Nature, conservationists and environmentalists
We don’t often see debates like this in New Zealand. Dave Foreman was the founder of the radical environmental movement Earth First!. He now heads The Rewilding Institute. In a recent article Dave argues that the Conservation Movement Must Return To Roots, stating that
nature conservationists are different birds than environmentalists, who work to protect human health from the ravages of industrialization, and that therefore there is not a single “environmental movement” [and warns] that enviro-resourcists have been slowing gaining control of conservation groups, thereby undercutting and weakening our effectiveness, and that nature lovers need to take back the conservation family.
Dave comes from a long line of ardent conservationist for whom Aldo Leopold is a major figure. In his A Sand County Almanac, Leopold contended that
“There are some who can live without wild things, and some who cannot.â€?
In Dave’s view conservationists are the “Cannotsâ€? and “should wear that badge proudly for it speaks to our wide-rooted sanity.”
[While resourcists] work to impose human will on nature, including even wilderness and wild predators, through some degree of management. … Conservationists work to keep human will from domesticating all nature.
[Conservationists] work is based on these values. We strive to safeguard wildlands as legal wilderness areas or in like strictly protected categories. We shield endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. We bring back wolves, lynx, black-footed ferrets, bolson tortoises, humpbacked chubs, California condors, and peregrine falcons to their former homes. We fight dams on rivers that yet flow free. We guard the holiness of national parks. We try to block feckless off-road vehicle hooliganism; sue against careless logging, mining and energy extraction in wild places; cheer on with dollars those who confront whalers on the high seas; appeal sloppy, land-degrading livestock grazing practices.
So the ‘cannot live with wilderness’ is a badge that should be seen around New Zealand more often. If more of us wore our ‘cannot’ badges proudly, then species endangered by over development would be less at threat. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could simply say to those companies wanting to mine our seabeds “you cannot do that” and to Holcim, which plans to build a gaint climate changing cement plant, in the South “not likely buddy”.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Seems to me that David’s picking a fight where one does not exist.
Conservation is crucial. Many countries have recognised this and established national parks in which activities are seriously controlled, such as in New Zealand.
Outside of these areas, however, it would seem that environmentalists play a large role in ensuring that negative external environmental effects are mitigated.
While it is not a mutually exclusive relationship between conservation and environmentalism, they appear to have different roles to play
March 29th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
No, I think he’s right to fly the flag.
Those two tendencies co-exist in most people (in all of us Greens I hope), and sometimes they are antagonistic. Clearing up this distinction would be a service to both streams of thought.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Not all countries treat national parks that way, I mean Australia has a uranium mine surrounded by and discharging into a world heritage area… any more questions?
I think it’s a matter of reminding some of us where we come from, and where we stand on things. It’s easy to get dragged into a middle-ground position if you mostly talk with people centrist of yourself. I was chatting with a Greens councillor today and he’s being pushed to support cat ownership on the grounds that they’re appropriate “companion animals”. Yeah, in the same way that a 6 lane motorway is an appropriate substitute for a single heavy train line. I gently suggested that a conservationist position would be for mandatory desexing and continued killing of strays and ferals.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:55 am
and um..do real conservationists ‘eat-em’..?
(the animals they are trying to ‘conserve’..)
and are they just conserving to make sure there will always be something to kill..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 30th, 2007 at 11:20 am
“Cannot live with wilderness” ? I would say “Cannot live without wilderness” like Dave. Land developers would with the first quote. I would check that out Frogie read it again.
Yours Kindly
Drakula
March 30th, 2007 at 11:38 am
there was pretty extensive comment on this issue over at gristmill earlier this week.
for me as a “centrist” these are not mutually exclusive. with many issues i’d say i adopt a “resourcist” position but in most cases thats a pragmatic position reflecting that humans have a tendancy to dominate.
i’ve a strong “conservationist” ethic that relies on public protection of natural habitat (stu, above). i love the outdoors - tramping and kayaking especially. to loose that setting would be unthinkable.
i’m sure that my “resourcist” work wouldn’t have the same drive without this “conservationist” ethic.
cheers
mike
March 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Dave Foreman takes a view of conservation fairly typical of the USA and other “neo-Europes” where there he sees part of conservation is preserving large tracts of land with no humans in it. Humans are seen to be the enemy of the environment. In its extreme version (not that I am saying Dave or the Greens subscribe to this), such environmentalists will even kick indigenous people out of areas they have been part of for millenia in an effort to preserve wilderness.
