This occurred to me today. These two goals are counterproductive.

Environmentalists want to protect the environment. I reread a post I made about Ecuador’s Constitution. It’s about Aldo Leopold’s land ethic and Article 1 of the Ecuadorian Constitution:

“Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.  Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies.”

Well, today I saw a reference to Article 25 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

So, do you see the contradiction? How do we honor both at the same time? Now add a growing global population.

Ask Not What Your Earth Can Do For Your Aging, Ask What Your Aging Can For The Earth

My goal with this blog post is to examine the intersection of ecological, environmental concerns with the aging process and experience. I will cover several specific issues to illustrate the intersection by:

1. Providing a rationale for why environmental issues are as important as economic issues for well being in later life.

2. Providing examples of how older adults have engaged in stewardship and conservation practices.

3. Remembering the role of nature and human activity in creating vulnerability and risk in the lives of older adults – and what that means to us in our society.

The Earth Day ”event” is going through it’s own aging process, I say event only to emphasize that while the one-day event is necessary to serve as reminder and anniversary, but it is not sufficient to capture the energy and activism that is needed to carry-on what is needed in order to give substance to sustainability -

(“sustainability” – yet another term or phrase in danger of becoming trivial and overused and thus hallow – is there such a thing as “The Banality of Sustainability”?; But here is good news – may I recommend that article by Thomas Dietz, Eugene Rosa, and Richard York, (2009), “Environmentally Well-Being: Rethinking sustainability as the relationship between human well-being and environmental impacts” Human Ecology Review (16,1, pp. 114-123). This is a great article that advances the measurement and the reality of the connection between humans and environmental concerns. Please read it to gain a sense of scientific understanding and a good dose of common sense.

Yes, Earth Day itself is a nice reminder – a symbolic gesture – to feel good at least, in one day, about all things GREEN . But after the one day, there is always the potential for slipping back into the world of the human limbic system, as is the center of the universe.

The Earth Day event has also been aging – (almost 40 years old! – depending on which anniversary you wish to take) is this regard; the concerns for the environment and the movement itself has (have) both gone through a period of maturity and metamorphosis, and it is only fitting that we re-examine the gerontological and some historical aspects of the human ecological perspective. Many people have their own touchstone moment or benchmark to identify with as inspiration to protect and conserve natural resources and maintain the ecosystem viability and health. In the U.S., some find inspiration going back to Henry David Thoreau who lived on the shores of the pond for two years starting in the summer of 1845. His account of the experience was recorded in Walden; or, Life in the Woods, while others might find affinity with the experiences and works of John Muir (21 April 1838 – 24 December 1914).

For others, it was the book, A Sand County Almanac (1949) written by American ecologist and environmentalist Aldo Leopold. Describing the land around Leopold’s home in Sauk County, Wisconsin and his thoughts on developing a “land ethic.” The collection of essays is considered to be a landmark book in the American conservation movement.

For others, it was the book Silent Spring written by Rachel Carson and published by in 1962. The book is widely credited with helping launch the environmental movement.

I have read these books and would agree that all have had an impact. But the most immediate influence to think “ecologically” was actually based more on a photograph that was taken from space and I remember having a poster of the photograph on my wall

(although it had to compete with Raquel Welch from the movie “One Million Years, B.C.”)

 during the formative years of high school – and having the epiphany of the “bigger picture” and how it was important to make sure that the earth stayed “healthy” for all of our sakes (I mean for us now, not for Raquel Welch – back then).

So, back to Earth Day.

Okay, here is one of the cohort moments – you know – the old “what were you doing?” (‘where were you?’) on April 22, 1970.

Can you remember?

Well, for some of the readers of this blog– 1970 might as well be a year as far away as the year 1929 (stock market crash – onset of Great Depression) is to the baby boomers (in other words – in the history books, not in my “scrapbook”).

But for many boomers, they can remember “it” (and actually 1970 is the year picked to benchmark this topic – knowing full well, the many events and issues led up to April 22, 1970) – and I remember distinctly having a major blowout with my father over the what Earth Day represented (he thought it was more of the “hippie movement trying to bring down the good ole USofA); I the ideological one, but also young man of the outdoors, thought it made sense, especially having grown up in southern Louisiana where there was a lot of problems in “Sportsman’s Paradise” with air and water pollution – but more on that later.

I also remember sewing a flag onto my requisite jean jacket with the “ecology” sign in the flag (instead of the stars)- it was green and my father turned red when he saw the “disrespect” for the flag. I was told “to get rid of it” or I could spend my days and nights living outside in the “trees.” I sold out and went with having a roof over my head.

But that did not stop me from reading more about ecology and the environment. I have to admit that it was the book, A Sand County Almanac (1949) written by Aldo Leopold, that served as the hook into the literature and basically inspired me to look beyond high school and get a college degree in: {believe it or not} Wildlife Science with a Forestry minor (you just never know where you will end up – like being a professor in gerontology). But there is a story to that too – but later – in another blog. The point is that for a good portion of my life – the importance of natural resources, and then into the past 25 years of academics – I have always wanted to build a bridge between aging and the natural environment.

