A sanctuary may be defined as a place where Man is passive and the
rest of Nature active. Till quite recently Nature had her own
sanctuaries, where man either did not go at all or only as a
tool-using animal in comparatively small numbers. But now, in this
machinery age, there is no place left where man cannot go with
overwhelming forces at his command. He can strangle to death all the
nobler wild life in the world to-day. To-morrow he certainly will have
done so, unless he exercises due foresight and self-control in the
mean time. There is not the slightest doubt that birds and mammals are
now being killed off much faster than they can breed. And it is always
the largest and noblest forms of life that suffer most. The whales and
elephants, lions and eagles, go. The rats and flies, and all mean
parasites, remain. This is inevitable in certain cases. But it is
wanton killing off that I am speaking of to-night. Civilized man
begins by destroying the very forms of wild life he learns to
appreciate most when he becomes still more civilized. The obvious
remedy is to begin conservation at an earlier stage, when it is
easier and better in every way, by enforcing laws for close seasons,
game preserves, the selective protection of certain species, and
sanctuaries. I have just defined a sanctuary as a place where man is
passive and the rest of Nature active. But this general definition is
too absolute for any special case. The mere fact that man has to
protect a sanctuary does away with his purely passive attitude. Then,
he can be beneficially active by destroying pests and parasites, like
bot-flies or mosquitoes, and by finding antidotes for diseases like
the epidemic which periodically kills off the rabbits and thus starves
many of the carnivora to death. But, except in cases where experiment
has proved his intervention to be beneficial, the less he upsets the
balance of Nature the better, even when he tries to be an earthly
Providence.
In itself a sanctuary is a kind of wild "zoo," on a gigantic scale and
under ideal conditions. As such, it appeals to everyone interested in
animals, from the greatest zoologist to the mere holiday tourist.
Before concluding I shall give facts to show how well worth while it
would be to establish sanctuaries, even if there were no other people
to enjoy the benefits. Yet the strongest of all arguments is that
sanctuaries, far from conflicting with other interests, actually
further them. But unless we make these sanctuaries soon we shall be
infamous forever, as the one generation which defrauded posterity of
all the preservable wild life that Nature took a million years to
evolve into its present beautiful perfection. Only a certain amount of
animal life can exist in a certain area. The surplus must go outside.
So sanctuaries are more than wild "zoos", they are overflowing
reservoirs, fed by their own springs, and feeding streams of life at
every outlet. They serve not only those interested in animal life, but
those legitimately interested in animal death, for business, sport or
food. I might mention many instances of successful sanctuaries,
permanent or temporary, absolute or modified--the Algonquin, Rocky
Mountains, Yoho, Glacier, Jasper and Laurentides in Canada; the
Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Cañon, Olympus and Superior in the United
States; with the sea-lions of California, the wonderful revival of
ibex in Spain and deer in Maine and New Brunswick, the great preserves
in Uganda, India and Ceylon, the selective work of Baron von Berlepsch
in Germany, the curious result of taboo protection up the Nelson
river, and the effects on seafowl in cases as far apart in time and
space as the guano islands under the Incas of Peru, Gardiner island in
the United States or the Bass rock off the coast of Scotland.
Yet I do not ignore the difficulties. First, there is the universal
difficulty of introducing or enforcing laws where there have been no
operative laws before. Next, there is the difficulty of arousing
public opinion on any subject, however worthy, which requires both
insight and foresight. Then, we must remember that protected species
increasing beyond their special means of subsistence have to seek
other kinds of food, sometimes with unfortunate results. And then
there are the several special difficulties connected with Labrador.
There are three British governments concerned--Newfoundland, the
Dominion and the province of Quebec. There are French and American
fishermen along the shore. The proper protection of some migratory
species will require co-operation with the United States, perhaps with
Mexico and South America for certain birds, and even with Denmark for
the Greenland seal. Then, there are the Indians, the whole trade in
animal products, the necessity of not interfering with any legitimate
development, and the question of immediate expense, however small, for
a deferred benefit, however great and near at hand. And, finally, we
must remember that scientific knowledge is not by any means adequate
to deal with all the factors of the problem at once.