Walck and Strong- 2001 Aldo Leopold Land Ethics

http://oae.sagepub.comOrganization & Environment

DOI: 10.1177/1086026601143001 2001; 14; 261 Organization Environment

Christa Walck and Kelly C. Strong Using Aldo Leopolds Land Ethic to Read Environmental History: The Case of the Keweenaw Forest

http://oae.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/3/261 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Organization & Environment Additional services and information for

http://oae.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://oae.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

2001 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by Susana Barrera Lobatn on May 22, 2008 http://oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2001Walck, Strong / LEOPOLDS LAND ETHIC

Articles

USING ALDO LEOPOLDS LAND ETHICTO READ ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORYThe Case of the Keweenaw Forest

CHRISTA WALCKKELLY C. STRONGMichigan Technological University

Aldo Leopolds notion of a land ethic provides a useful conceptual framework for interpret-ing environmental histories, which in turn may be used to plan more effective land use poli-cies for the future. In this article, the authors use a Leopoldian framework as a heuristicdevice to interpret the environmental history of the land in one small placethe KeweenawPeninsula of northern Michiganwhere successive human purposes altered the landscapedramatically over time. This article identifies the historical roles that power relations andthe land ethic have played in land use and land health. The article concludes by identifyingthe need for community action based in a land ethic to maintain a healthy forest through sus-tainable use. Although it is unlikely the Keweenaw forest will return to its preindustrial state,the community can aim for a forest that exemplifies Leopolds qualities of integrity, stability,productivity, and beauty.

Once you learn to read the land, I have no fear of what you will do to it, or with it.Aldo Leopold (1949)

As land worldwide degrades with astonishing rapidityturning from produc-tive land into deserts, from forests and fields into cattle pasture and cash crops,shopping malls and second homeswe should pause to examine the ways in whichour human purposes affect the health of the land that supports us. A global snapshotof the here and now tells one story, but a historical reading of human impact on thelandscape may well tell another. Land and the relationship people have with landchange over time and have lessons to tell us. Because the qualities of landscapes arespecific and local, it is useful to construct environmental histories one place at atime. Nonetheless, a conceptual framework for examining specific histories mayallow a better interpretation and point us in the direction of evidence that lies in thehidden relationships of people and place as well as that which lies visible on the sur-face of the land.

In this article, we construct an environmental history of the land in one smallplacethe Keweenaw (pronounced Kee-Wuh-Naw) Peninsula of northern Michiganwhere successive human purposes altered the landscape dramatically over time.Using archival and textual sources, we examine an evolving sequence of altered

Authors Note: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2000 Academy of Management Meeting in Toronto, Canada. Wewould like to thank Barbara and Eric Ribbens, Gordon Rands, John Jermier, Blair Orr, Carol MacLennan, and the anonymousreviewers for their encouragement and exceptionally helpful comments.Organization & Environment, Vol. 14 No. 3, September 2001 261-289 2001 Sage Publications

261


landscapes that reveal changing processes and attitudes regarding land use andresource consumption in a northern hardwood forest ecosystem.

For our conceptual framework, we turn to Aldo Leopold, whose vision of a landethic and the restoration of degraded landscapes resonates with the history we willtell. In his classic work, A Sand County Almanac (Leopold, 1949/1970), he read theenvironmental history of the sand counties of Wisconsin and called for a land ethicto restore land degraded by misuse. We have read his text closely to make visible thestructure of his argument, which serves as our heuristic framework for conceptual-izing the relationships between human activity and land health over time. We sup-plement Leopolds argument with two additional current views on power relationsand land use.

Our approach may seem unorthodox for scholars interested in overarching ques-tions of the relationship between organizations and the natural environment. Weare, after all, using a piece of nature writing to frame the history of a remote placethat few readers ever visit. Yet our purpose is to demonstrate how a close reading ofthe environmental history of a place, guided by Leopolds vision, can point the wayto a future in which a clearly articulated land ethic promotes the sustainable use ofland resources by human collectivities, whether they be tribes, organizations, ornation-states. We hope to encourage scholars interested in sustainability to thinkseriously about the role of a land ethic for organizations.

THE KEWEENAW FOREST

The Keweenaw Peninsula is a narrow strip of land 40 miles wide and 80 mileslong that juts into the icy waters of Lake Superior from its base in Michigans UpperPeninsula (see Figure 1). Formed by lava flows from a rift in the earths crust, thepeninsula is a spine of rocky terrain with deposits of pure metallic copper (Daniel &Sullivan, 1981). The last glaciers retreated 10,000 years ago, leaving behind fertileacidic soils for the migration of forest from the east. By about the first century A.D.,the forest reached the stage of succession1 that resembled what existed when Euro-pean settlers first came to the area in the mid-1800s. Technically called the Cana-dian Biome (Dice, 1943) and more popularly called the northern hardwood for-est, this forest is characterized by climax species of sugar maple, red maple,hemlock, white birch, and stands of pioneering red and white pine. These speciesstill dominate the landscape, along with the rapidly growing aspen.

The northern hardwood forest is the northernmost deciduous forest community.With many species common to both the boreal forest to the north and the oak-hickory forest to the south, the northern hardwood forest is a transition forest. It iscalled a hardwood forest because it is dominated by three deciduous, or hardwood,trees: maple, birch, and beech.2 Two conifers, or softwoods, also grow abundantly,the white pine and Eastern hemlock (Kricher & Morrison, 1988). Different speciesof maple, the dominant tree of this forest, are long lived (250 years), slow growing,and fire intolerant, thriving in moist climates such as the shores of Lake Superior.Fire has been frequent enough, however, to maintain stands of eastern white and redpine, particularly along west- and south-facing slopes, where stands of very largewhite and red pines once dominated (Barnes & Wagner, 1981).

Although the Keweenaw forest is classified as northern hardwood forest, it isactually a mosaic of forest communities, including conifer bogs and floodplain for-est. The Keweenaw has abundant lakes, streams, and wetlands as well as more than100 miles of Lake Superior shoreline. People share this peninsula with black bear,bald eagles, white tail deer, red fox, and coyotes. The occasional moose wanders by,

262 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / September 2001


and wolves have begun to migrate from Minnesota. Of course, black flies, mos-quitoes, and red squirrels are also members of this forest community. With littleindustry nearby and a scattered population of about 38,000, the air and water arerelatively clean. All of these characteristicsrock, forest, water, and wildlifecombine to create a landscape of unique beauty.

Today, the visitors first view of the Keweenaw is the wooded hills north of thePortage, a waterway ending in Portage Lake, which separates the Keweenaw Pen-insula (locals call it the island) from the mainland of Michigans Upper Peninsula(see Figure 1).

The hills of the Keweenaw present a forest of green in summer, a blur of orangeand yellow leaves in autumn, and spindly brown sticks studded with a white frost-ing of snow in winter. This gateway to one of the last best places beckons the visi-tor with a compelling text: Here is the ancient forest of hearts desire.

It is not the ancient forest, however, that greets the visitor. Although theKeweenaw is a place of splendid beauty, we must read the text of the hills today as adegraded landscape, a second growth of maple, aspen, cedar, and hemlock wherewhite pine once grew thick and tall. In the early 1900s, these hills were bare, theirtrees felled for use as props and stulls in the mineshafts, fuel in the mine works fur-naces, and lumber for building the fast-growing cities of an expanding nation. It ishard to imagine the earlier pine forest on these hills. Now, only a tiny remnant of thelong-lived pines are left in the Estivant Pines sanctuary in the remotest northern tipof the Keweenaw, where the big trees grow 3 to 4 feet in diameter.

There is a lesson for us here. If we are unable to read the land as it is (a degradedforest), we will read our own desire (the ancient forest) into the landscape. In

Walck, Strong / LEOPOLDS LAND ETHIC 263

FIGURE 1: Keweenaw Peninsula, MichiganSource: U.S. Census Bureau, Tiger Mapping Service (1995).


Leopoldian terms, there will be a disparity between the way we view land and howthe land actually behaves (Tallmadge, 1987). If we cannot read the land as it is, wecan hardly prepare to write its future well.

GETTING TO A LAND ETHIC:LAND HEALTH AND LAND USE

To read the history of a landscape intelligently and consider the possibilities forsustainable use3 in the future, we need a conceptual framework to assess changes inthe land over time, for good or ill. In Leopolds (1949/1970) classic text, A SandCounty Almanac,4 we found a useful model of land health and land use that devel-ops the principle of a land ethic from a dynamic, evolutionary (i.e., historical) per-spective.

