Conservation

views updated Jun 11 2018

Conservation

1948 ■ AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION-CONNECTICUT CHAPTER

Attn: Ray Yarmac, Secretary
Sci-Tech, Inc.
185 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Tel: (860)257-0767
E-mail: ryarmac@sce-techinc.com
Web Site: http://www.awma-nes.org/connecticut_chapter.htm
To provide financial assistance to residents of Connecticut who are interested in studying fields related to air and waste management in college.
Title of Award: Connecticut Chapter Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Air pollution; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Duration: 1 year; recipients may reapply.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to 1) seniors graduating from high schools in Connecticut who plan to enroll full time in college, and 2) Connecticut residents already enrolled full time in college. Applicants must be interested in working on a degree in science or engineering leading to careers in the environmental field, especially air pollution control or waste management. Selection is based on their proposed plan of study, transcripts, work experience, and volunteer and extracurricular activities; financial need is not considered. Deadline for Receipt: April of each year.

1949 ■ ALABAMA SPACE GRANT CONSORTIUM

c/o University of Alabama in Huntsville
Materials Science Building, Room 205
Huntsville, AL 35899
Tel: (256)824-6800
Fax: (256)824-6061 E-mail: reasonj@uah.edu
Web Site: http://www.uah.edu/ASGC
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate students at universities participating in the Alabama Space Grant Consortium who wish to prepare for a career as a teacher of science or mathematics.
Title of Award: Teacher Education Scholarship Program of the Alabama Space Grant Consortium Area, Field, or Subject: Aerospace sciences; Earth sciences; Education; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geosciences; Mathematics and mathematical sciences; Science; Space and planetary sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 10 of these scholarships were awarded. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students enrolled in or accepted for enrollment as full-time undergraduates at universities in Alabama participating in the consortium. Applicants must intend to enter the teacher certification program and teach in a pre-college setting. Priority is given to those majoring in science, mathematics, or earth/space/environmental science. Applicants should have a GPA of 3.0 or higher and must be U.S. citizens. Members of underrepresented groups in science and mathematics (minorities and women) are especially encouraged to apply. Along with their application, they must submit a 1-to 2-page statement on the reasons for their desire to enter the teaching profession, specifically the fields of science or mathematics education. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: The member universities are University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama A&M University, University of Alabama, University of Alabama at Birmingham, University of South Alabama, Tuskegee University, and Auburn University. Funding for this program is provided by NASA.

1950 ■ AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY

Attn: Department of Diversity Programs
1155 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202)872-6250
Free: 800-227-5558
Fax: (202)776-8003
E-mail: scholars@acs.org
Web Site: http://www.chemistry.org/scholars
To provide financial assistance to underrepresented minority students with a strong interest in chemistry and a desire to prepare for a career in a chemically-related science.
Title of Award: American Chemical Society Scholars Program Area, Field, or Subject: Biochemistry; Chemistry; Engineering, Chemical; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Materials research/science; Toxicology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Approximately 100 new awards are granted each year. Funds Available: The maximum stipend is $2,500 for the freshman year in college or $3,000 per year for sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to 1) college-bound high school seniors; 2) college freshmen, sophomores, and juniors enrolled full time at an accredited college or university; 3) community college graduates and transfer students who plan to study for a bachelor's degree; and 4) community college freshmen. Applicants must be African American, Hispanic/Latino, or American Indian. They must be majoring or planning to major in chemistry, biochemistry, chemical engineering, or other chemically-related fields, such as environmental science, materials science, or toxicology, and planning to prepare for a career in the chemical sciences or chemical technology. Students planning careers in medicine or pharmacy are not eligible. U.S. citizenship or permanent resident status is required. Selection is based on academic merit (GPA of 3.0 or higher) and financial need. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program was established in 1994.

1951 ■ AMERICAN INDIAN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING SOCIETY

Attn: Scholarship Coordinator
2305 Renard, S.E., Suite 200
P.O. Box 9828
Albuquerque, NM 87119-9828
Tel: (505)765-1052
Fax: (505)765-5608
E-mail: shirley@aises.org
Web Site: http://www.aises.org/highered/scholarships
To provide financial assistance and summer work experience to members of the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES) who are working on an undergraduate degree in engineering or science related to water resources or environmental fields.
Title of Award: Henry Rodriguez Reclamation Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Science; Water resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Funds Available: The stipend is $5,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed up to 3 additional years.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to AISES members who are full-time undergraduate students in engineering or science related to water resources or environmental fields. Applicants must have a GPA of 2.5 or higher and be U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Non-Indians may apply, but all applicants must submit an essay on their first-hand knowledge of Indian tribal culture, their interest in engineering or environmental studies, how that interest relates to water resource issues and needs and concerns of Indian tribes, and how they will contribute their knowledge or professional experience to a Native American community. Deadline for Receipt: June of each year. Additional Information: This program, established in 2001, is funded by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the National Water Research Institute and administered by AISES. Recipients must agree to serve an 8-to 10-week paid internship with the Bureau during the summer at a regional or area office located within the 17 western states served by the Bureau, at its Washington, D.C. headquarters, or at its Denver Technical Service Center.

1952 ■ AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY

Attn: Scholarship Coordinator
555 North Kensington Avenue
La Grange Park, IL 60526-5592
Tel: (708)352-6611
Fax: (708)352-0499
E-mail: outreach@ans.org
Web Site: http://www.ans.org/honors/scholarships
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate students who are working on a degree in engineering or science that is associated with decommissioning, decontamination, or environmental restoration aspects of nuclear power.
Title of Award: Decommissioning, Decontamination and Reutilization Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Engineering, Nuclear; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Nuclear science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students entering their junior or senior year in an engineering or science program at an accredited institution in the United States. The program must be associated with 1) decommissioning or decontamination of nuclear facilities; 2) management or characterization of nuclear waste; or 3) restoration of the environment. Applicants must be U.S. citizens and able to demonstrate academic achievement. Along with their application, they must submit a brief essay discussing the importance of an aspect of decommissioning, decontamination, and reutilization to the future of the nuclear field. Deadline for Receipt: January of each year. Additional Information: This program is offered by the Decommissioning, Decontamination and Reutilization (DD&R) Division of the ANS. Recipients must agree to join the ANS and designate the DD&R Division as 1 of their professional divisions. They must commit to participating in DD&R Division activities by attending the annual and winter meetings of the ANS and serving as a student representative at the DD&R executive committee meetings at both ANS meetings.

1953 ■ AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY

Attn: Scholarship Coordinator
555 North Kensington Avenue
La Grange Park, IL 60526-5592
Tel: (708)352-6611
Fax: (708)352-0499
E-mail: outreach@ans.org
Web Site: http://www.ans.org/honors/scholarships
To provide financial assistance to upper-division students who are interested in preparing for a career dealing with the environmental aspects of nuclear science or nuclear engineering.
Title of Award: Charles (Tommy) Thomas Memorial Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Engineering, Nuclear; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Nuclear science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students entering their junior or senior year in nuclear science, nuclear engineering, or a nuclear-related field at an accredited institution in the United States. Applicants must be interested in preparing for a career dealing with the environmental aspects of nuclear science or nuclear engineering. They must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents and able to demonstrate academic achievement. Deadline for Receipt: January of each year. Additional Information: This program is offered by the Environmental Sciences Division of the ANS. It was formerly known as the Environmental Sciences Division Scholarship.

1954 ■ AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION

Attn: Planning and the Black Community Division
122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60603-6107
Tel: (312)431-9100
Fax: (312)431-9985
E-mail: info_pbcd@planning.org
Web Site: http://www.planning.org/blackcommunity/scholarship.htm
To provide financial assistance to African American undergraduate students interested in majoring in planning or a related field.
Title of Award: Planning and the Black Community Division Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geography; Public administration; Transportation; Urban affairs/design/planning Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to full-time African American undergraduate students entering their junior or senior year. Applicants must be majoring in planning or a related field (e.g., geography, environmental sciences, public administration, transportation, or urban studies) with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. They must submit a 2-page personal statement on the importance of urban planning to the African American community and how they see themselves making a contribution to the urban planning profession. U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: October of each year. Additional Information: Information is also available from Sigmund Shipp, Hunter College, Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, 695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10021.

1955 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

1956 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

Attn: ASSE Foundation
1800 East Oakton Street
Des Plaines, IL 60018
Tel: (847)768-3441
Fax: (847)296-9220 E-mail: mrosario@asse.org
Web Site: http://www.asse.org
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate student members of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), particularly those interested in construction safety.
Title of Award: Bechtel Foundation Scholarship for Safety and Health Area, Field, or Subject: Construction; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Fires and fire prevention; Industrial hygiene; Occupational safety and health; Protective services Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $3,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to ASSE student members who are majoring in occupational safety and health or a closely-related field (e.g., safety engineering, safety management, systems safety, environmental science, industrial hygiene, ergonomics, fire science) with an emphasis on construction safety. Applicants must be full-time students who have completed at least 60 semester hours with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. As part of the selection process, they must submit 2 essays of 300 words or less: 1) why they are seeking a degree in safety, a brief description of their current activities, and how those relate to their career goals and objectives; and 2) why they should be awarded this scholarship (including career goals and financial need). Deadline for Receipt: November of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this program is provided by Bechtel Foundation.

1957 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

Attn: ASSE Foundation
1800 East Oakton Street
Des Plaines, IL 60018
Tel: (847)768-3441
Fax: (847)296-9220

E-mail: mrosario@asse.org
Web Site: http://www.asse.org
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate and graduate student members of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) from designated western states.
Title of Award: Scott Dominguez-Craters of the Moon Chapter Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Fires and fire prevention; Industrial hygiene; Occupational safety and health; Protective services Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to ASSE student members who are majoring in occupational safety and health or a closely-related field (e.g., safety engineering, safety management, systems safety, environmental science, industrial hygiene, ergonomics, fire science). First priority is given to residents within the service area of Craters of the Moon Chapter in Idaho; second priority is given to residents of ASSE Region II (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming). Special consideration is also given to 1) employees of a sponsoring organization or their dependents; 2) students who are serving their country through active duty in the armed forces or are honorably discharged; 3) former members of the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, FFA, or 4-H; 4) recipients of awards from service organizations; and 5) students who have provided volunteer service to an ASSE chapter in a leadership role. Undergraduates must have completed at least 60 semester hours with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Graduate students must have completed at least 9 semester hours with a GPA of 3.5 or higher and have had a GPA of 3.0 or higher as an undergraduate. As part of the selection process, all applicants must submit 2 essays of 300 words or less: 1) why they are seeking a degree in safety, a brief description of their current activities, and how those relate to their career goals and objectives; and 2) why they should be awarded this scholarship (including career goals and financial need). Deadline for Receipt: November of each year.

1958 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

Attn: ASSE Foundation
1800 East Oakton Street
Des Plaines, IL 60018

Tel: (847)768-3441

Fax: (847)296-9220
E-mail: mrosario@asse.org
Web Site: http://www.asse.org
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate and graduate student members of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) from designated western states.
Title of Award: Gold Country Section and Region II Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Fires and fire prevention; Industrial hygiene; Occupational safety and health; Protective services Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to ASSE student members who are majoring in occupational safety and health or a closely-related field (e.g., safety engineering, safety management, systems safety, environmental science, industrial hygiene, ergonomics, fire science). Priority is given to residents of ASSE Region II (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming). Undergraduates must be full-time students who have completed at least 60 semester hours with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Graduate students must also be enrolled full time, have completed at least 9 semester hours with a GPA of 3.5 or higher, and have had a GPA of 3.0 or higher as an undergraduate. As part of the selection process, all applicants must submit 2 essays of 300 words or less: 1) why they are seeking a degree in safety, a brief description of their current activities, and how those relate to their career goals and objectives; and 2) why they should be awarded this scholarship (including career goals and financial need). Deadline for Receipt: November of each year.

1959 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

Attn: ASSE Foundation
1800 East Oakton Street
Des Plaines, IL 60018
Tel: (847)768-3441
Fax: (847)296-9220
E-mail: mrosario@asse.org
Web Site: http://www.asse.org
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate student members of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) from designated southeastern states.
Title of Award: Region IV/Edwin P. Granberry, Jr. Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Fires and fire prevention; Industrial hygiene; Occupational safety and health; Protective services Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to ASSE student members who are majoring in occupational safety and health or a closely-related field (e.g., safety engineering, safety management, systems safety, environmental science, industrial hygiene, ergonomics, fire science). Applicants must be residents of ASSE Region IV (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), although they may be attending school elsewhere. They must be full-time students who have completed at least 60 semester hours with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. As part of the selection process, they must submit 2 essays of 300 words or less: 1) why they are seeking a degree in safety, a brief description of their current activities, and how those relate to their career goals and objectives; and 2) why they should be awarded this scholarship (including career goals and financial need). Deadline for Receipt: November of each year.

1960 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

Attn: ASSE Foundation
1800 East Oakton Street
Des Plaines, IL 60018
Tel: (847)768-3441
Fax: (847)296-9220
E-mail: mrosario@asse.org
Web Site: http://www.asse.org
To provide financial assistance to upper-division and graduate students at colleges and universities in New England who are members or family of members of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE).
Title of Award: Greater Boston Chapter Leadership Award Area, Field, or Subject: Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Fires and fire prevention; Industrial hygiene; Occupational safety and health; Protective services Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to undergraduate and graduate students who are working on a degree in occupational safety and health or a closely-related field (e.g., safety engineering, safety management, systems safety, environmental science, industrial hygiene, ergonomics, fire science). Applicants must be 1) a member of an ASSE chapter in New England; 2) the spouse or child of an ASSE chapter member in New England; or 3) a member of an ASSE student section in New England. Undergraduates must be full-time students who have completed at least 60 semester hours with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Graduate students must also be enrolled full time, have completed at least 9 semester hours with a GPA of 3.5 or higher, and have had a GPA of 3.0 or higher as an undergraduate. As part of the selection process, all applicants must submit 2 essays of 300 words or less: 1) why they are seeking a degree in safety, a brief description of their current activities, and how those relate to their career goals and objectives; and 2) why they should be awarded this scholarship (including career goals and financial need). Deadline for Receipt: November of each year.

1961 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

Attn: ASSE Foundation
1800 East Oakton Street
Des Plaines, IL 60018
Tel: (847)768-3441
Fax: (847)296-9220
E-mail: mrosario@asse.org
Web Site: http://www.asse.org
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate students majoring in fields related to occupational safety and health.
Title of Award: Gulf Coast Past Presidents Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Fires and fire prevention; Industrial hygiene; Occupational safety and health; Protective services Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to undergraduate students who are majoring in occupational safety and health or a closely-related field (e.g., safety engineering, safety management, systems safety, environmental science, industrial hygiene, ergonomics, fire science). Although the program is sponsored by the Gulf Coast (Texas) chapter of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), there are no geographical restrictions on eligibility. Applicants must be full- or part-time students who have completed at least 60 semester hours with a GPA of3.0 or higher. Part-time students must be ASSE members. As part of the selection process, all applicants must submit 2 essays of 300 words or less: 1) why they are seeking a degree in safety, a brief description of their current activities, and how those relate to their career goals and objectives; and 2) why they should be awarded this scholarship (including career goals and financial need). Deadline for Receipt: November of each year.

1962 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

1963 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

1964 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

1965 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

Attn: ASSE Foundation 1800
East Oakton Street
Des Plaines, IL 60018
Tel: (847)768-3441
Fax: (847)296-9220

E-mail: mrosario@asse.org
Web Site: http://www.asse.org
To provide financial assistance to minority undergraduate student members of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE).To provide financial assistance to minority undergraduate student members of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE).
Title of Award: UPS Diversity Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Fires and fire prevention; Industrial hygiene; Occupational safety and health; Protective services Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 2 of these scholarships at $5,250 each were awarded. Funds Available: Stipends range from $4,000 to $6,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to ASSE student members who are enrolled in a 4-year degree program in occupational safety and health or a closely-related field (e.g., safety engineering, safety management, systems safety, environmental science, industrial hygiene, ergonomics, fire science). Applicants must be U.S. citizens and members of a minority ethnic or racial group. They must be full-time students who have completed at least 60 semester hours with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. As part of the selection process, they must submit 2 essays of 300 words or less: 1) why they are seeking a degree in safety, a brief description of their current activities, and how those relate to their career goals and objectives; and 2) why they should be awarded this scholarship (including career goals and financial need). Deadline for Receipt: November of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this program is provided by the UPS Foundation.

1966 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

Attn: ASSE Foundation
1800 East Oakton Street
Des Plaines, IL 60018
Tel: (847)768-3441
Fax: (847)296-9220

E-mail: mrosario@asse.org
Web Site: http://www.asse.org
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate student members of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE).
Title of Award: UPS Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Fires and fire prevention; Industrial hygiene; Occupational safety and health; Protective services Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 4 of these scholarships at $5,250 each were awarded. Funds Available: Stipends range from $4,000 to $6,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to ASSE student members who are enrolled in a 4-year degree program in occupational safety and health or a closely-related field (e.g., safety engineering, safety management, systems safety, environmental science, industrial hygiene, ergonomics, fire science). Applicants must be full-time students who have completed at least 60 semester hours with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. As part of the selection process, they must submit 2 essays of 300 words or less: 1) why they are seeking a degree in safety, a brief description of their current activities, and how those relate to their career goals and objectives; and 2) why they should be awarded this scholarship (including career goals and financial need). Deadline for Receipt: November of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this program is provided by the UPS Foundation.

1967 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS-COLUMBIA-WILLAMETTE CHAPTER

c/o Melissa Diede, Scholarship Committee Chair
SAIF Corporation Service Center
15333 S.W. Sequoia Parkway
P.O. Box 4777
Portland, OR 97208-4777
Tel: (503)598-5808
Free: 800-848-2372
Fax: (503)968-5353
E-mail: meldie@saif.com
Web Site: http://www.assecwc.org/scholarships.html
To provide financial assistance for college to members of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) from Washington and Oregon.
Title of Award: Walter G. Thorsell Memorial Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Industrial hygiene; Occupational safety and health; Protective services Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to residents of Washington and Oregon who have completed at least 1 term of study toward a bachelor's degree in occupational safety, health, or environmental studies. Applicants must be ASSE student members who are able to demonstrate interest and participation in ASSE and other safety activities. U.S. citizenship and a GPA of 2.75 or higher are required. Selection is based on demonstrated interested in preparing for a career in the field of occupational safety, health, and/or environmental science; a statement of interest in the field; contribution to an ASSE student section or professional chapter; and financial need (considered only if all other qualifications are equal). Deadline for Receipt: April of each year.

1968 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS-NEW JERSEY CHAPTER

c/o New Jersey State Safety Council
6 Commerce Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
Tel: (732)269-7683
Web Site: http://www.njasse.org
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate and graduate students in safety engineering or other safety-related majors in New Jersey.
Title of Award: Theodore M. Brickley/Bernice Shickora Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Industrial hygiene; Protective services Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: 1or more each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to upper-division and graduate students who are residents of New Jersey enrolled at a college or university in the state. Applicants must be majoring in occupational safety, industrial hygiene, environmental science, or a related field; have completed at least 6 credit hours in occupational safety and health (OSH) and at least 12 credit hours in OSH or related courses; have completed at least 18 credit hours in departmental-related courses (physical sciences, mathematics, engineering); and have a GPA of 2.5 or higher overall and 3.0 or higher in OSH courses. Selection is based on GPA; leadership skills as demonstrated by participation in extracurricular activities; involvement in occupational safety, hygiene, and related activities; involvement with professional occupational safety, hygiene, or related organizations; communication skills; awards and honors; and financial need. Deadline for Receipt: April of each year.

1969 ■ ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES

Attn: Scholarship Program
910 K Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814-3514
Tel: (916)441-4545
Fax: (916)325-4849

E-mail: lavonnew@acwa.com
Web Site: http://www.acwa.com/news_info/scholarships
To provide financial assistance to upper-division students in California who are majoring in water resources-related fields of study.
Title of Award: Association of California Water Agencies Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Public administration; Water resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: At least 6 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,500. Funds are paid directly to the recipient's school. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to California residents attending selected colleges and universities in the state. Applicants must be full-time students in their junior or senior year at the time of the award and majoring in a field related to or identified with water resources, including engineering, agricultural and/or urban water supply, environmental sciences, or public administration. Along with their application, they must submit 2-page essay on key water-related issues they would address if given the opportunity, why they have chosen a career in the water resources field, and how their educational and career goals relate to a future in California water resources. Selection is based on scholastic achievement, commitment to a career in the field of water resources, and financial need. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: Recipients must attend a college or university in California approved by the sponsor.

1970 ■ ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES

Attn: Scholarship Program
910 K Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814-3514
Tel: (916)441-4545
Fax: (916)325-4849

E-mail: lavonnew@acwa.com
Web Site: http://www.acwa.com/news_info/scholarships
To provide financial assistance to upper-division students in California who are majoring in water resources-related fields of study.
Title of Award: Clair A. Hill Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Public administration; Water resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $3,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient's school. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: Applicants must be California residents attending public colleges or universities in the state. They should 1) have completed their sophomore work, 2) be full-time students in their junior or senior year at the time of the award, and 3) be majoring in a field related to or identified with water resources, including engineering, agricultural sciences, urban water supply, environmental sciences, and public administration. Selection is based on scholastic achievement, career plans, and financial need. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: This program is administered each year by the current recipient of the Association of California Water Agencies Clair A. Hill Agency Award for Excellence, which is presented annually to a public water agency in recognition of outstanding and innovative water management programs. The winning agency generally selects a student within its service area. Funding is provided by the consulting firm CH2M Hill. Recipients must attend a branch of the University of California or the California State University system on a full-time basis.

1971 ■ ASSOCIATION FOR IRON & STEEL TECHNOLOGY-OHIO VALLEY CHAPTER

c/o Jeff McKain, Scholarship Chair
Xtek, Inc.
11451 Reading Road
Cincinnati, OH 45241
Tel: (513)733-7843; (999)332-XTEK
Fax: (513)733-7939
E-mail: jeff.mckain@xtek.com
Web Site: http://www.aist.org/chapters/ohiovalley_scholarship.htm
To provide financial assistance for college to student members and children of members of the Ohio Valley Chapter of the Association for Iron & Steel Technology (AIST).
Title of Award: Ohio Valley Chapter AIST Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Biological and clinical sciences; Chemistry; Computer and information sciences; Earth sciences; Engineering; Engineering, Electrical; Engineering, Mechanical; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geosciences; Information science and technology; Metallurgy; Physical sciences; Physics Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Up to 2 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed up to 3 additional years provided the recipient remains enrolled full time and maintains a GPA of 3.0 or higher.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to high school seniors and college students who are either 1) children of Ohio Valley Chapter AIST members, or 2) student AIST members. Applicants must be accepted at, planning to attend, or currently enrolled at an accredited college or university with a major in biology, chemistry, computer programming, computer technology, electrical engineering, engineering, engineering technology, environmental engineering, environmental science, information systems technology, mechanical engineering, metallurgy, microbiology, physical science, physics, or other field approved by the scholarship committee. Along with their application, they must submit a 500-word essay on the reasons for their interests and reasons for working on a degree in their field of study, career goals and objectives, and extracurricular activities and their benefits. Selection is based on overall academic achievement (especially in mathematics and science), the essay, and extracurricular activities. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: The AIST was formed in 2004 by the merger of the Iron and Steel Society (ISS) and the Association of Iron and Steel Engineers (AISE). This program was established by the former Ohio Valley District Section of AISE. The Ohio Valley Chapter covers Indiana (except for the northwestern portion), all of Kentucky, western Tennessee, and portions of southern Ohio.

1972 ■ ASSOCIATION FOR WOMEN IN SCIENCE-SEATTLE CHAPTER

c/o Fran Solomon, Scholarship Committee Chair
5805 16th Avenue, N.E.
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206)522-6441
E-mail: fran.solomon@metrokc.gov
Web Site: http://www.scn.org/awis/undergraduate_scholarship.htm
To provide financial assistance to women undergraduates from any state majoring in science, mathematics, or engineering at colleges and universities in western Washington.
Title of Award: AWIS Seattle Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Biochemistry; Biological and clinical sciences; Chemistry; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geology; Mathematics and mathematical sciences; Pharmaceutical sciences; Physics Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 11 of these scholarships were awarded. Funds Available: Stipends range from $1,000 to $1,500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to women from any state entering their junior or senior year at a 4-year college or university in western Washington. Applicants must have a declared major in science (e.g., biological sciences, environmental science, biochemistry, chemistry, pharmacy, geology, computer science, physics), mathematics, or engineering. Along with their application, they must submit essays on the events that led to their choice of a major, their current career plans and long-term goals, and their volunteer and community activities. Financial need is considered in the selection process. At least 1 scholarship is reserved for a woman from a group that is underrepresented in science, mathematics, and engineering careers, including Native American Indians and Alaska Natives, Black/African Americans, Mexican Americans/Chicanas/Latinas, Native Pacific Islanders (Polynesians, Melanesians, and Micronesians), and women with disabilities. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: This program includes the following named awards: the Virginia Badger Scholarship, the Angela Paez Memorial Scholarship, and the Fran Solomon Scholarship. Support for the program is provided by several sponsors, including the American Chemical Society, Iota Sigma Pi, Rosetta Inpharmatics, and ZymoGenetics, Inc.

1973 ■ BIG 33 SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION

Attn: Scholarship Committee
511 Bridge Street
P.O. Box 213
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tel: (717)774-3303; 877-PABIG-33
Fax: (717)774-1749

E-mail: info@big33.org
Web Site: http://www.big33.org/scholarships/default.ashx
To provide financial assistance to graduating high school seniors in Ohio and Pennsylvania who plan to study environmental sciences in college.
Title of Award: Waste Management Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 100 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to seniors graduating from public and accredited private high schools in Ohio and Pennsylvania who are planning to study an environmental field in college. Applications are available from high school guidance counselors. Selection is based on special talents, leadership, obstacles overcome, academic achievement (at least a 2.0 GPA), community service, unique endeavors, financial need, and a 1-page essay on why they deserve the scholarship and their involvement with preserving the environment. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funds for this program are provided by Waste Management, Inc.

1974 ■ BROWN AND CALDWELL

Attn: Scholarship Program
201 North Civic Drive, Suite 115
P.O. Box 8045
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Tel: (925)937-9010
Fax: (925)937-9026

E-mail: scholarships@brwncald.com
Web Site: http://www.brownandcaldwell.com
To provide financial assistance to minority students working on an undergraduate degree in an environmental or engineering field.
Title of Award: Brown and Caldwell Minority Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Biological and clinical sciences; Engineering, Chemical; Engineering, Civil; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geology; Hydrology; Industrial hygiene; Toxicology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $3,000. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members of minority groups (African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and Alaska Natives) who are full-time students in their junior year at an accredited 4-year college or university. Applicants must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher with a declared major in civil, chemical, or environmental engineering or an environmental science (e.g., biology, ecology, geology, hydrogeology, industrial hygiene, toxicology). Along with their application, they must submit an essay (up to 250 words) on why they chose to major in an environmental discipline. They must be U.S. citizens or permanent resident and available to participate in a summer internship at a Brown and Caldwell office. Financial need is not considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: As part of the paid summer internship at a Brown and Caldwell office at 1 of more than 40 cities in the country, the program provides a mentor to guide the intern through the company's information and communications resources.

1975 ■ BROWN AND CALDWELL

Attn: Scholarship Program
201 North Civic Drive, Suite 115
P.O. Box 8045
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Tel: (925)937-9010
Fax: (925)937-9026

E-mail: scholarships@brwncald.com
Web Site: http://www.brownandcaldwell.com
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate students working on an degree in an environmental or engineering field.
Title of Award: Dr. W. Wesley Eckenfelder Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Biological and clinical sciences; Engineering, Chemical; Engineering, Civil; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geology; Hydrology; Industrial hygiene; Toxicology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $3,000. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to U.S. citizens and permanent residents enrolled as full-time students in their junior year at an accredited 4-year college or university. Applicants must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher with a declared major in civil, chemical, or environmental engineering or an environmental science (e.g., biology, ecology, geology, hydrogeology, industrial hygiene, toxicology). Along with their application, they must submit an essay (up to 250 words) on why they chose to major in an environmental discipline. Financial need is not considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This scholarship was first awarded in 1999.

1976 ■ CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION

110 South Fairfax, A11-175
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tel: (323)634-7698
Fax: (323)571-1889

E-mail: support@ceha.org
Web Site: http://www.ceha.org/awards.html
To provide financial assistance to undergraduates in California interested in preparing for a career in the sciences, especially environmental health.
Title of Award: Martin Smilo Undergraduate Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Public health; Science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to California students who have completed at least 48 semester units of undergraduate study, including at least 12 semester units in science, with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Applicants must be enrolled full time at an accredited 4-year college or university with an intention to work on a degree and prepare for a career in science. Preference is given to students in environmental health. Along with their application, they must submit a 3-page essay on 1 of 3 assigned topics related to public health and the role of professional organizations. Financial need is not considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Information is also available from Matt Fore, CEHA Awards Committee, 160 Gibson Drive, Number 17, Hollister, CA 95023, (831) 636-4035, E-mail: matt@sanbenitoco.org.

1977 ■ COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR THE FOX VALLEY REGION, INC.

Attn: Scholarships
4455 West Lawrence Street
P.O. Box 563
Appleton, WI 54912-0563
Tel: (920)830-1290
Fax: (920)830-1293

E-mail: cffvr@cffoxvalley.org
Web Site: http://www.cffoxvalley.org/scholarship_fundslist.html
To provide financial assistance to upper-division and graduate students in Wisconsin who are working on a degree related to gardening.
Title of Award: Wisconsin Garden Club Federation Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Botany; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Forestry; Horticulture; Landscape architecture and design; Urban affairs/design/planning Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Four Year College Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 4 of these scholarships were awarded. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to college juniors, seniors, and graduate students at colleges and universities in Wisconsin. Applicants must be majoring in horticulture, floriculture, landscape design/ architecture, botany, forestry, agronomy, plant pathology, environmental studies, city planning, land management, or a related field. They must have a 3.0 GPA or higher. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program is sponsored by the Wisconsin Garden Club Federation. Information is also available from Carolyn A. Craig, WGCF Scholarship Chair, 900 North Shore Drive, New Richmond, WI 54017-9466, (715) 246-6242, E-mail: cacraig@frontiernet.net.

1978 ■ COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF LOUISVILLE

Attn: Director of Grants
Waterfront Plaza, Suite 1110
325 West Main Street
Louisville, KY 40202-4251
Tel: (502)585-4649
Fax: (502)587-7484
E-mail: info@cflouisville.org
Web Site: http://www.cflouisville.org
To provide financial assistance to women studying fields related to the environment at colleges and universities in Kentucky.
Title of Award: Thaddeus Colson and Isabelle Saalwaechter Fitzpatrick Memorial Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Biological and clinical sciences; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Horticulture Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000. Funds are paid directly to the college or university. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to female residents of Kentucky who are entering their sophomore, junior, or senior year at a 4-year public college or university in the state. Applicants must be majoring in an environmentally related program (e.g., agriculture, biology, horticulture, environmental studies, environmental engineering). They must be enrolled full time with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit a 200-word essay describing their interest, leadership, volunteer efforts, and work experience in the environmental field; their future plans and goals in the environmental field; and what they hope to accomplish with their college degree. Financial need is also considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year.

1979 ■ CONFERENCE OF MINORITY TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS-NEW JERSEY CHAPTER

Attn: Scholarship Committee
P.O. Box 22968
Newark, NJ 07101
E-mail: comtonj@mail.comtonj.org
Web Site: http://www.comtonj.org/scholarshipInfo.asp
To provide financial assistance to college students from New Jersey interested in working on a degree in a field related to transportation.
Title of Award: COMTO NJ Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Protective services; Public administration; Transportation; Urban affairs/design/planning Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 4 each year: 1 at $1,000 and 3 at $500. Funds Available: Stipends are $1,000 or $500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students entering or attending colleges and universities in New Jersey to major in a field related to transportation (e.g., environmental disciplines, public service, safety, transportation, urban planning). Applicants must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit a 500-word essay on why they chose a career in transportation. Selection is based on the essay, academic achievement, extracurricular and community activities, and letters of recommendation. Deadline for Receipt: April of each year. Additional Information: The sponsor is the New Jersey chapter of the Conference of Minority Transportation Officials (COMTO). The national organization was founded in 1971 to promote, strengthen, and expand the roles of minorities in all aspects of transportation. This program includes the Lewis R. Rosser Scholarship, the Paul Smith Scholarship, and the Garrett Morgan Scholarship. Recipients must attend the COMTO NJ Scholarship Gala to accept the award.

1980 ■ DELAWARE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION

Carvel State Office Building
820 North French Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302)577-3240
Free: 800-292-7935
Fax: (302)577-6765
E-mail: dhec@doe.k12.de.us
Web Site: http://www.doe.state.de.us/high-ed/healy.pat.htm
To provide financial assistance to high school seniors and college students in Delaware who are interested in majoring in engineering or environmental sciences at a college in the state.
Title of Award: John P. "Pat" Healy Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1or more each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000. Duration: 1 year; automatically renewed for 3 additional years if a GPA of 3.0 or higher is maintained.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to high school seniors and full-time college students in their freshman or sophomore years who are Delaware residents and majoring in either environmental engineering or environmental sciences at a Delaware college. Applicants must submit a 500-word essay on "What would you do to protect the environment?" Selection is based on financial need, academic performance, community or school involvement, and leadership ability. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: This program is sponsored by the Delaware Solid Waste Authority.

1981 ■ DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
4700 River Road, Unit 22
Riverdale, MD 20737-1230
800-762-2738
Web Site: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq
To provide financial assistance and work experience to college students majoring in the agricultural or biological sciences.
Title of Award: PPQ William F. Helms Student Scholarship Program Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Biological and clinical sciences; Botany; Entomology; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Virology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Several each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $5,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed if the recipient maintains a GPA of 2.5 or higher.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to college sophomores and juniors who are attending an accredited college or university, are majoring in an agricultural or biological science (such as biology, plant pathology, entomology, virology, bacteriology, mycology, or ecology), are interested in a career in plant protection and quarantine, and are U.S. citizens. To apply, interested students must submit a completed application form, a personal letter describing their career goals and interest in plant protection and quarantine, transcripts, and 3 letters of recommendation. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is the agency responsible for protecting America's agriculture base; Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) is the program within APHIS that deals with plant health issues. In addition to financial assistance, the Helms Student Scholarship Program also offers tutoring assistance, mentoring, paid work experience during vacation periods, career exploration, and possible employment upon graduation.

1982 ■ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration
Attn: National Highway Institute, HNHI-20
4600 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22203-1553
Tel: (703)235-0538
Fax: (703)235-0593

E-mail: transportationedu@fhwa.dot.gov
Web Site: http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/ddetfp.asp
To provide financial assistance for undergraduate study in transportation-related fields to students at Hispanic Serving Institutions.
Title of Award: Eisenhower Hispanic-Serving Institutions Fellowships Area, Field, or Subject: Accounting; Architecture; Business administration; Engineering, Civil; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Transportation Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 18 students received support from this program. Funds Available: The stipend covers the fellow's full cost of education, including tuition and fees. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: These fellowships are intended for students who are enrolled at federally-designated 4-year Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) and who are working on a degree in a transportation-related field (i.e., engineering, accounting, business, architecture, environmental sciences, etc.). Applicants must have entered their junior year, have at least a 3.0 GPA, and have a faculty sponsor. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year.

1983 ■ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration
Attn: National Highway Institute, HNHI-20
4600 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22203-1553
Tel: (703)235-0538
Fax: (703)235-0593

E-mail: transportationedu@fhwa.dot.gov
Web Site: http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/ddetfp.asp
To provide financial assistance for undergraduate study in transportation-related fields to students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Title of Award: Eisenhower Historically Black Colleges and Universities Fellowships Area, Field, or Subject: Accounting; Architecture; Business administration; Engineering, Civil; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Transportation Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 48 students received support from this program. Funds Available: The stipend covers the fellow's full cost of education, including tuition and fees. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: These fellowships are intended for students who are enrolled at federally-designated 4-year Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and working on a degree in a transportation-related field (i.e., engineering, accounting, business, architecture, environmental sciences, etc.). Applicants must have entered their junior year, have at least a 3.0 GPA, and have a faculty sponsor. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year.

1984 ■ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Attn: National Center for Environmental Research
Ariel Rios Building - 3500
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: (202)343-9862
E-mail: barnwell.thomas@epa.gov
Web Site: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/P3
To provide funding to teams of undergraduate and graduate students interested in conducting a research project related to environmental sustainability.
Title of Award: P3 Award Program Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Biological and clinical sciences; Chemistry; Energy-related areas; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Information science and technology; Public health; Transportation; Water resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year. Recently, 42 Phase I grants were awarded, of which 10 were selected to receive Phase II grants. Funds Available: Phase I grants are $10,000. Phase II grants are $75,000. Grants cover all direct and indirect costs; cost-sharing is not required. Duration: 1 year for Phase I and 1 additional year for Phase II.
Eligibility Requirements: This competition is open to teams of undergraduate and graduate students at U.S. colleges and universities who are interested in conducting a research project related to the 3 components of sustainability: people, prosperity, and the planet. Projects must address the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, or elimination of air, water, or solid and hazardous waste pollution. Categories include agriculture (e.g., irrigation practices, reduction or elimination of pesticides); materials and chemicals (e.g., materials conservation, green engineering, green chemistry, biotechnology, recovery and reuse of materials); energy (e.g., reduction in air emissions, energy conservation); information technology (e.g., delivery of and access to environmental performance, technical, educational, or public health information related environmental decision making); water (e.g., quality, quantity, conservation, availability, and access); or the built environment (e.g., environmental benefits through innovative green buildings, transportation, and mobility strategies, and smart growth as it results in reduced vehicle miles traveled or reduces storm water runoff). Student teams, with a faculty advisor (who serves as the principal investigator on the grant), submit designs for Phase I of the competition. Selection of grantees is based on the extent to which the proposed project achieves the outcomes of minimizing the use and generation of hazardous substances; utilizes resources and energy effectively and efficiently; and advances the goals of economic competitiveness, human health, and environmental protection for societal benefit. Recipients of Phase I grants are then invited to apply for additional funding through a Phase I grant. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program began in 2004. It is supported by a large number of organizations from industry, the nonprofit sector, and the federal government.

1985 ■ FAMILY CAMPERS AND RVERS

c/o Herb and Marie Petersen, National Scholarship Directors
76 Gaymore Road
Port Jefferson Station, NY 11776
E-mail: petersen76@aol.com
Web Site: http://www.fcrv.org/programs/scholarship.html
To provide financial assistance for college to members of the Family Campers and RVers (FCRV) and their dependent children.
Title of Award: FCRV Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; General studies/Field of study not specified; Parks and recreation Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Funds Available: Scholarships range from $500 to $2,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed upon reapplication.
Eligibility Requirements: Applicants must have been members of FCRV for at least 1 year or be their dependent children and have been accepted in a 2-year or 4-year accredited institution of higher learning. Applications are accepted from the United States and Canada, but those from other countries will be considered within the educational framework of that country. Students currently enrolled in college are given equal consideration with incoming freshmen; high school students or recent graduates should be in the upper 40% of their graduating class and students already in college should have a GPA of 2.7 or higher. Special consideration is given to students majoring in fields related to conservation, ecology, or outdoor activities, although applicants with any major are considered. Awards are based on maturity, leadership, related activities, and goals of the applicant as related to the objectives of FCRV. Deadline for Receipt: April of each year. Additional Information: Family Campers and RVers was founded as the National Campers and Hikers Association, and these scholarships are awarded by the National Campers and Hikers Association Scholarship, Inc. (NCHA).

1986 ■ FEDERATED GARDEN CLUBS OF CONNECTICUT, INC.

14 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 854
Branford, CT 06405-0854
Tel: (203)488-5528
Fax: (203)488-5528

E-mail: gardenclubs@ctgardenclubs.org
Web Site: http://www.ctgardenclubs.org/scholarship.html
To provide financial assistance to Connecticut residents who are interested in majoring in horticulture-related fields at a Connecticut college or university.
Title of Award: Federated Garden Clubs of Connecticut Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Botany; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Forestry; Horticulture; Landscape architecture and design; Urban affairs/design/planning Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: Varies each year, depending upon the availability of funds. Funds Available: Stipends are generally about $1,000 each. Funds are sent to the recipient's school in 2 equal installments. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: Applicants must be legal residents of Connecticut who are studying at a college or university in the state in horticulture, floriculture, landscape design, conservation, forestry, botany, agronomy, plant pathology, environmental control, city planning, land management, or related subjects. They must be entering their junior or senior year of college or be a graduate student, have a GPA of 3.0 or higher, and be able to demonstrate financial need. Deadline for Receipt: June of each year. Additional Information: Information is also available from the Connecticut State Scholarship Chair, Mary Gray, 18 Long Hill Farm Road, Guilford, CT 06437, (203) 458-2784.

1987 ■ HOPI TRIBE

Attn: Office of Education
P.O. Box 123
Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039
Tel: (928)734-3533
Free: 800-762-9630
Fax: (928)734-9575
E-mail: IPolingyumptewa@hopi.nsn.us
Web Site: http://www.hopi.nsn.us/education_htgsp.asp
To encourage Hopi students to get an undergraduate or graduate degree in an area of interest to the Hopi Tribe.
Title of Award: Hopi Tribal Priority Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Business administration; Education; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Health care services; Law; Medicine Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: Varies each year. Funds Available: The stipend covers all educational expenses. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to enrolled members of the Hopi Tribe. They must be college juniors, seniors, or graduate students whose degree is in a subject area that is of priority interest to the Hopi Tribe. Those areas are law, natural resources, education, medicine, health, engineering, or business. This is a highly competitive scholarship. Selection is based on academic merit and the likelihood that the applicants will use their training and expertise for tribal goals and objectives. Deadline for Receipt: July of each year. Additional Information: Recipients must attend school on a full-time basis.

1988 ■ KENTUCKY ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC PROTECTION CABINET

Attn: Department for Environmental Protection
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Tel: (502)564-2150
Fax: (502)564-4245

E-mail: dep@ky.gov
Web Site: http://www.dep.ky.gov/default.htm
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate and graduate students in Kentucky interested in working for the state's Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet following graduation.
Title of Award: Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet Scholarship Program Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: Varies each year. Funds Available: The award covers the average costs of in-state tuition, fees, books, room, and board. Recipients are required to work for the department for 6 months for each semester of scholarship support. If they fail to meet that service requirement, they must repay all funds received with an interest rate of 12%. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to juniors, seniors, and graduate students working on a degree at a Kentucky university considered to be of critical need to the sponsoring department. Applicants must be willing to work for that department following graduation. They must submit a 500-word essay that describes their career goals, understanding of the environment, and motivation to pursue the scholarship. Selection is based on GPA, the essay, letters of recommendation, and evidence of leadership; financial need is not considered. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program began in 1991. Information is also available from the Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute, University of Kentucky, 233 Mining and Minerals Building, Rose Street, Lexington, KY 40506-0107, (859) 257-1299, Fax: (859) 323-1049, E-mail: kipp@pop.uky.edu. Recipients must enroll full time.

1989 ■ MAINE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION

Attn: Program Director
245 Main Street
Ellsworth, ME 04605
Tel: (207)667-9735; 877-700-6800
Fax: (207)667-0447
E-mail: info@mainecf.org
Web Site: http://www.mainecf.org/html/scholarships/index.html
To provide financial assistance to Maine students interested in the study of outdoor/nature writing.
Title of Award: R.V. "Gadabout" Gaddis Charitable Fund Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Parks and recreation; Writing Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 2 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to residents of Maine who are college juniors or seniors studying outdoor writing or a related environmental field. Applicants must include a writing sample, up to 10 pages in length, that demonstrates their skill at writing about the "outdoors," including outdoor sports, environmental concerns, and natural history topics. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: This program began in 1995.

1990 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321

E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members from Florida and Georgia who are interested in studying fields related to agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Chevron Corporation Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Communications; Education; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Natural resources; Wildlife conservation, management, and science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 2 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must be residents of Florida or Georgia planning to work on a 2-year or 4-year degree in agricultural communications and education, environmental engineering, environmental science, natural resource management, wildlife management, or public service and administration in agriculture. Preference is given to those who have shown outstanding leadership. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by ChevronTexaco Corporation.

1991 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

1992 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321

E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members who wish to study agriculture and related fields in college.
Title of Award: National FFA Scholarships for Undergraduates in the Sciences Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Animal science and behavior; Dairy science; Engineering, Agricultural; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Equine studies; Food science and technology; Horticulture; Natural resources; Technology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies; generally, a total of approximately 1,000 scholarships are awarded annually by the association. Funds Available: Stipends vary, but most are at least $1,000. Duration: 1 year or more.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to current and former members of the organization who are working or planning to work full time on a degree in fields related to agriculture; this includes: agricultural mechanics and engineering, agricultural technology, animal science, conservation, dairy science, equine science, floriculture, food science, horticulture, irrigation, lawn and landscaping, and natural resources. For most of the scholarships, applicants must be high school seniors; others are open to students currently enrolled in college. The program includes a large number of designated scholarships that specify the locations where the members must live, the schools they must attend, the fields of study they must pursue, or other requirements. Some consider family income in the selection process, but most do not. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by many different corporate sponsors.

1993 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321

E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members who are interested in working on a college degree in fields related to natural resources.
Title of Award: National Rifle Association of America Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Natural resources; Wildlife conservation, management, and science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 5 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must be members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). They may be interested in working on a 4-year degree in any area, but preference is given to those majoring in conservation, natural resources, or wildlife management. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by the National Rifle Association.

