So we at once become impressed with the fact that 

 both a definite view is impossible to exist because it 

 cannot be proved and a general view cannot exist be- 

 cause of the variation in belief. Then the only admis- 

 sion which can be made is that there is no general or 

 correct but only an individual view. 



For convenience we may divide the arguments for 

 economic results into three classes : for financial bene- 

 fits, for use, for sport and for our enjoyment of beauty. 

 Selfishly, if we wish to have game for ourselves in the 

 future for any of the three reasons or unselfishly if we 

 wish to give to our posterity for use in all of the three 

 classes that game which was bequeathed to us, then we 

 must protect the game from natural enemies and from 

 the greed of the game-hog, the over-energetic collec- 

 tor and the furrier and milliner. How we should pro- 

 tect it and what are the rights of the sportsmen and 

 others is not at present the question at issue — that will 

 come later. The present question is : of what value is 

 game to us or to future generations ? 



First let us consider financial results. I will not be 

 so foolish as to attempt to give any illustrations here 

 as to the amount of good done by birds in agriculture, 

 horticulture and forestry, but I think it may be safely 

 stated that over 99 per cent, of the birds in any com- 

 munity are beneficial rather than harmful. How- 

 ever, in any particular locality the list of harmful spe- 

 cies may be so easily procured that ignorance is inex- 

 cusable. The scientific tests and examinations which 

 have been made within the last few years make ex- 

 cuses for killing beneficial birds; ridiculous. So much 



31 



