Things like these are not much spoken of. They very rarely appear in
print. And when they are mentioned at all it is generally with an
apology for introducing unpleasant details. But I am sure I need not
apologize to gentlemen who are anxious to know the full truth of this
great question, who cannot fail to see the connection between wanton
destruction and revolting cruelty, and who must be as ready to rouse
the moral conscience of our people against the cruelty as they are to
rouse its awakening sense of conservation against the destruction.


CONSERVATION

All the sound reasons ever given for conserving other natural
resources apply to the conservation of wild life--and with three-fold
power. When a spend-thrift squanders his capital it is lost to him and
his heirs; yet it goes somewhere else. When a nation allows any one
kind of natural resource to be squandered it must suffer a real,
positive loss; yet substitutes of another kind can generally be found.
But when wild life is squandered it does not go elsewhere, like
squandered money; it cannot possibly be replaced by any substitute, as
some inorganic resources are: it is simply an absolute, dead loss,
gone beyond even the hope of recall.

Now, we have seen verifiable facts enough to prove that Labrador, out
of its total area of eleven Englands, is not likely to be
advantageously exploitable over much more than the area of one England
for other purposes than the growth and harvesting of wild life by land
and water. How are these ten Englands to be brought under
conservation, before it is too late, in the best interests of the five
chief classes of people who are concerned already or will be soon? Of