1994 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321

E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members interested in studying agriculture or conservation in college.
Title of Award: National Wild Turkey Federation Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Natural resources; Wildlife conservation, management, and science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $5,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher and be planning to attend a 2-year or 4-year college or university to major in natural resources, wildlife management, or agriculture. They must support the preservation of the hunting tradition, demonstrate a commitment to conservation, actively participate in the hunting sports, have strong leadership skills, be able to demonstrate financial need, and have work or volunteer experience in the hunting sports. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by the National Wild Turkey Federation.

1995 ■ NATIONAL INVENTORS HALL OF FAME

Attn: Collegiate Inventors Competition
221 South Broadway Street
Akron, OH 44308-1595
Tel: (330)849-6887
E-mail: collegiate@invent.org
Web Site: http://www.invent.org/collegiate
To recognize and reward outstanding inventions by college or university students in the fields of science, engineering, and technology.
Title of Award: Collegiate Inventors Competition Area, Field, or Subject: Biological and clinical sciences; Chemistry; Computer and information sciences; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Inventors; Mathematics and mathematical sciences; Medicine; Physics; Science; Technology; Veterinary science and medicine Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Postdoctoral, Undergraduate Number Awarded: 15 semifinalists are selected each year; of those, 3 individuals or teams win prizes. Funds Available: Finalists receive an all-expense paid trip to Washington, D.C. to participate in a final round of judging and in the awards dinner and presentation. The Grand Prize winner or team receives $25,000. Other prizes are $10,000 for an undergraduate winner or team and $15,000 for a graduate winner or team. Academic advisors of the winning entries each receive a $3,000 cash prize. Awards are unrestricted cash gifts, not scholarships or grants. Duration: The competition is held annually.
Eligibility Requirements: This competition is open to undergraduate and graduate students who are (or have been) enrolled full time at least part of the 12-month period prior to entry in a college or university in the United States. Entries may also be submitted by teams, up to 4 members, of whom at least 1 must meet the full-time requirement and all others must have been enrolled at least half time sometime during the preceding 24-month period. Applicants must submit a description of their invention, including a patent search and summary of current literature that describes the state of the art and identifies the originality of the invention; test data demonstrating that the idea, invention, or design is workable; the societal, economic, and environmental benefits of the invention; and supplemental material that may include photos, slides, disks, videotapes, and even samples. Entries must be original ideas and the work of a student or team and a university advisor; the invention should be reproducible and may not have been 1) made available to the public as a commercial product or process, or 2) patented or published more than 1 year prior to the date of submission for this competition. Entries are first reviewed by a committee of judges that selects the finalists. The committee is comprised of mathematicians, engineers, biologists, chemists, environmentalists, physicists, computer specialists, members of the medical and veterinary profession, and specialists in invention and development of technology. Entries are judged on the basis of originality, inventiveness, potential value to society (socially, environmentally, and economically), and range or scope of use. Deadline for Receipt: May of each year. Additional Information: This program is co-sponsored by Abbott Laboratories and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It was established in 1990 as the BFGoodrich Collegiate Inventors Program.

1996 ■ NEW JERSEY UTILITIES ASSOCIATION

50 West State Street, Suite 1117
Trenton, NJ 08608
Tel: (609)392-1000
Fax: (609)396-4231
Web Site: http://www.njua.org
To provide financial assistance to minority, female, and disabled high school seniors in New Jersey interested in majoring in selected subjects in college.
Title of Award: New Jersey Utilities Association Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Accounting; Biological and clinical sciences; Business administration; Chemistry; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 2 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,500 per year. Duration: 4 years.
Eligibility Requirements: Eligible to apply for this scholarship are women, minorities (Black, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Asian American/Pacific Islander), and persons with disabilities who are high school seniors in New Jersey. They must be able to demonstrate financial need, be planning to enroll on a full-time basis at an institute of higher education, and be planning to work on a bachelor's degree in engineering, environmental science, chemistry, biology, business administration, or accounting. Children of employees of any New Jersey Utilities Association-member company are ineligible. Selection is based on overall academic excellence and demonstrated financial need. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year.

1997 ■ NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

Attn: Transportation Department
616 Six Flags Drive, Centerpoint Two
P.O. Box 5888
Arlington, TX 76005-5888
Tel: (817)695-9242
Fax: (817)640-7806
Web Site: http://www.nctcog.org/trans/admin/fellowship
To provide financial assistance to ethnic minorities, women, and economically disadvantaged persons who are interested in obtaining an undergraduate or graduate degree and work experience in a transportation-related field in Texas.
Title of Award: Transportation Fellowship Program Area, Field, or Subject: Engineering, Civil; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geography; Law; Management; Transportation; Urban affairs/design/planning Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed if the recipient maintains a GPA of 3.0 or higher.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to ethnic minorities (African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asians, and Pacific Islanders), women, and those who are economically disadvantaged. Only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may apply. They must attend or be willing to attend a college or university within the 16-county North Central Texas region as an undergraduate or graduate student. Applicants must have a GPA of 2.5 or higher. They may be enrolled full or part time, but they must be majoring in a designated transportation-related field: transportation planning, transportation or civil engineering, urban and regional planning, transportation/environmental sciences, transportation law, urban or spatial geography, logistics, geographic information systems, or transportation management. Selection is based on financial need, interest in a professional career in transportation, and the ability to complete the program. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: These fellowships are financed by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Texas Department of Transportation, in conjunction with local governments in north central Texas. An important part of the fellowship is an internship with a local agency (city or county), school, or transportation agency.

1998 ■ OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

Attn: Global Change Education Program
120 Badger Avenue, M.S. 36
P.O. Box 117
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117
Tel: (865)576-9655
E-mail: mary.kinney@orau.gov
Web Site: http://www.atmos.anl.gov/GCEP
To provide undergraduate students with an opportunity to conduct research during the summer on global change.
Title of Award: Global Change Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE) Area, Field, or Subject: Atmospheric science; Earth sciences; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geosciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 20 to 30 each year. Funds Available: Participants receive a weekly stipend of $475 and support for travel and housing. Duration: 10 to 12 weeks during the summer. Successful participants are expected to reapply for a second year of research with their mentors.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to undergraduates in their sophomore and junior years, although outstanding freshman and senior applicants are also considered. Applicants must be proposing to conduct research in a program area within the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research (DOE-BER): the atmospheric science program, the environmental meteorology program, the atmospheric radiation measurement program, the terrestrial carbon processes effort, the program for ecosystem research, and studies carried out under the direction of the National Institute for Global Environmental Change. Minority and female students are particularly encouraged to apply. U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program, funded by DOE-BER, began in summer 1999. The first 2 weeks are spent in an orientation and focus session at a participating university. For the remaining 10 weeks, students conduct mentored research at 1 of the national laboratories or universities conducting BER-supported global change research.

1999 ■ OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

Attn: Science and Engineering Education
P.O. Box 117
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117
Tel: (865)576-9279
Fax: (865)241-5220 E-mail: coxre@orau.gov
Web Site: http://www.orau.gov/orise.htm
To provide financial assistance and research experience to undergraduate students at minority serving institutions who are majoring in scientific fields of interest to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Title of Award: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Educational Partnership Program with Minority Serving Institutions Undergraduate Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Atmospheric science; Biological and clinical sciences; Cartography/Surveying; Chemistry; Computer and information sciences; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geography; Mathematics and mathematical sciences; Meteorology; Photogrammetry; Physical sciences; Physics Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 10 each year. Funds Available: This program provides payment of tuition and fees (to a maximum of $4,000 per year) and a stipend during the internship of $650 per week. Duration: 1 academic year and 2 summers.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to juniors and seniors at minority serving institutions, including Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs). Applicants must be majoring in atmospheric science, biology, cartography, chemistry, computer science, engineering, environmental science, geodesy, geography, marine science, mathematics, meteorology, photogrammetry, physical science, physics, or remote sensing. They must also be interested in participating in a research internship at a NOAA site. U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: January of each year. Additional Information: This program is funded by NOAA through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy and administered by Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE).

2000 ■ OREGON STUDENT ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Attn: Grants and Scholarships Division
1500 Valley River Drive, Suite 100
Eugene, OR 97401-2146
Tel: (541)687-7395
Free: 800-452-8807
Fax: (541)687-7419
E-mail: awardinfo@mercury.osac.state.or.us
Web Site: http://www.osac.state.or.us
To provide financial assistance for college to Eagle Scouts in Oregon interested in studying fields related to wildlife management.
Title of Award: Royden M. Bodley Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Forestry; Wildlife conservation, management, and science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 5 of these scholarships were awarded. Funds Available: The stipend is at least $1,400. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to graduates of high schools in the Boy Scouts of America Cascade Pacific Council. Applicants must have achieved the Eagle rank in Oregon and be attending or planning to attend college in the state. They must be interested in majoring in forestry, wildlife, environment, or a related field. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program is administered by the Oregon Student Assistance Commission (OSAC) with funds provided by the Oregon Community Foundation, 1221 S.W. Yamhill, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97205, (503) 227-6846, Fax: (503) 274-7771.

2001 ■ PENNSYLVANIA ENERGY CONSORTIUM

Attn: PENCON Foundation
90 Lawton Lane
Milton, PA 17847-9756
Tel: (570)542-5602
E-mail: mwirth@csiu.org
Web Site: http://www.pencon.org
To recognize and reward, with college scholarships, seniors at high schools in Pennsylvania who submit outstanding science or environmental projects.
Title of Award: PENCON Foundation Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year. Recently, 9 of these scholarships were awarded: 1 at $1,500 per year, 2 at $1,000 per year, 4 at $750 per year, and 2 at $500 per year. Funds Available: Stipends range from $500 to $1,500 per year. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed up to 3 additional years.
Eligibility Requirements: This competition is open to seniors graduating from high schools that are members of the Pennsylvania Energy Consortium (PENCON). Applicants must have a GPA of 2.0 or higher and be planning to attend an institution of postsecondary education or training. They must submit an abstract of a scientific or environmental project they have conducted, including its goals and objectives, the activities it entailed, what they learned from it, and its significance for them and for others. Selection is based on the merit and quality of the project, the content and quality of an autobiographical essay, initiative and commitment to school and community service activities, academic achievement, recommendations, and financial need. Deadline for Receipt: Letters of intent must be submitted by November of each year. Completed projects are due in February.

2002 ■ ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION

Attn: Maggie Engler
2291 West Broadway P.O. Box 8249
Missoula, MT 59807-8249
Tel: (406)523-4500
Free: 800-CALL
Fax: (406)523-4550
E-mail: mengler@rmef.org
Web Site: http://www.rmef.org/pages/scholar.html
To provide financial assistance to upper-division students who are majoring in wildlife studies.
Title of Award: Wildlife Leadership Awards Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Wildlife conservation, management, and science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 10 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000. In addition, recipients are given an engraved plaque and a 1-year membership in the foundation. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students enrolled in a recognized wildlife program at a 4-year college or university in the United States or Canada. Applicants must be juniors or seniors, have at least 1 semester or 2 quarters remaining in their degree program, and be scheduled to enroll as full-time students the following fall semester/quarter. Previous recipients of this award are ineligible. Selection is based on hobbies and leisure activities (5 points), leadership activities (25 points), employment experience (5 points), a 300-word essay on how wildlife fits into specified federal laws (15 points), a 300-word essay on what they believe to be the most important conservation issues facing North American during the next 10 years (20 points), a 250-word essay on the role of hunting in conservation (15 points), and a 100-word statement on their career goals and objectives (5 points). Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program was established in 1990.

2003 ■ ROCKY MOUNTAIN WATER ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION

c/o Ray Kemp
City of Fort Collins Water Reclamation
3036 Environmental Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Tel: (970)221-6900
Fax: (970)221-6970

E-mail: rkemp@fcgov.com
Web Site: http://www.rmwea.org
To provide financial assistance to students in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming, including members of the Rocky Mountain Water Environment Association (RMWEA) and their dependents, who are interested in studying a water environment field in college.
Title of Award: Bill Martin Memorial Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Biological and clinical sciences; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Water resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 2 each year: 1 from each category of applicant. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Recipients are also entitled to a 1-year complimentary student or associate membership in the RMWEA. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to 1) members of the RMWEA and their dependents who are enrolled at a 2- or 4-year college or university and working on a degree related to the water environment profession (e.g., biology, environmental science, engineering with a strong emphasis in wastewater treatment, water pollution control, environmental protection); and 2) high school seniors planning to enroll at a 2- or 4-year college or university to prepare for a career in the water environmental field. Along with their application, they must submit an essay of 200 to 300 words on their interest in the environment and how this interest influences their career goals. Selection is based on that essay (25%), relevance of the course of study to the water environment profession (35%), letters of recommendation (20%), and GPA (20%). Deadline for Receipt: April of each year. Additional Information: This program was established in 2002.

2004 ■ SIEMENS FOUNDATION

170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
877-822-5233
Fax: (732)603-5890
E-mail: foundation@sc.siemens.com
Web Site: http://www.siemens-foundation.org/awards
To recognize and reward high school students with exceptional scores on the Advanced Placement (AP) examinations in mathematics and the sciences.
Title of Award: Siemens Awards for Advanced Placement Area, Field, or Subject: Biological and clinical sciences; Chemistry; Computer and information sciences; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Mathematics and mathematical sciences; Physics; Statistics Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Professional, Undergraduate Number Awarded: 24 regional scholarships (2 females and 2 males in each of the 6 regions), 2 national scholarships (1 female and 1 male), 12 high school awards (in each region, 1 to a school for improvement in the number and percentage of students taking AP examinations, 1 to an urban school for providing access to AP mathematics and science to minorities), and 18 teacher awards (in each region, 2 for commitment to students and the AP program, 1 for teaching minorities) are awarded each year. Funds Available: Regional scholarships are $3,000; national winners receive additional $5,000 scholarships. Awards to teachers and to schools are $1,000. Duration: The awards are presented annually.
Eligibility Requirements: All students in U.S. high schools are eligible to be considered for these awards (including home-schooled students and those in U.S. territories). Each fall, the College Board identifies the male and female seniors in each of its regions who have earned the highest number of scores on 7 AP exams: biology, calculus BC, chemistry, computer science AB, environmental science, physics C (physics C: mechanics and physics C: electricity each count as half), and statistics. Males and females are considered separately. Regional winners receive all-expense paid trips to Washington, D.C., where national winners are announced. The program also recognizes and rewards monetarily 1) schools that have shown the greatest improvement in the number and percentage of students taking AP examinations in biology, calculus, chemistry, computer science, environmental science, physics, and statistics in the past year; and 2) non-magnet urban schools that provide access to AP mathematics and science to a significant number of underrepresented minority students. In addition, teachers are rewarded for their commitment to students and the AP program. Additional teachers are recognized because they have successfully taught AP mathematics and/or science to underrepresented minority students in non-magnet urban schools. Deadline for Receipt: There is no application or nomination process for these awards. The College Board identifies the students, teachers, and high schools for the Siemens Foundation. Additional Information: Information from the College Board is available at (703) 707-8999.

2005 ■ SOCIETY OF AMERICAN MILITARY ENGINEERS-WASHINGTON DC POST

c/o Al O'Konski, Scholarship Committee Chair
URS Corporation
2020 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006-1806
Tel: (202)872-0277
Fax: (202)872-0282

E-mail: Al_O'Konski@urscorp.com
Web Site: http://www.samedcpost.org/scholarship.html
To provide financial assistance to students interested in majoring in engineering, architecture, or environmental sciences.
Title of Award: Washington DC Post Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Architecture; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 8 of these scholarships were awarded. Funds Available: The current stipend is $1,200. Funds are paid to the recipient's school after college enrollment is confirmed. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students who are enrolled full time at an accredited university as rising freshmen, sophomores, or juniors, are U.S. citizens, are of good character, and are majoring in engineering, architecture, or environmental science. Applicants must submit a 2-page narrative addressing the following topics: their academic performance, academic and professional goals, financial need, extracurricular activities, a summary of previous military service (if any), and a statement of why they should be considered for the award. Preference is given to applicants in the Washington, D.C. area. Deadline for Receipt: January of each year. Additional Information: This program includes the following named scholarships: the Paul Brott Scholarship, the Linda McCarthy Scholarship, the T-Bird/RPI Environmental Scholarship, and the Ronald Hubbard Scholarship.

2006 ■ SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION, INC.

Attn: Student Center
8307 Shaffer Parkway
Littleton, CO 80127-4102
Tel: (303)973-9550
Free: 800-763-3132
Fax: (303)973-3845
E-mail: sme@smenet.org
Web Site: http://www.smenet.org/education/students/sme_scholarships.cfm
To provide financial assistance to upper-division student members of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME) who are majoring in fields that will develop their skills related to mining and the environment.
Title of Award: Environmental Division Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Economics; Engineering, Mining and Mineral; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geology; Metallurgy Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 or more each year. Funds Available: A total of $2,000 is awarded each year. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: Applicants must 1) be majoring in a field related to the minerals industry (e.g., geology, minerals engineering, mining engineering, or mineral economics) at a 4-year college or university, 2) have completed at least their sophomore year in college, 3) be a U.S. citizen, and 4) be a student member of the society. They must be of good character, be of sound health, have demonstrated scholastic aptitude (GPA of 3.0 or higher), and be able to demonstrate financial need. Candidates for these scholarships must be working on an undergraduate degree related to mining and the environment with a faculty advisor who has special interests in an environmentally-oriented program. Deadline for Receipt: October of each year.

2007 ■ SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SOCIETY

Attn: Scholarships
945 S.W. Ankeny Road
Ankeny, IA 50021-9764
Tel: (515)289-2331
Free: 800-THE
Fax: (515)289-1227
E-mail: swcs@swcs.org
Web Site: http://www.swcs.org/en/scholarships
To provide financial assistance to members of the Soil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS) who are currently employed and wish to improve their technical or administrative competence.
Title of Award: Donald A. Williams Soil Conservation Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Soil science; Water resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to undergraduate members of the society who have completed at least 1 year of full-time employment in a natural resource conservation job with a federal, state, or local government agency, organization, or business firm. Applicants must be currently employed and able to show reasonable financial need. Selection is based on demonstrated integrity, ability, competence in work, and skills gained through training or experience. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Recipients are not required to work on a degree.

2008 ■ SOUTH CAROLINA SPACE GRANT CONSORTIUM

c/o College of Charleston
Department of Geology and Environmental Sciences
66 George Street
Charleston, SC 29424
Tel: (843)953-5463
Fax: (843)953-5446

E-mail: scozzarot@cofc.edu
Web Site: http://www.cofc.edu/~scsgrant/scholar/overview.html
To provide financial assistance to upper-division and graduate students in South Carolina who are preparing for a career as a science and mathematics teacher.
Title of Award: South Carolina Space Grant Consortium Pre-Service Teacher Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Aerospace sciences; Astronomy and astronomical sciences; Education; Engineering; Engineering, Aerospace/Aeronautical/Astronautical; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Science; Space and planetary sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: Varies each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000. Funds may be used for such expenses as 1) partial payment of tuition; 2) travel and registration for attending science and mathematics education workshops or conferences for the purpose of professional development; 3) purchase of supplies for student teaching activities; or 4) other supportive activities that lead to successful professional development and graduation as an educator in South Carolina. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to juniors, seniors, and graduate students at member institutions of the South Carolina Space Grant Consortium. Applicants must be working on a teaching certificate in science, mathematics, or engineering. Their areas of interest may include, but are not limited to, the basic sciences, astronomy, science education, planetary science, environmental studies, or engineering. U.S. citizenship is required. Selection is based on academic qualifications of the applicant; 2 letters of recommendation; a description of past activities, current interests, and future plans concerning a space science or aerospace-related field; a sample lesson plan using curriculum materials available from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and faculty sponsorship. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply. Deadline for Receipt: January of each year. Additional Information: Members of the consortium are Benedict College, The Citadel, College of Charleston, Clemson University, Coastal Carolina University, Furman University, University of South Carolina, Wofford College, South Carolina State University, The Medical University of South Carolina, and University of the Virgin Islands. This program is funded by NASA.

2009 ■ SOUTH DAKOTA SPACE GRANT CONSORTIUM

Attn: Deputy Director and Outreach Coordinator
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
Mineral Industries Building, Room 228
501 East St. Joseph Street
Rapid City, SD 57701-3995
Tel: (605)394-1975
Fax: (605)394-5360

E-mail: Thomas.Durkin@sdsmt.edu
Web Site: http://www.sdsmt.edu/space
To provide funding to undergraduate and graduate students for space-related activities in South Dakota.
Title of Award: South Dakota Space Grant Consortium Graduate Fellowships and Undergraduate Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Aerospace sciences; Earth sciences; Engineering, Aerospace/Aeronautical/Astronautical; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geology; Geosciences; Mathematics and mathematical sciences; Space and planetary sciences; Technology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year. Approximately $70,000 is available for this program annually. Funds Available: Stipends range from $1,000 to $7,500. Duration: 1 academic year, semester, or summer.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to undergraduate and graduate students at member and affiliated institutions of the South Dakota Space Grant Consortium. Applicants must be interested in 1) earth- and space-science related educational and research projects in fields relevant to the goals of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); or 2) eventual employment with NASA or in a NASA-related career field in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Activities may include student research and educational efforts in remote sensing, GIS, global and regional geoscience, environmental science, and K-12 educational outreach; exposure to NASA-relevant projects; and internship experiences at various NASA centers and the Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center in Sioux Falls. U.S. citizenship is required. Women, members of underrepresented groups (African Americans, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and persons with disabilities), and Tribal College students are specifically encouraged to apply. Selection is based on academic qualifications of the application (preference is given to students with a GPA of 3.0 or higher), quality of the application and its career goal statement, and assessment of the applicant's motivation toward an earth science, aerospace, or engineering career or research. Deadline for Receipt: January of each year. Additional Information: Member institutions include South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, South Dakota State University, and Augustana College. Educational affiliates include Black Hills State University, the University of South Dakota, Dakota State University, Lower Brule Community College, Oglala Lakota College, Sinte Gleska University, and Lake Area Technical Institute.

2010 ■ SURFRIDER FOUNDATION

Attn: Pratte Scholarship
P.O. Box 6010
San Clemente, CA 92674-6010
Tel: (949)492-8170
Fax: (949)492-8142

E-mail: prattescholarship@surfrider.org
Web Site: http://www.surfrider.org
To provide financial assistance to members of the Surfrider Foundation working on an undergraduate or graduate degree in an environmental field.
Title of Award: Thomas Pratte Memorial Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Marine biology; Natural resources; Oceanography; Public administration; Urban affairs/design/planning Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: 3 each year: 1 for a student at each academic level. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000 for an undergraduate, $3,000 for a master's degree student, and $5,000 for a doctoral student. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members of the foundation working on an undergraduate, master's, or doctoral degree in a field consistent with the foundation's mission, including (but not limited to) oceanography, marine affairs, environmental sciences, public policy, community planning, or natural resources. Applicants must be enrolled at an accredited college or university in the United States or Puerto Rico as an upper-division or graduate student. Undergraduates must have a GPA of 3.4 or higher and graduate students 3.6 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit 1) a personal statement describing their career goals, volunteer activities, work, or summer plans as they pertain to the coastal environmental issues relevant to the foundation and its mission; and 2) a description of their current research and how it relates to the foundation's stated mission and environmental programs. Financial need is not considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: This foundation, established in 1984 by a group of surfers, is a nonprofit environmental grassroots organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of the world's waves, oceans, and beaches. It currently has 50,000 members with 60 chapters in 22 states.

2011 ■ SWEDISH WOMEN'S EDUCATION ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL-SOUTH FLORIDA CHAPTER

c/o Yerti Nelson, Scholarship Committee
3759 Mykonos Court
Boca Raton, FL 33486
Tel: (561)997-2050
Fax: (561)997-8010

E-mail: florida@swea.org
Web Site: http://www.chapters-swea.org/florida
To provide financial assistance to Florida residents interested in studying in Sweden or an area related to Swedish studies.
Title of Award: South Florida SWEA Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Art; Art industries and trade; Crafts; Design; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Foreign languages; General studies/Field of study not specified; Literature; Music; Swedish studies Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Professional, Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $3,000.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to all residents of Florida interested in participating in an exchange program in Sweden. Applicants may also propose to study in the United States, if the studies specifically emphasize Sweden and Swedish aspects, including 1) Swedish language; 2) Swedish culture or traditions; 3) environmental science; 4) a health care program promoting better health for women and children; or 5) handicraft, art, glass art, music, literature, or design. Study proposals must be well-defined in time and content. Along with their application, they must submit a transcript from college, university, or vocational school; curriculum vitae; project proposal, describing the planned studies, length of studies, and goals; financial statement; and letter of recommendation from an instructor. Deadline for Receipt: January of each year. Additional Information: Within 3 months after the end of studies or the project, the recipient must report to the scholarship committee or, if possible, accept an invitation to an organization meeting to share the experience.

2012 ■ HARRY S. TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION

Attn: Executive Secretary
712 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202)395-4831
Fax: (202)395-6995

E-mail: office@truman.gov
Web Site: http://www.truman.gov
To provide grants-for-service for graduate school to current college juniors who are interested in preparing for a career in public service.
Title of Award: Harry S. Truman Scholarship Program Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Biological and clinical sciences; Economics; Education; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; History; International affairs and relations; Law; Physical sciences; Political science; Public administration; Public health; Public service; Social sciences; Technology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: 70 to 75 each year: a) 1 "state" scholarship is available to a qualified resident nominee in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Islands (Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); and b) up to 25 at-large scholars. Funds Available: The program provides up to $30,000, including up to $15,000 for the first year of graduate study and up to $15,000 for the final year of graduate study. Duration: Support is provided for the first and last year of graduate study.
Eligibility Requirements: Students must be nominated to be considered for this program. Nominees must be full-time students with junior standing at a 4-year institution, committed to a career in government or public service, in the upper quarter of their class, and U.S. citizens or nationals. Each participating institution may nominate up to 4 candidates (and up to 3 additional students who completed their first 2 years at a community college); community colleges and other 2-year institutions may nominate former students who are enrolled as full-time students with junior-level academic standing at accredited 4-year institutions. Selection is based on extent and quality of community service and government involvement, academic performance, leadership record, suitability of the nominee's proposed program of study for a career in public service, and writing and analytical skills. Priority is given to candidates who plan to enroll in a graduate program that specifically trains them for a career in public service, including government at any level, uniformed services, public interest organizations, nongovernmental research and/or educational organizations, public and private schools, and public service oriented nonprofit organizations. The fields of study may include agriculture, biology, engineering, environmental management, physical and social sciences, and technology policy, as well as such traditional fields as economics, education, government, history, international relations, law, nonprofit management, political science, public administration, public health, and public policy. Interviews are required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Recipients may attend graduate school in the United States or in foreign countries. Scholars are required to work in public service for 3 of the 7 years following completion of a graduate degree program funded by this program. Scholars who do not meet this service requirement, or who fail to provide timely proof to the foundation of such employment, will be required to repay funds received, along with interest.

2013 ■ MORRIS K. UDALL FOUNDATION

130 South Scott Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701-1922
Tel: (520)670-5529
Fax: (520)670-5530
Web Site: http://www.udall.gov/scholarship
To provide financial assistance to 1) college sophomores and juniors who intend to prepare for a career in environmental public policy and 2) Native American and Alaska Native students who intend to prepare for a career in health care or tribal public policy.
Title of Award: Morris K. Udall Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Business administration; Economics; Education; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Health care services; Native American studies; Natural resources; Political science; Public administration; Public health; Urban affairs/design/planning Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Approximately 80 scholarships and 50 honorable mentions are awarded each year. Funds Available: The maximum stipend for scholarship winners is $5,000 per year. Funds are to be used for tuition, fees, books, and room and board. Honorable mention stipends are $350. Duration: 1 year; recipients nominated as sophomores may be renominated in their junior year.
Eligibility Requirements: Each 2-year and 4-year college and university in the United States and its possessions may nominate up to 6 sophomores or juniors from either or both categories of this program: 1) students who intend to prepare for a career in environmental public policy, and 2) Native American and Alaska Native students who intend to prepare for a career in health care or tribal public policy. For the first category, the program seeks future leaders across a wide spectrum of environmental fields, such as policy, engineering, science, education, urban planning and renewal, business, health, justice, and economics. For the second category, the program seeks future Native American and Alaska Native leaders in public and community health care, tribal government, and public policy affecting Native American communities, including land and resource management, economic development, and education. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, nationals, or permanent residents with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit an 800-word essay discussing a significant public speech, legislative act, or public policy statement by former Congressman Morris K. Udall and its impact on their field of study, interests, and career goals. Selection is based on demonstrated commitment to 1) environmental issues through substantial commitment to and participation in 1 or more of the following: campus activities, research, community service, or public service; or 2) tribal public policy or Native American health through substantial contributions to and participation in 1 or more of the following: campus activities, tribal involvement, community or public service, or research; a course of study and proposed career likely to lead to position where nominee can make significant contributions to the shaping of environmental, tribal public policy, or Native American health care issues, whether through scientific advances, public or political service, or community action; and leadership, character, desire to make a difference, and general well-roundedness. Deadline for Receipt: Faculty representatives must submit their nominations by early March of each year.

2014 ■ U.S. MARINE CORPS

Manpower and Reserve Affairs (MMEA-85)
3280 Russell Road
Quantico, VA 22134-5103
Tel: (703)784-9264
Fax: (703)784-9843
Web Site: http://www.usmc.mil
To allow selected noncommissioned Marine Corps officers to earn a bachelor's degree in selected fields by pursuing full-time college study while continuing to receive their regular pay and allowances.
Title of Award: Marine Corps Staff Noncommissioned Officers Degree Completion Program Area, Field, or Subject: Accounting; Business administration; Education; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Finance; Management; Music; Protective services; Psychology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 5 Marines were selected to participate in this program. Funds Available: Noncommissioned officers selected to participate in this program receive their regular Marine Corps pay while attending a college or university on a full-time basis. Tuition, matriculation fees, and other expenses (such as books) must be paid by the recipient through personal funds, in-service Montgomery GI Bill benefits, student loans, or other non-Marine Corps means. Duration: Up to the equivalent of 2 academic years.
Eligibility Requirements: Eligible to participate in this program are regular active-duty Marines, especially in the grades of staff sergeant and gunnery sergeant. Applicants must have completed at least 2 years of postsecondary study and have been accepted by an accredited degree-granting college or university in a program offered to all matriculating students; enrollment in a multiple major program designed for adults returning to school does not qualify. The program recently was limited to the following majors: accounting, business administration with an emphasis on accounting or financial management, education, environmental safety, environmental health management, hazardous material and waste control, music, occupational safety, psychology, safety education, safety management, and waste control. Deadline for Receipt: April of each year. Additional Information: Applicants must agree to extend/reenlist for a period of 4 years beyond completion of this program.

2015 ■ U.S. NAVY

Attn: Naval Medical Education
Code OG3
8901 Wisconsin Avenue, 16th Floor, Tower 1
Bethesda, MD 20889-5611
Tel: (301)319-4520
E-mail: mscipp@nmetc.med.navy.mil
Web Site: http://nshs.med.navy.mil/mscipp/mscipp.htm
To provide funding to Navy and Marine enlisted personnel who wish to earn an undergraduate or graduate degree in selected health care specialties while continuing to receive their regular pay and allowances.
Title of Award: Medical Service Corps Inservice Procurement Program (MSC-IPP) Area, Field, or Subject: Entomology; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Health care services; Industrial hygiene; Medical assisting; Pharmaceutical sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: Varies each year. Recently, 36 of these positions were available: 20 in health care administration, 10 in physician assistant, 2 in pharmacy, 2 in environmental health, 1 in industrial hygiene, and 1 in entomology. Funds Available: Participants receive payment of tuition, mandatory fees, a book allowance, and full pay and allowances for their enlisted pay grade. They are eligible for advancement while in college. Duration: 24 to 48 months of full-time, year-round study, until completion of a relevant degree.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to enlisted personnel who are serving on active duty in pay grades E-5 through E-9 of the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, Naval Reserve (including the Training and Administration of the Reserve Program), and the Marine Corps Reserve (including the Active Reserve Program). Applicants must be interested in working on a degree to become commissioned in the following medical specialties: health care administration, physician assistant, pharmacy, environmental health, industrial hygiene, or entomology. If they plan to work on a graduate degree, they must have scores of at least 900 on the GRE or 470 on the GMAT; if they plan to work on a bachelor's or physician assistant degree, they must have scores of at least 1000 on the SAT (including 460 on the mathematics portion) or 42 on the ACT. They must be U.S. citizens who can be commissioned before they reach their 42nd birthday. Deadline for Receipt: August of each year. Additional Information: Following graduation, participants are commissioned in the Medical Service Corps and attend Officer Indoctrination School.

2016 ■ VIRGINIA DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

c/o Catherine Rafferty, Scholarship Chair
10101 Sanders Court
Great Falls, VA 22066-2526
Web Site: http://www.vadar.org/vadarscholarships.htm
To provide financial assistance to high school seniors in Virginia who wish to study designated fields in college.
Title of Award: Virginia DAR Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Forestry; Genealogy; History, American; Home Economics; Medicine; Science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 2 each year: 1 at $1,000 and 1 at $500. Funds Available: Stipends are $1,000 or $500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to seniors graduating from high schools in Virginia who plan to attend a Virginia college or university. Applicants must be planning to work on a degree in the field of science, medicine, conservation, ecology, forestry, home arts, genealogical research, or American history. Along with their application, they must submit a 1,000-word letter giving their reasons for interest in the scholarship, a transcript of grades, a letter of recommendation from a teacher in their chosen field, and documentation of financial need. Deadline for Receipt: January of each year.

2017 ■ VIRGINIA SPACE GRANT CONSORTIUM

Attn: Fellowship Coordinator
Old Dominion University Peninsula Center
600 Butler Farm Road
Hampton, VA 23666
Tel: (757)766-5210
Fax: (757)766-5205

E-mail: vsgc@odu.edu
Web Site: http://www.vsgc.odu.edu/Menu3_1_1.htm
To provide financial assistance for college or graduate school to students in Virginia planning a career as science, mathematics, or technology educators.
Title of Award: Virginia Space Grant Teacher Education Scholarship Program Area, Field, or Subject: Aerospace sciences; Earth sciences; Education; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Geosciences; Mathematics and mathematical sciences; Science; Space and planetary sciences; Technology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Master's Number Awarded: Approximately 10 each year. Funds Available: The maximum stipend is $1,000. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to full-time undergraduate students at the Virginia Space Grant Consortium (VSGC) colleges and universities in a track that will qualify them to teach in a pre-college setting. Priority is given to those majoring in technology education, mathematics, or science, particularly earth, space, or environmental science. Applicants may apply while seniors in high school or sophomores in a community college, with the award contingent on their enrollment at a VSGC college and entrance into a teacher certification program. They must submit a statement of academic goals and plan of study, explaining their reasons for desiring to enter the teaching profession, specifically the fields of science, mathematics, or technology education. Students currently enrolled in a VSGC college can apply when they declare their intent to enter the teacher certification program. Students enrolled in a master of education degree program leading to teacher certification in eligible fields are also eligible to apply. Applicants must be U.S. citizens with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Since an important purpose of this program is to increase the participation of underrepresented minorities, women, and persons with disabilities in science, mathematics, and technology education, the VSGC especially encourages applications from those students. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: The VSGC institutions are College of William and Mary, Hampton University, Old Dominion University, the University of Virginia, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. This program is funded by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

2018 ■ IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA-MINNESOTA DIVISION

Attn: Scholarship Committee
555 Park Street, Suite 140
St. Paul, MN 55103-2110
Tel: (651)221-0215
E-mail: ikes@minnesotaikes.org
Web Site: http://www.minnesotaikes.org
To provide financial assistance to Minnesota residents who are studying an environmental field in college.
Title of Award: Minnesota Division Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Education; Environmental conservation; Environmental law; Environmental science; Wildlife conservation, management, and science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 or more each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to residents of Minnesota who are in at least their second year of college. Applicants must be majoring in environmental education, environmental law, wildlife management, or some other conservation-oriented program. They must be U.S. citizens and able to demonstrate financial need. Along with their application, they must submit a 1-page essay on their belief in conservation and what the future holds for them (including their educational plans and career goals), a transcript, a description of their program of study, and 2 letters of recommendation. An interview may be requested. Deadline for Receipt: May of each year.

2019 ■ WILDLIFE SOCIETY-FLORIDA CHAPTER

c/o Maria Zondervan, Scholarship Committee Chair
St. Johns River Water Management District
975 Keller Road
Altamonte Springs, FL 32714-1618
Tel: (407)659-4872
E-mail: mzondervan@sjrwmd.com
Web Site: http://fltws.org
To provide financial assistance to upper-division students working on a degree in wildlife ecology and/or management at a Florida college.
Title of Award: Florida Chapter of the Wildlife Society Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Wildlife conservation, management, and science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students entering their junior or senior year at a 4-year college or university in Florida. Applicants must be interested in preparing for a career in wildlife ecology and/or management. They must have a GPA of 2.5 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit a letter describing their professional goals and financial need. Selection is based on goals as expressed in the letter, extracurricular activities, demonstrated leadership, professional potential, and financial need. Deadline for Receipt: November of each year. Additional Information: This program, established in 1998, is jointly sponsored by the Florida chapter of The Wildlife Society, the Florida chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, and the Florida Wildlife Federation.

College Blue Book

Conservation

views updated May 21 2018

Conservation

I. Political and Social AspectsArthur Maass

BIBLIOGRAPHY

II. Economic AspectsAnthony Scott

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS

Whatever else it may mean, “conservation” when used in relation to natural resources is a virtuous, a worthy word. Just men do not oppose conservation. As U.S. President William Howard Taft complained in 1910, “The subject of Conservation is rather abstruse, but there are a great many people in favor of Conservation, no matter what it means.”

In the United States, where this good word has been used most, it has been called to the support of many policies and programs that on their face do not seem terribly consistent. If there is any regularity among them, it is that the policies and programs have demanded reform, based on certain scientific, democratic, and moral objectives.

When “conservation” came to be used in the United States, at the beginning of the twentieth century, it was associated principally with new federal programs for forestry; for regulating the use of western public lands to protect, in addition to timber, the livestock ranges, outstanding scenic and recreational sites, and wildlife habitats; and for developing water resources for irrigation of western deserts and navigation of eastern rivers.

A half century later, in the 1960s, “conservation” was being used to describe and support government programs relating to cities. The “new conservation,” as spokesmen for President John F. Kennedy's New Frontier and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society have called it, is concerned with the quality of the urban environment—with programs to acquire and protect open land in metropolitan areas and to prevent ugliness and the pollution of the environment. Between 1900 and 1960 the nation's population and its social problems and government programs had shifted from being dominantly rural to being dominantly urban; the use of “conservation” to describe problems and programs followed the same course.

Furthermore, “conservation” had been used in the intervening years with reference to pressing needs of the moment. The great depression of the 1930s and the cold war of the 1950s are examples. Most of the conservation programs of the New Deal were undertaken to pull the nation out of a deep depression and to redistribute income to disadvantaged groups. The Central Valley project, Bonneville Dam, and many other resource-development projects were begun with funds appropriated to stimulate the economy by emergency public works. Payments to farmers for soil-building practices were basically supplements to their low incomes. The public lands were improved by unemployed urban youth recruited into the Civilian Conservation Corps.

In the 1950s conservation was linked to plans and programs to insure the adequacy of raw materials to meet the needs of the free world. The report of the President's Materials Policy Commission, which articulated this approach, was concerned with how to “avert or overcome materials shortages which threaten the long-run economic growth and security of the United States and other free nations” (U.S. President's Materials … 1952, vol. 1, p. 2). The public policies recommended by the Materials Commission were radically different in kind from those that had been associated with conservation in earlier years, among them policies for influencing the rates of technological development in American industry and for guaranteeing private American investments for the processing of materials in foreign countries.

Notwithstanding the number of policies and programs that have been called conservation, certain types of objectives have recurred sufficiently frequently to give some loose form to the concept. The first of these is scientific method.

Scientific method as an objective

Science and technology have played so dominant a role in conservation policies and programs that the scientific method has been used not only as an analytical technique for solving resource problems but as an objective of public policy as well. The authority of science has been used regularly to justify conservation programs. Supporters of conservation have understood the public decisionmaking process to be the somewhat automatic one of collecting scientific data and applying scientific principles to them. Thus, for example, a physical inventory is made of the forest resource; scientific principles of forestry are applied to the data thus collected; and there results a public policy of prescribed cutting practices on timber lands. The word “planning” has often been used to describe this process.

Alongside the great reliance on science and technology for solving problems, conservation programs have normally included general and specific proposals for the support and promotion of science, technology, and data collection on their own accounts—to add to knowledge.

The conservation movement of the 1900s was above all a scientific movement, and its role in history arises from the implications of science and technology for modern society (Hays 1959, p. 2). The leaders of the movement came from such fields as forestry, hydrology, geology, anthropology, and civil engineering—several of which had come to be recognized as professions, with societies and standards, only in the last part of the nineteenth century. A central theme of the movement was support for scientific data collection by such agencies as the then recently established U.S. Geological Survey and for scientific research by the new Forest Experiment Stations and the Agricultural Experiment Stations.

The conservation programs of the New Deal were also scientifically oriented. The high-level National Resources Planning Board served several purposes during its ten-year lifetime, which began in 1933; but the one for which it was created initially, and which remained a central purpose, was to guarantee that public projects undertaken with emergency and other public-works funds were planned by technicians in accordance with scientific principles.

In the report of the Materials Commission, which dominated thought on conservation in the 1950s, more pages are devoted to technology and its promise than to any other subject. Although the commission found that “the Government, up from almost nothing since the beginning of the century, is now the great force behind scientific and technical research in this country,” it concluded that the effort was not sufficient and recommended more funds for basic research on materials and more government planning and coordination of materials technology (U.S. President's Materials … 1952, vol. 1, pp. 144–145).

The “new conservation” of the 1960s, with its focus on beauty and quality of the environment, continues to emphasize science and technology. However, the classes of expert skills called upon to develop the technical principles to be applied are broader. Thus, the conservationist today may be a lawyer working on scenic easements, a land planner, or an architect.

Scientific elitism

The central role of science in conservation programs has meant a central role in decision making for experts and, concomitantly, a reduced role for lay judgment. And since the conservation scientists have been largely in government service, there has developed a scientific elitism that emphasizes government regulation, by the experts, of private interests; and executive, or expert, power at the expense of legislative, or lay, power.

As for the distribution of power within government, scientific elitism has led to the belief that the experts of the executive branch are better equipped than the laymen of the Congress to make decisions relating to conservation, because these are considered to be basically technical in nature. Foresters should determine the allowable annual timber cut; engineers should study the feasibility of river-development projects; agronomists should determine which ranges to keep open for grazing; soil scientists, which lands to retire from agriculture; planning technicians should select the public-works projects to be built. Furthermore, conflicts among competing resource users should be dealt with by experts and not by the political processes that involve the legislature. Land-management experts should resolve land-use differences between forestry, livestock, wildlife, irrigation, and settler groups. Water-resource experts should adjust power, navigation, flood-control, recreation, and upstream-downstream interests to promote the best multipurpose development of river basins. Legislators, being poorly prepared in matters technical, fall easy prey to special interests that have no concern for scientific truth. Members of Congress, therefore, when they have tried to reconcile conflicting groups, have worked a positively bad influence on conservation programs.

As a consequence of this scientific elitism, proponents of conservation programs have held, first, that the legislature should grant the executive the very broadest discretion to deal with problems, and, second, that executive officers have an inherent discretionary power and responsibility to do everything for the public good—as they interpret it— that is not prohibited by law. Thus, executives who are technically competent should be encouraged to do everything that the law will let them do, not merely what the law directs them to do. This latter doctrine, as far-reaching a statement of the public servant's discretion as is to be found in the literature of American government, was set forth by Pinchot and practiced by him and his professional colleagues in the U.S. Forest Service (Pinchot 1947, chapter 12). A similar doctrine was expounded by Pinchot's superior, Theodore Roosevelt, and came to be known as the “stewardship theory” of presidential power. Roosevelt said: “I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it. My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws” (Roosevelt [1913] 1946, p. 357). Of course, it was one thing, and at that, quite controversial, for Roosevelt to claim such broad authority for the president, deriving it from the inherent constitutional powers of that office; it was quite another for Pinchot to claim it for forestry and other conservation technicians.

The claims for broad bureaucratic discretion in conservation programs were more regular and explicit early in the century than they have been since. Nonetheless, this feature of scientific elitism has continued to apply to programs called conservation. Thus, in the 1960s a major controversy developed over the Wilderness Bill, the executive departments holding that their technicians should be authorized to designate, subject to presidential approval, which public lands should be set aside for wilderness, excluding thereby all other resource users; laymen legislators holding that such designations should be authorized by the Congress, with full opportunity for legislative hearings.

Finally, scientific elitism has helped to pin a bad reputation on the nation's legislature— that of proponent of special interests and opponent of scientific method.

Physical versus economic objectives

The emphasis on natural science in conservation programs has led to analyses of problems and statements of goals in physical rather than economic terms. The barrels of oil in the ground and the number of barrels pumped out each year; the timber inventory and the board feet of lumber cut each year; the inches of topsoil on the land and the tons of it that annually wash down the Mississippi River —these have been considered the relevant data. They have led to simple conclusions: We are in danger of running out of oil; the topsoil will be entirely gone in another x years—unless vigorous government conservation programs are activated. The responsive government programs have included most physical solutions—contour plowing and the construction of dams are examples—to satisfy goals that, also, have been put in physical measures. “To each acre according to its needs and capabilities,” was the motto of the soil-conservation program; and proponents of the federal reclamation program in California have sought, as their goal, to ensure that not a drop of fresh water is wasted from the rivers to the sea.

