8152 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Perspective guidance on how to determine when conservation needs are met. Although the courts have. repeatedly reaffirmed the fed- eral government's responsibility for conservation (Parsons 1993), no federal government agency has, to our knowledge, adopted a formal definition of conservation for fisheries resources. Our concern, shared by Parsons (1993), is that the lack of a clear definition of conservation may foster misconceptions about the degree to which biological objec- tives can be safely traded off against pressing economic and social objectives. Our purpose is to promote a dia- logue about the meaning and practice of conservation, in the hope that this will lead toward consensus on essential bio- logical objectives. We begin with a brief exploration of the philosophical evolution of the term conservation. Then we offer a definition of conservation based on the argu- ment for an ecological ethic. Following the definition, we present a preliminary set of operating principles applicable to the management of fish stocks, principles consistent with an ecological, or ecosystemic, view of conservation. The principles espoused in this paper are intended to apply mainly to areas in which self-sustaining aquatic ecosystems are the norm. This includes, for example, most of Canada except heavily urbanized regions and regions subject to intensive agriculture where aquatic ecosystems may have been severely altered "by one or more of a score of human or anthropogenic practices deleterious to the more preferred species of fish" (Regier 1976). A brief philosophical history of conservation Reviews by Pepper (1984), Callicott (1991), and Norton (1991) provide detailed summaries of the environmentalist view of conservation, as it evolved in the West over the last 200 years. North American usage of this term has been shaped by three ethical precepts: the prescientific Romantic-Transcendental Preservation Ethic of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and John Muir; the Resource Conservation Ethic of Gifford Pinchot; and the Evolutionary-Ecological Land Ethic of Aldo Leopold (Callicott 1991). The Romantic-Transcendental Preservationists believed that nature was the proper source of religion. This line of thought runs back to Classical Greece (Boas 1973; Pepper 1984) and partly inspired the romantic movement of the 18th and 19th centuries. Its founders included Rousseau, who argued that the inherent goodness of nature and humanity were inseparable, and Carlyle, Coleridge, and Wordsworth, who each promoted pantheistic themes wherein the natural world was the source of true spiritual knowledge (Baumer 1973; Boas 1973; Pepper 1984). In the New World, Emerson and Thoreau wrote about the connection between nature and the psychological health of mankind. They argued for the intrinsic value of wilderness as a place of beauty, quiet contemplation, and spiritual renewal. Building on these ideas, the strong preservationist wing of the environmen- tal movement emerged. The first leader of this movement was John Muir, wilderness writer and first president of the Sierra Club. 1585 Gifford Pinchot, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service from 1898 to 1910, was the leader of the utilitarian school of early environmentalists and helped to formulate the policies that became known as the conservation movement. Until the early 1900s, the public had never heard of the term con- servation, but through President Theodore Roosevelt, it became the "label of a national issue" (Leopold 1933). The new policy was defined as "the use of the natural resources for the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time" (Pinchot 1947). This phrase is probably the progenitor of the maxim "conservation through wise use," or simply "wise use," a term that Pinchot himself used (Pinchot 1947). According to Nash (1969), Pinchot and his colleagues appropriated the term conservation for the wise-use movement.1 Pinchot's secular, utilitarian view of conservation, with its dual principles of equity and effi- ciency (Callicott 1991), became the basis for the Resource Conservation Ethic. Pinchot's view of conservation led to conflict with the preservationists, and particularly with John Muir. A dis- agreement between them in 1897 over the use of forest preserves (later called National Forests), and a long and acrimonious battle some years later over the building of a dam in Yosemite National Park, produced a permanent split in the leadership of the nascent conservation move- ment. Two distinct and intractable schools of thought were established, each claiming exclusive rights to the mean- ing of the term conservation, and each accusing the other of being "false standard bearers of the gospel" (Hays 1959). These conflicting views on the meaning of conservation are also evident in early literature on the subject in Canada. Canadian participation in Roosevelt's North American Conservation Conference led directly to the establishment of the Commission of Conservation of Canada in May 1909 (Sifton 1910). In the public minutes of this group, the meaning of conservation slides back and forth between protection arid wise use, with the Dominion entomologist Gordon Hewitt (1918) echoing Pinchot's view ("the real idea of conservation; use without abuse") and the Chairman of the Commission, Clifford Sifton (1910), being very care- ful to draw a line between "effective conservation" of resources and their "economical use." Today, the most powerful and influential private con- servation organizations represent the interests of preser- vationists and thus "remain firmly rooted in the pre- scientific Romantic-Transcendental intellectual complex." In contrast, government resource agencies "are still very much ruled by the 19th century Resource Conservation Ethic" (Callicott 1991). Thus, current events are still influ- enced by the internecine conflicts of the 1890s. Aldo Leopold developed an alternative to the strict preservationist and utilitarian viewpoints. His understanding of conservation evolved beyond his early practice of wise use because of his interest in ecology and his seminal activities in the emerging field of wildlife management. I Not to be confused with a loose amalgam of some 250 disparate groups associated under the name Wise Use or Wise Use Movement created in the late 1980s, whose express purpose is to destroy the environmental movement (Krakauer 1991).