Doctor Palmer rightly concludes that in practice bounties for the destruction of noxious animals, paid from public funds, are usually objectionable. Probably those on wolves and coyotes have been more nearly justified than those on any other animals. While it is certain that the larger wolves have greatly diminished in numbers under the system, forces far more potent than mere rewards have operated against them. Chief of these has been the encroachment of civilization. Coyotes have in some places held their ground under bounties, and possibly might have been held in check nearly as well under the operation of the same forces that helped to decimate the timber wolves. But the observed effect on the coyote of contact with settlements hardly justifies such a conclusion. That the bounties in some places have done effective work is undoubted; the question is as to whether the results have been commensurate with the expenditures. However, the principal objection to bounties is the ethical one, that they lead to fraudulent practices. PROTECTION AGAINST COYOTES. The discussion of the various means of destroying coyotes, and the evident futility, thus far, of all of them combined to completely check the increase of the species, leads naturally to the consideration of means of preventing their depredations. Could domestic animals be entirely protected, the coyotes would return to their original beneficial occupation as scavengers and destroyers of noxious rodents. The plan that at once suggests itself is that of fencing against them. This means of protection from wild animals has been long in vogue in the Australian colonies and in South Africa. In Australia rabbits, dingoes, and some species of kangaroos are successfully kept out of pastures and crops by the use of wire nettings. In Cape Colony jackals, particularly the red jackal (_Canis mesomelas_), are a great hindrance to sheep and ostrich farming, and the success attending the use of wire netting in Australia led to the introduction of similar fencing into South Africa. The result has been highly gratifying. While the cost of the fencing is high, the advantages from its use have been regarded as more than compensating for the outlay. Mr. T. T. Hoole, president of the Upper Albany (Cape Colony) Farmer's Association, in a paper read at a meeting of that society[H] gives details of ten years' experience with jackal-proof fencing. Among its advantages to sheep growers he names: 1. Decreased cost of herding. 2. Increased value of the wool, about 3 cents per pound. 3. Increased number of lambs reared. 4. Increased value, owing to early maturity and condition of stock. 5. Less liability to contagion from scab. 6. Reduced death rate. 7. Additional security of the flock. 8. Improved condition of pasturage as against deterioration. [Footnote H: Agr. Jour. Cape of Good Hope, vol. 25, pp. 560-563, 1904.]