This is probably linked to the history of the USA, Australia, New Zealand and other “neo-Europes” where white settlers came into an area they regarded as “terra nullis” nd where there they thought there was a contrast betwen settlement and wilderness.
The attitudes in Europe and Japan are very different. National parks in Japan had people already living in them when they were declared national parks, and they still live within the park boundaries. In Europe, farmers are seen as conservationists and protectors of traditional culture as well as business people and the role of agriculture is considered multi-functional. British public footpaths go through agricultural lands and have done for centuries. This contrasts with New Zealand where agriculture is a business, the farmer’s role is to get as much out of the land as possible, and while farmers may also be environmentalists in that they would support protection of wild nature, they would see the country divided between nature reserves and the rest. In Europe, farms are considered part of the nature reserve, and in Japan nature reserves include farms.
In the European and Japanese model, humans are considered part of the environment, not something the environment has to be protected from. And as we learn more about indigenous people we realise the pre-Europen neo-Europes were not as pristine as we thought. In the Amazon for example, it is thought that shifting cultivation always went on, and that humans actually helped biodiversity in this way by periodically opening new clearings.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
So the ‘cannot live with wilderness’ is a badge…
…and you meant ‘without’ to be sure.
respectfully
BJ
March 30th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Spot on, Kiore.
In Europe, people have been shaping the landscape, and being shaped by it, for thousands of years. A sustainable equilibrium has been arrived at, in a variety of biotopes, between man and “nature”. That was destabilised in the second half of the 20th century, because of technology-driven agricultural productivity, but it’s still able to be rolled back to a state of sustainability.
(Typically, agricultural productivity in Europe is lower than in the “new Europes”, precisely because there is an instinctive reticence about mining the topsoil.)
There are practically no climax forests in western Europe — something that has taken me a couple of decades to get used to. It’s all managed. If I wanted, I could date the disappearance of mature oak trees from my area by examining the growth rings in the tree trunks that are the main beams of my house. Somewhere between 150 and 200 years ago is my guess.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I see conservationists as a sub-discipline of environmentalists. They both work to prevent the negative effects of human activity on the environment. Conservationists focus on species and sometimes on ecosystems whereas environmentalists focus on the whole lot. There are no words that describe, say, those who advocate for less pollution or for those who advocate for less intensive land development or less waste.
One neologism I would like to see is that which describes “the negative effects of human activity on the environment”. Currently it is “environment” or “environmental” which have very wide meaning.
How about “enviroism” and “enviroist” a-la racism and racist?
March 31st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
well yes, conservation can be separated from environmentalism, but totally relies on it to have any point , i can help create a wildlife sanctuary but there is absolutely no point if the environment in which it sits go’s bunk .
i would say that the environmental movement is helping conservation by raising consciousness in this direction in general ,
April 1st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
anyone else hear about nader offering the green party ticket to gore..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 1st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
I think it says something about this debate that it is the reason I joined frogblog five minutes ago. I care deeply about wilderness. The biodiversity, clean water, carbon sinks, environment, sure. But wilderness! So here is a hodgepodge of replies…
I find it somewhat disheartening that most people commenting here seem to think that wilderness, in and of itself, is unimportant. Ask your heart – do you want a gondola up Mt Cook? A road through the middle of untracked Fiordland?
I don’t agree with Kiore1 that wilderness is a made up western concept. In New Zealand there have always been large tracts of land without people for the vast majority of the time.
Comparing a few people living within National Park boundaries, because that is where they have always lived, is not analogous with fighting the threats we face today: helicopters, tourism operations, roads…
This morning on National Radio I heard Al Morrison say that the solution to crowded Great Walks is to turn other areas into Great Walks. To spread tourists out more.
There are serious issues to contend with here, and I’m not at all confident in our decision makers, if Al is anything to go by.
Moz is right when she says that not all countries treat National Parks as places where, as Stu says “activities are seriously controlled�. New Zealand is one such country. We have a coal mine within a National Park here on the West Coast. Who could consider that a serious control?
