This hanging involved no question of propriety. The girls were property. The disposal of property was then, as now, a matter of expediency, not of right and wrong. Concepts of right and wrong were not lacking from Odysseus' Greece: witness the fidelity of his wife through the long years before at last his blackprowed galleys clove the wine-dark seas for home. The ethical structure of that day covered wives, but had not yet extended to human chattels. During the three thousand years which have since elapsed, ethical criteria have been extended to many fields of conduct, with corresponding shrinkages in those judged by expediency only. THE ETHICAL SEQUENCE This extension of ethics, so far studied only by philosophers, is actually a process in ecological evolution. Its sequences may be described in ecological as well as in philosophical terms. An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct. These are two definitions for one thing. The thing has its origin in the tendency of interdependent individuals or groups to evolve modes of co-operation. The ecologist calls these symbioses. Politics and economics are advanced symbioses in which the original free-for-all competition has been replaced, in part, by co-operative mechanisms with an ethical content. The complexity of co-operative mechanisms has increased with population density, and with the efficiency of tools. It was simpler, for example, to define the anti-social uses of sticks and stones in the days of the mastodons than of bullets and billboards in the age of motors. The first ethics dealt with the relation between individuals; the Mosaic Decalogue is an example. Later accretions dealt with the relation between the individual and society. The Golden Rule tries to integrate the individual to society; democracy to integrate social organization to the individual. There is as yet no ethic dealing with man's relation to land, and to the animals and plants which grow upon it. Land, like Odysseus' slave-girls, is still property. The land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations. The extension of ethics to this third element in human environment is, if I read the evidence correctly, an evolutionary possibility and an econoligcal necessity. It is the third step in a sequence. The first two have already been taken. Individual thinkers since the days of Ezekiel and Isaiah have asserted that the despoliation of land is not only inexpedient but wrong. Society, however, has not yet affirmed their belief. I regard the present conservation movement as the embryo of such an affirmation. An ethic may be regarded as a mode of guidance for meeting ecological situations so new or intricate, or involving such deferred reactions, that the path of social expediency is not discernible to the average individual. Animal instincts are modes of guidance for the individual in meeting such situations. Ethics are possibly a kind of community instinct in-the-making. THE COMMUNITY CONCEPT All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to cooperate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for.) The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land. This sounds simple: do we not already sing our love for and obligation to the land of the free and the home of the brave? Yes, but just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending helter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the waters, which we assume have no function except to turn turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage. Certainly not the animals, of which we have already extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful species. A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of these 'resources,' but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state. In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow members, and also respect for the community as such. In human history, we have learned (I hope) that the conquerer role is eventually self-defeating. Why? Because it is implicit in such a role that the conquerer knows, ex cathedra, just what makes the community clock tick, and just what and who is valuable, and what and who is worthless, in community life. It always turns out that he knows neither, and this is why his conquests eventually defeat themselves. In the biotic community, a parallel situation exists. Abraham knew exactly what the land was for: it was to drip milk and honey into Abraham's mouth. At the present moment, the assurance with which we regard this assumption is inverse to the degree of our education. A land ethic, then, reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the capacity of the land for self-renewal. Conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this capacity. Conservationists are notorious for their dissensions. Superficially these seem to add up to mere confusion, but a more careful scrutiny reveals a single plane of cleavage common to many specialized fields. In each field one group (A) regards the land as soil, and its function as commodity-production; another group (B) regards the land as a biota, and its function as something broader. How much broader is admittedly in a state of doubt and confusion. In my own field, forestry, group A is quite content to grow trees like cabbages, with cellulose as the basic forest commodity. It feels no inhibition against violence; its ideology is agronomic. Group B, on the other hand, sees forestry as fundamentally different from agronomy because it employs natural species, and manages a natural environment rather than creating an artificial one. Group B prefers natural reproduction on principle. It worries on biotic as well as economic grounds about the loss of species like chestnut, and the threatened loss of the white pines. It worries about a whole series of secondary forest functions: wildlife, recreation, watersheds, wilderness areas. To my mind, Group B feels the stirrings of an ecological conscience. * * * * * In all of these cleavages, we see repeated the same basic paradoxes: man the conquerer versus man the biotic citizen; science the sharpener of his sword versus science the searchlight on his universe; land the slave and servant versus land the collective organism. Robinson's injunction to Tristram may well be applied, at this juncture, to Homo sapiens as a species in geological time: Whether you will or not You are a King, Tristram, for you are one Of the time-tested few that leave the world, Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There, Oxford OZARK WILDERNESS WATERWAYS CLUB, October 19, 1971. