Landscapes – Ethical Approach Perspective Reading Response In the essay, briefly discuss what you learned from each reading, link to your previous experien

Landscapes – Ethical Approach Perspective Reading Response In the essay, briefly discuss what you learned from each reading, link to your previous experience or knowledge, and pose questions for discussion.

The response should combine all the materials as a whole, do not write separate responses for each one.

Additional info for the course:

This course explores various approaches of landscape planning analysis from site to regional scale. The major contents are:

•Understanding and managing landscapes: Urban tree inventory and analysis, watershed planning, forest management, regional open space planning, integrated strategic landscape assessment

• Projecting future landscapes: Future l and use change probability analysis, land use implications of Urbanism Next, urban heat vulnerability analysis

•Planning and analytical process: Participatory planning, advanced suitability analysis using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Aldo Leopold, the Land Ethic, and Ecosystem Management
Author(s): Richard L. Knight
Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul., 1996), pp. 471-474
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3802064
Accessed: 03-04-2019 02:02 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Wildlife Society, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Journal of Wildlife Management
This content downloaded from 73.180.25.158 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 02:02:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Invited Paper:
ALDO LEOPOLD, THE LAND ETHIC, AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT’
RICHARD L. KNIGHT, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
Abstract: Ecosystem management asks stewards to manage lands for commodities, amenities, and, importantly, native biological diversity. Aldo Leopold anticipated this idea by some 40 years when he developed
the concept of a “land ethic.” I illustrate aspects of ecosystem management with quotations from Leopold’s
writings.
J. WILDL. MANAGE. 60(3):471-474
Key words: biodiversity, conservation, ecosystem management, ethics, Leopold, outdoor recreation.
We end, I think, at what might be called the standard paradox of the twentieth century:
our tools are better than we are, and grow better faster than we do. They suffice to crack the
atom, to command the tides. But they do not suffice for the oldest task in human history: to
live on a piece of land without spoiling it.
Aldo Leopold (Flader and Callicott 1991:254)
Natural resources management in America
as clashes between: commodity users versus
originated largely within this century. The various disciplines grew and matured focusing upon
the use of natural resources as commodities and
amenity users, those with a utilitarian ethic versus those with an environmental ethic, or people
with rural-based values versus those with urban-
were motivated by a utilitarian ethic. Trees were
for logging, wildlife was for hunting, and grass
was for grazing. Over time, this relatively simple
system of natural resource management (read
commodity management) began fraying at the
seams. This was because people and industries
centered values.
Out of this ceaseless conflict, which has uprooted families, altered human communities and
economies, and left deep-seated bitterness in the
minds of many, has come the need for change;
that business as usual was no longer acceptable.
Natural resource agencies correctly perceived
that they lacked the confidence of the diverse
publics, since they seemed to be in perpetual
conflict with them. When agencies perceived
that the loyalties of their own employees might
be divided, it was a bitter pill to swallow. When
Jeff DeBonis, a former Forest Service employee
formed the Association of Forest Service Em-
appeared that were interested in natural resources for reasons other than their strictly utilitarian uses. These were “environmentalists” and
their perspective flew under the banner of John
Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club.
The emergence of this new group resulted in
conflicts over the best use of our public lands.
“Environmentalists” are traditionally urban and
have livelihoods little connected to commodity
uses on government lands. Indeed, their principle use of public lands has been as playgrounds
where they can escape the stresses of crowded
urban environments. Whereas they have pictured commodity uses as destructive, they have
viewed their amenity uses of the land as benign.
After all, mountain bikers can pass through a
forest tract and, afterwards, look over their
shoulders and see the land unchanged. On the
other hand, loggers can work in that forest tract
ployees for Environmental Ethics, and subsequently organized Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, agencies knew it was
time for a change.
The United States Forest Service was the first
institution to break this hopeless cycle of conflict, and seek change. Under the rubric of “New
Perspectives,” they underwent a very public self
