? I put plenty of them to eat.

Simple (unlike John Ploughshare Jr., for example) was not being satiric, but neither do I think he was being truthful. Rather, he was referencing a story. Skinner, a couple of issues later, made light fun of Simple's useful bird story, offering that the more recent problem-solving tip might "prove more popular than raising wrens to eat his insects...and crows, to protect his corn."  The idea of bird protection was known but still a novelty.

Election Day Bird Shoots and Grand Squirrel Hunts

From the Hallowell Gazette, June 22, 1825:

Useless destruction of animal life; otherwise called SPORT.--At a recent squirrel-hunt in Paris, Maine, the following animals were killed: Squirrels, 466; woodpeckers, 48; crows, 36; foxes, 7; bobalinks, 74; pigeons, 64; woodcocks, 23; hawks, 10; woodchucks, 49; owls, 4; skunks, 12; partridge, 1. Whole number, 794.

Anti-hunting sentiment among proponents of the bird protection movement was not simply aimed at naughty boys, misguided farmers, and week-end marauders from the city. One especially pernicious form of hunting, in which regimented teams of hunters competed to see who could kill more of some target animal, was the common target of objections. In New England, the customary occasion for mass bird shooting was "Election Day," one of the few holidays for young men, held at the end of May or the beginning of June.

Edward Jarvis, in his "Traditions and Reminiscences" of Concord, Massachusetts, provides some details:

...[F]or the boys, it was a day of great expectation and exhilaration. They looked forward to it with fondness and yet with anxiety lest the weather should be unfavorable to out-of-door sports. A large part expected to go hunting birds in the woods and fields, or fishing in the ponds and rivers. The bird hunting was the most attractive and exciting. Most of the boys 14 and over owned or borrowed guns and powder horns, or flasks and shot and pouches. These were prepared for a day or days before, and early on the Election Day they went forth on their cruel and wanton amusement....This habit had the sanction of age, and the oldest and gravest did not condemn it....Sometimes these hunters formed themselves into an association and divided themselves into two parties to test their skill by trial on this day. Two of the larger boys were made captains...They chose sides...With some rude discrimination, the birds were divided and classed according to their supposed value, each having its assigned rant. The crow was considered the highest, afterward the hawk, and down to the smallest; the eggs were counted lowest. Each hunter was to go to his work in this own way and place, to kill as many as he could and also to rob all the nests of their eggs. In the afternoon all were to assemble with their ill-gotten trophies at some appointed place...There the birds of each side were laid in separate heaps and sorted out and their individual and collective value determined and the sum total of each side ascertained. That [team] which had the most was considered the victor.

Jarvis notes that the Election Day shoot died out during the 1820s, in Concord at least. But the Election Day shoot lived on as part of a larger and more enduring practice: the organized (or "grand") squirrel hunt.

Here's a collection of items from the Connecticut Centinel on September 7, 1807, to help readers understand the scale of such events, as well as the sometimes tongue-in-cheek nature of their coverage in the news.

First Bulletin of the Grand Squirrel Hunt.
On Election day, June 3rd, twenty five of the inhabitants of Langdon joined in hunting Squirrels and such birds as destroyed the productions of the farmer. At night on counting the game, it was ascertained that they had killed, during the day, 1668 squirrels and birds. -Walpole Paper

Second Bulletin of the Grand Squirrel Hunt.
At a Squirrel-hunt in this town on Thursday last there were upwards of 3000 killed. This number, together with those which have been destroyed at several previous hunts within a few weeks, in this town and Brookfield, amount to very near 7000.-Randolph Paper 

Third Bulletin of the Grand Squirrel Hunt.
On Thursday morning last, at sunrise, agreeably to a previous arrangement, a number of citizens of this town, consisting principally of young men, set out for their amusement to scour the adjacent woods of that species of vermin of the desert which infests our cornfields. They attacked this formidable enemy with that firmness and intrepidity which became soldiers--They returned at the setting of the sun with their fallen foes. The number killed amounted to about 3000, inclusive of many of the feathered tribe which appeared to have been in alliance with the Squirrels.--Thus ended the campaign.
--Rutland Paper

Agricultural communities generally considered squirrels, whether gray, red, or striped [chipmunks], to be destructive vermin. Massive squirrel hunts worked to solve perceived agricultural problems as well as to provide amusement for hunters (and spectators). One popular format pitted teams from one town against teams from another with prizes (cash, bushels of corn, a squirrel barbeque) going to the victorious team. Results of such squirrel hunts (kills in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands) were commonly written up and sent to area newspapers (sometimes with detailed statistics) with the aim of encouraging other towns to set up squirrel hunts of their own. Indeed, the squirrel hunt notice was such a common news item that it became a kind of emblem of the news to be found in rural papers.

Generally the notices were run as public services or amusements, though sometimes the paper running the notice explicitly disapproved. The most dramatic (jaw-dropping, really) example I have found is the following from the New Hampshire Sentinel on December 1, 1821, commenting on a squirrel hunt in Rutland, Vermont which had destroyed

...4961 of these pretty animals, who asked no higher privilege than wisely to prepare for a cold and merciless winter. For this, their lives are taken with as little ceremony as white animals of a different species would throw overboard a cargo of diseased or disabled black ones.

