PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL BIRD PROTECTION.

Forest and Bird, Issue 15, 1 July 1928, Page 7

PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL BIRD PROTECTION.

Address delivered by Dr. T. Gilbert Pearson, President of the International Committee for the Protection of Birds, at Geneva, Switzerland, 21st May, 1928.

To the Members of the International Committee for Bird Protection:

Every thinking person of our time is deeply impressed with the necessity for taking energetic steps to preserve the bird fauna of the world. This fact is brought afresh to our notice by the number and the quality of the persons who are present at this meeting in Geneva to-day. The great public attaches too little importance to the question of utilising the ornithological fauna for the greatest good of

humanity, and the responsibility for enlightening them falls on those who have mastered the subject in all its details. In certain sparsely-peopled regions of the globe, where primitive conditions of life still prevail, the destruction of birds and wild animals for food may be considered a necessity of human life; but in more highly developed countries this absolute necessity no longer exists. Nevertheless, the slaughter of wild birds throughout the entire world increases at an alarming rate. Man has already wiped out certain species and is on the point of exterminating others. For the moment let us group arbitrarily the different categories of bird-life, for which better protection is needed, under the following heads: 1. Gamebirds of upland regions. (This merely means land game birds, as distinct from 2.) 2. Ducks, geese and shore-birds. . . 3. Birds which feed on insects and on the seeds of weeds. 4. Birds of prey. 5. Birds which are killed for their plumage. Game-birds of Upland Regions.

Many land-birds, good for food, are reared on lands belonging to private individuals. Altogether these constitute a great wealth. There is no logical reason why States should not act in the same way —in other words, take the necessary precautions to increase the game-birds and permit the use of the excess for food and for sport. As in the case of the private breeder, the State should naturally do all that is necessary to preserve the stock, with a view to ensuring a sufficient annual excess. This principle applies more particularly to countries where there prevails what one can call the system of free hunting, and where pheasants, grouse, partridges and similar species can thrive. The United States of America is only one of numerous countries where the game-birds of upland regions have greatly diminished and where it is necessary to apply with more care these principles of game-regulation, such as are already in force in private estates, as for example, in Scotland. States, by their

negligence regarding the solution of the problem, are losing important advantages from which they might otherwise profit. At London I have seen, in the market, numerous grouse which T was told were wild birds killed in European and Asiatic countries and sent to England. In spite of the Argentine law of 1926 forbidding the exportation of the bodies of Tinamous, tens of thousands are still sent from South America to the northern markets.

Game-birds (other than those reared in private estates) can hardly withstand the immense commercialisation rendered possible by refrigeration and by rapid modern transport.

Water-fowl and Shore-birds. The adequate protection of migratory birds is still an extremely complicated problem. Different species of wild ducks and geese, for instance, annually traverse in their migrations numerous degrees of latitude. In some cases they cross a certain number of States which have their special laws and where the inhabitants think they have the right to catch their whole share. Consequently, unless these natural desires are restrained by willingness to co-operate and to make concessions, it does not seem possible to maintain the important stock of the valuable gamebirds of the world. Private interest is a powerful motive governing human action, and the hunter of game is not exempt from this natural law, whether he inhabits New York or Lima, Tokio, Geneva or Cape Town.

Between 1750 and 1760 the ships of Massachusetts made 'feather voyages” to Labrador. Not only did they collect on the coast down and eggs, but they slaughtered Labrador ducks in summer when they could not fly. The last known specimen of this bird died in the State of New York in 1875. It is not encouraging to see the considerable number of duck netted to-day on Lake Erie, along the coast of Denmark, and elsewhere.

In the market at Mexico City I have seen migratory ducks in heaps ten feet high, and sold at the price of 10 centavos each (about twopence half-penny per duck). In the hotels of numerous countries and on steamships, one finds golden plovers on the bill of fare. In the United States we now forbid the hunting of these birds, because we fear for the future existence of the species.

I know an amateur hunter who told me he had killed in his life more than 50,000 wild duck. Dr. Uchida records that, from 15th October, 1924, to 15th April, 1925, the hunters of Japan caught more than 500,000 ducks. In. the United States 7 millions of hunters were in the field last year; no one knows the number of ducks killed, but it is estimated at between 6 millions and 10 millions.

One can say very much the same for nearly every country in the world. If man continues to kill water-fowl at this rate, what hope can there be for game-birds in the future

I shall now enumerate the destructive human influence tending to diminish the wild water-fowl and shore-birds:

1. The free market for the sale of dead birds, offering great encouragement to systematic slaughter on a grand scale. 2. The hunting of game in spring, killing birds paired for the season.

3. The use of motor-cars and motor-boats to carry hunters rapidly from one ground to another.

4. The considerable increase in the destructive action of modern firearms, above all of repeating shot-guns. 5. The absence in many countries of laws restricting the number of birds which may be killed in one day. 6. The destruction by drainage of feeding and breedinghaunts. 7. The oil spread on lakes, rivers and coastal waters. 8. The considerable use of eggs by the peoples of Arctic and Sub-Arctic regions. 9. The destruction of game-birds by nets, night-shooting with lights and other means of mass-destruction. 10. The general indifference of many hunters to the present restrictive laws.

Birds which Eat Insects and the Seeds of Weeds.

