Ecosystem management by objectives? by John C. Street

ECOSYSTEM - A community of organisms together with their physical environment, viewed as a system of interacting and interdependent relationships and including such processes as the flow of energy through trophic levels and the cycling of chemical elements and compounds through living and nonliving components of the system. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE SCIENCE DICTIONARY

Inasmuch as Pennsylvania’s Deer Management Program is being billed by its creators as a major component of their bigger, “Ecosystem Management” plan, it’s fair to ask, “What exactly is an ecosystem and by what, or whose, criteria is the management of this system to be judged?

The first part of this question is rather simple to answer - and understand - if one doesn’t get bogged down in the pedantic language of the dictionary definition. In a simplified nutshell, it’s like the old James Weldon song (“Dry bones”) explains, “Toe bone connected to the foot bone … foot bone connected to the leg bone ...” In other words, everything (from the naturally occurring chemicals absorbed by plants to the fang and claw predators at the top of the food chain) is connected to, and a part of, a naturally occurring eco-system.

However, the second part of the question (”by what, or whose, criteria is the management of this system to be judged?”) is trickier to get a handle on because ecosystems change and evolve with or without Homo sapiens’ (our) management.

For instance, a snapshot of the area that is now the Pennsylvania ecosystem taken in, say, the Mesozoic Era would look much different than one taken in the middle of the Phanerozoic Eon (when life forms began to appear) and either/both of these snapshots would look substantially different than one taken a mere – in Earth age – 10,000 years ago or one taken a scant 300 years ago.

It should not be considered esoteric atheism, therefore, to ask the proponents of “Ecosystem Management” (and, by extension, the architects of the Deer Management Plan) “What are your management objectives?” Do you wish to manage the Pennsylvania ecosystem back to the way it was during the Phanerozoic Eon or the way it was 300 … 200 … or 100 years ago? Or are your management objectives something entirely different?

“Ecosystem management” is another one of those terms, like “sustainable development” and “biodiversity,” that has been grafted onto the American vocabulary without a clear understanding of their meaning or, perhaps more accurately stated, with ambiguous meanings; to a layman they mean one thing, to their proponents, something else entirely.

To a layman, taking the words – “ecosystem management” - at their common-sense-face-value, they sound like they could be used in a sentence that begins with “Apple pie, motherhood and the US of A.” To their proponents, however, they have very different, and much more specific, meanings.

And, arguably, the proponents of “Ecosystem management” (and, again, by extension, the architects of the Deer Management Program), have no intention of dispelling this ambiguity lest their management objectives be called into question.

Inasmuch as Homo sapiens have been a part of their ecosystems for several thousand years, it is undeniable that our species has both impacted and changed these natural systems. Consequently, if not understandably, there are a radical few – members of Earth First!, for instance – who believe humans are a “scourge that should be eradicated” entirely and a great many others – like the proponents of the “Wildlands Project” – who believe humans should be barred from making any further changes (or even entering) large portions of the landscape.

In between these radical extremes, however, there is a small, pragmatic group of individuals who have studied the political landscape and formulated – and are now executing – a plan to control human impact on their ecosystem. They have seen the grassroots rebellion that arises when the true meaning of words like “sustainable development” and “biodiversity” are fully understood by laymen and have, consequently, worked diligently to keep their operative term, “ecosystem management,” out of the public lexicon.

Alas, however, they are no longer protected by the smoke and mirrors of ambiguity. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of John Eveland, and the support and public acknowledgement he has received from the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League (see details at www.acslpa.org), the proponents of “Ecosystem management” have been outed and their management objectives, specifically the eradication of our whitetail deer, rightly called into question.

Covertly attempting to manage an ecosystem to the – social and economic – detriment of its most influential inhabitant is, at best, either stupid or naïve, at worst an unmitigated display of arrogance; an admission that they believe themselves intellectually superior to the people who not only cover their paycheck but, through license fees and self-imposed taxes, have – for over 100 years – financed the protection and conservation of our wild “community of organisms” and their “environment.”
   
Ecosystem management?

By what – or whose – criteria is the management of this system to be judged?