The close association of conservation in the 1930s with efforts to redistribute national income to disadvantaged groups raised obstacles for those who analyzed resource problems in physical terms. Nonetheless, the limitations of a heavy reliance on physical data for identifying and solving conservation problems were not exposed systematically until the 1950s, in the report of the Materials Commission. According to this report, the traditional view of conservation had perpetuated two fallacies. First, it regarded the resource base as a fixed inventory that, when used up, would leave society with no means of survival. Second, it equated physical waste and economic waste—it encouraged the feeling that it is wasteful to use materials in ways that make them disappear. This attitude, said the commission, can lead to devoting a dollar's worth of work to “save” a few cents' worth of paper and old string. In its own analysis, the commission estimated the resource requirements of the United States and the rest of the free world and devoted special attention to those resources that would not be forthcoming in sufficient quantity to meet future needs except at significantly higher relative prices. In other words, the commission attempted to foresee potential price rises and to plan in advance to forestall them or adjust to them by various types of measures.

Recently scholars have developed new techniques for combining the physical and economic analyses of complex resource systems (McKean 1958; Maass et al. 1962). The production function for a resource, representing relations between physical factors, and its benefit function, representing relations between economic factors, are believed to be so closely interrelated that they should be developed and analyzed synchronously. The methods of operations research and systems analysis make this possible [seeOperations research; Planning, social, article onRESOURCE PLANNING].

Scientific research and action programs

Principles derived from the natural sciences have been developed for the conservation of each resource— forests, ranges, soil, wildlife—and one principle, that of ecological balance, or nature's balance, for the several resources in combination. This latter principle states that under natural conditions the resources of a region tend to be in balance and to remain relatively stable over long periods of time. Thus, under natural conditions the soil, cover, and moisture supply of a watershed are believed to be in balance, in the sense that plant growth is adjusted to the amount and distribution of rainfall, and stream channels to the runoff they must carry. Even under natural conditions this balance is not static. It is influenced by long-term natural processes, such as climatic forces, and by natural catastrophes. The principle of ecological balance holds that the long-term processes are virtually imperceptible to man and that the natural catastrophes are infrequent, their effects usually confined to small areas that heal rapidly.

Man, however, interferes with nature's balance in a destructive way, according to the ecological theory that has been popular with supporters of conservation programs (Frank & Netboy 1950). He tends to set in motion forces that seriously and sometimes permanently disrupt the ecological balance. For example, his livestock may overgraze a watershed. The plants lose their vigor—that is, their ability to produce new leaves and roots and to deposit litter that covers and nourishes the soil. The carpet of litter not only wears thin but is destroyed by exposure to the elements and to animal hoofs. In time the soil loses its virility, including its capacity to absorb water and to resist forces of destructive erosion. Concomitantly, the flow and quality of water deteriorate.

The public-policy consequences of the principle of ecological balance are clear: control man's activities so that he cannot permanently or seriously disrupt nature's balance. A great many conservation programs have been based on this scientific principle. Furthermore, the principle provides its own criterion for evaluating the condition of the resources of a region: measure it against what were believed to be the natural conditions prior to man's settlement.

In response to this theory, certain scientists, frequently men who have not been associated with conservation programs, have argued that man is only the most recent and most complex of nature's creatures; that he and his activities are a part of, not apart from, nature's balance (Tansley 1939; Firey 1960). Conservation ecologists have replied that man is unique; that he is endowed with capacities not found in other animals or found there only in concentrations so weak as to make a qualitative difference. These capacities are, of course, consciousness, intellect, and conscience.

Quite separate from this continuing and, in part, philosophical debate, recent scientific studies have challenged the principle of natural ecological balance and, therefore, the scientific bases of many public programs. Raup (1964) and his colleagues at the Harvard Forest have demonstrated that natural catastrophes have such persistent and serious effects on natural environment that stable natural equilibriums may be infrequent. On certain slopes of the forest over 50 per cent of the trees are growing on blowdown stumps that were razed by numerous hurricanes. Malin (1956) has described the influences that kept the Great Plains grasslands in a disturbed state for countless years before the coming of the fur traders and settlers. His studies make an impressive case against the theory of nature's balance and the doctrine that man, primarily, destroyed this. Scientists like these have modified their search for ecological balance, with its resulting emphasis on “Do Not Disturb”— on protection. They have instead focused their studies on adaptation, with its resulting emphasis on a dynamic and flexible system of controls and de-emphasis of the destructive character of human occupance. Yet the traditional association of many conservation programs with ecological balance is so strong that supporters of these programs tend to disregard or disagree with any contrary or even partially nonsupporting scientific theories.

Conservation programs have been devised and then supported on the “authoritative base of science,” but when this scientific base or any part of it is challenged by new findings, supporters of the program, both in and out of government, are ambivalent. Their dedication to science leads them to promote the type of research that can turn up new and contrary results. But the fact that their public, and most often their legislative, support is based on a previously proclaimed scientific authority makes them hesitant to give currency to these new findings.

Another illustration of this is the U.S. Forest Service and fire (Schiff 1962). When the service began its program for ridding the nation's forests of what was then considered to be their greatest scourge, the doctrine that trees and fires don't mix was generally believed to be a scientific truth. Public and legislative support for the now familiar Smoky Bear program was built largely on this truth. In the mid-1920s, however, Professor H. H. Chapman, the noted Yale forester, confirmed a new truth, which had been suggested previously by other forest scientists; namely, that fire is essential for the reproduction of longleaf and loblolly pine in the southeastern United States. Without fire to burn off the brush growth and ground litter, pine seedlings are unable to survive. If the Forest Service had been fully successful in its fire-protection program in the southeast, it would have eliminated these valuable species.

For over six years the Forest Service refused to investigate or check the new findings, though Chapman insisted they should. When Forest Service scientists did conduct investigations at their Southern Experiment Station, these confirmed the case for burning; but the service then refused to release the results.

Finally, in 1939, after the incessant insistence of Chapman, the service published their scientific findings; but not until after World War ii did they make any effort to inform the public that controlled burning was in some situations desirable and in others essential. Throughout this period of about twenty years, the Forest Service supported publicly the original scientific doctrine that forests and fire should never mix. The leaders of the agency feared that to modify or contradict this in any way might lead the public to be less vigilant and cause the federal and state legislatures to be less sympathetic to providing the means for preventing forest fires throughout the nation.

The Forest Service and other conservation agencies are not the only government organizations that have encountered problems in accommodating both scientific research and action programs. The general problem, a fascinating one in bureaucracy and organization, is beyond the scope of this article. At the same time, because of their very heavy reliance on scientific method as an objective, conservation agencies have suffered the problem in an aggravated form.

American conservation programs, with the possible exception of those based on the analysis of the 1952 Materials Commission, have been reform programs. Like other American reform programs of the twentieth century, but much more so, conservation programs have relied on the authority of science. Faith in science has had a high standing among the beliefs and commitments of the American people. Science has come to stand for material well-being, soundness, objectivity, and truth. A society with a proper respect for science and technology can enjoy the liberties of a free people. Much the same can be said of democracy, as an objective of American reform programs in general and of conservation programs in particular.

Democracy as an objective

For the American people, democracy has been not only their form of government but a faith, an ideal, an objective, “our form of patriotism” (Waldo 1948, pp. 12–13). Every individual is important; every man should be master of his own destiny; all men are endowed with rights that should not be violated; the privacy of individuals should be free from unwarranted intrusion—these are the first tenets of the American democratic faith, and they have been associated directly with conservation programs. “Rugged individualism” is a phrase common to conservation literature from the beginning of the century until today, and a highly evocative phrase this has been—whether it calls to mind Theodore Roosevelt on horseback or today's heavily knapsacked citizen on foot, solitary in his enjoyment of nature's wilderness. Conservation begins with the American people, who have been nurtured on “a fierce sense of individualism,” and it “rests in the people's hands,” according to the school text published by the American Association of School Administrators and written by its Commission on Conservation (1964).

Conservation programs, again apart from those inspired by the Materials Commission, have typically defended this rugged individual, “the little man,” against monopolies and concentrated wealth, special interest and special privilege. Big business and financial power have been identified with the wasters of resources and the destroyers of beauty.

The conservation movement of the early twentieth century was in part a reaction against the influence of private corporations, which had been growing rapidly since the Civil War. Unless the corporations were controlled, said the supporters of conservation-reform programs, the basic resources of the nation would come to be concentrated in the hands of a few, and these few would use up the nation's wealth wastefully and profligately, for quick private profit, with no concern for the long-range benefit of the people. Furthermore, the organization of industry into combinations threatened the independent, self-made man with a faceless, ugly, and largely urban materialism. In recent years, as conservation has been used more and more in relation to urban problems, the real estate interests, the large industrial polluters of the environment, the billboard lobby, and others have been added to the oil trust, the lumber lobby, the power interests, and the cattle barons as enemies of the common man—selfish despoilers of his heritage.

There runs through all conservation literature the notion of a common, or public, good that differs from the self-interest, the “selfishness,” of private operators, especially those with great financial power. To define and enforce this common good, governmental action and public education are needed. Thus, alongside the basic belief in rugged individualism, there has developed a strong commitment to positive government as a means of effecting the common good. In fact, this progovernment attitude has been a principal characteristic of conservation programs, joining the emphasis on science. At the turn of the century, such an attitude represented a drastic departure from then dominant values with respect to the role of government in society (Wengert 1962), and ever since, demands for governmental action to support conservation have been more far-reaching than those for action to support most other domestic policies.

Commitments to rugged individualism on the one hand and to positive government on the other are presumably harmonized in a commitment to democratic institutions, and the literature on conservation programs is sprinkled with references to faith in democracy and to consent of the governed. But when the investigator looks carefully, he finds that supporters of conservation programs have in fact had little confidence in democratic institutions. They have considered popularly elected assemblies to be agents of special interests; they have opposed advisory committees in connection with administration of the national forests. Their confidence has rested with the technicians of the executive, who are qualified both to define the common good in relation to the subject at hand and to enforce government action to realize it. The common good, thus, is equated with scientific elitism.

At the same time, conservation men have sought direct popular support for their government programs through public education and public information. As a result of the sustained effort of government conservation agencies and their allies outside government, conservation is a subject taught today in thousands of public schools all over the country. The curriculum emphasizes the scientific principles of conservation; in the classroom and in the woods children are taught ecology, soil classification, game management, etc.

The government conservation agencies have also depended heavily on adult education to gain support for, and cooperation with, their programs to reduce forest fires, to promote soil-erosion control and other agricultural practices, to preserve scenic areas, etc.

If the supporters of conservation programs, while claiming democracy as an objective, have shown little confidence in democratic institutions, they have, through their outstanding efforts in public education, shown confidence in the common man. But one could argue that this has been more to gain public support for programs based on the scientists' definitions of the common good than to encourage popular participation in defining this goal.

The commitment to positive government has led, as might be expected, to the organization of a large number of special-interest groups and to an intense form of interest-group activity in conservation programs (Wengert 1955). Since the conservation technicians are concerned to see that the general interest, rather than special interests, prevails and since the general interest, for them, is the result of the application of scientific principles, they are ever on guard against the influence of these groups. This is in part why they have opposed advisory committees that represent one or more classes of users of the public lands, and why they have been suspicious of popularly elected assemblies, which are susceptible to the influence of special interests.

Big and little operators

From the beginning, but especially since World War II, the “little-man” component of the democratic objective of conservation programs has meant contradictions in these programs; for the big operators, even or especially the very big ones, frequently practice better “conservation” than the little ones.

Take forestry, for example. In a massive inventory report entitled Timber Resources for America's Future (U.S. Forest Service 1958), the Forest Service reported that “the forest condition is best” on public forest lands and on those owned by forest industries such as Weyerhaeuser. “There is little distinction,” said the service, “between the productivity of recently cut lands in public ownership as contrasted to those owned by forest industry.” The real contrast in quality of forest practices is between the public and forest-industry ownerships on the one hand and the small private holding on the other: “There is conclusive evidence that the condition of recently cut lands is poorest on the farm and 'other' [meaning 'small'] private ownerships” (ibid., p. 106).

Reduction in numbers of livestock on public ranges that are overgrazed is another example. Government range supervisors assert that it is easier to effect this conservation measure if the range is used by a few permittees, each with a large number of livestock, than by a large number of permittees, each grazing relatively few head. This is because the large operators, with their commensurately large private holdings, can absorb a cut of 10 or 20 per cent in public range use; whereas a similar cut for small permittees might force them into economic ruin. Thus, the small man presents the conservation problem.

Morality as an objective

In addition to commitments to science and government, conservation programs have had a strong moral commitment or objective. Historians (Hofstadter 1955) have shown that reform programs in America—prohibition, civic improvement, or conservation—have often been a product of the “Protestant mind.” Reformers have both found their arguments in and made their appeals to the traditional biases of American Protestants: individualism; a tendency to see every issue as a moral issue; an emphasis on man's and society's guilt for abusing God's gifts and on the need for missionary work to repair this. Conservation reformers, in particular, have inherited the moral traditions of rural evangelical Protestantism, even though today they use them in connection with urban problems. The present condition of our natural resources, as revealed by scientific inventories, “constitutes the gravest indictment that has ever been returned against a civilized people,” said a conservation magazine in 1909; and pronouncements concerning today's conservation problems frequently are similar in tone and appeal.

What precisely have been man's and society's sins? Of what are we guilty? First, of interfering with nature's balance. The scientific principle of ecology is supported by and gives support to religious beliefs. All things owe their gift of life to God, and nature's balance is God-given. At the same time, man is outside nature's balance because of his unique endowments, endowments that give him the power to transgress the balance (i.e., intellect) and that make his transgressions sinful (i.e., conscience). These transgressions should be controlled, for man is in the relationship of steward to the resources that surround him. Man “has been made responsible for something that belongs to God. The good steward acknowledges this responsibility as a trust… . The orderly conservation and development of natural resources is man's recognition of his responsibility under God to protect and use wisely His precious gifts” (National Association of Soil Conservation Districts 1962, inside front and back covers).

One sin is, then, to destroy nature's balance. A second one is to waste, and a third is to use our natural resources for private benefit rather than for common good. The importance of the sin of wastefulness in the American ethos is well known. It has led us, as the Materials Commission said, to saving old string. “In the orderly world of our Creator,” warns a recent conservation pamphlet, “there are penalties for extravagance.”

”Our resources are God-given heritages that belong no more to the present generation than to generations that are to come.” This is a common concern in conservation literature, and it is usually accompanied by the idea that single-minded pursuit of present profit in the development of resources may not protect the interests of unborn children. Supporters of conservation programs, in other words, have had little confidence that the discount rate of the private competitive market will account for legitimate long-run interests. Since those who develop resources for private benefit can thus fly in the face of the common good, they can act immorally.

This third sin is especially likely to occur where monopolies, trusts, and conspiracies in restraint of trade are present in industrial organization. The supporters of conservation almost invariably find that such private combinations are operating against their programs, so they are typically engaged in battle against immoral conspiracies. Since Americans have a propensity to believe in conspiratorial theories of history, a propensity derived in part from their Protestant ethic (Hofstadter 1955), the battles of conservation have been popular engagements.

The political and social consequences of the moral objective of conservation programs generally have reinforced the consequences of the scientific and democratic objectives. The cases for positive government and for executive power have been enhanced; both are needed to combat evil, as well as to promote science and democracy. Reinforced with a sense of moral righteousness, the supporters of conservation programs have considered those who disagree with them to be not merely misinformed or wrongheaded but wicked and possibly vicious. The conservation men are ever fighting for their programs in a milieu of recurrent crises. See the remarkably readable works of Pinchot (1947) and Ickes (1934) and the exquisitely written and influential commentaries of DeVoto (1955) for examples.

As in the cases of science and democracy, recent findings have questioned some of the bases for the moral content of conservation programs. But the moral component is so ingrained that the findings have frequently been challenged or ignored. Thus, Malin's and Raup's researches have questioned the evilness of man's encroachments on nature's balance. The Materials Commission has redefined waste in a way that makes the concept more difficult to relate to sin. And the good conservation practices of large industrial resource users, as compared with the poor performance of small operators, tend to blunt the charges of immorality made against corporations and combines.

Conclusion on American conservation

This article has sought to explain the social and political aspects of conservation programs, not to evaluate them. Because of the difficulties of explaining frequent contradictions in these programs, however, the reader may have gained an erroneous impression that the writer's purpose was to evaluate and even to condemn. The contradictions are present because conservation has been used in relation to so many different programs and because the unifying theme, insofar as there is one, is simply that these have been programs for reform, based on certain attitudes toward science, democracy, and morality.

Without trying to evaluate the substantive achievements of individual conservation programs —for example, forests protected from fire, topsoil protected from wind and water erosion, income redistributed to tenant farmers, highways protected from billboards—we can point to some meritorious consequences of scientific elitism and the acceptance of positive government. These factors undermined the Spencerian view, prevalent at the turn of the century, that government could not perform effectively. Insofar as conservation agencies were involved, the executive branch of the government was radically reformed, and these agencies—the Forest Service and the Geological Survey are examples—continued, for almost half a century, to be models of what a professionally competent and efficient bureaucracy should be. They developed professional standards and loyalty to professional ideals; they introduced personnel programs emphasizing the selection of officials through competitive examinations, professional training, and career planning; they enjoyed stability of leadership; they established close relations for research and recruitment with the nation's leading universities; they pioneered new methods of program planning. Scientific elitism and the acceptance of positive government put a new and handsome face on the executive; but not so meritoriously, they have helped to blacken the eyes of the legislature and have contributed little to reforming it.

Finally, for general evaluation, the highly charged moral battle against evil that has characterized conservation programs has probably been good catharsis for the American people. A balanced opinion on this requires a general view of American social, economic, and political history that is beyond the scope of this article.

Now that conservation has come to be associated with urban as well as rural problems, it will be interesting to observe whether this unique combination of science, democracy, and morality, with its resulting emphasis on positive government and on scientific elitism, will accomplish similar results for the government's urban functions.

Conservation outside the United States

Research to date has not shown that similar objectives have been combined to produce similar reform programs outside the United States. To be sure, all nations have some government programs like the conservation programs of the United States. In many cases these foreign programs were adopted long before their American counterparts. The scientific principle of sustained-yield forestry was brought to the United States from Germany, and the idea of protecting and conserving forests for national self-sufficiency and national survival was practiced in Napoleonic France. In other cases United States programs, e.g., those of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), have been models for foreign activity. In fact, TVA, meaning multipurpose water development, is now a universal concept.

In some countries these programs have not been called conservation at all, and in others, where the word is used, it has been in a different context. Thus, for example, the forestry activities of the French in north Africa were not called conservation, whereas similar British activities in India were described as “forest conservancy.” The Indian government, however, in its five-year development plans, no longer uses “conservation” with reference to timber programs, reserving the word for nature, wildlife, and soils; and the British at home have always used the word as do the Indians today. In any case, outside the United States conservation has not meant programs of reform involving a combination of scientific elitism, a positive attitude toward government, and a religious commitment. Neither western European nor developing nations have needed a reform rationale to justify the power of government to act in forestry and related natural-resource areas.

The United Nations and its specialized agencies pursue many programs for resources and related activities that superficially are similar to United States conservation programs; yet the United Nations activities are not typically called conservation, nor do they, in fact, combine the several elements that have given character to the United States programs. The student who seeks references to the international programs in the indexes of United Nations publications should look under such entries as “economic development,” “technical assistance,” “land reform,” “natural resources,” “arid zones”; for he will find few or no references under the heading “conservation.”

In 1949 the United Nations did sponsor the Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resources, but its subsequent conferences on the same and similar subjects have been given titles that emphasize, instead of conservation, the application of science and technology to various resources for the purpose of economic development. Julian Huxley's UNESCO report on the conservation of wildlife in central and east Africa (1961)—with its insistence that “the world is ecologically out of joint,” that man has destroyed nature's balance for shortsighted economic advantage, that African and world opinion must be aroused through popular education to protect Africa's wildlife and its habitats from exploitation by Africans—approaches the United States model that we have elaborated, but this report is atypical in the vast documentation of the United Nations.

Arthur Maass

[See alsoPlanning, social, article onRESOURCE PLANNING. Other relevant material may be found inEcology; Landscape; Science, article onSCIENCE-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Association of School Administrators 1964 Conservation: In the People's Hands. Washington: The Association.

DeVoto, Bernard A. 1955 The Easy Chair. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Firey, Walter I. 1960 Man, Mind and Land: A Theory of Resource Use. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.

Frank, Bernard; and Netboy, Anthony 1950 Water, Land and People. New York: Knopf.

Hays, Samuel P. 1959 Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

Hofstadter, Richard 1955 The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Knopf. → A paperback edition was published in 1961 by Vintage.

Huxley, Julian S. 1961 The Conservation of Wild Life and Natural Habitats in Central and East Africa: Report on a Mission Accomplished for UNESCO, July−September, 1960. Paris: UNESCO.

Ickes, Harold L. 1934 The New Democracy. New York: Norton.

Maass, Arthur et al. 1962 Design of Water-resource Systems: New Techniques for Relating Economic Objectives, Engineering Analysis, and Governmental Planning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

McKean, Roland N. 1958 Efficiency in Government Through Systems Analysis, With Emphasis on Water Resources Development. New York: Wiley.

Malin, JAMES C. 1956 The Grassland of North America: Prolegomena to Its History, With Addenda. Lawrence, Kan.: Malin.

National Association of Soil Conservation Districts 1962 The Stream of Life. League City, Tex.: The Association.

Pinchot, Gifford 1947 Breaking New Ground. New York: Harcourt.

Raup, Hugh M. 1964 Some Problems in Ecological Theory and Their Relation to Conservation. Journal of Ecology 52 (Supplement): 19–28.

Roosevelt, Theodore (1913) 1946 An Autobiography. New York: Scribner.

Schiff, Ashley L. 1962 Fire and Water: Scientific Heresy and the Forest Service. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

Tansley, Arthur G. 1939 The British Islands and Their Vegetation. Cambridge Univ. Press.

U.S. Forest Service 1958 Timber Resources for America's Future. Washington: Government Printing Office.

U.S. President's Materials Policy Commission 1952 Resources for Freedom. 5 vols. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Waldo, Dwight 1948 The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration. New York: Ronald Press.

Wengert, Norman I. 1955 Natural Resources and the Political Struggle. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Wengert, Norman I. 1962 The Ideological Basis of Conservation and Natural-resources Policies and Programs. American Academy of Political and Social Science, Annals 344:65–75.

II ECONOMIC ASPECTS

The economist concerns himself with the allocation of scarce inputs among different uses and over time. The conservationist's mission is narrower: ignoring the scarcity of labor and capital, he sets standards for the use of land or natural resources. Originally the conservation movement considered chiefly the allocation of natural products over time; later, their allocation among competing uses (the ”multiple-use” approach); most recently, in the adaptation of benefit-cost analysis, the allocation of capital to the development or preservation of nature.

Thus, the gulf between conservation and economics has narrowed. But there is still a special conservationist approach: nature must be protected from man's ruthlessness, wastefulness, and ignorance, both because mankind jeopardizes its own present and future gain from the natural endowment and environment and because the preservation of nature is a good thing in itself. The liberally trained economist, distrustful of such absolute value judgments, has also been disturbed by the imprecise and demagogic use of such phrases as “natural heritage,” “waste,” “wise use,” “debt to the future,” and “greatest good of the greatest number for the longest period of time.” Consequently, after a brief examination of the writings of the nineteenth-century economists on similar topics, this article will attempt to distinguish and interpret the economic problems embedded in the writings of the conservationists.

At least three important classical economists anticipated the conservation movement's writings about the uses of natural resources, although only Malthus is acknowledged by the conservationists to have done so, and then only in connection with population growth. But Malthus is actually the least significant of the three in the economic analysis of the conservation question.

Malthus (1798), in his basic model, for example, envisaged ever-increasing food production (at an “arithmetic” rate), a possibility denied by the pessimistic conservationists. Furthermore, Malthus' commentators asserted that he had understated the ability of improved technology to obtain adequate produce from the earth. Both he and his critics, therefore, ignored the possibility of depletion. [SeeMalthus.]

Ricardo (1817), on the other hand, taught that man must extend production to ever less fertile lands until society's growth would be stopped in an equilibrium of human and natural fertility characterized by low standards of living and high land values. Furthermore, in some inconclusive passages on minerals, Ricardo showed himself aware of the possibility of complete depletion. Indeed, Goundrey (1960), has argued that the conservationist literature approximates a layman's discussion of the Ricardian stationary state. [SeeRicardo.]

For fifty years following Malthus and Ricardo, economists accepted this view of the relation of man to his resources [seeRent]. Although this analysis was couched in the sweeping dynamics of the early classicists, it actually did not deal with rates of growth or depletion, a neglect remedied by Jevons in The Coal Question (1865). This vigorous work, a model of research, forecast the Ricardian decline of both British mining and the industrial might dependent upon it. Jevons then posed the question, Should exhaustion be delayed by conserving coal for the future? His answer was not explicit, but his approach was clear:

The alternatives before us are simple… . If we lavishly and boldly push forward in the creation of our riches, both material and intellectual, it is hard to over-estimate the pitch of beneficial influence to which we may attain in the present. But the maintenance of such a position is physically impossible. We have to make the momentous choice between brief but true greatness and longer continued mediocrity. ([1865] 1906, pp. 459–460; italics in the original)

Jevons had already considered substitutes for coal but concluded that their possible appearance would not contribute to Britain's “superiority.” In the above quotation he summarized two important principles: first, that natural resources can be transformed into man-made riches, including intellectual capital, that might be of greater future value to all mankind than a stock of coal; second, that the rate of growth itself and the “fabric of varied interests” connected with change should be encouraged, rather than a high or a sustained level of output. This fine study is still a source of inspiration to economists pondering the terms of trade between present and future production.

Like Malthus and Ricardo, Jevons alarmed his contemporaries, his ideas leading, for example, to statistical examinations of Britain's wealth and to political debates on her liabilities—the public debt. [SeeJevons.]

Conservation goals. But economists had little impact on the conservation movement, which instead developed certain unique social principles [seeConservation, article onPOLITICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS]. These principles were applied in the advocacy of a set of policies about resource use that could be traced back through European economic history to suggest that conservation had long been inherent in enlightened official action. Four distinct policies, in fact, were frequently cited as anticipations of what was to become the conservation movement.

Preservation of wildlife and forests. The first of the four policies was the preservation of wildlife and forests. Feudal Europe had set aside “forests,” or hunting preserves, for the monarch and had guarded them against farming and urban encroachment by stern laws, savagely enforced. The result was that by the nineteenth century many of these large areas were still wooded and comparatively undeveloped, some being used for timber, others as parks and game preserves. Although the undemocratic reasons for creating these reservations and the bloodthirsty enforcement of encroachment laws were sometimes glossed over, the fact that these areas existed, had survived commercial opportunities, were often highly valued by the public, and were well managed by the state was frequently cited by conservationists. These reserves were undoubtedly an important model for the national and state parks and forests set up in the United States and in some of the British countries. Also an important forerunner of the nature sanctuaries that public and private agencies have recently promoted, they can be said, in retrospect, to have inspired what has probably been the most successful aspect of conservation policy: the setting aside of natural areas as a source both of productive resources, chiefly timber and fish, and consumption resources for the leisure and recreation of an increasingly urban and educated public.

Access to natural resources. The second policy goal was the achievement of a widespread ownership of and access to natural resources. Conservationists pointed out that in feudal times the supposedly absolute rights of the monarch over resources were actually limited by his duties to his tenants and by the fact that he was forced to delegate land management to those who were using the land. This system, it was argued, had eventually degenerated and succumbed to the age of liberalism, when land was enclosed by capitalists and accumulated into large holdings; the countryside was heavily depopulated; and resource wealth was “seized,” “grabbed,” and “wasted.” The conservationist reaction to this trend was widespread.

In Scandinavia, for example, especially in Sweden, the liberal policy of alienating royal land to timber and iron companies was suddenly reversed; the remaining area was set up as government forest, managed by public enterprise. In other parts of Europe too, as the great American conservationist Pinchot noted during his period of training in France, the government had resolved to hold forests “for the people.” In many newly settled countries, large landholdings were disfavored, and it became official policy to encourage homesteads instead of ranches and plantations. Similarly, the American alienation of mineral and water rights was organized so as to maximize the access of small operators to these resources. Thus, both in the United States and elsewhere, the conservationist had goals in common with latter-day physiocrats, single taxers, socialists, muckrakers, and trust busters: the prevention of resource accumulation by a small number of “land capitalists,” and the widespread distribution of land ownership or of rental income.

Prevention of depletion. The second goal, of course, was frequently in conflict with a third policy: the prevention of rapid depletion and eventual disappearance of resources. This third policy has been called “conservation proper”: a program of state action or intervention to change modes or rates of use of natural resources. Both casual observation and economic analysis strongly suggested that “waste,” erosion, and overrapid mining and logging were most common where holdings were small or where users had an incomplete title to the land. “Democratization,” as it is called in the preceding article, was frequently antipathetic to long-term conservation.

For conservationists, however, the pressing task was not the reconciliation of their objectives but the demonstration of the imminence of resource depletion. This was no small task. At first they had no evidence to offer except the logical proposition that because production was continuing and increasing, reserves must be declining—a proposition that was applied indiscriminately to reserves of timber, coal, oil, helium, whales, groundfish, salmon, and gold. When scientific inventories and geologic surveys eventually became available, near the end of the nineteenth century, they did seem to indicate increasing scarcity, although they also imposed a certain discipline on conservation orators. Among the facts stressed was a decline in the number of large trees in the annual cut and a decrease in the size of fish being caught. It was shown, too, that petroleum reserves amounted to less than twenty years' production and that the delta of the Mississippi was apparently building up, through upstream soil erosion, at an alarming rate.

In the present century, however, the revision and perfection of these inventories has weakened the impetus of the conservation movement. In the first place, improved knowledge of animal and forest science has shown that population dynamics and ecology, rather than static inventories, are required for an understanding of future yields from the so-called renewable resources, so that attention has become focused on the many problems of management, rather than on the unique goal of hoarding. In the second place, it was realized that inventories have an economic dimension: the estimate of “ore” and “commercial” timber reserves available depends upon prices and costs, as modified by ever-changing technologies. Thus, not only did increasing resource scarcity become difficult to demonstrate, but also the essential unity that a feared generalized depletion of all resources had imposed on the movement was lost. From the technical point of view, the United Nations Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resources (UNSCCUR) meeting in 1949 showed the impossibility of taking a global view of natural resource inventories, so complex were the uncertainties and the interconnections between resource industries (United Nations … 1953). And from the policy point of view, the United States President's Materials Policy Commission report (1952), subsequent European energy studies (Organization for European Economic Cooperation 1960), and the mammoth investigations by the staff of the Resources for the Future foundation (1963) utilized an economic approach to the problem of possible scarcities that left little room for the conservation faith.

Management of common-property resources. The conservation movement was also influenced, although to a minor degree, by the problems of common-property resources—those in which private investment aimed at changing the form, scale, or management of a resource would be unprofitable because the investor cannot be sure he will harvest the returns. Much of the literature on this subject was bequeathed by the eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century writers on the European common pastures and woods to those who later observed the low yields and unprofitable investment in oil fields, ocean fisheries, and certain water resources, where unrestrained private utilization caused external diseconomies of production. In addition, when the resources were capable of producing recreation benefits, there were external diseconomies of consumption. [SeeExternal economies and diseconomies.] Thus, when the conservationists turned to the prevention of depletion and the advocacy of “prudent use” of oil fields and water bodies, they found there was no single, responsible owner or manager.

Eventually it was left to the technologists and scientists to define some conservation ideal for such resources. Petroleum engineers invented the concept of “maximum efficient rate” of production, designed to recover a high percentage of the underground crude. And fisheries biologists designed fishing regulations that would achieve a fish stock's “maximum sustained catch.” Both these concepts implied regulation of the users of common-property resources, and holding to the prescribed rates was designated “conservation.” But the technical complexities of these subjects and the limited number of persons interested in them have left them somewhat outside the wider conservation movement.

The conservation movement. The four subjects —preservation of wildlife, redistribution of landed wealth, prevention of depletion, and prudent use of common property—became the basic precepts of the conservation movement. Upon them was based a structure of thought that, as formulated by scientists, attempted to show the loss to mankind from continued misuse and abuse; as formulated by more extreme and romantic writers, it attempted to find villains and scapegoats among those who “exploited” the natural heritage. While the former group projected nineteenth-century trends into the future, predicting shortages, low living standards, and high costs, the latter group attacked the farmers who used bad agricultural practices, the insatiable hunters and fishermen, and above all, the large mining and logging companies who, negligently or malevolently, despoiled the earth.

The scientists' work has led them into many byways. As they have learned more about new techniques of exploration, production, and concentration, the oversimplified conservation ideals have been abandoned. National and international multi-resource conferences, such as the UNSCCUR meeting mentioned above, have been highly interesting but have failed to reveal the common aims and problems proclaimed in the 1900s. The more sophisticated contemporary discussions of water recycling, desalinization, and purification, of mineral development, forest genetics, fisheries' biology and oceanography,. game behavior, and population dynamics, have, instead, revealed a multitude of social science problems concerning the re-education and adjustment of producers and consumers to new practices, costs, and opportunities.

Further, there is nowadays no single “economics of conservation”; many methods of analysis, from the use of econometrics in demand and production studies through regional input-output studies to decision theory in the business firm, are now relevant. In what follows, therefore, we must confine the discussion to the economic analysis of the older conservation assertions, particularly to the claim that the market mechanism is powerless to deal with imminent depletion and shortage.

Economic analysis of conservation

At any given time, there exists for each resource what Ciriacy-Wantrup (1952) has called its “state of conservation,” the expected temporal distribution of use rates. A conservation policy, therefore, is one that would induce those who manage resources to change this state so that more use will take place at a later date.

How does the original degree of conservation come about? The economic forces at work can best be understood by studying the behavior of the firm making planning and production decisions. The firm is deterred from postponing all use of its resources by the discount on future net revenues. A profit of $1 postponed one year is worth $1/(1 + i)> where i is the rate of interest relevant to the firm's lendings and borrowings. This expression is less than $1 and diminishes exponentially with the number of years the profit on resource use is delayed. Consequently, there is an incentive to reap the harvest of its durable and its growing assets as soon as possible. The rate of interest, i, here stands for all the forces of time preference, shortsightedness, and liquidity preference that the conservationist believes are leading to early depletion and future shortages.

But if the firm advances the dates of use of its resources, its output per day must then increase. This increased rate will be possible only at higher unit costs, so the profit per unit will be smaller and the incentive to early depletion will be counterbalanced.

The precise nature of such increasing costs has been debated by economists since Ricardo wrote his chapter “On the Rent of Mines” ([1817] 1962, pp. 46–47). It is now agreed that three types of increasing costs may be distinguished. In the short run, a resource operation with a given plant, transportation, and underground or surface layout will experience ordinary diminishing returns. In the long run, however, these facilities and layouts are flexible; the question now becomes whether the “law of diminishing returns” applies. Marshall's assertion that it did not led to a controversy with Taussig, Wicksell, and Cassell. Today it is agreed that higher costs associated with ores located farther away from the plant are irrelevant to the discussion of the costs of alternative rates of output, indicating only that costs will be higher in later periods than in early periods or that more elaborate workings will become necessary. They do not indicate that the curve of costs must, in the long run, rise with higher rates of output per year or per shift. In general, it would appear that the economic debate about proportionality and returns to scale applies as well to resource operations as to other businesses, with the added element of the limited space within which commercially attractive materials are to be found. This factor of limited space would appear to be an additional reason for expecting the long-run cost curve to be U-shaped.

Amortization of fixed capital is a third source of rising costs. Except in extremely large sites, the life of a resource operation is shorter than the durability of the fixed capital needed to work it. Apart, therefore, from those items of capital that can be moved to new workings, the equipment costs must be amortized over the number of units of material to be removed. Consequently, higher rates of extraction can be accomplished only by higher fixed costs per unit.

The firm may encounter any or all of these sources of increasing costs and so be deterred from attempting an immediate exhaustion of raw materials. In addition, it must contemplate the expected course of future prices for its product.

In the typical situation deplored by the conservationists, mineral extraction is proceeding, reserves are shrinking, mines are closing, and metal prices are gradually rising. Under such circumstances the firm has an additional incentive to lengthen the state of conservation. Future use will be expected to receive higher market prices and unit profits than current use. It will pay the firm to adjust its production plan in favor of output in later periods. This incentive will be presented to all firms, so the evil day of future scarcity, dreaded by the conservationist, is postponed by today's planning for higher future profits.

Thus, the firm must balance present profits, future profits, and the rate of interest. Discounted profits become an opportunity cost, or more precisely a user cost, of present production. (User cost is the present worth of the profit that could be earned on an extra unit if its extraction were postponed to the best future date.) Present operations should therefore be expanded until marginal current profits equal marginal user costs, in order to maximize the present value of the natural resource enterprise.

In a perfectly competitive commercial economy, it could be said that the firm that only maximizes current profits is acting on the expectation that future prices and profits will be very poor. Assuming that the firm's foresight is not only normal but is sharpened by the opportunity to gain from accurate perception of future markets, society can have no complaint about such a firm's state of conservation. On the contrary, such present-worth maximizing firms will produce an optimum degree of conservation. This is why the academic economist rejects the conservationist's contention of the probability of a future starved of natural resources.

But the conservationist can rightly point to the many assumptions underlying this economic model. If, for example, the firm (like many small miners, farmers, and loggers) discounts the future at a rate higher than that used in the rest of the economy, user costs will be too small to prevent present extraction of material that competitive forces would have awarded to the future. Or if the firm is irrational, unthinking about its own best interests, future consumers may lose. Such market imperfections are the first of three important justifications for conservation policies.

Market imperfections. The presence of market imperfections in the capital market, the labor market, or the final-product market can weaken the economists' case that present-worth maximization by individual sellers will ensure an optimum state of conservation. Ciriacy-Wantrup (1952), Gordon (1958), and Scott (1955) investigate the consequences of such imperfections and weigh the arguments for remedial policies, such as regulation, subsidies, public ownership, and so forth. It is usually held that an imperfect land market—that is, a common-property situation—presents the best prima-facie case for interference in the interest of conservation.

Other imperfections may also be serious. But conservation action is not justified by a few firms having a strong time preference, extreme illiquidity, or lethargic indifference to their own gain. For the too rapid production of a few firms will be counterbalanced by compensatory action of the other firms in their industry. The relatively high rates of output of the “imperfect” firms will raise market supplies and so depress prices; the depressed prices will discourage production by other firms and also discourage the opening of new operations. The competitive interperiod allocation of total supplies will be restored. Only if such a large fraction of total stocks is dumped on the market that the remaining producers have insufficient reserves to restore the intertemporal balance will conservation intervention be justified. Hence, the mere citing of imperfections in some portions of the market does not in itself justify conservation policies. The market must be overwhelmingly imperfect.

A better case for conservation intervention can be made if the owner has been placed in a situation where he cannot gain by delaying sale of his stocks until the future period comes. At least five types of circumstance may be responsible. First, governments may, by tax-free inducements to new resource firms, make it less profitable to extend production much beyond the duration of the tax holiday. Second, government purchase, stabilization, or stock-piling schemes may create an incentive to take early advantage of supported prices. (In this circumstance, however, conservation objectives may be achieved by the stock-piling, even though it is done away from the original site.) Third, as discussed above, users of common-property resources are incapable of taking advantage of future markets and must extract as much as is profitable today. They may, however, “unitize” the management of the resource in order to gain from the process outlined earlier; or they may encourage the government to intervene to slow down present extraction; or, finally, they may individually produce in the present for their own inventory (because of the high costs of storage off the site, this is rarely an important alternative). Fourth, future values may be so enveloped in uncertainty that firms may individually opt for present profits. Fifth, future values may be in different uses than present values and may be unmarketable. That is, they may be the source of external economies to other producers (in controlling floods or erosion) or “intangible” services (of scenery or recreation) to consumers.

All of these circumstances are common in the resource industries, and many have been dealt with by special government institutions, such as those mentioned in the last section of this article. While it is true, as suggested earlier, that small resource owners are sometimes irrational and do not know their own best interest, investigation often shows that nonconservation behavior can be explained satisfactorily by one or more of the five circumstances above.

A less clear-cut situation exists when the value of production to some portion of society, such as the inhabitants of a province or country, is greater than the market value. Thus, a unit of timber output postponed may prevent a town from degenerating into a “ghost town.” Forest and oil conservation may well prolong the industrial importance of communities and nations that might otherwise suffer from the migration of labor and capital to locations where their incomes and productivity would be higher. Such cases are complicated, and it does not follow that anyone's interest is actually served by postponing the day of final exhaustion and closing down. There are indeed many direct and indirect subsidies for production from dwindling reserves, to support otherwise stranded communities. But such subsidies are hotly debated. Even if they are justified, it does not follow that it would have been better to reduce the early rates of extraction of such deposits than to subsidize them later.

But the strongest case for conservation ultimately depends upon opposing views of responsibility to the future and opposing views of the future situation. It is true that there are many externalities, but taken together they are insufficient to motivate the conservation movement. Let us take up these two matters one at a time.

Responsibility to the future. The preceding account of the theory of use has shown that the future is not ignored by resource firms. The future is provided with such raw materials as are justified by the owner's cost of holding wealth (the rate of interest). Although monetary fluctuations and changes in desire for liquidity may change the rate of interest from period to period, it is here a rough indicator of both the rate of return on other types of capital investment and the desire of present generations to save. It is this connection between saving and the state of conservation that has led many writers to conclude that the heart of the conservation problem is in the conflict between present and future (Gray 1913). Clearly, a lower rate of interest would reduce a firm's tendency to discount user costs and to divert consumption of a raw material from the near future to the more remote future.

In general equilibrium this diversion, however, might not occur for all resources. If, for example, savers became more willing to provide for the future, the supply of savings would increase (and interest rates fall) not only for resource owners but also for all potential borrowers. As the amount borrowed for private and social capital formation rose, the current demand for raw materials for these investment goods would expand; meanwhile, the demand for raw materials specifically needed for consumer goods would fall. It is quite possible that some index of demand for all natural resource raw materials would rise, not fall. Without knowledge of the elasticities of substitution between resource-based inputs and other inputs, it is, of course, impossible to predict what the outcome would be. Unless substitute inputs are generally adopted, however, the demand for resource-based raw materials by makers of both capital and consumer goods should be about the same as with the former, higher rate of interest. If the resource industries supply this unchanged demand as before, then the change in the interest rate has had no effect. If they do so at higher prices, the final outcome may be that although the money rate of interest has fallen, the real (Wicksellian) rate has returned to its previous level.

A third outcome is that the lower rate might induce resource owners to reject permanently some of the current demand and hold their resources longer. This possibility might emerge if it is expected that all (present and) future prices for raw materials will be higher, but the discount rate remains lower, than before the change in rate. This third outcome, similar to the effect described by the Austrian economists as “lengthening the period of investment,” is the only one of the three possibilities favorable to general conservation of stock, or durable resources.

Which of the three possible outcomes will materialize depends on the new general equilibrium following a change in the propensity to save, which new equilibrium may take many years to emerge. The raw materials demand from other types of new investment may develop rapidly or slowly; and the contraction of consumer goods requirements may also depend upon the durability of the consumer goods in question. Thereafter there will be a response lag as the resource industries, especially those producing renewable resources, make and remake decisions about investment in extractive and regenerative activities. In other words, a simple change in the rate of interest will produce a new degree of conservation only after a long adjustment period, during which resources may be depleted more or less rapidly than before the change and more or less rapidly than after the final equilibrium is reached.

Another difficulty about applying the interest rate concept is that although many writers concede a lower rate of interest will lengthen the period of investment, such theories do not offer predictions of which types of investment will actually increase in “duration.” The general lengthening may be accomplished by the shortening of some types and the lengthening of others (Hayek 1941).

It is, of course, impossible to dispense with the rate of interest in resource calculations. Some guide is needed by which today's managers can spread possible output over a stated period of years. Otherwise they would have no measure of the amount of stock resources to be taken out of possible future use for present consumption. Graaff has described decision making about intertemporal allocation as planning to bequeath a certain “terminal capital” at a certain date; of the problems beyond this date, man takes no heed. This approach has proved to be a useful approximation in recent papers on welfare economics and growth, but its value for reasoning about resource allocation is limited. The planning horizon recedes as we approach it, so that some discounting is still required, with perhaps a sudden discontinuity at a certain point in the stream of future revenues and costs.

Predicting the needs of the future. If some dis-count must be used and if society is to depend upon commercial estimates of future prices to indicate future needs, can we be sure that these needs are being correctly estimated? It is clear that many owners are not foresighted, but in view of the many government studies now available, it is hard to believe that the information is now any worse than the rest of the information by which persons and governments govern their behavior.

The real difficulty about these predictions is the certainty that requirements are going to change. The dynamism of the world economy means that once-essential materials may become mere chunks of matter, of low economic value. Not only do fashions change (e.g., from cotton to man-made fibers), but new techniques change entirely the type of process responsible for providing a certain part of the consumer budget (e.g., from mail carried by coal-powered railroad to telephone and television), and these changes are apparently accelerating. Hence, producers are feeling less confident that their resource will have a future market.

Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that expected future scarcity brings about its own solution—through “self-generating technical change,” as Barnett and Morse (1963) have called it. An anticonservation view is now plausible: that mankind can invent itself out of any shortage. Barnett and Morse feel that the only difficulty here is that increasing recourse to substitutes and increasing shortage of space may lead to some general deterioration in the “quality of life.”

Hence, estimates of future scarcity not only are uncertain but also are probably overstated. The resource owner can be forgiven if he decides that it is not worthwhile arranging to have supplies available for some remote posterity. Such uncertainty is now likely to provide a large discount, additional to the interest rate, in computing user costs of current production and depletion.

Conservationists have disputed this conclusion on two grounds. The first is that energy sources are likely to become an ultimate bottleneck. Fossil fuels and falling water are known to be limited; tidal energy may be expensive to harness; we might soon have to depend upon sunlight and other solar radiations. This argument has been recently weakened by the discovery of the practicability of nuclear power sources. In any case, it is not at all clear what should be done, in a large way, to delay the time when lack of energy might become a seriously limiting factor to production or growth.

The other ground for conservation action, based on uncertainty about technical progress, has been formulated by Ciriacy-Wantrup. Confining himself to renewable or flow resources (soil, water, plants, and animals), he argues that society should not gamble on the possibility that changes in technology, tastes, and institutions will be favorable. He advocates, instead, that the level of such resources should be kept above a “critical zone,” below which any decline is irreversible. It should be the business of society to keep a stock of timber, soil, plants, fish, and wildlife available, which can be expanded to fill an “immoderate” need if such should arise. This view is close to that of the ecologists, who advocate keeping the relationship of various living species to each other and to their habitat (swamps, rivers and lakes, wilderness, desert, and so forth) more or less intact. In effect, Ciriacy-Wantrup claims that the maintenance of this “safe minimum standard” is a fairly inexpensive insurance policy against the possibility that unpredictable changes may put a high value on living forms and water and soil complexes after they have become irrecoverable.

Conclusion—the role of economics. It will be seen that the economists' analysis of the conservation question depends heavily upon the theory of capital, which (as in welfare economics, macroeconomics, and growth theory) is probably the least-rewarding branch of economic theory in terms of useful generalizations about the real world. The objective fears of conservationists, under particular circumstances, could be realized; their assertions about subjective benefits and costs are more questionable but have indicated fields for valuable analysis, so far mostly ignored by economics. What economics has done up to now is to show the variety of problems and objectives implicit in the conservation question; to attack the notion that all resource problems are susceptible to a common analysis or policy; to stress the scarcity of labor and capital, as well as that of natural resources; and to undertake the detailed description and analysis of land and raw material situations.

Such applied research began early in the nineteenth century, in forest economics, an ingenious combination of population theory and actuarial finance most fully developed in Germany and Scandinavia. The objectives, such as maximum sustained yield, were more technocratic than economic, but the methodology is easily adapted to other ends. Agricultural economics, too, got off to an early start and was well equipped to analyze soil exhaustion and conflicting land use from both institutional and marginalist points of view.

The economics of mining, petroleum, fisheries, water-supply, and recreational land operations, however, were largely ignored by economists until the late 1930s. Most progress in these fields was made in peripheral studies of market organization, labor conditions, taxation, or public utility pricing, and most of these had little impact on resource policy or business practice. Indeed, today's specialists in conservation economics frequently find that the best pioneering contributions have been made by geologists, engineers, biologists, and administrators.

From the marriage of such “engineering economics” with orthodox welfare economics have emerged the variants of benefit-cost analysis, a technique of decision making first applied in Europe and the United States to the evaluation of water-resource projects [seeWater resources; Welfare economics]. It has been generalized to deal not only with fixed investments but also with conflicting uses of land resources. It is discussed more fully in another article [seeInvestment, article onTHE INVESTMENT DECISION]. All that needs to be said here is that it makes possible the full and systematic study of any investment which claims to increase income or stability or fulfill other objectives. Variants of this approach, designed especially to deal with uncertainty, the discovery of new resources, intangible services, and opportunity costs, have been worked out in many countries. In view of the numerous distortions interfering with the optimum use of actual resources (such as the market imperfections previously discussed), it is a particularly useful substitute for market forces in government decision making about the form and rate of resource exploitation.

Conservation institutions

The state of conservation of any particular natural resource is not alone the outcome of a variety of personal and economic determinants, such as the intelligence, education, taste, and means of the owners and managers. In addition, special pressures are brought to bear by taxes and tax rebates, subsidies, licenses and regulations, tariffs, quotas, labor laws, safety rules, and zoning statutes. These institutional arrangements temper and divert the forces of the market for each raw material and resource location. In some countries public ownership and the force of custom and habit are so overwhelming that the price mechanism works only slowly and spasmodically. In others, markets for the resource site, for shares in ownership, for capital, labor, and the final product, are so well developed that criticism of the state of conservation is implicitly criticism of the open-market system itself.

In all countries, however, a variety of special institutional arrangements have been made to modify the private regime of resource exploitation and renewal. Some of these supplement market mechanisms by providing information, education, or special assistance where these seem to be lacking. For example, many countries have systems of farm credit, which have, as one of their purposes, the supplementing of poorly organized private systems of farm, livestock, and crop loans.

Similarly, many countries maintain some kind of geologic survey, which performs for the mining industry as a whole a basic research function similar to the basic research carried on by the government for agriculture and by the universities for industry.

A number of other such public institutions, important but auxiliary to the basic market mechanism, might be identified. In the following paragraphs, however, it is intended to mention some institutions that go further and that compensate for the absence of a market or replace it. In addition, there are institutions concerned with common-property resources that basically compensate for the absence of sole ownership.

International institutions. From the administrative point of view, the most interesting international institutions are those concerned with resources that are open to several nations, either because they are in the high seas or in other areas outside national jurisdiction (Antarctica or outer space) or because the resource moves from country to country (fish, migratory birds, international rivers and air).

In the absence of specific treaties, customary international law governs the conditions of use of these resources. Usually the effect is that there is little restriction on the resource's use. Thus, in the absence of specific agreements, high-seas fisheries, migrating birds and animals, rivers and air flowing across boundaries, may usually be exploited much as the nationals of each country wish, subject only to their domestic laws. And since the country has no power to regulate the actions of other countries' nationals, there is little to be gained by making restrictions.

For that reason, there have long been agreements whereby certain countries were given rights or sole rights to certain fisheries or bodies of water, although the older of these agreements rarely called for regulation to protect fish or animal population. Since 1900, however, a variety of conservation treaties have dealt with fisheries in waters used by two countries, fish migrating between two countries' seas, and high-seas fish populations. The first important example was the 1911 fur seal convention between Great Britain (for Canada), Japan, Russia, and the United States. Since then, fisheries treaties governing research, catching, and improvement have been made for whales, Pacific tuna, and Pacific salmon and halibut, and agreements have been made regarding North Sea and Baltic Sea trawling, and the northwest Atlantic fisheries. The general effect of such treaties is to leave fishing open to the members but to restrict the time, place, or technique of fishing in such a way as to increase the sustained yield. This is certainly a gain, in that more fish are available for consumers. However, the regulations have been criticized because they aggravate the overemployment and overinvestment that are already inherent in the utilization of common-property resources. First, by raising the potential catch without limiting the entry of vessels, they draw still more vessels into the fishery (Christy & Scott 1965). Second, the method of protecting the fish stock (for example, the prohibition of modern methods or the setting up of closed seasons) frequently creates idle capacity or requires expensive off-season storage facilities. Recent studies of the operations of the Pacific halibut convention have demonstrated that the industry is by no means healthy, although the treaty is frequently and correctly cited as a striking success in the management of wildlife, in that it has produced or maintained large catches compared with what would have been the case in the absence of international agreement.

In this connection, it should be noted that the UN Geneva meetings on the law of the sea, in 1958, succeeded in introducing two conventions, one on high-seas fisheries and the other on the mineral resources of the continental shelf. Probably on the way to becoming accepted international law, these conventions should increase the possibility of bringing marine resources under economic management.

There are a number of international river agreements, negotiated between the riparian states. Among them are agreements on the Indus, the Rhine, the Danube, the Rio Grande, the St. Lawrence, and the Columbia. All permit more valuable development than would have been possible had the signatories confined their activities to their own waters. Few, however, have gone so far as to encourage the full utilization of the river without regard to the boundary.

Some action has also been taken to protect migratory wildlife. Eleven European states interested in bird protection signed a convention for this purpose in 1902, and Canada and the United States agreed on joint action in 1916. International action has also produced the 1936 convention on the protection of African flora and fauna and the 1954 convention on the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil. Such conventions are interesting because they seek “nonmarket” objectives: they have been supported mainly by sportsmen, on the one hand, and by amateur and scientific ornithologists, on the other. The great destructiveness of modern hunting methods makes it possible to annihilate certain species entirely (an outcome that is much less likely in most fisheries), so these treaties should indeed be classified as preserving certain resources “for future generations.”

National institutions. The conservation of resources within each country is implemented by a rich complex of specialized institutions. This is particularly so for common-property resources, which would otherwise be overexploited, depleted, and perhaps destroyed. Almost all countries now have fisheries' regulations, applicable within their territorial and inland waters. Some of these regulations are explicitly to protect the exploiting rights of certain communities or tribes or the owners of certain outmoded kinds of equipment. But others exist to protect fish stocks by regulating time, place, and method of catching. Usually, however, permission to fish is free or cheaply obtained, so that conservation (actually, management) of the fish stock may be achieved while labor and capital are, as already indicated, economically underemployed.

Similarly, pressure of oil and gas in petroleum fields and levels of water tables in aquifers may be regulated to prevent destructive loss from competitive exploitation. Prorationing of oil fields is a well-known technique. But spacing by unitization is rare in North America. It is more common in other countries, where concessions are given for management of, and investment by firms and syndicates in, entire fields. Conservation of the resource may, therefore, be achieved, but at the opportunity cost of a substantial waste of labor and capital.

In the same context, the special tax treatment for petroleum and mineral exploration and development should be noted. Generally based on the “unusual degree of risk” in exploration ventures, these amount to an amelioration of income tax by depletion allowances and the “expensing” of prospecting costs against other income. It is, however, hotly disputed whether this undoubted risk is a sufficient reason for special treatment; in addition, it would, in general, seem to be an anticonservation treatment because it leads to more rapid exploration, production, and depletion than would otherwise be the case.

Another device is the export control board. This has occasionally been used in time of national emergency to prevent the export of scarce raw materials and is, in that restricted sense, a conservation institution. Canada's National Energy Board, however, has powers to prevent the export of fuels or electricity until it is satisfied that Canada's future needs have been covered. A Norwegian policy respecting the export of electricity has somewhat the same effect. This type of policy is often indistinguishable from that of forbidding the export of certain raw materials in order to encourage further processing by home industries. It is, therefore, frequently a type of industrial protection, akin to the tariff.

Forests and forestry are also the business of a large group of special institutions. On the one hand, as has been noted, many forests are publicly owned and come under management rules that, if anything, exaggerate future needs. Not only have some governments invested more than private owners in land acquisition away from agriculture and in the planting to forest of such lands, they also tend to grow plantations to ages (”rotations”) that aim at maximizing the physical volume of wood produced rather than its maximum present value. Many European countries, especially in Scandinavia, now obtain a large proportion of their wood from public lands (which are frequently in regions that were not wanted for any other purpose and remained, by default, in public ownership). The tropical countries, also, own most of their own timber resources. In addition, logging and processing lumber, on some, at least, of these lands, tends to be a nationalized industry, although in the United States and Canada it is common to have short-tenure loggers or logging contractors undertake the harvesting.

On the other hand, there is an increasing tendency for private forests to be regulated by government, in the interest of ensuring reforestation and fuller utilization. The economic value of regulation by law is uncertain, but such regulation may be defended as a means of drawing to the attention of small owners the profitability of more intensive forest management; the burden of compliance with the law is frequently very small.

This legalistic approach is usually supported by a system of property taxation applicable only to forest lands, which reduces the incentive created by value-based taxes to cut while trees are still small. In addition, there are special income tax and inheritance tax arrangements available that reinterpret the usual tax distinctions between income and wealth, to deal with the fact that a growing forest is both a capital good and a crop. Scandinavian taxation is most elaborate in these respects, but attention should also be drawn to the capital gains status of forests in American federal taxation and to the reliefs for forests provided under the British death duties. Most important, however, is the administration of these laws and taxes, which has an educative effect similar to that of farm-extension work.

Conservationists, often biologists, have long been concerned about recreation, but the study of park and recreational-site planning in general is just commencing. As explained at the outset of this article, most public lands and parks “survived” the nineteenth-century period of liberal land alienation into private use. In most countries these parks today—in a period of increased population, higher incomes, and increased leisure—are intensively used by the general public and are imaginatively managed by conscientious park services. But because their services are given freely, there is no market profit reaped; access is unrationed; parks are congested; and a “problem” has emerged. There is a clear public desire for more facilities, but governments have been slow to respond. Economic analysis of land-acquisition policies is just commencing, and conflicting users of land close to centers of populations have not been slow to dispute the establishment of public parks, nature conservancies, camp grounds, green belts, playing fields, and so forth. A few private substitutes have appeared, charging for their services, but the problem of land allocation between recreation and market uses is largely neglected by the social sciences, although it should be amenable to techniques now used in the economics of education.

Finally, we may refer to the preservation of sport fish and wildlife. As has been mentioned, international agreements exist that have some effect on the preservation of some species. But for the most part, protection is achieved by the domestic control of hunting and, to a lesser extent, of habitat.

In general, rights to hunt and fish are conveyed by licenses or permits, it being an offense to hunt without one. In addition, certain species are protected absolutely in certain seasons or places or up to a certain quota. Usually permits are free or cost only a nominal amount, although permits for the hunting of big game (especially by foreigners) may be sold close to what the market will bear. Sometimes hunting or fishing rights are attached to the land or water, are owned privately, and may be leased or sold. Such private rights produce revenues that can be used to conserve the resource, and these revenues also ration the demand.

But “public” hunting is not usually rationed in this way. Enforcement of prohibitions against an extensive activity that takes place in open country is, of course, very expensive and in some countries has been quite ineffective. Elsewhere, a trio of problems prevents a sophisticated conservation regime: the problem of acquiring or protecting habitats from other land uses; the problem of learning the needs of the various species inhabiting the environment; and the problem of arranging an understandable set of regulations, permits, and prices that will encourage the harvesting of surplus stocks of some species while protecting the diminishing stocks of others. In the long run, there is the additional danger that a really effective management system will lead to the virtual domestication of the conserved species, thus negating much of the ethical and recreational value claimed for the preservation of wildlife.

Anthony Scott

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnett, Harold J.; and Morse, Chandler 1963 Scarcity and Growth: The Economics of Natural Resource Availability. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Christy, Francis T. Jr.; and Scott, Anthony 1956 The Common Wealth in Ocean Fisheries: Some Problems of Growth and Economic Allocation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Ciriacy-Wantrup, Siegfried von (1952) 1963 Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies. Rev. ed. Berkeley: Univ. of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Experimental Station.

Gordon, H. Scott 1958 Economics and the Conservation Question. Journal of Law and Economics 1:110–121.

Goundrey, G. K. 1960 Economics and Conservation. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 26:318–325.

Gray, L. C. 1913 Economic Possibilities of Conservation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 27:497–519.

Hayek, Friedrich A. von (1941) 1950 The Pure Theory of Capital. London: Routledge; Univ. of Chicago Press.

International Economic Association 1957 The Economics of Fisheries: Proceedings of a Round Table …. Edited by Ralph Turvey and Jack Wiseman. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Jevons, W. Stanley (1865) 1906 The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-mines. 3d ed., rev. London and New York: Macmillan.

Malthus, Thomas R. (1798) 1958 An Essay on Population. 2 vols. New York: Dutton.

Organization for European Economic Cooperation, Energy Advisory Commission 1960 Towards a New Energy Pattern in Europe: Report. Paris: The Organization.

Resources for the Future 1963 Resources in America's Future: Patterns of Requirements and Availabilities, 1960–2000, by Hans H. Landsberg, Leonard L. Fischman, and Joseph L. Fisher. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Ricardo, David (1817) 1962 Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: Dent; New York: Dutton. → A paperback edition was published in 1963 by Irwin.

Scott, Anthony 1955 Natural Resources: The Economics of Conservation. Univ. of Toronto Press.

Seminar on the Development and Administration of the International River Basin, Vancouver, 1961 1963 The International River Basin: Proceedings of a Seminar… . Edited by J. D. Chapman. Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia, Publications Centre.

United Nations Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resources, Lake success, N.Y., 1949 1953 Proceedings. 7 vols and 1-vol. index. New York: United Nations.

U.S. President's Materials Policy Commission 1952 Resources for Freedom. 5 vols. Washington: Government Printing Office. → Commonly known as the Paley report.

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences

Conservation

views updated Jun 11 2018

Conservation

We are living in an era of unprecedented loss in biodiversity. The most optimistic projections forecast the loss of several thousand species over the next few decades; less sanguine conservationists fear that almost a million species may vanish before the end of the present century. The earth has suffered mass extinctions before, but the present episode is qualitatively different for two reasons: first, it is extremely rapid; second, it is caused by one mammalian species, a large, primate of African origin. Ironically this creature has named itself Homo sapiens, the Wise or Knowing Man.

The human activities that threaten wildlife and ecosystems worldwide include deforestation, pollution, over-exploitation of native species, introduction of non-native species, acceleration of climatic changes, and spread of infectious diseases. The essential problem is that more and more people are using more and more resources, leaving less and less for other animal species.

Threats to biodiversity

For more than 99% of its species history, H. sapiens existed in small groups of hunter-gathers, a highly intelligent primate that learned to exploit virtually every terrestrial environment that existed on Earth. About 8,000–12,000 years ago, however, people largely ceased living within the constraints of given ecosystems and became ecosystem-creators. The rise of agriculture drastically altered the earth's carrying capacity for H. sapiens, and human populations could increase. For several thousand years after our species became essentially an agricultural granivore, populations of H. sapiens were held in check by occasional famine and by the infectious diseases that co-evolved with densely packed agricultural humanity. However, beginning in the eighteenth century, scientific and technological advances led to increases in agricultural productivity and (temporary?) conquest of many infectious diseases. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, human populations grew exponentially, expanding from approximately 1 billion in 1850 to about 6.3 billion in July 2003. Furthermore, at the same time that human populations were increasing so dramatically, each person was, on average, using a greater portion of the world's natural resources. As a result, Wise or Knowing Man has had a devastating impact on most natural systems throughout the world.

Humans dominate the global ecosystem in four primary ways:

Direct transformation of about half the earth's ice-free land for human use. Houses, cities, roads, strip-mines, shopping malls, and highways involve obvious land transformations. Even more surface area is occupied by agricultural systems hostile to almost all living organisms except the monocultural domesticates being produced for food or fiber.
Alteration of the nutrient cycles within the world ecosystem. Globally, the release of nitrogen—through the consumption of fossil fuels and use nitrogen-based fertilizers—is the most critical, though introduction or extraction of other nutrients may be locally important.
Disruption of the atmospheric carbon cycle, particularly through the consumption of fossil fuels. This is the primary cause of anthropogenic climate change.
Introduction of pollutants into the world ecosystem. To this point pollution has had far less impact than the three factors listed above. However, some scientists believe that the accelerated release of pesticides, industrial wastes, and other bioactive chemicals may have increasingly severe ecological consequences. Furthermore, in a world of economic inequality and political instability, a massive infusion of nuclear pollutants is a possibility that should not be discounted.

Mammals at risk

Although the least speciose of tetrapod classes, mammals are also of particular interest to many people. Even if we leave our own species aside, mammals dominate many terrestrial ecosystems as well as some aquatic habitats. Mammals include the largest animal the world has ever known, blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus). Mammals reside atop many food chains, comprise vital links in most terrestrial-vertebrate food webs, and consume primary or secondary production everywhere they occur. Furthermore, perhaps more than any other class of organisms, mammals are threatened by changes occurring at the hand of Wise or Knowing Man. World Conservation

Union (IUCN) data from 2002 suggest that almost one in four mammalian species may be in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future.

When considering threats to biodiversity, we should remember that different species face different threats, and many, if not most species, are menaced by multiple factors. For example, Miss Waldron's red colobus (Procolobus badius waldroni), an African monkey declared extinct in September 2000, suffered intensely from both deforestation and hunting for the bushmeat trade. The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) approached extinction because of habitat conversion, destruction of its prey, and infectious diseases contracted from domestic animals. Sea otters (Enhydra lutris) were exploited for the fur trade and killed by fisherman who considered them competitors for shellfish. And presently, their recovery has been slowed by depredations by killer whales (Orcinus orca). Despite the admitted complexity of extinction processes, we review four principle threats to mammalian species: habitat destruction, direct exploitation, introduction of exotics, and infectious disease.

Habitat fragmentation and destruction

Despite the potential importance of altered nutrient-cycles and pollution, the primary immediate threat to biodiversity is from habitat loss that results from expanding human populations and their economic activities. Habitat loss includes outright destruction as well as habitat disturbance due to fragmentation and localized pollution. In many areas of the world including Europe, China, south and Southeast Asia, Madagascar, Oceania, and much of the United States, most original habitat has already been destroyed. Today the highest annual deforestation rates are in developing and tropical countries, where a large proportion of the world's biodiversity is found. The countries having the highest rates of deforestation in the early twenty-first century are Costa Rica (3.0% annual loss of remaining forest cover), Thailand (2.6%), Vietnam (1.4%), Ghana (1.3%), Laos P.D.R. (1.2%), and Colombia (1.2%). Threats to savannas, grasslands, and freshwater aquatic systems are less well documented, but they are as important as deforestation—and, like deforestation, are concentrated within economically poor countries that are rich in biodiversity. This is a matter considered later in the present essay.

One typical result of environmental alteration is the isolation of habitat fragments, or patches. Fragmentation can reduce or prohibit the dispersal of individuals, and local extinction of some species becomes more likely. Later this essay considers some consequences of habitat fragmentation.

Direct exploitation

Many of the world's natural resources have been over-exploited. Some resources such as fossil fuels are non-renewable, and the best we can do is to slow our depletion of these important commodities. Other resources—such as water, timber, and wildlife—are renewable, and, if used wisely, they may last indefinitely. Unfortunately, people have often been careless about the conservation of renewable resources. The gigantic Steller's sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas) was first encountered by Europeans in 1741; 27 years later the last individual was killed. The near-extinction of American buffalo (Bison bison) is an example of over-exploitation known to most U. S. school children. The last wild European cow (Bos taurus) was killed in Poland around 1630, and cattle-breeders still decry the loss of important genetic information. Similarly, today in Southeast Asia, at least three species of forest "cow" are in peril of extinction, and these are renewable resources that could still be preserved. During the early and mid-twentieth century, most species of baleen whales were hunted to the edge of economic extinction. Belated protection has allowed species survival, though recoveries have been slow. Great apes, such as gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos, are being hunted to extinction for commercial bushmeat in the equatorial forests of west and central Africa. In 2003, it is projected that some 2,000 bushmeat hunters supported by the timber industry infrastructure will illegally shoot and butcher over 3,000 gorillas and 4,000 chimpanzees.

Introduction of exotics

Humans have accidentally and intentionally introduced species into new areas. In a sense, agricultural production itself is a replacement of natural species by domesticated species, under human control. Other examples also abound. Domestic cats (Felis catus) brought by Europeans to Australia, out-competed—or out ate—many small, native marsupials. A small, Australian marsupial (Trichosurus vulpecula, the brush-tail possum) was introduced into New Zealand in 1837. The varmint prospered beyond all expectations, threatening New Zealand's fragile domestic wildlife.

Other familiar examples of unfortunate mammalian introductions include rabbits and foxes into Australia; goats and cats into the Galápagos and Hawaii; rats, goats, and cats into Cuba and Hispaniola (pity the poor Solenodon); mongoose into Jamaica; hogs into too many parts of the southeastern United States; and horses in North America.

Infectious disease

Infectious disease can spread across people, wildlife populations, and domesticated animals. Transmission of infectious agents from domesticated species (e.g., dogs, cattle, water buffalo) to sympatric wildlife can result in a range of potentially fatal infectious diseases. Canine distemper virus is believed to have caused several fatal epidemics among African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus), silverback jackals (Canis mesomelas), and bateared foxes (Otocyon megalotis) in the Serengeti. Populations of African lions (Panthera leo) and cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) have probably been affected by diseases transmitted from domestic cats. Problems of disease transmission from wildlife to domesticated animals and human beings may also be severe, but they are beyond the scope of this essay.

The nature of conservation biology

Conservation biology is a multidisciplinary science whose overall mission is to conserve biological diversity. The discipline can be subdivided into three primary areas: documenting the world's biodiversity; understanding the nature, causes and consequences of the loss of genetic diversity, populations and species; and developing solutions for the preservation, restoration, and maintenance of biodiversity.

Three ecological postulates that underlie conservation biology

Modern conservation biologists must often transcend the traditional boundaries of academic disciplines, for these scientists increasingly need to know about politics, economics, philosophy, anthropology, and sociology in order maintain or restore the health of ecosystems. However, because conservation biology is fundamentally concerned with the dynamics of wildlife populations, a solid understanding of biology and ecology is paramount for workers within the discipline. Three ecological principles are fundamental for understanding the relationship between population dynamics and conservation.

many organisms are the products of coevolution

If most species in an ecosystem were generalists, then in the absence of one generalist species, another generalist species would broaden its niche slightly, and the system would continue to function without important changes. However, if species tend to be specialized, then they are not interchangeable parts in the system; when one is lost, the local ecological community may be affected. For the conservation biologist, interdependent specialization is particularly important, and interdependent specialization often arises through coevolution.

Coevolution involves a series of reciprocal adaptive steps during which two or more interacting species respond to one another evolutionarily. A study of mammalian grazing ecology offers many classic examples of coevolution. Ruminant artiodactyls have evolved fermentation chambers that shelter legions of microscopic flora and fauna. These microbial symbiants extract the energy and nutrients they need from the vegetation consumed by the host-ruminant. In return, the gut-flora ferment cellulose, providing energy and repackaging nitrogen for their hosts. Grazing mammals, in turn, structure the vegetative communities of their grassland habitats. Higher-order coevolution has been demonstrated among

species of grazing ungulates, particularly in Africa. Thomson's gazelles, or "tommies" (Gazella thomsonii), for example, are so small that they cannot effectively exploit the tall grass that grows rapidly after the first rains of the wet season. So, just as other grazers depart the depleted grasslands surrounding a recovering waterhole, tommies move in to exploit the flush of tender, new grass. Eventually tommies disperse to exploit grasslands grazed low by other ungulates (particularly zebra, Equus burchellii, and wildebeest, Connochaetes taurinus). The seasonal ecology, anatomy, and gut flora of G. thomsonii evolved in response to the seasonal ecology of the larger ungulates; without these other animals, populations of the little tommies would be much smaller indeed.

Some species, called keystone species, are especially important for the interdependent functioning of an ecosystem. Keystone species may comprise only a small proportion of the total biomass of a given community and yet have fundamental impacts on the community's organization and survival. The loss of such species may have dramatic and far-reaching consequences in the broader ecological community. Primates and bats are believed to play key roles in maintaining ecosystems through dispersing seeds (some primates), pollinating plants (bats and some primates) and serving as prey items. The loss of these species from ecosystems would be predicted to have deep impacts on ecosystem health. For example, throughout many areas in Trinidad, large mammalian species such as deer,

paca, agouti, and peccaries have been extirpated—and yet the ecosystems still remain functional. On the other hand, within these ecosystems, Trinidad's bat and primate populations may be fulfilling ecological roles for which few other occupants remain. Thus the monkeys and bats may now be keystone species, whose presence is vital to the now-fragile existence of the Trinidad ecosystems. Similarly, in pre-European South Carolina, cougars (Felis concolor) and a large, social canid (Canis sp.) structured the forest herbivores. Now, in the absence of these top predators, whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) obliterate populations of several species of forest herb.

in ecological systems some critical variables have threshold levels

Changes in one of these variables may make very little difference in ecosystem operation—until a threshold is crossed, and then dramatic systems-alterations will occur. The mathematical study of nonlinear "threshold relationships" is the province of bifurcation theory, which has been used to model catastrophic phenomena ranging from domestic violence to human heart failure. Many conservation biologists emphasize a particular corollary of this general threshold postulate: some ecological processes may suddenly fail when the landscape patch in which they operate is reduced below a threshold size.

Biologist-activist Paul R. Ehrlich has written several books on ecology and conservation, a recent one is A World of Wounds: Ecologists and the Human Dilemma, Ecology Institute, Oldendorf-Luhe, 1997. He illustrated potential dangers of ecological non-linearities by the following metaphor. Pretend that the world ecological system is an aircraft and that species within the system are rivets holding the aircraft together. If one or two rivets are lost, the aircraft continues to fly as if nothing had happened. More rivets are lost and the airplane still flies. But eventually the loss of "just one more rivet" may bring the flight to a sudden, disastrous end.

Genetic and Demographic Systems Have Thresholds

Like ecological systems, genetic and demographic systems can be nonlinear and have thresholds below which nonadaptive, random processes begin to displace adaptive, "statistically deterministic" processes.

One example of this is the loss of alleles in small populations because of genetic "drift." Another is the extinction of a small population through random binomial processes. This point can be illustrated by an extreme demographic example. Consider a hypothetical species that does not breed during the dry season and suffers high dry-season mortality. More specifically, assume that each female entering the dry season has a 50% probability of surviving until the end of the dry season. Now consider the probable fates of two different populations:

10,000 females enter the dry season. The chances are about 95% that the population at the end of the dry season will include 4900 to 5100 females. In other words, the chances of population extinction are almost exactly 0%. (These statements can be demonstrated by an approximation of the binomial theorem.)
Two females enter the dry season. The chances are about 25% that the population at the end of the dry season will include 0 females. In other words, the chances of extinction for this small population are about 1 in 4.

Conservation biology and three value statements

The three ecological principles listed above form part of the biological foundation for the discipline of conservation biology. In addition, many conservation biologists accept three value statements—which by their very nature are not subject to scientific confirmation or disproof. In other words, conservation biology is inherently a value-laden discipline, and the following assumptions of worth define the ethical positions of many conservation biologists.

diversity of organisms is assumed to be good

Whenever possible conservation biologists defend diversity on utilitarian grounds—and make statements like, "Some little tropical plant may contain a cure for cancer." Furthermore, evidence exists that biological diversity within an ecosystem contributes to the ecosystem's persistence, stability, and productivity. Nevertheless, even without utilitarian support, many conservation biologists would assume that diversity is good in itself (an sich, as the German philosophers used to write) and therefore needs no means-toward-an-end justification. This assumption of intrinsic value is beautifully expressed by Archie Carr in his book Ulendo: Travels of a Naturalist in and out of Africa.

As a corollary to this value principle, most conservation biologists believe untimely extinctions (in general, defined as extinctions that result from human activities as opposed to extinctions that result from natural processes) should be prevented. Most conservation biologists also believe that local biodiversity is a universal good. Thus if desperately poor Madagascar cannot afford to protect the 50 endangered and vulnerable species living within her borders, then perhaps wealthy nations (or individuals) are morally obligated to assist with this conservation enterprise. This idea is returned to later in the present essay.

ecological complexity is assumed to be good

Clearly this is related to the first value principle above, but it is not exactly the same thing. Consider, for example, a botanical garden with its specimen trees and its greenhouses. Such an installation might contain more different species than a tropical rainforest (and thus would satisfy the principle that "diversity of organisms is good"), but it would not manifest the complex web of inter-organism relationships that characterize a tropical rainforest. The conservation biologist would likely prefer the rainforest to the botanical garden. Or consider this value principle in the form of a question. Some authorities believe that fewer than 1,000 species of large mammals can be preserved from extinction only in captivity. Will a typical conservation biologist be completely satisfied if these mammals survive only in zoos?

evolution is assumed to be good

The diversity of organisms and the ecological complexities of their interrelations are products of evolution. Most conservation biologists affirm not only the value of the product but also the value of the process that made it. Let us see how this value principle might affect the political agenda of a conservation biologist. What if the wildlife-refuge systems of the world were sufficiently extensive to preserve every living species: would the conservation biologist be satisfied if refuges were not large and diverse enough to allow continued speciation (evolution)?

What areas are the most important to preserve?

Questions of "conservation triage" are difficult, but they must be faced in a world of limited support for conservation agendas. Faced with this problem, British ecologist Norman Myers devised the concept of biological "hotspots," which he defined as regions particularly rich in endemic species and immediately threatened by habitat destruction. Myers is the author of 17 books on the environment, among them Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, 1993. Myers listed 25 particularly important hotspots, which total only 1.4% of the earth's land surface, but contain 44% of all plant species and 35% of all terrestrial vertebrate species. The Indo-Burma hotspot covers

approximately 795,000 mi² (2,060,000 km²) in south and Southeast Asia, and is home to such threatened species as tigers (Panthera tigris), red-shanked douc langurs (Pygathrix nemaeus), Sumatran and Javan rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis and Rhinoceros sondaicus), and Eld's deer (Cervus eldi). However, only 61,780 mi² (160,000 km²), or 7.8% of the total area, is protected. Myers's favored strategy would be for conservation organizations to focus their efforts for fundraising and biodiversity conservation upon these areas, and such organizations as Conservation International and the MacArthur Foundation now largely subscribe to the hotspot approach.

However popular it may become, hotspot triage is not without its problems and detractors. For example, some readers may be surprised to learn that rainforests in the Amazon and Congo Basins do not make the magic Top-25. These areas, of course, are rich in endemic species—but they maintain over 75% of their forest cover and are in no immediate danger of complete destruction. Hotspot advocates would argue, "We should spend scarce dollars on species-rich real estate that's about to be destroyed." Opponents might reply, "I'd rather spend scarce dollars on species-rich Amazonia while I can still afford a really big chunk of it."

Regardless of her or his affection for (or disaffection with) hotspot triage, any mammalogist concerned with long-term conservation should become familiar with the types of habitats most important to mammalian diversity and most severely threatened with destruction. Such habits include tropical rain-forests, tropical deciduous forests, grasslands, mangroves, and aquatic habitats.

During the 1980s and 1990s, tropical rainforests captured an increasing share of public attention. Rainforests cover less than 2% of the earth's surface, yet they are home to over 40% of all macroscopic life forms on our planet—as many as 30 million species of plants and animals. Rainforests are quite simply the richest, oldest, most productive, and most complex ecosystems on Earth. Furthermore, many of them, particularly in Asia and Oceania, are increasingly threatened by destruction.

Because they are more amenable to sedentary agriculture, some tropical deciduous forests are even more severely threatened than rainforests. Tropical savannas, with their magnificent relics of the Pleistocene mammalian megafauna, are easily converted into pasturelands—and unspoiled tropical savannas scarcely exist at all outside of formal National Parks. Mangroves, which shelter a number of important mammalian species, such as proboscis monkeys (Nasalis larvatus), are threatened by pollution, conversion for intensive aquaculture, and destruction for firewood. Lakes, rivers, estuaries, seacoasts, and other aquatic habitats are also under increasing threats of multiple dimensions.

A problem faced by most conservation biologists working in the international arena is that countries with the highest degree of biodiversity (and this is particularly true for threatened and endangered mammals) are usually the countries least able to afford the conservation of their natural resources. For example, in some areas the median per capita income is less than $1US per day. People living under these conditions often consider conservation to be an unaffordable luxury.

Of course conservation biologists have long recognized that the futures of tropical peoples and of tropical wildlife are inextricably mixed. And for more than a decade almost all conservation action plans have emphasized the fact that local people should have an economic stake in the protection of their wild resources. Zimbabwe's "Campfire" program provides a classic example of the local benefit philosophy in action. Village councils were given authority to manage wildlife resources. Then, for example, when Europeans or Americans came to Zimbabwe to kill elephants, the villages could profit from the substantial expenditures of the wealthy hunters. Unfortunately, Campfire (and related "eco tourism" plans) is selling a high dollar luxury activity—which is at the mercy of international market forces and local interference. International economic downturns or national instability (both of which have beset Campfire) can undermine value-added conservation programs.

Under some circumstances sustained-yield harvest programs that return valued wild products directly to local users can be successful. Nevertheless, among people who are desperately poor, the odds against such programs are high. Many impoverished people naturally think of wild mammals as meat—not as an abstract food-resource to be harvested on a long-term, sustained-yield basis but as meat, now, for children who will otherwise be far too hungry before nightfall. The sale of bushmeat is rapidly becoming a substantial source of income, as well.

Because many conservation biologists believe that local biodiversity is a universal good, some argue that wealthier nations (and individuals) have a moral duty to assist poorer nations in conserving humanity's general biodiversity heritage. Even if one subscribes to this idea, it is difficult to determine (particularly on personal, financial levels) the degree of sacrifice that is morally obligatory. Furthermore, in recognizing that severe poverty threatens conservation, there are two more fundamental facts:

First, severe poverty is in part a function of inequality. In 2003 the United States contains about 5% of the world's people—but is responsible for 30% of the world's resource-consumption. It is difficult for Americans to preach conservation to the rest of the world until the United States begins to clean up its own house.
Second, severe poverty is in part a function of population-size. If the economic "pie" is finite in size, then even if the pie were equitably shared, "more people" would mean "smaller pieces per capita." At some point, population control becomes a prerequisite to effective conservation policy.

Conservation biology, habitat fragmentation, and island biogeography

The theory of island biogeography was formulated to explain how rates of colonization and extinction affects species diversity observed on actual islands. Currently, protected areas (such as national parks, to which many threatened mammalian species are increasingly restricted) are beginning to resemble habitat-islands in vast seas of agricultural or even urban development. Therefore, island biogeography is increasingly considered an intellectual tool with which conservation biologists should be familiar.

The basic theory of island biogeography grew out of two empirical observations: (1) larger islands often have more species than small islands, and (2) an island's distance from the nearest continent is inversely related to the island's species diversity. These observations were eventually brought together into the equilibrium theory of island species diversity. Conservation biologists use insight from this theory in the management of fragmented landscapes. In particular they often ask how small a refuge "island" can be, before threshold effects arise and species-extinctions dominate community dynamics.

Basically, if a habitat-patch is too small to include home ranges for a viable population of a mammalian species, then the long-term survival of that species is improbable. Information about extinction rates of small mammals in habitat fragments is difficult to evaluate, in part because biologists lack comparable data from undisturbed habitats to serve as controls. However, two studies on forest fragments provide disturbing evidence that mammalian diversity can decline quickly:

Short term, Thailand. In Surat Thani Province approximately 100 islands were created in 1986 when the Saeng River was dammed to create a hydroelectric reservoir. Rapid changes occurred in the small mammal assemblages on these new islands. Within five years, two of the 12 species (a murid rodent, Leopoldamys sabanus and an insectivore, Hylomys suillus) were lost. Further extinctions are likely.

Long term, Panama. Early in the twentieth century, several forest hilltops were isolated during the damming of the Chagras River during the construction of the Panama Canal. After 80 years of isolation, only one out of 16 rodents species remained on islands smaller than 42.3 acres (17.1 ha). The rate of mammalian species-loss from these small island-fragments was approximately one species per 3–11 years.

The fate of large mammal communities in small habitat-fragments is even grimmer. Most big mammals must have a great deal of space. For instance, the home range of a Southeast Asian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus) in Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam has been estimated at 1,480–2,470 acres (600–1,000 ha). Some solitary carnivores require areas an order of magnitude larger. A tiger, for instance, might roam across more than 24,700 acres (10,000 ha), and a single wolverine (Gulo gulo) would probably need twice that much room.

These are area-requirements for individual mammals, while of course, viable populations are comprised of many individuals. These populations need even larger patches of habitat. For example, many species of African grazing artiodactyls can exhibit their natural social behavior only in large groups. Large groups require enormous areas, sometimes with widely separated dry-season and wet-season ranges. The

annual migration of east African wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) covers hundreds of miles (kilometers) and crosses national borders. Of course wildebeest can be kept alive in modest pastures, and tigers can be maintained in zoo-cages. But these conditions are not fully satisfactory and clearly only the largest national parks allow viable populations of most mammals to exist in natural social conditions.

Conserving such large tracts of habitat is often difficult. One approach is to connect habitat fragments by means of corridors, or protected habitat-strips that allow animals to move between patches. In Africa it has been observed that some mammals (as well as reptiles and birds) use corridors as inter-patch bridges. However, some conservation biologists question whether this phenomenon is at all general.

It should be clear that as conservationists contemplate the establishment, enlargement, or maintenance of a refuge, they should be aware of the particular needs of those target organisms that the refuge is designed to shelter. Behavioral ecologists, for example, often gather data on a species' activity patterns, foraging behavior, group size, home range, and territorial behavior. Such information is useful for predicting how a target species will respond to habitat fragmentation, how edge-effects will impact a given species, or whether the species will use habitat corridors.

Genetic concerns about small populations

The discussion of thresholds bemoaned the fact that small populations were at risk of extinction by demographic stochastic processes. Efforts to maximize intra-specific genetic diversity are a high priority for conservationists. In general, genetic diversity is correlated with population size. Thus larger populations should manifest a greater variety of phenotypes—and should therefore be better able to respond to variations in environment. However, with habitat loss and fragmentation, populations of many mammalian species are declining and are being fractured into small, disconnected units. And as populations shrink, genetic variation may be lost.

Loss of genetic variability from a population is primarily a function of three interrelated phenomena: "bottlenecking," random genetic drift, and inbreeding depression.

Bottlenecks are events that greatly reduce a population's size. Such reductions can have many causes, including habitat alteration or loss, introduction of competitors or predators, and the spread of epidemic disease. The individuals that survive a bottleneck are the founders for all future generations, and only the genetic variability that is represented in these founder-individuals (plus subsequent mutations) can be preserved within the species. The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) is the classic example of a bottleneck species. A population crash some 10,000 years ago radically reduced genetic variability. Even today all cheetahs remain so similar, genetically, that skin transplants from one animal to another are not rejected. More significant, cheetahs may lack the genetic variability to respond, evolutionarily, to new diseases confronting the species. But a large population size can usually overcome problems of low genetic variation, as is the case with the current populations of elephant seals, for example.

In evaluating a bottleneck, conservation biologists are especially concerned about the effective population size, or N_e, which is (roughly) the number of breeding animals in a population. N_e is generally smaller than the number of individuals in the population—and if breeding animals are closely related, it can be much smaller indeed. For example, two sets of identical twins do not count as four complete animals, for genetic purposes. The rate of a population's heterozygosity-loss, per generation, is largely a function of effective population size. That is to say, the amount of genetic variability preserved from one generation to the next is approximately proportional to (1 − 0.5 N_e). Obviously, when N_e is large, the majority of genetic variability will be maintained, and when N_e is small, heterozygosity can be lost very rapidly.

Clearly, even the tightest bottlenecks need not be fatal to a population's survival. Every mammalian species began from a minimal founder-size, and if a bottlenecked population is allowed to increase greatly in numbers, any decay in genetic diversity can be balanced by new variability added through mutation. The most serious problems arise when the bottleneck-squeeze is maintained over multiple generations, because in this case (1) loss of variability by genetic drift vastly exceeds replacement by mutation, and (2) this process is accelerated by inbreeding. An example is the lowered allozyme and DNA variability observed in the brown hares (Lepus europaeus) of New Zealand and Britain and attributed to bottlenecks.

Random genetic drift, sometimes called the Sewall Wright effect, designates changes in a population's allele frequencies due to chance fluctuations. Random genetic drift becomes important only when populations are small. Cross-generational transfer of alleles is then subject to sampling error, and a given allele can be lost (decline to 0% frequency) or fixed (increase to 100% frequency). In other words, when small populations of a species are isolated, out of pure chance the few individuals who carry certain relatively rare genes may fail to transmit them. The genes can therefore disappear and their loss may lead to the emergence of new species, although natural selection has played no part in the process. And the smaller a bottleneck, the more rapidly genetic drift can operate. The longer a bottleneck persists, the greater the potential cumulative effects of genetic drift.

Inbreeding depression can result from matings between close relatives and is more likely to occur in a small population confined to a small habitat-patch. The deleterious effects of inbreeding have been repeatedly documented in zoo populations, before the implementation of genetic management programs. For example, inbred calves of Dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas) suffered from high juvenile mortality and delayed sexual maturity of females. Among wild populations, inbreeding depression in Florida panthers (Felis concolor coryi) may have lowered reproductive rates and reduced the species' capacity to respond to disease.

Przewalski's horse (Equus caballus przewalskii) is the only surviving variety of wild horse. This animal is considered extinct in nature (wild individuals were last observed in 1969) and survives only because of captive breeding. The founder-stock for the captive herd was limited in number. Therefore, genetic drift and inbreeding depression have led to a loss of genetic diversity in E. c. przewalskii and are reflected by high juvenile mortality and a reduced lifespan. International management programs aim to retain 95% of the current average individual heterozygosity for at least 200 years. And a program is underway to reintroduce these animals into Mongolia.

Wildlife

Conservation medicine focuses on the changing health-relationships between people, other animals, and shared ecosystems. Of course every variety of mammal has been affected by diseases and parasites throughout its species-history. And across evolutionary time, mammalian species have established accommodations with pathogenic organisms: immune and behavioral defenses evolve in the host; responses (often including transmission "improvement" and reduced virulence) co-evolve in the pathogen. However, the present age—with its fragmented populations of wild mammals and anthropogenic mixing of previously separate species—has destabilized these

dynamic equilibria. And the results are of concern to conservation biologists.

