Environmental Conservation embodies an Ecological Value
by Joseph V. Siry
Conservation is the measure
of the distance between our intentions and our abilities to thoughtfully
behave in ways that secure more than just our narrow needs to live well. Without conservation of natural resources a nation of over 310 million demanding people is not capable of sustaining the nation's needs for water, electricity, timber, recreational lands, fisheries, and other natural resources. While Americans represent four percent of the world population we consume one-fourth (25%) of the Earth's resources. To sustain the United States' level of consumption and exploitation patterns we would need three more Earth-sized planets.
Conservation meets preservation
In 1903, President Roosevelt met John Muir on a three day camping trip in Yosemite National Park. Of it Roosevelt later wrote: "we lay down in the darkening aisles of the great Sequoia grove. The majestic trunks, beautiful in color and in symmetry, rose round us like the pillars of a mightier cathedral than ever was conceived even by the fervor of the Middle Ages." [An Autobiography, 1913].
President Theodore Roosevelt's 1908 speech, "Conservation as a National Duty," Washington, D.C.
The numerous varieties of approaches we have to protecting natural resources from harm loss or decay have emerged due to historical conflicts. These
serious disagreements or schisms over the means to effectively protecting
water, fisheries, minerals and wildlife emerged to alter American political
and social patterns due largely to the growth of population, urbanization
and industrialization in the last half of the nineteenth century.
Every society faces the tasks of adjusting to new conditions
brought about by changes in climate, demographics, disease or technological
designs. In ancient India, medieval England and modern Europe conservation
impulses were translated into ruling policy as leaders recognized the
necessity of keeping vital resources from damage, degradation, destruction
or decay. When in the late nineteenth century American writers, scientists,
artists and politicians recognized that the country's rivers, forests,
fisheries and wildlife were vulnerable, significant reform proposals that
embodied conservation were proffered. Between 1872 and 1916 federal agencies
were created to protect places where scenic quality, fisheries, timber,
birds, wildlife and parks were threatened by a lack of enforceable remedies
to enhance the natural features inherent in landscape. The Forest Reserve Act in 1893 was proposed in order to protect land for lumber use and watershed protection because poor logging practices caused erosion, a rapid loss of water, and a waste of valuable wood.
Important dates that are indices of the growth in conservation policies:
1864 Lincoln gives Yosemite Valley & Sequoia's to
California to protect
1871 U. S. Fish Commission established to restore fisheries
1872 Yellowstone set aside by Congress as a "people's
park" for "all time"
1881 The Division of Forestry created
1885 New York State creates the Adirondack Forest Preserve
1890, the closing of the frontier – as a contiguous line of settlement west of the Mississippi River.
1893 Forest Reserve Act passed to set aside timberlands
in the public domain
1897 Forest Management Act defines the purpose of timber
1900 Lacey Act for the protection of wildlife enacted
1902 Bureau of Reclamation created to irrigate and drain
1906 Antiquities Act, passed to protect archaeological
and historical resources
1908 White House Governor's Conference on Conservation
sponsored by Theodore Roosevelt.
1913 the Raker Act lead to the creation of Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite
1916 The creation of the National Park Service (NPS)
to protect rare scenic places
Census of population
The growth of urban population in this 21st century has outpaced the national average rate of population increase. What do these figures actually mean?
A brief look at the above tables will reveal the emergence
of conservation simultaneously with
persistently increasing changes in the number of people, the types of technology and the
percentage of urban residents. While any sixty year period reveals similar
changes in population, technology and affluence as those referred to above,
the formative period in the creation of our national forests, monuments
parks and wildlife refuges was accompanied by revolutionary changes from
industrial production to the construction of vastly larger cities. These
industrial and municipal changes required an increase in the consumption
of raw materials in the form of water, energy, minerals and landscape
that contaminated the land, air, and water beyond the existing capacity
of institutions to assure public health and safety. Conservation reforms
were seen by many advocates as a partner in the development of the nation's
industrial and commercial wealth. As urban needs replaced agrarian patterns
of land-use mechanized agriculture demanded irrigation and drainage to
meet the growing demands.
The earliest schisms in the movement to protect natural
resources from wanton destruction due to mining, logging and reclamation
emerged from this clash between agrarian traditionalists and urban reformers.
In the case of Los Angeles' need for a municipal water supply, an urban
aqueduct replaced the original agricultural reclamation of the Owen's
Valley in the Eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains. Just as demand for water
and power in San Francisco caused a clash over the use of Yosemite National
Park's water, the Owen's Valley struggle divided preservationists from
conservationists. While both groups shared a deep concern for the protection
of natural landscapes the means by which the two factions viewed nature
and thus sought to defend values inherent in rivers, forests and wildlife
"Faces of Rural Poverty," Alabama Farm family in 1938, James Agee.
Our current redefinition of conservation in the light
of new technological and demographic impacts on our global environment
owes its underlying unity to George Perkins Marsh's ideas of "geographical
regeneration;" to "restore the disturbed harmonies" he
had imagined were manifest in the pristine natural conditions of places.