Today both of my parents would have a different attitude about protecting environmental resources – and so do I. I guess you can say we both “grew up” with a more mature perspective. Much like Earth Day. And a lot has happened since 1970. The movement, the cause, the rationale, and the purpose has been changed and modified and in some aspects has imploded upon itself – and fragmented into many splinters. For example, I am in agreement with Jeffrey Foss (2009) “Beyond Environmentalism” who states his case that although he “has always loved nature, I am not an environmentalist.” Foss (2009) argues for a philosophy of nature to guide our way into the future, which is more attuned to a human ecological approach than just “the” environment. I am always reminded of Bronfenbrenner’s comment of losing perspective on the INTERACTION of humans and their environments by focusing on one or the other – so that in this case environmentalism may capture the trappings of the study of the “sty with the pig left out.” “Environmentalism” has taken on political and ideological baggage along the way, which has both energized and detracted from the core value of “wisdom” – and the science – when interacting with the fabric of life itself – whether that is your backyard or the planetary ecosystem(s) (see also Mathew Humphrey {2002} – Preservation Versus People? – Nature, Humanity, and Political Philosophy). For example, the entire environmental movement has been taken to task for being too sanctimonious, elite, and downright “anti-human.” Some see environmentalism as primarily about doomsday politics and a tactic to throwback all of our “progress” into some barbaric Stone Age era. Although I do not agree with much of what Steven Hayward (2009) has to say in his interpretation of a plethora of books on the environmental movement, I do respect his opinion as a needed counterweight in the ongoing discourse of environmentalism. Hayward (2009) thinks it is time for a “reformation” in the green movement to help balance the dreariness and the “green fatigue” that he claims has set in. For example, Hayward points to books like In The World Without Us by Alan Weisman as Exhibit A for stacking the deck of nature OVER humans. If Hayward thinks that book is “negative”, I wonder would he would think of “The Earth Without Us: What Legacy Will Humans Leave in the Rocks?” by Jan Zalasiewicz (2008)? It’s one thing to think of long, stringy Kudzu-like vegetation taking over the planet after we are “gone”, but to then about the “human stratum” in the rocks (after we are long gone) is a whole different level.

I think critics like Hayward have their points, but in the end there is something deeper that is an issue from within themselves – it is something that troubles them – these critics – and I think it has to do with hubris – and the lack of humility. Some people want to hang on the paradigm that see and will always have  humans above – and aloft – and exempt from ecological principles. And any attempt to highlight – or emphasize – or discuss “limits” or “consequences” or “impact” pushes the buttons of people who want to believe (still) that humans – and more specifically, I suppose, Americans, are NOT bound to these principles because we are “different” or special – or “chosen.”

When taking that viewpoint – the planet is seen as temporary, tentative, ripe for the picking, and subject to profiteering…because this EARTH is just a way station, a pit stop along the road – to something grander – and better – beyond and after – this life. I have often thought about the saying, ‘No one has ever washed their rental car’ – to the effect that – why so that? – You don’t own it, you are renting it! – Same line of thinking with the planet – why invest in something, when you are going to depart from it anyway? You can trash the hotel room and then leave – to go home.

But the fact – or the blunt and direct possibility, the very high probability – that this may be IT; this is what we got and there is no other EARTH, that this is our calling to be stewards of this planet and that is our destiny and our spiritual duty and our scientific obligation and our ethical responsibility – it what should be driving our behavior and our values toward “our home.”

SO, this is where I go rogue – this is where I would disagree (but not necessarily part company – because I want to state my case and rationale and then stay in dialogue with those of different opinion{s}) with those who would believe the following:

1. Environmental concerns, consciousness, and activism are for young people. Older people should just stay on the sidelines – and stay inert – and benign.

2. It’s environment versus the economy.

3. I have lived a long –hard life and earned my stripes. I am entitled to what is owed to me – whether that is my car, my yard, my this and my that. Age gives me the right to take – and its about time, I’ve been giving all my life, now its my turn to “get.”

4. Environmentalism is simply an ideology and an agenda of extremists.

5. The only green that matters in the lives of older people is that kind of green associated with money (entitlements, pension, Social Security, paycheck, equity in home, assets, stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. etc.)

But I think a healthy debate and dialogue and reexamination is good for any “movement” and especially if it can (and it should) be bolstered by the very best and current of scientific findings to address the issues). Agreed – global warming is an important – and critical issue, but like a lot of things – IT (like there is only one thing that matters) dominates and overshadow all else – to the detriment of a thousand other issues that we face day-to-day. Yeah, I know – if the average global temps go up (and stay up) none of this will matter anyway (including blogging about it) – but then again, I have seen over the many years – humans go chasing the “rabbit” of the green cause du jour – only to burn out or fade away – or simply move on the “next” IT thing.

It’s cliché – but Earth Day should be everyday – and in everyway.

But we shall take the event – the day – as a catalyst for this blog posting on what many might find as a non-intersect: Aging and the Environment.

Let me state for the record – I have always liked the term “stewardship” over environmentalism. I guess I see myself as more an agrarian idealist and pragmatic “farmer” that would NOT want to live in the wild or the city – rather in the Arcadian “middle-ground.” And so, with this one exception, (in relation to the typical subjective/non-peer-reviewed blogging material), I want to bring in my own scholarship (traditional?) which has addressed the history and the status of the intersect between aging and the environment with a publication in (Wright & Lund) 2000 – titled “Gray and Green: Stewardship and Sustainability in an Aging Society” in Journal of Aging Studies, 14(3), 229-249. In that article, I noted that the history of aging and the environment (to that point in the year 2000) had a “few spikes of activity over the past 30 years coupled with vast distances of dormant activity” (most notably with a few publications by AARP, H.R. Moody, and then with the work of Stanley Ingman (1995). But in the year 2000, it was noted that the issue of environmental issues (sustainability) and aging were bound to become a major concern, especially in light of what I think is the most important filter – framework – and lens – to view the prospect of increasing life expectancy (living longer) in a world of finite resources associated with the “natural infrastructure.”

