EGG COLLECTING
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The observations by Sir William Beach Thomas in your issue of 16th inst. in connexion with the wholesale robbery of the eggs of rarer birds by the egg collector or his hirelings, expresses a view which will meet with wide accept- ance, unless among those similarly engaged in this practice.
I am doubtful, however, if the expression of commendation given at the same time by Sir William Beach Thomas, with reference to egg collecting by boys, will meet with the same wide approval. Is there any justification for egg collecting ? It is obviously a form of cruelty. Is there any difference between the bird catcher lifting an entire nest of young birds and robbing the parents of their brood and the egg collector robbing the bird of its eggs? Sir William Beach Thomas seems to think that the charge of cruelty is avoided if only one egg is taken. If half a dozen boys should each adhere to this faithfully, and each lift one egg, is there any difference to the bird, between this and one individual lifting the whole clutch of eggs ?
Do we sufficiently- consider what this egg robbing means to the bird ? To the bird, perhaps the most mobile creature on the face of the earth, spending a large portion of its life in swift motion, the urge to egg laying and thereafter the urge of incubation comes upon it. So powerful is this urge that it converts this creature with its incessant activities into a condition almost as motionless as a stone. An urge which thus drives a bird to change its normal nature, must obviously be tremendously powerful. To thwart this instinct by robbing its nest and so destroying the realization of this overwhelming desire which animates it, seems obviously to be cruelty. Why, then, should Sir William Beach Thomas, whose generous outlook on life is so apparent from his notes, condone this abominable practice merely because he engaged in it in his boyhood? So much from the point of view of the bird. What about the effect of this on the boy engaging- in it'? roes it not tend to limit the imagination, to- restrict the sympathies and to harden the heart of the boy. The late T. A. Coward in one of his books remarks :
" Thoughtlessness about the sufferings-even if they are merely' instinctive or temporary-of birds and other animals; encourages that tendency which may degenerate into deliberate, ruthless cruelty. . . . Egg collecting by small boys may seem trivial enough, but it may be the first step towards deepest degradation, the creation of the potential or actual murderer."
From information received by my Society it is estimated
that at least 30 per cent. of the eggs of birds are destroyed in and around our towns and villages by thoughtless boys. When we further consider that in nine cases out of ten the egg is broken either before it has reached home or when it is being blown or after it has been blown, the evil of the practice
is even more manifest.
• The statement by Sir William Beach Thomas as to it being difficult to study bird life unless one is an oologist is open to very severe question. As Canon Raven remarks :
" It is agreed by almost all ornithologists that the study of egg-shells is of very small importance" that they contribute little to our knowledge of birds, and have almost no bearing upon their classification."
It is only when an individual turns his mind away from egg- shells that he can become a true observer of birds. The col- lecting of eggs, by directing energies into wrong directions is
probably more responsible than anything else for diverting the interest of human beings from bird life.-I am, yours truly,
JOHN M. CROSTHWAITE.
(Secretary, The Scottish Society for the Protection of Wild Birds.) 207, West George Street, Glasgow, C. 2.
Previous page
