The New Libertarian

Prior to this, as Johnson details, trade in exotic plumage was driven by the fashion trends of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century. The inclusion of feathers in women’s attire was a status symbol, and the more exotic the bird, the higher status it indicated. Marie Antoinette, a fashion icon of the late 18th century, famously bore a diamond encrusted egret. Soon, it was all the rage and women everywhere adopted the style.

An entire Bird of Paradise mounted on a woman's hat (c.1900)

As the demand for exotic feathers increased, public opinion started to turn. In the late 19th century, people began to feel a sense of sympathy for the birds and a sense of responsibility for the dwindling numbers of whole species. The Lacey Act of 1900 prohibited interstate commerce of certain birds & 3 years later Teddy Roosevelt was setting aside large swaths of land in Florida to protect the egret. Congress took additional measures in the years to come, including the Underwood Tariff and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, all culminating in the CITES signing.

All of this legislation had a predictable result. By banning the trade of exotic feathers, Congress was, in effect, putting a cap on supply. Since demand for feathers remained high and supply was suppressed, the price for these exotic animals skyrocketed.

Rist, who was an avid flute player, attended the Royal Academy of Music in London. Soon, he learned that the nearby British Museum of Natural History at Tring, was home to the world’s largest collection of well-preserved exotic birds. Incentivized by seductive market pressures brought to bear by the economically illiterate cockroaches in Washington, Rist began planning to rob the museum of its collection of exotic bird species.

The author speaks of the monetary loss to the state’s museum and the setback to the scientific community. The first argument can be disregarded outright, as the fictional entity masquerading as “the state” never had the right to exist in the first place, let alone, own property. The second argument holds that birds collected in previous centuries can be tested using new scientific methods to shed light on evolution. Fair enough, however, the state ought to have expected such an outcome when they decided to ban hunting and importation of exotic birds while simultaneously monopolizing the existing supply for themselves. As if their purposes were somehow more nobler than the fisherman.

Had private ownership of these species not been impeded, it’s likely farmers, induced by high prices, would have began breeding these birds, driving their numbers way up. The demand for quail & pheasant hunting ensures those animals won't be new entries on the endangered species list anytime soon, so why not apply the same logic to cotingas & Indian crows? It would also enrich a new generation of farmers & their families, just as quail and pheasant hunting has. The same concept was successful in rebuilding the elephant and rhino populations in Africa.

The Resplendent Quetzal, is listed as "Near-Threatened" because politicians can't  understand concepts as simple as the tragedy of the commons.