It is worth remembering there was some overlap between anti-cruelty activists and abolitionists...

For our purposes, the significance of the grand squirrel hunt is its overlap with massive bird hunts. Birds perceived as agricultural pests were commonly added to kill totals. Here's another example, from the Providence Patriot (May 19, 1824) reporting on a squirrel hunt around Craftsbury, Vermont:

There were killed, 4370 squirrels, 1135 woodpeckers, 124 bluejays, 99 pigeons, 53 blackbirds, 18 woodchucks, 15 crows, 10 owls, 10 skunks, 2 mink, 1 weazel, and 1 hawk--making a total of 5838.

Due to this kind of hunting pressure (competitive squirrel hunts happen to this day though at a much smaller scale) gray squirrels became somewhat scarce by the turn of the century in many parts of the country. Eventually gray squirrels joined the ranks of "useful" animals when foresters recognized their value as "planters." 

Hessian Flies and Bird Sanctuaries

The hessian fly and its larvae posed a great threat to American agriculture in the early history of the country. It decimated wheat fields and appeared unstoppable. Controlling hessian fly infestations became one of the chief projects of economic entomology. While insectivorous birds were never considered a total solution to the problem, they were drawn into the discussion.

Papers delivered by James Worth of the Agricultural Society of Buck County appeared in the American Farmer in 1821 (September 7. Vol 3, 24. p 190) and 1823 (March 7. Vol. 4, 50, p. 394). Worth, while primarily a livestock expert, devoted a year to studying the life cycle of the hessian fly and his findings were of urgent agricultural interest.

The section related to useful birds in the first paper is brief but is worth relating for the glimpse of the context within which Worth expresses them.

The insect tribe, though mean, is perhaps the most mischievous of all the animal creation, and when we consider its prolific nature, how careful ought we to be, to protect that link, which seems intended to keep it within its proper bounds; I allude to birds; I have already recommended them to the notice of the society, and I earnestly beg, that they may not be any longer neglected..

Note: Worth's previous "recommendations" in relation to birds are apparently not extant. 

The second extract is from a paper that went beyond the hessian fly to discuss other insect threats to agriculture. Here Worth had the opportunity to more fully express his thoughts concerning the role of birds in controlling these threats.

If a fellow creature takes from us a single bushel of grain, we pursue him to the utmost rigor of the law, and yet, oh! shameful to relate, we suffer this lower grade of animals to rob us of a great portion of our store. This thing has come upon us in consequence of our wanton destruction of the feathered tribe, which is that link in creation that seems intended to keep the insect race within proper bounds, and we are left to do a work which the birds would have done for us; or rather, we are now suffering an evil that would never have happened to us. Then let us at once reform, by reversing our course of action.--The insect tribe has got the ascendancy by man's misconduct, and it devolves upon the present generation to restore the equilibrium. The increase of birds will greatly assist in the work, and I earnestly intreat that some immediate measures may be taken for their preservation. 

Worth began with the familiar story of "man's misconduct" and called for reform. The proposed action:

I do think that if every member of the society would absolutely prohibit gunning on his lands, it would have a good effect in discouraging a practice that, to say the least of it, is disgraceful to our nature. I rejoice to learn that in some parts of our country, the landholders have associated for that express purpose, and I understand that an association of that kind exists in Montgomery County, not far from the city of Philadelphia, where the inhabitants were almost as much annoyed by gunners as by insects: much good has been produced. Now I trust that our society will not be behind hand in this praise worthy business; and as it will not be entered upon through ill-nature, or with a view to lessen the enjoyments of any one, but as indispensably necessary for the preservation of our crops, in which the whole community are deeply interested, surely no man will be found so lost to a sense of duty and the dignity of his nature, as to oppose such salutary measures.

Worth was proposing what is generally thought to be an early 20th century invention--the bird sanctuary. Moreover, he proposed including some controversial birds under his banner of protection:

Do we not remember how the blackbirds formerly followed the plough in search of grubs? Alas!  that faithful bird has almost disappeared. The woodpecker and other kinds, so diligent in guarding our fruit trees, are now scarcely to be seen; the little wren, so industrious about our houses and gardens, deserves our particular care; even the despised hawk, I have observed it to be eminently useful in destroying field mice; indeed, almost every species claim our regard.

It wouldn't be until the mid-20th century that the benefits of hawks would be generally accepted.

Note that restrictions on hunting were in fact more about trespassing than bird protection during this era. While I have been unable to document Worth's claim about Montgomery County, I was able to find a notice from Hopewell Township, NJ.

It ran in the Washington Whig, October 22, 1825. See the John S. Skinner complaint about ignoble hunters in an earlier post.

In September 1822, a small item made the newspaper rounds, titled "Bird Law."

A Pennsylvania Agricultural Society have recommended to their fellow citizens to prohibit the practice of shooting birds, inasmuch as it is believed that the alarming increase of insects in that State is principally owing to the destruction of birds. 

While the link is not explicit it is fair to assume that this was referring to James Worth and the Agricultural Society of Buck County (he had originally delivered the second paper described above in 1822).