analysis which spanned a three-year period.
What emerged from this exhaustive appraisal
of their past was a concept they named “ecosystem management.” Ecosystem management
has many definitions but most agree that it argues for the stewardship of commodities, amen-
for an equal period of time and see the land
visibly altered after their labors. Partially because of this, the conflicts have been explained
ities, and biological diversity. This rallying theme
of the Forest Service was quickly picked up by
1 This essay is adapted from Knight (1995).
471
This content downloaded from 73.180.25.158 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 02:02:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
472 LEOPOLD AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT * Knight J. Wildl. Manage. 60(3):1996
outdoor recreationists, who are more clever than
other state and federal agencies, from the Decows and more numerous than chainsaws? This
partment of Defense to the Colorado Division
of Wildlife. By its wide and ready acceptance,
will require discipline and a sense of cooperation
it was apparent that the Forest Service had struck
and community among us all.
a deep nerve, one whose connections penetratedIf an immediate and broad acceptance of ecoto the very heart of human-land relations. system management is where our story conThis new concept, however, was in realitycluded,
a
it would indeed have a happy ending.
half-century old. It was developed by Aldo LeoWe would have finally reached the point where
pold and was called the “land ethic.” Leopold
we need to be; humans living as part of the land
(Flader and Callicott 1991:212) captured its esand not apart from it. Humans enjoying the
sence when he wrote:
fruits of a landscape that can sustain forever,
commodities, amenities, and biological diver”Conservation is a protest against destrucsity.
tive land use. It seeks to preserve both the
Regretfully, I do not think we are anywhere
utility and beauty of the landscape.”
near that aspired endpoint. And it is largely due
In writing this, Leopold acknowledged the unto the enormous amount of baggage that exists
contestable: humans being able to extract com-from decades of conflict between commodity
modities as well as enjoy the amenity values
and amenity users, from agencies and instituassociated with rural and wild places. But, en-tions that strayed from the concept of stewardcouragingly, ecosystem management also placesship, from the belief that human uses must be
the maintenance of biodiversity on equal footplaced above land health.
ing with commodities and amenities, which, In order to truly practice ecosystem manageheretofore, have dominated our uses of publicment, we need a new set of ethics and a new
set of scientific standards. The ethics need to be
lands. Because ecosystem management allows
for commodity and amenity uses, as well as the
something other than humans having dominion
maintenance of biodiversity, it is not an excluover earth. Once we change our attitude to the
sionary approach. Therefore, it is at once in
land from asking “what good are you to me?”
conflict with the traditional combatants who have
to one that demonstrates respect for the land
clobbered each other for the exclusive use of
that nurtures us, a land that provides essential
our public lands: the wise use movement, the ecosystem functions which we degrade or ignore
Sierra Club, the commodity industries, and the at our own risk, we will have created a more
outdoor recreationists. These groups are just be- appropriate relationship with the land. Leopold
ginning to realize that ecosystem management (1966:x) anticipated our need for a more fitting
welcomes them all to the land, but in a respon- ethical relationship to the land when he wrote:
sible fashion with limits on the amount and type
of use.
Because ecosystem management includes the
protection of native biodiversity as a goal, natural resource managers must now learn how to
“We abuse land because we regard it as a
commodity belonging to us. When we see land
as a community to which we belong, we may
begin to use it with love and respect.”
manage natural communities, assemblages of The scientific standards need to be something
species, indeed, the vast majority of wild life.2 other than managing a handful of important
Outdoor recreation has the capability of altering species, whether it be economically valuable
native biodiversity, just as do logging and live- Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) or threatstock grazing if carried to excess. It is, therefore, ened peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus). We
incumbent upon land managers to steward pub- need to adopt a new science whose principles
lic land so our natural heritage is protected. This embrace ecological processes and emphasize
will not be easy. To the degree that we were biological communities and landscapes defined
unable or unwilling to manage for sustainable at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. The
uses of timber and grass, how can we manage explosive growth of conservation biology suggests that land stewards now have a scientific
discipline which captures the necessary ingre2 I use wild life (two words) in the same sense that
