A hundred years ago, nature was viewed as something that was to be used by people, as a source of wealth and resources, or to be done away with if it only represented a hindrance to some subjective measure of human progress.
Thirty years ago, nature was viewed as something to be locked away and preserved--to be kept as separate from people as possible. National parks and wilderness areas resulted from this kind of impulse.
However, people are inseparably intertwined with "nature," in all its forms. This is a truth that indigenous people in Peru and elsewhere understand, but gringos, who don't spend much of their time outdoors, don't really get. The result is that environmental problems, caused by human interaction with nature, are viewed as engineering problems without a human element. Attempts to solve such problems without addressing the human elements tend to fail.
Something that Hammond also understood:
"Animal activists cite a balance-of-nature theory that suggests animal populations will find an equilibrium on their own if man stops interfering. Certainly nature's balance has too often been set awry when man jams his heavy thum on the scale. Should hunters and trappers then be removed from the equation? I don't think so. Eliminate hunting and trapping and you can bet game populations will severely decline, since the people most concerned with their well-being are virtually the only ones paying the price through hunting tags and license fees that help assure healthy habitats and game numbers. until animal rights advocates are willing to pick up that tab they should work with, rather than against, those who wish to see our wildife resources sustained."
No comments:
Post a Comment