John Hare Powel, in a letter to the Pennsylvania Agricultural Society (published in the Society's Memoirs of 1824 and reprinted in farm papers), praised James Worth's work on the Hessian fly, and provided yet one more rendition of the idle shooter story:

Instead of being regaled by the whistling robin, and chirping blue-bird, busily employed in guarding us from that, which no human foresight or labour is enabled to avert, our ears are assailed, our persons are endangered, our fences are broken, our crops are trodden down, our cattle are lacerated, and our flocks are disturbed, by the idle shooter, regardless alike of the expensive attempts of the experimental farmer, or of the stores of the labouring husbandman; whilst all the energies of his frame, and the aim of his skill, are directed towards the murder of a few little birds, worthless when obtained. The injuries, which are immediately committed by himself and his dogs, are small, compared with the multiplied effects of the myriad of insects, which would be destroyed by the animals whereof they are the natural prey.

Powel (the adopted son of Samuel Powel, the first president of the Philadelpha Society for the Promotion of Agriculture) was the author of Hints for American Farmers and a regular farm paper correspondent.

Contributions of the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture

As noted previously, the publications of state and regional agricultural societies, and the networks joining them to the local press and elite institutions, were direct precursors of the farm press. The Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture, founded in 1792, was not the first such society (it was preceded by South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New York) but it surely had the most distinguished membership (including Samuel Adams, Charles Bulfinch, Timothy Pickering, John Hancock, and John Adams, who served as its president for several years). In addition to encouraging experiments and offering significant reward money for discoveries, the MSPA mission included communicating such discoveries to the public, and this it did through essay contests and house publications, excerpts of which were available for newspaper content.

The MSPA, particularly compared to its Pennsylvania counterparts, was a not a major driver of the bird protection movement, but it did contribute some early and enduring texts that would be taken up by the movement in decades to come.

The first text was a passage in a prize winning 1795 essay on the natural history of the canker worm, written by the entomologist, W.D. Peck, first published in Massachusetts Magazine and then republished in various newspapers and in the farm press as late as 1827 (New England Farmer). [Update: as late as 1840!] Peck explored natural controls on the canker worm and came up with a surprising candidate.

The principal check provided by nature, upon the too great increase of this insect is the Ampelis Garulas of Linnaeus, called by Mr. Catesby, The Chatterer of Carolina, and in the Rev. Dr. Belknap's history of New-Hampshire, cherry-bird. This bird destroys great numbers of them while in the larva state. 

This would be the cedar waxwing, a bird commonly vilified as a fruit stealer, to which even Alexander Wilson gave little support.

The second text was a reprint from a British source included in the 1799 issue of Papers on Agriculture, consisting of communications made to the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture, with extracts from various publications; recommended to the attention of farmers, by The Trustees of the Society. The topic: the usefulness of swallows (see earlier post on British swallow protection discussion).

Aaron Dexter, prominent Boston physician and long-time MSPA officer, was the contributor, endorsing the piece as follows:

I have been induced to hand the preceding observations to the Trustees of the Massachusetts Society for promoting Agriculture, as believing them true, and to induce every farmer in the country to make all the conveniences for swallows in his power; as perhaps, no country more abounds with devouring insects. 

The original piece was written by the Scottish Rev. David Ure.  Ure wrote that the swallow's utility in controlling harmful insects was greater than other birds because it fed on the flying parent insects, not just insect larvae.

It is believed, by accurate observers, that one nest of Swallows will destroy, in a season, about 100,000 insects, which, with their caterpillars, would destroy an immense quantity of growing vegetables. Another advantage arising from the Swallow is, that it never lives on grain, which is not the case with most other birds.

This article (along with Dexter's endorsement) ran in several newspapers, including the Columbian Centinel, but like Peck's piece, had a longer reprint history in the farm press, running as late as 1828, for example, in the New England Farmer.

New York tries to protect the Heath Hen

The Massachusetts, with its Bird Law of 1818 was not the first American state attempting to protect certain species of birds. New York had been trying to preserve the heath hen and other game birds for over a century by that point.

The first law in New York pertaining to game birds dates back to colonial days. In 1708, an act "for the more Effectuall preservation of Deer and other Game and ye Destruction of Wolves Wild Catts and other Vermin" announced an open season for Turkeys, Heath hens, Partridges or Quails from August 1 to April 1, with fines for anyone killing or destroying the birds, their  eggs, or their young ones during the close season. The law applied only to Suffolk, Queens, and Kings County (i.e., New York City and Long Island).

On February 15, 1791, after two years of consideration, a revised "act for the preservation of Heath Hens and other game," was approved shortening the open season for heath hens, partridges and quail (now October 2 to March 31) and adding protection for woodcocks from February 20 to July 1.

On April 21, 1818, there was yet another revision. This time the closed season for heath hens ran from the first day of January to the first Wednesday in October. Partridge and quail were protected from January 5 to September 25, and woodcock from February 1 to July 1. More importantly, while the fines for unlawful shooting of other game birds ran from 50 cents to a dollar a bird, the fine for heath hens was a weighty $25.

