THE LITTLE OWL.
STAND A.RD works on British birds enumerate four species of owls as natives of these islands, the White or Barn owl, Strix jiammea, the Long-eared owl, Asio otus, the Short- eared owl, Ask) accipitrinus, and the Brown owl, Syrnium caw°. To these names must now be added a fifth, not, it is true, a British species, but one which has been brought from abroad and turned out in so many parts of the country, and in such numbers, that it has now established itself over large areas as a resident, breeding and increasing every year, and spreading further and further from the places where it was originally introduced. This is the Little owl, Athens nostua. The Little owl was first introduced into this country—or at all events for the first time of set purpose and in any appreciable numbers—by the late Lord Lilford, and in Mr. A. Trevor- Battye's book, "Lord Lilford on Birds," there are many references to his experiments in acclimatisation. "I turned down about forty Little owls, about the house here and over a radius of some three or four miles in the neigh- bourhood, early in July last" (1888), he writes in a letter to a friend. "On April 23rd, 1889, one of my keepers discovered a nest in the hollow bough of a high ash. . . . This is encouraging, and I shall invest largely in Little owls this summer. Similar experiments have been tried, to my knowledge, in Hants, Sussex, Norfolk, and Yorkshire, but I do not know of a brood having been reared in a genuinely free condition in this country, till this lot of mine." To another friend he writes on February 20th, 1892: "You may be interested in hearing that we have a Little owl sitting on five eggs in a hollow tree not far off. I have turned out a great many of these birds during the past few years, and this is the fifth nest of which I have had positive information." Again, in his presidential address to the Northamptonshire Field Club, in February 1894, he states that, having for several years past set at liberty a con- siderable number of these owls, "I trust that I have now fully succeeded in establishing it as a Northamptonshire bird, and earnestly entreat all present, who may have the opportunity, to protect and encourage these birds ; they are excellent mouse-catchers, very bad neighbours to young sparrows in their nests, and therefore valuable friends to farmers and gardeners." It is on this point, the value of the bird economically and in the scheme of our British wild-bird life, that it would be interesting if we could obtain Lord Lilford's opinion to-day. He would not improbably regard his introduction of the bird into England as one of the most disastrous experiments of its kind made in the long list of mistaken attempts at acclimatisation.
The fact is that the efforts of those who would protect and preserve our British owls, as being beautiful and useful birds, have received and continue to suffer from a severe set-back from the introduction of the Little owl into this country. It has always been a difficulty to persuade gamekeepers that all four species of British owls do an immense amount of good in destroying mice, field voles, and young rats, and that even if the Brown owl is guilty of taking an occasional young pheasant, the good that it does during the greater part of the year, when the pheasants are full grown, far outweighs any mischief it may do in the spring. But the difficulty of persuading keepers that owls ought to be encouraged and preserved is now immensely increased, because there is no doubt whatever that the Little owl preys on birds, including young pheasants and partridges. Unlike our other owls, it hawks by day, and kills birds in fall view. Birds are not, it is true, its only food, for it devours mice, beetles, worms, and young frogs ; but the numbers of birds which it destroys in a year must be very considerable, and as it includes among its victims small singing birds and.
migrants, the effect on the bird life of the country is plainly very serious. There is plenty of evidence on this point. At a meeting of the British Ornithologists' Club, in the summer of 1909, Mr. Edwin Montagu drew attention to the great destruction of small birds, especially chaffinches and goldfinches, caused by the Little owl in Cambridgeshire ; and two members who had turned out many Little owls in Kent and Hertfordshire said that they were aware that Little owls had greatly increased in those counties, and certainly killed numbers of sparrows and finches, but that they did not believe that they caused any serious diminution in the numbers of smaller birds. Again, on December 16th, 1911, Mr. T. R. Livesey wrote to the Field from Cambridge, observing that Little owls "are especially numerous about here, and are undoubtedly on the increase ; localities where a few years ago they were quite unknown have now several pairs. All along the Huntingdon Ouse and in the fen country, wherever there are plenty of pollard willows, they seem abun- dant, and in the evening can generally be detected by the loud proclamation of blackbirds and thrushes, if not by their eat.like mewing. Among the fenmen they bear a bad name for taking chickens, and they seem possessed of great power and courage for so small a bird. I took a clutch of eggs, three in number, in the last week of April last year, and during my search I noticed that all the pollard willows fre- quented had abundant remains of blackbirds and thrushes about them. The comparative scarcity of partridges and pheasants in the vicinity may account for the fact that there were no remains of these to be found, but there is little doubt that they would be extremely destructive; at any rate, their preference for bird flesh seems strong enough proof of their evil living, and it seems a pity that they are increasing so."