When I began to examine the intersection of aging issues and “the environment’ in the late 1980’s – I can assure you that the only environment that seem to matter to most of the mainstream gerontologists was the “built/physical environment” of the nursing home. The natural environment (with a few exceptions) was not even a primary topic of concern.

What? You mean our environment is going through senescence? Hmmm, you could say that, but no, not quite what I had in mind.

Okay, you mean when “old folks can recycle stuff at their retirement homes? – Warmer, but not there yet.

What I mean – and what I hope to highlight in this posting is a true calling for all of those in the aging mode – those who see maturity and responsibility as the same value and ethic – to consider that your earth needs you {as the engaged older citizen} as both a parent and as a grandparent for the sake of the future. I have proposed before and I propose again:

Aging must consider the expression of stewardship – and not simply and only ownership – or entitle-ship.

And there is no need to get paralyzed or zombified over the LARGE SCOPE ecological of the issues, because a lot of people cannot fathom the time frame of what is at stake, so I personally operate under the recommendation by Farber (1999); it’s manageable, doable, and realistic in our temporal constraints – even if you live as a supercentenarian;

“A stewardship ethic does not require giving heavy weight to the intense of far distant generations; it is enough if we are determined to maintain out global inheritance largely intact during our children’s lives, leaving it to them to apply the same ethic to their successors. If we fulfill our responsibility to the next generation will be provided for without the necessity of an unrealistic emphasis on the far future as we make our own decisions. Like runners in a relay race, we may be best when we concentrate on passing the baton to the next runner, leaving the rest to the race to the succeeding runners” (p. 160).

And a BIG caution/caveat: we need to be aware of “environmental generational amnesia” which is the potential process whereby people take the natural environment they encounter in childhood as the norm against which to measure environmental degradation in later life:

“…the crux here is that with each ensuing generation, the amount of environmental degradation increases, but each generation takes the amount as the norm, as the nondegraded condition. The upside is that each generation starts afresh, unencumbered mentally by the environmental mistakes and misdeeds of previous generations. The downside is that each of us can have difficulty understanding in a direct, experiential way that nature as experienced in our childhood is not the norm, but already environmental degraded” (see Kahn, 1999; p. 7).

I. Providing a rationale for why environmental issues are as important as economic issues for well being in later life.

I would like to begin this blog section with what I consider as one of the most important statements ever made about the connection between aging issues and the environment. The excerpt is from an article written by Bruce Tonn, Greg Waidley, and Carl Petrich (2001) in the journal – Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(6), 851-876, “The Ageing US Population and Environmental Policy.”

“Conflicts about environmental policy within generations of older persons and between older persons and young generations already exist and may escalate as older persons seek both to protect themselves from environmental risks and enjoy environmental amenities and financial security. It is argued that environmental protection will eventually prevail over economic concerns, not only because current support for the environment is high and increasing among generations of soon to be older Americans but also because the prospect of substantially increased life spans will lead people to act more actively to reduce environmental risks and enhance the surrounding environments where they will live.” (p. 851).

Let me be clear – and re-emphasize – what was just said here. The motivation – the rationale – the impetus – the catalyst – for WHY environmental issues should (or would) be a concern for the aging process is directly and succinctly stated with this premise in the excerpt above:

“…Increased life spans will lead people to act more actively to reduce environmental risk and enhance the surrounding environments where they live.”

In other words: Why live longer in life – if the world you are living in is deteriorating – or detrimental – to your health and well-being? Would not humans who plan on living longer want to make sure (and here we are appealing to yes – I can say it– self-interest) that the “other infrastructure” of natural resources (air, water, land, food, etc.) is not only sustaining the quality of a longer lived life, but also has the same benefits for future generations that would follow?

You would think that with all the effort placed and targeted for “anti-aging” in this country, there would also be the concomitant amount of focus and activity to assure that the “non-aging” – those now long-lived – and all of the super centenarians would want to have something to live for and something decent and healthy to live IN for the all of the years that were gained with increasing life expectancy.

Now you may see the future as where aging has ended {or the End of Aging} (yeah! – victory – we did it), and that we can all live for hundreds of years – and we can celebrate more time and more “life” on this planet. Well, I am happy for you, but even Mr. Spock put one and one together with the Vulcan blessing of: “Live long and prosper.” That is, may you live long and prosper – with the kicker of prosper or prosperity (which should not NOT just reflect pecuniary properties) – which added the dimension of quality in life, well-being (eudaemonia) and of a healthy state as you “live long.”

I believe we have arrived at the lessons learned from “be careful what you wish for” in this sense, that living longer in the state of aging (or in Aubrey de Grey’s world – not) while confronting the challenges of not having a place “fit to live in” {I can’t imagine gaining ten more years of life but having to exist in a hermetically sealed “bunker.” It is indeed an important lesson that an aging society and having an environmental policy in place for the betterment of life lived not only makes sense – it also makes life worth living for when it is longer. Of course, it is also possible that environmental degradation can also lead to a stagnation of gains in average life expectancy (ALE) – and in some cases – be a major factor for a reversal in ALE (more on this later).

I end this introduction section with one more quote from Tonn et al (2001) to add to the equation on this topic of WHY aging individuals should be (and are) invested in environmental quality; it has to do with an increased opportunity to see the fruits of one’s labor is seeing and experiencing the gains in environmental quality due to actions taken earlier on in the life course (even in mid-life):

“…longer life spans will allow many people to experience the outcomes of their decisions about the environment. Many problems which may appear to be 40-50 years in the future will actually be within our purview of living generations. Their neglect of these problems will affect their futures. Conversely, their investments today to solve longer-term problems will actually benefit themselves. Thus, the prospect of ageing will have a powerful effects upon environmental policies in the USA.” (p. 867).

I hope so.

II. Providing examples of how older adults have engaged in stewardship and conservation practices.

For a look at the value of native ecologies and issues of aging, please see Wisdom of the Elders: Honoring Sacred Native Visions of Nature by David Suzuki and Peter Knudtson (1992), and for a more current review I will highlight a recent publication of Public Policy & Aging Report (Spring 2008) – Volume 18, Number 2, Authors: Karl Pillemer, Linda P. Wagenet, Harry R. Moody, W. Andrew Achenbaum, Kathleen Sykes, Tracey Manning, Patricia A. Campbell, Barbara J. Schmeckpepper, Paula L. Dressel, Gordon Walker – which covered the following topics:

* Taking Action: Environmental Volunteerism and Civic Engagement by Older People

* Environmentalism as an Aging Issue

* From “Green Old Age” to “Green Seniors”: A Synoptic History of Elders and Environmentalism

* To Endow Every Child

* Gray + Green = Win/Win for Local Communities

I would also recommend the EPA’s Aging Initiative Website at www.epa.gov/aging. The website provides a wealth of information about the Agency’s efforts to protect the environmental health of older persons.

And also – the site at AARP: http://www.aarp.org/research/reference/publicopinions/bulletin_going_green.html

and also:

Environmental Alliancefor Senior Involvement 

http://www.easi.org/

I would finally like to highlight the role of land trusts primarily through conservation easements. The group I wish to identify is the Ozark Regional Land Trust (www.orlt.org) and the work of one individual at 92 years of age: Mary Jane Fritsch (of Eureka Springs, Arkansas). The following is an excerpt from the full report found in PDF format at: http://www.orlt.org/publications/publications.htm

Oak Hill Wildlife Area: Preserving Land and Community

Roots in the land do not run much deeper than 92- year-old Mary Jane Fritsch’s. Her family settled in the Oak Hill area north of Eureka Springs in the 1880s. Mary Jane grew up on the farm in an era when living on the land meant you grew it, made it, picked it, hunted it and butchered it. If you were going to survive and prosper you had to know the land, the trees, the critters, the plant medicines, and the nature of things. Mary Jane’s family was spread around the hills and owned hundreds of acres.

Mary Jane had a vision of preserving a portion of this land. Over the years, three properties have been donated to ORLT totaling more than 150 acres, one of which includes the Oak Hill Grange historic building. Fourteen of these acres are protected by conservation easement. The Oak Hill Grange building has been converted to a museum, with a “Franklin Township Then and Now,” photograph exhibit intended to preserve the region’s rich cultural history. Mary Jane’s vivid stories of a long and full life in the hills remind us of where we came from. She still has dreams for the future, including the establishment of a trail that will allow visitors to make a full four-hour circle around the perimeter of the Oak Hill Wildlife Area. Mary Jane and others are working with the residents of the adjacent Holiday Island retirement community to complete this project.

III. Remembering the role of nature and human activity in creating vulnerability and risk in the lives of older adults – and what that means to us in our society.

I find the purpose and mission of the Ozark Regional Land Trust to be well balanced as it leads the way to – “balance the benefits of human development with preserving our natural heritage.” And yet, we also need to recognize that the environment can be the source of natural disasters and in tandem with human ecological impacts and modifications – the result can be severe risk and vulnerability that leads to higher levels of morbidity and mortality. I would highly recommend the work of Eric Klinenberg (author of Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago); publication by the EPA – “Proceedings of the Aging Americans: Impacts on Ecology and Environmental Quality Workshop (2004); and the issue of Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 111, No. 12 – on Elder Health and Environmental Sciences; Public Policy and Aging Report Spring 2006 – Volume 16, Number 2 – Authors: Thomas A. Glass, Eric Klinenberg, Nancy Wilson, Harry R. Moody, Melissa Tracy, Sandro Galea;

* Disasters and Older Adults: Bringing a Policy Blindspot into the Light

* Before the Flood: What Policymakers Can Learn from the Great Chicago Heat Wave

* Hurricane Katrina: Unequal Opportunity Disaster

* The Ethics of Evacuation

* Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression Among Older Adults after a Disaster: The Role of Ongoing Trauma and Stressors

And see “Spatial Patterns of natural hazards mortality in the United States” by Kevin Border and Susan Cutter (2008). International Journal of Health Geographics, 7:64).

But to me, the worst of the worst – is the national disgrace that still haunts the country – was the impact of Hurricane Katrina on an AMERICAN city – New Orleans. I am in full agreement with the assessments and proposals in the book – Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina (Struggles to Reclaim, Rebuild, and Revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast} (2009) edited by Robert D. Bullard and Beverly Wright. There is NO doubt that there are racial disparities that exist and it is a disgrace to this country that New Orleans has been an example of geographic vulnerability because of income and race. Please see When the Levees Broke – A Requiem In Four Acts (Documentary) (2006) – Spike Lee

(From Amazon.Com) – Director Spike Lee’s When the Levees Broke is the definitive document of the unmitigated disaster that was, and is, Hurricane Katrina. It’s also a contemporary manifestation of an ancient tradition: an oral history, told by the people who lived it, with no narration and only the occasional use of archival cable and broadcast news footage in addition to Lee’s own film. And a grim tale it is, an “American tragedy” subtitled “a Requiem in Four Acts,” each of them about an hour long (“Act V,” appearing on the third of the set’s three discs, is a lengthy epilogue with new material not included in the original HBO broadcast) and focusing almost exclusively on New Orleans, as opposed to the Gulf Coast region in general.

