We face the question whether a still higher "standard of living" is worth its cost in things natural, wild, and free.

Is education possibly a process of trading awareness for things of lesser worth? The goose who trades his is soon a pile of feathers.

There are some who can live without wild things, and some who cannot. For us of the minority, the opportunity to see geese is more important than television, and the chance to find a pasque-flower is a right as inalienable as free speech.

If in a city we had six vacant lots available to the youngsters of a certain neighborhood for playing ball, it might be "development" to build houses on the first, and the second, and the third, and the fourth, and even the fifth, but when we build houses on the last one, we forget what houses are for.

Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land.

There is value in any experience that exercises those ethical restraints collectively called sportsmanship.

What more delightful avocation than to take a piece of land and by cautious experimentation to prove how it works. What more substantial service to conservation than to practice it on one's own land?