BIRDS 



NATURAL RIGHTS OF BIRDS. 



LYNDS JONES. 



WHAT DO we mean by a "natural 

 right?" Are there rights of any other 

 sort in the world? Yes, a legal right 

 may not always be a natural right. On 

 the contrary, a legal right is sometimes a 

 natural wrong. In many states it has, 

 at one time or another, been legally right 

 to slaughter the hawks and owls, which 

 are far more useful than harmful. The 

 birds had a clear title to the natural right 

 of life, which the laws denied 'until the 

 lawmakers discovered their mistake. 

 Long ago our forefathers declared that 

 all men possess the natural right to "Life 

 Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." 

 Certainly no one will deny that any crea 

 ture has a right to life so long as in its 

 life it contributes more toward the wel 

 fare of the world than in its death. It 

 also has a right to liberty so long as it 

 can do more good at liberty than as a cap 

 tive. Granting that the lower animals 

 are capable of happiness, no one would 

 think of denying them the right of the 

 pursuit of their happiness except for some 

 higher good. Without discussing these 

 general principles further let us see how 

 they will apply to the birds as natural 

 rights. 



Has the bird a right to live ? Accord 

 ing to our first principle he has if he is 

 more useful alive than dead. What, 

 then, does he do that can be called really 

 useful ? If he is a diver, a gull, a tern, or 

 any one of the really seafaring birds, he 

 eats fish, water insects, offal and what 

 ever small animals resort to the water, 

 doing little or no harm and a great deal 

 of good. Near large sea-coast cities the 

 gulls dispose of the garbage which is 

 taken out a distance from shore and 

 dumped into the ocean, and so prevent its 

 drifting back upon the beach. If he is a 

 duck, goose or swan, he feeds upon fish, 

 the plants which grow in the water and at 

 its margins, upon the insects and worms 



which inhabit the ooze at the bottom, and 

 sometimes upon grains in the fields and 

 about the marshes. He does a great deal 

 of good and rarely any harm. If he is a 

 heron, crane, rail, coot or gallinule, his 

 food is frogs, snakes, insects and worms, 

 and so he is useful. If he is a snipe, 

 sandpiper or plover, he destroys large 

 numbers of insects, worms and such small 

 animals as are to be found in wet places, 

 and is always a very useful help to the 

 farmer. If he is a bird of the fowl kind 

 or a pigeon, he eats grain mostly, but also 

 many insects. He may sometimes do a 

 little damage to the ripe grain, but he 

 usually gathers that which has gone to 

 waste. If he is a vulture, hawk, eagle or 

 owl, he destroys great quantities of ani 

 mals that are harmful to man, not often 

 visiting the poultry yard, and so does 

 great good. If he is a kingfisher he eats 

 small fish mostly, and so is not harmful. 

 Among all the remaining birds there are 

 but a few which do not feed almost en 

 tirely upon insects or other creatures 

 which menace vegetation. Even these 

 seed eaters feed the young upon insects 

 and worms, and do good by destroying 

 vast quantities of injurious plants. Those 

 which eat ripe fruit pay for what they eat 

 by scattering broadcast the seeds of the 

 fruit. When there is no ripe fruit they 

 eat insects and worms. The crows and 

 blackbirds and bobolink are rather overly 

 fond of green corn and ripe grains in the 

 fall of the year, but they pay for what 

 they eat by destroying immense quanti 

 ties of insects and worms in the spring. 

 When the whole life of the 'bird is taken 

 into account we cannot escape the fact 

 that the bird has a natural right to life on 

 account of the good he does. 



How does the value of the bird's body 

 used for food compare with the good the 

 bird would do if allowed to live? Reck- 



