REPRINT FROM 
ROD AND GUN AND CANADIAN SILVER FOX NEWS, 
                   AUGUST, 1927 
 
 
The Philosophy of Wild Life Conservation 
 
                      An Address Delivered Before the Brodie Club, at Toronto,
Ontario, by 
 
 
           HEN a great ship begins a loni 
                  voyage from a more or less in, 
                  tricate harbor, its course oul 
           through the harbor channel must var3 
           at different points and be governed b3 
           the positions of the adjacent dangers 
           such as rocks, shoals, and land masses, 
           which in turn are approached and pass- 
           ed. It may be necessary to steer no. 
           east, now west, now north or south, with 
           little or no immediate relation between 
           the ship's course and its destination. 
           But when the last dangers at the harboi 
           mouth are left behind, and the vessel is 
           in deep water, it is of great importance 
           that prompt consideration be given to 
           the destination to be reached, though 
       Sit may be far distant, and that a certain 
       n   course be adopted and adhered to, in 
       u"' order that the object of the voyage may 
           be accomplished. 
       c     The case of wvild life conservation may 
           be compared to that of such a ship. 
           When it comnmenced its present voyage, 
           in the nineteenth ce-itury, Erave dangers 
           threatened, first fro n ode side and then 
           from the other, and those in charge of 
           the enterprise had much ado to avoid 
         . them and to keep their craft afloat and 
           in progress by adopting such temporary 
           courses as were found expedient. They 
           "were unable under such circumstances 
           to be governed by the direction of their 
           goal, or to give much thought to a goal 
           at all; their entire attention had to be 
           concentrated on the risks by which 
           they were immediately beset. 
             But to-day the situation is different. 
         rThanks to the courage, industry, and 
           adroitness of those who guided it, wild 
           life conservation has passed in safety 
           through the trying early stages of its 
           career, and is now generally recognized 
           as a necessary and not inconsiderable 
      7 part of human activity, deserving sup- 
           port from  everyone. It has left the 
      *   "crooked channels behind and is afloat on 
           the ocean. The time has come for those 
           in charge  of it to agree on a correct 
           " a sd ingle aim, toward the attainment of 
           which all progress shall be directed. 
           Lacking this, there is real danger that 
           cross-purposes and confusion of counsel 
           may make progress impossible, and even 
           "that the entire cause may eventually 
           "e lost. 
           What is the unifying aim that shall 
      )41determine the course now to be followed? 
          How can we distinguish it? 
            It will be generally agreed, 1 -think, that 
          to ensure the correct aim we must have 
          a correct philosophy of conservation. 
          Examination of current literature and 
          legislation on the subject reveals the 
          fact that several different, though re- 
          lated, ideas or groups of ideas are act- 
          ually being used at present as guides for 
          conservation, resulting, quite naturally, 
-vCC (    in much confusion. Let us consider 
          'these ideas briefly. 
            I. The simplest and crudest type of 
          conservation is conservation for man's 
          immediate material gain, in the form of 
          food or other useful substance, usually 
          convertible into money. This type of 
          conservation is commonly applied today 
          to many fishes which are used as staple 
          food, to fur-bearing animals, and to 
          forests. In such cases the toll taken 
          for man's use is usually all the species 
          levied on can stand, and conservation 
          is kept down to the minimum consistent 
          with a continued supply. 
            II. Another type of conservation 
 