In recent years several emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) have been identified in wildlife populations. Among immunenaive populations, these EIDs may inflict direct mortality beyond a species' evolved capacity for demographic response. In addition, EIDs may affect reproduction, susceptibility to predation, and the competitive fitness of infected hosts. When these detrimental effects extend to the population level, they may in turn affect community structure by altering the relative abundance of species.

Habitat fragmentation often places wildlife species in closer proximity to domesticated animals because habitat patches may be adjacent to farms, villages, and even urban areas. Such situations can facilitate cross-species contagion of disease. People have transmitted tuberculosis, measles, and influenza to gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), ferrets (Mustela putorius furo), and other mammals. The slaughter of primates for bushmeat in Africa was probably

the first exposure of people to the precursor of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Lions in the Serengeti have been affected by diseases of cats and dogs from Tanzanian villages. In 1984 a disease caused by calicivirus was detected among rabbits in China. The origin of the disease is not definitively known, but the pathogen soon spread westward into Europe, where it affected perhaps 90% of the rabbit populations. Rabbit calicivirus is now used as the primary means for controlling feral rabbits in Australia. (Earlier control relied mainly in the introduction of myxomatosis virus among Australian rabbits. In the 1950s, myxomatosis had a kill-efficiency of about 99%. Over time, however, Australian rabbit populations evolved immunity.) Efforts to re-establish wild populations of black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) in western North America have been hampered by the spread of cat and dog diseases among the ferrets, and because enormous populations of ferret prey (prairie dogs) had been destroyed by sylvatic plague.

Because human health may be increasingly affected by diseases transferred from wildlife, conservation medicine is likely to become an important area of research for conservation biologists.

Ex situ conservation issues: demand, consumption, and captive breeding

Much of this essay has focused on in situ conservation problems because the most important conservation battles will likely be fought on the home grounds of the target species. Nevertheless, the importance of ex situ conservation issues should not be underrated. Ex situ issues are of two very different types.

Issues of demand and consumption

The impact of economic factors on conservation must be recognized as well. As mentioned earlier, human poverty undercuts conservation programs near many of the world's biodiversity hotspots, but economic factors can affect conservation even from a distance. Research on west Africa's bush-meat trade shows that if markets for meat are exclusively local, the impact of hunting is relatively limited. However, if bush-meat becomes a commodity in a nation's general capitalist economy (if, for example, a market for bushmeat develops in a large city), then demand for forest animals becomes practically unlimited, and vulnerable species may be hunted to extinction. Similarly (here a non-mammalian example), the perilous condition of Southeast Asia's hitherto magnificent chelonian fauna is primarily a function of China's emergence as the regional economic superpower—and of China's insatiable demand for turtle products. Sometimes economic influences can be somewhat less direct. An analysis of the Japanese whaling industry in the 1950s and 1960s indicated that commercial species could be harvested at reasonable profits indefinitely, on a sustained-yield basis. However, the rate of whale-replenishment (r in the population growth equations) was slower than the rate of Japan's economic growth. Therefore, it made good business-sense for commercial whalers to "liquidate their investments" in whales (i.e., to hunt them out) and reinvest their yen in sectors of the Japanese economy yielding higher rates of "interest."

It is hoped that many conservation-and-economics dilemmas may eventually yield to analysis by economically sophisticated conservation biologists—or even by "conservation economists." That is, sustainable development programs combining people, profits, and wildlife may yet save the day. However, in the long run Wise or Knowing Man must develop a new conservation ethic—of sharing, sacrifice, appreciation, and awe—if an appreciable portion of mammalian biodiversity is to be preserved. In other words, why read Phillips and Abercrombie instead of re-reading Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac first published in 1949) and Archie Carr?

Captive breeding and reintroduction

In recent years ex situ conservation efforts have become increasingly important. Zoos, botanical gardens, wildlife parks, and conservation trusts now work in collaboration to maintain captive assurance colonies of threatened plants and animals. Studbooks on target species are kept by participating institutions, and breedings are scheduled in consultation with conservation geneticists.

The proximate mission of ex situ colonies is to maximize genetic diversity within a captive population of affordable size. Long-term, however, the fundamental conservation goals of captive breeding are release-in-habitat with the skills necessary for survival—and eventual reestablishment of viable wild populations within target species' historical ranges. Captive propagation definitely works, and more threatened species are now bred in zoos, etc., than ever before. On the other hand, reintroductions (as well as related programs such as translocation of wild animals) have enjoyed only mixed success.

The case of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) may be instructive. Today only about 1,000 of these magnificent animals survive in the mountain forests of central China. Years of environmental degradation, disease, and depredation have taken their toll on A. melanoleuca. Furthermore, within the animals' fragmented habitat, post-flowering bamboo die-offs have added malnutrition to the pandas' tale of woe. Presently, about 140 giant pandas are maintained in Chinese zoos and in other breeding facilities around the world. However, despite the infusion of massive amounts of money, captive breeding programs have met with only limited success. Of the 226 giant pandas born in captivity between 1963 and 1998, only 52% survived for as long as a month, and others died before they reached reproductive maturity. At present the captive population is scarcely self-sustaining, and it may not produce appreciable numbers for release within the foreseeable future.

By contrast, captive propagation and reintroduction have been more successful with the golden lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia), a small primate endemic to the Atlantic coastal forests of eastern Brazil. Because of over-exploitation and (particularly) habitat destruction, this tamarin had become endangered by the late to mid twentieth century. Beginning in 1984, scientists from Brazil and the United States began reintroducing zoo-born golden lion tamarins back into their habitat in the wild—primarily onto private lands that could be protected against the ravages of timber harvest. The combined efforts of governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), local communities, zoological parks, and conservation scientists have more than doubled the size of the wild golden lion tamarin population.

A review of 116 reintroductions (89 involved mammals; all were carried out between 1980 and 2000) concluded that 26% succeeded and 27% failed. (The remaining 47% were classified as uncertain.) Many factors influence reintroduction success. These include habitat quality, the number of individuals released (there is no magic number, but 100 has become the rule of thumb), and the density of predators. Before any reintroduction is attempted, however, conservationists should identify and eliminate the cause of the target species' initial decline. If this can be done, then a reintroduction has a reasonable chance of success. Otherwise, a reintroduction may provide opportunities for feel-good press releases, but it is unlikely to result in establishment of a viable wild population.

Translocation involves moving wild animals from one place to another and therefore is, in a sense, an ex situ activity. Sometimes translocations are attempted without adequate preparation. For example, in French Guiana, howler monkeys (Alouatta seniculus) were translocated because their habitat was to be flooded by the construction of a hydroelectric dam. These individuals were moved to an area where howler numbers had been reduced by hunters—and where hunting still occurred. In other words, the cause of the original population decline had not been addressed, and the success of the translocation is still in doubt.

The translocation of Asian rhinoceroses (Rhinoceros unicornis) in Nepal is a happier story. Nepali government biologists, assisted by World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the King Mahendra Trust, captured rhinos in Royal Chitwan National Park and transported them 220 mi (350 km) cross-country to Royal Bardia National Park. The receiving park was within the Asian rhino's historic range. Habitat was excellent (in quality and quantity), and although R. unicornis had been extirpated from Bardia by poachers, the park was well protected by the time the reintroduction project began. Rhino translocations have continued for a decade, and now conservation biologists believe that Nepal has successfully established a second viable population of R. unicornis.

Translocations of wild animals are often attempted for reasons unrelated to conservation. While conservationists may not generally support the movement of wildlife to solve human-animal conflicts, they can sometimes learn valuable lessons from such activities. For example, nuisance brushtail possums (Trichosuros vulpecula) moved from the city of Melbourne into the Australian outback suffered heavy depredation. Similarly, small, endangered mammals, raised in a zoo, might require some sort of predator-avoidance training before they were released into areas with high predator densities. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), captured for translocation when the Florida Everglades were in flood, generally did not survive the ordeal. From this experience some biologists learned a great deal about the importance of minimizing capture-trauma when dealing with mammals already under severe stress. Translocations of nuisance raccoons (Procyon spp.) and black bears (Ursus americanus), though perhaps unwise, reinforce the lesson that some animals know how to get home—and will walk a very long way to get there.

Evaluating the success of conservation projects

This essay is not intended to offer instructions on how to conduct a conservation program. Decisions about supporting conservation are important and they should be made conscientiously on the following basis: "Evaluate with a critical mind, and then support with an open heart."

it is most important to evaluate the candidate's or organization's efficiency and integrity

In this day and age, almost every political candidate will claim to be a great supporter of conservation. Every "Save the Whatever" organization employs experts who design mail-out appeals that are aesthetically elegant and read as sincerely as the Sermon on the Mount. Most readers of this essay are sophisticated enough to see beyond political hype. Also, almost every U. S. state (and many national governments around the world) has a consumer advocate office that can help evaluate the non-profit organizations that solicit conservation contributions. Typically these consumer advocate offices can provide information on the percentage of contributions that go to support actual conservation activities (as opposed to paying staff personnel, for example). They can almost always warn of organizations that support outright frauds.

it is important to evaluate the program advocated by a candidate or conservation organization

A key to evaluation is to determine whether an organization's stated objectives are meaningful and realistic. Here are four hypothetical statements of objectives that should be questioned:

Elephants are in terrible danger, and your contribution will save the lives of countless elephants in southern Africa. The organization should offer some idea of how the promise will be fulfilled. Furthermore, words like "countless" should ring loud alarm bells.
If I am elected, I will protect lands in such a way as to conserve functioning ecosystems in which living organisms can interact in complex ways. Every living system—from rice fields to rainforests to urban gardens to septic tanks—meets this criterion. This is a meaningless promise, since it will automatically be kept.
The goal of our policy is to preserve appropriate natural, aesthetic values for future generations. Both authors of this essay are teachers. Part of our job is evaluation, and we don't give tests that we cannot grade. Thus we are wary of claims that cannot be checked. We like the idea of preserving values—but we wouldn't offer our votes or our dollars until we learned many more specifics.
The objectives of this program are to integrate economic and intrinsic wildlife values in a holistic program that recognizes human rights to sustainable development and national responsibilities for conservation of biodiversity. This statement sounds great. It uses most of the favorite vocabulary words of the conservation community. However, we have no idea what the statement means—and we wrote it. We would certainly look for specific, measurable objectives before we were tempted to support such a program.

Resources

Books

Caro, Tim, ed. Behavioral Ecology and Conservation Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Carr, Archie. Ulendo: Travels of a Naturalist In and Out of Africa. New York: Knopf, 1974.

Ehrlich, Paul. Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect. New York: Penguin Books, 2002.

Gosling, L. Morris, and William J. Sutherland, eds. Behaviour and Conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Hunter, M. L., and A. Sulzer. Fundamentals of Conservation Biology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science, Inc., 2001.

Kleiman, Devra G., and Anthony B. Rylands, eds. Lion Tamarins: Biology and Conservation. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. Reissue ed., New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.

Meffe, G. K., and C. R. Carroll. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1997.

Primack, Richard B. Essentials of Conservation Biology. 3rd ed. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, 2002.

Wilson, Edward O. The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.

Periodicals

Daszak, P., et al. "Anthropogenic Environmental Change and the Emergence of Infectious Diseases in Wildlife." Acta Tropica 78 (2001): 103–116.

Fischer, J., and D. B. Lindemayer. "An Assessment of the Published Results of Animal Relocations." Biological Conservation 96 (2000): 1–11.

Lindburg, D. G., et al. "Hormonal and Behavioral Relationships During Estrus in the Giant Panda." Zoo Biology 20 (2001): 537–543.

McShane, Thomas O. "The Devil in the Detail of Biodiversity Conservation." Conservation Biology 17 (2003): 1–3.

Myers, N., et al. "Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities." Nature 403 (2000): 853.

Peng, Jianjun, et al. "Status and Conservation of the Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca): A Review." Folia Zoologica 50 (2001): 81–88.

Rosser, Alison M., and Sue A. Mainka. "Overexploitation and Species Extinction." Conservation Biology 16 (2002): 584–586.

Organizations

Conservation International. 1919 M Street NW, Ste. 600, Washington, DC 20036. Phone: (202) 912-1000. Web site: <http://www.conservation.org>.

IUCN—The World Conservation Union. Rue Mauverney 28, Gland, 1196 Switzerland. Phone: ++41(22) 999-0000. Fax: ++41(22) 999-0002. E-mail: mail@iucn.org Web site: <http://www.iucn.org/>.

Wildlife Conservation Society. 2300 Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY 10460. Phone: (718) 220-5100. Web site: <http://wcs.org>.

World Wildlife Fund. 1250 24th Street N.W., Washington, DC 20037-1193 USA. Phone: (202) 293-4800. Fax: (202) 293-9211. Web site: <http://www.panda.org/>.

Kimberley A. Phillips, PhD

Clarence L. Abercrombie, PhD

Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia

Conservation

views updated Jun 27 2018

CONSERVATION

Introduction

In consequence of the establishment in Israel of a Ministry for the Environment it is appropriate to take stock of the deep concern for the environment and its conservation which, from its earliest documents onwards, infuses Jewish tradition.

It is not our task here to analyze in detail the great ecological problems of our time or the ways in which they have recently manifested themselves in Israel, let alone to enumerate and describe the bodies, such as the Council for a Beautiful Israel, which are addressing them, or to list the contributions made by individual Jews, for instance scientists and economists, to the modern ecological movement. Rather, we seek to underpin Jewish involvement in conservation worldwide by drawing together the traditional source and highlighting their relevance to the contemporary scene.

We draw on a range of genres of traditional Jewish thought – the most distinctive is halakhah, or law, but history, myth, poetry, philosophy, and other forms of expression are also significant. And we must also be mindful that Judaism did not stop in the first century; it is a living religion constantly developing in response to changing social realities and intellectual perceptions. At the present time, it is passing through one of its most creative phases.

WHICH PROBLEMS ARE ADDRESSED?

There is a worry prevalent today that people are destroying the environment on which living things depend for their existence. Many species are endangered as a result of human activity, the planetary climate may already have been destabilized, the protective ozone layer has been damaged, forests have been destroyed, species threatened or made extinct, and pollution in forms such as acid rain and other forms of water contamination is widespread.

Much of this destruction arises from the level of economic activity demanded by a rapidly increasing world population which is locally raising its living standards faster than ecologically sustainable levels of production.

In addition, there is a permanent worry that stockpiles of highly destructive weapons might actually be used and that the use of even a small part of the available arsenal would cause irreversible damage to the planetary environment, perhaps rendering impossible the survival of homo sapiens sapiens and many other species.

HOW IS RELIGION RELEVANT?

It is not at first sight clear what these problems have to do with religious beliefs. After all, the only belief necessary to motivate a constructive response to them is a belief in the desirability of human survival, wedded to the perception that human survival depends on the whole interlinking system of nature. The belief is not peculiar to religions but part of the innate self-preservation mechanism of humankind; the perception of the interdependence of natural things arises not from religion but from careful scientific investigation.

Moreover, the discovery of which procedures would effectively solve the problems of conservation is a technical, not a religious one. If scientists are able to offer alternative procedures of the same or different efficiency the religious may feel that the ethical or spiritual values they espouse should determine the choice. But few choices depend on value judgments alone, and no judgment is helpful which is not based on the best available scientific information.

These considerations will be borne in mind as we examine the relevance of traditional Jewish sources to our theme.

Attitudes to Creation

GOODNESS OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD

"God saw that it was good" is the refrain of the first creation story of Genesis (chapter 1:1 to 2:4), which includes the physical creation of humankind, male and female. The created world is thus testimony to God's goodness and greatness (see Psalms 8, 104, 148).

The second "creation" story (Genesis 2:5 to 3:24) accounts for the psychological makeup of humankind. There is no devil, only a "wily serpent," and the excuse of being misled by the serpent does not exempt Adam and Eve from personal responsibility for what they have done. Bad gets into the world through the free exercise of choice by people, not in the process of creation, certainly not through fallen angels, devils, or any other external projection of human guilt; such creatures are notably absent from the catalogue of creation in Genesis 1.

Post-biblical Judaism did not adopt the concept of "the devil." In the Middle Ages, however, the dualism of body and spirit prevailed, and with it a tendency to denigrate "this world" and "material things." The Ereẓ Israel kabbalist Isaac Luria (1534–1572) taught that God initiated the process of creation by "withdrawing" himself from the infinite space He occupied; this theory stresses the "inferiority" and distance from God of material creation, but compensates by drawing attention to the divine element concealed in all things. The modern Jewish theologian who wishes to emphasize the inherent goodness of God's creation has not only the resources of the Hebrew Scriptures on which to draw but a continuous tradition based on them.

Anthropocentrism.

Certain theologians, such as Matthew Fox, are greatly exercised to replace traditional anthropocentric, fall/redemption, hence guilt-laden theologies with a "creation spirituality" of "original blessing." They invoke spirits, demons and earth goddesses, and do not rest satisfied until they have appropriated scripture itself to their purposes.

Perhaps they redress an imbalance in Catholic theology. But by what arbitrary whim do they confer authority on earth-centered Genesis 1–2:4 and deny it to people-centered Genesis 2:5–3:24? And by what further willfulness do they ignore the culmination of Genesis 1–2:4 itself in the creation of humankind in the image of God, at the apex of creation?

Do they not acknowledge that the Hebrew scriptures are a polemic against idolatry, and that the most significant feature of Genesis 1:2–4 is its denial, by omission, of the very existence of sprites, hobgoblins, demons, gods, demigods, earth-spirits, and all those motley beings that everyone else in the ancient world sought to manipulate to their advantages? There is only one power, and that is God, who is above nature (transcendent).

The Bible encompasses three realms: of God, of humankind, of nature. It does not confuse them. There is "original blessing" indeed – "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good" (Genesis 1:31) – but this includes people, maintains hierarchy, excludes "earth spirits," and remains subject to succeeding chapters of Genesis as well as the rest of scripture.

BIODIVERSITY

I recall sitting in the synagogue as a child and listening to the reading of Genesis. I was puzzled by the Hebrew word le-minehu ("according to its kind") which followed the names of most of the created items and was apparently superfluous. Obviously, if God created fruit with seeds, the seeds were "according to its kind"!

As time went on I became more puzzled. Scripture seemed obsessive about "kinds" (species). There were careful lists and definitions of which species of creature might or might not be eaten (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14). Wool and linen were not to be mixed in a garment (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11), ox and ass were not to plow together (Deuteronomy 22:10), fields (Leviticus 19:19) and vineyards (Deuteronomy 22:9) were not to be sown with mixed seeds or animals cross-bred (Leviticus 19:19) and, following the rabbinic interpretation of a thrice repeated biblical phrase (Exodus 23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21), meat and milk were not to be cooked or eaten together.

The story of Noah's Ark manifests anxiety that all species should be conserved, irrespective of their usefulness to humankind – Noah is instructed to take into his Ark viable (according to the thought of the time) populations of both "clean" and "unclean" animals.

The biblical preoccupation with species and with keeping them distinct can now be read as a way of declaring the "rightness" of God's pattern for creation and of calling on humankind not only not to interfere with it, but to cherish bio-diversity by conserving species.

Scripture does not of course take account of the evolution of species, with its postulates of (a) the alteration of species over time and (b) the extinction (long before the evolution of humans) of most species which have so far appeared on earth.

Yet at the very least these Hebrew texts assign unique value to each species as it now is within the context of the present order of creation; this is sufficient to give a religious dimension, within Judaism, to the call to conserve species.

Perek Shirah.

*Perek Shirah (the "Chapter of Song," as found in large Siddurim (Prayer Books), particularly those of Jacob Emden and Seligmann Baer) affords a remarkable demonstration of the traditional Jewish attitude to nature and its species. The provenance of this "song" is unknown, though in its earliest form it may well have emanated from mystical circles such as those of the heikhalot mystics of the fourth or fifth centuries. Though occasionally attacked for heterodoxy, it is clearly rabbinic not only in its theology but even in the detail of its vocabulary and allusions.

More significant than its origin is its actual use in private devotion. It has been associated with the "Songs of Unity" composed by the German pietists of the 12^th century who undoubtedly stimulated its popularity.

As the work is printed today it is divided into five or six sections, corresponding to the physical creation (this includes heaven and hell, Leviathan and other sea creatures), plants and trees, creeping things, birds, and land animals (in some versions the latter section is subdivided). Each section consists of from 10 to 25 biblical verses, each interpreted as the song or saying of some part of creation or of some individual creature. The cock, in the fourth section, is given seven voices and its function in the poem is to link the earthly song, in which all nature praises God, with the heavenly song.

We shall see in the section on hierarchy in creation that the Spanish Jewish philosopher Joseph *Albo draws on Perek Shirah to express the relationship between the human and the animal; yet Perek Shirah itself draws all creation, even the inanimate, even heaven and hell themselves, into the relationship, expressing a fullness which derives only from the rich diversity of things, and which readily translates into the modern concept of biodiversity.

STEWARDSHIP OR DOMINATION

There has been discussion among Christian theologians as to whether the opening chapters of Genesis call on humans to act as stewards, guardians of creation, or to dominate and exploit the created world. There is little debate on this point among Jewish theologians to whom it has always been obvious that when Genesis states that Adam was placed in the garden "to till it and to care for it" (2:15), it means just what it says. As Rabbi A.I. *Kook put it:

No rational person can doubt that the Torah, when it commands people to "rule over the fishes of the sea and the birds of the sky and all living things that move on the earth" does not have in mind a cruel ruler who exploits his people and servants for his own will and desires – God forbid that such a detestable law of slavery [be attributed to God] who "is good to all and his tender care rests upon all his creatures" (Psalms 145:9) and "the world is built on tender mercy" (Psalm 89:3).

So perverse is it to understand "and rule over it" (Genesis 1:28) – let alone Psalm 8 – as meaning "exploit and destroy" (is that what people think of their rulers?) that many Christians take such interpretations as a deliberate attempt to besmirch Christianity and not a few Jews have read the discussions as an attempt to "blame the Jews" for yet another disaster in Christendom.

Hierarchy in Creation

"God created humans in His image … male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27). In some sense, humankind is superior to animals, animals to plants, plants to the inanimate. There is a hierarchy in created things.

The hierarchical model has two practical consequences. The first is that of responsibility of the higher for the lower, traditionally expressed as "rule," latterly as "stewardship." The second is that, in a competitive situation, the higher has priority over the lower. Humans have priority over dogs so that, for instance, it is wrong for a man to risk his life to save that of a dog though right, in many circumstances, for him to risk his life to save that of another human. Contemporary dilemmas arising from this are described in the section on animal versus human life.

The Jewish philosopher Joseph Albo (in Sefer ha-Ikkarim, book 3, ch. 1) places humans at the top of the earthly hierarchy and discerns in this the possibility for humans to receive God's Revelation. This is just a medieval way of saying what we have remarked. God's Revelation, pace Albo and Jewish tradition, is the Torah, from which we learn our responsibilities to each other and to the rest of creation.

According to Albo, just as clothes are an integral part of the animal, but external to people, who have to make clothes for themselves, so are specific ethical impulses integral to the behavior of particular animals, and we should learn from their behavior. "Who teaches us from the beasts of the earth, and imparts wisdom to us through the birds of the sky" (Job 35:11) – as the Talmud put it (tb Eruvim 100b): "R. Johanan said, If these things were not commanded in the Torah, we could learn modesty from the cat, the ant would preach against robbery, and the dove against incest." The superiority of humans lies in their unique combination of freedom to choose and the intelligence to judge, without which the divine Revelation would have no application. Being in this sense "higher" than other creatures, humans must be humble towards all. Albo, in citing these passages and commending the reading of Perek Shirah, articulates the attitude of humble stewardship towards Creation which characterizes rabbinic Judaism.

A Divergence Between East and West?.

With regard to the hierarchical model there appears to be a radical difference of approach between Jews, Christians, and Muslims on the one hand and Hindus and Buddhists on the other.

The difference may be more apparent than real. Consider the following:

I recall that in the year 5665 [1904/5] I visited Jaffa in the Holy Land, and went to pay my respects to its Chief Rabbi [Rav Kook]. He received me warmly… and after the afternoon prayer I accompanied him as he went out into the fields, as was his wont, to concentrate his thoughts. As we were walking I plucked some flower or plant; he trembled and quietly told me that he always took great care not to pluck, unless it were for some benefit, anything that could grow, for there was no plant below that did not have its guardian [Heb. mazzal] above. Everything that grew said something, every stone whispered some secret, all creation sang… (Aryeh Levine, Laḥai Roi (Heb., 1961), 15, 16).

Rav Kook, drawing on a range of classical Jewish sources from Psalm 148 to Lurianic mysticism, and without doubt accepting the hierarchical view of creation, nevertheless acknowledges the divine significance of all things – the immanence of God. Conversely, although Buddhists and Hindus teach respect for all life they do not conclude from this that, for instance, the life of two ants takes precedence over the life of one human being; in practice, they adopt some form of hierarchical principle.

CONCERN FOR ANIMALS

Kindness to animals is a motivating factor for general concern with the environment, rather than itself an element in conservation.

Kindness to animals features prominently in the Jewish tradition. The Ten Commandments include domestic animals in the Sabbath rest, and the "seven *Noachide laws" are even more explicit. Pious tales and folklore exemplify this attitude, as in the Talmudic anecdote of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch's contrition over having sent a calf to the slaughter (tb bm 85a and Genesis Rabbah 33).

Causing Pain or Distress to Animals.

In rabbinic law this concern condenses into the concept of ẓa'ar ba'alei ḥayyim ("distress to living creatures"; see Cruelty to *Animals). An illuminating instance of halakhic concern for animal welfare is the rule attributed to the third-century Babylonian Rabbi that one should feed one's cattle before breaking bread oneself (tb Ber. 40a); even the Sabbath laws are relaxed somewhat to enable rescue of injured animals or milking of cows to ease their distress. Recently, concern has been expressed about intensive animal husbandry including battery chicken production.

Meat Eating

The Torah does not enjoin vegetarianism, though Adam and Eve were vegetarian (Gen. 1:29). Restrictions on meat eating perhaps indicate reservations. Albo (Sefer ha-Ikkarim 3:15) wrote that the first people were forbidden to eat meat because of the cruelty involved in killing animals.Isaac *Abrabanel (1437–1508) endorsed this ("Commentary on Isaiah" (Heb., ch. 11 on the verse "The wolf shall lie down with the lamb."), and also taught (that when the Messiah comes we would return to the ideal, vegetarian state ("Commentary on Genesis" (Heb., ch. 2). The popular trend to vegetarianism has won many Jewish adherents though little official backing from religious leaders.

Hunting

On February 23, 1716, Duke Christian of Sachsen Weissenfels celebrated his 53^rd birthday by a great hunting party. History would have passed by the Duke as well as the occasion had not J.S. Bach honored them with his "Hunting Cantata." The text by Salomo Franck, secretary of the upper consistory at Weimar, is a grand celebration of nature and its priest, Duke Christian, with no sense that hunting sounds a discordant note, and the cantata includes one of Bach's most expressive arias, Schafe können sicher weiden ("Sheep may safely graze").

Conditions of Jewish life in the past millennium or so have rarely afforded Jewish notables the opportunity to celebrate their birthdays by hunting parties. But it has happened from time to time and led rabbis to voice their censure.

N. Rakover sums up the halakhic objections to "sport" hunting under eight heads: (1) It is destructive/wasteful (see section on cutting down fruit trees). (2) It causes distress to animals (section on causing pain and distress to animals). (3) It actively produces non-kasher carcasses. (4) It leads to trading non-kasher commodities. (5) The hunter exposes himself to danger unnecessarily. (6) It wastes time. (7) The hunt is a "seat of the scornful" (Ps. 1:1). (8) "Thou shalt not conform to their institutions" (Lev. 18:3).

From this we see that although Jewish religious tradition despises hunting for sport, this is on ethical and ritual grounds rather than in the interest of conservation.²⁸

The Land and the People – A Paradigm

Judaism, both in biblical times and subsequently, has emphasized the inter-relationship of the Jewish people and its land, and the idea that the prosperity of the land depends on the people's obedience to God's covenant. For instance:

If you pay heed to the commandments which I give you this day, and love the Lord your God and serve him with all your heart and soul, then I will send rain for your land in season…. and you will gather your corn and new wine and oil, and I will provide pasture…. you shall eat your fill. Take good care not to be led astray in your hearts nor to turn aside and serve other gods…. or the Lord will become angry with you; he will shut up the skies and there will be no rain, your ground will not yield its harvest, and you will soon vanish from the rich land which the Lord is giving you (Deut. 11:13–17).

Two steps are necessary to apply this link between morality and prosperity to the contemporary situation: 1. The chosen land and people must be understood as the prototype of (a) all actual individual geographical nations (including, of course, Israel) in their relationships with land and of (b) humanity as a whole in its relationship with the planet as a whole. 2. There must be satisfactory clarification of the meaning of "obedience to God" as the human side of the covenant to ensure that "the land will be blessed." The Bible certainly has in mind justice and moral rectitude, but in spelling out "the commandments of God" it includes specific prescriptions which directly regulate care of the land and celebration of its produce.

To sum up – the Bible stresses the intimate relationship between people and land. The prosperity of land depends on (a) the social justice and moral integrity of the people on it and (b) a caring, even loving, attitude to land with effective regulation of its use. Conservation demands the extrapolation of these principles from ancient or idealized Israel to the contemporary global situation; this calls for education in social values together with scientific investigation of the effects of our activities on nature.

SABBATICAL YEAR AND JUBILEE

When you enter the land which I give you, the land shall keep sabbaths to the Lord. For six years you may sow your fields and for six years prune your vineyards but in the seventh year the land shall keep a sabbath of sacred rest, a sabbath to the Lord. You shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard … (Lev. 25:2–4)

The analogy between the sabbath (literally, "rest day") of the land and that of people communicates the idea that land must "rest" to be refreshed and regain its productive vigor. In contemporary terms, land resources must be conserved through the avoidance of overuse.

The Bible pointedly links this to social justice. Just as land must not be exploited so slaves must go free after six years of bondage or in the Jubilee (50^th) year, and the sabbatical year (in Hebrew shemittah – "release") cancels private debts, thus preventing exploitation of the individual.

The consequence of disobedience is destruction of the land, which God so cares for that he will heal it in the absence of its unfaithful inhabitants:

If in spite of this you do not listen to me and still defy me … I will make your cities desolate and destroy your sanctuaries … your land shall be desolate and your cities heaps of rubble. Then, all the time that it lies desolate, while you are in exile in the land of your enemies, your land shall enjoy its sabbaths to the full (Lev. 26:27–35).

If in Israel today there is only a handful of agricultural collectives which observe the "sabbath of land" in its biblical and rabbinic sense, the biblical text had undoubtedly influenced the country's scientists and agronomists to question the intensive agriculture favored in the early years of the State and to give high priority to conservation of land resources.

CUTTING DOWN FRUIT TREES

When you are at war, and lay siege to a city…. do not destroy its trees by taking the axe to them, for they provide you with food (Deut. 20:19).

In its biblical context this is a counsel of prudence rather than a principle of conservation; the Israelites are enjoined to use only "non-productive," that is, non fruit-bearing trees, for their siege works.

In rabbinic teaching, however, the verse has become the locus classicus for conserving all that has been created, so that the very phrase bal tashḥit (lit. "not to destroy") is inculcated into small children to teach them not to destroy or waste even those things they do not need. In an account of the commandments specially written for his son, Rabbi Aaron Ha-Levi of Barcelona (c. 1300) sums up the purpose of this one as follows:

This is meant to ingrain in us the love of that which is good and beneficial and to cleave to it; by this means good will imbue our souls and we will keep far from everything evil or destructive. This is the way of the devout and those of good deeds – they love peace, rejoice in that which benefits people and brings them to Torah; they never destroy even a grain of mustard, and are upset at any destruction they see. If only they can save anything from being spoilt they spare no effort to do so (Sefer Ha-Ḥinnukh, Mitzvah 529).

LIMITATION OF GRAZING RIGHTS

The Mishnah rules: "One may not raise small cattle [i.e., sheep, goats, etc.] in the Land of Israel, but one may do so in Syria or in the uninhabited parts of the Land of Israel (bk 7:7). The history of this law has been researched, and there is evidence of similar restrictions from as early as the third century b.c.e.

The Mishnah itself does not itself provide a rationale for the law. Later rabbis suggest: (a) that its primary purpose is to prevent the "robbery" of crops by roaming animals, and (b) that its objective is to encourage settlement in the Land. This latter reason is based on the premise that the raising of sheep and goats is inimical to the cultivation of crops and reflects the ancient rivalry between nomad and farmer; at the same time it poses the question considered by modern ecologists of whether animal husbandry is an efficient way of producing food. (The rabbis of the Talmud, however, did not envisage vegetarianism and did not ban the raising of large cattle in the Land. They assumed that meat would be eaten but tried to ensure that its production would not interfere with agriculture).

AGRICULTURAL FESTIVALS

The concept of "promised land" is an assertion that the consummation of social and national life depends on harmony with the land.

The biblical pilgrim-festivals all celebrate the Land and its crops, though they are also given historical and spiritual meanings. Through the joyful collective experience of these festivals the people learned to cherish the Land and their relationship, through God's commandments, with it; the sense of joy was heightened through fulfillment of the divine commandments to share the bounty of the land with "the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow" (a frequent expression, for instance, Deuteronomy 16:11).

Specific Environmental Laws

Several aspects of environmental pollution are dealt with in traditional halakhah. Although the classical sources were composed in situations very different from those of the present the law has been, and is, in a continuous state of development, and in any case the basic principles are clearly relevant to contemporary situations.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Arising from Deuteronomy 23:13,14 halakhah insists that refuse be removed "outside the camp," that is, collected in a location where it will not reduce the quality of life. The Talmud and Codes extend this concept to the general prohibition of dumping refuse or garbage where it may interfere with the environment or with crops.

It would be anachronistic to seek in the earlier sources the concept of waste disposal as threatening the total balance of nature or the climate. However, if the rabbis forbade the growing of kitchen gardens and orchards around Jerusalem on the grounds that the manuring would degrade the local environment (bk 82b), one need have no doubt that they would have been deeply concerned at the large-scale environmental degradation caused by traditional mining operations, the burning of fossil fuels, and the like.

Smell (see also the following section) is regarded in halakhah as a particular nuisance, hence there are rules regarding the siting not only of lavatories but also of odoriferous commercial operations such as tanneries (tb bb ch. 2; codified, with subsequent developments, in Shulḥan Arukh ḤM, ch. 145). Certainly, rabbinic law accords priority to environmental over purely commercial considerations.

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION AND SMOKE

Like smell, atmospheric pollution and smoke are placed by the rabbis within the category of indirect damage, since their effects are produced at a distance. They are nevertheless unequivocally forbidden.

The Mishnah (bb2) bans the siting of a threshing floor within 50 cubits of a residential area, since the flying particles set in motion by the threshing process would diminish the quality of the air.

Likewise, the second-century rabbi Nathan ruled that a furnace might not be sited within 50 cubits of a residential area because of the effect of its smoke on the atmosphere (bb 1:7); the 50-cubit limit was subsequently extended by the geonim to whatever the distance from which smoke might cause eye irritation or general annoyance (S. Assaf (ed.), Geonic Responsa, (5689/1929), p. 32).

The Hazards Prevention Law, passed by the Israeli Knesset on March 23, 1961, contains the following provisions:

#3 No person shall create a strong or unreasonable smell, of whatever origin, if it disturbs or is likely to disturb a person nearby or passerby.
#4a No person shall create strong or unreasonable pollution of the air, of whatever origin, if it disturbs or is likely to disturb a person nearby or passerby.

The subjectivity of "reasonable" in this context is apparent. Meir Sichel, in a study on the ecological problems that arise from the use of energy resources for power stations to manufacture electricity, and from various types of industrial and domestic consumption such as cooking, heating, and lighting, has drawn on the resources of traditional Jewish law in an attempt to define more precisely what should be regarded as "reasonable." Citing rabbinic responsa over an 800-year period he concludes that halakhah is even more insistent on individual rights than the civil law (of Israel), and that halakhah does not recognize "prior rights" of a defendant who claims that he had established a right to produce the annoyance or pollutant before the plaintiff appeared on the scene (M. Sichel, "Air Pollution – Smoke and Odour Damage," in: Jewish Law Annual, 5 (1985), 25–43).

In an exercise such as Sichel's there is no difficulty in applying traditional law to the contemporary context with regard to priority of rights, and also in clarifying the relationship between public and private rights. However, it is less clear that one can achieve a satisfactory definition of "reasonable," since ideas of what is acceptable vary not only from person to person but in accordance with changing scientific understanding of the nature of the damage caused by smells and smoke, including the "invisible" hazards of germs and radiation unknown to earlier generations.

WATER POLLUTION

Several laws were instituted by the rabbis to safeguard the freedom from pollution, as well as the fair distribution, of water. A typical early source says:

If one is digging out caves for the public he may wash his hands, face, and feet; but if his feet are dirty with mud or excrement it is forbidden. [If he is digging] a well or a ditch [for drinking water], then [whether his feet are clean or dirty] he may not wash them (Tosef. bm 11:31 (ed. Zuckermandel).

Pregnant with possibilities for application to contemporary life is the principle that one may claim damages or obtain an appropriate injunction to remove the nuisance where the purity of one's water supply is endangered by a neighbor's drainage or similar works. It is significant that the geonim here also rejected the Talmudic distance limit in favor of a broad interpretation of the law to cover damage irrespective of distance (cited in Sh. Ar., Ḥm 155:21).

Noise

Rabbinic law on noise pollution offers a fascinating instance of balance of priorities. The Mishnah lays down that in a residential area neighbors have the right to object to the opening of a shop or similar enterprise on the grounds that the noise would disturb their tranquility. It is permitted, however, to open a school for Torah notwithstanding the noise of children, for education has priority. Later authorities discuss the limit of noise which has to be tolerated in the interest of education (Rashi on tb bb 21a), and whether other forms of religious activity might have similar priority to the opening of a school (Sh. Ar., Ḥm 156:3).

BEAUTY

Much could be said of the rabbinic appreciation of beauty in general. Here we concern ourselves only with legislation explicitly intended to enhance the environment, which is rooted in the biblical law of the Levitical cities:

Tell the Israelites to set aside towns in their patrimony as homes for the Levites, and give them also the common land surrounding the towns. They shall live in the towns, and keep their beasts, their herds, and all their livestock on the common land. The land of the towns which you give the Levites shall extend from the center of the town outwards for a thousand cubits in each direction. Starting from the town the eastern boundary shall measure two thousand cubits, the southern two thousand, the western two thousand, and the northern two thousand, with the town in the center. They shall have this as the common land adjoining their towns. (Lev. 35:2–5)

As this passage is understood by the rabbis, there was to be a double surround to each town, first a "green belt" of a thousand cubits, then a two-thousand-cubit-wide belt for "fields and vineyards." While some maintained that the thousand-cubit band was for pasture, Rashi (on tb Sota 22b) explains that it was not for use, but "for the beauty of the town, to give it space" – a concept reflected in Maimonides' interpretation of the Talmudic rules on the distancing of trees from residences (see Maimonides, Yad., Shekhenim, ch. 10).

The rabbis debate whether this form of "town planning" ought to be extended to non-Levitical towns, at least in the land of Israel, designated by Jeremiah (3:19) and Ezekiel (20:6,15), the beautiful land."

The rabbinic appreciation of beauty in nature is highlighted in the blessing they set to be recited when one sees "the first blossoms in Spring":

You are blessed, Lord our God and ruler of the universe, who have omitted nothing from your world, but created within it good creatures and good and beautiful trees in which people may take delight [in the name of Judah bar Ezekiel (third-century Palestinian) in tb Ber. 43b; a whole chapter of Sh. Ar., oḤ 226, is devoted to it.).

Sample Ethical Problems Relating to Conservation

ANIMAL VERSUS HUMAN LIFE

Judaism consistently values human life more than animal life. One should not risk one's life to save an animal; for instance, if one is driving a car and a dog runs into the road it would be wrong to swerve, endangering one's own or someone else's life, to save the dog.

But is it right to take a human life, e.g., that of a poacher, to save not an individual animal but an endangered species? I can find nothing in Jewish sources to support killing poachers in any circumstances other than those in which they directly threaten human life. If it be argued that the extinction of a species would threaten human life because it would upset the balance of nature, it is still unlikely that Jewish law would countenance homicide to avoid an indirect and uncertain threat of this nature.

Even if homicide were justified in such circumstances, how many human lives is a single species worth? How far down the evolutionary scale would such a principle be applied? After all, the argument about upsetting the balance of nature applies equally with microscopic species as with large cuddly looking vertebrates like the panda, and with plants as much as with animals.

Judaism, true to the hierarchical principle of creation (see above), consistently values human life more than that of other living things, but at the same time stresses the special responsibility of human beings to "work on and look after" the created order (Genesis 2:15 – see section-Stewardship or Domination).

PROCREATION VERSUS POPULATION CONTROL

The question of birth control (including abortion) in Judaism is complex, but there is universal agreement that at least some forms of birth control are permissible where a potential mother's life is in danger and that abortion is not only permissible but mandatory up to full term to save the mother's life. Significant is the value system which insists that, even though contraception may be morally questionable, it is preferable to abstinence where life danger would be involved through normal sexual relations within a marriage.

What happens where economic considerations rather than life danger come into play? Here we must distinguish between (a) personal economic difficulties and (b) circumstances of "famine in the world," where economic hardship is general.

On the whole, halakhah places the basic duty of procreation above personal economic hardship. But what about general economic hardship, which can arise (a) through local or temporary famine and (b) through the upward pressure of population on finite world resources?

The former situation was in the mind of the third-century Palestinian sage Resh Lakish when he ruled: "It is forbidden for a man to engage in sexual intercourse in years of famine" (tb. Ta'an. 11a). Although the ruling of Resh Lakish was adopted by the codes (Sh. Ar., oḤ 240:12 and 574:4), its application was restricted to those who already have children, and the decision between abstinence and contraception is less clear here than where there is a direct hazard to life.

Upward pressure of population on world resources is a concept unknown to the classical sources of the Jewish religion and not indeed clearly understood by anyone before Malthus. As Feldman remarks:

It must be repeated here that the "population explosion" has nothing to do with the Responsa, and vice versa. The Rabbis were issuing their analyses and their replies to a specific couple with a specific query. These couples were never in a situation where they might aggravate a world problem; on the contrary, the Jewish community was very often in a position of seeking to replenish its depleted ranks after pogrom or exile…. (Marital Relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law (1974), 304)

Feldman goes on to say "It would be just as reckless to over-breed as to refrain from procreation." As the duty of procreation is expressed in Genesis in the words "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" it is not unreasonable to suggest that "fill" be taken as "reach the maximum population sustainable at an acceptable standard of living but do not exceed it." In like manner the rabbis (tb Yev. 62a) utilize Isaiah's phrase "God made the earth … no empty void, but made it for a place to dwell in" (45:18) to define the minimum requirement for procreation – a requirement, namely one son and one daughter, which does not increase population.

Of course, there is room for local variation amongst populations. Although as a general rule governments nowadays should discourage population growth there are instances of thinly populated areas or of small ethnic groups whose survival is threatened where some population growth might be acceptable even from the global perspective.

NUCLEAR, FOSSIL FUEL, SOLAR ENERGY

Can religious sources offer guidance on the choice between nuclear and fossil, and other energy sources?

They can have very little to say and – especially in view of the extravagant views expressed by some religious leaders – it is important to understand why their potential contribution to current debate is so small.

The choice among energy sources rests on the following parameters: (1) cost effectiveness; (2) environmental damage caused by production; (3) operational hazards; (4) clean disposal of waste products; (5) long-term environmental sustainability.

Cost effectiveness cannot be established without weighing the other factors. There is no point, however, at which religious consideration apply in establishing whether a particular combination of nuclear reactor plus safety plus storage of waste and so on will cost more or less than alternative "packages" for energy production.

It is equally clear that religious considerations have no part to play in assessing environmental damage caused by production, operational hazards, whether waste products can be cleanly disposed of, or what is the long-term environmental sustainability of a method of energy production. These are all technical matters, demanding painstaking research and hard evidence, and they have nothing to do with theology.

It is a matter of sadness and regret that extreme environ-mentalists are so prone to stirring up the emotions of the faithful for or against some project, such as nuclear energy, which really ought to be assessed on objective grounds. Much of the hurt arises from the way the extremists "demonize" those of whom they disapprove, and in the name of love generate hatred against people who seek to bring benefit to humanity.

GLOBAL WARMING

A very similar analysis could be made of the problems relating to global warming. The fact is that in mid-1990 no one knew the extent, if any, to which global temperatures have risen as a result of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and no one knew what would be the overall effects of the projected doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by the middle of the next century. Some consequences, indeed, may be beneficial, such as greater productivity of plants in an atmosphere with more carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, neither the techniques of mathematical modeling used to make the projections, nor the base of global observations at 500-kilometer intervals, can yield firm results. (See the summary provided by Robert M. White, "The Great Climate Debate," in: Scientific American, July 1990.)

So how can a government decide whether to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, and vast sums in aiding third world countries to avoid developing along "greenhouse" lines, when the draconian measures required greatly limit personal freedom and much of the expenditure might be better diverted to building hospitals, improving education and the like?

