THE SENTIMENTALIST.

Forest and Bird, Issue 20, 1 March 1930, Page 13

THE SENTIMENTALIST.

(An editorial appearing in American Nature Magazine.)

One frequently sees the Nature lover or “sentimentalist” ■scored for his lack of grasp of a situation that is often tersely described as “Game versus Vermin,” or some other aspect of conservation. Since the opinions expressed often show a lack •of appreciation of the standpoint of the non-hunting lover of wild life that is quite as profound as the ignorance that is ascribed to him, his viewpoint may be emphasized. The “sentimentalist,” as he is termed, often in derision, may have as broad a background of experience as his critic. Sometimes he is a sportsman who has seen, with the passing of the years, the gradual depletion of our wild life, and who has laid aside the gun. He may be one who has never hunted, but derives ample enjoyment from observation of Avild life, without killing. Sometimes he has other points of view. In any case his attitude should, in fairness, be accorded that degree of respect that accompanies sincerity of purpose not actuated by hope of gain. Especially during the past thirty years have we seen the wild life of our continent ravaged in the name of sport, and the commercialism that depends on it. In this destructive alliance there has groAvn up a theory that the rights of the sportsman are paramount, and that he is justified in destroying any species that interferes with one that has been designated as game. This .attitude. seems to betoken a degree of selfishness, and an .assumption of ownership, that will not stand the test. Has he who has never taken up the gun abandoned title to his share of grouse, or quail, or hawk, or owl? Is not his enjoyment as worthy of recognition as that of the man who finds enjoyment in killing? By what process of reasoning is the non-killer asked to relinquish his share? Surely he has a right to claim joint interest in wild creatures, and to assume some responsibility for their protection. Settlement has seriously interfered with many of our larger ■species; no one believes that the bison could maintain its millions ■on our western plains. But settlement, and natural enemies, and ■diseases, have all been much overworked in accounting for the recent rapid decline in our game species. The disinterested student, reviewing the history of our game during the past few •decades—an ever-dwindling supply pursued by a constantly increasing army of hunters—believes, unless a truer type of conservation is adopted, that the virtual disappearance of those marvellous creations that in his own memory peopled abundantly the woods and fields and marshes of our continent is inevitable. If in his pleas for less killing he may seem to tread on the toes of

sport, it is through fear that the few larger species that are yet spared us in fair numbers will follow those that have gone. An assertion given much emphasis is that the non-killer does little or nothing to preserve our wild creatures. What greatei protection can be given the bird than to spare its life? And, as examples, let us remember the gift of Marsh Island, Louisiana, by Mrs. Russell Sage; the Rainey Wild Life Sahctuary, in the same state, financed by Mrs. Grace Rainey Rogers; the earlier successful work of Abbott H. Thayer in behalf of the sea-bird colonies on our Atlantic Coast, and the recent act of Edward Bok in establishing his Florida preserves. What of the thousands of dollars contributed by the Audubon Societies and other disinterested organizations, and expended in sanctuaries, warden service, and winter feeding? Especially let us not forget that greater value, unmeasurable in terms of money, represented by the moral and educational influence of such efforts.

The school of thought that the Nature lover represents and that brings him criticism is largely the direct product of conditions that are continually becoming more evident. His forces are being recruited from the ranks of those whose repugnance to the slaughter that so often masquerades as sport has forced them to action, by landowners and farmers who resent the destruction of property caused by careless hunters, and who are determined to protect the wild creatures they raise, and by sportsmen who have come to realize that the benefits gained by life in the outdoors may be obtained without killing, and whoare welcoming this new regime. The “sentimentalist,” contrary to the conception pictured by his critics, is by no means an isolated and visionary back-number, ignorant of his subject and spending his time deploring and supplicating. He is a student of the present, interpreting it by the lessons of the past, and working for a more abundant future. The fact that he is being recognized as a militant force is significant.