Leopold5 was a professional forester who spent his working life in the U.S. For-est Service and the University of Wisconsins Forest Products Laboratory. A SandCounty Almanac was the culmination of nearly 15 years of writing (Meine, 1987;Ribbens, 1987) and reflected the views of his final years. Although deemed byWallace Stegner (1987) a famous, almost holy book in conservation circles(p. 233) and revered by scholars of the literary genre of nature writing (Tallmadge,1987), it has been neglected by academic philosophers who consider it naive(Callicott, 1987a). Callicott attributed its neglect to Leopolds condensed prosestyle, his departure from traditional philosophical ethics, and the unsettling practi-cal implications to which a land ethic appears to leadit was abbreviated, unfa-miliar, and radical (p. 187). Although the concept of a land ethic and its ecologicalunderpinnings may seem commonplace today, professional foresters still placeLeopold left of center (only John Muir and the Navajo stand further left) (Brown &Harris, 1998).6

We turn to Leopold for the clarity and strength of his vision of land health and thenecessity of a land ethic to sustain it. Organizational scholars interested insustainability, like the philosophers, have also neglected Leopold, perhaps becauseof the reasons noted above. Leopolds concepts are embedded in a lengthy piece ofwriting, which provides no simple, visible framework laying bare his key conceptsand the dynamic relationships between them. Our task here is to develop such aframework. We will then demonstrate the usefulness of the framework as we assessthe environmental history of the Keweenaw.

As we discuss each component of the framework in detail, we supplement theinsights of Leopold with those of S.P.J. Batterbury and A. J. Bebbington (1999),geographers who approach environmental history from the perspective of politicalecology of landscapeshow power relations influence access to resources and thuschange landscapes over time; and of environmental management scholar AndrewKing (1995), whose historical investigations into land use suggest appropriatepower relations for continued land health. We have drawn on the work of these theo-rists in part because they emphasize a historical approach to understanding landhealth and sustainable use over time but also because they extend the concept ofpower relations implicit in Leopolds text.

In focusing on Leopold, it is not our intent to ignore the work of scholars onsustainability. However, the concept of sustainable use has been difficult tooperationalize and yielded multiple definitions and constructs. Some key theoristsinclude Gladwin, Kennelly, and Krause (1995), who identified core constructs ofinclusiveness, connectivity, equity, prudence, and security; Starik and Rands(1995), who proposed that sustainability must be addressed from a multisystem,



multilevel perspective; and Shrivastava (1995), who maintained that sustainabilityinvolves development that allows the present generation to meet its needs withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. An integrationof these three approaches to sustainability would suggest that multiple systems,multiple constituencies, and multiple levels are involved, all of which we recognizein our framework for land health and sustainable land use and demonstrate in ourcase history. However, the premises of these theorists do not incorporate a historicalanalysis focused principally on the importance of the health of the biotic commu-nity and the human place in it. Because a historical analysis of land health is the key-stone of our framework, we have not incorporated their contributions in our frame-work.

Briefly, then, Leopolds framework can be outlined as shown in Figure 2. Thebase of sustainable land use is land health. Land health is necessary to sustain life.Land health can be measured by operationalizing four of Leopolds principles:integrity, stability, productivity, and beauty. Land health exists in an interactiverelationship with land use, the human exploitation of land and its resources forhuman purposes.7 Land use affects land health, and land health determines possibil-ities for land use. Land use is influenced by power relations, the social and institu-tional forces that distribute power over land and access to resources as well as by theidea of a land ethic. How these power relations and the notion of a common good areconstructed will determine whether a land ethic can influence land use in ways thatsustain land health.

Now we will examine each element of the framework in turn.

Land Health

The core of our framework rests on Leopolds vision of land health. Leopold(1949/1970) defined land as a community that includes soils, waters, plants, andanimals (p. 239, LE8) and urged us to see land as a complex organism. Land health,he argued, is the capacity of the land for self-renewal (p. 258, LE). In The LandEthic, Leopold emphasized the need to preserve the integrity, stability, and beautyof a biotic community (p. 262, LE)9 and consider these attributes in conjunctionwith the economic value of land. In The Round River, Leopold argued thatbiodiversity offers land more chances for self-renewal in the face of human impact,and he defined diversity as a food chain aimed to harmonize the wild and the tamein the joint interest of stability, productivity, and beauty [italics added] (p.199,RR). Leopold thus offers four attributes by which to assess land health: integrity,stability, productivity, and beauty.

First, integrity. Integrity refers to the wholeness of the community, representedby a set of interdependencies in which each member participates.10 Today, we referto this interdependent community as an ecosystem. Leopold captured the image ofintegrity in an energy circuit: Land is a fountain of energy flowing through a cir-cuit of soils, plant and animals (p. 253, LE) using a mechanism of dependenciescalled food chains (p. 252, LE). The destruction of a key member of the communityviolates integrity by blocking the flow of energy through the system and disruptingthe complex network of food chains.

Second, stability. By stability, Leopold does not mean stasis but rather a condi-tion in which land thrives. Leopold evoked the image of a stable land pyramid(p. 251, LE), which rests on a base of good soil. Although the pyramid may looklike a tangle of [food] chains so complex as to seem disorderly, it is in fact a stablesystem, a highly organized structure (p. 252, LE). As members of the land com-



munity, humans ensure stability by working with natural processes, not againstthem. This is the goal of conservation, which Leopold defines as a state of har-mony between men and land (p. 243, LE). Although absolute harmony is as loftyand unachievable an ideal as absolute justice, said Leopold, we should neverthelessaspire to it (p. 210, NH).

It should be noted that natural forces can also destabilize land. Leopold observedthe impact of fire, flood, snow, and ice on biota and therefore on land health, and wecould add tornadoes, windstorms, and other climatic events to his list. Nonetheless,some natural forces, such as fire, may appear destabilizing from a human perspec-tive yet contribute to a natural process of succession, and natural events such as fireand desertification are sometimes responses to human agency and land use (seebelow) rather than the result of natural forces.

The third attribute of land health is productivity. For the entire land community,including humans, to survive, the land must produce what this community needs tosurvive. The question for Leopold was whether the productive use of land by thehuman community will allow the land itself to remain ecologically productive. Anoveremphasis on the economic or commercial value of land blinds us, saidLeopold, to the uneconomic parts that allow the land to function with integrity. Wewill discuss this further in the section on land use.

The fourth attribute is beauty. Beauty is perhaps the most difficult attribute ofland health to define. Although Leopold did not explicitly define what he meant bybeauty, he was talking about more than scenery. His conceptualization of a landaestheticthe only genuinely autonomous natural aesthetic in Western philo-sophical literature (Callicott, 1987b, p. 168)is derived from pleasurable experi-


Land Ethic community cooperation responsibility

Power Relations government community market property

Land Use(Human purposes)

Land Health integrity stability productivity beauty

FIGURE 2: Model of the Influence of Land Ethic and Power Relations on Land Health


ence with nature but also requires a certain way of seeing, which Leopold calledperception. This idea is developed in his essay Conservation Esthetic, in whichLeopold saw the intrinsic beauty of the organism called America in the incredi-ble intricacies of the plant and animal community (p. 291, CE). A land aestheticrequires perception of the natural processes by which land and the living thingsupon it have achieved their characteristic forms (evolution) and by which theymaintain their existence (ecology) (p. 290, CE). Wildflowers, birds, and unpro-ductive trees all contribute to the beauty of a place, but we need to be perceptive tosee them. Finally, such perception entails no consumption and no dilution of anyresource (p. 290, CE). Thus, the beauty of land is, for Leopold, an important mea-sure of the rightness and wrongness of actions (Callicott, 1987b, p. 158). Such aes-thetic perception has a direct bearing on land use.

All four attributes are interwoven. An ecosystem with integrity tends to be stableand productive for members of the land community. Beauty resides in the ability tosee and value that integrity.

Land Use

Land use will be defined here as human exploitation of land and its resources forhuman purposes. Some uses contribute to land health, whereas others do not. Usesthat preserve the integrity of the system contribute to land health. Uses that shortenthe food chains or damage the soil, the base of the land pyramid, contribute to insta-bility and diminish land health.

