THE ECONOMIC STATUS OF WILD BIRDS. 
5 
inquiry in which the stomach contents of 328 adult birds and 94 
nestlings were examined, numerous field observations made, and a 
careful examination of the faeces, I have no hesitation in stating that 
for some years to come this species annually requires drastically 
reducing in numbers, and that at present it is a source of considerable 
financial loss to the farmers of this country. 
That gamekeepers, farmers, and others annually destroy large 
numbers of birds whose food consists largely of voles, mice, rats, 
and insect larvae, is common knowledge. Such birds as the kestrel 
and all the species of owls are far too precious to the farmer to permit 
the ignorance of a gamekeeper to continue to destroy them wantonly. 
When we consider that the brown rat alone is annually exacting 
food to the value of some millions of pounds sterling, it is surely time 
that such offences as mentioned above were made punishable by 
more severe sentences. Another striking instance is the lapwing. The 
value of this bird to the farmer is universally admitted and cannot 
be over-estimated, and yet the apathy displayed by agriculturists 
in reference to it is pitiful. " Long ago the bird and its eggs should 
have been more strictly protected than game or any other birds. It 
is the farmer's best friend, and whilst his crops annually suffer more 
and more from wireworms and surface larvae he stands and watches 
its gradual reduction with indifference." 
With reference to the majority of species of birds we do not 
possess any accurate or detailed knowledge as to the nature of their 
food, and of quite a large number of common species our knowledge 
is imperfect. 
The need of continued investigation upon a subject so intimately 
related to our food supply must be patent to even the most casual 
inquirer, for without a thoroughly reliable and extensive knowledge 
of the subject it is impossible to frame wise and beneficial laws relating 
thereto. 
In this country we have five Acts of Parliament affording protection 
to wild birds or relating thereto. One presumes that the main object 
of these Acts, and the intentions of their framers, was to protect all 
species that were non-injurious and also those that were rare. If 
this were so, then they have failed hopelessly, for many of our non- 
injurious species are rarer to-day than in 1880, whilst many other 
species have become so numerous as almost to constitute a plague 
to the agriculturist. 
These Acts may have been framed with the best of intentions, 
but there is no evidence to show that those who framed them ever 
took into serious consideration what would probably be the ultimate 
effect of such legislation. The farmers, fruit-growers, and probably 
the fishermen of this country are now suffering, and have done so for 
some years past, from their effects. 
After reviewing these Acts at some length, a recent writer states 
" that they were all passed, not in the interests of agriculturists of 
any class, but to satisfy the outcry against bird destruction raised 
by the bird-loving public at large." 
