Since the initial European settlement of North America, agricultural and industrial development has greatly contributed to the rapid alteration of our natural ecosystems. During the past one hundred and fifty years, America's ecologists have struggled to modernize our country's ethical relationship with the natural environment. This period has become known as the environmental movement. The original philosophies of the early contributors to this movement remain at the center of our ecological theory even today. It is for this reason that reviewing the development of America's "land ethic" is an important step in gaining an understanding of today's ecological problems.
The history of the environmental movement in America began in the late nineteenth century with the publication of conservation oriented books and articles such as Henry David Thoreau's “Walden” and “God's first Temples: How Shall We Preserve Our Forests?” by John Muir. Works like these soon began to persuade Americans that the land had important uses other than agriculture and industry. The time had finally come for the land to begin to be recognized for its aesthetic and recreational value as well as its economic worth to future generations.
The idea that land had value as a thing of beauty was a relatively new idea. This view was expressed in naturalist and author Henry Thoreau's works. Thoreau proposed that nature was a thing of beauty and was best appreciated in its natural state, saying that in nature, "man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone" (Walden 129). Even though Thoreau's theories on nature were idealistic and to some extent impractical to the agriculturally oriented population in the 1850's, his basic philosophies were later widely held by naturalists such as John Muir.
Like Thoreau, Muir was somewhat of an idealist in his approach to conservation; nevertheless, he led the environmental movement for the next fifty years until his death in 1914. Muir's success in his conservation efforts was in part due to his skills as a writer. Like Thoreau, Muir also had the gift of expressing himself beautifully on paper. He began by using his literary skills to help encourage government control of the nation's forests (Muir, Wilderness 311). Muir's first article, "God's First Creations: How Shall We Preserve Our Forests?” appeared in the February 5, 1875 edition of the Sacramento Record‑Union paper. The essay protested environmental destruction in the Sierra Mountains caused by overgrazing and lumbering (Muir, 311). Muir believed that "Exploitation of the earth's resources would only bring unbalance and cause ultimate poverty for all" (Wolfe 188). He also thought that wilderness had cultural and recreational value. These ideas of land maintaining aesthetic and recreational significance were contrary to early settlers views. Previously, the pioneers in America had seen the wilderness as a deadly enemy that needed to be conquered. Muir, however, thought that mankind had no right to subdue and exploit the lower creatures and destroy the wilderness simply for economic gain (Wolfe 188). From these ideas Muir developed a strong philosophy toward America's wilderness areas, maintaining that "Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and cheer and give strength to the body and soul alike" (Wolfe 189). Rather than something that needed to be conquered, Muir saw wilderness as something to be enjoyed.
As time went by, Muir's ideas became more popular with the government. Politicians began to realize that conservation might be in the interest of generations to come. For example, During Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, 86 wildlife refuges were established in 17 states and three territories (Restoring America's Wildlife 5).
Another important government official, Gifford Pinchott who was a trained forester from Prussia also became an important figure in the conservation effort. Pinchott led the creation of the National Forestry Commission that later became the National Forest Service. In 1894, the commission was asked by congress to survey the timber reserves of the United States in order to recommend the creation of federal forest preserves. John Muir was one of the men asked to help with the survey in 1894 (Wolfe 272). Upon completion of the survey, the commission submitted a recommendation to president Grover Cleveland who then issued an executive order for the creation of 13 reservations totaling over 21,000,000 acres of forest in the western United States (Wolfe 272).
Initially, reservations of this type were created for the preservation of wilderness for economic and recreational purposes rather than for the protection of plant and animal species. Later conservation efforts in the early 1900's began to attempt to manage wildlife species to benefit agriculture, but it was not until the mid 1900's that conservationists considered species preservation an end in itself. One of the first naturalists to recognize the importance of protecting nongame species (species not sought for sport) was the ecologist Aldo Leopold.
Aldo Leopold has since become one of the most influential conservationists ever involved in the environmental movement. In 1908, Leopold graduated with a master’s degree in forestry from the newly created forestry school at Yale University. He soon moved to the Arizona Territory, where he became deputy supervisor of the Carson National Forest of northern New Mexico. After one year as deputy supervisor Leopold was promoted to the position of supervisor for the Carson (Leopold, Wilderness 6). Even though Leopold's job was to oversee the management of the Carson, he was also concerned with the game species there. It is important to note that at this time Leopold is primarily concerned with the welfare of game animals. As his prospective broadened with experience, Leopold began to understand the interrelationships between all animals and plants. This development in Aldo Leopold's ecological philosophy and the ultimate publication of A Sand County Almanac greatly affected modern views of conservation.
In many of Leopold's early publications, game management was stressed as a method of increasing numbers of game animals. He defined game Management as the purposeful manipulation of factors that limited population growth in game animals (Leopold, Game Management 44). Leopold called these environmental variables "limiting factors". These so‑called limiting factors included such things as availability of adequate food, water, and space.