But I also want us to remember the AGING factor in the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

Yes, there is the sad state of affairs with recovery and rebuilding – and it needs to change – NOW – but please do not forget that nearly half of Katrina’s victim’s were 75 and up! (the average age was 69). Most died of drowning but many died in nursing homes and in hospitals – indicating complete collapse of the social fabric and national support systems for those most in need = the elderly and the critically ill. I do not want to keep beating FEMA over the head – but this country has a long way to go if we are to realize that our own internal infrastructure for taking of care of the frail and most vulnerable – including the very old – is in state of “disaster.”

Finally, I hope that all of you will consider seeing the documentary of June Cross THE OLD MAN AND THE STORM, which focuses on 82-year-old Herbert Gettridge and his family, who she spent 18 months with.

Frontline’s description says that during that time, the family members “endure devastation, political turmoil and a painstakingly slow bureaucratic process to rebuild their homes and their lives”; Gettridge skips Mardis Gras to “instead to clear debris from his front lawn. Not one of his neighbors for blocks has returned, and he is camping out in his house without electricity, gas or water.” But his “efforts [are] deeply impacted by larger decisions about urban planning, public health, and the insurance industry, by the decisions of policymakers about federal funding for rebuilding the Gulf, and state and city plans for dispersing those monies.”

For more information see:

The Old Man and the Storm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/katrina/

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=49942359127&ref=mf

See also this video:

and Senate Committee on Aging report:

http://aging.senate.gov/issues/emergency/hurricane_katrina.cfm

  So, I wish you a great and rewarding EARTH DAY 2009 – and I hope some of these issues have helped to expand your awareness on the intersect between aging and environment. I know economic and entitlement issues typically dominate the headlines in the aging sector – but environmental issues – including the concepts of impact and risk – need to be on equal footing in any discussion of an aging society.

thanks, Scott D. Wright

It has been a busy news cycle.  Our economy continues to tank, the conflict in Gaza continues to rage, an unarmed man lying face down in police custody in Oakland is shot dead.  The list goes on.  Much other news, both good and bad, permeates the airwaves, print, and ether.

Faced with all this, I turn to the sports pages of the NY Times for a little distraction and find this story about a group of bow hunters whose goal is to kill 29 North American species.  It used to be 28 but just last summer the Pope and Young Club (the keeper of records relating to this quest) announced the inclusion of the Tule Elk, bringing the grand total to 29.  Killing all 29 is known as the North American Super Slam.

The Times story breathlessly relates the way the men (they seem always to be men) stalk the animals.  One of the hunters profiled described it as “a personal goal” of his to “harvest all 28 species… now 29.”  Those pursuing the Super Slam must adhere to a rigid code of conduct.  Among other things, they cannot kill an animal helpless in a trap, in deep water or snow and they cannot shoot from powered vehicles or boats, use night lights, tranquilizers, poisons.  They seek intimacy: “That’s the advantage of bow hunting,” according to a surgeon from Anchorage.  “You’re forced by the equipment you’ve chosen to spend more time with the animal.”

The code seems to contain a normative component – one cannot kill an animal in a non-sporting way.  Yet nowhere in this code, which encourages people to kill 29 different animals, is there any discussion about whether the killing itself has any moral relevance.  I find this curious.  A code mandating that one not kill animals in certain ways would seem to require antecedent consideration about whether it is right to kill the animals at all.  Certainly, no necessity exists here (one of the hunters interviewed estimated that he had spent over $400,000 pursuing the Slam).  The term “harvest” seems misplaced since the animals do not get eaten.  The entire point of the endeavor (other than fueling the taxidermy industry) appears to revolve around killing for no other reason than fun.  This raises some pressing moral questions.

I believe it safe to assume that Slam seekers would agree that the animals they hunt are sentient (otherwise, why the code of conduct?).  They would probably also agree that the animals can experience fear and suffer.  Why then would it be ethically neutral to kill them for no other reason than fun?  Does the infliction of unnecessary pain and/or ending the existence of these animals rate no consideration at all?   If so, why does the Pope and Young Club call itself a “conservation” organization?  What does it hope to conserve and why?

The club’s mission statement declares that it is dedicated to “protect[ing] the future of our bowhunting heritage” (parsing that little syntactical chestnut must wait for another day…) as well as the “conservation and welfare of habitat and wildlife.”  Should we infer then that the club views bowhunting as the sole reason for conserving nature?  And does sponsoring a quest to kill dozens of animals dovetail with a conservation ethic even thus described?

The ethics page of the P&Y website offers no answers to these questions.  It quotes Aldo Leopold’s adage that “A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than a mob of onlookers.”  The P&Y page does not mention that Leopold also said: “[T]o acquire a reputation for killing limits is a doubtful compliment, at best.”

Leopold believed that “think[ing] like a mountain” involves understanding that animals exist for purposes other than hunting fodder.  Most memorably, he declared that: “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.”  In the aggregate, I read Leopold to be saying that hunting has a place in the scheme of things but that killing for its own sake or purely for fun seems per se wrong no matter the species of the victim.

For my part, I would add that writing a puff piece about the people who do it seems little better.  And that leads me to a related issue currently awaiting cert before the Supreme Court and about which I will post in the near future: Are depictions of animal cruelty protected speech?  Stay tuned.

