The entry of Defenders of Wildlife into the issues surrounding the development of the Crow's Nest peninsula adds yet another voice to the chorus of environmental reasons this tract should not be developed ["New defender for Crow's Nest," July 9].

Regardless of the multifaceted wisdom of protest groups advocating that the natural integrity of this land be maintained, and in spite of any flora or fauna that may be protected by the Endangered Species Act or other protective legislation, ecological controversies are increasingly subjected to yet another yardstick--the ethical and moral argument.

Although landowners may retain the "by-right" authority bestowed by man and local law to develop property they own as they so desire, is it morally and ethically right to do so even if you own it?

From Edward O. Wilson, one of the century's foremost thinkers on the future of life, come the following thoughts: "The strategy of citing moral reasoning and ethical behavior is not a cultural artifact, it is the glue of society without which we could not claim to be civilized. By needlessly adding to the accumulative destruction of other species, we permanently impoverish ourselves."

The casual acceptance of biological corruption is no less corruption simply because it is not as readily recognized by society. Once recognized for what it is, however, we need to be intolerant of its persistence both within ourselves and in others.

To quote John C. Sawhill, former president of the Nature Conservancy: "In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy."

So, kudos to protest groups. Bless them all! Support the efforts of Save Crow's Nest, your local lawmakers who advocate preservation and who are working to purchase this property, and the bond referendum in November.

Linda Hiross

Locust Grove