Appendix No. 1. xix
Colonel C. Russell, J.P., D.L., &c., of Stubbers (the well-known Essex
sportsman), wrote as follows :—
"My view of the birds of prey question is that in the absence of
man some of these birds would destroy all the increase of birds useful
to him, so he reasonably kills the former on the same principle as he
would wolves. In this country, however, it seems to me that the
destruction of birds of prey has been overdone : the whole class is
being exterminated, whether injuring or not. I believe that the owls
are almost entirely harmless, and indeed very useful; and that, as a
general rule, the hawks still remaining here might without detriment
exist in much greater numbers than at present.
" No doubt hawks will sometimes take to destroying young pheasants
where they are reared in numbers, and some of them might take young
fowls; but if landowners would forbid the destruction of hawks (especially
kestrels), except in cases where they are doing mischief, I believe that
they would suffer no perceptible loss.
" With regard to the white owl, the most harmless and useful of our
birds of prey, the only accusation seemingly well founded against it is
that it destroys young pigeons. I have heard equally good evidence of
the owl nesting in a pigeon-house without doing any harm to the pigeons.
The discrepancy very likely depends on this—where the owl is a stranger,
the pigeons all fly out when he comes into their place, and the small
young ones being unprotected, I see no reason why the owl should not
eat them. On the other hand, if the pigeons disregard the owl and keep
on their nests, I believe that he will not interfere with them. If this view
is right, it might not be a bad plan for anyone who likes both owls and
pigeons to keep a tame owl in his pigeon-house through the winter.
" Poisoning rats and mice in out-buildings is likely to destroy owls, as
the poisoned animals often creep about outside in a feeble state. This is
one difficulty, as1 farmers now poison rats and mice to a great extent ;
and there are many others in the way of preserving, in a country like
this, those beautiful and interesting birds, hawks and owls; but it is
much to be hoped that something may be done in that direction." *
Mr. E. N. Buxton, J.P., D.L. (one of the Verderers of the Forest, and
Chairman of the London School Board), wrote as follows:—" I am glad
to see that you propose to discuss the question of protection to birds.
There is one measure which I believe to be most important for the
existence of the small birds in the Forest, whether natives or migrants,
and that is the limitation of the number of their natural enemies, the
* In a subsequent letter (March 28th) Colonel Russell remarks:—" As to the Jays
I should feel inclined to let them alone, at any rate for a time, if only to find out by
experience how far they affect the numbers of other birds, and what kinds suffer most
from their depredations. There will be a good opportunity of making such experiments
in Epping Forest, and it should be very interesting to naturalists in the neighbourhood
to observe the results. I have noticed, that when a wood pigeon is frightened from its
nest in a place frequented by jays, that tho eggs always disappear, probably being eaten
by the jays before the return of the pigeon. Owls, especially white owls, would be very
useful in the Forest; they rarely catch birds, and they keep down mice, which not only
often destroy small birds' eggs, but bring stoats and weasels, which are most destructive
to young birds, climbing up bushes and trees to take them from the nests. If there are
not plenty of old trees with holes in the Forest, it would be well to put up boxes for
owls, and also for small birds. I find that titmice and redstarts will avail themselves of
such accommodation freely."—Ed.