The Dutch Defence is a fairly popular response to 1. d4. So shouldn't 1. f4 (Bird's opening), viewed as a Dutch plus a tempo, be at least as popular?
A good opening for Black seldom is a great choice for White even with a tempo up. Grandmaster Alex Yermolinsky discusses reasons for this in his book "The Road to Chess Improvement". One of the main reasons is that the opening goals are not the same for both sides in the opening, and schemes that are suitable for defense or counterattack are much less valuable for assuming the initiative.
Famously, when grandmaster Vladimir Malaniuk, a great proponent of the Dutch Leningrad with Black, had some issues with his White repertoire, someone suggested to him that he should start with 1.f4. His retort was definitive:
That extra move's gonna' hurt me!
As a side note, the Dutch is not that popular, especially at the highest level.
It helps to think about it at a very basic strategic level: With white you're supposed to play for the initiative and not induce a weakness on move 1...
1.d4 for example is a safe first step towards claiming the centre, while creating active squares for the queen,
b1 knight and activating the
c1 bishop, all while stopping black from any immediate
e5 attempt (i.e., directly challenging black's options in claiming the centre for themselves). Whereas
1.f4 does none of those except for stopping
e5, while also permanently weakening the kingside. Central pawns (
e) are safer commitments because they're advancements on files where the king doesn't belong. Same cannot be said for
f pawn in general.
All these apply to black playing the Dutch (
1...f5) as well, and explain why it is not as commonly adopted as other sounder systems vs
1.d4. As a rule of thumb (so to be taken with a grain of salt), the "good" openings are those that tend to be less committal (starting from the moved pawns, hemmed-in pieces and induced weaknesses...) and offer more flexibility in the middlegame (in terms of transpositions for instance).