We often use the words “preservation” and “conservation” interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing in the realm of ecology. However, they each espouse very different motives for environmental protection. Those motives can influence decision-making about what and how to protect a natural feature like Eagle Marsh. I will explore how preservation and conservation thinking differ in this article and why that matters.
Muir Versus Pinchot
A classic example of the difference between the two can be seen in the contrast between two contemporaries of the early modern environmental movement, John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. Both men fought for the protection of the environment during a period of rapid industrial expansion in America (the late 1800s and early 1900s) but for very different reasons.
John Muir was a preservationist. He believed nature had intrinsic value and should be protected for its beauty, spiritual significance, and ecological importance. In other words, it had value just because it existed, not due to any human benefit it provided. Muir advocated for setting aside wild lands as untouchable and unspoiled. Due to his writing and activism, his legacy is the National Park Service. The parks are places that can be visited and enjoyed for recreation and appreciation but are not open for development.
Gifford Pinchot was a conservationist. As the first head of the U.S. Forest Service, Pinchot believed in the wise use of natural resources, emphasizing their sustainable management for long-term human benefit. He cared for nature because of its utilitarian value. For him, it was about using nature in a responsible manner that both protected it but allowed it to continue to serve human purposes. If you have ever wondered why the Forest Service is in the Department of Agriculture, this is the answer: National forests are managed as crops rather than places where nature is untrammeled, as is the case in the National Parks.
Both approaches are concerned for nature and result in its protection. However, for conservationists, that is more about it being a natural “resource,” and for preservationists, it is more about it being a natural “system.”
Management Strategies
If we apply these ways of thinking to Eagle Marsh, it becomes apparent why this distinction matters. A conservationist looks at Eagle Marsh through the lens of human usefulness. It holds a tremendous amount of water during precipitation events, preventing flooding. The plants and soils work together to improve the water quality being released downstream. Access to the trails and wildlife is excellent for recreation, making Fort Wayne a desirable place to live and work.
On the other hand, a preservationist sees Eagle Marsh's uniqueness as an ecological feature independent of how it serves the human community. It provides critical habitat for hundreds of wildlife and fish species, and it does this naturally, without human intervention. As such, the desire is to set it aside and allow it to do its work. Further, it can be viewed as a sacred place for those who value the diversity of life and the interconnectedness of all things.
The perspective taken in this regard dictates the management response that could be applied. A preservationist will advocate for limiting human access to protect the ecological integrity of the ecosystem. Human intervention will also be minimized where possible in restoration, particularly in altering hydrology or removing plant or wildlife species. The focus will be on the ecosystem's spiritual and scientific values rather than social and economic ones.
A conservationist will be much more hands-on, helping nature by removing invasive species and manipulating the hydrology to serve specific human goals. Human access will be encouraged, resulting in the creation of trails, boardwalks, and viewing platforms. Educational programming and social gatherings will be critical to informing the public about the ecosystem's important role in human terms.
Conclusion
While I have presented these as distinct ways of thinking, most people concerned about the environment tend to advocate for some mixture of the two. They may have a heart and spirit for nature like a preservationist but recognize that nature’s service to humanity is a more compelling political position to take. On the other hand, a conservationist may very well appreciate nature’s beauty on a spiritual level. Both will likely enjoy helping return nature to a pre-human settlement condition by removing invasive species.
The point is that nature lovers exist along a continuum, with some advocating each of these positions and most finding themselves as a combination of the two. Neither position can make an exclusive claim on correctness.
So, which are you, or are you a bit of both?
Commentaires