In British conditions the Nature Conservancy's initial task is a bit like that of a director of a newly formed art gallery whose collection is being formed largely from valuable paintings which have been left moldering in damp cellars, salvaged out of fires, slashed by lunatics, painted over in ignorant efforts to improve them, or cut up into several different pieces. Such an administrator … would inevitably find himself wanting to know more about the techniques of conservation and rehabilitation. Thus the Conservancy's scientific and conservation functions both combine to dictate a strong accent on research.
Here is a feature in which the Conservancy as an organization is possibly unique. It is at least unusual for the same body to be engaged in fundamental research, applied research, the application of research results extensively in land management, the training of future research workers, the dissemination of information to specialist groups and to the public, and participation in the relevant policy-forming and administrative processes of government in order to ensure that the knowledge won and the dangers brought to light are taken into account in public affairs. —E. M. Nicholson.
If E. M. Nicholson can liken the British task to that of the art museum director whose collection "is being formed from valuable paintings . . . slashed by lunatics," the parallel in North America would be that here we have a vast collection of magnificent originals, beautifully framed and preserved in near perfect condition, the value of which we scarcely realize and which we tend to ignore in our preoccupation with more practical pursuits. Not only the British but many Europeans talk of landscape preservation, a term we do not use in the United States. They have in mind a landscape created by man, and of which man is a part … but which they do not want unnecessarily disturbed.
Why do these countries lay such stress on the scientific study of natural areas? The Nature Conservancy, in a way, provides an answer … its people do not draw a sharp line between research and the application of knowledge. What is learned, however abstract, is considered to have an ultimate practical value. There is recognition that the more we know about what goes on in nature the better we can cope with the problems that exist on the land, whether that land is devoted to farming, ranching, forestry, urban development, or the management of natural areas themselves. The study of natural reserves can serve as check areas … for the practice of land use on areas of comparable soils, climate, vegetation and physiography. —Edward H. Graham.
Both quotations from the chapter on preservation of natural areas in the recent RFF book, Comparisons in Resource Management.
A version of this article appeared in print in the February 1962 issue of Resources magazine.