dients for managing natural resources. Leopold
Leopold used wild life (two words) in his earlier writings. Wild life connotes “life in the wild” as opposed
(1996:177) was concerned with the focus on just
to wildlife (one word) which has come to mean the
a few species and warned:
few species on which, historically, wildlife management has focused.
“The last word in ignorance is the man who
This content downloaded from 73.180.25.158 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 02:02:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J. Wildl. Manage. 60(3):1996 LEOPOLD AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT * Knight 473
er and Callicott 1991:302) had this in mind when
says of an animal or plant: ‘What good is it?’
he wrote:
If the land mechanism as a whole is good,
then every part is good, whether we under-
“The objective (of wildlife education) is to
teach the student to see the land, to under-
stand it or not.”
Ecosystem management will require a dif-
stand what he sees, and enjoy what he understands… Perhaps the most important of
these purposes is to teach the student how to
ferent type of environmental organization. We
need groups that practice community-based
conservation, not those that believe conflict and
put the sciences together in order to use them.
All the sciences and arts are taught as if they
rising drives. We need groups, like The Nature were separate. They are separate only in the
Conservancy, that strive for working partner- classroom.”7
ships to protect landscapes, including its comFinally, ecosystem management will require
modity and amenity uses, and its natural herithat publics understand limits will be placed on
tage. Leopold (Flader and Callicott 1991:342)
all uses of the land. There are too many people
had the traditional environmental organization
to do otherwise. Because people care about wild
in mind when he wrote:
life and vibrant, dynamic landscapes, land stew-
turmoil are to be encouraged for successful fund-
“These people call themselves conserva- ards can use the “power of the resource” to
tionists, and in one sense they are, for in the educate people about their impacts on wild life
past we have pinned that label on anyone who and to accept and respect limits placed on their
loves wildlife, however blindly… The basicactivities. I suspect Leopold (Flader and Callifallacy in this kind of ‘conservationist’ is thatcott 1991:337) was thinking of these publics when
it seeks to conserve one resource by destroying he penned:
another.”
“I am trying to teach you that this alphabet
of ‘natural objects’ (soils and rivers, birds and
We need changes in our natural resources
agencies. These groups will not have heard the
beasts) spells out a story, which he who runs
message from ecosystem management if they
may read-if he knows how. Once you learn
think the answer is to exclude commodity users
to read the land, I have no fear of what you
from the land and let amenity users hold sway
will do to it, or with it. And I know many
for the next century. We are sadly mistaken if
pleasant things it will do to you.”
we think that outdoor recreation is benign, for
So, what to do? As we conclude this century,
it is not. It, like any commodity use, can disrupt
and prepare to begin a new millennium, we
wild lands and, unregulated, create serious enshould devote time to a serious discussion of how
vironmental degradation. Leopold (Flader and
we can do better. We need to honestly appraise
Callicott 1991:316) wrote:
our past and learn from it, showing determi”Lop-sided conservation is encouraged by
nation not to repeat mistakes which led us to
the fact that most Bureaus and Departments
our present impasse. Institutions, such as uniare charged with the custody of a single reversities, government agencies, and nongovernsource, rather than with the custody of the
mental organizations should not be denigrated
land as a whole. Even when their official titles
for they serve as powerful leverage institutions
denote a broader mandate, their actual inter- in the transition of a society that takes its enests and skills are commonly much narrower.” vironment seriously. Leopold (1966:183) captured the ethos of those concerned with natural
Our universities need to change. Ecosystem
management will require revised university
resources when he wrote:
curricula that include courses in environmental
ethics, ecological restoration, landscape ecology,
human dimensions, and conservation biology.
And, most importantly, we need an educational
system that teaches students to read the land.
To recognize that human histories have shaped,
altered, and created the natural histories. That
humans are part of the landscape, have always
been so, and that, if managed, do not have to
be viewed as destructive agents. Leopold (Flad-
“One of the penalties of an ecological ed-
ucation is that one lives alone in a world of
wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land
is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must
either harden his shell and make believe that
the consequences of science are none of his
business, or he must be the doctor who sees