Further, on February 17th, 1912, Mr. W. J. Constable wrote from Uppingham to the same paper as follows : "It (the Little owl) is now more frequently seen than any kind of owl, and may be heard on the outskirts of the town almost every night of the year. The nesting holes and larders have been carefully examined in a great many instances, and if we had only the evidence of the remains found there little objection could be taken to the Little owl. Its food consists of beetles and other insects and mice. We found remains of some, but very few, small birds, tits and wrens, &c., occasionally a young thrush or blackbird, once a water rat, but never any game. Keepers round about assert that they take both young partridges and pheasants, but we have found no evidence to support the statement. But it so happens that the increased observation of the Little owl coincides with a gradual but marked decrease in the numbers of small birds which were at one time common in the neighbourhood—whitethroats, warblers, chiffchaffs, willow wrens, and birds of this type. Even finches appear to be diminishing. . . . The Little owl is diurnal as well as nocturnal in its habits, and the mischief arises from its bunting by day. The small birds must be continually disturbed and alarmed by its almost ceaseless activity. Is it not natural that they should be driven further afield, especially in the breeding season, when they instinctively try to find quiet nesting-places? Up to this year our society has been most careful to protect the Little owl, and to encourage it in every way possible to become acclimatized. I wonder if it would not be wiser to exterminate it ? " Mr. Constable, it will be seen, bad no definite evidence to support the assertion of keepers. From the strictly judicial point of view, no doubt, such evidence may often be suspect, but all of it cannot for that reason be disregarded. Only this week the writer received a letter from the Midlands relating a conversation with a gamekeeper, who said that he had lost over sixty young pheasants this year, and could not account for it at all. Finally he set some pole-traps, and the result was two Little owls, after which no more pheasants disappeared. The writer of this letter adds the observation that Little owls are "extraordinarily cunning and difficult to get at. I have stopped my cart and watched one for quite a long time sitting on a tree, but if I had been walking with a gun I should never have got near it." Finally comes the remark that "I am sorry to say that the White or Screech owl seems to have quite disappeared in these parts. It used to be quite common ten or fifteen years ago."
Now here, surely, is a fair case. It is impossible to hope for the protection and preservation of owls as a class if there Is evidence continually put before the eyes of gamekeepers that a particular species of owl preys on young birds. It may be illogical and cruel to visit the sins of one owl upon another, but not all keepers are naturally discriminating, and if a man thinks that he may be called to account for losses among his birds, and possibly lose his place in consequence, it is only to be expected that he will try to protect himself, even if he acts illegally in so doing. In the case just mentioned, the keeper even went the length of setting pole-traps, in con- travention of the Act of 1904. Now the pole-trap is a detestable invention, rightly made illegal because of the suffering which it inflicts, and gamekeepers have been gradually educated or frightened out of the use of it. Could there be any more unfortunate result of an experiment in introducing a foreign bird into the country than that keepers should actually go back to a trap which was falling into disuse ? Not only the Little owls suffer, but other birds, and among them, of course, other owls. The time has come when these facts should be frankly recognized. It is no use to depend for protection simply upon County Council orders and stray prosecutions ; what is wanted is common sense. And common sense urges that not only should the Little owl be taken off the protected list wherever it is scheduled under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, but that every effort should be made to get rid of it as a proved enemy of our native British birds, from White owls to goldfinches. At present, in the great majority of English counties, the Little owl is included among the "owls (all species) " which are protected throughout the year. In the single county of Huntingdonshire, on the other hand, the Little owl and its eggs are specifically deprived of extra protection ; the Little owl, that is, is only protected from being killed or taken during the period from March 2nd to July 31st inclusive. The Huntingdon example ought to be followed by other counties. This, no doubt, sounds like cruelty and persecution; but if facts are looked at fairly and squarely, is it anything more than a necessary measure of protection ? It is not as though the Little owl were a British bird, and it wore our duty to preserve it with other birds of prey, such as the hen barrier and the buzzard. The Little owl is a foreigner, or rather an invader, and has no claims on us. Our own birds have a claim, and deserve to be protected against a quite unnecessary enemy. It ought to be frankly recognized that the original experiment of introducing the Little owl was a well-intentioned but disastrous mistake, and a mistake which lovers of our native birds ought to do their best to rectify.
Previous page
