ASAND COUNTY

ALMANACWith Essays on Conservation from Round River

ALDO LEOPOLD

Illustrated by Charles W. Schwartz

A SIERRA CLUB/BALLANTINE BOOKAn Inte~t Publisher

GRATEFUL ACKNOWLEDGMENT is made tothe editors of the following magazines and journalswho have kindly allowed to be reprin~d in bookform portions or·· all of individual articles: AmericanForests, 'Marshland Elegy,' 'The Green Lagoons,' and'Flambeau'; Audubon Magazine, 'Odyssey'; BirdLore, 'Conservation Esthetic'; The Condor, 'TheThick Billed Parrot of Chihuahua'; Journal ofForestry, 'The Conservation Ethic'; Journal of Wild­life Management, 'Wildlife in American Culture' and'Song of the Gavilan'; The Land, 'Cheat Takes Over';Outdoor America, 'The Alder Fork'; Silent Wings,'On a Monument to the Pigeon'; Wisconsin Agricul­turist and Farmer, 'Bur Oak' and 'Sky Dance'; Wis­consin Conservation Bulletin, 'A Mighty Fortress,''Home Range,' and 'Pines above the Snow.' Thanksare also due to The Macmillan Company for per­mission to quote from 'Tristram,' copyright 1927 byEdward Arlington Robinson, on page 239.

Copyright© 1966 by Oxford University Press, Inc.A Sand County Almanac, Copyright 1949 by OxfordUniversity Press, Inc.Round River, Copyright 1953 by Oxford UniversityPress, Inc.Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 66-28871

SBN 345-02007-3-095This edition published by arrangement withThe Oxford University Press.

First Printing: September, 1970Cover photograph by Ray AtkesonPrinted in the United States of America

SIERRA CLUB1050 Mills TowerSan Francisco, Calif. 94104

BALLANTINE BOOKS, INC.101 Fifth Avenue, New, N.Y. 10003

The Land Ethic

WHEN GOD-LIKE Odysseus returned from thewars in Troy, he hanged all on one rope a dozenslave-girls of his household whom he suspected ofmisbehavior during his absence.

This hanging involved no question of propriety.The girls were property. The disposal of propertywas then, as now, a matter of expediency, not ofright and wrong.

Concepts of right and wrong were not lacking fromOdysseus' Greece: witness the fidelity of his wifethrough the long years before at last his black­prowed galleys clove the wine-dark seas for home.The ethical structure of that day covered wives, buthad not yet been extended to human chattels. Duringthe three thousand years which have since elapsed,ethical criteria have been extended to many fields ofconduct, with corresponding shrinkages in thosejudged by expediency only.

237

The Upshot

The Ethical Sequence

This extension of ethics, so far studied only byphilosophers, is actually a process in ecological evolu­tion. Its sequences may be described in ecological aswell as in philosophical terms. An ethic, ecolOgically,is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle forexistence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentia­tion of social from anti-social conduct. These are twodefinitions of one thing. The thing has its origin inthe tendency of interdependent individuals or groupsto evolve modes of co-operation. The ecologist callsthese symbioses. Politics and economics are advancedsymbioses in which the original free-for-all competi­tion has been replaced, in part, by co-operativemechanisms with an ethical content.

The complexity of co-operative mechanisms hasincreased with population density, and with the effi­ciency of tools. It was simpler, for example, to definethe anti-social uses of sticks and stones in the daysof the mastodons than of bullets and billboards in theage of motors.

The first ethics dealt with the relation betweenindividuals; the Mosaic Decalogue is an example.Later accretions dealt with the relation between theindividual and society. The Golden Rule tries to inte­grate the individual to society; democracy to integratesocial organization to the individual.

There is as yet no ethic dealing with man's rela­tion to land and to the animals and plants whichgrow upon it. Land, like Odysseus' slave-girls, is stillproperty. The land-relation is still strictly economic,entailing privileges but not obligations. .

The Land Ethic l39 .

The extension of ethics to this third element inhuman environment is, if I read the evidence correctly,an evolutionary possibility and an ecological neces­sity. It is the third step in a sequence. The first twohave already been taken. Individual thinkers sincethe days of Ezekiel and Isaiah have asserted thatthe despoliation of land is not only inexpedient butwrong. Society, however, has not yet affirmed theirbelief. I regard the present conservation movementas the embryo of such an affirmation.

An ethic may be regarded as a mode of guidancefor meeting ecological situations so new or intricate,or involving such deferred reactions, that the pathof social expediency is not discernible to the averageindividual. Animal instincts are modes of guidance for .the individual in meeting such situations. Ethics arepossibly a kind of community instinct in-the-making.