Essential steps, including better research, must be initiated, but it would be a lack of wisdom to rush into the most extreme measures demanded. It is clear that the decisions must be rooted in prudence, not in theology. Theology tends to absolutize and call for radical solutions where we have only relative and uncertain evidence, or conversely to commend us to faith in God when we ought to be taking initiatives ourselves.

DIRECTED EVOLUTION

After writing about the progress from physical evolution through biological evolution to cultural evolution, Edward Rubinstein states:

Henceforth, life no longer evolves solely through chance mutation. Humankind has begun to modify evolution, to bring about nonrandom, deliberate changes in dna that alter living assemblies and create assemblies that did not exist before.

The messengers of directed evolution are human beings. Their messages, expressed in the language and methods of molecular biology, genetics and medicine and in moral precepts, express their awareness of human imperfections and reflect the values and aspirations of their species. (E. Rubinstein, "Stages of Evolution and their Messengers," in: Scientific American (June 1989), p. 104.)

These words indicate the area where religions, Judaism included, are most in need of adjusting themselves to contemporary reality – the area in which modern knowledge sets us most apart from those who formed our religious traditions. Religion as we know it has come into being only since the Neolithic Revolution, and thus presupposes some technology, some mastery of nature. But it has also assumed that the broad situation of humanity is static, and this is now seen to be an illusion.

All at once there is the prospect, alarming to some yet challenging to others, that we can set the direction of future development for all creatures in our world. The Ethics Committees of our hospitals and medical schools are forced to take decisions; although the religious take part – and Judaism has a distinctive contribution to make to medical ethics – it has yet to be shown that traditional sources can be brought to bear other than in the vaguest way ("we uphold the sanctity of life") on the problems raised even by currently available genetic engineering.

Will religions, as so often in the past, obstruct the development of science? They need not. Jewish religious have ranged from Isaac Abrabanel, who opposed in principle the development of technology (see his commentary on Genesis 2), to *Abraham bar *Ḥiyya, who in the 12^th century played a major role in the transmission of Greco-Arab science to the west. If Judaism (or any other religion) is to contribute towards conservation it will need to be in the spirit of Abraham bar Ḥiyya, through support for good science, rather than through idealization of the "simple life" in the spirit of Seneca and Abrabanel.

Conclusion – Religion and Conservation

Judaism, along with other religions, has resources which can be used to encourage people in the proper management of Planet Earth. We will now review the interaction of religion with conservation with special reference to the source cited.

1. We saw in the section on goodness of the physical world how Judaism interprets the created world, with its balanced biodiverse ecology, as a "testimony to God," with humankind at the pinnacle holding special responsibility for its maintenance and preservation. Certainly, this attitude is more conducive to an interest in conservation than would be emphasis on the centrality of the "next world," on the spirit versus the body, or on the "inferior" or "illusionary" nature of the material world.

2. One of the priorities of conservation at the present time is to control population so as not to exceed resources. Although Judaism stresses the duty of procreation we learned in the section on procreation versus population control that it offers the prospect of constructive approach to population planning, including some role for both contraception and abortion.

3. We have noted several specific areas in which Judaism has developed laws or policies significant for conservation. Prime among them (see the section: The Land and The People – a paradigm) were the laws regulating the relationship between people and land, for which the "chosen people" in the "promised land" is the model. Care of animals (section: Concern for Animals), waste disposal, atmospheric and water pollution, noise, and beauty of the environment were also treated in the classical sources. It would be neither possible nor fully adequate to take legislation straight from these sources; but it is certainly possible to work in continuity with them, bearing in mind the radically new awareness of the need for conserving the world and its resources as a whole.

4. Religions, Judaism included, discourage the pursuit of personal wealth. While in some instances this may be beneficial to the environment – if people want fewer cars and fewer books there will be fewer harmful emissions and fewer forests will be chopped down – there are also many ways in which poverty harms the environment – for instance, less research and development means that such technology as remains (presumably for hospitals and other welfare matters) will be less efficient and the problems of environmental pollution less effectively addressed. Only rich societies can afford clean disposal of wastes.

5. Some religions remain strongly committed to evangelistic or conversionist aims which inhibit cooperation with people of other religions. Judaism is not currently in an actively missionary phase; some would say that it is unduly introspective, and needs to proclaim its values in a more universal context. All religions, however, must desist from ideological conflicts and espouse dialogue; conservation cannot be effective without global cooperation.

6. Mere information can motivate, as when someone who perceives a lion ready to pounce reacts swiftly. If ecological disaster were as clearly perceived as a crouching lion ideological motivation would be unnecessary. It is better that religions support conservation than oppose it, but the world would be safer if people would act on the basis of rational collective self-preservation rather than on the basis of confused and uncontrollable ideologies.

7. Several times, particularly in discussing energy sources and global warming, we had to stress the need to distinguish between technological and value judgments. Whether or not nuclear reactors should be built must depend on a careful, dispassionate assessment of their hazards; shrill condemnation of the "hubris of modern technology" merely hinders judgment, though it is right and proper that religious values be considered when an informed choice is made. Of course, the same need for objective assessment before value judgments are made applies to all other major conservation questions, such as how to reverse deforestation, control the greenhouse effect, restore the ozone layer.

8. Towards the end of the section on directed evolution we noted a characteristic religious ambivalence towards science. In the interest of conservation it is essential that the "pro-science" attitude of Abraham bar Ḥiyya, Maimonides, and others be encouraged. The extreme attitude of "simple life" proponents must be resisted. For a start, the present world population could not be supported if we were to revert to the simple life. Moreover, who would wish to do without sanitation, communications, electric light, books, travel, medical services and all those other benefits of "complex" civilization?

Finally, let us note that Judaism, like other religions, has a vital role to play in eradicating those evils and promoting those values in society without which no conservation policies can be effective. The single greatest social evil is official corruption, frequently rife in precisely those countries where conservation measures must be carried out. Next in line is drug addiction with its associated trade. But political animosities, such as those in the midst of which Israel finds itself, and which siphon off the world's resources into arms and destruction, surely head the list of human activities inimical to conservation. Religions must combat these evils and at the same time work intelligently for peace, not only between nations but among religions themselves.

For the Jewish contribution to the environmental sciences, see *Environmental Sciences. See also *Conservation.

bibliography:

D. Ehrenfeld and P.J. Bentley, "Judaism and the Practice of Stewardship," in: Judaism, 24 (1985), 310–11; Israel Ministry of Justice, N. Rakover (compiler), Protection of the Environment (Heb., 1972); idem, Protection of Animals (Heb., 1976); S. Cooper, in: Harvey E. Goldberg (ed.), Judaism: Viewed from Within and from Without (1987), ch. 1; D. Novak, The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism (1983), ch. 8; R. Schwarz, Judaism and Vegetarianism (1982); D.M. Feldman, Marital Relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law (1974); I. Jakobovits, Jewish Medical Ethics, (1975⁴); G. Allon, History of the Jews in the Land of Israel in the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud (Hebrew), 1:173–78 and 359.

[Normon Solomon]

Encyclopaedia Judaica Solomon, Normon

Conservation

views updated Jun 27 2018

Conservation

Need for conservation

The conservation of habitat and species poses an enormous challenge for humans in the twenty-first century. As the earth's population grows, human use of natural resources increases. Municipalities, reservoirs, aqueducts and roads impinge upon natural habitat, fragmenting it into smaller pieces. As people burn fossil fuels, remove minerals, harvest commercial species, or convert wild land into farms, they necessarily compel other species to adapt to or emigrate from shrinking habitat or other changes in the environment. As humans consume more of the world's natural resources, they are faced with environmental concerns that range from acid rain, carbon emissions, and ozone depletion to starvation and the emergence of previously unknown diseases. The loss of a species—unlike pollution, unlike hunger, unlike global warming—cannot be reversed. Once a species is gone, it is gone forever.

In a seminal scientific paper first published in 1968, Garret Hardin pointed out that such areas as the open ocean that are not considered private property inevitably suffer from overuse resulting from their being common to all. Hardin argued that because they belong to no one in particular, they do not benefit from anyone's stewardship; no one wants to make personal sacrifices in order to increase the profits of others. He called this phenomenon the "tragedy of the commons." Hardin's article began as a retiring president's address and later appeared in the prestigious journal Science. Subsequently his paper was discussed in academic contexts ranging from engineering to political science; his 600 reprints were exhausted in a matter of months. Hardin began his original essay with this citation from a 1964 article published in Scientific American by J. B. Wiesner and H. F. York: "Both sides in the arms race are confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security. It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma has no technical solution. If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation." Today, this citation remains uniquely pertinent.

Wiesner and York's observation led to Hardin's incendiary suggestion that there are problems for which science has no solution. Scientists do their work under the explicit or implicit assumption that the questions they address have technical and logical answers. To suggest otherwise is to strike at a collective Achilles heel. Wiesner and York were speaking of the potential for nuclear war in their original article, but Hardin thought their words were equally relevant to ecological concerns. He applied their reasoning to the social goal first proposed by the nineteenth-century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham: acquiring the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In essence, Hardin was talking about human population control; he wanted to know if humans could have their cake and eat it too.

Deductively and simply he showed that the optimum population is less than the maximum, although he admitted that the latter term is difficult to quantify. Humans want the maximum good for the maximum number of people, but differ among themselves in their definitions of "the good." Hardin used the term "tragedy" in its original Greek sense of downfall caused by a remorseless and inexorable fate rather than its modern connotation of personal unhappiness. He used the example of a herdsman who shares a pasture open to all herdsmen in a specific community. Since all who are using the pasture want to graze as many sheep as they can on it, the pasture eventually reaches its carrying capacity. Thereafter, when any herdsman adds another sheep to his flock, the result is that that herdsman has a net gain of almost +1. Because of the shared overgrazing, all others realize a net loss of some fraction of 1. The mathematics and illustration are simple but the results inarguable. Certainly the tragedy of the commons led to the near extirpation of the American bison, many cetaceans, tigers, rhinoceros, and the list continues. Dugongs and dodo birds were less fortunate. Moreover, the example of the commons can be readily extended to the use of rivers and streams for agriculture, hydroelectric power, or fishing (upstream = benefit, downstream = impoverished). It also may be applied to any contemporary marine fishery.

Hardin's logic extends further, but in the opposite direction, when he addresses such issues as the pollution of air or water and the disposal of wastes in leaky landfills or at sea. The tragedy of the commons includes putting certain things into the natural world as well as taking them out; thus it encompasses the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by industrialized nations that cause warming worldwide. When the herdsman states his case to a board of inquiry, few could argue with his rationale; he merely wants to add one more animal to his herd. Tragically, that is the conclusion reached by each and every herdsman. Hardin was speaking directly to the issue of human overpopulation that exacerbates the tragedy of the commons, but implicit throughout his message is the need for conservation.

Rate of extinctions

The condition of rarity generally precedes extinction of a species, even though passenger pigeons numbered in the millions less than a century before they died out entirely. Endangered species tend to have the smallest populations and are hence the most likely to die out in the short term. While extinctions can occur for a host of reasons, they can be broadly categorized into two types: systematic pressures and random events. The former include such human activities as habitat destruction, overharvesting, and behaviors that affect the rate of climate change—all of these are factors that can systematically push a species toward extinction. Random pressures, however, are stochastic and may be less obvious. They include such catastrophic events as fires and floods; disease; or demographic fluctuations caused by genetic drift, bottlenecking or inbreeding depression, often acting in combination.

Of course, extinctions are not new events. Fossils provide a clear record of many terrestrial and marine species that once lived on earth and do so no longer. The naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace wrote over a hundred years ago that "…we live in a zoologically impoverished world, from which all the hugest, and fiercest, and strangest forms have recently disappeared…." For Wallace, "recent" meant the Quaternary period, about 12,500 to 11,000 years ago; and the animals he referred to varied according to the continent on which they lived. In the global ocean and in Africa and Asia, there were relatively few Quaternary extinctions; in the Americas, Madagascar, and Australia, however, extinction was nothing short of cataclysmic in its reach. Almost three-quarters of the genera that weighed over 97 lb (44 kg) died out from North America. Australia fared even worse; the continent lost every terrestrial vertebrate species larger than a human being. These included carnivorous kangaroos, a horned tortoise the size of a small automobile, and a monitor lizard almost 22.9 ft (7 m) long. Many small mammals, reptiles, and flightless birds also died out. In fact, eggshells from the giant flightless bird Genyornis newtoni indicate that it went extinct simultaneously in three disparate locations. These extinctions occurred during a time in the Quaternary when climate change was relatively mild. They also happened to coincide with the coming of humans to Australia.

Of course, species extinctions also predate human influence and have occurred throughout history as the consequence of climate change, natural selection, and evolution—a fact erroneously used as evidence that conservation is unnecessary. Unfortunately, a consensus exists among many scientists that the earth's species are vanishing at an alarmingly fast rate when compared to background levels of extinction. Sobering warnings come from esteemed scientists like Paul Dayton, Paul Ehrlich, Jane Lubchenco, Stuart Pimm, Michael Soulé, and E. O. Wilson, who have each worked for decades in their respective fields. We dismiss their opinions at grave risk. E. O. Wilson, professor and curator of entomology at Harvard University's Museum of Comparative Zoology, predicts that as many as 20% of the species alive today will be extinct by the year 2030 if conservation measures are not implemented.

Conservation biology

Conservation biology is an interdisciplinary science that attempts to integrate the fields of biology, ecology, economics, and conservation. Scientists Michael Soulé and Bruce Wilcox held the First International Conference on Conservation Biology in the United States in 1978 to address such problems as extinction and habitat loss. Those who attended were ecologists and population biologists already studying these issues. The discipline of conservation biology was founded on the principle that advances in population biology could be applied to conservation issues and put into practice by managers of protected areas. Organizations like the World Conservation Union's (IUCN) Species Survival Commission (SSC) had emerged from the improved quantification of biological diversity as well as the need for conservation. As of 2003, the SSC is a clearinghouse for information on the health and status of species worldwide. Toward that end, the SSC publishes a Red List that uses set criteria (population size, distributional range, rates of decline) to assess and manage extinction risk. As of the year 2000, the Red List included all known birds and mammals on its inventory of 18,000 species. Of these, 11,000 are designated as threatened. The reader should bear in mind that there are about 1.5 million species of insects alone that have been described in the scientific literature. Plants have evolved together with insects, and their species numbers are similarly diverse. Conservative estimates place the total number of eukaryotic (multicelled) species at somewhere near 7 million, so the compilers of the Red List have much information to gather.

Need for biodiversity

When a species is commercially important and goes extinct, its loss can be assigned a dollar value. Atlantic cod, American mahogany, and great auks are listed by the IUCN Red List as Vulnerable, Endangered and Extinct species respectively. All are or were harvested commercially, and all could be ascribed some worth by the industries that made use of them. Such large organisms as whales, tigers, bison, and manatees are mammalian megafauna that, while not commercially important, hold symbolic or aesthetic values for humans. But what about the lower metazoans, the species described in this volume of Grzimek's? Most people would not know that an ophiuoroid is related to a sea star or that ascidians in their early life possess a structure very like a human notochord, let alone value these organisms. "Priapulan" is harder to pronounce than to describe, but few people will have even seen the word. Loriceferans were described for the first time in 1983 as resembling tiny "ambulatory pineapples." People might realize that sea cucumbers do not improve either the taste or the appearance of garden salads, but if one refers to them as holothuroids, most will respond with blank stares. When the poor name recognition of some of the lower metazoans is combined with their lack of commercial value, the fact that some of their populations are close to the vanishing point makes their value seem questionable.

The loss of any species, however, goes beyond its monetary worth. Certainly the morality of allowing species, including many that have been evolving longer than humans have, to suffer extinction as the result of human interference is indefensible. But a more scientific and impartial reason to prevent extinction exists: biodiversity. First coined by E. O. Wilson in 1986, the term "biodiversity" refers to the sum of all diversity, all the variability in a given area that is genetic, conferred by other species, or inherent in the ecosystem itself. Simply put, biodiversity is the natural variability among living organisms and everything that fosters that variability.

From a strictly anthropocentric standpoint, humans have benefited directly and greatly from biological diversity. Penicillin comes from the mold Penicillium sp. The tree Calophyllum lanigerum was found to produce a substance that inhibits replication in the AIDS virus. Aequorin, collected from the jellyfish Aequorea victoria, is a common fluorescent marker used in medicine and microbiology. Studies of the venom of a South American pit viper led to the discovery of the angiotensin system that regulates human blood pressure. Venom from marine cone snails has given rise to a synthetic analgesic and is used to keep nerve cells alive following ischemia. The compound cytarabine is more effective at inducing remission in one form of leukemia than any other drug. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a technique that revolutionized the field of microbiology, was made possible because of an enzyme discovered in a bacterium in the hot springs of Yellowstone, Wyoming. PCR enables us to perform rapid DNA testing of criminal suspects. It allows microbiologists to modify the genomes of bacteria, insert specific genes into them, and ultimately produce genetic modifications of other plants and animals. The thermophilic bacteria found in those hot springs are more similar to bacteria found at hydrothermal vents in the deep sea than to common bacteria like Escherichia coli; scientists have classified them in their own kingdom, Archaea.

As we find new organisms or look more closely at familiar ones, we discover more human uses for those organisms. This fact underscores the very tangible benefits to humans of conservation—even if it is based on aesthetic values, as was the inception of Yellowstone National Park over a century ago. Moreover, conservation offers emphatic demonstrations of the value of biological surveys because scientists continue to find new organisms even at the most general level of classification, the animal kingdom.

Yet even species that have no present or apparent commercial use benefit humans in ways that are taken for granted. Processes as fundamental as natural selection and evolution depend on genetic variability. Plants require nitrogen to grow. Although nitrogen is the largest single component of the air humans breathe, most plants cannot use it in its stable atmospheric form N₂. Some bacteria and blue-green algae help to "fix" atmospheric nitrogen into forms that can be used by plants. Different species of bacteria form different types of nitrogenous byproducts. Some bacteria are even endosymbiotic and live in the root tissues of legumes. As organisms die and then decompose into their elemental components—mostly water, carbon, nitrogen and some minerals—which are eventually recycled, the very mechanics of nutrient and energy transfer are dependent upon a diversity of plant and animal species. Humans do not ascribe a monetary value to such ecosystem services as decomposition, carbon, or nitrogen cycling. They are, however, invaluable because life as we know it would not exist without them.

Risk assessment

On a practical level, it is difficult to assess which species are most at risk. Because biodiversity encompasses the range of variation, from individuals to populations to habitats themselves, it is virtually impossible to enumerate and quantify. Nevertheless, it is precisely that complexity that is worth conserving. In the absence of long-term data and exact numbers for such ecological parameters as abundance and diversity, conservation efforts usually focus on surrogate species and assume that the protection of some species will include others. Generally, surrogate species fall under three categories: flagship species, umbrella species, and biodiversity indicators. The first group includes well-known or well-publicized species that appeal to the general public. Umbrella species are those that require such large tracts of habitat that their protection envelops other species; for example, large mammalian carnivores. The third surrogate category includes sets of species or taxa whose presence indicates a rich variety of other species. For example, a species of bee may indicate several species of plants it pollinates and they, in turn, may provide habitat to a number of species of birds, invertebrates or mammals. In this particular example, the bee functions as a "keystone" species, since its activities support the well-being of others.

Species are often interdependent in ways that are less apparent. For example, white wartyback mussels (Plethobasus cicatricosus) are dependent on a fish host in their larval phase. When rivers in which the mussels and fishes lived were dammed, the fishes could not survive in the colder river water released from those dams and died out. Thus, although white wartyback mussels can still be found, the population cannot reproduce and is functionally extinct, a "living ghost." Such rare species as white wartyback mussels run a higher risk of extinction than common species.

Endemic species are restricted to a given area and are rare by definition; that is, they are found nowhere else. Endemism is common among island flora and fauna because they have evolved more or less in isolation from other populations. Over time, natural selection acts to mold such species into what are often very specific niches; they adapt themselves to very narrowly defined habitats. The many shapes of bills found on the finches of the Galapagos Islands may serve as a common example. Endemic species are commonly used surrogates in conservation strategies.

Habitat conservation

Organisms have evolved to live in certain habitats. It stands to reason, then, that the most severe problem in protecting global biodiversity concerns habitat destruction and fragmentation. Habitats are generally defined by myriad physical parameters like temperature, rainfall, elevation, topography, salinity, soil type and many others. For tuna, habitat might be generally defined as the pelagic ocean within a certain temperature range. For tiny tardigrades, or moss bears, habitat may be forest moss, lichen, beach sand or arctic tundra. For gnathostomulids, the interstices between siltsized sand grains in the deep sea comprise their habitat. Flightless birds and many herptiles (reptiles and amphibians) may not require much physical space but may be highly specific regarding the space they can inhabit because of such factors as predators, food availability, or breeding sites. An organism's habitat is thus defined by a combination of physical and biological factors.

Biodiversity is not equally distributed but varies from ocean to tidepool, entire rainforest to one strangler fig tree, from temperate zones to tropical. Ecologists and conservationists understand that biodiversity is unrelated to aesthetics or the sweeping vistas of national parks. In fact, habitats with some of the highest numbers of species ("species-rich") include such places as streams, wetlands, coastal mangroves, rainforests, sloughs and estuaries—places often targeted by farmers and developers.

Hotspots are found in areas where the habitats of several rare species overlap. Because so much diversity is concentrated within relatively small areas they are, in fact, hot spots for extinction. The tropics have an inordinate number of hotspots because both species diversity and endemism increase as one travels from the poles to the equator. By way of example, the southeastern Appalachian mountains and all of southern California have many endangered species, but the vast majority of endangered species in the United States occur in the much smaller area of the Hawaiian Islands.

As of 2003, habitat has been already greatly reduced within biodiversity hotspots. This fact is of great concern to scientists. Worldwide, approximately two-thirds of all eukaryotic (multicellular) species occur in humid tropical forests. As the twenty-first century begins, these same forests are being cleared at a rate of approximately 386,100.5 mi² (1 million km²) every 5–10 years. Logging and burning account for several times that loss. From the time a species' habitat begins to decline to the time when the population of that species also declines there will usually be a lag. Thus, the loss of habitat may initially cause only a few extinctions as small pockets of habitat remain; then, however, as habitat is lost entirely or so fragmented that some species cannot survive, individuals die out and the number of extinctions rises. The concern here in this "fewer extinctions now, more later" scenario is that by the time scientists have quantified the loss, it will be too late to stop it.

Consequently, designating and protecting hotspots may be a logical first step in conservation. Myers and colleagues calculate that a staggering 46% of all plant diversity involves endemics. They also estimate that 30–40% of all terrestrial vertebrates could be protected in 24 hotspots. Moreover, those 24 hotspots would span only about 2% of the earth's surface. Protecting hotspots makes economic sense as well. Although the expense of conservation per unit area varies hugely, from less than a cent in United States currency to over a million dollars per 0.4 mi² (1 km²), costs are generally lower in less developed countries. More importantly, these same countries often have the most left to conserve. Furthermore, as habitat becomes fragmented through development or exploitation, the costs of mitigation and conservation rise. Pimm and Raven agree that the selective protection of hotspots is necessary but caution that it is insufficient for longterm conservation of biodiversity. Usually conservation biologists favor increasing the size of protected areas as a means of including more organisms and as safeguarding against some of the random causes of extinction discussed previously. In some cases less diverse but cheaper habitats can be purchased, ultimately conserving the same number of species on larger or more numerous tracts of land.

Marine conservation and shifting baselines

The conservation strategies outlined above are based largely on terrestrial research. This bias may result in part from the fact that the marine environment was long considered less at risk for environmental degradation because of its sheer immensity and the "unlimited bounty" of the seas. Many marine invertebrates and vertebrates have planktonic larvae capable of spreading over great distances in ocean currents; such species would be less likely to suffer from genetic bottlenecks, inbreeding, or the risk associated with endemic status. Yet in fact the ocean's bounty is limited. Many scientists are concerned that we may be seeing those limits breached.

Overfishing refers to fishing practiced unsustainably. Overfished species are species that have had their numbers so depleted that stocks may never recover. In most coastal ecosystems, manatees, dugongs, sea cows, monk seals, crocodiles, swordfish, codfish, sharks, and rays are functionally or formally extinct. The data compiled by these authors are impressive and cause for foreboding. In order to detect ecological trends a baseline for comparison is necessary, as is a distinction between natural and human-caused changes. As a starting point for such a baseline, Jackson and Kirby gathered paleoecological data, beginning about 125,000 years ago, together with archeological data from human coastal settlements from about 100,000 years ago. To augment these data, they made use of historical records from documents, charts and journals from the fifteenth century. Ecological records from scientific literature spanning the twentieth century completed their data set. Based on these data the authors found that from the onset of overfishing, lag times of only decades to centuries preceded large-scale changes in ecological communities.

In some cases, such time lags existed because other species filled in the gap left by the overfished species. For example, sea otters were all but eliminated from the northern Pacific by fur traders in the 1800s. Because the voracious appetite of sea otters kept sea urchin populations in check, sea urchin numbers increased and decimated kelp forests. Sea otters off the southern California coast were similarly wiped out at approximately the same time as those in the northern Pacific; however, the California kelp forests did not begin to disappear until the 1950s. Diversity across trophic levels was the reason for the lag time between overharvest and threshold response. Predatory fishes like sheephead also ate sea urchins, and spiny lobsters and abalone competed with urchins for kelp. Together these animals effectively "shifted over" to occupy a portion of the ecological niche formerly occupied by the sea otters. Since sea urchins have become a popular fishery, some well-developed kelp forests have returned. Unfortunately, they now have only a vestige of their former complexity. Kelp forests off southern California now lack the trophic diversity of sea otters and such predatory fishes as sheephead, black seabass, and white seabass that they once possessed. Unregulated fisheries exist for echinoids like sea cucumbers, for crabs, and for small snails. The numbers of abalone—greens, reds, whites, and blacks—have dwindled from overharvest and disease. The once diverse southern California kelp forest community has been reduced to a community of primary producers. Thus overfishing affects not only the target species, but dramatically alters ecosystem diversity when "keystone" species are removed.

Nor are coastal ecosystems the only habitats affected. Pelagic longlines are the most widespread fishing gear used in the ocean and threaten many open ocean species. Some species form legitimate fisheries; such others as sea turtles constitute by-catch. Because many pelagic animals have such extensive habitat and evolved to swim great distances often at high speeds, they can be extremely difficult to study. Nevertheless, we know that billfishes, tuna, and sea turtles are in need of conservation because they have been subjected to such intense exploitation. Relatively less is known about open ocean sharks, but with the exception of makos their numbers are estimated to have declined by at least half in less than two decades. Such large animals as these generally bear fewer young, reproduce less often, and do so at an older age. In ecological terms, they have a low intrinsic rate of increase. This low rate means that their ability to rebound if fishing pressures are decreased is slim, and that conservation efforts will have to be long-term if their numbers are to increase.

Jellyfish, medusae, ctenophores and siphonophores are invertebrate predators that typically feed on the same prey as larval and adult fishes do. Concern exists that jellies may be sliding over to fill the void left by declining pelagic predators. Although Carr and his colleagues studied fishes, their field experiments provide insight as to how such "cascading negative consequences" occur. They found that by removing important predators (groupers or jacks) and other highly competitive fish (territorial damselfishes), as is often done by fishermen as well as by the aquarium trade, species interactions changed. As species interactions decreased, population fluctuations increased. As fish populations grew more unstable, the likelihood of extinction increased locally and regionally. In part, jellies are able to shift and fill the ecological "holes" left by declining fish stocks because they can reproduce quickly and in great numbers. Mnemiopsis leidyi, a tiny comb jelly, was introduced into the Black Sea, probably when a grain ship pumped out her ballast. The Mnemiopsis population was able to take advantage of habitat conditions that were unfavorable to potential competitors; as a result, M. leidyi populations peaked in the late 1980s and 1990s. Over this same time Mnemiopsis consumed most of the zooplankton production that had previously

been taken up by commercial fisheries. Consequently commercial fisheries in the Black Sea went virtually extinct themselves. This example illustrates both the shift in keystone species as well as the devastating effect that introduced species can have at the level of an entire ecosystem.

In addition, fisheries suffer because the fishing industry is a powerful political lobby. Ample scientific evidence exists that illustrates the need for change in fisheries management. The industry itself, however, continually clamors for additional proof, unable or unwilling to listen to the nails being driven into its own coffin. If a dearth of evidence exists, it is any that can demonstrate that fisheries are harvested sustainably. In part, fisheries may be slow to acknowledge problems because, as the numbers of fish decrease, technological development has advanced in the fishing industry—such as satellite imagery that can be downloaded to computers; sensitive sonar that can locate fish schools; large fleets of fast boats—disguising diminishing stocks by more efficiently harvesting what remains.

Aquaculture is commonly believed to relieve pressure on fisheries. It is true that between 1986 and 1996 the global production of fishes by aquaculture more than doubled. Aquaculture

alone, however, is not an answer; by reducing wild fish supplies for seedstock collection or for feed, aquaculture can in many ways be detrimental. Hundreds of thousands of Atlantic salmon raised in pens in the Pacific have escaped to locations where they can hybridize and genetically weaken native stocks. Atlantic salmon escaped from Atlantic pens can also interbreed with wild stocks and interfere with the latter's ability to find their spawning grounds, which is a trait that is passed on genetically. Other problems posed by aquaculture include the spread of diseases amongst pens and to wild stocks as well as the discharge of untreated effluent and nitrogenous wastes that result in eutrophication.

Marine reserves are controlled-take areas that have been helpful in restoring depleted fish and invertebrate populations. Because open ocean species as well as fishing fleets move around, however, the effectiveness of reserves to help species living in the open ocean is equivocal. Reserves, although helpful, are not enough; effective conservation will require intelligent consumer choices. The Monterey Bay Aquarium is making an attempt to educate the public regarding sustainable harvesting of fishes. Toward this end the aquarium offers a free "Seafood Watch Card" that takes into account the sustainability of the fishery as well as the ecology of the species; then rates that species accordingly. Informed consumers can make more intelligent purchasing decisions and use their buying power to encourage conservation and improved management of fisheries.

Global warming

Aside from being responsible for causing the most species extinction worldwide, tropical deforestation creates 20–30 percent of global carbon emissions, with the burning of fossil fuels accounting for most of the remainder. Although it is commonly thought that carbon dioxide emissions are to blame for the rapid warming trends observed in recent decades, such other noncarbon greenhouse gases as chlorofluorocarbons and nitrous oxides contribute as well. Aerosols are tiny particles emitted into the air as pollution, which we see as visible smog or haze. Aerosols alter the brightness of clouds and increase solar heating in the atmosphere. These changes serve in turn to weaken the earth's hydrologic cycle, reducing rainfall and fresh water supplies.

Biological indicators for global warming abound. Species from butterflies to marine invertebrates show a tendency to migrate northward; by so doing, they act as indicators of climate change. Like extinction, global warming predates human influence; however, the global effects that humans can and do have on the earth's climate are facts that cannot be dismissed. As with concerns over extinction, global warming is not an unfounded notion propounded by aging hippies or ecoterrorists. Rather, it is a measurable phenomenon that concerns scientists around the world. Warming has been shown to increase the spread of infectious diseases; and in concert with the overharvesting of resources terrestrial, freshwater or marine, temperature change can have synergistic affects that lead to more extinctions and loss of biodiversity. Warming causes bleaching in coral reefs as well as some sea anemones. Coral reefs fringe no less than a sixth of the world's coastlines. They are species-rich and more biologically diverse than any other shallow-water marine ecosystem.

An obvious way to decrease human contribution to global warming is to restrict the release of greenhouse gases. Now, as we contemplate using the deep sea to store excess carbon dioxide, scientists are asked to assess the risks. Certainly sequestering carbon in the deep sea seems a logical way to decrease atmospheric input and concomitant warming. This approach, however, is only a bandage solution because it fails to address causative agents. Moreover, many of the lower metazoans discussed in this chapter live in the deep sea. Deep sea organisms generally have slow metabolism and difficulty dealing with even minor changes in the acidity or alkalinity of sea water. Dumping carbon dioxide into the deep sea causes pH changes of a little to a lot depending on proximity. It impairs the metabolism of deep sea animals and weakens their exoskeletons, either of which causes increased mortality. As a pool of carbon dioxide forms in the deep sea, such destructive changes are not limited to the benthic fauna living on top but extend to the benthic infauna as well—the habitat occupied by gnathostomulids, loriciferans and their metazoan kin.

Humans claim to cherish our natural environment, yet each year we lose between 14,000 and 40,000 species from tropical forests alone. Between one-third to one-half of the land surface has been transformed by our species; we use more than half of the accessible freshwater. Gone with those species may be life-saving medicines, models for research, or services to the ecosystem that sustain our quality of life. Not that of future generations, but our own. Through it all we must remember the importance of biodiversity and conservation. Conservation is not a luxury; rather, it has been a luxury for humankind to progress as far as the twenty-first century without putting proper emphasis on conservation. Designating reserves can no longer be an opportunistic action performed at the whim of politicians with financial ties to business and industry. Can conservation be a priority for the twenty-first century? Humans are too knowledgeable for excuses and too skilled to do nothing. What is biodiversity worth? What price conservation? Are these questions that science can answer? When it does, are we willing to listen?

Resources

Books

Chaplin, Stephen J., Ross A. Gerrard, Hal M. Watson, Lawrence L. Master, and Stephanie R. Flack. "The Geography of Imperilment." In Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States, edited by Bruce A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Cunningham, W. P., and M. A. Cunningham. Principles of Environmental Science: Inquiry and Applications, 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

Erwin, Terry L. "Biodiversity at Its Utmost: Tropical Forest Beetles." In Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources, edited by M. L. Reaka-Kudla, D. E. Wilson, and E. O. Wilson. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1997.

Lovejoy, T. E. "Biodiversity: What Is It?" In Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources, edited by M. L. Reaka-Kudla, D. E. Wilson, and E. O. Wilson. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1997.

Master, Lawrence L., Bruce A. Stein, Lynn S. Kutner, and Geoffrey A. Hammerson. "Vanishing Assets: Conservation Status of U. S. Species." In Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States, edited by Bruce A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Quammen, D. The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinctions. New York: Scribner, 1996.

Reaka-Kudla, M. L. "The Global Biodiversity of Coral Reefs: A Comparison with Rain Forests." In Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources, edited by M. L. Reaka-Kudla, D. E. Wilson, and E. O. Wilson. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1997.

Stork, Nigel E. "Measuring Global Biodiversity and Its Decline." In Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources, edited by M. L. Reaka-Kudla, D. E. Wilson, and E. O. Wilson. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1997.

Wallace, Alfred Russell. The Geographical Distribution of Animals, with a Study of the Relations of Living and Extinct Faunas as Elucidating Past Changes of the Earth's Surface. New York: Harper, 1876.

Wilson, E. O. The Diversity of Life. New York: Harvard University Press, 1992.

Zaitsev, Yu, and V. Mamaev. Marine Biological Diversity in the Black Sea: A Study of Change and Decline. New York: United Nations Publications, 1997.

Periodicals

Allison, Gary W., Jane Lubchenco, and Mark H. Carr. "Marine Reserves Are Necessary But Not Sufficient for Marine Conservation." Ecological Applications 8 (Supplement 1): S79–S92.

Andelman, Sandy J., and William F. Fagan. "Umbrellas and Flagships: Efficient Conservation Surrogates or Expensive Mistakes?" PNAS 97, no. 11 (2000): 5954–5959.

Ando, Amy, Jeffrey Camm, Stephen Polasky, and Andrew Solow. "Species Distributions, Land Values, and Efficient Conservation." Science 279, no. 5359 (1998): 2126–2128.

Balmford, Andrew, Kevin J. Gaston, Simon Blyth, Alex James, and Val Kapos. "Global Variation in Terrestrial Conservation Costs, Conservation Benefits, and Unmet Conservation Needs." PNAS 100, no. 3 (2003): 1046–1050.

Barry, James P., C. Baxter, R. Sagarin, and S. Gilman. "Climate-Related, Long-Term Faunal Changes in a Californian Rocky Intertidal Community." Science 267 (1995): 672–675.

Baum, Julia K., Ransom A. Myers, Daniel G. Kehler, Boris Worm, Shelton J. Harley, and Penny A. Doherty. "Collapse and Conservation of Shark Populations in the Northwest Atlantic." Science 2999, no. 5605 (2003): 389–392.

Bellwood, D. R., and T. P. Hughes. "Regional-Scale Assembly Rules and Biodiversity of Coral Reefs." Science 292, no. 5521 (2001): 1532–1534.

Botsford, Louis W., Juan Carlos Castilla, and Charles H. Peterson. "The Management of Fisheries and Marine Ecosystems." Science 277, no. 5323 (1997): 509–515.

Brewer, Peter G., Edward T. Peltzer, Gernot Friederich, Izuo Aya, and Kenji Yamane. "Experiments on the Ocean Sequestration of Fossil Fuel CO2: pH Measurements and Hydrate Formation." Marine Chemistry 72, nos. 2–4 (2000): 83–93.

Brussard, Peter F., and Paul R. Ehrlich. "The Challenges of Conservation Biology." Ecological Applications 2, no. 1 (1992): 1–2.

Carr, Mark H., Todd W. Anderson, and Mark A. Hixon. "Biodiversity, Population Regulation, and the Stability of Coral-Reef Fish Communities." PNAS 99, no. 17 (2002): 11241–11245.

Carroll, Carlos, R. F. Noss, and Paul C. Paquet. "Carnivores as Focal Species for Conservation Planning in the Rocky Mountain Region." Ecological Applications 11, no. 4 (2001): 961–980.

Chivian, Eric. "Environment and Health; 7. Species Loss and Ecosystem Disruption—The Implications for Human Health." CMAJ 164, no. 1 (2001): 66–69.

Dayton, Paul K., Mia J. Tegner, Peter B. Edwards, and Kristin L. Riser. "Sliding Baselines, Ghosts, and Reduced Expectations in Kelp Forest Communities." Ecological Applications 8, no. 2 (1998): 309–322.

Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt. "Paleoecological Insights on Conservation of Biodiversity: A Focus on Species, Ecosystems, and Landscapes." Ecological Applications 8, no. 4 (1998): 921–934.

Dobson, A. P., A. D. Bradshaw, and A. J. M. Baker. "Hopes for the Future: Restoration Ecology and Conservation Biology." Science 277, no. 5325 (1997): 515–522.

Dobson, A. P., J. P. Rodriguez, W. M. Roberts, and D. S. Wilcove. "Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States." Science 275, no. 5299 (1997): 550–553.

Earn, David J. D., Simon A. Levin, and Pejman Rohani. "Coherence and Conservation." Science 290, no. 5495 (2000): 1360–1364.

Flannery, Timothy F. "Paleontology: Debating Extinction." Science 283, no. 5399 (1999): 182–183.

Goldstein, Bob, and Mark Blaxter. "Tardigrades." Current Biology 12, no. 14 (2002): R475.

Goldstein, Paul Z. "Functional Ecosystems and Biodiversity Buzzwords." Conservation Biology 13, no. 2 (1999): 247–255.

Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and Valdar Oinas. "Global Warming in the Twenty-First Century: An Alternative Scenario." PNAS 97, no. 18 (2000): 9875–9880.

Hardin, Garrett. "Essays on Science and Society: Extensions of 'The Tragedy of the Commons.'" Science 280, no. 5364 (1998): 682–683.

——. "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science 162, no. 3859 (1968): 1243–1248.

Harvell, C. Drew, Charles E. Mitchell, Jessica R. Ward, Sonia Altizer, Andrew P. Dobson, Richard S. Ostfield, and Michael D. Samuel. "Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota." Science 296, no. 5576 (2002): 2158–2162.

Humphries, Christopher J., Paul H. Williams, and Richard I. Vane-Wright. "Measuring Biodiversity Value for Conservation." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26 (1995): 93–111.

Jackson, Jeremy B. C., et al. "Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems." Science 293, no. 5530 (2001): 629–637.

Jones, K., F. Hibbert, and M. Keenan. "Glowing Jellyfish, Luminescence, and a Molecule Called Coelenterazine." Trends in Biotechnology 17, no. 12 (1999): 477–481.

Karpov, K. A., P. L. Haaker, D. Albin, I. K. Taniguchi, and D. Kushner. "The Red Abalone, Haliotis rufescens, in California: Importance of Depth Refuge to Abalone Management." Journal of Shellfish Research 17, no. 3 (1998): 863–870.

Keith, David A. "An Evaluation and Modification of World Conservation Union Red List Criteria for Classification of Extinction Risk in Vascular Plants." Conservation Biology 12, no. 5 (1998): 1076–1090.

Kerr, Jeremy T. "Species Richness, Endemism, and the Choice of Areas for Conservation." Conservation Biology 11, no. 5 (1997): 1094–1100.

Kremen, C., J. O. Niles, M. G. Dalton, G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, J. P. Fay, D. Grewal, and R. P Guillery. "Economic Incentives for Rain Forest Conservation Across Scales." Science 288, no. 5472 (2000): 1828–1832.

Lafferty, K. D., M. D. Behrens, G. E. Davis, P. L. Haaker, D. J. Kushner, D. V. Richards, I. K. Taniguchi, and M. J. Tegner. "Habitat of Endangered White Abalone, Haliotis sorenseni." Biological Conservation, in press.

Levitus, Sydney, John I. Antonov, Julian Wang, Thomas L. Delworth, Keith W. Dixon, and Anthony J. Broccoli. "Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System." Science 292, no. 5515 (2001): 267–270.

Lubchenco, Jane. "Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science." Science 279, no. 5350 (1998): 491–497.

Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. "Systematic Conservation Planning." Nature (London) 405 (2000): 243–253.

McKinney, Michael L. "Extinction Vulnerability and Selectivity: Combining Ecological and Paleontological Views." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28 (1997): 495–516.

Miller, Gifford H., John W. Magee, Beverly J. Johnson, Marilyn L. Fogel, Nigel A. Spooner, Malcolm T. McCulloch, and Linda K. Ayliffe. "Pleistocene Extinction of Genyormis newtoni: Human Impact on Australian Megafauna." Science 283, no. 5399 (1999): 205–208.

Mills, Claudia E. "Jellyfish Blooms: Are Populations Increasing Globally in Response to Changing Ocean Conditions?" Hydrobiologia 451 (2001): 55–68.

Mittermeier, Russell A., Norman Myers, Jorgen B. Thomsen, Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca, and Silvio Olivieri. "Biodiversity Hotspots and Major Tropical Wilderness Areas: Approaches to Setting Conservation Priorities." Conservation Biology 12, no. 3 (1998): 516–520.

Myers, Norman, Russell A. Mittermeier, Cristina G. Mittermeier, Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca, and Jennifer Kents. "Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities." Nature (London) 403 (2000): 853–858.

Naylor, Rosamond L., Rebecca J. Goldburg, Jurgenne H. Primavera, Nils Kautsky, Malcolm C. M. Beveridge, Jason Clay, Carl Folke, Jane Lubchenco, Harold Mooney, and Max Troell. "Effect of Aquaculture on World Fish Supplies." Nature (London) 405 (2000): 1017–1024.

Naylor, Rosamond L., Rebecca J. Goldburg, Harold Mooney, Malcolm Beveridge, Jason Clay, Carl Folke, Nils Kautsky, Jane Lubchenco, Jurgenne Primavera, and Meryl Williams. "Ecology: Nature's Subsidies to Shrimp and Salmon Farming." Science 282, no. 5390 (198): 883–884.

Parmesan, Camille, Nils Ryrholm, Constanti Stefanescu, Jane K. Hill, Chris Thomas, Thomas H. Descimon, Brian Huntley, Lauri Kaila, Jaakko Kullberg, Toomas Tammaru, W. John Tennent, Jeremy A. Thomas, and Martin Warren. "Poleward Shifts in Geographical Ranges of Butterfly Species Associated with Regional Warming." Nature (London) 399 (1999): 579–583.

Pimm, Stuart L., and Peter Raven. "Biodiversity: Extinction by Numbers." Nature (London) 403 (2000): 843–845.

Ramanathan, V., P. J. Crutzen, J. T. Kiehl, and D. Rosenfeld. "Aerosols, Climate, and the Hydrological Cycle." Science 294, no. 5549 (2001): 2119–2124.

Ricciardi, Anthony, and Joseph B. Rasmussen. "Extinction Rates of North American Freshwater Fauna." Conservation Biology 13, no. 5 (1999): 1220–1222.

Roberts, Callum M., Colin J. McClean, John E. N. Veron, Julie P. Hawkins, Gerald R. Allen, Don E. McAllister, Cristina G. Mittermeier, Frederick W. Schueler, Mark Spalding, Fred Wells, Carly Vynne, and Timothy B. Werner. "Marine Biodiversity Hotspots and Conservation Priorities for Tropical Reefs." Science 295, no. 5558 (2002): 1280–1284.

Saunders, Brian K., and Gisele Muller-Parker. "The Effects of Temperature and Light on Two Algal Populations in the Temperate Sea Anemone Anthopleura elegantissima (Brandt, 1835)." Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 211, no. 2 (1997): 213–224.

Saunders, Denis A., Richard J. Hobbs, and Chris R. Margules. "Biological Consequences of Ecosystem Fragmentation: A Review." Conservation Biology 5, no. 1 (1991): 18–32.

Seibel, Brad A., and Patrick J. Walsh. "Biological Impacts of Deep-Sea Carbon Dioxide Injection Inferred from Indices of Physiological Performance." Journal of Experimental Biology 204, no 4 (2003): 641–650.

