Birds, perhaps more than any other animals, have provoked strong sentiments in humans. Birds can be the subjects of interest, respect and affection; many people feel an affinity with wild birds and believe that they epitomise “freedom”. This is perhaps best summed up in the words of great poets such as Percy Bysshe Shelley (“To a skylark”) Hail to thee, blithe spirit!, Bird thou never wert or William Blake A Robin Red Breast in a Cage Puts all Heaven in a Rage. In some cultures birds may be treated with respect because they have a religious or sacred role. For example, the Maori of New Zealand revere various indigenous avian species, extant or extinct, and their views are increasingly being incorporated into conservation and other programmes (Anon, 1997).

Such respect for birds is not universal, however, and may depend upon the species. Thus, owls (given the status of a God in ancient Greece) continue to be associated with ill-fortune, even death, in many parts of the world. There are many similar superstitions about corvids; for example, the raven is believed to predict death and pestilence in many cultures. This is covered in more detail in Chapter 2.

Setting aside superstitions such as these, secular attitudes towards wild birds can be divided into three main categories (Table 1.2).

These broad categories can help in understanding how the public perceives birds and recognising where there may be a need to protect them, for the sake of their welfare, conservation or both. In the United Kingdom the killing of wild birds is generally anathema and the confinement of domestic poultry is viewed with concern if the management method used (e.g. very intensive “batteries”) is judged to be cruel. To the protectionist, virtually all species of bird are deserving of legal protection that helps to ensure their long-term survival and well-being.

Stewards of birds are broader in their approach and it is less easy to classify such people. They recognise the importance of birds and the need both to treat them humanely and to conserve them in the wild. At the same time, however, the responsible killing of birds (for human good, or because they are “pests”) is accepted, as is the keeping of wild birds in captivity for pleasure, exhibition or research – so long as this is done humanely.

Those who are proponents of the utilisation of birds do not consider that the Class Aves has any particular features that makes its species specially worthy of protection. In the eyes of such people, there are no ethical issues associated with killing birds for food, for sport or because they are “pests”. Likewise, birds may be brought into captivity without any need to impose strict rules on, for example, cage sizes or trapping methods.

Within each of these three groups there is much variation and views may be influenced by peer pressure and by the media. Thus, amongst “protectionists” there are some people who consider it unacceptable to keep birds in captivity, even species like the canary (Serinus canaria) that have been long domesticated, while others argue that such species are now habituated to a life of captivity and so this is not an ethical dilemma. Aviculture is seen by most protectionists as “keeping birds in cages” even though some aviculturists have contributed to the captive-breeding of threatened species and captive birds can be kept in aviaries with ample room for flight and expression of normal behaviour (Cooper, 2003a).

Other areas of bird use involve more complex judgements. A good example is the keeping of birds of prey (raptors) for falconry; the human–bird interactions that this involves are discussed by Cooper (2002). Falconry raises various ethical issues because (i) birds are kept tethered, for at least part of their lives; (ii) birds are trained by exploiting their appetite for food; and (iii) if used by practising falconers, they pursue and kill other animals.

Public attitudes to falconry fall into various categories, some of which are listed below:

There are many other examples that illustrate the complex perceptions of the public insofar as captive birds are concerned. The situation is further complicated by social and geographical factors. People who are poor, especially those who live in “developing” countries, may benefit from seeing some of their native avifauna in captivity in a zoo. For instance, few people in Uganda will ever see a shoebill stork (Balaeniceps rex) unless they view the captive specimens in the well-presented exhibit at the Uganda Wildlife Education Centre, Entebbe. Educational and recreational visits to collections may be the only opportunity that many people have to see their own indigenous species. On the other hand, in developing countries some zoo facilities may represent very poor practice by the standards set by many Western European, North American and certain other countries that have strict regulation. The keeping of farmed birds such as quail (Coturnix coturnix) in small cages for meat and egg production might be considered acceptable in the short-term in a war-torn zone of South America, in order to feed a starving community, or in other circumstances of poverty, but may be unacceptable elsewhere where better conditions for the birds are affordable. Each case has to be judged individually and a harm-benefit analysis, using the Five Freedoms as the benchmark for avian welfare, should always be performed – and reassessed at regular intervals (Cooper and Cooper, 2007). This can be combined with education and the demonstration of the fact that better husbandry benefits both the birds and their owners.

There are strong precedents for moral and legal codes relating to the care and protection of both captive and free-living birds. Some of the world’s great religions, for example Buddhism and Hinduism, preach respect for birds. This is still demonstrated by the tolerance shown to blue peafowl (Pavo cristatus) by villagers in many areas of the Indian subcontinent. In both the Bible and the Koran there are exhortations to treat wild birds kindly and to move stranded nestlings to a place of safety.