 
Harrison F. Lewis 
 
 
r  is conservation-for the 19ak6 of hunting 
   for sport. ''The species conserved by this 
   type, chieflygame bird§ý naammals, and 
   fish, are pro ected to a certain extent in 
   order that men may have the pleasure 
   of taking them periodically. 
   SIII. A third type of conservation is 
   that carried on for secondary material 
   gain. Species which receive conserva- 
   tion of this type are not killed, because 
   the material gain which man derives 
   from  them  is indirectly due to their 
   activities in life. Here belongs the 
   conservation of insect-e4tng and ro- 
   dent-eating birds, parasitic insects, etc. 
     IV. A fourth type of conservation is 
   found in conservation for scientific pur- 
   poses. This type tries to conserve some 
   representatives, at least, of every existing 
   form  of life, because of the possibility 
   that from each such form may be derived 
   scnptflic knowledge of value to man. 
     -, 1And, finally, we find conservation 
   t'ing urged and, to some extent, 'prac- 
   tised, i4 order that human aesthetic 
   pleasures may be obtained from     the 
   ereatq~es conserved, This type of con- 
   spryatiob, which is one of the most 
   recent to come to the fore, is that ad- 
   vocated by George M. Sutton, when, in 
   a recently publish ed pamph let, he says: 
   "Are we never to realize and admit that 
   our most sincere reason for protecting 
   birds is simply that we want them   ai 
   they are aboqt us, whether theY are each 
   saving qui St4te so many cents apiece or 
   n~ot?" t 
   :,Thsse types of conservation, thougi 
   ,es e   g. important differences, gJpn. 
   a    e' 'gronped together, because jhe, 
   ideas Unrlvirig them are all based On 
   the supposkin that the ,proper purpose 
   qf conservation, is to minister to the 
   human species, its needs or its pleasures, 
   directly or indirectly, in one way or 
- another. Is this a true and correct view 
  of the mat?       Let us endeavor to 
  reason the q.uestion through from  the 
  beginning. 
    Although our human minds may not 
  be able to know "things-in-themselves," 
  yet we receive through out senses per- 
  ceptions of phenomena which appear 
  real to us, and which, for the practical 
  purpose of guiding our Iýhoughts and 
  actionst may be accepted *6a real. 
  SViewing -Ie,',hworld revealed by the 
  senses, then, as a real world, we find 
  therein a great 'multitude of forms of 
  life. or species, of which man is one. 
    Is there any goal toward which this 
  great array is moving? We cannot prove 
  that there is and we cannot prove that 
  there is not. The one view is as tenable 
  as the other. But if there is no goal to be 
  reached, there is no achievement, no 
  hope, no progress; only an unsatisfying 
  chaos, an    everchanging, unmeaning 
  jumble, the reasoning contemplation of 
  which leads to complete despair. If, 
  on the other hand, this vast sea of life is 
  moving toward some determinable goal, 
  however distant, then we may hope 
  for the attainment of that goal, and we 
  may express ourselves in working for its 
    I "A Year's Program for Bird Pro- 
  tection," by  George Miksch Sutton. 
  Bull. No. 7, Board of Game Commis- 
  sioners, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
  p. 11. 
 
 
attainment. Therefore, from a practical 
point of view, it is preferable that we 
assume that there is such a goal. 
   But what goal are we able to assume? 
 It is explicitly held in many quarters 
 and tacitly assumed in many more that 
 the goal is the perfection of Man. This, 
 however, appears to be an inadequate as- 
 sumption, probably prompted in large 
 measure by self-love and self-interest. 
 There is no good reason why such a goal 
 should be restricted to ourselves. . There 
 are a great many forms of life in the world 
 which, as far as we can see, take no part 
 in serving mankind, or in making the 
 human species perfect. Consider the 
 many species that, in common parlance, 
 are said to be "good for nothing.'. Have 
 they no goal? We also obsei've that 
 many forms of life possess a development 
 far more complex than could possibly be 
 made necessary by any conceivable rela- 
 tion between those forms and the human 
 species. What is our benefit from the 
 musculature of a milliped or the details 
 of structure of the wonderful VenuS's 
 fly-trap? As far as we can determine, 
 then, the attainment of merely human 
 perfection is an inadequate goal, since 
 great sections of Life cannot conceiv- 
 ably be moving toward it. 
   No, while we look folthi ultimate per- 
 fection of the' human species, our reason 
 requires that we find a goal to the idea of 
 which all of nature can he' consistently 
 related. The simplest adequate idea 
 that has been brought forward to satisfy 
 this requirement is the idea of the per- 
 fection of the whole. The goal of life 
 in all its forms is the attainment of per- 
 fection-not only perfectioný of each form 
 by itself, but more especially a composite 
 perfection of all life as a system inclusive 
 of all specific perfections. This doesinot 
 preclude our holding ideas of aims and 
 purposes beyond this point of perfection, 
 if our individual minds and experiences 
 prompt us to do so.,. We may believe 
 that the ulterior purpose 6f this ujiiversal 
 perfection is to show forth the glory of 
 God, or we may not believe it: That is a 
 question in  the religious field, Our 
 present inquiry is not concerned with 
 this field; it does not go beyond'the idea 
 of the attainmeht of universal perfection 
 as an all-embracing, though not' neces- 
 sarily final goal; an idpa w ich lies with- 
 in the practical and moral fields. 
   It will be observed that the idea of 
 the perfection of all 1ife includes necep- 
 sarily the idea oflthe perfection of man, 
 which is not, therefore, cast aside, but 4s 
 considered as an integral part of the uni- 
 Versal goal. When all life is developed 
 to perfection; man will be a part of that 
 perfection., 
 SSuch a perfection, ihcluding all living 
 forms, -win referred to by J. B. Harkin, 
 late Presiden't of the rulte'atAonslASsoci- 
 ation of Gaie, Fish'iand Conservation 
 Commissioners, in  a recent address, 
 wheni he 'aid: "'Everything was made 
 not in the 9~erests Qf something else, 
 but to eontribute to the harmony of the 
 whole, in order that the' wprld might be 
 absolutely perfect." 
 Sinue nq one has ever experienced this 
          we are not able to visualize its 
"exact fbrmnbut this is not necessary. 
is evidentithat its.realization requires 
that each forup of life be in complete 
harmony with its environment, for less 
than complete harmony would certainly 
be  less than   perfection. With   this 
 
 
ct