2 THE Ayu D UB ON? BU cee 
what have you; but they adroitly sidestep the responsibility of estimating 
environmental influences. Will Bonneville Dam eventually destroy a salmon 
run worth ten million dollars? Can the smelter-blasted and eroded environs 
of Ducktown be restored? The engineers never knew; they were too busy 
learning and applying new techniques and building bigger monuments to 
“civilization.” Conservation organizations are barely beginning to learn 
the answers, because in the past they too often were preoccupied with the 
trimmings of conservation, rather than the foundation stones of environ- 
ment. 
It is only within the past decade that serious and concerted efforts have 
been made to put “resource engineering” on the same factual basis as other 
applied sciences. Several agencies, notably the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
the Forest Service, and the Soil Conservation Service, are now giving great 
emphasis to the scientific management of renewable resources, and prac- 
tically all of the important conservation societies are swinging their atten- 
tions and influences in a similar direction. The Audubon Society is 
becoming a leader in this respect, but much remains to be done by the 
members in informing themselves on the importance of the foundation 
stones of conservation, so they in turn may lead constructive discussions 
among their friends and neighbors. 
Past mistakes in resource management show the necessity of an 
awakened public sense of responsibility in present and future development 
projects affecting environment. In Florida, the Audubon Society, the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service have made great 
efforts to counteract the far reaching damage caused by drainage of the 
Everglades between 1900 and 1922. This was one of the most senseless of 
the many ill-considered drainage projects that characterized an era of 
ill--advised tinkering and meddling with natural resources throughout the 
country. Improvement of inland navigation and reclamation of farm land 
were the excuses for the project. The results have been: progressive 
ruination of 95% of the Everglades (between 4% and 5% is now farmed) ; 
decreasing water levels, and increasing salinity in the wells supplying Miami 
and other towns; decreased production of birds and other wildlife, the only 
crop for which most of the Everglades is suited; numerous fires which 
removed much peat land down to bare rock; and untold damage to the 
tropical beauty and charm of the Everglades. To this dismal score, add 
many relatively minor damages, such as threatened extinction of the grace- 
ful Everglades kite, which depends upon snails for food. Snails depend ° 
upon water, and water depends upon sane management of resources. That, 
in the final analysis, depends upon informed citizens who do not hesitate 
to tell Congressional delegates no tinkering with environment will be 
tolerated. 
Examples of damage to environment caused by foolish or selfish “develop- 
ment” projects can be found in practically every community. They may 
not have produced such large sore spots as in the Everglades, but the total 
loss caused to the Nation is incalculable. We are unaware of much of the 
damage until after it has happened. A farmer cultivating his row crops 
up and down hill sees a little soil washed to the lower edge of the field 
