The Protection of Wild Birds
BY THE Thr. HON. EARL BUXTON.
IIIHE Bill for the Further Protection of British Wild Birds has now passed through all its stages in the House of Lords, where it was introduced by Lord Buckmaster (acting in close co-operation with Lord Howard of Penrith, who must be regarded as the real originator of the measure) and, its fortunes now rest with the House of Commons.
The Bill passed its Second Reading without a division and was referred to a Select Committee, which gave it unanimous endorsement, and greatly improved it. For the rather complicated provisions of the original Bill has been substituted a single Clause, which prohibits any person from (a) taking any British wild bird named in the Schedule to the Bill, and (b) offering for sale, or having in his possession- for sale, any bird named in the Schedule. The Schedule itself has been slightly extended, and includes the names of some hundred different birds. The Bill thus amended is simpler and therefore can be more effectively enforced than the original Bill. For example, as regards (a), if the netter were now to have in his possession not merely nets and decoys but also _boxes or cages, the inference that he was committing an illegal act would be irresistible. As regards (b), the simple prohibition of the sale of certain specified birds in shops is easily capable of enforcement.
The Select Committee called every witness who desired to give evidence ; and, finally amended the Bill with a view to meeting the main criticisms directed against it. In particular the import of the scheduled birds from abroad will be stopped, as well as the netting and selling of them at home ; the clause prohibiting anyone from "keeping in a cage any bird to which the Act applies" has been dropped, and so has the sub-section prohibiting the exhibition of caged birds ; while the proposal to give the Home Secretary power to extend the Schedule from time to time has been deleted.
It will thus be seen that, apart from the question of principle, every objection, either Official or private, made against the original Bill, has been completely met. At the same time the main principle that British wild birds should be protected against being netted or sold is contained in the amended Bill.
The Committee were satisfied from the evidence before them that the taking, the sale and the caging of British wild birds involves cruelty, .suffering, injury and great mortality. The mortality amongst the wild birds captured and caged, either at capture or within a few weeks after caging, was put by some witnesses as high as 50 per cent. One opponent of the Bill gave the mortality of linnets within three months of their capture as about 10 per cent., and that of goldfinches as about 20 per cent. It is clear, therefore, that in any ease the mortality is very heavy.
The worst suffering and mortality occurs from the actual caging of these wild birds. No one wishes to lodge an indictment against those who keep such birds in cages, for while no doubt - there is in some caseS callousness or indifference, as a rule the owners do their best for them. But however humane the owners may intend to be, ignorance and circumstances often, as the evidence showed, inevitably lead to injury, suffering and mortality. Many who keep birds as pets know nothing of their habits, their proper feeding, -their need for adequate water, and their sanitary and other requirements, while the cages arc often too small.
The Select Committee received much evidence on these -points from witnesses who supported the Bill. On the other hand, Mr. House, representing the Bird Keepers' Defence Association, indignantly denied that there was any cruelty involved in netting or in selling, or in keeping British wild birds in cages. Indeed, as regards "Club Row," he- went so far as to say : "The shops in what is Styled Club Row may not be quite what one sees in Oxford Street, or Regent Street, but they are managed in a -manner which does not entail cruelty or suffering to the 'birds - there displayed for sale "—a view which was certainly not endorsed by other witnesses. Another -adverse witness declared there was no more hardship in caging a bird than "putting a dog on its lead."
' Nevertheless, I am content to base our case on the evidence given by the opponents of the Bill, and especially that of Mr. House himself, and of Mr. George Frederick Crawford, the Editor of the Cage Bird Fancier. Mr. Crawford, who has persuaded the L.C.C. to institute classes among the children to teach them how to manage caged birds—an excellent move—said in his evidence : "I have been a bird fancier all my life and am still learn- ing." Asked if among those wild birds owned by ignorant people there was very considerable mortality, he answered, "YeS."
Mr. House, asked whether there were not many inexpert keepers of birds, said : "Experience teaches in all things, and when a man buys his first bird, it is quite possible that he does not know how to keep it properly, but he very soon learns, one may- say, at the expense of the bird." At the expense of the bird ! - The following evidence by Mr. Crawford is 'illuminat- ing :
"Asked by me whether many of those who had not had- the advantage of his advice were unconsciously treating their birds as they ought not to be treated, in reply, asked me: 'It you purchase a linnet. today, would you know how to cater for it ? ' Certainly not. I should probably put it in a cage and the wretched bird would probably die on my hands." And if you lost your first one and decided to try again and you lost that one, would you not begin to look round for the cause so as to try to prevent a further loss ? "
" Probably I should; but, meanwhile, two birds would have died." " Yes, and that is the cause Of the mortality." I.e., two chaffinches done to death in order that a third may live, and considerable doubt about that."
And what does this "mortality" mean ? It means not only death to the victim, but previous and often pro- longed suffering, fear, neglect, injury, perhaps starvation. Unconscious cruelty, no doubt, but cruelty all the same. That is our case.
One satisfactory and somewhat surprising fact emerged from the evidence. It appeared that, taking the caged birds as a whole, only a comparatively small number of -them came under the category of British wild birds. For instance, at the Crystal Palace Exhibition the other day, out of. 4,080 birds. exhibited, only 515 were British wild birds, of whom no fewer than 90 were goldfinches. As the goldfinch, with the exception of one or two Counties, is protected throughout the whole of England -and the whole of the year, most or all of these birds, whether taken as young birds or netted, were illegally taken. Thus, out of some 4,000 birds exhibited, only about 400 or 10 per cent, were legitimate British wild birds:. It is difficult for anyone to make an accurate estimate, but as far as t he evidence went, the percentage of caged British wild birds to the other classes of birds unaffected by the Bill would appear to amount to 10 to 13 per cent, or under. It appears also from the evidence that many of tlitse wild birds are kept by those who keep other species as well. To these the prohibition of British wild birds would be no rear hardship, as canaries, budgerigars and birds of a similar character could be substituted for them. • Of t lie small margin remaining, a .considerable number would undoubtedly do the same ; and the cage life of an ordinary canary is much longer than that of the adult linnet or chaffinch. Thus the hardship, if it be a hardship, of the prohibition of caged British wild birds would be limited to _ a very. small number :of persons. We may claim, there- fore, I think, that this Bill when passed into law will have conferred the maximum of protection to British wild birds with the minimum of interference With the keepers of caged birds.
Previous page