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
“that the solution to crowded Great Walks is to turn other areas into Great Walks. To spread tourists out more.”
And where do all the people who are trying to get away from it all then go??
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 am
Lynley : Welcome to Frogblog! You said : I don’t agree with Kiore1 that wilderness is a made up western concept.
That’s not exactly what he said… in fact there are different and distinct views about conservation, which are each legitimate.
Euros don’t have the cultural construct of “wilderness” that we may have, because they are conscious of having been part of the landscape for centuries.
The “new world” (the Americas, Aus, us, etc) have the somewhat fallacious impression of having arrived into a virgin landscape. NZ’s ecology had been affected quite a lot already by a thousand years of contact with humans (and their friend the … kiore!)
But I quite agree that it’s legitimate to want to restore ecosystems to a state where they function without human impact. That’s equally true in Europe, but a lot harder! (e.g. permitting the continued existence/reintroduction of bears and wolves in France meets very strong resistance)
April 4th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Here is a plug for the “Ecology Fund” website.
I feel strongly that wilderness and biodiversity have inherent value and should be preserved. At a practical level, I have been doing this recently by visiting the following website each day:
http://www.ecologyfund.com/ecology/_ecology.html
When I click on a button on the site (for free), a site sponsor makes a donation that protects an area of wilderness. One person can protect 63 square feet of land for free in this way, each day. It all adds up. When I visit site sponsors’ webpages, sponsors donate even more.
The bottom of the site’s homepage displays some interesting numbers - estimates for total world human population, total natural habitat, and natural habitat per human capita. Over the last couple of weeks that I have been visiting the site, their last figure has decreased from around 6587 square metres per capita, to around 6581 square metres per capita. I find it scary just how fast they think this decline is happening. But at least they are trying to do something about it. I think their site is useful, not just for directly saving wilderness land, but also in raising awareness.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Thanks Prim,
I’ve signed up !
The website looks very interesting.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:35 am
eredwen - I am glad to hear you like the site. I too find it interesting.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:50 am
good site..i’ve done a blurb on/link to it..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Natural habitat
Anyone here been to Tiritiri Matangi in the Hauraki Gulf recently. This is an extremely good example of “going for it” and making a difference over a very short time.
When I managed the project from inception over a 2 year period, it was a relatively bleak and bare small island off the Whangaparoa peninsula with a few tuis and bellbirds.
Once the public planting programme started to take hold its habitat and wildlife opportunity doubled. First the saddlebacks followed by takahe, kiwi, kokako, stitchbirds and so on. The principle was easy - first plant perching points for the birds to roost and defacate the ingested seed and provide them with a luxuriant food source that was sited near the walking tracks. The perching points were pohutukawa which have shaded out the grass and around each of these, now large trees, is a raft of food producing vegetation. The birds have spread the forest.
My son visited the island yesterday and could not recognise any of the places he used to play in when he lived there. He also mentioned tripping over takehe and stitchbirds.
If we can take a piece of land and regenerate forest and wildlife so quickly - why are we not doing it more often. The great thing about Tiri was the public involvement with tree planting. if you have never been there - its worth visiting a live NZ nature project which is very accessible from Auckland. Imagine the sound of a kokako ringing in your ears as it scurries along a branch a metre away from where you are standing!
April 5th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
I visited Tiritiri Matangi several years ago, on a day trip with a corporate group. The birdsong was wonderful, and I thoroughly recommend the experience!
April 6th, 2007 at 4:21 am
michaelangelo,
During a brief visit back to NZ a couple of years ago, I visited Tiritiri with my mother and younger daughter. It was about the nearest I’ve ever been to a religious experience. We saw nearly all the species of birds we might have seen, and my 6 year old marked them off proudly on her leaflet.
The story of clawing an island back from a state of desolate pastureland to the current rich bush environment is a true inspiration. Thanks for your part in it!
April 15th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Also, for those interested in practical actions that directly conserve NZ native forest and other wilderness areas, a plug for the NZ Native Forests Restoration Trust: http://www.nznfrt.org.nz/
and the QEII Trust:
http://www.nationaltrust.org.nz/ . Anyone can make a donation to these Trusts, or join as a member.