The Community Concept

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise:that the individual is a member of a community ofinterdependent parts. His instincts prompt him tocompete for his place in the community, but hisethics prompt him also to co-operate (perhaps in orderthat there may be a place to compete for).

The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries ofthe community to include soils, waters, plants, andanimals, or collectively: the land.

This sounds simple: do we not already sing our lovefor and obligation to the land of the free and the homeof the brave? Yes, but just what and whom do we

240 The Upshot

love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sendinghelter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the waters,which we assume have no function except to tum tur­bines, Hoat barges, and carry off sewage. Certainlynot the plants, of which we exterminate whole com­munities without batting an eye. Certainly not theanimals, of which we have already extirpated manyof the largest and most beautiful species. A landethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, man­agement, and use of these 'resources,' but it doesaffirm their right to continued existence, and, atleast in spots, their continued existence in a naturalstate.

In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homosapiens from conqueror of the land-eommunity to plainmember and citizen of it. It implies respect for hisfellow-members, and also respect for the communityas such.

In human history, we have learned (I hope) thatthe conqueror role is eventually self-defeating. Why?Because it is implicit in such a role that the conquerorknows, ex cathedra, just what makes the communityclock tick, and just what and who is valuable, andwhat and who is worthless, in community life. It al­ways turns out that he knows neither, and this is whyhis conquests eventually defeat themselves.

In the biotic community, a parallel situation exists..Abraham knew exactly what the land was for: it wasto drip milk and honey into Abraham's mouth. Atthe present moment, the assurance with which we re­gard this assumption is inverse to the degree of oureducation.

The ordinary citizen today assumes that science

The Land Ethic

knows what makes the community clock tick; thescientist is equally sure that he does not. He knowsthat the biotic mechanism is so complex that itsworkings may never be fully understood.

That man is, in fact, only a member of a bioticteam is shown by an ecological interpretation of his­tory. Many historical events, hitherto explained solelyin terms of human enterprise, were actually bioticinteractions between people and land. The charac­teristics of the land determined the facts quite aspotently as the characteristics of the men who livedon it.

Consider, for example, the settlement of the Mis­sissippi valley. In the years following the Revolution,three groups were contending for its control: thenative Indian, the French and English traders, andthe American settlers. Historians wonder what wouldhave happened if the English at Detroit had throwna little more weight into the Indian side of thosetipsy scales which decided the outcome of the colonialmigration into the cane-lands of Kentucky. It is timenow to ponder the fact that the' cane-lands, when sub­jected to the particular mixture of forces representedby the cow, plow, fire, and axe of the pioneer, be­came bluegrass. What if the plant succession inherentin this dark and bloody ground had, under the im­pact of these forces, given us some worthless sedge,shrub, or weed? Would Boone and Kenton have heldout? Would there have been any overflow into Ohio,Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri? Any Louisiana Pur­chase? Any transcontinental union of new states?Any Civil War?

Kentucky was one sentence in the drama of history.

2.42. The Upshot

We are commonly told what the human actors inthis drama tried to do, but we are seldom told thattheir success, or the lack of it, hung in large degreeon the reaction of particular soils to the impact ofthe particular forces exerted by their occupancy. Inthe· case of Kentucky, we do not even know wherethe bluegrass came from-whether it is a native spe­cies, or a stowaway from Europe.

Contrast the cane-lands with what hindsight tellsus about the Southwest, where the pioneers wereequally brave, resourceful, and persevering. The im­pact of occupancy here brought no bluegrass, or otherplant fitted to withstand the bumps and buffetingsof· hard use. This region, when grazed by livestock,reverted through a series of more and more worthlessgrasses, shrubs, and weeds to a condition of unstableequilibrium. Each recession of plant types bred ero­sion; each increment to erosion bred a further reces­sion of plants. The result today is a progressive andmutual deterioration, not only of plants and soils,but of the animal community subsisting thereon. Theearly settlers did not expect this: on the cienegasof New Mexico some even cut ditches to hasten it. Sosubtle has been its progress that few residents of theregion are aware of it. It is quite invisible to the tour­ist who finds this wrecked landscape colorful andcharming (as indeed it is, but it bears scant resem­blance to what it was in 1848).

This same landscape was 'developed' once before,but with quite different results.·The Puehlo Indianssettled the Southwest in pre-Columbian times, butthey happened not to be equipped with range live-

The Land Ethic 243

stock. Their civilization expired, but not becausetheir land expired.

In India, regions devoid of any sod-forming grasshave been setded, apparendy without wrecking theland, by the simple expedient of carrying the grassto the cow, rather than vice versa. (Was this theresult of some deep wisdom, or was it just good luck?I do not know.)