A practicing forester, Leopold recognized that humans will alter, manage, anduse land and its resources to ensure human survival. However, Leopold believedthat the greater the alteration of the land by land use, the lower the probability ofrecovery and therefore of land health. From his historical reading of many land-scapes, Leopold concluded that mechanized and industrial human activitiestended to degrade land. Single-species tree plantations and single-crop agricultureof wheat and corn on prairies destroy complex chains of life, and industrial farmingcontaminates soil and water.

Although Leopold (1949/1970, p. 256, LE) believed that with significant con-servation efforts, land degraded by agriculture and industry may readjust, he arguedthat such degraded land recovers at a reduced level of productivity, which in turnhas a reduced carrying capacity for people, plants, and animals. Such human landuse may not be sustainable over time. Moreover, his reading of the land suggestedthat recovery was rarely synthesized from nonnative, imported plants and animals(p. 255, LE) and that reintroduction of native species was more likely to speedrecovery, rebuilding ecosystem integrity. King (1995) echoed Leopolds viewwhen he noted that in the extreme, land management optimized for a single envi-ronmental attribute can destabilize the ecosystem sufficiently to create irreversibleecosystem collapse.

Like Leopold, Batterbury and Bebbington (1999) also emphasized the interac-tive nature of land health and land use. They argued that we must recognize that theland responds to the ways in which land is used and that this response influencessubsequent patterns of human land use and resource access. King (1995) docu-mented that sometimes the ways in which the environment chooses to respond areunpredictable, causing unpleasant surprises. In our own age of extreme weatherevents, scientists argue over the causes of these surpriseslong-term climatecycles or human actions that have an impact on climate.



Land use thus affects land health, and reduced land health in turn affects the pro-ductive use of land. Because land health and land use exist in an interactive relation-ship, any definition of sustainable land use must incorporate a notion of land health.

A historical perspective on land use. Leopold (1949/1970), Batterbury andBebbington (1999), and King (1995) emphasized not only an interactive perspec-tive but also a historical one. To see the interaction of land health and land use mostaccurately, we must view it over time.

Leopold (1949/1970) demonstrated this perspective when he used the rhetoricaldevice of sawing through a lightning-struck oak to reveal, ring by ring, the historyof the sand counties of Wisconsin from 1865 to the 1940s. With relentless attentionto detail, he chronicled the degradation of the biotic community by the combinedefforts of both natural forces of drought, flood, and blizzard and human forces ofpublic policy, legislation, and commerce. He concluded that historical events[italics added], hitherto explained solely in terms of human enterprise, were actu-ally biotic interactions between people and land [italics added] (p. 241, LE).

Batterbury and Bebbington (1999) reached a similar conclusion as they studiedland and resource degradation in the developing world. Calling for a historical anal-ysis of landscapes and a more penetrating interpretation of the social and institu-tional dynamics that structure access to and use of resources, they emphasizenature-society interactions over timethe multiple dimensions of interactionsbetween people, their institutions, and a range of biotic resources (trees, soil, water,and animals). Only a historical perspective, they argued, can provide an appropriatecontext for understanding the often slow and sporadic human and natural processesthat affect landscapes as well as allow us to identify factors that are consistentlyimportant over time.

King (1995) demonstrated the effectiveness of this historical perspective whenhe turned to the historical record to find communities that had successfully avoidedecological surprises. He discovered four factors that he hypothesized were con-sistently important in preventing surprises or, stated positively, creating land healththrough appropriate land use. These four factors include common ownership ofimportant natural resources (i.e., community), a shared understanding that land userights were not absolute (i.e., cooperation), acceptance of a public right to constrainconditions for personal gain (i.e., limitations that entail responsibility), and localpolitical autonomy. The first three factors are remarkably consistent with the under-lying principles of Leopolds land ethic, to which we now turn.

A Land Ethic

Because human land use has such a profound impact on land health, Leopoldproposed that we need a land ethic to govern sustainable land use (this concept ismost clearly articulated in the essay The Land Ethic). Key principles of his landethic are the concepts of community, cooperation, and responsibility.

Leopold first defined an ethic ecologically, [as] a limitation on freedom ofaction in the struggle for existence and philosophically, [as] a differentiation ofsocial from anti-social conduct (p. 238, LE). He went on to state that all eth-ics . . . rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community ofinterdependent parts (p. 239). Ethical conduct is thus conduct that benefits thecommunity. Leopold then argued that we must enlarge our notion of community toinclude plants, animals, soils, and waters that we collectively call the land and ofwhich we are an inextricable, interdependent, symbiotic10 part. Although our



instincts prompt us to compete for a place in this community, Leopold believed thata land ethic should prompt us to cooperate as well, perhaps in order that there maybe a place to compete for (p. 239). A land ethic should remind us of our place in thecommunity and cause us to carefully consider how our instinct to competeto usethe land solely for human purposes and human survivalwill affect the ability ofother members of the land community to survive and be productive.

By emphasizing the idea of a biotic community, Leopold tried to shift humanland use patterns away from the prevailing notions of economic biology, whichfocused on maximizing yields through monocropping for market (Bradley, 1999,p. 14). In The Land Ethic, Leopold observed that land, like Odysseusslave-girls, is still property. The land-relation is still strictly economic, entailingprivileges but not obligations (p. 238). If an ethic entails a limitation on freedomof action in the struggle for existence (p. 238), then a land ethic should entail a lim-itation on the freedom of land use, grounded in the understanding that cooperationentails obligations, that is, responsibilities. Violating these obligationsdegradingland in ways that break down the ecosystem and deprive others of the rights toexistenceis thus unethical. Although Leopold supported actions by the federalgovernment to restrict activities that degraded land (and spent much of his life ingovernment service), he also knew from experience that this was not the only rem-edy and decried the tendency to relegate to government all necessary jobs that pri-vate landowners fail to perform (p. 250, LE). An ethical obligationa landethicthat assigned responsibility to the private landowner for maintaining andimproving the health of his or her land was needed (p. 250, LE). Such a land ethicgenerates an ecological conscience in which each individual takes responsibilityfor land health.

Power Relations

Adopting a land ethic for sustainable land use has significant implications forthe many groups in society that compete for access to land and its resources. Thisaccess and use is significantly affected by the way in which power relations are con-structed in a society. A critical issue in the construction of these power relations isthe notion of a common good as reflected in public policy and enacted by theagency of the state.

Batterbury and Bebbington (1999) studied the social and institutional forces thatdistribute and redistribute power in ways that affect access to resources and landuse. They identified the importance of four institutionsgovernment, community,market, and propertyas determinants of land use and land quality and concludedthat no one institution is always necessarily better for sustainable use. Moreover,they argued, land management depends greatly on land, labor, capital, and informa-tional resources, although better access to resources, including knowledge, may notresult in more sustainable use.

Batterbury and Bebbington (1999) also observed that how land is used dependson dominant policy ideas about resource use and reflects the balance of power insociety between local, national, and global interests. A local political ecologydeveloped from an agenda set by local people may lead to very different land usesthan a national political ecology focused on preserving natural resources. Nationalenvironmental protection programs managed at the federal level in the UnitedStates over the past 30 years have met with considerable success, reducing the useof harmful pesticides and reversing the decline of water quality in many rivers andlakes. Global initiatives for managing rainforests and pollutants have also started to



make some headway. However, national and global policies may not solve all prob-lems of land health and land use, including controversies over land access. If landhealth depends on the integrity of the ecosystem, policy must be set at the level ofthe ecosystem being affected.

Interestingly, in the historical examples of environmental recovery cited by King(1995), central governments played limited roles in each of the recoveries. Instead,successful communities were characterized by local autonomy. King suggestedthat community property management can be a successful organizing principlethat will prevent ecological surprise and thus promote sustainable land use. Com-munity property management grants access to clearly defined and often competingusers of resources according to clearly understood (either implicitly or explicitly)rules, such as zoning covenants and land use restrictions. In his theoretical synthe-sis of sustainability literature, King extended the work of Ostrom (1990) andHolling (1980) in an important way. Kings theoretical framework evolved in partfrom Ostroms demonstration of the wisdom of using collective action in the treat-ment of natural resources as the property of the commons as well as from Hollingscontention that environmental assessment and behavior must be viewed from thehistorical framework of behavioral changes over time.