Pinchot and Muir led factions of Marsh's followers in allegedly different
directions to protect nature. But they deepened our understanding of the
essential balance between the need for nature in defining our cultural
identity and the necessity of using natural resources to meet rising future
demands for goods and services.
The rift between those who sought to stop development
of resources on reserved terrain or scenic landscapes and those who pursued the sustained
use of these same sources of economic wealth centered on the personalities
of preservationist John Muir and conservationist Gifford Pinchot. Concerned
for the scenic beauty, natural history and cultural importance of landscape
Muir and others hoped to protect national parks from exploitation of wildlife,
water, or timber within the boundaries of the protected areas. Pinchot,
however, as a trained forester had restored the gutted lands in North
Carolina the Vanderbilt family had acquired as the Biltmore estate (Photographed in the picture below).
unlike Muir, Pinchot was convinced of the compatibility of sustained yield forestry
and scenic enjoyment of accessible resources. Although the fight over Hetch Hetchy and the Owen's valley watersheds was bitterly divisive the
national movement for the protection of nature gained adherents to the
cause of reform over twenty years of arguments.
Pinchot turned this once eroded and "gullied-out" –– meaning seriously eroded –– tobacco plantation into a resilient forest.
It is easy to characterize the differences between Muir
and Pinchot with respect to rivers, forests and wildlife. Muir viewed
these features as essential sub-units of a functionally healthy landscape
based on the quality and quantity of the fish in streams, the size and
age of the trees, and the number and variety of the deer, panthers, bears
and birds. Pinchot, while recognizing these biotic pieces of the landscape's
integrity argued that conservation could not win broad support unless
economic considerations were of paramount importance. Where Muir saw fish,
Pinchot recognized the cubic feet of stream flow necessary to irrigate
cities or farms. Unlike Muir, Pinchot saw forests with respect to the
board feet of timber available per acre on a sustained yield basis. Where
Muir argued for wildlife protection, Pinchot recognized the necessity
of hunters to pay the cost of conserving wildlife refuges. While this
split persists in environmental debates today the broader consensus established
a national level of funding and research for the long-term management
and protection of natural resources. The national protection of our natural
heritage by applying science to the renewal of landscape is one product
of these early conflicts in the formative period of the conservation movement.
The precise circumstances that brought conservation to
the national level of political reform have changed. America for example
has only 4% of its land sequestered as wilderness and half of that is
in Alaska. Two hundred million more people dwell in and demand thirty
times the amount of resources per person as did the 1900 generation of
Americans. To maintain our current affluent standards of living each American,
for example, uses the equivalent of 10 acres of land each year! Despite
these changes such a direct impact has generated problems only hinted
at 100 years ago. With 4.5% of the world's population, the United States
consumes over 30% of its resources producing more carbon dioxide waste
per person than any other country on earth. Pollution, habitat loss, decline
in species numbers and variety, and shortages in certain vital industrial
materials has transformed these common conflicts over conservation from
mere regional skirmishes into international negotiations over the future
of forests, climate change, population planning and biological diversity.
This changing conflict over use and reservation of resources is the result of demographic and technological forces that have demonstrated the links between economics and ecology that once troubled wildlife biologist Aldo Leopold. He conceived of ecology as a round river whereby the movement of moisture from land to air and into water is a metaphor standing for how rivers, forests, wildlife and humans all shared the same sources of well-being. The health of the ecosystem he believed was embedded in the beauty and functional integrity of places. These sources of biotic wealth must be restored in order for humankind to advance morally as well as economically. Like any circular relationship, Round River, represents the facts that whatever we do to the surroundings we inhabit, we ultimately do to one another.
When in the following two decades, environmental conservation was redefined by Raymond Dasmann he showed that this new biologically centered approach to protecting natural and cultural resources embodies an inherent ecological value because the functional connections among water, air, soil, fisheries and wildlife must become the foundation of protecting people and the planet simultaneously. When debating whether caribou herds or oil drilling is a more wise use of natural resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the image of Round River reminds us of a deeper reality. When protecting salmon on the Columbia rive and the old growth forests of the Cascade mountain watershed that same imagery reminds us that these salmon, forests, and water are locked together tightly in a never ending, revolving fund of life where one ingredient nourishes and is sustained by each and all of the other ingredients in this puzzle of the landscape. That is one meaning of ecological value. The coal, gas, and oil we burn today create warmer climates, more acid rain and increasingly acidified oceans tomorrow.
Unprecedented threats have plagued past generations. By the 18th century some people realized population growth had outstripped the capacity of the land to sustain human food needs, by the 19th century sensitive observers, people like Marsh, Olmsted, and Powell recognized that human land-use had polluted and diverted the essential waters people needed to sustain their agricultural and manufacturing demands. In the 20th century it became obvious to engineers, scientists and writers that human consumption had altered the very atmosphere that life and civilizations had always depended upon to nourish, shelter and maintain people's health. Despite our debates over how best to apportion our dwindling supplies of water, arable land, forests, and natural resources, we all live downstream on the same river of life.
of the above essay.
+ 2000 words.
Index | Site Analysis
| Population Index | Global
Warming Index | Nature Index