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Longworth Office Building, Washington, D.C. MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN: The Ozark Wilderness Waterways Club is an organization of canoeists and conservationists, some 350 families strong, based primarily in the Kansas City Metropolitan area but with members in 19 states. By conservative estimates, we account for more than 1,000 individuals from infancy to beyond 80 years of age. The Ozark Wilderness Waterways Club urges speedy and favorable action upon HRS382, Congressman Hammerschmidt's bill, and HR9119, Congressman Alexander's bill, which would establish the Buffalo River in Arkansas as The Buffalo National River to be administered by the National Park Service. The Ozark Wilderness Waterways Club (hereafter referred to as OWWC for short) is intimately acquainted with the Buffalo and other streams in the Ozark region. As well as having enjoyed and restored our souls on this unique and beautiful river, we have worked toward its preservation for more than ten years. The struggle to attain National River status for the Buffalo began with the real possibility of two dams which would have completely destroyed the Buffalo as a river. At first, almost anything other than the proposed Gilbert and Lone Rock dams was preferable to us but we realized that keeping the dams off the Buffalo was only part of the answer. If you are going to be against something it is incumbent upon you to be for something else. All the attention brought about by the dam question made it impossible for the Buffalo to be simply left alone as it was before. Thousands of people knew the river was there. Some believed it had much more to offer than another impoundment in an area saturated with impoundments. Therefore, we welcomed the idea of protection of the river and its environment by the National Park Service. Early in his tenure as Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall directed the National Park Service to identify opportunities to preserve some of the remaining American streams possessing unusual scenic and recreational values. In a letter to Secretary Udall dated March 29, 1961, U.S. Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas expressed his belief that the Buffalo River and its surroundings would make an excellent addition to the National Park System. Meanwhile, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers scheduled a public hearing for January 30, 1962, at Marshall, Arkansas, 14 miles from the Buffalo River where virtually the only pro-dam sentiment in all of Arkansas was concentrated. OWWC sent a delegation to protest the dams and to urge a better fate for the Buffalo River. In 1963 we were encouraged by the publication of a field investigation report and an economic study of the proposed Buffalo National River. Both indicated that National River status was highly desirable from all standpoints. The field report was made by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Region, Richmond, Virginia and published in April, 1963. The economic study was prepared for the National Park Service by the College of Business Administration, University of Arkansas, and was published in May, 1963. The 1965 Memorial Day weekend most memorable for 121 of us on the Buffalo River. Nineteen trees were felled across the river between our last camp and our intended take-out at Pruitt. This episode strengthened our resolve to be for river preservation. A major event concerning the Buffalo River in November, 1966 was the election of U.S. Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt to his first term in the House of Representatives. It is significant that Mr. Hammerschmidt was in favor of a Buffalo National River and that his opponent was not. HR 8382 is, of course, Congressman Hammerschmidt's bill. In February, 1968 a revised economic study of the proposed Buffalo National River was prepared for the National Park Service by a staff member of the College of Business Administration at the University of Arkansas. Despite rising costs during this long interim, the revised study was even more optimistic than the original study five years earlier. To quote just one paragraph from that study: "By 1972, the overall accumulated effects of a Buffalo National River should include the addition of $16.8 million in personal income, and could create 3,500 new job opportunities in the five county study area Gentlemen, 1972 is only two months away! People of the Buffalo River counties have "lost" these economic gains of the past four years while the river and its environs have been deteriorating very perceptibly. In February of 1969, Stream Preservation in Arkansas was published as the report of the (Arkansas) State Committee on Stream Preservation. It was prepared for the then Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller under the sponsorship of the Arkansas Planning Commission. Two paragraphs from that report: The preservation of streams must be part of a water policy recognizing all the human uses of water, the effects of engineering and developments on the biology of waters, and must include those estethic and historic values which are of significance to Society". "In summary our purpose is to preserve and protect an environment for man which has diversity and quality as well as quantity. This proposal to preserve streams in Arkansas for their economic esthetic, historic, recreational, and intagible values is in keeping with these high purposes". The Buffalo River is one of the five original rivers studied by this State Committee on Stream Preservation, a 16 member unpaid citizen body created by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas during the 1967 session of the Legislature. The committee, aware that the Buffalo had been proposed as a National River, recommended the preservation of the Buffalo because it was not then protected by any agency or authority in any way. As of today, it still isn't. In May, 1969, OWWC was represented at the Buffalo River hearing in support of 855 before Sen. Alan Bible's subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. U.S. Senators J. William Fulbright's and John L. McClellan's bill, S7, received Senate approval and was passed earlier this year. Now we are asking that the House take similar action on HR8382 introduced by Congressman Hammerschmidt and HR9119 introduced by Congressman Alexander. There are small differences between S7, and HR8382 and HR9119. We are confident that they can be reconciled easily and quickly once the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation recommends the bill favorably to the full committee and they advance to the floor of the House for a vote. The