IV. 3 



PROTECTION OF ANIMALS FOR 

 AESTHETIC REASONS 



IN the slow progress of the protection of animal life by 

 law, it seems somehow natural to suppose that the idea of 

 preserving creatures for no other reason than their rarity, 

 their beauty of plumage, their sweetness of song, or the 

 interest of their habits, should have been the last to have 

 borne fruit. Probably the reason lies partly in the fact that 

 the general interest in nature for its own sake is a develop- 

 ment of very recent growth, partly in the truth of the old saw 

 which says that "Ilka man's business is nae man's concern "- 

 in other words, that because of their lack of expression, the 

 concerns of democracy have been stifled by the clamour of 

 sections more powerful and more immediately interested. 



So it happens that the protection of creatures "attractive 

 in appearance or cheerful in song," as the Nebraskan law 

 puts it, is a matter of our own day, for we can hardly regard 

 the Scots laws of James I and Charles II (1621 and 1672), 

 forbidding the wearing of feathers, as having been instigated 

 by any concern for the "plume question," as it is understood 

 to-day. 



Even yet, so far as I know, the law takes no cognizance 

 of our rare or interesting animals other than birds. The 

 numbers of the' Badger may dwindle on our hill-sides, the 

 Wild Cat and Marten may become extinct in our highland 

 woods, the Large Copper and the Artaxerxes Butterflies 

 may be exterminated, but the law says never a word. 



Birds stand in happier case. Our birds of fine plumage 

 and sweet song, our rare birds and interesting birds shared 

 with all others the benefits of the close season of the Act of 

 1 880. Since then many of our rarer birds have been afforded 

 special protection, as have also their eggs, and a special 

 Act was passed in 1904 for the protection of wild birds 

 on the Island of St Kilda, notably the St Kilda Wren, 