As noted earlier, Leopold (1949/1970) also believed that the federal governmentwas not solely capable of solving land health problems, although it did have a sig-nificant role to play. Although he advocated government regulation, intelligentmanagement of public lands, and the creation of wilderness preserves, he alsoopposed expanded federal government policy on some issues, greatly increasinggovernment ownership of land, and government land-use subsidies. He feared thatturning over the task of conserving land to public agencies would not prevent goodprivate land from becoming poor public land (p. 201, RR).

Nonetheless, Leopold realized that because most members of the land commu-nity have no economic value (p. 246, LE), they have no voice in the public policyarena and cannot effectively compete for their place in the community. A conse-quence, therefore, of operating only from an economic ethic for land is that we arelikely to eradicate unproductive species, that is, those that have no economicvalue at the present time. Although the wildflowers and songbirds that he classifiedas without economic value are now, 50 years later, recognized as economically use-ful for their medicinal value and their role in a booming wildlife industry (feedingwild birds is big business), the same cannot be said of species of trees, whichLeopold observed have been read out of the party by economics-minded forest-ers because they grow too slowly, or have too low a sale value to pay as timbercrops: white cedar, tamarack, cypress, beech, and hemlock are examples (p. 249,LE).12

Thus, a land ethic that defines a land community broadly rather than narrowly ismore likely to prevent the unproductive species that provide integrity, beauty, andstability to the ecosystem from slipping from the view of public policy.13

THE GOOD FOREST

We will now apply our framework for sustainable land use to the forested land ofthe Keweenaw Peninsula. From the perspective of land health, Leopold wouldargue that a good forest is one in which forest management practices preserve theintegrity of the forest community. However, from the perspective of land use, therewill always be competing notions of what constitutes a good forest, based on powerrelations in the society that uses the forest. Some believe that an indigenous forest



that is partially modified yet multipurpose with multiple species is good, othersbelieve that a managed forest that is simplified and market oriented is good, and yetothers entertain a populist notion of a good forest as one used by the people in what-ever way they choose (Batterbury & Bebbington, 1999; see also Brown & Harris,1998).14 Although indigenous forest management may not always yield the mostsustainable practice (Conte, 1999), whether contemporary best management prac-tices15 for forest land represents an improvement over historical practices can onlybe determined by investigating a particular forest.

As we proceed to examine the forests of the Keweenaw over time, we will drawon our framework of land health and land use to discern the presence of a good for-est. In particular, we will assess three areas:

1. We will assess forest health from Leopolds perspective. A good forest isone that can indefinitely sustain a robust forest ecosystem of plant and ani-mal life (integrity and stability) while providing valuable resources forhuman use (productivity). We will also consider forest aesthetics (beauty).

2. We will assess forest use in terms of Leopolds land ethic: Have industriesthat exploit forest resources institutionalized behaviors and beliefs that carrya long-term commitment (responsibility) to the human and natural commu-nities in which they operate? Or do they operate primarily from an economicor efficiency perspective? Do they work cooperatively or primarily competeto satisfy their own private interests?

3. We will assess whether power relations advocate local, community auton-omy through local policies governing resource use and land access, ornational or global interests.

THE KEWEENAW FOREST:A HISTORICAL READING

Leopold sawed through the trunk of a fallen oak to read the history of the sandcounties of Wisconsin. We will navigate the history of the Keweenaw with a cameraand a pen. Our task is to reveal the interaction between people and land over timeand its impact on land health. The environmental history of the Keweenaw can bewritten in four overlapping periods, each defined by a characteristic land use pat-tern based on natural resource consumption:

1. Presettlement through 1840.2. Copper mining boom, 1840s through mid-1950s.3. Pine timber era, 1870s through 1900.4. Hardwood forest products period, 1960s to present.

The lessons learned from this historical perspective on land use and renewal willprovide insight into possibilities for sustainable use.

Presettlement Through 1840

The archaeological record for prehistoric human habitation of the Keweenaw iscomplex. In this section, we present Martins (1999) interpretation of this evidence.

The glacial covering of the last ice age retreated from the northern Great Lakesregion about 9,500 years ago. Over the next 7,000 years, glacial water drained andsoils settled until the Lake Superior basin took its present form, a till plain of moist,



acidic soil. About 3,000 years ago, the modern communities of plant and animalsthat characterize the northern hardwood forest were established, and by 2,000 yearsago, the modern lake levels had been reached.

Soon after the glaciers departed, people moved in, taking advantage of newlyhabitable land. Classified as Late Paleoindian by archaeologists, these colonistslived in small mobile groups near water and were the earliest copper users on thecontinent. A site in the Keweenaw may be the earliest copper-working site in east-ern North America, possibly dating to 7000 B.C., but a more likely date for thebeginning of copper use in the region is 5500-4800 B.C. These colonists would bethe first of many who came to the Keweenaw to exploit its rich natural resources.

As the climate warmed, people adapted to the locally available supply of plantsand animals as well as copper. An assemblage of copper and other artifacts in theKeweenaw belonging to the Old Copper Culture most likely represents periodicand specialized use of the region for its resources, rather than sustained settlementthrough about 500 B.C. Trade of copper artifacts, which were often symbolic ratherthan practical in nature, was probably accomplished in family groups through tradelinks that dispersed copper throughout North America. In approximately 500 A.D.,life began to change. The new Woodland culture, although continuous with thepast, is marked by intensification of subsistence and increasing interaction, includ-ing trade, with neighboring regions (Martin, 1999).

Burial grounds and settlements near Lake Superior testify to the Woodland cul-ture, which belonged to the Algonquin language group. Its descendants are theOjibwa.16 In historical times, the Ojibwa practiced a subsistence pattern of land usebased on hunting and fishing. With only 120 to 140 frost-free days per year, therewas limited potential for Indian agriculture (Tanner, 1987). The land was sparselysettled. There were probably only a few hundred Ojibwa living in the Keweenaw atany one time by the 18th century (Lankton, 1997). Maps of Indian villages andtribal distribution show only one village at the mouth of Keweenaw Bay by 1768and another on the Portage by 1810 (Tanner, 1987, Maps 13 and 20).

Ojibwa culture suggests that the forest was revered. Ojibwa traditions placeplants prior to animals because plants could exist alone and were not dependent onother beings for their existence. Each plant is considered to have a uniquesoul-spirit, and each earth form such as a hill is thought to possess a mood thatreflects the state of being of that place. Destroying, altering, or removing a portionof the plants was thought to change the mood of that place (Johnston, 1976). Thesetraditions point to an Ojibwa land ethic, but low population density alone preventedland use that significantly altered the landscape.17

The first recorded European exploration of Lake Superior occurred in the early17th century. In approximately 1620, Etienne Brul, a Frenchman employed bySamuel de Champlain as an interpreter, was probably the first European to see theancient copper mines in the Lake Superior region. By 1658 a reasonably accuratemap of Lake Superior opened the door for the arrival of French missionaries and furtraders (Nute, 1944).

Commercial development evolved slowly over the next century and a half. Thefirst decked sailing ship sailed Lake Superior in 1735, and the first commercialschooner in 1778. By the early 1800s, word of massive copper and timber reserveshad reached the nations capital at Washington, D.C., and the eastern industrialistsin Boston and New York (Nute, 1944). Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, the mineralogistand Indian expert who accompanied Michigans territorial governor, Cass, on ageological survey of the region in 1820, kept a journal that reveals a commonEuro-American attitude toward the Keweenaw forest:



One cannot help fancying that he has gone to the ends of the earth, and beyond theboundaries appointed for the residence of man. Every object tells us that it is aregion alike unfavorable to the productiveness of the animal and vegetable king-dom; and we shudder in casting our eyes over the frightful wreck of trees. . . . Suchis this frightful region through which . . . we followed our Indian guides . . . inwhich there is nothing to compensate the toil of the journey but its geological char-acter and mineral production. (cited in Lankton, 1997, pp. 7-8)

Instead of beauty, Schoolcraft saw a frightful wreck with no value but for thecopper under the forest floor. The Keweenaw was dense forest from end to end atthe time of Schoolcrafts survey (Lankton, 1997). A small remnant remains in alocal nature preserve, the closest approximation of the presettlement forest,although this preserve has been affected by logging and mining operations along itsperimeter.

Assessment of the presettlement period. Prior to 1840, the Keweenaw forest wasa healthy forest, little changed by the subsistence land use of sparsely settledOjibwa. The tribal organization of the Ojibwa, along with the harsh living condi-tions, made community orientation and cooperation a necessity of life. Ojibwa cul-ture suggests a positive aesthetic for the Keweenaw forest with a great sense ofresponsibility and even reverential respect for the land and its inhabitants. Becausethere were no organized markets beyond native trade networks, no concept of prop-erty rights, and limited codification of conduct (beyond tribal custom), power wasshared within the local community. Land use was based on subsistence, with someminor consumption for symbolic purposes. Land health was therefore good, char-acterized by stable ecosystems and natural beauty. Although land wasnonproductive from a modern economic standpoint, the land was productive for itsinhabitants. The strong land ethic and localized power relations of the Ojibwa standin contrast to those of Euro-American explorers, whose journals suggest a primaryinterest in land use centered on the exploitation of mineral resources, with no evi-dence of an accompanying land ethic. The journals of these early explorers werepredictors of the attitudes that would come with Euro-American settlement.

Copper Mining Boom, 1840 to the Mid-1950s

Schoolcrafts early reports of rich surface copper deposits led to many earlyattempts to establish copper mining operations. In 1822, Congress proposed towork the ancient copper mines of Lake Superior. Although the proposition did notwin congressional support, it created momentum for greater examination of theSchoolcraft and Cass expedition reports. Poor infrastructure, harsh winters, andlabor shortages caused most of the early small-scale mining operations to fail. Inthe late 1830s and early 1840s, Douglass Houghton began well-organized commer-cial surveys of copper deposits. His report of vast, almost pure copper depositsalong the ridge of the Keweenaw Peninsula, where it could be accessed by LakeSuperior shipping, fueled the first copper rush in 1843. The copper was of a puritynot found anywhere else in the world at that time and was deposited relatively closeto the surface, although in a narrow vein up the spine of the peninsula (Krause,1992; Nute, 1944).

By the mid-19th century, the combination of more developed mining and trans-portation technologies along with the influx of cheap labor from European immi-gration made large-scale mining operations economically feasible. Investors from



the eastern United States funded large-scale copper mining that was organizedaround company towns. Copper mines were active in the Keweenaw from themid-1840s until the late 1960s, although the boom era ended shortly after WorldWar I. At the turn of the century, 20,000 people were employed in the mines inHoughton County, site of the Quincy Mine above the Portage waterway, and theoperations of the mining companies supported a population of 100,000 people inthe Keweenaw (Merk, 1982). Copper mined during the boom in the Keweenawgenerated between 80% and 90% of annual U.S. production of copper. Peak pro-duction of copper was reached in 1916, when 270 million pounds of copper wereshipped from Keweenaw locations (Krause, 1992). However, by 1920, employ-ment and population were already in decline because of reduced demand for copperat the close of World War I (Murdoch, 1943; Nute, 1944).

Although the Keweenaw was covered in dense forest at the start of the copperboom, mining operations soon devastated the forest in the regions immediately sur-rounding the mines. This is evident in Figure 3, a photograph taken in 1898 ofQuincy Hill, site of one of the most heavily mined areas in the Keweenaw. The Por-tage waterway is in the foreground, and mineshafts are visible in the upper right.Most of the hardwoods and larger conifers described in original surveyors noteshave been logged off. A few small conifers remain, scattered about the hill andalong the waterfront.

The photograph in Figure 4 of Quincy Hill was taken 22 years later, shortly afterthe end of World War I, further east along the Portage. Figure 5s photograph, takenabout the same time, is a view from the top of Quincy Hill, looking down to thewaterfront. Virtually no trees survive. It should be noted that copper mining tookplace undergroundthe devastation is not due to surface mining.

As Alexis De Tocqueville noted in 1831, Americans did not dwell on the won-ders of naturethey did not see the marvelous forest until it had been cut down(Murdoch, 1943). Forests burdened the worker and were viewed as an obstacle tobe removed to uncover the copper beneath the forest floor. Dense forests slowedinfrastructure development, and several miners and surveyors became hopelesslylost while searching out new mine or rail bed locations. Forests were cleared ofhuman necessity, but the by-products of this clearing were used as lumber in miningtowns to house the immigrant miners as well as in the construction of railroad cars,railroad ties, and bridging and rafters in the mine shafts and as a source of energy.The forest was thus a cheap, locally available material to support mining opera-tions. The mines required 2,600,000 board feet of pine and hemlock plus an addi-tional 13,000 railroad ties above ground. An additional 18,000,000 board feet oftimber were used annually underground at the Calumet and Hecla mine (Nute,1944).

The Great Depression hit the Keweenaw particularly hard. By 1930, miningemployment in Houghton County had dropped to less than 2,000, whereas theregional population dropped to less than 70,000.18 By the start of World War II, fewmines remained active, and population fell further to 47,600 people (Murdoch,1943). Some mines reopened to fulfill copper orders created by war demand, but thecopper boom was over, and most mines closed in the 1950s, unable to compete withcopper mined more cheaply elsewhere in the world. The last active mine inHoughton County closed in the late 1960s, and the last copper mine in the regionclosed in the early 1990s.

The mining companies did not truly inhabit the Keweenaw. They moved onwhen the economic value of the copper fell, and the boomtowns of the early 20thcentury dwindled as miners too moved on in search of employment. They left



behind decimated forests, huge piles of mine rock left over from shaft blasts, andacres of black sand stamped of its copper.

Assessment of the copper boom period. Mining destroyed forest health in thevicinity of the mines, which covered a large area up the spine of the Keweenaw.Reduction of habitat devastated many species, creating a forest ecosystem of lowintegrity and declining stability. Although the land was productive from an eco-nomic standpoint, the productivity was centered on a single resource sold to distant


FIGURE 3: Birds Eye View of Quincy Hill and Hancock, Michigan, Circa 1898Source: Courtesy of Michigan Technological University Archives and Copper Country Historical Col-lections, Michigan Technological University.

FIGURE 4: View of Quincy Hill and Hancock, Michigan, Circa 1920Source: Courtesy of Michigan Technological University Archives and Copper Country Historical Col-lections, Michigan Technological University, Roy Drier Collection.


buyers. Beauty was diminished; it is hard to perceive beauty in the photographs ofQuincy Hill from this period. Land use concentrated on copper extraction, a pro-ductive short-term use of land for the benefit of mining companies. Power was inthe hands of the mining companies, who owned most of the land in the region butwere themselves owned by corporate interests from outside the region. Both thecopper and the profits generated from copper mining left the community. Most ofthe mining towns are mere shadows of their former selves, and many have disap-peared altogether, reclaimed by the forest with which they were built (Krause,1992). Mining company decisions were made based on market conditions and com-petition, reinforced by a government philosophy of protecting property rights andavoiding interference in the operation of markets. They demonstrated little recogni-tion of long-term responsibilities to the land. With no long-term commitment to thecommunity or the land, mining interests moved out when the economic benefitdeclined. These factors combined to strip local communities of their power, makingthem dependent on the mining companies. As company towns, the communitieshad little real local autonomy. As a result, there is no evidence of a land ethic, onlyan economic ethic, during this period.

Pine Timber Era, Mid-1870 to 1900

Away from the mines, the forest remained virtually untouched during the earlypart of the mining boom. As late as 1917, diaries of high school students containstories learned from their mothers and fathers of vast forests in the Keweenaw whenthe parents were young (Lankton, 1997). However, as the pine forests of New Eng-land and the Lower Peninsula of Michigan were cut over by the mid-1800s, the vasttimber reserves of Michigans Upper Peninsula, including the Keweenaw,increased in value.

The prevailing wisdom of the era was that railroads and lumber companies, asbenefactors of the country, should be given unlimited land and be allowed to chargewhat markets would bear. Anything that stood in the way of profits was treason(Reimann, 1981). Between the late 1870s and mid-1900s, timber was harvested for


FIGURE 5: View From Quincy Hill to Houghton, March 20, 1920Source: Courtesy of Michigan Technological University Archives and Copper Country Historical Col-lections, Michigan Technological University, Nils Eilersen Collection.


lumber for the fast-growing cities of the Midwest and the new paper mills along theGreat Lakes. With average yields of 4 million board feet per square mile of forest,early timber barons thought the white pine of the Upper Peninsula was inexhaust-ible (Reimann, 1981). In fact, one of the early lumber traders stated that it wouldtake centuries to exhaust the pine supply. During this era, there was also a great faiththat providence would provide resources as required, and the purpose of the frontierwas to provide a natural abundance to be exploited for the advancement of civiliza-tion (Cronon, 1991).