Leopold advocated the manipulation of these variables in 1933. Leopold believed that game could be managed effectively using the following tools: (1) game censusing, (2) surveying the productivity of a population by counting the number of kills per unit of population, (3) installation of refuges, (4) controlling hunting through incentives to hunters and police power, (5) predator control, (6) controlling food and water availability through the use of feeding stations, (7) control of vegetative cover through the use of planting, plowing, and controlled burning, and (8) disease control (Leopold, Game Management). It is important to note that at this time Leopold believed in predator control as a viable means of managing game populations. This practice is later found by Leopold to be an ecologically unsound practice. In 1933, however, he was interested in coming the nearest to serving the interests of all those involved in the predator control controversy (Leopold, Game Management 230). Leopold believed that predatory animals directly affected four kinds of people, (1) agriculturists, (2) game managers and sportsmen, (3) students of natural history, and (4) the fur industry (Leopold, 230). He also realized that there was a certain degree of conflict of interest that existed between these four groups. In many cases, students of natural history wanted no predator control while many farmers and hunters wanted as much as they could get to complete eradication (Leopold, Game Mgt.230).
The evolution of Leopold's philosophy towards predator control is first revealed in the omission of predator control as a means of management in an article appearing in the American Game Magazine in July 1925. In this article entitled, "Ten New Developments in Game Management", predator control was not recognized as a means of control.
In July 1930, Leopold's article "Game Management in the National Forests" was published in American Forests magazine. In this article he questions excessive manipulation of the environment and such methods as predator control, saying, it is a "two edged sword" and that it tends to "artificialize sport and thus destroy the very recreational values which the conservation movement seeks to obtain" (Leopold).
In 1924, Leopold left Arizona to accept a position as associate director of the forest service's forest products laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. In 1933, he left the Forest Service for good and joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin. By the time Leopold left the southwest he had become an advocate for restoring abused natural habitats, conducting wildlife research, reintroducing extirpated native animals, promoting sportsmanship, promulgating biologically sound hunting regulations, forming politically active conservation organizations, and preserving both wilderness and threatened species (Leopold's Wilderness 74).
By the time Leopold began teaching he had learned more than one valuable lesson about mankind's relationship with the land. He had come to regard humans as a part of the ecological community. This community concept held that, "The role of people in their ecological community must change from conqueror of the land to member and citizen of it" (Sand County 240). Leopold observed, "the disposal of private property to most land owners was purely a matter of expediency, not of right and wrong" (Sand County 237). He knew the land was sick and that it was becoming less and less able to renew itself (Leopold 245). Leopold also saw that land that lacked economic value was being destroyed. Ecosystems were being conformed to fit the needs of man without regard for future consequences. Leopold said, "lack of economic value often characterizes species or whole biotic communities such as marshes, bogs and deserts" (Leopold 245).
Leopold soon drew an analogy between treatment of the environment and treatment of human beings. He understood treatment of the land to be related to the ethics and morals of society saying, "Land ethics are still governed wholly by self‑interest, just as social ethics were a century and a half ago" (Leopold 245). With Leopold's belief that nature had rights was born the concept of land ethics.
From this point on Leopold began to be very concerned with the moral treatment of the environment. A Sand County Almanac is a beautiful statement of this conception of mans moral obligation to the environment. Leopold uses a very deontological approach to land ethics by explaining that; "In examining a question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise" (Leopold 262).
The philosophy of today's conservationists directly reflects Leopold's fundamental principle of land ethics. Eugene P. Odum one of today's foremost ecologists argues that; "External environmental constraints will not be adequate negative feedback for society. So strong is the economic positive feedback of technological growth that overshoots seem inevitable if only external limits are involved" (Blackstone 10).
Odum, like Leopold believes that "Individuals must have respect for the environment and that laws alone will not correct the problem of land abuse". Odum explains "Extensions of ethics to include man‑in‑environment relationships must become an integral part of man's philosophy" (Blackstone 10).
Even though not all people in the United States consider their moral obligations to the environment, the are beginning to see benefits associated with land other than economic gain. Today Americans understand that wilderness represents our heritage and culture and should thus be preserved. Modern recreational activities such as backpacking and canoeing require wilderness. These activities have become part of our historical heritage.
Americans do often fail to realize however, that wilderness is valuable for another reason. Large expanses of undisturbed land are necessary to support many species of wild plants and animals. Some organisms simply cannot stand any human interaction.
Land ethics and moral principles concerning the treatment of our natural ecosystems have come a long way in the last one hundred and fifty years, but we still have a long way to go. If we are to be successful in our endeavors to preserve our natural heritage, we must instill the principals of land ethics in the generations of the future. One of the most effective ways of accomplishing this task is to learn from our mistakes and look to the past for the answers for the future.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment