enforcement of law and the establishment of sanctuaries.

First, it cannot be denied that the constant breaking of the present
law makes for bad citizenship, and that the observance of law will
make for good. Next, though it is often said that what Canada needs
most is development and not conservation, I think no one will deny
that conservation is the best and most certainly productive form of
development in the case before us. Then, I think we have here a really
unique opportunity of effecting a reform that will unite and not
divide all the legitimate interests concerned. What could appear to
have less in common than electricity and sanctuaries? Yet electricity
in Labrador requires water-power, which requires a steady flow, which
requires a head-water forest, which, in its turn, is admirably fit to
shelter wild life. Except for those who would selfishly and
shortsightedly take all this wealth of wild life out of the world
altogether, in one grasping generation, there is nobody who will not
be the better for the change. I have talked with interested parties of
every different kind, and always found them agree that conservation is
the only thing to do--provided, as they invariably add, that it is
done "straight" and "the same for all."

Fourthly, a word as to sport. I have invoked the public conscience
against wanton destruction and its inevitable accompaniment of
cruelty. I know, further, that man is generally cruel and a bully
towards other animals. And, as an extreme evolutionist, I believe all
animals are alike in kind, however much they may differ in degree. But
I don't think clean sport cruel. It does not add to the sum total of
cruelty under present conditions. Wild animals shun pain and death as
we do. But under Nature they never die what we call natural deaths.
They starve or get killed. Moreover, town-bred humanitarians feel pain