In short, the plant succession steered the course ofhistory; the pioneer simply demonstrated, for goodor ill, what successions inhered in the land. Is historytaught in this spirit? It will be, once the concept ofland as a community really penetrates our intellectuallife.

The Ecological Conscience

Conservation is a state of harmony between men andland. Despite nearly a century of propaganda, con­servation still proceeds at a snail's pace; progress stillconsists largely of letterhead pieties and conventionoratory. On the back forty we still slip two stepsbackward for each forward stride.

The usual answer to this dilemma is 'more con­servation education.' No one will debate this, but isit certain that only the volume of education needsstepping up? Is something lacking in the contentas well?

It is difficult to give a· fair· summary of its contentin brief form, but, as I understand it, the content issubstantially this: obey the law, vote right, join someorganizations, and practice what conservation is prof-

2.44 The Upshot

itable on your own land; the government will dothe rest.

Is not this formula too easy to accomplish anythingworth-while? It defines no right or wrong, assigns noobligation, calls for no sacrifice, implies no changein the current philosophy of values. In respect of land­use, it urges only enlightened self-interest. Just howfar will such education take us? An example willperhaps yield a partial answer.

By 1930 it had become clear to all except theecologically blind that southwestern Wisconsin's tqp­soil was slipping seaward. In 1933 the farmers weretold that if they would adopt certain remedial prac­tices for five years, the public would donate CCClabor to install them, plus the necessary machinery:md materials. The offer was widely accepted, butthe practices were widely forgotten when the five­year contract period was up. The farmers continuedonly those practices that yielded an immediate- andvisible economic gain for themselves.

This led to the idea that maybe farmers wouldlearn more qUickly if they themselves wrote the rules.Accordingly the WisconsinLegislature in :1937 passedthe Soil Conservation District Law. This said to farm­c::rs, in effect: We, the public, will furnish you freetechnical service and loan you specialized machinery,if you will write your own rules for land-use. Eachcounty may write its own rules, and these will havethe force of law. Nearly all the counties promptlyorganized to accept the proffered help, but after adecade of operation, no county has yet written asingle rule. There has been visible progress in suchpractices as strip-cropping, pasture renovation, and

The Land Ethic

soil liming, but none in fencing woodlots againstgrazing, and none in excluding plow and cow fromsteep slopes. The farmers, in short, have selectedthose remedial practices which were profitable any­how, and ignored those which were profitable to thecommunity, but not clearly profitable to themselves.

When one asks why no rules have been written,one is told that the community is not yet ready tosupport them; education must precede rules. Butthe education actually in progress makes no mentionof obligations to land over and above those dictatedby self-interest. The net result is that we have moreeducation but less soil, fewer healthy woods, and asmany floods as in 1937.

The puzzling aspect of such situations is that theexistence of obligations over and above self-interest istaken for granted in such rural community enterprisesas the betterment of roads, schools, churches, and base­ball team~. l'heir existence is not taken for granted,nor as yet seriously discussed, in bettering the behaviorof the water that falls on the land, or in the preservingof the beaJlty or diversity of the farm landscape.Land-use ethics are still governed wholly by economicself-interest, just as social ethics were a century ago.

To sum up:. we asked the farmer to do what heconveniently· could to save his soil, and he has donejust that, and only that. The farmer who clears thewoods off a 75 per cent slope, turns his cows into theclearing, and dumps its rainfall, rocks, and soil intothe community creek, is still (if otherwise decent) arespected member of society. If he puts lime on h~

fields and plants his crops on contour, he is still

~ ~U~t 1

entided to all the privileges and emoluments of his :Soil Conservation District. The District is a beautifulpiece of social machinery, but it is coughing along on .two cylinders because we have been too timid, andtoo anxious for qUick success, to tell the farmer thetrue magnitude of his obligations. Obligations haveno meaning without conscience, and the problem weface is the extension of the social conscience frompeople to land..

No important change in ethics was ever accom­plished without an internal change in our intellectualemphasis, loyalties, affections,and convictions. Theproof that conservation has not yet touched thesefoundations of conduct lies in the fact that philosophyand religion have not yet heard of it. In our attemptto make conservation easy, we have made it trivial.

Substitutes for a Land Ethic

When the logjc of history hungers for bread and wehand out a stone, .we are at pains to explain howmuch the stone resembles bread.· I now describe someof the stones which serve in lieu of a land ethic.

One basic weakness in a conservation system basedwholly on economic motives is that most members ofthe land community have no economic value. Wild­Howers and songbirds are examples. Of the 22,000higher plants and animals native to Wisconsin, it isdoubtful whether more than 5 per cent can be sold,fed, eaten, or otherwise put to economic use. Yetthese creatures are members of the biotic community,

The Land Ethic 247

and if (as I believe) its stability depends on its in~­rity, they are entitled to continuance.