the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told
otherwise.
This content downloaded from 73.180.25.158 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 02:02:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
474 LEOPOLD AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT * Knight J. Wildl. Manage. 60(3):1996
Perhaps Aldo Leopold (Flader and Callicott
1991:345-346) provided the best guidance we
may hope for with these words:
“I have no illusions about the speed or accuracy with which an ecological conscience
can become functional. It has required 19
centuries to define decent man-to-man con-
should not worry too much about anything
except the direction in which we travel.”
LITERATURE CITED
FLADER, S. L., AND J. B. CALLICOTT, EDITORS. 1991.
The River of the Mother of God and other essays
by Aldo Leopold. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wis. 384 pp.
KNIGHT, R. L. 1995. Ecosystem management and
duct and the process is only half done; it may
Aldo Leopold. Rangelands 17:182-183.
take as long to evolve a code of decency for LEOPOLD, A. 1966. A sand county almanac. Oxford
man-to-land conduct. In such matters we
Univ. Press, New York, N.Y. 269 pp.
INCREASES IN MOOSE, CARIBOU, AND WOLVES FOLLOWING
WOLF CONTROL IN ALASKA
RODNEY D. BOERTJE, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK 99701, USA
PATRICK VALKENBURG, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK 99701, USA
MARK E. MCNAY, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK 99701, USA
Abstract: Short-term studies in our study area and southeast Yukon have previously documented substantial
increases in moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) following wolf (Canis lupus) control. To
provide long-term information, we present a 20-year history beginning autumn 1975 when precontrol wolf
density was 14 wolves/1,000 km2. Private harvest and agency control kept the late-winter wolf density 5580% (X = 69%) below the precontrol density during each of the next 7 years. Wolf numbers subsequently
recovered in 54 years in most of the study area and increased further to between 15 and 16 wolves/1,000
km2 during a period of deep snowfall winters. The post-hunt moose population increased rapidly from 183
to 481 moose/1,000 km2 during the 7 years of wolf control (finite rate of increase, X, = 1.15) and increased
more slowly during the subsequent 12 years (X, = 1.05) reaching a density of 1,020 moose/1,000 km2 by
1994. The Delta caribou herd increased rapidly during wolf control (X, = 1.16), more slowly during the
subsequent 7 years (Xr, = 1.06), then declined for 4 years (X, = 0.78) from a peak density of 890 caribou/
1,000 km2. This decline coincided with declines in 2 adjacent, low-density herds (240-370 caribou/1,000
km2). These caribou declines probably resulted from the synergistic effects of adverse weather and associated
increases in wolf numbers. Reduced caribou natality and calf weights were associated with adverse weather.
Wolf control was reauthorized to halt the Delta herd’s decline in 1993. Similar subarctic, noncoastal systems
without effective wolf control have supported densities of 45-417 moose/1,000 km2 (a = 148, n = 20), 100
500 caribou/1,000 km2, and 2-18 wolves/1,000 km2 (f = 9, n = 15) in recent decades. In our 20-year history,
7 initial winters of wolf control and 14 initial years of favorable weather apparently resulted in 19 years of
growth in moose, 14 years of growth in caribou populations, and a high average autumn wolf density after
control ended (12 wolves/1,000 kmi). Benefits to humans included enjoyment of more wolves, moose, and
caribou and harvests of several thousand additional moose and caribou than predicted if wolf control had
not occurred. We conclude from historical data that controlling wolf populations, in combination with
favorable weather, can enhance long-term abundance of wolves and their primary prey, and benefits to
humans can be substantial.
J. WILDL. MANAGE. 60(3):474-489
Key words: Alaska, Alces alces, Canis lupus, caribou, harvest, moose, predator-prey relationships, Rangife
tarandus, weather, wolf, wolf control.
control programs have been initiated in Alaska
Wolf predation can and often does reduce
where humans desired elevated moose or carithe abundance of primary ungulate prey (Berbou populations; however, most programs were
gerud 1980, Gasaway et al. 1983, 1992; Bergeterminated after 1 or 2 winters for a variety of
rud and Snider 1988, Van Ballenberghe and
Ballard 1994, Adams et al. 1995). Several Alaska
political and scientific reasons (Gasaway et al.
1983:44-45, 1992; Harbo and Dean 1983, BalDepartment of Fish and Game (ADF&G) wolf
This content downloaded from 73.180.25.158 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 02:02:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Integrated Environmental Planning
James K. Lein
Copyright © 2003 by Blackwell Publishing
CHAPTER 9
Ethics, Conflict, and
Environmental Planning
Environmental planning has been characterized
as a decision-making process where the planner
attempts to achieve a sustainable balance between
human needs and environmental protection. This
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment