Band-Aid or Extraction, What is the True Solution to Our Land Ethic

Woes?
Tricia Hawkins
Biology 1120
Section 402

In the article, The Land Ethic, we gain a deeper understanding of

the definition of Ethics that is provided. Ethics as defined in ecology is
a limitation of our freedom to act in relation to our struggle for
existence. Philosophically, ethics is the distinction of social and antisocial behavior. While there are two different definitions it draws us
back to one central idea; this idea draws it source from the way that
individual components interact and cooperate with one another.
Essentially, the principle and definition of ethics really provides
us with a pattern and system by which we can judge ecology, politics
and economics. Providing a better understanding into the usage and
development of social and anti-social principles; while providing that
understanding, ethics is drawing a connection from individuals to
society. Unfortunately, this level of understanding has not yet extended
to the association of man and land, including the animals and plants
that are associated with it. Currently, land still remains a type of
economic free for all and most humans maintain that it is their right or
freedom to own land, but not their commitment or responsibility to
care for it. Society has constructed that the breakdown and plundering
of our precious land is acceptable, while certain individuals and
minority groups have and continue to support the conservation of this
land. The land ethic is providing a deeper understanding of the
importance of including not only a community and its members but

also the land and all that it entails, in receiving the proper respect and
attention deserved.
As we look back in history we are able to see that land, soils,
waters, plants and animals, together or apart have truly thrived - with
the exception of the more recent treatment despite how human life
may have effected growth. This concept further proves and establishes
the need for improved conservation efforts and deeper appreciation for
each facet of our planet. Typically, it seems that our self-preservation
and protection of our own personal resources seems to win out in the
end; resulting in the lack of knowledge and resources to better specific
situations. Due to the visual economic benefit of many different plans,
the government and many communities seem to think that the
extermination of seemingly unnecessary components face annihilation.
My specific conservation philosophy would include a way to
protect the integrity, history and structural beauty of buildings and
structures. I believe that too often our resources are allocated to
building a new high rise and constructing a new cookie cutter
neighborhood when our resources could be used to better our current,
exiting communities and replenish the environment around us. I also
would need to include the protection and conservation of national
parks and the beauty that the earth has created, but also providing a
way for everyone to experience that beauty in a controlled manner; I
found this specific matter to be important because I have always been

so fascinated and appreciative of every opportunity to view the glory

and beauty provided in national parks, but it is sad to me that even
though we are given this spectacular opportunity, many people
squander it. Both of these principles put into practice the statement
that, A land ethic changes the role of humans from conqueror of the
land community to plain members and citizens of it. It implies respect
for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.
While most of us, as humans, see ourselves as masters of our
communities and dont appreciate and implement the basic necessity
to respect and conserve our surroundings we quickly depreciate the
history and integrity of the land. I would apply the principle that is
described in the quote by bringing specific structures to the attention
of the local historical societies, and requesting their assistance in truly
preserving and improving the original beauty of each structure. While I
realize this is not a cure all for each scenario, I would implement a
better process to ensure that every building is given a decent chance
of survival.
Unfortunately, while many would hope and probably have hoped
in the past that Leopolds words would ring true and effect someone for
the better, his statement that the land-relation is still strictly
economic, entailing privileges but not obligations has not seemed to
really change many perspectives of those with high economic
standing. The good news is, I believe that there are more people that

have jumped on the preservation and conservation bandwagons, and

this provides a firmer ground to continue to construct a better
community and environment. I have found that in my community, or
for sake of this example, that most of my neighbors follow the example
that Leopold illustrates when he is explaining the farmers in Wisconsin,
and the limitations that they would put on their willingness to help
themselves, but also in comparison the inclination of the members of
the community to do their due diligence. I live in the river bottoms in
South Jordan, and recently members of my neighborhood community
found a beaver wandering around in his former habitat (currently one
that is not looking quite as natural). He has been chopping down trees
in various yards and dragging them back to his beaver home, as per
the usual behavior of the animal. This stirred a bag of emotions and
opinions, resulting in the ultimate decision of many to call the local
animal control authorities to deal with the problem which
unfortunately meant that animal control found it necessary to
exterminate the animal, instead of the humane alternative of removing
it and placing it somewhere that it would not bother anyone. This is a
good example to me of the importance of Leopolds request to extend
their sensibilities to all members of the community; while most seemed
bugged by this particular scenario, there were alternatives that could
have maintained the land ethic and commitment we should have to
our surroundings and communities.

Leopold presents another idea that A thing is right when it tends

to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.
It is wrong when it tends otherwise. Now, I dont believe that he is
suggesting that certain aspects of the community are more important
than any other aspect; I believe that he is addressing his larger point to
this article that each person is responsible for providing and
contributing to a larger view and cause than just their personal
surroundings, and while we might not deem our efforts as largely
effective or necessary alone, we can have a larger influence as a whole
community, however many people that would include. Leopold
includes that many people need more incentive or drive to full accept
their role in the process of conservation or even just the process of life;
I agree that this would be the biggest difficulty in truly implementing
this concept of community involvement.
One of the most interesting aspects of this paper for me would
have to have been when Leopold said, It is inconceivable to me that
an ethical relationship [with land] can exist without love, respect,
admiration, and a high regard for its value. I can honestly say that I
have always regarded the two as similar if not the same stipulation for
motivation in regards to land and ethics. Now, I think the biggest thing
that would motivate me to really make a difference in my community
would be duty. I place higher regard in the necessity for change to truly
improve something, than I do for the necessity for change concerning

the need for something more beautiful. I believe that realizing the
beauty of our efforts is a payoff that cannot be replaced, but it is not
the reason behind why I would do something. I truly find that we will be
in a world of hurt if we do not start caring more about our personal
communities, and that in turn will assist a larger area of concern. While
many may find that the desire to improve personal surroundings is
primarily founded upon the need for prettier surroundings, money in
return for their efforts, etc., I find that I truly want to improve my
personal surroundings to improve and help the land do something that
takes more time for it to manage itself. I do not seek to just put a BandAid on a bullet wound; I seek to truly extract the option of using a gun.
While reading Leopolds words I found that my opinion was
influenced by his process of calling each and every one of us to
change. I felt that this article truly expressed Leopolds feelings and
desires to better not only the land at the time of his concern, but also
to better the thoughts and feelings of the community and land in the
future, in the now. I would completely recommend this article to
anyone who is seemingly questioning his or her role and necessity in
bettering the environment, and I would give it to anyone that really
needs a boost in personal identity. I think that The Land Ethic
addresses the basic need to find something that matters to you, to feel
like you are truly making a change for something, or someone for the
better. Our beautiful and worthy land deserves better than that. I

loved when Leopold addressed that each of us as citizens of the

United States professes to appreciate and enjoy this land that
provides opportunity and success, but in the end, each of us has taken
it for granted. I found that each of his basic points that he expanded
upon would draw a deeper meaning and reflection to what we have
already learned in chapter one, and that solidified my understanding of
our role, and how human activity cause extinction, genetic variation,
and population change. We influence the true preservation or rapid
extinction of this plant. Leopold has proven that our persistence and
passion can truly change the world, and it starts with my everyday
actions.