When one of these non-economic categories isthreatened, and if we happen to love it, we inventsubterfuges to give· it economic importance. At the be­ginning of the century songbirds were supposed tobe disappearing. Ornithologists jumped to the rescuewith some distinctly shaky evidence to the effect thatinsects would eat us up if birds failed to control them.The evidence had to be economic in order to be· valid.

It is painful to read these circumlocutions today.We have no land ethic yet, but we have at leastdrawn nearer the point of admitting that birds shouldcontinue as a matter of biotic right, regardless of thepresence or absence of economic advantage to us.

A parallel situation exists in respect of predatorymammals, raptorial birds, and fish-eating birds. Timewas when biologists somewhat overworked the evi­dence that these creatures preserve the health of gameby killing weaklings, or that they control rodents forthe farmer, or that they prey only on 'worthless'species. Here again, the evidence had to be economicin order to be valid. It is only in recent years that wehear the more honest argument that predators aremembers of the community, and that no special in­terest has the right to exterminate them for the sakeof a benefit, real or fancied, to itself. Unfortunatelythis enlightened view is still in the talk stage. In thefield the extermination of predators goes merrily on:witness the impending erasure of the timber wolf byfiat of Congress, the Conservation Bureaus, and manystate legislatures.

Some species of trees have been 'read out of the

The Upshot

The Land Ethic 249

party' by economics-minded foresters because theygrow too slowly, or have too Iowa sale value to payas timber crops: white cedar, tamarack, cypress, beech,and hemlock are examples. In Europe, where forestryis ecologically more advanced, the non-eommercialtree species are recognized as members of the nativeforest community, to be preserved as such, withinreason. Moreover some (like beech) have been foundto have a valuable function in building up soil fertil­ity. The interdependence of the forest and its con­stituent tree species, ground Hora, and fauna istaken for granted.

Lack of economic value is sometimes a characternot only of species or groups, but of entire bioticcommunities: marshes, bogs, dunes, and 'deserts' areexamples. Our formula in such cases is to relegatetheir conservation to government as refuges, monu­ments, or parks. The difficulty is that these communi­ties are usually interspersed with more valuable pri­vate lands; the government cannot possibly own orcontrol such scattered parcels. The net effect is· thatwe have relegated some of them to ultimate extinc­tion over large areas. If the private owner wereecolOgically minded, he would be proud to be thecustodian of a reasonable proportion of such areas,which add diversity and beauty to his farm and to hiscommunity.

In some instances, the assumed lack of profit. inthese 'waste' areas has proved to be wrong, but onlyafter most of them had been done away with. Thepresent scramble to re800d muskrat marshes is a casein point.

There is a clear tendency in American conservation

2.;0 The Upshot

to relegate. to govemment all necessary jobs that pri­vate landowners fail to perfonn. Govemment owner­ship, operation, subsidy, or regulation is now widelypreval~nt in forestry, range management, soil andwatershed management, park and wildem~s conser­vation, fisheries management, and migratory bird

)management, with more to come. Most of this growthin goyemmental conservation is proper and logical,some of it is inevitable. That I imply no disapprovalof it is implicit in the fact that I have spent most ofmy life working for it. Nevertheless the questionarises: What is the ultimate magnitude of the enter­prise? Will the tax base carry its eventual ramifica­tions? At what point will govemmental conservation,like the mastodon, become handicapped by its owndimensions? The answer, if there is any; seems to bein a hind ethic, or some other· force which assignsmore obligation to the private landowner.

Industrial landowners and users, especially lumber­men and stockmen, are inclined to wail long andloudly about the extension of govemment ownership~d regulation to land, but (with notable exceptions)they show little disposition to develop the only visiblealtemative: the voluntary practice of conservationon theirown lands.

When the private landowner is asked to perfonnsome unprofitable act for the good of the community,he today assents only with outstretched palm. If theact costs him cash this is fair and proper, but when itcosts only fore-thought, open-mindedness, or time, theissue is at least debatable.. The overwhelming growthof.land-use subsidies in recent years must be ascribed,in large part, to the govemment's own agencies for

The Land Ethic 2)I

conservation education: the land bureaus, the agricul~

tural colleges, and the extension services. As far as Ican detect, no ethical obligation toward land is taughtin these institutions.

To sum up: a system of conservation based solelyon economic self~interest is hopelessly lopsided. Ittends to ignore, and thus eventually to eliminate,many elements in the land community that lack com~

mercial value, but that are Cas far as we know) essen­tial to its healthy functioning. It assumes, falsely, Ithink, that the economic parts of the biotic clock willfunction without the uneconomic parts. It tends torelegate to government many functions eventually toolarge, too complex, or too widely dispersed to beperformed by government.

