THE CAGE BIRD CULT [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Slit,— Probably the most telling (though unintentional) indictnient of the whole pitiable business of imprisoning birds is contained in an article which appeared recently in a paper Called Cage Birds. Ironically enough, the article is entitled '• A Defence of Our Hobby." Here are a few extracts :- " He (your contributor) does not know that the fact that the bird has wings renders the use of such a size of cage necessary, and makes it more humane than the utilization of a larger cage would be, for captive birds when immured in large cages have a habit of dashing themselves stupidly against the bars and injuring themselves permanently." The italics, of course, are mine.
" As one of the people who advocate the keeping of birds intelligently in cages and in a proper state of domestication, I ant not ashamed of the fact that birds sing in captivity. I cite it shamelessly and unhesitatingly as proof positive that no cruelty is involved thereby."
This paper (Cage Birds) exists for the purpose of alleviating the lot of birds in cages and of spreading education on the subject ! The law is perfectly capable of dealing with all cases of cruelty to birds "—a remark which is followed a little later by the statement that " cruelty in the keeping of cage birds undoubtedly exists . . . it is not the principle of bird-keeping which is wrong, but the manner in which it is sometimes carried out."
" If bird-catching were wholly prohibited, what would be the result ? It would simply mean an increased amount of damage to farmers' crops and fruit-orchards, and an increase of competition and suffering amongst the birds themselves in a state of nature."
To anyone who knows anything about birds this is poor, muddled stuff, and the whole article is in the same vein ; but there is one gleam of hope. For argument the writer has substituted abuse, and in place of facts he gives us a gush of rhetoric. Are these not the recognized refuges for people who know themselves to be talking gibberish ? In time, conscience should do the rest.—I am, Sir, &e., II. KENT.
Previous page