Clearly this law did not ultimately save the heath hen, which was soon extirpated in New York (and then briefly reintroduced and extirpated again). "The Sixth Annual Report of the Conservation Commission," published in Documents of the Assembly of the State of New York (1917) has this to say: "Every statement of law...was ineffective, since laws amount to nothing unless they are rigidly enforced. ..."

Of particular interest then, is a resolution by an organization calling itself "Brush Club" reported in the August 26, 1805 edition of the Evening Post.

Notwithstanding the proper and salutary provisions of the ... Act, certain persons have been in the practice of disregarding it and it is feared [illegible] to disregard it, by which means it has become a dead letter, and there is reason to apprehend that that valuable species of bird called the Heath Hen or Grouse will in a short time become extinct.
...
And whereas [club members] think it necessary that prosecutions should be instigated against all such persons as may commit any breaches of the said act, during the present season, and that the prosecutor or prosecutors should be indemnified for their trouble and experience in pursuing the same to conviction....

The members of the Brush Club resolved to reward prosecutors for every bird killed and prosecuted for, and to report the convictions in at least three New York City newspapers. Sadly, the efforts of the Brush Club were insufficient to finally save the bird.

Response to the "Bird Law" Part 4

This, the last post about the Bird Law of 1818, collects four news stories that commented on some aspect of the Act in operation.

On September 18, 1819, the Boston Intelligencer suggested that the law was working, serving one of its intended purposes--to make game more plentiful during hunting season.

Snipe and Woodcock shooting has been a source of great amusement the present season to the sportsman and of emolument to other persons, and those birds have been extremely abundant. Partridges and Quails also will be plenty--thanks to the protection afforded by the late act of the legislature prescribing the periods for killing various kinds of game. Partridges as an article of food ought to be regulated by law.

Note the last line. Market hunting was largely responsible for decimated populations of game birds (and would contribute to the extinction of the passenger pigeon). Here the call was for more laws, not fewer.

Reporting one community's use of the Act's suspension clause, the New England Galaxy (March 31, 1820) had a little fun:

 Small Birds, Look out.
The town of Milton, we understand, have taken advantage of the Proviso in the far famed Bird Law of this state, which authorised any town at its March meeting to suspend the operation of the prohibitions and restrictions of said law for one year. In consequence of this measure, the sportsmen of the vicinity are busy in preparing their fowling pieces against the approaching fastday, and it is said that several new licences have been granted for retailing powder and shot. Robbins, woodcocks, snipes, and some other long-legged fowls, having got an inkling of this business, are on the wing, and removing to the neighbouring towns.

Other towns, such as Stockbridge, were also reported during this period voting to suspend the Act. Note the recognition that the law was "far famed."

By 1824 there was a sense that compliance with the law was not quite universal (probably due to a lack of real enforcement). A writer in the Columbian Centinel on June 23 threatened to use the power of the press to adress the problem:

The laws prohibiting the killing of Woodcocks, it is believed, are known to all sportsmen, to be in force from the 1st day of March till the 4th of July, every year; yet for some time past, they have been almost daily violated. It would seem that a sense of humanity, even in the lawless, might be sufficient to protect these birds, till the expiration of the operation of the Law, as the destruction of the old ones, so early in the season, must necessarily cause many of their young to perish. Several person, well known to the writer of this article, have been in the habit of thus transgressing in Malden, Medford, and other places during the past week, a repetition of which, will cause them to be prosecuted, and their names made known to the public. 

Unlike the faux threat in the Johnny Ploughshares, Jr. story, this one was clearly serious. It is assumed the law-breakers changed their ways (their names were never reported).

On April 25, 1825, a writer in the Essex Register appealed to the editor to reprint the law as a public service to the community (and robins). While robin populations, generally, were relatively robust, boys and young men continued to break the law.

Mr Palfray--
    It is in the power of every man, without exception, to do good--in your situation particularly so. Men of talents are sent for round the country to deliver orations, addresses, etc and premiums are sometimes offered for poems at the opening of a Theatre--and what does it amount to?
   To some, the innocent and harmonious note of the chorister of the forest, is as pleasant, particularly since the spring has come in, with the time of singing birds, especially Robins, of which I have noticed of late more than a small number in our gardens and round our doors--whether owing to the mildness of the late winter and spring, or the late law for their preservation, I do not know, possibly in part to both. But I have been mortified to see the boys pelting them with stones, and young men, who ought to know better, shooting them in their songs, chaunting forth their maker's praise, and expressing their gratitude with more pathos for the mildness of the season and other good things than their assassins ever did. What must be the feelings of those persons whose hearts are thus callous, admitting there was no law to restrain them?

The writer goes on to provide a cultural history of the robin (confusing the American bird with the beloved British counterpart and claiming that one's reaction to the sad ending of "Babes in the Wood" is a child's first test of humanity). Showing faith in the power of the written word, he hopes that the problem is simply a lack of awareness:

The trial by jury is considered important in our Courts--but the anticipation or preventing of crimes is a procedure we have not yet learned, or attended to, although practised in France, Turkey, and some other countries, for many years past.
Possibly it is not known that the Bird Law is in existence with us. For the information of those who are heedless, and are not restrained by principle, I request you to publish the following extracts from "an act to prevent the destruction of certain birds," passed Feb 12, 1818. [The Register complied and printed Sections 1 & 2 of the act]. 