An ethical obligation on the part of the privateowner is the only visible remedy for these situations.

The Land Pyramid

An ethic to supplement and guide the economic rela­tion to land presupposes the existence of some men­tal image of land as a biotic mechanism. We can beethical only in relation to something we can see, feel,understand, love, or otherwise have faith in.

The image commonly employed in conservationeducation is 'the balance of nature.' For. reasons toolengthy to detail here, this figure of speech fails todescribe accurately what little we know about th~

land mechanism. A much truer image is the one em­ployed in ecology: the biotic pyramid. I shall first

25'2 The Upshot

sketch the pyramid as a symbol of land, and laterdevelop some of its implications in terms of land-use. I

Plants absorb energy from the .sun. This energyHows through a circuit called the biota, which maybe represented by a pyramid consisting of layers.The bottom layer is the soil. A plant layer rests onthe soil, an insect layer on the plants, a bird androdent layer on the insects, and so on up throughvarious animal groups to the apeJ( layer, which con­sists of the larger carnivores.

The species of a layer are alike not in where theycame from, or in what they look like, but rather inwhat they eat. Each successive layer depends onthose below it for food and often for other services,and each in tum furnishes food and services 'to thoseabove, Proceeding upward, each successive layer de­creases in numerical abundance. Thus, for every carni­vore there are hundreds of his prey, thousands oftheir prey, millions of insects, uncountable plants.The pyramidal form of the system reHects this nu­merical progression from apex to base. Man sharesan intermediate layer with the bears, raccoons, andsquirrels which eat both me;1t and vegetables. .

The lines of dependency for food and other servicesare called food chains. Thus soil-oak-deer-Indian is achain that has now been largely converted to soil­corn-eow-farmer. Each species, including ourselves,is a link in many chains. The deer eats a hun­dred plants other than oak, and the cow a hundredplants other than com. Both, then, are links in ahundred chains. The pyramid is a tangle of chains socomplex as to seem disorderly, yet the stability of thesystem proves it to be a highly organized structure.

The Land Ethic 1.5'3

Its functioning depends on the co-operation and com­petition of its diverse parts. .

In the beginning, the pyramid of life was low andsquat; the food chains short and simple. Evolutionhas added layer after layer, link after link. Man isone of thousands of accretions· to the height and com­plexity of the pyramid. Science has given us manydoubts, but it has given us at least one certainty: thetrend of evolution is to elaborate and diversify thebiota.

Land, then, is not merely soil; it is a fountain ofenergy Rowing through a circuit of soils, plants, andanimals. Food chains are the living channels whichconduct energy upward; death and decay return it tothe soil. The circuit is not closed; some energy isdissipated in decay, some is added by absorptionfrom the air, some is stored in soils, peats, and long­lived forests; but it is a sustained circuit, like a slowlyaugmented revolving fund of life. There is alwaysa net loss by downhill wash, but this is normally smalland offset by the decay of rocks. It is deposited inthe ocean and, in the course of geological time, raisedto form new lands and new pyramids.

The velocity and character of the upward Row ofenergy depend on the complex structure of the plantand animal community, much as the upward Row ofsap in a tree depends on its complex cellular organiza­tion. Without this complexity, normal circulationwould presumably not occur. Structure means thecharacteristic numbers, as well as the characteristickinds and functions, of the component species. Thisinterdependence between the complex structure of

2.54 The Upshot

the land and its smooth functioning as an energy unitis one of its basic attributes.

When a change occurs in one part of the circuit,many other parts must adjust themselves to it. Changedoes not necessarily obstruct or divert the How ofenergy; evolution is a long series of self-inducedchanges, the net result of which has been to elaboratethe How mechanism and to lengthen the circuit.Evolutionary changes, however, are usually slow andlocal. Man's invention of tools has enabled him tomake changes of unprecedented violence, rapidity,and scope.

One change is in the composition of Horas andfaunas. The larger predators are lopped off the apexof the pyramid; food chains, for the 6rst time in his·tory, become shorter rather than longer. Domesti­cated species from other lands are substituted for wildones, and wild ones are moved to new habitats. Inthis world-wide pooling of faunas and Horas, somespecies get out of bounds as pests and diseases, othersare extinguished. Such effects are seldom intended orforeseen; they represent unpredieted and often un­traceable readjustments mthe structure. Agriculturalscience is largely a race between the emergence ofnew pests and the emergence of new techniques fortheir control.

