406LIFE
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2016
- Messages
- 3,112
I picked this up because I've been digging into Pinchot more recently. What really intrigued me was the conservation vs preservation ethos'. If you have not dived into Pinchot or Muir, this is a good primer on both. Their histories are boiled down to the highlights and key events that shaped their paths. While each had different directions, they had shared passions and desires. The second half of the book attempts to trace the development of public lands. It is far from exhaustive but it does add some interesting nuggets to the history of land acquisitions and the federal government owning land.
"They could agree that they shared a greater priority. This land must be handled rationally and fairly. Politics-as-usual wasn’t working. A new system was needed, one with enough foresight to preserve the scenery of Lake McDonald while also allowing for growth and development. Within this new system, their goals might still conflict. But in the ethereal sunset, under the nemophila sky, the two men could find mutual respect. Each could appreciate and understand the other as an individual with great intellect and integrity. Each could see that the rival perspective was valid, was equally deserving of triumph ."
The big takeaway for me is something that is very timely today: The political views and the actions taken to protect our natural resources are all very nuanced. Nothing is one thing only. For Muir, he saw the need to develop some areas of natural parks to better help them be understood and seen. Pinchot knew that if there were no protections then landscapes would be decimated. Still, Muir wanted places (Hetch Hetchy) to be left alone and Pinchot wanted to manage our forests so they could be used.
I also appreciate the authors thought: "If we could free public lands from the illusion of a preservation versus conservation dichotomy, we could free administrators to see public lands as a canvas for variable and changing visions of nature. "
