MAN AND NATURE Tok 
group in question. From the economic viewpoint there is not a complete 
agreement as to bird protection. France does not co-operate with Eng- 
land in bird protection because her leaders in economic thought (Severin 
and others) have ably opposed it on economic grounds; still France is 
more progressive than England in agricultural matters. Other things 
being equal there are but two more reasons for special measures for the 
preservation of birds than for the preservation of reptiles, amphibians, 
or insects. First, birds are subject to destruction by reckless gunners. 
Second, they are less dependent upon natural conditions on the ground 
and are better able to survive after land has been put under cultivation 
than some other groups. Many other animals whose diets are varied 
have been exterminated or will be so by agriculture, leaving the birds 
as the most easy point for protective effort. The protection of birds 
should not be urged at the expense of the extermination of other animals 
because of their alleged occasional attacks upon birds. The great 
danger of acting on partial truth regarding animal interdependences 
makes societies for the protection of birds alone scientifically and educa- 
tionally unjustified. The protection of all groups should be urged, in 
particular through the preservation of the natural features upon which 
they depend. It is well to protect fishes from seiners and birds from 
gunners but this often only delays their fate. We must also consider 
where they will breed a few years hence. 
When one comes to love an animal or a group of animals, he is in 
no position to draw scientific conclusions regarding it. For this reason 
bird enthusiasts are not always to be trusted. It was the persistent 
efforts of such “benefactors”? which gave us that detestable avian rat, 
the English sparrow, the feeding or sheltering of which is now a misde- 
meanor in some of our states. 
Should we slaughter animals? As members of a system of nature in 
which to kill is the first law, we must answer in the affirmative. Man is 
the master of all destroyers. Where are the bison, the beaver, the elk, 
the thousand and one denizens of the primeval forest and prairie? We 
scarcely walk over a path or lawn without bringing “death” and “suffer- 
ing”’ to animals of some sort. The crime of their destruction can be no 
but malodorous and repulsive. Thus to those who wish to examine objects closely 
other animals have a greater aesthetic value. Claims for a greater aesthetic value for 
birds must be based upon impressionistic appreciation of them in connection with 
landscape. There is no reason to desire or assume that this interest will decrease 
with time, but it is reasonable to suppose that with further dissemination of scientific 
ideas and methods among the people a comparable amount of more serious interest 
will develop in connection with other groups and perhaps with birds as well. 
