SOME ASPECTS OF CONSERVATION
261
the reserve has ceased to be representative of true fen. On a
smaller scale, we have the same problem in the Chelmer Valley
Reserves, in Essex. The Phragmites communis and the insect
and bird life associated with fresh-water marsh began to decrease
as the marsh built itself up above the water-table fixed by the
banked river-cum-canal. So, simple sluices were built at the
outfall of the drainage ditches, and the Reed began to increase
again. But, in the last five years, the level of water has had to
be raised twice, and there is obviously a limit to this process.
We are, therefore, here up against it, and I wonder if it is wise
to divert so much time, money and energy into trying to main-
tain these small areas of type habitat when the most that can
be hoped for is a little stay in the road that must inevitably lead
to the natural climax. Even if we say, yes, we must have these
type areas, as study areas, problems raise their ugly heads. It
is well known that the countryside around many of our Field
Studies Centres, such as Flatford Mill, has been completely
changed simply due to the pressure of people going there to
study it. Species that were found only a few years ago have
gone—either collected, trampled out of existence, or scared off
by too many students.
Nevertheless, I believe we do right to make reserves, and in
varying types of locality, where wild life may proliferate rela-
tively peacefully. In the remoter parts of the country, such
reserves should be large, covering many square miles, wherein
much of the cover is already climax, and where pressure from
people may be insufficient to upset the balance. But what of the
populated parts of the country? It is just not going to be possible
to set aside great tracts of land; the demands of building and the
rest, will have to be met. So reserves will have to be small.
But I do not believe it possible or desirable to maintain these
reserves as unviolable sanctuaries for the preservation of
rarities. People thirsty for the open air will resent such action,
when they find a stretch of shore suddenly made private for
the sake of a few pairs of nesting birds, or a patch of uninspiring
sea heath.
This brings us to consider the attitude of the public in more
detail. It must not be thought that there is universal agreement
on the need for conservation. Probably the greater part, even
of the so-called educated world is apathetic to the cause, to say
nothing of the vast numbers of people in the less forward
countries where ignorance is the norm. And those who are not
for conservation, and are not apathetic, are against it, often
fanatically hostile. We have only to mention the anti-blood
sports groups, and the anti-cruelty leagues, and we are in the
middle of most heated controversies. It is a subject charged
with emotion, and we must examine it calmly. If certain animals
were not kept down, we jeopardise our own existence. Is it fair
to expect the farmer to grow crops for the rabbits and pigeons
to guzzle up? There must be a limit set to tolerance, and this