——. "Carbon Cycle: Enhanced: Potential Impacts of CO2 Injection on Deep-Sea Biota." Science 294, no. 5541 (2001): 319–320.

Shaffer, Mark L. "Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation." BioScience 31, no. 2.

Simberloff, Daniel. "Flagships, Umbrellas, and Keystones: Is Single-Species Management Passé in the Landscape Era?" Biological Conservation 83, no. 3 (1998): 247–257.

Soulé, M. E., and R. F. Noss. "Rewilding and Biodiversity: Complementary Goals for Continental Conservation." Wild Earth Journal (Fall, 1998): 19–28.

Tamburri, Mario N., Edward D. Pelzer, Gernot E. Friederich, Izuo Aya, Kenji Yamane, and Peter G. Brewer. "A Field Study of the Effects of CO2 Ocean Disposal on Mobile Deep-Sea Animals." Marine Chemistry 72, nos. 2–4 (2000): 95–101.

Tietjen, John H. "Ecology and Distribution of Deep-Sea Meiobenthos off North Carolina." Deep Sea Research and Oceanographic Abstracts 18, no. 10 (1971): 941–944.

van Jaarsveld, Albert S., Stefanie Freitag, Steven L. Chown, Caron Muller, Stephanie Koch, Heath Hull, Chuck Bellamy, Martin Krüger, Sebastian Endrödy-Younga, Mervyn W. Mansell, and Clarke H. Scholtz. "Biodiversity Assessment and Conservation Strategies." Science 279, no. 5359 (1998): 2106–2108.

Vetriani, Costantino, Holger W. Jannasch, Barbara J. MacGregor, David A. Stahl, and Anna-Louise Reysenbach. "Population Structure and Phylogenetic Characterization of Marine Benthic Archaea in Deep-Sea Sediments." Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65, no. 10 (1999): 4375–4384.

Wiesner, J. B., and H. F. York. Scientific American 211, no. 4 (1964): 27.

Other

Global Warming: Early Warning Signs. <http//www.climatehotmap.org>

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <http://www.redlist.org>

Seafood Watch Regional Card. Monterey Bay Aquarium. http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_regional.asp>

Union of Concerned Scientists. <http://www.ucsusa.org>

Organizations

IUCN Species Survival Commission. Rue Mauverney 28, Gland, 1196 Switzerland. Phone: +41 (22) 999 0000. Fax: +41 (22) 999 0002. E-mail: ssc@iucn.org Web site: <http://www.iucn.org>

Rob Sherlock, PhD

Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia

Conservation

views updated May 21 2018

CONSERVATION

CONSERVATION is the term coined by the forester Gifford Pinchot in 1907 to describe the philosophy that the environment must be managed to assure adequate supplies of natural resources for present and future generations. Several other definitions of conservation exist, and an examination of the evolution of the conservation movement in the United States may help elucidate how and why the term has come to have different meanings for different people at different times.

Utilitarian Conservationism

Throughout most of American history, the prevailing attitude toward the natural environment was that it was something to be subdued and used for the good of humankind. This exploitative ethos was grounded partly in the Judeo-Christian tradition that gave humans "dominion … over every living thing." The perception that the continent was endowed with limitless natural resources and the dogma of free enterprise with the concomitant view that private property was sacrosanct and beyond the scope of government regulation also encouraged exploitation. Accordingly, as the nation expanded westward, hunters, loggers, miners, ranchers, and settlers heedlessly laid waste to the country's wildlife, forests, minerals, grasslands, and soil in the name of progress, civilization, and manifest destiny.

By the mid-nineteenth century, a few scattered individuals fore saw the dangers of such practices. In 1832, for example, the artist George Catlin warned in North American Indians that the American wilderness eventually would vanish unless subject to formal preservation, and he consequently proposed setting aside a large area of the West as a national park where Indians and wildlife could survive. In the following decade, the transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau castigated his fellow citizens for prizing only the material potential of the landscape and urged preservation of portions of the countryside in their pristine states. In 1864, the geographer George Perkins Marsh traced in Man and Nature the disastrous consequences of deforestation in terms of flooding, soil erosion, and degradation of the water supply and implored society to take responsibility for its actions. In 1878, the geographer John Wesley Powell issued his Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, in which he advised settlement of the West in a planned manner that took account of the constraints of the environment. In 1872, Congress established Yellowstone National Park, the country's and the world's first national park, to protect the area's unique geysers and geological formations.

But the creation of Yellowstone National Park was an anomaly, and farsighted people like Catlin, Marsh, and Powell were lone voices crying in the rapidly diminishing wilderness. Not until the late nineteenth century, when it was no longer possible to ignore the evidence that the country's natural resources were not in fact limitless, did those voices turn into a chorus. It is not insignificant that this occurred at the same time that the accelerated settlement of the West led the Census Bureau to proclaim the closing of the frontier in 1890. In addition, in this era the burgeoning cities were vacuuming their hinterlands of resources, the increased pace of industrialization was depleting the nation's raw materials, the ownership of resources was concentrating in fewer and fewer hands, a newly imperialistic United States required ever greater material holdings to stoke its military and economic engines, and the rising rate of immigration seemed to increase competition for assets. It accordingly dawned on forward-looking policymakers that what was left of the public domain would have to be administered in a more thoughtful and planned manner if future generations were to avail themselves of nature's bounty.

Conserving wildlife. Persons whose work or avocation brought them in contact with wildlife were among the first to manifest a conservationist ethic. Ornithologists, mammalogists, foresters, and sportspeople became increasingly concerned that North America's game animals were dwindling in number drastically. The numbers were decreasing because the advancing tide of settlement caused widespread habitat destruction and also because it was in the immediate financial interest of many Americans, for example, farmers, tanners, milliners, furriers, and market hunters, to kill as many wild animals as possible. As a result, several species of North American game had been exterminated by the beginning of the twentieth century, and the outlook was bleak for a number of other animals.

In 1887, Theodore Roosevelt founded and became first president of the exclusive Boone and Crockett Club, with membership limited to an elite core of one hundred big-game hunters. Roosevelt's most important successors as president of the club were George Bird Grinnell, a famous ethnologist and the influential editor of the nation's foremost periodical for sportspeople, Forest and Stream; and Madison Grant, an amateur anthropologist and the powerful chairman of the New York Zoological Society. Aristocratic sportspeople like Roosevelt, Grinnell, and Grant accepted that those in a position of power and prominence were obligated to husband the nation's resources for the benefit of their less-enlightened compatriots. They set about convincing their fellow sports-people that, if big-game hunting were to survive beyond the nineteenth century, they would have to lobby for restrictive game laws. Consequently, the Boone and Crockett Club was transformed from an association of gentleman hunters into one of the seminal conservation organizations in the United States. To implement its agenda, the club's members cultivated key legislators, entertained important newspaper editors, submitted articles to influential journals, and appeared frequently before congressional committees. Within a few years, a number of other organizations devoted to conservation joined the Boone and Crockett Club on the national scene, and together they racked up a number of legislative victories for wildlife protection. Many species that had been headed toward extinction at the beginning of the twentieth century were relatively common by the end of the century.

But the legislative successes of the conservationists and the proliferating number of organizations devoted to wildlife protection did not ensure the popularity of the conservation movement at the dawn of the twentieth century. The vast majority of the American people still looked upon conservationists as effete "sentimentalists" and aristocratic "busybodies" who threatened the right of average Americans, especially the hard-working hunters, trappers, loggers, ranchers, and miners of the West, to benefit from the country's public resources. Conservationists countered that, aside from any sob sister concern about wild animals, the true economic interests of most westerners lay in preserving rather than using the wildlife and resources of their region. In the long term, far more people could make far more money in guiding, lodging, rafting, and outfitting than in market hunting, clear-cutting, and strip mining. But the conservationists were few in number; not until the 1920s did the conservation organization the Izaak Walton League attract a mass membership. Conservationists were still part of a narrow-gauged effort that had succeeded so far precisely because it was composed of a small but well-connected elite with ready access to the corridors of power in Washington, D.C., and certain state capitals.

Fortuitously for the perpetuation of the conservation movement, the founder of the Boone and Crockett Club ascended to the U.S. presidency in 1901. During his tenure in office, President Roosevelt vigorously espoused conservation and transformed the previously esoteric philosophy into a popular movement. In addition to making wildlife protection an important priority of the federal government, Roosevelt also raised the public's consciousness about the need to conserve the nation's forests and to protect its water resources.

Conserving forests and water. From its inception, the federal government had pursued an energetic policy of transferring into private hands the vast quantities of land, known as the "public domain," it had obtained as a result of the nation's westward expansion. A variety of disposal laws encouraged land speculators, railroad magnates, cattle kings, mining interests, timber syndicates, and others to lease, purchase, develop, or otherwise acquire "usable" areas of the public domain. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, however, conservationists began urging the government to "withdraw" areas of particular value from the operation of the disposal laws so they could be permanently protected under the control of the federal government. The creation of Yellowstone National Park provided the model for the practice of withdrawing discrete areas from the public domain to preserve unique qualities. The next major step in this process was the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which authorized the president to protect areas covered wholly or in part by trees. The creation by executive order of such forest reserves, which became known as the national forests, would put those lands beyond the reach of the loggers who were decimating the nation's timberland to meet Americans' unquenchable demand for wood to build their homes and for fuel to run their steamboats, locomotives, and factories. Presidents Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland proceeded to set aside 38 million acres of public land as forest reserves, all in the western part of the country, as the East had long since been denuded of its old-growth forests.

The forest reserves were supported by a number of groups, including wildlife organizations, who appreciated that forests provide habitat for fauna; hydrologists, who understood that forests protect watersheds and temper flooding; and agronomists, who realized that trees block the wind and prevent soil erosion. But the forest reserves were extremely unpopular in the West, where the average citizen, remarked Roosevelt, had always had but one thought about a tree—to cut it down. Westerners bitterly resented the federal "lock up" of public lands and grew increasingly angry over the magnitude of presidential withdrawals. Politicians, including President William McKinley, noted the level of the westerners' enmity and began listening attentively to their demand that the forest reserves be restored to public sale.

When Roosevelt became president, he was fully determined not just to retain but to expand the nation's forest reserves. He and his close friend Pinchot, the head of the U.S. Forest Service, worked together to create many new forest reserves, and by the time Roosevelt left office in 1909, he had quadrupled the extent of the national forests to 172 million acres. But Pinchot correctly feared that future presidents might be less sympathetic to forest conservation than Roosevelt. He understood that, if the reserves were to be protected in perpetuity, the opposition of the West would have to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, he explained to suspicious westerners that the federal government had no intention of locking up the forests forever. Rather, he and Roosevelt simply sought to replace wasteful, short-term exploitation by selfish lumber barons with efficient, long-term management by the federal government. In Pinchot's vision, forests, if protected properly and harvested judiciously, could be renewable resources that would last forever. Just as the Boone and Crockett Club wanted to save animals now so they could be hunted later, so Pinchot's Forest Service wanted to conserve trees now so they could be harvested later.

For Pinchot, conserving forests was a matter of both fiscal prudence and fealty to the tenets of democracy. "The natural resources," Pinchot declared, "must be developed and preserved for the benefit of the many, and not merely for the profit of a few. Conservation means the greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time" (Breaking New Ground, pp. 46–48). He furthermore pointed out that forests, if wisely managed, not only would return crops of timber but also would accommodate land for grazing and, most importantly, protect watersheds that could be used for irrigation. Thus, forest reserves would benefit local, that is, western, residents most of all and were not just a pet cause of effete tree lovers. To drive home the point, Pinchot changed the name of the forest reserves to "national forests." The former term implied that the trees were being reserved from the nation's use, while the latter implied they were being conserved for the nation's use. "The object of our forest policy," repeated Pinchot, "is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful. … The forests are to be used by man. Every other consideration comes secondary" (Hays, Conservation, p. 42). It was not at all illogical therefore that in 1905 the national forests were removed from the jurisdiction of the Interior Department and placed under the control of the Department of Agriculture. "Forestry," explained Pinchot, "is tree farming" (Breaking New Ground, p. 31).

Pinchot's defense of the national forests provided the manifesto of the nascent conservation movement, which sought to "conserve" the resources of the nation in the present to ensure a supply in the future. Pinchot's philosophy fit well the tenor of the times, for conservationism mirrored the progressives' enthrallment with scientific management, rational use of resources, and long-term planning by the federal government. This helps explain why the public so rapidly embraced the concept of conservation during the Roosevelt administration and why the public eagerly agreed with the president that it was not just wildlife and trees that needed to be conserved. Water, for example, was now seen as a resource worthy of conservation, and Congress passed the Newlands Reclamation Act (1902) to fund water reclamation projects in arid western states. In 1907, the government created the Inland Water ways Commission to oversee multiple-purpose river development, including irrigation, navigation, flood control, and power creation.

In addition, President Roosevelt set aside millions of acres of coal, phosphate, and other mineral reserves to prevent private exploitation, and he kept the momentum going by hosting the historic White House Governor's Conference on Conservation in 1908 to persuade state governments and corporations of the importance of conservation. The Governor's Conference led in turn to the creation of conservation commissions in forty-one states, and it also appointed the National Conservation Commission, chaired by Pinchot, to inventory the nation's resources as a guide to future policy decisions.

Aesthetic Preservationism

President Roosevelt accepted the utilitarian rationale for conserving trees. "These [forest] reserves," he stated unequivocally, "are created purely for economic purposes" ("Wilderness Reserves," p. 23). He reminded Congress that "forest protection is not an end in itself: it is a means to increase and sustain the resources of our country and the industries which depend on them. The preservation of our forests is an imperative business necessity" (Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, p. 190).

But in conserving trees, Roosevelt was also motivated by a sentimental consideration, his genuine love of nature. While his first priority was utilitarian, he also wished to have some forested areas remain in their natural conditions, untouched by the ax of the logger, no matter how "inefficient" such a policy would be. "In addition … to the economic use of the wilderness," he wrote, "it is wise here and there to keep selected portions of it … in a state of nature … for the sake of preserving all its beauties and wonders unspoiled by greedy and shortsighted vandalism" ("Wilderness Reserves," pp. 23–24).

Roosevelt's conflicting motives for expanding the national forests highlight the fact that in the early twentieth century the growing conservation movement was actually fed by two different streams. On one side were the utilitarian conservationists, epitomized by Pinchot, who were interested in conserving the nation's resources so they could continue to be used by future generations. On the other side, led by John Muir, who in 1892 founded the Sierra Club, were the aesthetic preservationists, who were interested in preserving nature for its scenic values and who lobbied for the creation of inviolate sanctuaries, for example, national parks and wildlife refuges, where fauna and flora could be preserved in their pristine states, safe from the encroachments of modern civilization. Muir and his followers disdained the utilitarians for seeing only the material, as opposed to the spiritual, benefits of nature and were aghast that the Forest Service encouraged lumbering, grazing, and mining in wilderness areas. As far as the preservationists were concerned, the only way the nation's forests should be exploited by humans was as sites for recreation and contemplation.

The preservationists were part of the long American tradition in which citizens responded to the ravages of urbanization and industrialization with a romantic yearning to "get back to nature." And certainly at the beginning of the twentieth century, the aesthetic and recreational charms of the outdoors were ever more inviting to the increasing proportion of the population that was living in urban areas and evincing disgust at the congestion, corruption, pollution, and inequalities of the cities.

While the popular mind viewed both the Pinchotian conservationists and the Muirian preservationists as part of the conservation movement, a large gulf existed between those who looked at a forest and saw, in Pinchot's words, "a manufacturing plant for the production of wood" (O'Brien, "Environmentalism as a Mass Movement," p. 9) and those who looked at a forest and saw an inviolate temple of nature. To be sure, some persons, like Roosevelt, appreciated the arguments of both the conservationists and the preservationists. But the two sides were generally hostile toward each other, and their philosophical differences became starkly evident during the protracted battle between 1901 and 1913 over whether or not to construct a dam in the isolated Hetch Hetchy Valley

in Yosemite National Park. Pinchot weighed in favor of building the dam, which would create a water reservoir for San Francisco. He did so both as a conservationist and as a progressive advocate of public utilities. After all, James D. Phelan, the reform mayor of San Francisco who sought to protect his constituents from the monopolistic practices of the privately owned Spring Valley Water Company, which specialized in poor service, high prices, and unsafe water, wanted the dam built. Furthermore, the residents of San Francisco had approved the dam in a 1908 referendum by an overwhelming 7–1 margin. But Muir and his preservationist allies, especially Robert Underwood Johnson, the editor of Century, were incredulous that anyone could even think of destroying the priceless beauty of the Hetch Hetchy Valley, and they fought for years to prevent construction of the dam. The difference between the two sides was summarized by Mayor Phelan when he accused Muir of engaging in "aesthetic quibbling" while "the 400,000 people of San Francisco are suffering from bad water" (Fox, John Muir and His Legacy, p. 141). Muir and the preservationists thus found themselves in the uncomfortable position of opposing the legitimate needs of "the people." In 1913, Congress finally approved construction of the dam, whereupon the Hetch Hetchy Valley disappeared under the waters.

Despite their defeat at Hetch Hetchy, the preservationist wing of the conservation movement won a number of victories in the early twentieth century. In 1903, for example, they convinced President Roosevelt to create the first national wildlife refuge at Pelican Island, Florida, and Roosevelt created more than fifty national wildlife refuges during his administration. In addition, preservationists persuaded Congress to enact the Antiquities Act of 1906, which authorized the president to protect areas of scientific or historical interest by designating them "national monuments." The Roosevelt administration created sixteen national monuments, including Devils Tower, Muir Woods, and Natural Bridges. Congress also created many new national parks during this period, including Sequoia and Yosemite in 1890; Mount Rainier in 1899; Crater Lake in 1902; Wind Cave in 1903; Mesa Verde in 1906; Glacier in 1910; Rocky Mountain in 1915; Lassen Volcanic in 1916; Denali in 1917; Grand Canyon and Zion in 1919; Hot Springs in 1921; Shenandoah in 1926; Bryce Canyon in 1928; Acadia and Grand Teton in 1929; Carlsbad Caverns and Great Smoky Mountains in 1930; and Isle Royale in 1931. To administer this greatly expanded system, the National Park Service was formed in 1916 with an institutional philosophy of aesthetic preservationism that counterbalanced the utilitarian policies of the Forest Service.

Finally, in one of their more notable accomplishments, the preservationists saved the California redwood trees, the tallest and among the oldest living things on Earth. The Save-the-Redwoods League, formed in 1917, raised millions of dollars to purchase groves of trees from the loggers and converted them into the thirty-seven California State Redwood Parks, where they are protected forever. All of the efforts, from saving roosting pelicans to protecting giant trees, represented aesthetic preservationism at its purest, for conservationists were saving scenery—impractical, intangible, nonutilitarian scenery.

Wildlife Management

The conservation movement lost some of its public momentum in the 1910s and 1920s in part due to the departure of Roosevelt from the White House in 1909, the dismissal of Pinchot by President William Howard Taft in 1910 in the wake of the Ballinger-Pinchot Controversy, the involvement of the United States in World War I, the enthronement of big business during the Roaring Twenties, and the expenditure of effort on internecine clashes between the utilitarian conservationists and the aesthetic preservationists. While conservation experts continued to work unobtrusively on such prosaic and utilitarian projects as resource surveys, management systems, forest fire protection, flood control projects, mineral leasing programs, and soil erosion research, the crusading spirit of the Progressive Era waned, and conservation faded from the public's consciousness.

But out in the field significant developments were taking place. By the late 1910s, ominous hints indicated that the preservationists may have been too successful for their own good. The problem was that the populations of some of the species of animals they had saved in wildlife refuges were expanding so rapidly that the animals were actually beginning to exhaust their food supplies and perish from starvation. As the President's Committee on Outdoor Recreation explained in 1927, "Over-protection, paradoxical as it may seem, defeats its end, and under its stimulus certain types of game animals multiply beyond their means of subsistence and cruel starvation ensues" (Cameron, The Bureau of Biological Survey, p. 192).

One of the most famous examples of this took place in the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve on Arizona's Kaibab Plateau. President Roosevelt had created the million-acre refuge in 1906 to protect the three thousand endangered Rocky Mountain mule deer on the plateau. Hunting was prohibited in the area except by agents of the Forest Service, who went after the main predators of the deer—wolves, mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes—with a vengeance. Within a few years the protected mule deer had managed to double their numbers, and the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve was hailed as a great success. But with no natural enemies, the Kaibab deer herd kept right on growing. Between 1906 and 1924, the herd increased from 3,000 to perhaps as many as 100,000 animals, far beyond the carrying capacity of the range. After the herd depleted its natural food supplies, malnutrition, disease, and starvation wreaked havoc with the deer herd, which plummeted to a few thousand gaunt animals.

Tragedies like the one on the Kaibab Plateau were repeated in many places throughout the continent where a favored species had been granted protection, and preservationists began to understand that simply placing animals in a refuge and passively hoping for the best was not always in the best interests of the animals. They realized that wildlife populations needed to be actively managed to ensure their healthy survival.

The strongest proponent of a more dynamic approach to wildlife conservation in the 1920s was Aldo Leopold, the nation's first professor of wildlife management at the University of Wisconsin and the author of the seminal monograph on the subject, Game Management (1933). Leopold, whose A Sand County Almanac (1949) joined the works of Thoreau and Muir as the founding texts of the environmental movement of the 1960s, believed that all species, including Homo sapiens, exist in a symbiotic interdependence. His theories prefigured the modern science of ecology, defined as "the study of the interrelationships of organisms to one another and to the environment," and his words were echoed later by proponents of the "Gaia hypothesis." Leopold preached the need for humans to appreciate "the indivisibility of the earth—its soil, mountains, rivers, forests, climate, plants and animals—and respect it collectively" (Chase, In a Dark Wood, p. 45). He understood that a region's flora and fauna subsist in an intricate web of interdependencies and that to single out one species, such as the Kaibab deer, for protection at the expense of others is to disrupt a natural equilibrium that had been eons in the making. In a development emblematic of the evolution of conservationism from a movement staffed by upper-class amateurs to one composed of middle-class professionals, Leopold called for a new generation of scientifically trained experts conversant in population dynamics and the operation of food chains to become involved in game management. He taught that wildlife officials could institute a number of practices to maintain the balance of what became known as the "ecosystem," such as practicing selective castration, conducting breeding programs, and allowing predators and even licensed hunters to cull dangerously expanding populations.

Ironically, preservationists had devoted years to convincing the public and Congress of the need for inviolate wildlife refuges, and as a result most Americans were revolted by the idea of predators and hunters being allowed to kill supposedly protected animals in refuges and national parks. But according to the theories of wildlife management, understandable but misplaced sympathy for the fate of the individual animal must not be allowed to override concern for the welfare of the herd as a whole. Just as foresters cut down a diseased tree that threatens the overall health of the forest, so game officials should cull an individual animal that endangers the survival of the herd. These theories slowly won acceptance among wildlife professionals. In the early 1940s, for example, the National Park Service finally overrode public sentiment and began killing a certain number of its game animals every year to maintain the wildlife population at its optimum level.

Eugenics. The philosophy of wildlife management was in tune with other political and social developments of the time. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, for example, the Progressives and their New Deal heirs tried to regulate not only big business but also the political system, public utilities, working conditions, and public health, and now even the wild animals of the forests were going to be managed scientifically. Through expert analysis and intelligent planning, the most fundamental processes of nature were going to be controlled.

In this context, it is notable that the eugenics movement became popular in the United States at the same time that the tenets of wildlife management were formulated. Eugenics was an effort to improve the nation's "germ plasm" by discouraging the propagation of "unfit" humans and encouraging the "fittest" members of society to breed more prolifically. Eugenicists were particularly anxious to preserve the blond-haired, blue-eyed "Nordic" race, whose survival, they feared, was threatened by the unprecedented influx and high birthrate of non-Nordic immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. Thus, conservationists and eugenicists both were interested in managing and regulating breeding to protect the noblest endangered species of the United States, whether they were bison, redwoods, or the "master race" of human beings.

It is not an accident that many of the leading conservationists, most notably Madison Grant, were also eugenicists. In the 1920s, conservationists like Grant, who was the guiding force behind the Bronx Zoo in New York, the Save-the-Redwoods League, and the American Bison Society, saw that the protected animals on their wildlife refuges were dangerously increasing in number, and they adopted the techniques of wildlife management to control them. At the same time, eugenicists like Grant warned that the "inferior" races in the United States were dangerously increasing in number and exhorted the public to accept the techniques of eugenics to control them. In essence, Grant simply applied the concepts he developed in wildlife management to the human population. Thus, Grant led the fight to pass the immigration restriction legislation of the 1920s, successfully lobbied legislatures to enact antimiscegenation laws, and influenced many states to implement coercive sterilization statutes under which thousands of Americans deemed "unworthy" were sterilized in the 1930s. The connection between such measures and the conservation movement was made explicit by the eugenicist Ellsworth Huntington when he declared: "The germ plasm is the nation's most precious natural resource. Eugenics is thus an integral component in the conservation of our natural resources" (Tomorrow's Children, p. 9).

Interestingly, conservationism and eugenics again crossed paths after World War II. At that time, conservationists began to fear that overpopulation and industrial poisons were wreaking havoc with the environment, while eugenicists worried that the population explosion in the Third World and the mutative effects of atomic radiation threatened the purity of the germ plasm. Thus, both movements jointly embraced family planning and environmentalism in the 1950s.

Conservation during Depression and Prosperity

The New Deal. Conservation usually is viewed as an indulgence of affluent societies, as only they can afford the luxury of reserving from immediate consumption a portion of their resources. But during the Great Depression, when the public accepted the necessity of dynamic federal action on behalf of the public welfare, the United States entered its second notable period of conservationism. Like his cousin Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an ardent conservationist, and he took advantage of the economic emergency to launch government programs that conserved the country's natural resources at the same time that they provided a living wage to its human resources.

During the first hundred days in 1933, Congress created two of the most famous conservation agencies, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which rehabilitated the natural landscape and improved the standard of living of an entire region of the country, and the Civilian Conservation Corps, which sent out 2.5 million young men to dig reservoirs, stock lakes, maintain fire trails, work on erosion control, plant more than 2 billion trees, and under-take a host of other conservation projects. A number of other New Deal agencies, including the Public Works Administration (PWA) under Harold Ickes and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) under Harry Hopkins, spent billions of dollars on hundreds of projects, many of which were related to conservation. In addition, Franklin D. Roosevelt designated more than 2 million acres of federal land as national monuments, including Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and White Sands, and created several new national parks, including Everglades in 1934, Big Bend in 1935, Olympic in 1938, and Kings Canyon in 1940.

The federal government also took a number of steps to deal with the dust bowl, which ravaged western farmlands in the early 1930s thanks to poor agricultural practices, disastrous overgrazing, and a series of dry years. The Soil Erosion Service, established in 1933, and then the Soil Conservation Service, established in 1935 under Hugh Hammond Bennett, aided landowners in soil and water conservation. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 halted overgrazing on public lands, the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenancy Act of 1937 provided for reforestation of abandoned or submarginal farmland, and the Shelterbelt Program planted more than 18,000 miles of tree belts on the Plains to break up the wind, to provide shade for livestock, and to retain moisture in the soil.

As with the rest of the New Deal, Roosevelt's conservation program suffered from little coordination, frequent redundancies, and even blatant inconsistencies. Nevertheless, Roosevelt initiated an unprecedented level of federal involvement in the natural environment, and as a result, the conservation movement became linked with liberalism and the Democratic Party, an association that lasted through the rest of the century.

The 1950s and the wilderness movement. Conservation was put on hold during World War II, but during the 1950s, the movement reemerged and gained momentum. This was mainly due to the noticeably worsening state of the environment. The country's growing population and booming economy, featuring tremendous growth in the automobile, plastics, petroleum, and chemical industries, put increased stress on the nation's finite resources and led to highly visible and noxious forms of pollution. The public was increasingly cognizant that water was unfit to drink, food was laced with chemical additives, milk was contaminated with radioactive fallout, and cities were choked by poisonous air. A number of well-publicized episodes helped heighten awareness of the environmental crisis. For example, in 1948 in Donora, Pennsylvania, thousands of residents became ill, and twenty died from severe air pollution. As a result air, water, and noise pollution were no longer proudly pointed to as signs of modernization but were decried as disfiguring to the landscape and dangerous to public health. The fear arose that the list of species whose survival was endangered might have to include Homo sapiens.

That the Republican Party, now far removed from its Theodore Roosevelt days, returned to power in the 1950s did not help the environment, but it did help the conservation movement. The Dwight D. Eisenhower administration threatened to reverse the gains of previous decades by cutting funding of federal conservation agencies and opening protected areas to military use. Eisenhower also appointed a wealthy automobile dealer named Douglas "Giveaway" McKay, whose sole qualification for office was a large campaign contribution to the Republican Party, as secretary of the interior. McKay promptly opened national wildlife refuges to gas and oil leasing.

With the state of the environment deteriorating and the government showing no interest in stemming the tide, the public turned to private conservation organizations to take up the slack. All the major conservation groups experienced healthy growth in the 1950s, as they broadened their membership bases, increased their budgets, hired professional staffs, expanded their range of activities, and cooperated with each other to push the conservation agenda. The movement's resurgence was exemplified by the broad-based and successful fight from 1950 to 1955 to save Dinosaur National Monument from being drowned by the proposed $417 million Echo Park Dam.

In addition, in the 1950s the conservation mosaic added a new element, the wilderness preservation movement. Americans had historically viewed wilderness areas, whether swamplands, forests, prairies, or deserts, as wasted areas with no value until they had been drained, cut, cultivated, or irrigated. But in the increasingly crowded postwar world, undeveloped areas became valuable precisely because they had been left in their natural states. Where wildlife and forest groups heretofore had dominated conservationism, wilderness organizations joined them on the front lines. Among those leading the charge were the Nature Conservancy, formed in 1951, which sought to preserve biological diversity by purchasing tracts of threatened wilderness, and the Wilderness Society founded in 1935 by Robert Marshall, Aldo Leopold, and Robert Sterling Yard, which lobbied the government to protect primitive areas from contamination by civilization. The wilderness forces shared a bond with the earlier efforts by the aesthetic preservationists to preserve the scenery of the United States. Their differences were that scenery is meant to be seen, whereas wilderness should ideally exist unseen so it can remain untouched and unspoiled by humans. The wilderness movement's efforts were rewarded with the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which established the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The resurgence of the conservation movement in the 1950s laid the groundwork for its evolution into the mass movement of the 1960s and the 1970s known as environmentalism. By then, the forebears of the environmentalists, utilitarian conservationists, aesthetic preservationists, wildlife managers, and wilderness preservationists, had already established a formidable and enduring legacy, witnessed by the fact that at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the United States included 55 national parks of 83 million acres, 75 national monuments of 4 million acres, 177 national forests and grasslands of 192 million acres, 530 national wildlife refuges covering 93 million acres, and over 700 national wilderness areas of 104 million acres, where fauna, flora, water, scenery, and other natural resources survived as living embodiments of the philosophy of conservation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cameron, Jenks. The Bureau of Biological Survey: Its History, Activities, and Organization. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1929.

Chase, Alston. In a Dark Wood: The Fight over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1995.

Fox, Stephen. John Muir and His Legacy: The American Conservation Movement. Boston: Little, Brown, 1981.

Hays, Samuel P. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Huntington, Ellsworth. Tomorrow's Children: The Goal of Eugenics. New York: Wiley, 1935.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.

Nash, Roderick Frazier, ed. American Environmentalism: Readings in Conservation History. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990.

O'Brien, Jim. "Environmentalism as a Mass Movement: Historical Notes." Radical America 17, no. 2–3 (March–June 1983): 7–27.

Pinchot, Gifford. Breaking New Ground. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1947.

Reiger, John F. American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation. Rev. ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986.

Roosevelt, Theodore. "Wilderness Reserves." In American Big Game in Its Haunts. Edited by George Bird Grinnell. New York: Forest and Stream Publishing, 1904.

Trefethen, James B. An American Crusade for Wildlife. New York: Winchester Press, 1975.

Jonathan P.Spiro

Dictionary of American History Spiro, Jonathan P.

Conservation

views updated May 23 2018

Conservation

Conservation ethics

Imagine a world without the buzz and beauty of insects. As with so many other animals, insects are under pressure from human population growth and economic development. Crickets are being silenced as lawns are manicured, and butterflies are being lost as cultivated flowers replace wild ones. Above all, it is the devastation to tropical forests, where most insects live, that is taking an unprecedented toll on the rich tapestry of insect life. In response to this insect impoverishment, there has been an upwelling of activity to secure their future. Before asking how to ensure insect survival, we must ask why we should do it. This is the realm of conservation ethics, and it underpins all that we do.

This conservation awareness derives from two fundamentally different philosophical approaches. The first is more basic, ethically speaking, and values nature according to its usefulness to us as humans. This is the utilitarian approach. Whether we consider ecosystems, species, or the actual products of nature, all are human survival tools. The term sustainable utilization, which is used widely in conservation circles, means essentially the harvesting of nature in a way that does not compromise future human generations. The second approach is considered ethically deeper and views nature as having a right to exist according to its intrinsic value and not on its merit for human survival. All forms of nature, from fox to fish to fly, have their innate worth and deserve a place on this planet, even if they do not necessarily benefit us directly.

In practical terms, these two approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A reserve may be set up to conserve the tiger, which also gives space and place to a whole range of insect species. This does not mean, however, that the insects were part of the planning process, although conservationists know that the conservation of the tiger, which needs vast natural areas for survival, will embrace many, but not necessarily all, insect habitats.

When we talk of utilitarian value, we also may be including aesthetics. Utilitarian merit does not reside merely in the fact that we eat or wear parts of nature. Birdwing butterflies, being immensely beautiful and for the most part very rare, are exploited (and protected) because we prize their beauty. In reality, and taking a deeper philosophical approach, the rights pertaining to the butterfly and the physiological way a butterfly works are essentially no different from these aspects of a flea. This human perspective on nature colors all that we do in conservation. Some have argued that it is not species that have rights at all, but only individuals. If that is the case, it means that most people would sanction and act upon looking after a panda rather than an earwig. Many of our everyday expressions underscore these views. A despised person may be described as a "cockroach," while an exceptionally gentle person is "not hurting a fly."

"Coarse-filter" and "fine-filter" approaches to insect conservation

A salient feature of insect conservation is that overall we do not know exactly what we are conserving. This is so because most insect species are not scientifically described, and among those that are, there is generally little information available on their biological makeup for meaningful conservation decisions. This dearth of knowledge about the species that we aim to conserve is known as the taxonomic challenge.

This state of affairs, in turn, leads to a dichotomy in the way we approach insect conservation. There has to be conservation and management of whole landscapes so as to embrace as many habitats and microhabitats as possible. This "coarse-filter" approach allows all the activities in which insects normally engage to continue, which ensures the insects' long-term survival; it comes about after a process of biogeographical prioritization. This prioritization is a global and regional methodology that ascertains the relative importance of landscapes that are special or what is termed irreplaceable, that is, found nowhere else. Such irreplaceable landscapes are given high priority in conservation planning. In addition, representative landscapes also are selected, because they are home to more widespread species. Formerly widespread landscapes and species, such as those of the prairies, have suffered enormous impoverishment. Such remnant areas of naturalness also are given high priority in conservation planning.

The other branch in the dichotomous approach to insect conservation is the targeted one, where specific species are the subject of conservation. This goes hand in hand with conservation of their habitats. Usually these are large, charismatic species whose existence is known to be seriously threatened. This is the "fine-filter," or "species," approach and often complements the landscape level, or coarse-filter, one. Focal species in this approach often are red-listed globally. After quantitative assessment of their increasing rarity and threat levels and the outlook for their future, certain species are categorized according to criteria outlined by the IUCN (World Conservation Union). After ratification by independent experts, a submission is made to the IUCN Species Survival Commission for inclusion on the Red List. This is an immensely important document that is held in high regard worldwide. It plays a major role in conservation planning of all types across the globe. It is also important from an insect point of view, because any one insect species has as much entry space on the Red List as, say, a whelk, wombat, or whale. In other words, philosophically, the Red List is based on the intrinsic value of species and not necessarily on how important they are to humans.

In the case of insects, however, we often do not have adequate data on which to make a sound assessment of their threat status or of exactly how to improve their conservation management. In such cases, the species that are strongly suspected of being seriously threatened are flagged as Data Deficient, a designation that leads to further research, which then fine-tunes their conservation status. In some cases, a species may not be as threatened as was thought and may be removed from the Red List. In other instances, a species may turn out to be under grave threat, and conservation recommendations will be proposed, so that immediate action to ensure its survival can be put in place.

The species on the IUCN Red List are globally threatened and usually confined to one country and often to one specific area within that country. If they become extinct in the local area, they are lost completely. Many countries, and even states, provinces, and municipalities, also have their own list of threatened species. These species are included in national or local red data books and may or may not be on the IUCN Red List. Nevertheless, it is important to distinguish between the global Red List and the various red data books, because some species on local lists may be threatened in that area and yet be very common elsewhere. The wart biter katydid (Decticus verrucivorus), a large, bright green insect that lives in grassland, is included in the British Red Data Book (Insects) because it is so threatened in Britain, yet in many parts of Europe and Asia, it is very common and so is not entered onto the IUCN Red List.

Sometimes a particular subspecies or morph is threatened, and it may be cited on the Red List or in a red data book, yet its genetic relatives, which are not threatened, may not be. These different forms are known as evolutionary significant units (ESUs). The gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) has several forms that differ genetically in only small ways, yet that difference can be highly significant in terms of conservation. The British ESU of the gypsy moth became extinct early in the twentieth century, but the Asian form, which has invaded the country, is such a forest pest that its presence must be reported to the agricultural authorities.

Conserving insect function

In most people's eyes, insects do not have the glamour of large vertebrates, so their conservation requires particular promotional approaches. These perceptions change over time. During the nineteenth century and earlier, insects were revered. In the Middle Ages lice, which at that time were not known to be vectors of the deadly disease typhus, were considered "Pearls of God" and were viewed as a sign of saintliness. As the body of Archbishop Thomas à Becket lay in Cantebury Cathedral on the night of his murder, the cooling of his body caused the lice to crawl out from under his robes. It is said that the vermin that left his body "boiled over like water simmering in a cauldron, and the onlookers burst into alternate fits of weeping and laughter, between the sorrow of having lost such a head and the joy of having found such a saint."

Today we view such so-called vermin and their habitat as an ecosystem, and our focus often is on conservation of these systems and all the interactions that they contain. The task of knowing all the interactions that take place in even a small

ecosystem is formidable. A small temperate pond may have as many as 1,000 species, which, in turn, generate 0.5 million interactions. Furthermore, these interactions are dynamic and vary in strength from one moment to the next. To conserve these interactions, we have to take a black-box approach, that is, conserve what we do not know. This leads us back to the coarse-filter approach mentioned earlier.

The reason that this approach is so important in terms of insect conservation is that in many terrestrial ecosystems insects dominate or are very important in determining the species composition and the functioning of those systems. If suddenly we took away all the insects, we probably would immediately see a radical transformation of the system, which would become unrecognizable very soon. Insects pollinate, suck, and chew plants and serve as a vector for disease. Insects are the derminants of the way most terrestrial ecosystems work. This view recognizes the fact that insects are small and most have high reproductive rates. Springtails (Collembola) can reach densities of 9,300 per square foot (100,000 per square meter) in leaf litter. A single gravid aphid, were its reproductive potential to be realized unchecked, would give rise to such an abundance of individuals after one year that the world would be more than 8.7 mi (14 km) deep in aphids. The point is that insect conservation is tied intimately tied to conservation of all aspects of the natural systems around us. Insect conservation is a major, indisputable component of biodiversity conservation.

Threats to insects

The process of habitat loss usually is characterized by a series of landscape transformations. First, roads dissect the indigenous ecosystems, allowing people to enter the area and develop infrastructures, whether a factory, housing, or agricultural plots. This activity leads to the development of holes in the indigenous landscape and perforation of the once continuous naturalness. As the process of perforation continues to expand, the natural areas become completely divided, and only patches are left, isolated from one another. This is termed fragmentation. Human pressures around the edges of these patches, such as partial logging and slash-and-burn agriculture, cause these patches to shrink, with high-quality habitat remaining only in the centers of the patches. This final phase is termed attrition.

While the patch may look more or less intact, it has suffered an increase in edge and a decrease in core conditions.

This comes about because exterior conditions impinge on the edge. Such conditions may be, for example, hot, dry, sunny impacts that dry out the soil and render it unsuitable for many shallow-rooted tropical plants. Such landscape attrition may not have an immediate effect upon insect population. Only over time, and because of shrinkage of quality habitat and vulnerability during times of adverse conditions, as well as increased genetic risks, may the loss of insect populations and species become apparent. The subsequent loss of species from a patch is known as ecological relaxation and is one of the most insidious and least-understood processes threatening insects.

Most insects live in the tropics, and it is there where the greatest pressures upon them exist. In the second half of the twentieth century, 10 million square miles (16 million square kilometers) of forest were cleared, and in the early twenty-first century tropical forests were being lost at the rate of 80,778 square miles (130,000 square kilometers) or more per year. These forests, in a constantly moist and warm climate and with complex vegetational architecture, are extremely vulnerable. Tropical forest removal and transformation have devastated insect populations across the continents, so much so that it has been estimated that as many as 30 insect species are becoming extinct every week. Most of these extinctions are of scientifically nameless species. In other words, we do not know what we have been losing. This loss of unknown species has been termed "Centinelan extinction," from Centinela Ridge in Ecuador, where botanists tried to go to describe new species of trees, only to find that the trees had been chopped down and lost to science and the world forever.

Logging of tropical forests usually is the fastest way for timber corporations and their investors to make lots of money quickly. The number of tropical forest tracts allocated for logging is at least eight to ten times higher than the limited number of areas set aside for parks and reserves. These remnant reserves, in turn, become more vulnerable, because their edges are exposed. Although selective logging of tropical forests in Indonesia, for example, would seem to be sustainable utilization, there nevertheless has been a clear decrease in butterfly diversity. The loss becomes greater as the intensity of logging grows. There is evidence that some taxonomic groups of insects are more susceptible than others—moths are more sensitive than beetles, for instance. Changes in one insect group after logging has taken place do not necessarily correlate with changes of another. Certain groups, such as the arboreal dung beetles in Borneo and the ants in Ghana, can survive in agricultural areas even after the forest has been removed. This contrasts, however, with the fact that many insects, especially such large ones as morpho and birdwing butterflies, need massive areas of primary forest.

The situation in cool forests, such as those in the boreal zone, often mirrors that in the tropics, with some species tolerating little disturbance and others greater disturbance. Nevertheless, it is critical in all climatic zones to maintain large areas of virgin forest for the large-sized, ecologically specialized, reluctant-to-disperse endemic species. These areas often have particular soil conditions, litter depths, or even large logs that specialist moths, beetles, and other insects need. It is not necessarily any particular taxonomic group that is under threat any more than another group but rather insects with a particular way of life and restricted conditions in which they can survive. This is precisely why the situation in the tropics is so tragic. Many insects there, as far as we can tell, have very restricted host plant (and even host insect) preferences and often are confined to a small geographical area. This inevitably means that widespread loss of tropical forest results in large-scale insect diversity loss. Such loss is particularly acute in Indonesia, South America, and West Africa, with some estimates suggesting that intact rainforest in Madagascar will be gone by 2025. It is perhaps in the Congo basin where tropical insects are safest, because years of human conflict and the impact of AIDS have left considerable areas intact.

Island faunas, particularly on tropical islands, are especially vulnerable because of their small size and very high levels of pressure from humans. Their sensitivity may not necessarily be because certain species do not have the behavioral mechanisms to cope with change but because loss of even a few individuals from these small populations may put the species at a demographic risk. The same applies to insects of special habitats, such as caves. These insects are at risk because over millennia they have adapted to unusually stable environmental conditions, which are readily perturbed by humans.

It is not just in the tropics that insects are at risk but also across all ecosystems. Mediterranean-type ecosystems, because of their suitability for humans and high-value agriculture, have been especially susceptible. The same may be said of grasslands, which in prehistoric times were so extensive, yet now have been largely cultivated. The transformation of landscapes and consequent habitat loss have not affected all insect species equally. Among those that have suffered greatly are larger, specialist species, such as dung beetles, ant-dependent blue butterflies, wetland species, and old-growth forest species. Certain other species, in contrast, have benefited enormously from human activity. Transformation of landscapes has enabled many opportunistic species to expand beyond the confines of where they would normally live. Many other species have been translocated accidentally or deliberately to foreign lands and have proliferated there, often having a devastating effect on the indigenous fauna. This is evident in Hawaii, which before human settlement had no ants. Today, invasive foreign ants are having a major adverse impact on the native Hawaiian insects.

This proportionate change in abundance is seen when ecosystems are polluted. While some species are extremely vulnerable and are readily lost from the system, others can proliferate. In freshwater systems, stoneflies and mayflies may be the first to succumb, whereas blackflies (Simulium spp.) may multiply. Alien invasive plants also may change an indigenous ecosystem radically and affect the native insect fauna. This may come about because human modification of the landscape encourages the spread of weeds, sometimes to such an extent that native vegetation is overwhelmed and thus becomes unavailable to the former insect fauna.