If the 1818 Bird Law was ultimately inadequate, it was, nevertheless, a milestone in American legal history and pointed the way to more legal protection for bird life in the future.  

Response to the "Bird Law" Part 3

On February 24, 1818, the Salem Gazette made fun of the Bird Law, with a serious purpose. The Gazette was less concerned about the merits of the law itself (except for its apparent triviality) and more about what it considered a general "effervescence of Legislation."

   The Legislature of this State at their present session have exhibited to their constituents a laudable example of industry and activity. They have entered what the sage of Monticello calls "the great field of human concern," and have tested and touched and handled every object within their view. Nothing has been too vast for their comprehension, nothing too minute for their perception. They have very gravely deliberated on Pickerel and the Militia-- ... [the Gazette continues with a long list of acts]... and for the preservation of Woodcocks and Robins. The sympathies of all, who have wept at the perusal of the Ballad of the Children of the Wood, must be excited in behalf of "Little Robin-Redbreast that sat upon a stump." And general joy will be expressed at this interesting bird's having met the favour of the Legislature. The bill was drawn with all due caution, for it has doomed Crows and Owls to the deadly aim of the fowler....The Small bird Law is a sample of thorough legislation, for it takes up the subject above; and we have no suspicion the object of the legislators is feather their own nests, for they are more disinterested than the famous patriot, John Wilkes, who sneeringly declared that the public was a Goose and he a Fool that would not pluck a feather.
   When the public finds the pigeon holes of the Clerk of the House stuffed with bills for Robins and other birds of the air, the following extract occurs to mind:

"Really, Sir," said Mr. Windham in the British House of Commons, "Really, Sir, in turning from the great interests of this country and of Europe, to discuss with equal solemnity such measures as that which is now before us, the House appeals to me to resemble Mr. Smirk, the auctioneer in the play, who could hold forth just as eloquently upon a ribbon as a Raphael. This petty, meddling, legislative spirit, cannot be productive of good."

Some nine years later (January 16, 1827), the Salem Gazette reported about a bill (which ultimately failed) that would have prohibited the "setting up any domestic fowl or quadruped or anyother thing watsoever as a mark to be shot at for gain or reward." [The use of live targets is, astoundingly, still legal in parts of the United States]. One particular objection reported in the story is relevant: 

Mr. Washburn honored the motives of the gentlemen who introduced the bill, but was opposed to it in detail. We have enough pickerel and bird laws already, which neither honor the statute books of the Commonwealth, not the Legislatures which enacted them. He thought the present bill like those, and would be as inoperative. The subject was one for public opinion to control, and the laws on such subjects created more evils than the practices they were intended to prevent. Who are the persons who attend these sports? They are generally the vulgar and the lower orders of society. They must have their sports and their holidays and if deprived of these they will find others....

This response, hopefully, sheds light on the John Ploughshare, Jr. story of the previous post. It would appear that the primary opposition to the Bird Law of 1818 was not directly aimed at the law itself but at the use of legal means vs "public opinion" as the way of solving bird protection problems.  Note that Washburn also suggested bird laws were "inoperative." In the next post I will consider some notices in the press that observe the act in operation. 

Response to the "Bird Law" Part 2

On May 1, 1818, the New England Galaxy and Masonic Magazine ran the following letter to the editor concerning the Bird Law:

Mr. Editor,
   I have been what we call a young country sportsman. In the spring of the year, as soon as Robins, Larks etc appeared, I was out betimes with my gun, in pursuit of them, much to the disturbance of the neighbourhood, and to the regret of my father, who wished, and still wishes, to bring me up a plain, honest, industrious farmer, like himself. But I found, as I frequented the Boston vegetable market, a bunch of birds would frequently help me to some odd change; so that, at Election, I had enough to spend decently, pleasantly and even foolishly.
   When I saw the late Bird Law, as we call it, I was struck with sorrow and anger. I threw out many invectives against our legistators, and said, in my father's hearing, that they would be better employed in making laws for the regulation of themselves and their constituents, of which the makers would not be breakers.
   My father told me, if I would go to work in his garden, which is considerably extensive, I would earn much more, with less labour, in the hours usually allotted to sporting, as I called it. He also promised, if I would do it faithfully, that he would give me a new, complete suit of clothing for Election, a competent supply of money to spend on that day, and a further sum in addition to dispose of, in such a manner that it might be accumulating. I closed with the proposal and have followed his advice every pleasant day, with which we have since been favoured.
   Having laboured several hours this morning, I am now seated in a comfortable arbour at one end of the garden, to inform you and your readers, that I highly approve of the law abovementioned. I find the birds more numerous, than was usual at this season, when every urchin that could lift a musket was frightening them away, if he could not hit them. Their morning and evening songs seem to be addrest to the Maker of them and of us, with as much harmony, melody, and I fear I may add with truth, as much devotion, as ours, in too many of our churches. I find them much more tame than formerly, and as they hop about me, while at work, and gather for their food the worms and insects, which would be detrimental, if not fatal to the fruits of my labours, I look upon them, as I do upon my tame poultry; I consider them, as preparing to produce a young brood, which I shall be at liberty to dispose of as I please, so soon as they shall begin to make depredations on our currants, cherries, strawberries, and other salutary fruits.Thus on or soon after the 4th of July next, you and some of your customers may expect to be furnished with materials for a bird pie, in much greater abundance, than could have been done had this law, under consideration not been enacted. I think the Law, however, deficient in one respect. I believe there is no section forbidding the destruction of the eggs of the protected birds. The cruel practice of taking these has been, and I fear, continues to be prevalent among us, and calls for legislative attention.
   [signed] John Ploughshare, jun. [He concluded by introducing and including a poem, apologizing for his lack of education]

