Readings in Wildlife Conservation

A title like that can really get you excited, right? I found this used in a bookstore two months ago. It was a collection of essays on different aspects of conservation, compiled by The Wildlife Society from several sources, in 1974. Considering none of the essays are from more recently than 1971, and several are from the 1930s, a lot of it is out of date, but they covered a lot of bases here. And it's interesting to see what people predicted would happen over time, or what areas they felt needed greater focus, viewed from several decades on. Also, it's strange to read essays having to patiently explain carrying capacity and how it isn't a static thing in a habitat, considering that was an extremely basic idea they taught early on in my biology studies. I know it had to start somewhere as a new concept people struggled to grasp, it's just odd to see it in writing.

It isn't only research into different types of management on geese or elk. There's a lengthy section on economics, several of which address trying to determine the value of wildlife for things other than hunting or timber harvest. What's the monetary value of people being able to go to a park and watch birds? Because if you're going to argue for places like that to exist, you're probably going to have to make at least part of the pitch based on dollars.

The are other sections devoted to public relations - hey, I got into wildlife biology so I could be out in nature and not have to deal with the public! The old bait and switch. As well as policy, law enforcement, and the first section is titled "Perspectives". It deals largely with how people think about wildlife, nature, and conservation, as well as how the various authors think people ought to be thinking about those things, and how we need to get them to do so. There's even two short essays in there by Dr. Albert Schweitzer, one titled "Reverence for life" and the other "A Problem of ethics".

Given the ranging topics, it's a mixed bag in how readable or useful I found it. Some of the pieces were terribly dull and I skimmed past them. There are several where the author decries all these other people who just don't get it the way he does. Pretty much all of Aldo Leopold's writing is like that. Everyone else is screwing everything up, and why don't they get it that they should do things the way he thinks they should? Although in a piece on wildlife management in national parks, he uses the phrase, 'Fed bears become bums,' which made me laugh picturing bears riding the rails, bindle full of beans (or honey and fish) over their shoulder.

Still, as a snapshot of what people working in wildlife conservation thought was important and needed to be on the minds of others in their field, it was an interesting find.

'Science has been trying for a generation to classify hawks and owls into 'good' and 'bad' species, the 'good' being those that do more economic good than harm. It seems to me a mistake to call the issue on economic grounds, even sound ones. The basic issues transcends economics. The basic question is whether a hawkless, owl-less countryside is a livable countryside for Americans with eyes to see and ears to hear. Hawks and owls are part of a land mechanism. Shall we discard them because they compete with game and poultry? Can we assume that these competitions which we perceive are more important than the co-operations which we do not perceive?'