No place in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is very far from a big river or lake,and this proved to be a critical factor in the rapid exploitation of timber reserves.Much of the timber was floated to mills and then shipped via waterway to Chicago,which was the center of the lumber trade. River jams caused by saw logs were com-mon, with many accumulating more than 100 million board feet of lumber at thejam; the largest recorded jam exceeded 500 million board feet (Cronon, 1991). Toput this in perspective, 500 million board feet represents almost 85,000 logs, eachof them 2 feet in diameter and 16 feet long.

Pine, cedar, hemlock, spruce, and balsam fir were all felled, but white and redpine were in huge, rapidly growing demand by builders and railroads. More than250,000 white pines were felled in a single year at peak production. The ChicagoLumber Exchange shipped 220 million board feet of lumber in 1860, 580 millionboard feet in 1870, and more than 1 billion board feet in 1880. Already by the late1880s, supply problems were starting to appear, especially in terms of lumber qual-ity and tree diameters. Compounding this problem, trees felled in later years werefurther from the rivers and lakes used to transport them, increasing costs. Timbercompany bankruptcies started to increase in the mid-1890s, and by the late 1890s,the boom was clearly over and the pine supply had been decimated. Michigan whitepines were the first to run out, and by the turn of the century, the countryside waslargely treeless where magnificent pine forests had stood 40 years earlier (Cronon,1991).

In addition to pine harvests, pulp and paper companies required large stocks ofaspen and other pulpwood. With no thought for the land and its future, the forestwas stripped bare. Even railroad companies clear cut19 their rights of way for thetimber value. Huge tracts of white and red pine, along with thousands of acres ofhardwood forest, were clear cut between 1850 and 1900, and slash fires burned hotin the tree tops and on the ground, where small limbs, pine needles, and leavesremained from clear cutting.

When the timber was gone, land companies and speculators moved on just as thecopper mining companies had, leaving towns abandoned and indebted. Even whilethey were operating in the region, timber barons, like company towns, were notalways good neighbors. One timber baron spent much of his time warding off appli-cants for gifts for various charities (Reimann, 1981).

Assessment of the pine timber era. Clear cutting huge tracts of pine forest clearlyreduced forest health by degrading the stability and integrity of the ecosystem overlarge areas of the Keweenaw. Clear cuts are certainly not beautiful. The land waseconomically productive, but that productivity was based largely on a singleresource and did not account for the value of other land resources. Like the coppermining companies, the timber barons were interested in economic land use, extract-ing trees instead of copper, but not in a sustainable way. It was falsely assumed thatthe land and its resources were inexhaustible. Again, like the copper mining compa-nies, the timber barons did not have a long-term commitment to the communities in



which they operated. Once the resource was gone, so were the companies. Powerwas in the hands of outside corporate interests who were given free reign to exploitthe land. Large tracts of property were held by timber barons who made decisionsbased on market conditions, reinforced by a government philosophy that elevatedproperty rights and avoided market regulation. This made communities dependenton timber barons who were not inclined to cooperate and did not recognize aresponsibility for the land.

Hardwood Forest Products, Mid-1960s to the Present

The clear cutting and fires, as devastating as they were to the original forest,cleared the way for a new cycle of forest growth or succession. Most of the speciesnative to the Keweenaw have very wide habitat tolerances and are adapted to distur-bances such as fire, wind, flood, and ice. Unlike natural disturbances, however,human disturbances are often more severe and wide ranging. The type of humandisturbances common in the Keweenaw favored species such as maple and birch,which have small, wind-dispersed seeds and tolerance to disturbances created bylogging. Forest fire suppression (putting out fires quickly once they start) andabatement (removing fuel and clearing lines and breaks before a fire starts) are alsoforms of human disturbance, which favor northern hardwood succession asopposed to pine and oak (Barnes & Wagner, 1981). Although the human distur-bances of the past century removed most of the large pine from the Keweenaw, theyhave created an ideal habitat for todays hardwood forest.

Much of the early logging and timber operations bypassed the hardwoods in theKeweenaw, favoring the softwood pine and pulpwood species. Prior to widespreaddevelopment of rail lines in the Upper Peninsula in approximately 1890, all timberwas floated to mills. Because maple (and many other hardwoods) does not float,they were not candidates for logging. In 1900, there were an estimated 7,000,000acres of hardwood stands across the Lake Superior region (Reimann, 1981). How-ever, as the pine ran out and railroad access improved, the timber industry and themining companies turned more and more to hardwoods for lumber. By the end ofthe copper boom, hardwood forest reserves had shrunk to 140,000 acres (Nute,1944). With the demise of mining and intensive logging in the early part of the1900s, hardwood forest reserves rebounded to their present level of almost 5 mil-lion acres, which represents the largest reserves in the Midwest (Gagnon, 1996).From 1980 to 1993, timber reserves increased by about 3%. Sugar maples and yel-low birch make up more than 50% of the stands in the Keweenaw and haveremained relatively stable, whereas pine stands have almost doubled and aspen hasdeclined by 20% (North Central Research Station, 1999).

The reforestation of maples is a natural process, aided by the production ofnearly 1 million seedlings per acre each year, scattered by wind and taking shallowroot in the humus of decaying leaves. Yet only about 100 of these seedlings will sur-vive, growing slowly for up to 300 years. After 30 years, a sugar maple in the north-ern hardwood forest will stand less than 3 feet tall. At maturity, they will tower morethan 100 feet, with a broad canopy shading the forest beneath them. Maples needclean air and infrequent fires to thrive, which are conditions that are prevalent in theKeweenaw (Gagnon, 1996).

Evidence of this natural reforestation process is visible in Figures 6 and 7. Thesephotographs are views of Quincy Hill today in the same locations as in Figures 3and 4, which were taken more than 80 years ago. Mixed hardwoods with some coni-



fer stands show a forest returned, albeit different from its earlier state. Sugarmaples, birch, hemlock, balsam fir, and aspen now dominate the region.

Maples grown in the Keweenaw are one of the most sought-after hardwoods inNorth America because of the clear, almost white wood they produce and the smalldiameter heartwood, which makes them ideal for veneer logs. Keweenaw maple is


FIGURE 6: View of Quincy Hill, Hancock, Michigan, July 19, 2000

FIGURE 7: View of Quincy Hill and Hancock, Michigan, July 19, 2000


shipped all over the world for use in furniture and flooring, and the type of Birdseyemaple typically found in the Keweenaw is highly sought after (Gagnon, 1996).

Maple from the Keweenaw continues to increase in value. In the mid-1990s, itsold for as much as $2,000 per 1,000 board feet (Gagnon, 1996). Today, mapleveneer logs garner $6,000 per 1,000 board feet, and good-quality maple saw logsget $4,000 to $5,000. By contrast, saw bolts of other regional tree species are onlyworth $200 per 1,000 board feet, and low-grade pulp stock sells for a mere $30 per1,000 board feet. Birdseye maple is the most highly valued of all maples, bringingbetween $5,000 and $50,000 per 1,000 board feet or as much as $25,000 per tree(Schwandt, 1999). Lake Superior Land Company estimates 60% of its productionis pulpwood and that only 1% to 2% currently is select prime maple 18 inches indiameter (Schwandt, 1999). The average yield per acre in the northern hardwoodforests is 1,000 board feet of maple plus three to four cords of pulpwood. Each1,000 board feet represents 15 logs of 12-inch diameter, approximately 12 feet inlength. In professionally managed forests, only about five to eight maples per acreare felled each year, along with four to six companion species for use as pulpwood(Gagnon, 1996).

Northern Hardwoods (a division of the Rossi Company) is the largest commer-cial hardwood forest products company in the region, processing 21 million boardfeet of maple each year in the Keweenaw. This is comparable to the 18 millionboard feet annually consumed by the mines during the copper boom. The differenceis that the large commercial forest products companies in the region spread theircuts over much larger tracts of land than the mining companies did, and they useselective cuts to professionally manage the forests for long-term sustainable use.