only current opposition to the Buffalo National River proposal is from a few landowners along the river. It appears to us that this is a case more of fear of the unknown than of real displeasure with the National River and Park concept. As a organization which has been promoting the National River status for more than a decade, the OWWC insists that all affected landowners be treated fairly and compensated for any losses they might incur, and that life tenancy or alternatives be granted. OWWC wishes no hardship to any present genuine landowner. We would wish that no land speculator get one cent more than he paid for any property within the proposed park boundaries. Further, OWWC concurs with Mr. Hammerschmidt that the five counties within the proposed park boundaries be compensated for any and all tax revenues lost by change of ownership. These payments to the counties should be for no longer than five years after passage of the Buffalo National River legislation, and such payments should be considered part of the project cost of the Buffalo National River. In all of the counties, new construction and land values outside of the park boundaries will more than offset the immediate and short term loss of the property tax revenue within five years. We concur with Congressman Hammerschmidt that the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act be applied to affected landowners, and that January 1, 1972 be used as the cut-off date on the right to use and occupy lands after Park Service acquisition. Nor have we any quarrel with Congressman Hammerschmidt's modification of the term "agricultural uses" to include grazing. Generally, the National Park Service proposal meets with our approval. Plans call for all commercial developments to be located outside the park boundaries. This is good planning. This measure alone will do much to protect the ecological integrity of the river and its immediate environs, and yet provide public access to the river. We are convinced that the National Park Service has learned in recent years how to preserve an area without allowing it to be trampled to death. We have faith in their ability to properly administer the Buffalo National River for maximum public enjoyment with minimum public impact. OWWC would wish that wildlife and wilderness values be weighed more heavily, and that, therefore the pack boundaries be increased to protect these values on the Buffalo itself and on some of its tributaries, especially Richland Creek and its valley. We understand that someone has proposed the creation of a citizen's advisory committee to aid in planning and development of the Buffalo National River. In this we also concur. Such a citizen's group should be broadly constituted. The Buffalo is being ravaged even at this moment by landowners and other interests doing their utmost to cut marketable trees, to excavate the gravel and otherwise, to realize a dollar before such environmentally destructive acts are frozen by Congressional decree. The "hour" for the Buffalo is later than you think! With proper management, the Buffalo country can be restored to its pristine appearance if action is taken immediaately to stop environmentally damaging practices. If these are allowed to continue, the restoration costs will increase appreciably. The changes we have seen on the river in the past ten years are damaging enough. The river just cannot stand much more unchecked "development". The finest overview of all the Buffalo is Kenneth L. Smith's book entitled "The Buffalo River Country" which was published in 1965 by the Ozark Society of Arkansas. The author is a native of Arkansas who, at considerable personal sacrifice, returned to his home state to gather material for his book. "The Country" gets as much play as does "The Buffalo River" in the text and photographs. You will nowhere else find such a treasury of information, history, and soft humor with an Arkansas accent. You have ample evidence and expression of the beauty and uniqueness of the Buffalo River in Arkansas. Some few of you have seen it firsthand. There can be no quarrel about the value of the Buffalo as a scenic river. Therefore, our statement will not dwell on these values which, by now, must have impressed you. No one, now, is actually against the Buffalo National River proposal. The State of Arkansas has shown its good faith in agreeing to sell to the federal government its investment in the Buffalo River State Park and the Lost Valley State Park for inclusion in the Buffalo National River and Park. Former Arkansas Governors Orval Faubus and Winthrop Rockefeller came out strongly in favor of the Buffalo National River proposal. Present Gov. Dale Bumpers told the Ozark Society at its spring meeting in March of this year that he is emphatically for a Buffalo National River in Arkansas. Every member of the Arkansas Congressional delegation is for the proposed Buffalo National River. The United States Senate has approved it. No barriers remain to House approval, provided HR 8382 and HR 9119 are reported favorably out of the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation. The U.S. Corps of Engineers has withdrawn its proposal to build Lone Rock and Gilbert Dams and now favors a Buffalo National River to be administered by the Park Service. To dramatize our interest in the Buffalo River, the Ozark Wilderness Waterways Club changed its traditional Thanksgiving canoe trip from a fine Ozark stream to the Buffalo River seven or eight years ago. We will be back on the Buffalo for Thanksgiving less than 30 days from now. We devoutly hope our Thanksgiving prayers will have been answered by then. Respectfully submitted. ROBERT S. WOODWARD II, Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you for your statement. I will read the rest of it because that philosophy interests me. Mr. KELLY I can recommend the whole book. It is a tremendous book. Mr. TAYLOR. Any questions? Thank you. Mrs. Bryant Davidson, Ozark Society, Shreveport chapters. STATEMENT OF MRS. BRYANT DAVIDSON, OZARK SOCIETY, SHREVEPORT CHAPTERS, SHREVEPORT, LA. Mrs. DAVIDSON. I think maybe my testimony might hearten the county clerk of Newton County and also Mr. Burdine. I should like to tell you what canoe trips on the Buffalo River have meant to the young people I have taken on the river. I have worked with young people all of my life and as you can see that is quite some time. Mr. TAYLOR. You said that now, we didn't. Mrs. DAVIDSON. In camps as counselor and camp director, as college professor and presently as recreation director of the YWCA, I have been on canoe trips on the Kentucky River and on lakes in Wis 72-466-72-10 |