Bats and culture

Regarding Mr Stamp's article about the conflicting interests of Nature vs. Culture ('Architecture', APOLLO, July 2005), I can only agree that the loss of or damage to any art or architecture, irreplaceable and a connection to our history, is a loss which must be corrected quickly before further harm is rendered. I also believe most of us, as Mr Stamp points out, are not only interested in preserving our great works of art, but are also interested in preserving nature's great works as well. I have supported both preservation of art and architecture and nature conservancy and I'm sure I'm not alone among your readers.

Perhaps therein lies the solution. The bats' 'influential friends' are surely culture's able supporters as well. In the us, despite my country's rightly reprehensible lack of support in preventing climate change, we manage a little progress from time to time--and I've read of bats which are a cause of frustration to the property owners having been relocated, and/or propagated for the good they do (a natural predator in orchards, for instance). They could be be relocated to their own 'flats', shall we say, about the countryside in question. The entrances to the formerly inhabited buildings can be blocked against repossession once the animals move to their new homes. While I don't have suggestions for every conflict Mr Stamp raises--the badly pruned tree which must be preserved is to me particularly frustrating as we can all imagine the view which Constable might have chosen--I do believe trying to find our common interest will help prevent the polarisation of viewpoints which are surely based in the same value: keeping the best of both nature and culture in trust for all our future.

Donald W. Larson, Los Angeles

COPYRIGHT 2005 Apollo Magazine Ltd.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group