Because of the great economic value of the Keweenaw maples, there is pressureto overcut. Whereas professional foresters and some commercial forest productscompanies take a long-term perspective of proper forest management with the goalof increasing their harvest of high-grade saw logs compared to pulpwood, manysmall landowners succumb to short-term economic pressures. Many foresters willdouble mark the trees selected for cut (one mark on the trunk, the other mark on theground) to prevent overcutting by contract loggers. Although some commercialforest products companies have created logger incentive programs to reduceovercutting, abuses still occur. Clear cutting that results in same-age stands (all sap-lings, all seedlings, etc.) causes a sudden disruption to forest progression. It cantake 50 years or more for a maple forest to begin to regenerate after a clear cut, evenif it is professionally managed (Gagnon, 1996). Maple clear cuts can quicklybecome aspen stands (if there is some aspen already present), because aspen is apioneer species that grows rapidly in open tracts.

In addition to the regeneration of trees, another measure of forest health is thepresence of a complex animal community. Hardwood forests support substantiallymore species than a plantation pine forest.20 After a long absence from theKeweenaw, the gray wolf, the apex predator of the northern forests, returned in the1990s. The return of the gray wolf is a clear sign of the return of a good forest.Improved forest health can be attributed to several factors, including changinghuman attitudes, higher standards of living in the region, decreasing rural presenceand lower population densities (because of the decline of outlying mining commu-nities), the adoption of professional forestry management techniques, and theemergence of land champions. The degree to which each contributes to foresthealth cannot be accurately determined because the factors are highly interrelatedand difficult to untangle. Certainly, the process of returning the forest to a healthy



state is slow and almost imperceptible at times, but when viewed over the course ofa 60-year interval, the change is quite dramatic.

Assessment of the hardwood forest products era. As the forest regenerates, foresthealth returns, measured by both stability and integrity of plant and animal commu-nities in the regional ecosystems. The land is very productive, with the current for-est products industry consuming as many resources as the mining companies did.Professional forest management, selective cutting, and governmental policies havepromoted more sustainable land use programs, along with multiple uses of the landthrough the Commercial Forest Act. The beauty of the renewed forest attracts newresidents and tourists, who may someday change the balance of power in the region.Today, large landholders representing outside corporate interests still dominateland ownership, and some local governments continue to resist efforts to controlaccess and use through means such as zoning. Although government action andcommunity involvement in decision making on land use is increasing, significantpower still rests in the hands of external interests. Keweenaw County, at the very tipof the peninsula, is the poorest county in the region, and good jobs are hard to find,increasing the likelihood that a powerful landowner can sway local decision mak-ing about land use. Market factors and property rights are still very strong determi-nants of power in the region. The promise of outside developers to improve thequality of lives of the local citizens holds a strong appeal to many people in theKeweenaw. Communities are becoming more aware of the issues involved in landmanagement, and there is an evolving sense of cooperation between large forestproducts companies and the local communities, both of whom are beginning to rec-ognize their responsibility to the land.

Assessment of the environmental history of the Keweenaw forest. The land ethicand power relations of each historical period and the resultant impact on land healthand land use are summarized in Table 1.

The material wealth extracted from the natural resources of the Keweenaw dur-ing the past 150 years was purchased at the expense of geologic formations and for-ests that took thousands of years to accumulate (Cronon, 1991). The reforestationhas only occurred in the past 50 years, and there are still scars on the land from min-ing and timbering operations. Obviously, the forest has returned, albeit in a muchaltered state, and land health has not returned to preindustrial levels. Land health isimproving, but the land is unlikely to return to its original state of health. This cre-ates the difficult situation of reaching agreement in the community on how muchhealth is enough.

The environmental history of the Keweenaw forest points out some of the short-comings of current definitions of sustainability. For example, the mining compa-nies removed less than one third of the copper in the region, so it could be arguedthat they have preserved resources for use by future generations. The hardwood for-ests have regenerated, and the pine stands are slowly recovering. The companiesthat have historically exploited the forest resources have thus met many of the tech-nical definitions of sustainability, but they have been no friends of the forest. Thecopper mining companies and early timber and forest products companies did notmanage with a land ethic as part of their operating philosophy. They competed forresources, demonstrated little commitment to the long-term viability of the localhuman or biotic community in which they operated, and saw no obligation to limittheir land use. Although current forest products companies show some evidence ofa developing land ethic, the challenge for the future will be to learn from our history




TABLE 1: Land Ethic/Use/Health Summary of Historical Periods in Keweenaw Forest

Land Ethic Power Relations Land Use Land Health

Presettlement Strong Nondominance Subsistence Very goodStrong community No market Land was used High integrity

(tribe) No property only for basic High stabilityHigh level of ownership material needs Low but

cooperation No codified and to a lesser sufficientRecognition of government degree as a center productivity

responsibility to other than of spiritual life Great beautythe land and its tribal custominhabitants Some community

power amongtribal leaders

Copper mining Weak Property/market Economic Very poorWeak communities dominant Land was valued Low integrity

tied to company Market conditions primarily for the Low andtowns dictate resources it could declining

Competition with Property rights produce for sale stabilitynature Governments in the marketplace Productive

No recognition of unwilling to Diminishedresponsibilities restrict mining beautyto the land and operationits inhabitants

Pine timber Weak Property/market Economic Very poorWeak communities dominant Land was valued Low integrity

tied to lumber Market conditions primarily for the Low andbarons dictate resources it could declining

Competition with Property rights produce for sale stabilitynature unchecked in the marketplace Productive

No recognition of Communities Diminishedresponsibilities dependent on beautyto the land and timber baronsits inhabitants Government

unwilling torestrict timberoperation

Hardwood Moderate Improving balance Multiple use Improvingtimber Communities Government Selective cutting, Integrity and

becoming more zoning and professional stability areaware of issues community input management, and returning

Greater sense now considered government Productiveof cooperation along with market policies promote Returning

Greater demand and access to land for beauty inresponsibility property rights variety of uses altered formto the land and issues involvingits inhabitants land use

Tourism/ Uncertain Power sharing Multiple use Uncertaindevelopment Facilitated Growing The land is still All aspects

community recognition that accessible for a of landmeetings are government, variety of uses, health canuseful in citizens, industry, but land access only bepromoting a and private is increasingly judged aftersense of property owners a concern to land use hascommunity must work many local been agreedownership, together for residents on andcooperation, the long-term establishedand shared benefit of allresponsibility members of thefor the land and communityits inhabitants


how to better identify and promote opportunities for land use that do not compro-mise a land ethic and that preserve the integrity, stability, productivity, and beautyof the Keweenaw forest.

LEARNING FROM HISTORY

Currently, the forest land of the Keweenaw is at a critical transition stage. Deci-sions involving current issues of land use and land health in the Keweenaw willshape its future. A brief description of current land use issues in the Keweenawfollows, along with a discussion of sociopolitical factors that affect the decision-making process.

As the forest regenerates, people have come looking for peace and quiet awayfrom the city. This increases property values, particularly shoreline properties. As aresult, land prices in the Keweenaw have doubled in the past 10 years, and shorelinevalues have risen even more rapidly. Companies such as Land Superior Land Com-pany (formerly the land-holding division of a major mining company and currentlyowned by International Paper) are selling low-quality stands and thin strips ofshoreline for residential and commercial development.

Frequently, the large land-holding companies are in an underinvestment trap.High-quality stands lend themselves to professional management; the long-termhealth of forest land can be both commercially and ecologically beneficial. How-ever, stands that are already of low quality because of past mismanagement or topo-graphical factors (exposure, soil, proximity to the shore) will probably never gener-ate a return on the investment. These are the areas that lend themselves to quickprofit generation through spin-off for commercial and residential development.Land with Lake Superior shoreline is a particularly enticing target for quick profittaking. Because the shoreline is predominantly rocky and is buffeted by harsh win-ter winds, quality stands are rare in close proximity to the shoreline. However, LakeSuperior shoreline is considered the most valuable to local developers and second-home buyers. Therefore, the cash market value of land along the shoreline almostalways exceeds its productive value as a source of timber.

Unfortunately, these near-shore ecosystems are among the rarest and most criti-cal land tracts in the Keweenaw from a regional biodiversity standpoint (Orr, 1997).Local governments are very supportive of near-shore development because theydepend on property improvements and increased tourism in the Keweenaw for theireconomic base. It appears that land use aimed at residential development and tour-ism will increase in the next decades.