The important point, and it underscores all aspects of human pressures upon insects, is that the various threats can be synergistic with each other—one threat compounds the next. This is evident, for example, in some South African streams where the highly endemic dragonfly and damselfly fauna is being threatened on all sides. Alien invasive trees shade the stream banks, while cattle trample the edges, breaking up the vegetation and silting the water. Extraction of too much water for the decidious fruit and wine industries retards water flow and causes a drop in oxygen levels. Introduced rainbow trout compound the situation through predation. Pollution may further affect the populations. The result has been a radical retraction of geographical ranges, so that many species today are found only in preserved mountain catchments. Three species may even be extinct, not having been rediscovered for several decades.

This synergism can build to the point where much of the insect fauna can no longer withstand all the pressures, leading to a major shift in its character or ecological integrity. Such a major, relatively sudden shift is termed a discontinuity. The concern is that many such discontinuities are imminent, especially with the potential widespread impact of global warming; if they become far-reaching, the original faunal composition may not return to its natural state. It has been calculated that if these discontinuities continue at the same rate worldwide, it may take millions of years for the original diversity to return. Global climatic change and the random walk of speciation, however, mean that insect diversity in the future will not be the same as it is today.

The conservation process

Taking the coarse-filter approach, the initial step in the conservation process is to select which geographical areas are necessary to conserve so as to maintain both irreplaceable and typical species. This prioritization process has identified, for example, at the global scale those countries with unusually rich and irreplaceable biotas. These global hot spots then become a top priority for further research and conservation management. Among those countries are Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, and Madagascar. This global prioritization process is based principally on plants and vertebrates. Insects (especially butterflies, dragonflies, and some beetle groups), however, are beginning to play a greater role in the process rather than falling under the umbrella of the bigger animals and plants. Nevertheless, from the perspective of practicality some conspicuous insect groups have to serve as surrogates for other less well known and difficult-to-sample

groups. This is a taxonomic nested approach. In using the better known groups, we hope that we have done our best to include most of the other species.

Prioritization is one thing, while translating science into practice is quite another. Often it is in those countries where there is widest insect diversity and greatest threat that the least is being done to conserve insects. There are exceptions. Costa Rica, for example, has committed itself to conserving its biodiversity, including its insects, as a major national asset. Although it covers only 0.2% of the nation, Santa Rosa Park in northwestern Costa Rica contains breeding populations of 55% of the country's 135 species of sphingid moth.

In northern Europe, many insect species on the Red List or in red data books are protected. Germany has gone one step further by giving protection to and banning collection of all dragonfly species. The British organization Butterfly Conservation, which has a membership of several thousand, has become an immensely influential organization, devoting itself to conserving British butterflies and moths and achieving considerable success in cooperation with land owners and government organizations. Amateur membership and activity have played a major role in identifying populations of threatened species needing protection.

Because conservation is a crisis science, we also have to prioritize in terms of what we can and should do. A particular area of the world may not be the hottest hot spot, but it may be under severe threat by, say, logging of a certain tropical forest. Urgent attention and resources must be directed to saving as much as possible of that area through appropriate management. This is termed triage and directs attention to where it is most effective rather than to areas that are relatively safe or where the damage is so great that any new efforts would see little benefit.

Prioritization can take place at various spatial scales, from the finer scale of habitat or landscape to the coarser scale of whole reserves. Although biogeography rarely obeys political boundaries, conservation, in contrast, is organized essentially along political lines, which impinges on the prioritization process. Once biological prioritization has identified areas for conservation, however, this information becomes available for policymakers to make more informed decisions. This is evident today in the creation of Transfrontier Parks, wildlife reserves that cross national boundaries. One example is the wilderness area of the Drakensberg Mountains across Lesotho and South Africa.

In terms of the fine-filter approach, once species have been identified as being in need of conservation management and have been included on the IUCN Red List or in a local red data book, they must be protected. This requires political muscle, and each country has its suite of laws to address species conservation. In the United States, it is the Endangered Species Act. This act has engendered considerable discussion and debate, because different groups may have different interests and motives. The national or provincial laws coincide with international laws when a country has officially ratified a particular international convention. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) monitors closely, at international and national levels, trade in various species so as to protect them from poaching. Certain birdwing butterflies, for example, may not be collected in the wild and traded internationally.

Conservation management

After deciding where and what to conserve, it is necessary to address the how of conservation. This process calls for deploying the most ergonomic measures to maximize the chance of survival of habitats and species in the long term. A baseline hope is that we have first preserved all the parts, that is, all the species and their interactions. This is termed the precautionary principle. Management involves maintaining the remnant patches with minimal pressures on their edges, so as to avoid loss of species through ecological relaxation. These patches require maximum connectedness. Wherever possible, corridors are encouraged or created to link the patches. For these corridors to be effective, they need to be of an ecological nature similar to the patches; in this way, insects can move between them without having to overcome barriers that are adverse to the species. A forest patch needs to be connected to a like patch with a forest corridor and not to a grassland (unless, of course, the patches are grassland). These corridors give the insects greater opportunities in times of environmental crisis and also encourage the maintenance of genetic diversity.

The patches may be in need of management to simulate former natural conditions that no longer apply as the patches become small. For example, fire or grazing may be excluded and may have to be reintroduced deliberately. Such management must be carefully carried out so as to approximate the natural situation closely. This often involves rotational management, where, for example, different plots are burned or grazed at different times. Although this may be done to encourage general insect diversity, special procedures also may be carried out to help a particular species. Butterfly larva food plants, for example, may be supplemented.

Some management entails minimized human impact. Old trees, with much dead wood, may be left to encourage specialist wood-inhabiting insects. Field margins may be left unsprayed with pesticide and herbicides so as to create more area for indigenous insects. These minimal input margins are known as conservation headlands or conservation corridors, and they have benefit for both the overall insect fauna and agriculture. The reason is that the margins encourage the maintenance of the natural food webs and, in doing so, provide a home for such predatory insects as ground and ladybird beetles that move onto the adjacent crop after pesticide residues have weathered. They eat and thus reduce the pest populations, whether they are caterpillars or aphids.

All management actions are carried out after the conservation question is clearly framed. Is our aim, for example, to encourage a wide range of indigenous butterfly species in an area, or is it to pull out all the stops to prevent extinction of a critically endangered specific species of butterfly? These two goals may not be mutually exclusive. Indeed, the reality of insect conservation is embedded in overall biodiversity conservation and also in the conservation of whole landscapes. After prioritization and selection of good indigenous habitat for protection, it often happens that certain of those quality remnants support individual noteworthy insects of conservation concern.

In South Africa, the KwaZulu-Natal mist-belt grasslands have been converted in large part to agricultural land, with less than 1% remaining. These remnants have been a top priority for conservation, because they are composed of unique plant assemblages as well as many endemic insects. Four remnants are the last habitat patches for populations of the lycaenid Karkloof blue butterfly (Orachrysops ariadne). This is an ant-dependent habitat specialist favoring cool slopes with a particular creeping variety of its host plant. Conservation management involves rotational burning of the habitat, which benefits not only the butterfly but also the plant community as a whole, because human-induced ignition simulates the original lightning strikes that prevent the plant community from becoming senescent. In addition, there is restoration of the periphery of the site with the removal of planted pine trees. Moreover, as with many conservation management programs, there is maintenance of the site, entailing removal of alien invasive plants, especially bramble, that continually threaten to reduce quality habitat.

In principle, these conservation approaches also can be carried out in suburban gardens and amenity areas. A first approach, and one that has become very popular, is to plant nectar-producing vegetation to attract butterflies. This butterfly gardening, at its simplest level, may involve only the planting of alien flowers and shrubs as nectar sources for adults. An ecologically deeper approach is to restore areas, albeit small ones, with indigenous vegetation, to cater to all aspects of the life cycle. Natural grassland, with its indigenous flowers, shrubs, and trees, is left to grow serendipitously or is planted deliberately, to encourage a wide range of insect species, from bees to butterflies. This method has become very important among dedicated enthusiasts in the United States and northern Europe, where so much natural habitat has been lost. Some plant and seed merchants even specialize in indigenous vegetation and, as such, are contributing enormously to insect conservation.

Ecological landscaping may involve the creation of ponds, especially for dragonflies. This has deep cultural roots in Japan, where old rice paddies have been converted to hugely popular dragonfly reserves. Small ponds can be constructed by anyone with a will to conserve pond insects. Such a pond need not be deeper than 3.3 ft (1 m), have sloping sides, and be well enclosed with water plants of all types and with rocks both submerged and emergent. Water levels also must be kept constant. The water should be well aerated (usually with abundant water weed), and bushes or trees should overhang part of the pond to provide shelter, perches, and hunting grounds for dragonflies chasing midges. These gardening approaches generally contribute greatly to increasing the local abundance of formerly more widespread species. They are a worthwhile "at home" activity, but they should not detract from lobbying for large tracts of natural and unique landscapes, which support specialized and endemic species that, if lost from one locale, may well be lost forever. In some cases it may even be necessary to breed certain insect species in captivity for reintroduction into the wild once field conditions are made secure. This is being done for several species, including the well-known European field cricket, Gryllus campestris, at the Invertebrate Conservation Centre at the London Zoo.

Viewed in the greater scheme of things, insect conservation takes many approaches. While there are general principles to consider, often it is necessary to tailor conservation management to specific local conditions and aims—to think globally and act locally. The realm of insect conservation is exciting and immensely important, and it is crucial for future generations. This area is by no means just for professionals. Everyone can play a key role, whether by participating in an official project or by encouraging indigenous flowers and trees in one's own garden. Whether farmer or financier, everybody can place a conservation brick into the wall of our heritage, so that we leave the world as rich a mosaic of insects as it was when we came into it.

Resources

Books

Collins, N. M., and J. A. Thomas, eds. The Conservation of Insects and Their Habitats. London: Academic Press, 1991.

Fry, R., and D. Lonsdale. Habitat Conservation for Insects: A Neglected Green Issue. Middlesex, U.K.: The Amateur Entomologists' Society, 1991.

Kirby, P. Habitat Management for Invertebrates: A Practical Handbook. Sandy, Bedfordshire, U.K.: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 1992.

New, T. R. An Introduction to Invertebrate Conservation Biology. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1995.

——. Butterfly Conservation, 2nd edition. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Samways, M. J. Insect Conservation Biology. London: Chapman and Hall, 1994.

The Xerces Society. Butterfly Gardening. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1998.

Michael J. Samways, PhD

Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia

Conservation

views updated May 18 2018

Conservation

Conservationist movement founded

Global environmental efforts

Resources

Conservation is the protection of natural resources, either by leaving them wild or by using them in a conservative, rational way, so that they will continue to exist for a long time to come.

The idea that the world needs to be conserved was not obvious to many societies until a century or so ago (and is still denied by many people). American conservationist thought has evolved from its inception in the mid-1850s, when naturalists, businesspeople and statesmen alike foresaw environmental, economic and social peril in the unregulated use and abuse of North America’s natural resources. Since those early attempts to balance the needs and desires of a growing, industrialized American public against the productivity and aesthetic beauty of the American wilderness, American environmental policy has experienced pendulum swings between no-holds-barred industrial exploitation, economically-tempered natural resource management, and preservationist movements that advocate protection of nature for nature’s sake.

Government agencies instituted at the beginning of the twentieth century to guide the lawful, scientifically sound use of America’s forests, water resources, agricultural lands, and wetlands, have had to address new environmental concerns such as air and water pollution, waste management, wildfire prevention, and species extinction. As the human population increased and technology advanced, American conservation policies and environmental strategies have had to reach beyond the borders of the United States to confront issues like global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, distribution of global energy and mineral resources, loss of biodiversity, and overuse of marine resources.

An organized, widespread conservation movement, dedicated to preventing uncontrolled and irresponsible exploitation of forests, land, wildlife, and water resources, first developed in the United States during the last decades of the nineteenth century. This was a time when accelerating settlement and resource depletion made conservationist policies appealing both to a large portion of the public and to government leaders. European settlement had reached across the entire North American continent, and the census of 1890 declared the American frontier closed. The era of North American exploration and the myth of an inexhaustible, virgin continent had come to an end. Furthermore, loggers, miners, settlers, and ranchers were laying waste to the nation’s forests, prairies, mountains, and wetlands. Accelerating, wasteful commercial exploitation of natural resources went almost completely unchecked as political corruption and the economic power of lumber, mining, and cattle barons made regulation impossible.

At the same time, American wildlife was disappearing. The legendary, immense flocks of passenger pigeons that migrated down the North American Atlantic coast disappeared entirely within a generation because of unrestrained hunting. Millions of bison were slaughtered by market hunters for their skins and meat and by tourists shooting from passing trains. Logging, grazing, and hydropower development threatened America’s most dramatic national landmarks. Niagara Falls, for example, nearly lost its untamed water flow. California’s sequoia groves were considered for logging, and sheep grazed in Yosemite Valley.

Conservationist movement founded

Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the U.S. Forest Service, founded the conservation movement in the United States. He was a populist who fervently believed that the best use of nature was to improve the life of common citizens. Pinchot had extensive influence during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, also an ardent conservationist, and helped to steer conservation policies from the turn of the century to the 1940s. Guided by the writing and thought of his conservationist predecessors, Pinchot brought science-based methods of resource management and a utilitarian philosophy to the Forest Service.

George Perkins Marsh, a Vermont forester and geographer, whose 1864 publication Man and Nature is a wellspring of American environmental thought, influenced Pinchot’s ideas for American environmental policy. He was also inspired to action by John Wesley Powell, Clarence King, and other explorer-naturalists who assessed and cataloged the nation’s physical and biological resources following the Civil War, as well as by his own observations of environmental destruction and social inequities precipitated by unregulated wilderness exploitation.

Conservation, as conceived by Pinchot, Powell, and Roosevelt, advocated thoughtful, rational use of natural resources, and not establishment of protected, unexploited wild areas. In their emphasis on wise resource use, the early conservationists were philosophically divided from the early preservationists. Preservationists, led by the eloquent writer and champion of Yosemite Valley, John Muir, bitterly opposed the idea that the best vision for the nation’s forests was their conversion into agricultural land and timber tracts, developed to produce only species and products useful to humans. Muir, guided by the writing of the transcendentalist philosophers Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry Thoreau, argued vehemently that parts of the American wilderness should be preserved for their aesthetic value and for the survival of wildlife, and that all land should not be treated as a storehouse of useful commodities. Pinchot, however, insisted that: “The object of [conservationist] forest policy is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful . . . or because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness . . . but the making of prosperous homes . . . Every other consideration is secondary.” The motto of the U.S. National Forest Service, “The Land of Many Uses” reflects Pinchot’s philosophy of land management.

Because of its more moderate and politically palatable stance, conservation became the more popular position by the turn of the century. By 1905, conservation had become a blanket term for nearly all defense of the environment. More Americans had come to live in cities, and to work in occupations not directly dependent upon resource exploitation. The urban population was sympathetic to the idea of preserving public land for recreational purposes and provided much of the support for the conservation movement from the beginning. The earlier distinction from preservation was lost until it re-emerged in the 1960s as persons now called “environmentalists” once again raised vocal objections to conservation’s anthropocentric (human-centered) emphasis. Late twentieth century naturalists like Rachel Carson, Edward Abbey, Aldo Leopold, as well as more radical environmental groups, including Greenpeace and Earth First!, owe much of their legacy to the turn of the century preservationists. More recently, deep ecologists and bioregionalists have likewise departed from mainstream conservation, arguing that other species have intrinsic rights to exist outside of the interests of humans.

As a scientific, humanistic, and progressive philosophy, conservation has led to a great variety of government and popular efforts to protect America’s natural resources from exploitation by businesses and individuals. A professionally trained government forest service was developed to maintain national forests and to limit the uncontrolled “timber mining” practiced by logging and railroad companies of the nineteenth century. Conservation-minded presidents and administrators set aside millions of acres of public land as national forests and parks for public use. A corps of scientifically trained fish and wildlife managers was established to regulate populations of game birds, sport fish, and hunted mammals for public use on federal lands.

Some of the initial conservation tactics seem strange by modern ecological standards and have had unintended consequences. For example, federal game conservation involved extensive programs of predator elimination leading to near extinction of some of America’s most prized animals, including the timber wolf, the grizzly bear, the mountain lion, and the nation’s symbol, the bald eagle. Decades of no-burn policies in national forests and parks, combined with encroachment by suburban neighborhoods, have led to destructive and dangerous forest fires in the American West. Extreme flood control measures have exposed a large population along the Mississippi river system to catastrophic flooding. However, early environmental policies were advised by the science of their time, and were unquestionably fairer and less destructive than the unchecked industrial development they replaced.

An important aspect of the growth of conservation has been the development of professional schools of forestry, game management, and wildlife management. When Gifford Pinchot began to study forestry, Yale University had only meager resources, and Pinchot gained the better part of his education at a school of forest management in Nancy, France. Several decades later, the Yale School of Forestry, initially financed largely by the wealthy Pinchot family, was able to produce such well-trained professionals as Aldo Leopold, who went on to develop the first professional school of game management in the United States at the University of Wisconsin. Today, most American universities offer courses in resource management and ecology, and many schools offer full-fledged programs in integrated ecological science and resource management.

During the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, conservation programs included such immense economic development projects as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which dammed the Tennessee River for flood control and electricity generation. The Bureau of Reclamation, formed in 1902 to manage surface water resources in 17 western states, constructed more than 600 dams in the 1920s and 1930s, including the Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon dams across the Colorado River and the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. The Civilian Conservation Corps developed roads, built structures, and worked on erosion control projects for the public good. The Soil Conservation Service was established to advise farmers in maintaining and developing their farmland.

Voluntary citizen conservation organizations have also done extensive work to develop and maintain natural resources. The Izaak Walton League, Ducks Unlimited, and local gun clubs and fishing groups have set up game sanctuaries, preserved wet-lands, campaigned to control water pollution, and released young game birds and fish. Organizations with less directly utilitarian objectives have also worked and lobbied in defense of nature and wildlife, including the National Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the World Wildlife Fund.

Global environmental efforts

From the beginning, American conservation ideas, informed by the science of ecology and the practice of resource management on public lands, spread to other countries and regions. In recent decades, however, the rhetoric of conservation has taken a prominent role in international development and affairs, and the United States Government has taken a back-seat role in global environmental policy. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) are some of today’s most visible international conservation organizations.

The international community first convened in 1972 at the UN Conference on Earth and Environment in Stockholm to discuss global environmental concerns. UNEP was established at the Stockholm Convention. In 1980, the IUCN published a document entitled the World Conservation Strategy, dedicated to helping individual countries, including developing nations, plan for the maintenance and protection of their soil, water, forests, and wildlife. A continuation and update of this theme appeared in 1987 with the publication of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development’s book, Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report. The idea of sustainable development, with its vision of ecologically balanced, conservation-oriented economic development, was introduced in this 1987 paper and has gone on to become a dominant ideal in international development programs. Also in 1987, the international community agreed to work together to counter stratospheric ozone depletion by man-made chemicals with the Montreal Protocol.

In 1992, world leaders gathered at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to discuss some of the issues set forth in the Brundtland Report. The Rio “Earth Summit” painted a grim picture of global environmental problems like global climate change, resource depletion, and pollution. The Rio summit inspired a number of ratified agreements designed to tackle some of these seemingly intractable issues, including mitigation of possible global climate change caused by industrial emissions with the 2002 Kyoto Protocol.

The international community has tempered its philosophy of conservation since the 1992 Rio Summit. Sustainable development, a philosophy very similar to Pinchot’s original conservation ideal, was the catchphrase for the United Nation’s 2002 Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. The 1992 Rio summit produced a laundry list of grim environmental problems—global warming, the ozone hole, biodiversity and habitat loss, deforestation, marine resource depletion—and suggested an “either-or” decision between economic development and environmental solutions. The 2002 Earth Summit, however, focused on international regulations that address environmental problems: water and air quality, accessibility of food and water, sanitation, agricultural productivity, and land management. These problems often accompany the human population’s most pressing social issues: poverty, famine, disease, and war. Furthermore, new strategies for coping with environmental issues involve offering economic incentives to provide for the common good instead of punishing non-compliant governments and corporations. However, the grim problems listed in the early 1990s had not gone away. On the contrary, they had worsened: by 2006, the world had significantly less soil, less drinkable water, fewer species of animals and plants, less wilderness, fewer trees, less ozone, more pollution, and warmer, more chaotic weather than it had a decade and a half earlier. In the early 2000s, with many types of scientific data showing that global weather was warming rapidly, especially in the polar regions, a fresh wave of concern and international activism on questions of conservation occurred; whether it is enough to make changes that will lead to a sustainable future is still in question.

Resources

BOOKS

Fox, S. John Muir and His Legacy: The American Conservation Movement. Boston: Little, Brown, 1981.

Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Books, 2006.

Groom, Martha J., et al. Principles of Conservation Biology. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Sinauer Associates, 2005.

Hilty, Jodi A., et al. Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

Meine, C. Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.

Roberts, Paul. The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World. New York: Mariner Books, 2005.

OTHER

Conservation International. “Conservation International Home Page.” 2006. <http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/> (accessed October 23, 2006).

Mary Ann Cunningham

Laurie Duncan

The Gale Encyclopedia of Science

Conservation

views updated Jun 27 2018

Conservation

Conservation is the philosophy that natural resources should be used cautiously and rationally so that they will remain available for future generations of people.

American conservationist thought has evolved from its inception in the mid 1850s, when naturalists, businesspeople and statesmen alike foresaw environmental, economic and social peril in the unregulated use and abuse of North America's natural resources. Since those early attempts to balance the needs and desires of a growing, industrialized American public against the productivity and aesthetic beauty of the American wilderness, American environmental policy has experienced pendulum swings between no-holds-barred industrial exploitation, economically-tempered natural resource management, and preservationist movements that advocate protection of nature for nature's sake.

Government agencies instituted at the beginning of the twentieth century to guide the lawful, scientifically sound use of America's forests , water resources, agricultural lands, and wetlands , have had to address new environmental concerns such as air and water pollution , waste management , wildfire prevention, and species extinction . As the human population increased and technology advanced, American conservation policies and environmental strategies have had to reach beyond United States borders to confront issues like global warming , stratospheric ozone depletion, distribution of global energy and mineral resources, loss of biodiversity , and overuse of marine resources.

An organized, widespread conservation movement, dedicated to preventing uncontrolled and irresponsible exploitation of forests, land, wildlife , and water resources, first developed in the United States during the last decades of the nineteenth century. This was a time when accelerating settlement and resource depletion made conservationist policies appealing both to a large portion of the public and to government leaders. European settlement had reached across the entire North American continent , and the census of 1890 declared the American frontier closed. The era of North American exploration and the myth of an inexhaustible, virgin continent had come to an end. Furthermore, loggers, miners, settlers, and ranchers were laying waste to the nation's forests, prairies, mountains , and wetlands. Accelerating, wasteful commercial exploitation of natural resources went almost completely unchecked as political corruption and the economic power of lumber, mining and cattle barons made regulation impossible.

At the same time, American wildlife was disappearing. The legendary, immense flocks of passenger pigeons that migrated down the North American Atlantic coast disappeared entirely within a generation because of unrestrained hunting. Millions of bison were slaughtered by market hunters for their skins and meat, and by tourists shooting from passing trains. Logging, grazing, and hydropower development threatened America's most dramatic national landmarks. Niagara Falls, for example, nearly lost its untamed water flow. California's sequoia groves were considered for logging, and sheep grazed in Yosemite Valley.

Conservationist movement founded

Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the U.S. Forest Service, founded the conservation movement in the United States. He was a populist who fervently believed that the best use of nature was to improve the life of common citizens. Pinchot had extensive influence during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, himself an ardent conservationist, and helped to steer conservation policies from the turn of the century to the 1940s. Guided by the writing and thought of his conservationist predecessors, Pinchot brought science-based methods of resource management and a utilitarian philosophy to the Forest Service.

George Perkins Marsh, a Vermont forester and geographer, whose 1864 publication Man and Nature is a wellspring of American environmental thought, influenced Pinchot's ideas for American environmental policy. He was also inspired to action by John Wesley Powell, Clarence King, and other explorer-naturalists who assessed and cataloged the nation's physical and biological resources following the Civil War, as well as by his own observations of environmental destruction and social inequities precipitated by unregulated wilderness exploitation.

Conservation, as conceived by Pinchot, Powell, and Roosevelt, advocated thoughtful, rational use of natural resources, and not establishment of protected, unexploited wild areas. In their emphasis on wise resource use, the early conservationists were philosophically divided from the early preservationists. Preservationists, led by the eloquent writer and champion of Yosemite Valley, John Muir, bitterly opposed the idea that the best vision for the nation's forests was their conversion into agricultural land and timber tracts, developed to produce only species and products useful to humans. Muir, guided by the writing of the transcendentalist philosophers Emerson and Thoreau, argued vehemently that parts of the American wilderness should be preserved for their aesthetic value and for the survival of wildlife, and that all land should not be treated as a storehouse of useful commodities. Pinchot, however, insisted that: "The object of [conservationist] forest policy is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful... or because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness... but the making of prosperous homes... Every other consideration is secondary." The motto of the U.S. National Forest Service, "The Land of Many Uses" reflects Pinchot's philosophy of land management.

Because of its more moderate and politically palatable stance, conservation became the more popular position by the turn of the century. By 1905, conservation had become a blanket term for nearly all defense of the environment. More Americans had come to live in cities, and to work in occupations not directly dependent upon resource exploitation. The urban population was sympathetic to the idea of preserving public land for recreational purposes, and provided much of the support for the conservation movement from the beginning. The earlier distinction from preservation was lost until it re-emerged in the 1960s as "environmentalists" once again raised vocal objections to conservation's anthropocentric (human-centered) emphasis. Late twentieth century naturalists like Rachel Carson, Edward Abbey, Aldo Leopold, as well as more radical environmental groups, including Greenpeace and Earth First!, owe much of their legacy to the turn of the century preservationists. More recently, deep ecologists and bioregionalists have likewise departed from mainstream conservation, arguing that other species have intrinsic rights to exist out-side of the interests of humans.

As a scientific, humanistic, and progressive philosophy, conservation has led to a great variety of government and popular efforts to protect America's natural resources from exploitation by businesses and individuals at the expense of the American public. A professionally trained government forest service was developed to maintain national forests, and to limit the uncontrolled "timber min ing" practiced by logging and railroad companies of the nineteenth century. Conservation-minded presidents and administrators set aside millions of acres of public land as national forests and parks for public use. A corps of scientifically trained fish and wildlife managers was established to regulate populations of gamebirds, sportfish, and hunted mammals for public use on federal lands.

Some of the initial conservation tactics seem strange by modern, ecological standards, and have had unintended consequences. For example, federal game conservation involved extensive programs of predator elimination leading to near extinction of some of America's most prized animals, including the timber wolf, the grizzly bear, the mountain lion, and the nation's symbol, the bald eagle. Decades of no-burn policies in national forests and parks, combined with encroachment by sub-urban neighborhoods, have led to destructive and dangerous forest fires in the American West. Extreme flood control measures have exposed a large population along the Mississippi river system to catastrophic flooding . However, early environmental policies were advised by the science of their time, and were unquestionably fairer and less destructive than the unchecked industrial development they replaced.

An important aspect of the growth of conservation has been the development of professional schools of forestry , game management, and wildlife management. When Gifford Pinchot began to study forestry, Yale University had only meager resources, and he gained the better part of his education at a school of forest management in Nancy, France. Several decades later, the Yale School of Forestry, initially financed largely by the wealthy Pinchot family, was able to produce such well-trained professionals as Aldo Leopold, who went on to develop the first professional school of game management in the United States at the University of Wisconsin. Today, most American universities offer courses in resource management and ecology , and many schools offer full-fledged programs in integrated ecological science and resource management.

During the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, conservation programs included such immense economic development projects as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which dammed the Tennessee River for flood control and electricity generation. The Bureau of Reclamation, formed in 1902 to manage surface water resources in 17 western states, constructed more than 600 dams in 1920s and 1930s, including the Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon dams across the Colorado River, and the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. The Civilian Conservation Corps developed roads, built structures, and worked on erosion control projects for the public good. The Soil Conservation Service was established to advise farmers in maintaining and developing their farmland.

Voluntary citizen conservation organizations have also done extensive work to develop and maintain natural resources. The Izaak Walton League, Ducks Unlimited, and local gun clubs and fishing groups have set up game sanctuaries, preserved wetlands, campaigned to control water pollution , and released young game birds and fish. Organizations with less directly utilitarian objectives have also worked and lobbied in defense of nature and wildlife, including the National Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the World Wildlife Fund.

Global environmental efforts

From the beginning, American conservation ideas, informed by the science of ecology, and the practice of resource management on public lands, spread to other countries and regions. In recent decades, however, the rhetoric of conservation has taken a prominent role in international development and affairs, and the United States Government has taken a back-seat role in global environmental policy. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) are some of today's most visible international conservation organizations.

The international community first convened in 1972 at the UN Conference on Earth and Environment in Stockholm to discuss global environmental concerns. UNEP was established at the Stockholm Convention. In 1980, the IUCN published a document entitled the World Conservation Strategy, dedicated to helping individual countries, including developing nations, plan for the maintenance and protection of their soil , water, forests, and wildlife. A continuation and update of this theme appeared in 1987 with the publication of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development's book, Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report. The idea of sustainable development , with its vision of ecologically balanced, conservation-oriented economic development, was introduced in this 1987 paper and has gone on to become a dominant ideal in international development programs.

In 1992, world leaders gathered at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to discuss some of the issues set forth in the Brundtland Report. The Rio "Earth Summit" painted a grim picture of global environmental problems like global climate change, resource depletion, and pollution. The Rio summit inspired a number of ratified agreements designed to tackle some of these seemingly intractable issues, including stratospheric ozone depletion by man-made chemicals with the 1987 Montreal Protocol, and mitigation of possible global climate change caused by industrial emissions with the 2002 Kyoto Protocol.

The International community has tempered its philosophy of conservation since the 1992 Rio Summit. Sustainable development, a philosophy very similar to Pinchot's original conservation ideal, was the catch-phrase for the United Nation's 2002 Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa . The 1992 Rio summit produced a laundry list of grim environmental problems: global warming, the ozone hole, biodiversity and habitat loss, deforestation , marine resource depletion, and suggested an "either-or" decision between economic development and environmental solutions. The 2002 Earth Summit, however, focused on international regulations that address environmental problems: water and air quality, accessibility of food and water, sanitation, agricultural productivity, and land management, that often accompany the human population's most pressing social issues: poverty, famine, disease , and war. Furthermore, new strategies for coping with environmental issues involve providing economic incentives to provide for the common good instead of punishing non-compliant governments and corporations.

Resources

books

Fox, S. John Muir and His Legacy: The American Conservation Movement. Boston: Little, Brown, 1981.

Marsh, G.P. Man and Nature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965 (originally 1864).

Meine, C. Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.

Pinchot, G. Breaking New Ground. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1987 (originally 1947).

periodicals

Kluger, Jefferey, and Andrea Dorfman. "The Challenges We Face." Special Report: "How to Preserve the Planet and Make this a Green Century." Time Magazine (August 26, 2002): A1-A60.

other

United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development. "Johannesburg Summit 2002." Johannesburg, South Africa. December 12, 2002 [cited January 7, 2003]. <http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/>.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. "Caring for the Land and Serving People." January 6, 2003 [cited January 7, 2003]. <http://www.fs.fed.us/>.

Mary Ann Cunningham

Laurie Duncan

The Gale Encyclopedia of Science

Conservation

views updated Jun 11 2018

Conservation

Reptiles are frequently secretive, and knowledge of their biological status often is based on anecdotal information rather than on precise scientific data. Nonetheless, scientists have identified certain characteristics, which make some reptiles particularly vulnerable to changes in their environment. Species that are large; island dwelling; restricted in distribution, habitat, or ecological specialists; require large home ranges; are migratory; or are valued as food or medicine or for their skin are most likely to show population declines when stressed by human activity. In combination, as when a large species used for food lives on an island, these characteristics have made some reptiles extremely susceptible to human influences. In addition to the spatial, size, and behavioral characteristics that make reptiles vulnerable to extinction, certain life history traits, such as delayed maturity, slow growth, a low reproductive output, and high juvenile mortality rate, combine to make recovery difficult for many species. The difficulty arises because these biological traits are the product of a long-term evolutionary history and are slow to respond to rapidly changing conditions brought about by human activity. Because some species have long generation times, they cannot adapt to rapid environmental change or even to well-intentioned conservation management.

It is difficult to determine how many reptiles are endangered worldwide or even to guess at what percentage is threatened. Some groups, such as turtles and tuataras, are declining because they are affected adversely by humans and because they possess the aforementioned life history characteristics that make them exceedingly vulnerable to environmental change. Examples of reptiles in need of the highest-priority conservation efforts include the giant tortoises of the Galápagos and Seychelles, seaturtles, the giant land iguanas of the Caribbean, the Canary Islands giant lizard, several crocodilians (e.g., the Chinese alligator, the Siamese and Philippine crocodiles, the tomistoma, and the gharial), and the two species of tuataras in New Zealand. The following sections provide a broad overview of reptile conservation, the factors that affect reptiles, and the tools available to biologists to reverse declines and to enhance prospects for long-term survival.

Scope of the problem

Of the four reptile lineages, turtles (Chelonia) are the most threatened of the major groups. More than half of the 264 or so recognized species face serious population declines or even extinction. Nearly all tortoises require concerted conservation management, as do the seven species of seaturtles. The regional turtle fauna most endangered is the Southeast Asian turtle fauna: many species are being driven to extinction by the trade for food, traditional medicines, and pets. Turtles everywhere are threatened by habitat loss and the degradation of river and wetland ecosystems.

Although they are feared, crocodilians always have been valued for their skins or as food, and today more than half of the 23 species are endangered or declining. Fortunately, biologists have reversed declines in some of these species through strict legislation, research, and management programs, at least where habitat remains intact. Other species, however, are still extremely vulnerable, because human populations have encroached into their habitats to such a great extent that the crocodilians have no place left to go. Poaching remains a threat, particularly to the rarer species.

The status of squamates (lizards and snakes) generally is less well known than that of turtles and crocodilians, except for some species in commercial trade. Like other reptiles, lizards and snakes are threatened especially by habitat loss. Literally millions of these reptiles are harvested from wild populations for the fashion industry. Some species seem fairly resilient to harvest, whereas other species have declined. Collection for the pet trade and for food is also a source of concern, especially among the chameleons and the attractive and docile snakes. Harvest in certain regions, such as southeastern and eastern Asia, is likewise cause for great concern. Snakes are killed nearly everywhere, even when they pose no threats to humans. Unfortunately, little is known about the basic biology of many squamates that appear to be declining.

There are only two species of tuataras (Rhynchocephalia), both inhabitants of remote New Zealand islands. Although they are lizard-like, they are the sole survivors of an ancient reptile lineage. They are vulnerable to habitat loss, poaching, and especially the introduction of rats onto their small island homes. Both species are strictly protected, monitored, and managed.

Threats to reptiles

The threats that affect reptiles are the same as those that affect biodiversity throughout the world. The primary danger

to reptiles probably comes from the direct loss of habitats, whether the habitat is a small patch of temperate forest or the vast rainforest of the Amazon basin. Habitat loss is not confined to the surface of the ground but extends both arboreally and deep underground, depending on the life history requirements of the species. Migratory reptiles, such as seaturtles, face threats in different habitats, sometimes located great distances from one another, as the turtles move between natal, breeding, and feeding grounds. If a beach vital to nesting is destroyed, then the life history of the species may be disrupted, even if migratory pathways and feeding grounds are in excellent condition. Complex life cycles make species vulnerable to habitat change.

The alteration of habitats often is more subtle and less dramatic than outright habitat destruction, but it is equally devastating to reptiles. Whereas habitat destruction is immediate, the effects of habitat alteration may take place over a long time period. Thus, the difference between habitat destruction and alteration is often only a matter of scale and time. Perhaps the most common effect of habitat alteration is fragmentation of remaining habitats into smaller patches. These patches may not contain sufficient amounts of habitat to maintain a reptile population, such as a colony of tortoises or a wide-ranging population of indigo snakes. Habitat fragments may be isolated; may require animals to move (if possible) across unfamiliar ground; increase animals' vulnerability to predation and mortality from humans, especially as roads are crossed; and are more susceptible to random environmental events, such as hurricanes. Reptiles living in habitat fragments are exposed to disturbance from predators and competitors living on the edge of the fragment.

Unsustainable use, whether trade for skins, food, or pets, may devastate certain reptiles, because reproduction cannot keep pace with the loss of animals. Selective harvesting of even a portion of the population may have severe consequences. For example, female seaturtles are particularly vulnerable as they nest. They are easily captured, and the loss of this vital half of the adult population eliminates the chances of recovery. In general, little research has been undertaken on the effects of trade on reptiles, except for seaturtles and crocodilians, because wildlife management agencies traditionally are concerned with popular and charismatic mammals and birds rather than reptiles.

Environments around the world are awash in chemicals whose effects are both direct and indirect. Pollution destroys reptile habitats by changing environmental conditions, by causing direct toxicity to an animal or its prey, or by subtle effects on reptile biophysical or physiological requirements. In contrast, long-term sublethal exposure makes reptiles more vulnerable to predators and disease. For example, such contaminants as PCBs have been shown to mimic the activity of estrogen, an important hormone that plays a part in sex determination. When these chemicals are present, abnormal development takes place, resulting in intersexes and in reduced reproductive ability (by affecting morphologic features), success, and survivorship. The populations of alligators and turtles in certain Florida lakes have declined as a result of endocrine-mimicking chemicals dumped into their habitats years ago.

There are hosts of other factors that affect reptile survivorship, including the overabundance of subsidized predators (e.g., ravens and raccoons), disease, adverse effects from nonindigenous animals and plants (e.g., mongooses, fire ants, and invasive vegetation), malicious killing, and even climate change. For example, certain predators have increased dramatically in proximity to humans. Raccoons are now without natural predators throughout much of their range, and they are subsidized by human garbage and feeding in both urban and rural areas. As their populations increase, they are capable

of destroying nearly every turtle nest and neonate reptile in their vicinity, and they can seriously threaten adults.

Disease (both viral and bacterial) has become a growing problem, particularly affecting seaturtles and tortoises. Disease outbreaks often are associated with polluted or environ-mentally stressed habitats, and pathogens may be transmitted through the release of diseased captive animals into the wild. Invasive or nonindigenous species, such as imported fire ants, directly kill reptiles and destroy eggs or modify habitats so that native species can no longer survive there. People everywhere kill harmless snakes and other reptiles for no reason at all, except pure meanness or fear.

Finally, little is known about how reptiles might respond to climate change, although it is certain that barriers between existing fragmented habitats would limit movement to new areas. In addition, global warming might have a more subtle effect. Since the temperature during egg incubation determines the sex of many reptiles, an increase in nest temperatures could produce fewer male and more female turtles and more male and fewer female crocodilians and could have a mixed result among some other species. Changes in rainfall patterns undoubtedly would affect reptiles, although increased ambient temperatures actually might benefit some species.

Conserving reptiles

The best way to conserve reptiles is to protect their habitats. This does not call solely for the creation of parks or preserves, since such areas are not isolated from the environmental effects surrounding them. Scientists realize that habitat protection is complex, bringing to bear knowledge of the interrelationships of land, water, air, and biotic components. Likewise, people surrounding protected areas must have a stake in the success of the park or preserve, because reptile conservation usually involves "people management" more than "reptile management." Additionally, there are other ways to protect habitats rather than putting them solely in public trust, as through land easements and conservation agreements, tax incentives, land banking, and private acquisition. Habitat protection must encompass the spatial needs of the species or ecosystem to be conserved, whether it is a regional landscape, a linear river or stream, or an underground aquifer.

Knowing the biotic requirements of a species helps in planning reserve design and management. There are no truly pristine areas on Earth, and all ecosystems must be managed at some level to ensure reptile survival. Management must work within the requirements of both the species and the available human resources. If either set of requirements is ignored, efforts to conserve reptiles are unlikely to succeed. Consideration of habitat restoration and manipulation, such as revitalizing ponds for bog turtles or building dens for wintering snakes, increasingly is being included in recovery and conservation plans. Both management and restoration require detailed knowledge of natural history to predict how a species will respond to change and to determine which management approaches benefit the species.

There are several ways to curb habitat fragmentation. Planning could minimize the extent of lands affected, maximize patch size, and reduce the distances between patches. Development plans could allow for corridors between patches, protection of migratory habitats, and construction of ecopassages over or under roads and other transportation routes. For example, barrier walls and culverts have been used successfully in Florida to cut down mortality rates and to facilitate movement under a major highway across a state preserve. Deaths of alligators, turtles, and snakes declined significantly after the ecopassages were built. Effective management of habitat patches might include the removal of subsidized predators and the maintenance of natural disturbances, such as fire.

If the problem affecting reptiles leads to the loss of individuals, such as through habitat destruction or trade, legal protection is appropriate. For example, the American alligator and other crocodilians have made a remarkable comeback after legal protection and vigorous law enforcement prevented unsustainable trade. Protection of individual animals without protection of their habitat or without research designed to understand the cause of their decline will be ineffective, however, and, in some cases, counterproductive. In addition, the presence of an animal on protected lands does not mean that it is protected. For years venomous snakes were killed on sight in some U.S. national parks as part of government policy.

In many countries there are laws that restrict or curtail pollution, but pollution continues to affect ecosystems throughout the world. If reptiles are to be conserved, particularly in aquatic ecosystems, these laws must be enforced and extended vigorously. Measuring sublethal or indirect effects of chemical

contamination is much more difficult, especially with the variety and number of chemicals released each year. Endocrine-mimicking chemicals have the potential to devastate wildlife populations, because they work in trace amounts. The demonstrated effects of some of these chemicals on reptiles, especially as factors affecting development, reproduction, and survival, should bring into question their impacts on humans. In addition, much research needs to be done toward understanding diseases in reptile populations, that is, their causes, the way they spread, the factors that stress immune systems, long-term effects on wild populations, and methods of treatment and management.

A few declining reptiles have benefited enormously from advances in husbandry at zoos and aquariums and even by private individuals. Zoos and aquariums serve as refugia for threatened reptiles, allowing scientists to learn much about reptile biology as a prerequisite to the restoration of wild populations. Programs for giant tortoises, crocodilians, and some of the larger lizards, in particular, hold much promise. In addition, zoos and other organizations participate in the formation of "assurance colonies," where animals seized in illegal trade are rehabilitated and held until conservation plans can be developed for their ultimate return, if possible, to natural habitats. Asian turtles currently maintained in assurance colonies offer promise that these species can be saved from extinction.

Ultimately, reptiles and the ecosystems on which they depend can be conserved only via the partnership of research, management, and public support. In this regard, education helps build appreciation for the beauty and functional value of reptiles to ecosystems, whether they control mammal pests or serve as sentinels of environmental health. The public needs to be encouraged to leave reptiles in the wild, to avoid buying products made from declining species, to refrain from keeping as pets any animals caught in the wild, and to support habitat conservation both at home and in exotic lands of wide diversity. Finally, resource managers must rely on proven management techniques, rather than opting for quick-fix "solutions" to complex problems. All conservation efforts must have a solid biological foundation so that self-sustaining and viable populations of reptiles may persist.

New tools for conservation.

At the turn of the twenty-first century exciting methods rapidly were becoming available to assist in the conservation of reptiles, including research techniques that allow for greater knowledge of natural history requirements (such as telemetry and other tracking methods), molecular biology (which helps define populations and measure diversity and relatedness and is critical in the new field of forensic herpetology), landscape ecology (GIS technology, remote sensing and satellite imagery, all of which define large-scale distribution patterns and help scientists understand how land use affects reptiles), and new biometrical research, especially for taking inventory of communities, monitoring populations, and understanding population biology. The wealth of technological and theoretical advances makes reptile conservation a challenging and rewarding field of biology.

Resources

Books

Alberts, Allison, ed. West Indian Iguanas: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. 2nd edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC West Indian Iguana Specialist Group, 2000.

Bambaradeniya, Channa N. B., and Vidhisha N. Samarasekara, eds. An Overview of the Threatened Herpetofauna of South Asia. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IUCN Sri Lanka and Asia Regional Biodiversity Programme, 2001.

Bjorndal, Karen A., ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995.

Branch, W. R., ed. South African Red Data Book: Reptiles and Amphibians. Report no. 151. Pretoria: South African National Scientific Programmes, 1988.

Cogger, H. G., E. E. Cameron, R. A. Sadlier, and P. Eggler, eds. The Action Plan for Australian Reptiles. Endangered Species Unit, project number 124. Sydney: Australian Nature Conservation Agency, 1993.

Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.

Corbett, Keith. Conservation of European Reptiles and Amphibians. London: Christopher Helm, 1989.

Dodd, C. K., Jr., "Status, Conservation and Management." In Snakes: Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, edited by R. A. Seigel, J. P. Collins, and S. Novak. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987.

——. "Strategies for Snake Conservation." In Snakes: Ecology and Behavior, edited by R. A. Seigel and J. T. Collins. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1993.

Klemens, M. W., ed. Turtle Conservation. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000.

Langton, T., and J. A. Burton. Amphibians and Reptiles: Conservation Management of Species and Habitats. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing, 1998.

Newman, Don. Tuatara. Endangered New Zealand Wildlife Series. Dunedin: John McIndoe, 1987.

Ross, James Perran, ed. Crocodiles: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. 2nd edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, 1998.

Webb, G., S. Manolis, and P. Whitehead, eds. Wildlife Management: Crocodiles and Alligators. Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey Beatty & Sons, 1987.