NATURE RED IN TOOTH AND CLAW.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—The experiences of the keeper mentioned by Sir Robert Armstrong-Jones in his letter published in your issue of June 19th are sufficiently remarkable, even if we assume that the " kestrel " spoken of was really the rapacious sparrow-hawk. Probably all species are one to that keeper as to the majority of his kind. And is it uncharitable to suggest that keepers are not free from the human weakness of magnifying their office, by unduly expanding the list of creatures to be regarded as mere " vermin," which it is their mission to destroy? More- over, just because it is, as we might say, the keeper's duty to see only one side of the question, does it become the duty of his employer to remember that game-preserving is not the alpha and omega of human existence.
We may, I think, take it for granted that it is not for humanitarian motives alone that Sir Robert is willing to see the buzzard (and the lovely, innocent kestrel !) exterminated in Britain. Rather the conclusion he suggests is that in a civilized country there is room for only one predatory animal, namely man. But is it really so sure a mark of " thoughtless- ness" and "irresponsibility" to hold that the preservation of the beauty and interest of wild nature, whether animate or inanimate, is at least as much a matter of concern to the best type of out-door man as the provision of the greatest possible head of gaine for the greatest possible number of guns P—I am, Spreyton, Devonshire. -
Previous page