– David Cassuto

Aldo Leolpold on the land ethic: “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.” (A Sand County Almanac, page 224-225.)

One can write about the wildness of nature because natural selection is wild, but it is hard to write about morality in the context of nature because the way of nature – natural selection, or chance and necessity – is indifferent to morality.

Leopold tried to avoid a human-centered ethic, but he did not succeed. Preservation of the integrity, stability and beauty of nature is something humans sometimes seek because we associate them with existence. Natural selection has no such aim – no beliefs, no values, no purposes.

Natural selection is indifferent to existence and nonexistence. Humans are not. We have realized that our existence depends on the existence of the web of life of which we are part. We value that web, like we value integrity, stability and beauty, because the thought of nonexistence is so awful to us.

Integrity, stability and beauty: these are virtues or values. Philosophers have associated them with what is eternal and, therefore, transcendent. It is a strain to sustain belief that they are connected with nature or the cosmos after Darwin. It is hard to sustain belief that existence matters.

I’m not your ordinary blogger. I do this occasionally when I have free time and sufficient motivation to voice my opinion. As such, sometimes I use questionable sources as I’m about to – and only now will I commit such a heinous crime – quote Wikipedia. I have taken classes that have taught Aldo Leopold’s idea of a “land ethic” so I’m comfortable in doing this:

“In [A Sand County Almanac] he wrote that there was a need for a ‘new ethic’, an ‘ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it.’”

“The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land…[A] land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.”

“Leopold argues that the next step in the evolution of ethics is the expansion of ethics to include nonhuman members of the biotic community, collectively referred to as ‘the land.’ Leopold states the basic principle of his land ethic as, ‘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.’”

While I was learning this I could help but to think this was a little odd but not too bad idea. Personally, I think John Muir is a douchebag but I am totally on par with the way he thinks about environmentalism. Politically, it’s impractical and I would be happy with stringent air, water, and soil pollution regulations. This means I don’t agree with Leopold’s land ethic (please re-read this sentence). That’s about the extent of it for me and I will openly admit that on the issue of environmentalism I’m liberal. I really like floating down rivers, fishing, hiking, camping, and clean air. Countless flights between LAX and FCA (in Kalispell, MT) have shown me first hand that you can taste air. It’s not bullshit.

BUT, you have to draw a line somewhere. Ecuador’s new constitution is incredibly stupid. INCREDIBLY. It makes Leopold’s land ethic look conservative. The new constitution gives “Nature” the same rights as human beings.

Taken from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) website. The page is titled, “Ecuador Adopts Constitution With CELDF Right of Nature Language.”

Article 1 of the new “Rights for Nature” chapter of the Ecuador constitution reads:  “Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.  Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies.”

Seems this might not have been well thought out. Let’s focus on Nature having “the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.” How is the fisherman supposed to fish? How does the farmer pull weeds, remove crop pests, or EAT. That’s right, how do people eat meat, vegetables, or anything else including dirt? If your food has a “right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles” how do you reap what you have sown and eat dinner? Many (mostly from the left) will tell me I’m taking an idea to the extreme, but the wording allows that to happen. Don’t blame me for someone else’s crappy wording. Aldo Leopold’s land ethic was not intended to subordinate human beings to coyotes, it was intended to make them equal. The land ethic is radical by itself. But when we say that coyotes (because they’re wild animals) don’t have to respect the right of Nature the same way humans do we make ourselves subordinate to other animals in the natural kingdom and WE DON’T HAVE FOOD ANYMORE. Hell, you can’t build a house, irrigation ditch, or mudhut without violating some part of Nature’s “right to exist.” You can’t swap a mosquito, pull a weed, eat, or take medicine lest you murder some poor helpless disease.

Now lets focus on the second part of that constitutional provision: “Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies.” This means that I can sue some random housewife in Ecuador for weeding her flower garden. That’s awesome. Maybe we should have a “Save the Herpes” or “Keep AIDS” fundraiser to prevent the destruction of these beautiful members of our biotic community.

So, bottom line? Don’t go to Ecuador unless you want to sue the asshole your wife ran off with for stepping on an ant. That’ll show him! Good luck.

UPDATE: So, if you poop in nature and it destroys a micro-organism in order to promote the life of another, which micro-organism’s “right to exist” should be given more prominence? If you can poop in nature (which I’m not sure the Ecuadorian constitution allows) then you can eat. That’s somewhat encouraging.

This introduction to The Rewilding Institute’s Web site says it all when it comes to what’s happening to Wild Nature. I’d bet that conservationist Dave Foreman at least helped write this. Check out the Institute’s site.

“Earth is in the throes of a mass extinction event that is caused solely by the population explosion of six-and-a-half billion human beings.  If Nature lovers hope to minimize or stop The Big Killing, we must be bold and think big: Big in terms of space, time, and vision.

The Rewilding Institute is committed to doing whatever we can to stop The Big Killing. Our work is grounded in traditional conservation values—that Nature and species have inherent worth—and in recognition that strictly protected areas are the best tool to defend and restore wild Nature.

We stress the vital role of large carnivores in maintaining and restoring ecological health and the need for a continental-scale approach to conservation in North America.”

This is not a political blog, but I am too excited about the election to write about anything else today.  I just went surfing around the internet to find Obama’s positions on land conservation and what land conservation groups think of him being elected.  I found nothing from land conservation groups.  It’s pretty important for them to be politically neutral – I do respect that.  What I found was endorsements from Sportsmen’s groups, including the American Hunters and Shooters Association, and a fact sheet from Obama’s campaign speaking to Sportsmen.  Both make the point that Obama is good for sportsmen because he believes in protecting land, which means that there will be more land for hunting and fishing on.

