Back Aa

Nature and Art, Vol. VIII, No 1, June 1900

Close

<h3> NATURAL RIGHTS OF BIRDS.</h3> LYNDS JONES. WHAT DO we mean by a "natural right?" Are there rights of any other sort in the world? Yes, a legal right may not always be a natural right. On the contrary, a legal right is sometimes a natural wrong. In many states it has, at one time or another, been legally right to slaughter the hawks and owls, which are far more useful than harmful. The birds had a clear title to the natural right of life, which the laws denied until the lawmakers discovered their mistake. Long ago our forefathers declared that all men possess the natural right to "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Certainly no one will deny that any creature has a right to life so long as in its life it contributes more toward the welfare of the world than in its death. It also has a right to liberty so long as it can do more good at liberty than as a captive. Granting that the lower animals are capable of happiness, no one would think of denying them the right of the pursuit of their happiness except for some higher good. Without discussing these general principles further let us see how they will apply to the birds as natural rights. Has the bird a right to live? According to our first principle he has if he is more useful alive than dead. What, then, does he do that can be called really useful? If he is a diver, a gull, a tern, or any one of the really seafaring birds, he eats fish, water insects, offal and whatever small animals resort to the water, doing little or no harm and a great deal of good. Near large sea-coast cities the gulls dispose of the garbage which is taken out a distance from shore and dumped into the ocean, and so prevent its drifting back upon the beach. If he is a duck, goose or swan, he feeds upon fish, the plants which grow in the water and at its margins, upon the insects and worms which inhabit the ooze at the bottom, and sometimes upon grains in the fields and about the marshes. He does a great deal of good and rarely any harm. If he is a heron, crane, rail, coot or gallinule, his food is frogs, snakes, insects and worms, and so he is useful. If he is a snipe, sandpiper or plover, he destroys large numbers of insects, worms and such small animals as are to be found in wet places, and is always a very useful help to the farmer. If he is a bird of the fowl kind or a pigeon, he eats grain mostly, but also many insects. He may sometimes do a little damage to the ripe grain, but he usually gathers that which has gone to waste. If he is a vulture, hawk, eagle or owl, he destroys great quantities of animals that are harmful to man, not often visiting the poultry yard, and so does great good. If he is a kingfisher he eats small fish mostly, and so is not harmful. Among all the remaining birds there are but a few which do not feed almost entirely upon insects or other creatures which menace vegetation. Even these seed eaters feed the young upon insects and worms, and do good by destroying vast quantities of injurious plants. Those which eat ripe fruit pay for what they eat by scattering broadcast the seeds of the fruit. When there is no ripe fruit they eat insects and worms. The crows and blackbirds and bobolink are rather overly fond of green corn and ripe grains in the fall of the year, but they pay for what they eat by destroying immense quantities of insects and worms in the spring. When the whole life of the bird is taken into account we cannot escape the fact that the bird has a natural right to life on account of the good he does. <ANTIMG style="width:100%" src="images/i_019.jpg" alt="" /> How does the value of the bird's body used for food compare with the good the bird would do if allowed to live? Reckoned [Pg 11] in dollars and cents the flesh on an average bird's body would be worth, say twenty-five cents at the price of good beef. But let us say seventy-five cents to do full justice to the greater excellence of the bird's flesh as food. We must consider, however, that the most of the birds which are not good for food, civilized food, are among our largest birds. The size of the average edible bird would therefore be greatly reduced, so our estimate is a very liberal one. But during the average lifetime of the average bird it would destroy many times its own weight of injurious animals. Careful investigations have shown that these injurious animals would do many times more damage than the worth of the bird's flesh. We have no need, then, to take into account the real good we derive in the pleasure which the beautiful plumage, the sweet voice and the graceful form bring to us. That is an added value which nothing can compensate for. How does the value of the bird's skin as an ornament of dress or of the dwelling, or as a scientific specimen compare with its value as a living creature? As an ornament it may be a thing of beauty, or a hideous caricature. Even as a thing of beauty it could not be made more so than the living bird. No one will be willing to declare that the quill, or the wing, or the skin is necessary to the bonnet. Many of us honestly think that the bonnet would look far better without either. As a scientific specimen the skin will serve some purposes, some legitimate purposes, which the living bird will not. The living bird cannot be fully understood without a careful study of its structure any more than a living man can. Unfortunately, birds which die a natural death cannot be found while their bodies are fit to study, if found at all. But happily, the number of dead birds necessary for study is limited. Even for scientific purposes there is no possible excuse for indiscriminate slaughter. Collecting should be left to those and those only who know what is needed and are content with enough. In these days of large collections and advanced knowledge, it is the rare exception when the dead bird will be more useful than the living one. These exceptions do not affect the right of the bird to live. Boys who begin to study birds have a passion for making a collection of the eggs. Eggs are beautiful things, and they look well in a cabinet properly arranged. But all of the eggs which most boys would be likely to find are already well known, so that a study of the eggs in the nest and of the young birds will teach him far more that we really need to know about the birds. The greater good is not to make a collection of birds' eggs. What shall we say about the bird's right to liberty? Clearly the bird at liberty to perform the part which Nature intended for him can fully accomplish that part only when at liberty to go his own way. But it would be idle to declare that the caged bird is in nowise useful to the world. There are some things which can be learned about birds only from caged ones. If a bird be caged for the purpose of learning these things the very few that will be needed for this purpose will be fulfilling a high good, and if given their freedom again when the lessons have been learned the harm, if there be any, will be fully repaid. But here, again, the caged bird will be the rare exception and so does not affect the right of the average bird to liberty. We then have only to inquire whether the bird has a right to the pursuit of happiness. No one who has studied the living bird with anything like an appreciation of it will think of denying that birds are creatures of intense life, capable of strong feeling and keen enjoyment. They speak out their feelings in song and action. It is really their human attributes which makes them appeal so strongly to us. We know that they are capable of love and hate, of joy and sorrow, of pleasure and pain. In them we recognize the heroic attribute of martyrdom. In order, therefore, to determine what the attitude of the bird would likely be were his right to the pursuit of happiness denied, we have only to ask what our own attitude would be under the same circumstances. If our happiness should be threatened in this place we would certainly go where it would not be. The birds do the same. But we have already seen that the birds have a right to life and liberty on account of the services they render to the world. If we deny them the right of happiness they will not [Pg 12] be able to perform their service for us. Under persecution they cannot do their best, even if they remain to do anything for us. Persistent persecution will either drive them away or destroy them altogether. Since we cannot do without their services even for a single year, it is clear that we must agree that they do have the natural right to the pursuit of happiness. We are ready, then, to concede to the birds as natural rights what we long ago declared were the natural rights of mankind,—"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." We might properly discuss the question, What do we owe to the birds? but that is a separate topic for a later time. <hr> <div style="break-after:column;"></div>

1 of 2

2 of 2