This story was evidently intended to be humorous, parodying the sanctimonious tone of bird defenders (down to the "morning and evening songs...addrest to the Maker"), and winding up to the punch line about bird pies. (The law doesn't even really protect birds--it just creates more to be killed).  A modern audience might feel the suggestion about including egg destruction to be a serious amendment to the Bird Law.  I suspect, instead, that this detail was meant to reinforce its outlandishness--that an uneducated boy would ever give up his egg-stealing ways.

That the above was intended to be humor is supported by a response, published on May 15 in the same paper, that was titled "Rural Amusement."

Mr. Editor,
I have read my neighbour John Ploughshare's observations on the Bird Law with pleasure and profit. Being myself in a similar situation, as to education, employments, and character, I was, perhaps, more forcibly struck with them, than most of your readers. I presented them to my father; and he very readily made me the same offers, that Mr. Ploughshare senior, had made with his son.  Neighbor John and I have had a consulation, and proposed to our young comrades in the neighbourhood to form a society for the purpose for promoting sobriety, economy and industry. We have agreed, at the approaching Election, not to play at bowls, or any other game, for money, to be moderate in our expenses on that day, and to return to our labours the day following. We intend to save a portion of what my be given us for spending money and all that may be allowed for an accumulating fund, to deposite in the SAVINGS BANK. We have also agreed to inform against all persons whatsoever within our knowledge, who shall infringe on the Bird Law. We hope that the young Bostonians will wait patiently, till the time shall have expired, during which the Birds are to remain unmolested; and then be careful not to mistake tame poultry for that which is wild...
[signed] HENRY HARROW, jr. [He also concluded by enclosing a poem]

My sense (and I may very well be mistaken about the tone) is that both letters reflected an attitude at the time (which would be explicitly articulated by critics) that the Bird Law was high-minded and foolish legislation because its success ultimately relied on the compliance of an uneducated class that was as likely to follow its rules (and inform on rule-breakers) as create a club for promoting sobriety and deposit money in a savings bank. 

Response to the "Bird Law" Part 1

On May 6, 1818, the Boston paper, Columbia Centinel, ran a letter to the editor with a specific complaint about the Act to Prevent the Destruction of Certain Useful Birds at Unseasonable Times.

This new law, if we understand it right, is put in operation in order to save those birds which it includes from being destroyed while hatching.  In some measure, however, the fitness of it is to be questioned as it respects the robin. This is a bird we every year have in great quantities, and especially at this season of it, when quitting the woods (where they have taken refuge during the winter) they spread themselves in large and numerous bodies all over the country. Would not this law, therefore, if framed from motives of humanity only, be improved by extending only from the first of May, to about the middle of July, at which season, cherries being ripe, and this law in operation, it effectually prevents the farmer from protecting his property from these little noxious invaders; whereas, were it in operation only at the above mentioned time, every sentiment of humanity would be fully gratified by the protection afforded them during the months of incubation; they never even choose their mates till about the beginning of May; and by the middle of July, their young being sufficiently fledged for flight, it gives the farmer an opportunity to prevent the destroyers of his fruit, which, like locusts, always overrun and destroy it; but when suffered peaceably and unmolested to infest it, these troublesome invaders, coming forth reinforced by so many young, will infallibly destroy one quarter of this year's cherries. T.G.

In small letters beneath T.G.'s missive, the editor noted:

There appears much reason in the remarks of our correspondent, and we have no doubt they will arrest legislative attention. The whole object of the law alluded to, was good, and not injury, to the farmer. 

Countering stories we've seen before, T.G. offered a different narrative--equating birds and locusts, with the farmer himself the only means of protecting his investment.  T.G., it would seem, was a careful observer of birds, but not a careful reader of the act itself.  The very next issue (May 9), there was a new letter to the editor letting "T.G" have it.

Mr. Russell--if your correspondent "T.G" in your last paper, who appears to have such an antipathy to poor "Robin Redbreast" had been as careful of his pen and ink, as he is of his Cherries, he would have perused the Law "to prevent the destruction of useful Birds," before he had troubled you to print and the public to read the evidence he has given of his ignorance of that law. Let him recur to the Centinel of Feb. 14, and he will there find, that the law in question, does not prohibit him, nor any other sharp shooter, from killing, taking, or destroying, not only his "noxious Robins," but also Snipes, Woodcocks, and Larks, after the 4th of July in each year! which is a fortnight earlier than he wishes for.  But this ignorant complaint is but a sample of the others against this excellent law....Cherries are never ripe before this last period, and therefore your humane correspondent, after having celebrated the anniversary of Independence, may finish his festival by killing, maiming, or playing the d---l with the annoyers of his dear cherry trees.