I find this little google experiment very interesting.  I think it speaks to what a uniter Obama is – and that really gives me a lot of hope for the country.  From a land conservation perspective – land conservation groups do some outreach to sportsmen’s groups and they work together some.  But looking at the American Hunters and Shooters Association website sections about Land Protection and Conservation - they really make the case for conservation just as strongly and even more politically than land conservation websites like the Land Trust Alliance’s.  I am not a hunter, but I have worked with hunters and have always believed that we have common goals.  But I think I had underestimated the extent to which hunters share a land ethic with conservationists.  Too bad I don’t have plans to interview any hunters.  If you’re a hunter, reading this, can I interview you?

Big Coal has destroyed mountain after mountain in West Virginia, all to make the biggest buck possible by extracting coal from them. The group Appalachian Mountains has produce a wonderful Internet video about the pending destruction of Blair Mountain, where thousands of coal miners battled for better working conditiions nearly a century ago. To watch the video, go here: http://www.ilovemountains.org/endangered/

From a heads-up e-mail I just received is this information:

“In September of 1921, 13,000 union workers marched to Logan County, West Virginia. More than 2,000 armed deputies met them at Blair Mountain.

The battle that followed represented the biggest armed revolt in America since the Civil War, and it prompted the passage of labor laws currently in effect in the USA.

To this day, Blair Mountain, West Virginia is steeped in the cultural and political history of Appalachia. Historic markers tell the story of the confrontation, and on the battlefield the artifacts from both sides of the armed standoff still lie where they fell.

Yet all of that history is under threat — as are the beautiful hardwood forests and the mountain itself — because Big Coal has plans to blow up Blair Mountain as part of a massive mountaintop removal coal mining operation.”

Rocky Barker of The Idaho Statesman writes for today’s paper: “The Payette National Forest may ban domestic sheep grazing in areas frequented by wild bighorns in Hells Canyon and the Salmon River canyon.

The draft plan chosen by Suzanne Rainville, the supervisor of the Payette National Forest, would force several ranchers to give up grazing in the areas.”

But the draft is not a decision and the agency will give the public three months in which to submit written comments.

Barker’s story can be read at http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/508531.html

Recently, while comparing educational pursuits with another returning college student who is seeking teaching licensure in literature, I conveyed my aspirations of redirecting my career in the outdoors and environmental industry beyond a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Creative and Professional Writing and a Bachelor of Science degree in History at Bemidji State University.  Aspirations that include pursuing a writing and educating career in some aspect of the outdoors and environment in order to fulfill my personal ambition to “leave something behind” when I am no longer a physical presence in this world, something to show that I have done my part to contribute to the betterment of society.

By this, the co-ed asked if my inspirations included Aldo Leopold.  Embarrassed to admit that I was only slightly familiar with the name and what it stood for, not the man and his work, I deflected his inquisition to what my experience included, the work I was doing now, and where I hoped that would lead me.

A recent reading assignment of the essay “Thinking Like a Mountain” by Aldo Leopold for my People and the Environment course provided the opportunity to research and the life long work of Aldo Leopold, the forester, ecologist, conservationist, environmentalist, philosopher, educator, writer, fisherman, hunter, and outdoor enthusiast.

Leopold is considered by many to be the father of wildlife management and of the United States’ wilderness system.  His life’s work was influential in the development of modern environmental ethics and in the movement for wilderness preservation.  His introduction at The Aldo Leopold Foundation website begins with this quote:

“As a society, we are just now beginning to realize the depth of Leopold’s work and thinking.”

- Mike Dombeck, Chief Emeritus U.S. Forest Service, Professor of Global Environmental Management UW-Stevens Point, UW System Fellow of Global Conservation

In Leopold’s greatest written work, and the culmination of his life’s work, A Sand County Almanac, completed just prior to his death in 1948 and published postmortem, he wrote “The Land Ethic”, a chapter where he lays out his conservation plan for the human culture.  Under the Community Concept of this land ethic, Leopold wrote:

The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.

…a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.

In “Thinking Like a Mountain,” we are offered a view of a precursor to Leopold’s land ethic.  A profound moment in his life when he realizes the value of a community that includes the land, and the tragic consequences that occur when any component of that community is severed, lost, or no longer permitted to exist. 

Leopold demonstrates through his own experience the recognition of changing mindset.  The wolf as a member of the land, the natural world, must persist for the good of the overall quality of life on this planet.  The example of his killing the wolf and ultimately his realization of what has become of the wilderness without it shares the knowledge learned through the act of recklessness and disregard for the delicate balance in the ecosystem.

In short, he is warning society not to duplicate this reckless disregard on a global scale.  Our culture owes an ethical responsibility to the place that gives us life.

Readers of the blog have expressed interest in a space to explore ‘Why ?’ and ‘How best ?’ wildlife advocacy might happen.  Academics might call this inquiry “Environmental Ethics”. There are many flavors to choose from, as many as there are people talking about it.

This space asks why you value wildlife/the wild, how do you think we ought pursue its protection and why ?         

There have been many comments that get at the question of ‘Why ?’ wildlife advocacy is important.  Understanding ‘why’ can help inform ‘how’ we can best help ensure wolves, bison, entire ecosystems, etc. are protected into the future.  These values judgements are impossible to ignore and different ideas about where the protection should start can have significant bearing on how each of us lean into advocacy.

Jim Macdonald spurred off an interesting inquiry about bison advocacy that Ralph linked to here.