Another change touches the How of energy throughplants and animals and its return to the soil. Fertilityis the ability of soil to receive, store, and release en­ergy. Agriculture, by overdrafts on the soil, or by tooradical a substitution of domestic for native speciesin the superstructure, may derange the channels ofHow or deplete storage. Soils depleted of their storage,

The Land Ethic 2;;or of the organic matter which anchors it, wash awayfaster than they fonn. This is erosion.

Waters, like soil, are part of the energy circuit.Industry, by polluting waters or obstructing themwith dams, may exclude" the plants and animals nec­essary to keep energy in circulation.

Transportation brings about another basic change:the plants or animals grown in one region are noWconsumed and returned to the soil in another. Trans­portation taps the energy stored in rocks, and in theair, and uses it elsewhere; thus we fertilize the gar­den with nitrogen gleaned by the guano birds fromthe fishes of seas on the other side of the Equator.Thus the fonnerly localized and self-contained cir­cuits are pooled on a world-wide scale.

The process of altering the pyramid for humanoccupation releases stored energy, and this often givesrise, during the pioneering period, toa deceptive ex­uberance of plant and animal life, both wild andtame. These releases of biotic capital tend to becloudor postpone the penalties of violence.

This thumbnail sketch of land as an energy circuitconveys three basic ideas:

(1) That land is not merely soil.(2) That the native plants and animals kept the

energy circuit open;' others mayor may not.(3) That man-made changes are of a different or­

der than evolutionary changes, and have effects morecomprehensive than is intended or foreseen.

These ideas, collectively, raise two basic issues,:Can the land adjust itself to the new order? Can the

The Upshot

alterations he accomplished with less via-

2;6

desiredlence?

Biotas seem to differ in their capacity to sustainviolent conversion. Western Europe, for example,carries a far different pyramid than Caesar foundthere. Some large animals are lost; swampy forestshave become meadows or plowland; many new plantsand animals are introduced, some of which escape aspests; the remaining natives are greatly changed indistribution and abundance. Yet the soil is still thereand, with the help of imported nutrients, still fertile;the waters flow normally; the new structure seems tofunction and to persist. There is no visible stoppageor derangement of the circuit.

Western Europe, then, has a resistant biota. Itsinner processes are tough, elastic, resistant to strain.No matter how violent the alterations, the pyramid,so far, has developed some new modus vivendi whichpreserves its habitability for man, and for most ofthe other natives.

Japan seems to present another instance of radicalconversion without disorganization.

Most other civilized regions, and some as yet barelytouched by civilization, display various stages of dis­organization,varying from initial symptoms to ad­vanced wastage. In Asia Minot and North Africadiagnosis is confused by climatic changes, which mayhave heen either the cause or the effect of advancedwastage. In the United States the degree of disorgani­zation varies locally; it is worst in the Southwest, theOzarks, and parts of the South, and least in NewEngland and the Northwest. Better land-uses may stillarrest it in the less advanced regions. In parts of

The Lana Ethic 257

Mexico, South America, South· Africa, and Australiaa violent and accelerating wastage is in progress, hutI cannot assess the prospects.

This almost world-wide display of disorganizationin the land seems to be similar to disease in an animal,except that it never culminates in complete disorgani­zation or death. The land recovers, but at some re­duced level of complexity, and with a reduced carry­ing capacity for people, plants, and animals. Manybiotas currendy regarded as 'lands of opportunity'are in fact already subsisting on explOitative agricul­ture, i.e. they have already exceeded their sustainedcarrying capacity. Most of South America is over­populated in this sense.

In arid regions we attempt to offset the process ofwastage by reclamation, hut it is only too evident thatthe prospective longevity of reclamation projects isoften short. In our own West, the best of them maynot last a century.

The combined evidence of history and ecologyseems to support one general deduction: the less vio­lent the man-made changes, the greater the probabilityof successful readjustment in the pyramid. Violence,in turn, varies with human population density; adense population requires a more violent conversion.In this respect, North America has a better chancefor permanence than Europe, if she can contrive tolimit her density.

This deduction runs counter to our current philoso­phy, which assumes that because a small increase indensity enriched human life, that· an indefinite in..;crease will enrich it indefinitely. Ecology knows. ofno density relationship that holds for indefinitely

:l.;8 The Upshot

Wide limits. All gains from density are subject to alaw of diminishing returns.

Whatever may be the equation for men and land,it is improbable that we as yet know all its terms. Re­cent discoveries in mineral and vita'l1in nutritionreveal unsuspected dependencies in the up-eircuit:incredibly minute quantities of certain substances de­termine the value of soils to plants, of plants to ani­mals. What of the down-eircuit? What of the vanish­ing species, the preservation of which we now regardas an esthetic luxury? They helped build the soil; inwhat unsuspected ways may they be essential to itsmaintenance? Professor Weaver proposes that we useprairie flowers to reflocculate the wasting soils of thedust bowl; who knows for what purpose cranes andcondors, otters and grizzlies may some day be used?