And then in what would appear to be an allusion to Addison and his blackbirds, he continued:

On my farm, Major, you know I have a large number of cherry trees; but I never allow a gun to be fired among them; and I think myself well paid for the appropriation of a few trees to Robin Redbreast, and his brother vocalists, by the delightful music with which every morning and night they express their gratitude.Your friend, A FARMER, who willingly distributes Heaven's bounty. 

Clearly, "A FARMER," was writing less to correct "T.G." than to criticize his inhumanity. And one can also sense a certain dissatisfaction with the Act itself, which did not go far enough in its protection of songbirds.

The original writer, resenting to tone of "A Farmer's" response, had the last word:

Mr. Russell--The piece by "A Farmer," in the Centinel of Saturday, in answer to my last communication, I was dubious whether it was worthy of notice--it being so entirely replete with personal reflections; but I have at length determined to hand this to you. With regard to the law in question, I candidly confess that after several inquiries, I had understood that it was to continue in force from the first of March to the first of September. I was mistaken. But my actions, like my intentions, were pure, and I should have hardly supposed there could have been any thing in the piece of Wednesday, to have roused the ire, even of a hot-headed "farmer." He hopes he says, "there are but few T.G.'s in the community;" I might say in the language of retort that, for the credit of the civilization and politeness of this country, I hope there are but few such "farmers;" but such language I disdain, and I deem it beneath the character of a gentleman to notice such rusticity, which, however pardonable it may be in a rustic farmer, is beneath the dignity of a man.  With regard to the law, I was mistaken. But could he not have set me right without stooping to such language? Was it at all necessary for the proof of this affirmations, to call those who were so unfortunate as to mistake the law in that respect, fools, ignorant? But his opprobrium recoils upon himself, who in the bombastic language of self-boasted humanity, descends from the character of a gentleman, to throw scorn, contempt, and indignity at another. T.G.

This exchange may remind modern readers of a discussion board flame war ; the parallels are not accidental. "T.G." never responded to "A Farmer's" real objections, instead reacting to his tone and his ad hominem attack. This exchange is useful as a hint of a problem with the early bird protection movement: the ardor of bird protection proponents sometimes caused them to slip into self-righteous bombast, while non-supporters were mystified why someone should care so much, and saw themselves as victims when they perceived their rights being stripped away. 

An Act to prevent the destruction of certain useful Birds at unseasonable times of year (1818)

Massachusetts was not the first state to pass laws for the protection of birds (as we'll see, New York had been trying to protect the Heath Hen for more than a century) but it was the first state to use the economic value of insectivorous birds as a reason for protecting them. The Act embedded above was introduced by Samuel P. P. Fay, of Cambridge on January 24, 1818, "excited considerable debate" on January 30 (according to papers at the time), and was finally approved by the Governor on February 12, 1818. Opponents in the legislature apparently regarded the Act as frivolous.

Section 1 of the Act called for close seasons on partridges & quails (March 1 to September 1) as well as woodcocks, snipes (added as an amendment in the Senate), larks and robins (March 1 to July 4). Offenders would be subject to fines. Section 2 of the Act added penalties for trespassing while poaching, but also stated that "nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the killing of crows, blackbirds, owls, blue jays, and hawks, at any season of the year." In addition, individual towns could (and did), on an annual basis, vote to rescind the restriction.

"Useful," thus primarily referred to certain game birds (note that the soon-to-be extirpated wild turkey and the eventually extinct heath hen were not on the list) for their food value. Only the "lark" (eastern meadowlark) and the robin were protected among the songbirds, and then only during breeding season. (Both birds also had food value). Furthermore, certain birds (including blackbirds and blue jays) had no protection at all. Indeed, on February 20, the Governor approved another Act, this time: to Encourage the Destruction of Wolves, Bears, and other Mischievous Animals [including birds].

So while this law was an interesting start, Edward Forbush, for one, notes its inadequacy.  Songbirds, generally, would not be protected in Massachusetts from boys with guns until mid-century. Nevertheless, the fact of this law eventually became useful as a rallying cry for citizens in other states also interesting in protecting useful birds, particularly the robin. And as we'll see in the next few posts, the Act provoked quite a bit of reaction in the press.

Incidentally, Samuel Fay, who introduced the bill and urged its passage, is now best remembered as a friend of the influential jurist, Joseph Story.  Fay and Story campaigned together in the 1830s to plant trees at Cambridge Common. Story, in addition to serving as Associate Supreme Court Justice, would be the first president of Mt. Auburn Cemetery, which was designed at least in part as a sanctuary for birds.

A plea to printers to promote the protection of useful birds

As noted previously, early agricultural periodicals had strong relationships with regional agricultural societies.  Some of those societies had their own publications but these tended to be produced irregularly. Nevertheless, they are clear precursors to agricultural periodicals both in form and content.

