Environmental Crisis and the Wildlife Ecologist

Abstract

issue of man's survival in the face of his own reproductive rate and his accelerating technological impact on resources has suddenly received nationwide attention and concern. At the joint meetings of the California-Nevada Sections of Wildlife Society and the American Fisheries Society held in Fresno, California, on 30 and 31 January 1970, these closely interrelated problems were discussed by several speakers. In the preceding executive council meeting and in small informal groups, the same theme often formed the central topic. With a strong sense of concern, the professional wildlife ecologists were asking each other and themselves what they should do now. rise in public concern has been so sudden that most are unprepared for it. In the council meeting of Wildlife Society and elsewhere, it was stated that the present environmental concern was near-hysteria and no fanning. implication was clear that some cooling of ardor would be desirable. Wildlife ecologists could best serve by maintaining cool scientific objectivity and by supplying the public with facts. Action should be left up to the public. In the council meeting of Wildlife Society, a proposal was made for the section to take a stand on a resources issue that has considerable political significance in California. by-laws of the section require that such a proposal be presented to the members some time in advance of a vote. In this instance, if cleared by the executive council, it could be presented only as a point of information. A motion to do so was not seconded. It was finally agreed by the executive council that they should meet sometime in the next 4 months to consider it further. Part of the rationale used in preventing its presentation was that democratic processes do not apply to scientific decisions where one person may be right and many wrong. My impression was that the council members would decide what was right. A further argument was that this proposal could cause dissension in the membership. This don't rock the attitude was again expressed in his keynote address by G. Ray Arnett, the new Director of the California Department of Fish and Game. He also used the argument that in scientific decisions concerning resource questions, one might be right and many wrong, so that democratic processes do not apply. This argument applies no more to science than to politics. He clearly warned his and other government employees against publicly voicing their ideas for change in the ways their departments operate on issues of public concern. He did say that they should work within their departments for needed change as they see fit. In a recent letter (27 February 1970), he comments, We certainly need to make most effective uses of the recent groundswell of public concern over the environment if any real gains are to be made. And he says further, I think my attitude really is that the boat rocking should come from the public and that it should be kept to the level that will prevent capsizing the boat so that we all (don't) drown or waste our energies in a long and fruitless swim. Dr. A. Starker Leopold of the University of California at Berkeley took an intermediate position. He agreed that not only should the Wildlife Society members accept and act their natural role as leaders in the cause of environmental conservation they should get tough... and capitalize on the political advantage . they now have. However, he also stated that the role of the wildlife ecologist should be primarily one of feeding facts to others who can act. In his banquet address, John S. Gottschalk, Director of the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, noted that, ... the sixties (were the years) in which the masses of mankind finally began to show a real concern about Naked Ape's impact on his surroundings. It seems obvious to me that any fish and game biologist who does not move into the general area of environmental concern will lose his race for recognition and should concede his right to criticize those who do act, who accept a scientific responsibility. In his recent letter to me (27 February 1970), he summarizes as follows: The essence of my message was that fish and wildlife managers, biologists, etc., had a golden opportunity for participating in making decisions that will help to protect and preserve our world. As a result of the public recognition of the deterioration of our environment, it behooves all of us, working within whatever constraints we may see, to do all we can to provide information, to beThe author is associate professor in the School of Natural Resources, Humboldt State College, Arcata, Calif. 90521.