Land Health and the A-B Cleavage

A land, ethic, then, reflects the existence of an ecologi­cal conscience, and this in tum reflects a conviction ofindividual responsibility for the health of the land.Health is the capacity of the land for self-renewal.Conservation is our effort to understand and preservethis capacity.

Conservationists are notorious for their dissensions.Superficially these seem to add up to mere confu­sion, but a more careful scrutiny reveals a single planeof cleavage common to many specialized fields. Ineach field one group (A) regards the land as soil,and its function as commodity-production; anothergroup (B) regards the land as a biota, and its function

The Land Ethic 2.59

as something broader. How much broader is ad­mittedly in a state of doubt and confusion.

In my own field, forestry, group A is quite contentto grow trees like cabbages, with cellulose as the basicforest commodity. It feels no inhibition against vio­lence; its ideology is agronomic. Group B, on theother hand, sees forestry as fundamentally differentfrom agronomy because it employs natural species,and manages a natural environment rather thancreat­ing an artificial one. Group B prefers natural repro­duction on principle. It worries on biotic as well aseconomic grounds about the loss of species like chest­nut, and the threatened loss of the white pines. Itworries about a whole series of secondary forest func­tions: wildlife, recreation, watersheds, wilderness areas.To my mind, Group B feels the stirrings of an ecologi­cal conscience.

In the wildlife field, a parallel cleavage exists. ForGroup A the basic commodities are sport and meat;the yardsticks of production are ciphers of take inpheasants and trout~ Artificial propagation is accept­able as a permanent as well as a temporary recourse­if its unit costs permit. Group B, on the other hand,worries about a whole series of biotic side-issues. Whatis the cost in predators of produci~g a game crop?Should we have further recourse to exotics? How canmanagement restore the shrinking species, like prairiegrouse, already hopeless as shootable game? How canmanagement restore the threatened rarities, like trum­peter swan and whooping crane? Can managementprinciples he extended to wildflowers? Here again itis clear to me that we have the same AB cleavage asin forestry.

260 The Upshot

In the larger field of agriculture I am less compe­tent to speak, but there seem to be somewhat parallelcleavages. Scientific agriculture was actively develop­ing before ecology was born, hence a slower penetra­tion of ecological concepts might be expected. More­over the farmer, by the very nature of his techniques,must modify the biota more radically than the for­ester or the wildlife manager. Nevertheless, there aremany discontents in agriculture which seem to addup to a new vision of 'biotic farming.'

Perhaps the most important of these is the new evi­dence that poundage or tonnage is no measure of thefood-value of farm crops; the products of fertile soilmaybe qualitatively as well as quantitatively superior.We can bolster poundage from depleted soils by pour­ing on imported fertility, but we are not necessarilybolstering food-value. The possible ultimate ramifi­cations of this idea are so immense that I must leavetheir exposition to abler pens.

The discontent that labels itself 'organic farming,'while bearing some of the earmarks of a cult, isnevertheless biotic in its direction, particularly in itsinsistence on the importance of soil Hora and fauna.

The ecologi<;al fundamentals of agriculture are justas poorly known to the public as in other fields ofland-use. For example, few educated people realizethat the marvelous advances in technique made duringrecent decades are improvements in the pump, ratherthan the well. Acre for acre, they have barely sufficedto offset the sinking level of fertility.

In all of these cleavages, we see repeated the samebasic paradoxes: man the conqueror versus man thebiotic citizen; science the sharpener of his sword versus

..

The Land Ethic

science the searchlight on his universe; land the slaveand servant versus land the collective organism. Rob­inson's injunction to Tristram may well be applied,at this juncture, to Homo sapiens as a species ingeological time: .

Whether you will or notYou are a King, Tristram, for you are oneOf the time-tested few that leave the world,When they are gone, not the same place it was.Mark what you leave.

The Outlook

It is inconceivable to me that an ethical relation toland can exist without love, respect, and admirationfor land, and a high regard for its value. By value, Iof course men something far broader than mere ecxrnomic value; I mean value in the philosophical sense.

Perhaps the most serious obstacl~ impeding theevolution of a land ethic is the fact that our educa­tional and economic system is headed away from,rather than toward, an intense consciousness of land.Your true modem is separated from the land by manymiddlemen, and by innumerable physical gadgets.He has no vital relation to it; to him it is the spacebetween cities on which crops grow. Tum him loosefor a day on the land, and if the spot does not hap­pen to be a golf links or a 'scenic' area, he is boredstiff. If crops could be' raised by hydroponics in­stead of farming, it would suit him very well. Syn­thetic substitutes for wood, leather, wool, and other

2.62. The Upshot

natural land products suit him better than the origi­nals. In short, land is something he has 'outgrown.'