The considerable use for food of birds too small to present any food value whatever, and yet known to be useful destroyers of noxious insects and weed-seeds, is a question which has long' claimed the attention of naturalists and bird-lovers. In many cases the small bird sold in the market for a franc (2d.) would, if left alive, render to the farmer and the forester services of an annual value of a considerable amount. The pleasure with which the people of Italy, Southern France, Belgium and Spain, eat small birds is well-known. I have been told that millions are killed every year for this purpose. Some of us have been surprised to see that this section of the European bird fauna has not shown a diminution much more marked. Agricultural communities need supremely a great number of insect-eating birds, but in spite of this, the use of traps, nets, bird-lime, snares, decoys and shotguns continues with only the feeblest legal restrictions.

Destruction of Birds of Prey.

The breeders of game wish quite naturally to protect their young pheasants and grouse against birds and beasts of prey, and they habitually try, with the help of steel-traps and guns, to suppress all the falcons, owls and hawks which appear near their rearing establishments. In fact, every wild bird which can be considered, in any way whatever, as injurious to young gamebirds, is looked on as a good victim by most game-breeders. In many cases, the opinion of the breeder, often based on scanty knowledge, is alone to decide whether a certain bird is injurious and should therefore be killed. In America I knew a man who killed woodpeckers as vermin, and in England 1 was told, perhaps in joke, of a game-rearer who shot the nightingales because, he said, they kept the young pheasants awake. Poultry-breeders also show hostility towards birds of prey.

tip to now I have spoken only of man’s abuse of species which would be. more practically valuable to him if they were permitted to live in greater numbers. We use not- only the annual increase, but ; we destroy our breeding stock. We foolishly eat our principal, instead of limiting our appetite to the natural interest. We kill also species which are more valuable to us alive than dead, and we adopt too violent an attitude to certain species of birds of prey.

Destruction of Birds for the Plume Trade.

Can I mention no'w a class of birds which do not ordinarily serve as food and which have not been proved to be economically valuable as destroyers of insects? 1 am thinking especially of the Birds of Paradise and the Egrets, which are killed en masse during the mating season for ornament. This traffic in the plumes of wild birds slaughtered during the season of egglaying, with the sole purpose of money-making for man and ornamentation for woman, has certainly little to recommend it. There are those among us who consider that there is little excuse for the continuation of a trade of this kind.

The Aesthetic Value of Birds.

Let me draw your attention to the human value of birds from the point of view of sentiment. If wild birds belong to man in general, the rights of all classes of society ought to be taken into consideration. Many men and women have no interest in killing birds, but experience the greatest pleasure in studying their habits and behaviour. For them the sight of a planing Falcon, the note of a hooting Owl, the song of a Skylark, the twittering of Swallows, arouses feelings of a nearly spiritual kind, and they shudder at the thought that birds are killed for sport or food, or that birds can be hunted which others desire to see spared for a time in order that they may kill them later.

One can classify in the following way the different groups of people who are interested in birds:

1. The sportsman, who kills generally a very limited number of game-birds for sport.

2. The gunner, the fowler and the trapper, whose principal object is to catch birds for food or the market, or to get their feathers for trade, or who kill merely wantonly.

3. The working naturalist who generally kills moderately, and for the purpose of studying the plumage, the anatomy or the feeding-habits of birds.

4. The nature-lover, who does not kill, and who likes to see the living bird. Naturally there are people who might be included in two or more of these groups.

Conclusion.

1 have tried to. pass briefly in review some of the human activities which tend to reduce the bird life of the world. The question is, what can we do about it. Naturally, laws and treaties of an efficient kind occur to us, and we ought to exercise all possible pressure to reach such aims. Perhaps if the attention of the League of Nations can be drawn seriously to the situation, it will be possible to obtain rapid and beneficent action on the part of Governments. Separate government legislation is also necessary. Most of us, I believe, have noticed that in democratic countries legislative bodies are disposed to pass laws for which there is an insistent demand on the part of their constituents. In such countries, the surest means of attaining our goal seems therefore undoubtedly to be that of training the spirit and the conscience of the public until they insist on the passage and the enforcement of efficient bird protection laws.

I know that the restrictive measures regarding animal destruction, like those of the United States and the Dominion of Canada, have not arisen from the initiative of Government authorities, but because certain organised minorities, in the form of birdprotective associations, have pressed the public to call for better legislation. Must not efforts of this kind be made in every country? By recording the exact data indicating the value of birds to humanity, by combining these data with reports carefully authenticated, showing the extent of the destruction at present taking place, and by suggesting what should be done to remedy the present situation, shall we not accomplish an important task ? In other words, ought we not to arrange and carry out more intensive campaigns of education with aid of the newspapers and the magazines? Ought we not to publish and distribute more leaflets and arrange for numerous and able speakers to deliver public lectures to young and old? Shall we not do more good at present in bringing our cause directly before the public, rather than in depending entirely on our limited number of members, to capture the legislative strongholds? -

The International Committee for the Protection of Birds is composed of men and women representing officially associations of sportsmen, naturalists and bird-lovers in Australia, in Austria, in Canada, in Czechoslovakia, in France, in Germany, in Great Britain, in Holland, in Hungary, in Italy, in Japan, in New Zealand, in Norway, in South Africa, in Sweden, in Switzerland and in the United States —-some seventeen countries in all. We hope, by joining our efforts, to do much more for the great cause of the conservation of wild birds. May our deliberations be conducted at all times with the most elevated spirit of goodwill and with every consideration for the interests and the opinions of all interested groups!