Another fascinating conversation started in response to Bob Jackson’s observations about Mountain Bison here which one cannot help but extend sympathy for their plight and value the way that they are.

I’ll keep my thoughts in the comments, and hope you’ll put yours there too.

Brian Ertz

The beginning of the Bible introduces us to the garden of Eden. But after reading briefly about the creation and God’s establishment of the garden, you come to a strange set of references to rivers that flowed out of the garden of Eden. (Genesis 2, verses 10-14)

 “Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold…. The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.”

Now the garden of Eden, in this way that I have introduced it, may be considered the Biblical baseline for the whole region. (1) (This biblical notion of “garden” being the original baseline, would not take into account our modern notions of “wilderness,” for example.  In the Biblical view, deserts occur when human immorality brings on drought, etc. - through God’s displeasure.  In our modern, scientific, view, there were always deserts due to climate and circulation patterns.) (2)

The theme of the land around the Jordan River, for instance, is taken up later. In the account of Abraham and his relative Lot, the two men are looking for a place to pasture their abundant flocks. They agree to separate, because “the land could not sustain them while dwelling together, for their possessions [cattle] were so great that they were not able to remain together.”(Genesis 13:6) And this is one element in what I call the Biblical land ethic that overlaps with our modern notions. The two views, Biblical and modern, are identical on this point.  The Hebrews were shepherds and cattle herdsmen. They knew specifically what the condition of the land was, since they were entirely dependent upon the land for sustenance. Even without science or proper agricultural practices, they knew instinctively whether the land could sustain them and their animals or not.  (It is a shame that with six billion people in the world today, we cannot seem to make a similar judgment about ourselves.)

What follows is another strange scripture. It says, “Lot lifted up his eyes and saw all the valley of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere – this was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah – like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt as you go to Zoar.” There are a few things that come about as a consequence of this verse. One is that, from the Biblical point of view, what is now the Dead Sea area where the lower Jordan is, was once a garden-like, or Eden-like area. When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed the land also was destroyed. (See also Psalms 107, verses 33-34) The other thing is that there are still areas of the earth that appear as Eden at one time appeared. This place, “Zoar” (in Egypt) was one of those places. It was lush and “well-watered.”

But the Biblical “land ethic” does not just involve Sodom and Gomorrah, it involves the whole face of the land. As I’ve put forward in an earlier post, when the Hebrews did what was right, God rewarded them with rain – their flocks and herds prospered, etc. When they did what was not good, God withheld the rains and made life hard for them. Even more than that, the land would “spew” the Hebrews out of their land if they continued to do wrong. Leviticus 18, verses 24-28 says:

 “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.”

The other land ethic is the land ethic put forward by Aldo Leopold, the early conservationist, who (in 1949) in an essay entitled, “The Land Ethic,” called on all of us to include the biotic world as part of our own “community.” He wrote as follows:

“The first ethics dealt with the relation between individuals; the Mosaic Decalogue is an example.  Later accretions dealt with the relation between the individual and society.  The Golden Rule tries to integrate the individual to society; democracy to integrate social organization to the individual.  There is yet no ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it.  Land, like Odysseus’ slave-girls, is still property.  The land relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations.” (3)

On the other hand, if the Biblical view really does depend on this notion of human morality as the determiner of nature’s well-being, maybe this is why sometimes it is so hard to break the strangle-hold of the human-centered view in Christian circles. The answer is always, What about people?

In times such as these, it may be good to give both views a closer look. When we try to protect wetlands with a national wetlands law, for instance, the cry from the conservative camp is always, What about property rights? Property rights are important, and they have helped society to evolve and become more complex, but they are not everything. We would do well to take Leopold’s view that we should include the land and nature as part of our own valued community with a status and with rights such as we accord to ourselves. Why shouldn’t nature have the right to propagate and continue just as much as we do?

And yet, even as we do more for nature (and the land), we should also be solving our other problems – finding ways for people’s standards of living to improve, fighting alienation in our societies, fostering peace between communities.  Why should we settle for anything less than improving the whole thing?

*******
(1) For the idea of baselines, or “shifting baselines,” especially as it relates to ocean environments, there is an interesting group online tied to that idea. See their blog at — http://scienceblogs.com/shiftingbaselines/ . (Note: This blog is no longer active. – 5/3/09.)  See the classic article – “Anecdotes and the Shifting Baselines Syndrome of Fisheries,” by Daniel Pauly in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, (1995) 10:430.

(2) There is an interesting passage in the Dead Sea Scrolls in which it seems that this Biblical view towards desert areas finally seems to change.  It says, “(Thou art Creator of) the earth and of the laws dividing it into desert and grassland…”  This is in a poem in the War Scroll, X, 11 or 12 or 13. – The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, ed. Geza Vermes (1997 edition), p. 173.  See my earlier post, “Is God in the Weather?”, for more on this issue.  I need to look at this more closely, but the promises of a land flowing with water in Israel if the Jews simply repented, seem to have been modified by the time of this verse in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

(3) “The Land Ethic,” is usually collected together with other writings by Aldo Leopold. See, A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There, by Aldo Leopold. — London: Oxford University Press, c1949, pp. 202-203.

We shall never understand the natural environment until we see it as a living organism. Land can be healthy or sick, fertile or barren, rich or poor, lovingly nurtured or bled white. Our present attitudes and laws governing the ownership and use of land represent an abuse of the concept of private property…. Today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see and nobody calls the cops.

— Paul Brooks, The Pursuit of Wilderness (1971)