Almost equally serious as an obstacle to a land ethicis the attitude of the farmer for whom the land isstill an adversary, or a taskmaster that keeps him inslavery. Theoretically, the mechanization of farmingought to cut the farmer's chains, but whether it reallydoes is debatable.

One of the requisites for an ecological comprehen­sion of land is an understanding of ecology, and thisis by no means co-extensive with 'education'; in fact,much higher education seems deliberately to avoidecological concepts. An understanding of ecologydoes not necessarily originate in courses bearing ecologi­cal labels; it is quite as likely to be labeled geog­raphy, botany, agronomy, history, or economics. Thisis as it should be, but whatever the label, ecologicaltraining is scarce.

The case for a land ethic would appear hopelessbut for the minority which is in obvious revoltagainst these 'modem' trends.

The 'key-log' which must be moved to release theevolutionary process for an ethic is Simply this: quitthinking about decent land-use as solely an economicproblem. Examine each question in terms of what isethically and esthetically right, as well as what is eco­nomically expedient. A thing is right when it tendsto preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of thebiotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

It of course goes without saying that economicfeasibility limits the tether of what can or cannot bedone for land. It always has and it always will. Thefallacy the economic determinists have .tied around

The Land Ethic 263

our collective n~ck, and which we now need to castoff, is the belief that economics determines all land­use. This is simply not true. An innumerable host ofactions and attitudes, comprising perhaps the bulk ofall land relations, is determined by the land-users'tastes and predilections, rather than by his purse.The bulk of all land relations hinges on investmentsof time, forethought, skill, and faith rather than oninvestments of cash. As a land-user thinketh, so is he.

I have purposely presented the land ethic as aproduct of ,social evolution because nothing so im­portant as an ethic is ever 'written.' Only the mostsuperficial student of history supposes that Moses'wrote' the Decalogue; it evolved in the minds of athinking community, and Moses wrote a tentative sum­mary of it for a 'seminar.' I say tentative becauseevolution never stops.

The evolution of a land ethic is an intellectual aswell as emotional process. Conservation is paved withgood intentions which prove to be futile, or evendangerous, because they are devoid of critical under­standing either of the land, or of economic land-use.I think it is a truism that as the ethical frontier ad­vances from the individual to the community, its in­tellectual content increases.

The mechanism of operation is the same for anyethic: social approbation for right actions: social dis­approval for wrong actions.

By and large, our present problem is one of atti­tudes and implements. We are remodeling the Al­hambra with a steam-shovel, and we are proud ofour yardage. We shall hardly relinquish the shovel,which after all has many good points, but we are in

2.64 The Upshot

need of gentler and more objective criteria for itssuccessful use.

Wilderness

WILDERNESS IS the raw material out of whichman has hammered the artifact called civilization.

Wilderness was never a homogeneous raw ma­terial. It was very diverse, and the resulting artifactsare very diverse. These differences in the end-productare known as cultures. The rich diversity of the world'scultures reflects a corresponding diversity in thewilds that gave them birth.

For the first time in the history of the humanspecies, two changes are now impending. One is theexhaustion of wilderness in the more habitable por~

tions of the globe. The other is the world-wide hy­bridization of cultures through modem transport andindustrialization. Neither can be prevented, and per­haps should not be, but the question arises whether,by some slight amelioration of the impending changes,certain v~lues can be preserved that would otherwisebe lost.

To the laborer in the sweat of his labor, the rawstuff on his anvil is an adversary to be conquered. Sowas wilderness an adversary to the pioneer.

But to the laborer in repose, able for the momentto cast a philosophical eye on his world, that same

ALDO LEOPOLD was born in Burlington, Iowa, in1887. Educated at the Lawrenceville School and YaleUniversity, he joined the United States Forest Serv­ice in 1909 as a Forest Assistant in New Mexico andArizona. One of the founders of the WildernessSociety, he initiated, in 1924, the first Forest Wilder­ness Area in the United States which is now the GilaNational Forest. Moving to Madison, Wisconsin, hewas Associate Director of the Forest Products Labo­ratory, as well as consulting forester to several states.Mr. Leopold founded the profession of game man­agement and wrote the first important book on thissubject. In 1933, the University of Wisconsin createda chair of game management for him. He died in1948, while fighting a brush fire on a neighbor's farm.His death cut short an assignment as an adviser onconservation to the United Nations, and left thisbook as the last statement of his uncompromisingphilosophy.