 The excerpt above, from the 1818 Memoirs of the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, is notable in a variety of ways. First, it represents the perspective of a "humble ploughman," not the typical "gentleman farmer" reader. Second, it retells the old story of the relationship between the absence of wild birds and the increase in noxious insects. And finally, it represents a genuine plea, addressed not to legislatures but to "printers," that a variety of bird species, including "blackbirds, robins, jays, catbirds, swallows, and sparrows" be spared from sports shooting.

And indeed, some printers were listening. The Alexandria Herald repeated a story that was credited to a "Concord paper" in a column on  July 25, 1817, both accepting the ploughman's explanation and calling not just for special protection for the swallow but for its promotion.

On what principle to account for [the large number of destructive insects] we were at a loss, until the suggestion from an experienced agriculturalist, that the cold season of 1816, either drove away or destroyed those useful birds, particularly the swallow, which appear to subsist on air, but in fact feed on the myriads of insects with which the air abounds....
The swallow claims our protection, not only because it is inoffensive, but because it protects our fields, our gardens--nay, our lives; for who knows that the same insects which lay waste the one, do not generate those diseases which destroy the other? Some farmers are in the habit of shutting up and darkening their barns and outhouses to prevent these birds from building their nests and rearing their young. We think an act of the legislature paying a bounty on the rearing of swallows would be as useful to the community as the passing of a law paying a bounty for killing crows.

Note the typical economic ornithological practice of separating birds into "good" and "bad." Not everyone would be so hard on crows.

The usefulness of dunghill fowl. American Farmer July 2, 1819.

American Farmer, July 2, 1819 (Vol I, No. 14, p. 106)

On July 2, 1819 Skinner ran the second half of a long edited extract, "Notices for a Young Farmer," originally appearing in the Memoirs of the Philadelphia Agricultural Society. In a section on poultry, the writer strongly advises against turkeys and geese but recommends an alternative:

Dung-hill fowls, of innocent breeds, are preferable to either. Confining these too much has not been found eligible; and high feeding is not promotive of, but checks, fecundity. It also destroys one of their uses, by making it less necessary and desirable to them to seek for and destroy insects and other pests to your garden and fields....They often injure the garden; but some gardeners think that they do more good than harm, by devouring insects and noxious vermin. The absence of wild birds, whether owing to irregularities of seasons, or wanton destruction, is often seriously felt in the increase of insects on our farms. The depredations of birds are fully compensated by the services they render to us; whilst, for their own support, they are preying on our enemies. Our poultry are entitled to regard on this account.

Dunghill fowl were essentially mixed-breed barnyard chickens.

It is worth noting that domesticated fowl were the original "useful" birds, a source of human food with the special bonus of being insectivorous. While pure-bred fowl might need some confinement, dunghill fowl were perceived as benefiting from their free range diet and benefiting farmers by keeping down fly populations and devouring harmful insects in the garden. As with wild birds, any depredations in the garden were compensated by "the services they render to us."

Ignoble hunters from the city. American Farmer, May 14, 1819.

The first extended mention in the American Farmer of the need for bird protection can be found in the May 14, 1819 (Vol I, issue 7, page 52) edition in the context of a piece voicing complaints about the behavior of city folk visiting the countryside.  Addressed to "sister" and titled, "The country to the city," the article (probably written by John S. Skinner himself) is mostly a complaint about casual thievery from orchards and flower beds, but ends with an additional complaint about the cruelty shown by "ignoble hunters" from the city to birdlife.

Here is the full text, hopefully more readable, below:

But besides the thieves, small or great, we must complain of another species of transgressors. A number of offensive idlers sally out with guns, to the great annoyance of our children and servants, in their sports and labors. The noise and shot enter our very houses; discharges by unmanly sportsmen, upon the blue bird, thrush, and robin, any bird of song or beauty, that falls under the savage glance of these ignoble hunters. This, too, at a season when every murdered bird leaves a helpless brood to perish with famine in the nest. Scarcely the swallow, or a sparrow, can escape, and in a little while, nothing will be left to animate the country near your precincts. But, instead of these beautiful and sprightly little visitors, disgusting crowds of catterpillars (sic) and destructive grubs, will deform and desolate the country, in righteous judgment for the wanton destruction of the useful creatures, who formerly kept down their devouring numbers.

Compressed into this single paragraph are a number of separate arguments against the shooting of songbirds, versions of which we have seen before

• The aesthetic, picturesque value of birds of "song and beauty" (blue bird, thrush, robin, swallow, sparrow) animating the countryside . [Addison & Steele]
• The inhumane cruelty of killing adult birds during breeding season. [Trimmer]
• The plague of caterpillars and grubs resulting from the sin of killing birds [Bradley, Franklin]
• The "usefulness" of birds [Barton, Wilson]

It is unknown whether Skinner actually held this belief or was just reproducing a common complaint from the point of view of his readership. Skinner would later be a great promoter of hunting, but under the model of the restrained "sportsman," not the "offensive idler."

This article was reprinted in the very first issue of the short-lived Boston farm paper, the Agricultural Intelligencer and Mechanic Register, January 10, 1820.