Most of the land in the Keweenaw is privately held, much of it by one commer-cial forest products company (International Paper) under the Commercial ForestAct, which grants public access to these lands in return for significant tax abate-ments. Keweenaw residents hunt, fish, swim, snowmobile, and gather wood forwinter heating on these lands. As land is sold off for residential and tourist develop-ment, residents are starting to lose access to land and resources they once consid-ered a common good.

Many people in forest communities feel threatened by public policy set in dis-tant places such as the urban centers and seats of government, where policy makersknow little of the forest (Dobbs and Ober, 1996). Specifically in the Keweenaw,federal and state wetlands protection legislation (combined with land-market fac-tors) has forced development onto other land along the shoreline that contains eco-systems that are both more unique and more critical than the wetlands ecosystems(Orr, 1997). The lack of trust in distant government policy makers along with



unique local knowledge and history suggest that local autonomy will be critical todeveloping a land ethic. Beck (1997) advanced a related idea when he warned thatthe existing power relations of macropolitics are ill-suited to solve the problems ofsustainable use. He calls for a new order of subpolitics in which coalitions of actorsgather at social sites to take action. Frequently, the coalition will be composed ofactors who would not normally join forces.

Even though centralized governmental control is problematic, there is also a riskassociated with local community control, both with small landholders and largecorporate ownership of the land. For small landowners, asymmetric knowledge ofbest forest management practices creates a climate for opportunism. For instance, iflocal landowners log their parcels once every 10 years, they will be infrequent pur-chasers of logging services. The logging companies, however, will be frequent sell-ers of logging services. This asymmetry in market participation creates an informa-tion imbalance that is fraught with moral hazard.

For large, commercial ownership of the land, commercial improvement of theland often results in the loss of certain species, such as basswood and white cedar.Because these species are not dominant in the local forest, their loss might hardly benoticed by the casual observer or occasional visitor. However, the loss ofbiodiversity and change in biological structure of the forest would have conse-quences for forest health. Last, issues of roads and road quality affect the health ofthe forest. If access to the land is to be maintained, some road policy will be needed.Whether roads should be built or improved to increase access to remote areas of theKeweenaw remains controversial. For all of these reasons, a well-informed localcitizenry, along with the availability of outside experts such as the MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources or the Nature Conservancy (among others), willbe critical to the success of any local coalition trying to balance land access with theeconomic and environmental needs of the community. The federal and state gov-ernments also have a role to play in enforcing the balance and providing checks oncollateral damage that may be caused to other ecosystems by actions taken in theKeweenaw. For instance, a road cut through the Keweenaw forest may shift animalmigration patterns, causing negative but unintended consequences for another eco-system. Leopold (1949/1970) argued that ecosystem management should involveextraregional government to prevent such damage shifting.

Beyond the economic and market implications of typical ownership tract size,there is another barrier to community-based decision making in the Keweenaw thatmust be addressed. Many of the local users of the land are migrants. There is a sub-stantial postsecondary student population in the Keweenaw of almost 6,000 indi-viduals. Many of them enjoy bird-watching, hiking, hunting, fishing, camping,canoeing, and so forth in the local forest. In addition, there are a large number oftourists who visit the Keweenaw each year to fish, camp, hike, snowmobile, ski, andhunt on local lands. Last, the number of second homes serving part-time residents isgrowing rapidly. Migrant land users have little interest in the economic develop-ment of the local community, are vocal about maintaining land access, and areunavailable for ongoing community dialogue and decision making.

For many years, there was little interest in the Keweenaw in developing a com-prehensive regional land use plan that incorporates economic development. Thisexposes land health in the region to adverse risk. Frustration over the lack of spe-cific land use guidelines can cause entrepreneurial, creative, innovative individualsto leave the area. The result of an out-migration of innovative leaders can be thatless competent, more conservative guardians of the status quo will take leadershippositions in community decision making (Lentz, 1988). The withdrawal from the



community of economically powerful, locally invested individuals can create apolitical vacuum that brings about a regression to the historic patterns of paternalis-tic dependence on outsiders (e.g., mining companies, lumber barons, etc.), whichcreated the nonparticipative and apathetic citizenry in the first place (Beckley,1996).

Fortunately, Keweenaw residents are waking up to the need for land use plan-ning to preserve and protect land health. A coalition is being built in a series offorums that are bringing together environmental groups, local and state govern-ments, local real estate developers, and other commercial interests. Whether thiscoalition finds a common voice or defines a common action remains to be seen.(Community coalitions have emerged elsewhere in the Upper Great Lakes region.For instance, a successful and community-supported land use framework has beendeveloped 250 miles to the east of the Keweenaw in the Les Cheneaux region alongthe shores of Lake Huron [Smith, 1998]). One result of this coalition is that onecounty in the Keweenaw is working to revise its land use plan and another is prepar-ing to consider developing a land use plan. In the Keweenaw, an emerging landethic may lead to a land use plan developed by the community, infused with a spiritof cooperation and a sense of responsibility, which may in turn produce a healthyland for all to enjoy for generations to come. This expanded definition of sustain-able use, which includes a land ethic of community, cooperation, and responsibilityand advocates balanced power relationships, may just hold the key to success.

CONCLUSION

Leopolds (1949/1970) insights into the relationship between land use and landhealth, the impact of power relations on land use, and the potential impact of an eth-ics of land usea land ethicprovide a useful framework for thinking about thedynamics of land use over time. This framework also informs our ideas aboutsustainability and the role that human collectivities, including organizations, haveplayed in degrading land and can play in restoring land health. We hope that the caseof the Keweenaw will encourage organizational scholars interested insustainability to enlarge their notion of sustainability to include the whole bioticcommunity that organizations inhabit, to think clearly about the power that organi-zations wield, and to consider seriously the role of a land ethic for organizations.Although our case study focuses specifically on forest land and forest resources, weencourage others in different landscapes, with different human uses and organiza-tions, to read their own environmental histories and discover the relationshipsbetween people and place. The more we learn about the environmental histories ofspecific places, the sooner we can develop a grounded global vision ofsustainability for the future in which Leopolds vision of integrity, stability, produc-tivity, and beauty are realized. The Keweenaw forest may never be the preindustrial,ancient forest of our hearts desire, but it can be a healthy one for future generationsto enjoy.

NOTES1. Succession models and the permanence of climax species are the subject of debate

among forest ecologists. For the purpose of our study, we refer to the ecological theories thatsuggest plant communities develop in some form of succession process. Succession involvesgradual, continuous replacement of one plant species by another until the communityreaches a self-maintaining and quasipermanent state called climax. The early stages of suc-



cession are characterized by communities with few species, and each stage of successionincreases in diversity, although some ecological communities demonstrate a decline in diver-sity in later stages. Events that interrupt the natural succession process, such as fire or log-ging, are called disturbances (Daniel & Sullivan, 1981).

2. Beech, however, is curiously absent in the western Upper Peninsula, including theKeweenaw Peninsula.

3. In the academic literature, the term sustainable development predominates. The termdevelopment implies growth, which is at the core of many disputes about the very possibilityof ecological sustainability. We will sidestep this debate about growth and development byfocusing instead on sustainable use of resources.

4. Because Leopold died before A Sand County Almanac (SCA) was published in 1949and because subsequent editions have included additional essays, most notably The RoundRiver, and undergone editorial changes, Leopoldian experts prefer the original edition ofSCA. For this article, we cite the easily accessible 1970 paperback edition published byBallantine, which suffers from the changes noted above; however, we have focused on two ofthe essays that constitute Part 3 (The Upshot) of the original SCA, namely, ConservationEsthetic (CE) and The Land Ethic (LE). Moreover, we have carefully checked citations toensure that the paperback edition reflects no editorial changes from the original. Nonethe-less, we do on occasion cite the essays The Round River (RR) and Natural History (NH)included in the paperback edition but not the original edition; we will clearly note when weare using these essays by using the abbreviations CE, LE, RR, and NH in the citations in thetext so that readers are clear about the source.

5. As a founder of the Wilderness Society, Aldo Leopold is most closely associated withefforts to preserve wilderness. This is not his only contribution to the discussion of land use,however. He also outlined the urgent need for a land ethic for private and industrial landowners.

6. The Society of American Foresters (SAF) is currently debating what kind of lan

Walck and Strong- 2001 Aldo Leopold Land Ethics

Documents

Transcript of Walck and Strong- 2001 Aldo Leopold Land Ethics