RR462 Study Guide PDF

**What is a Park?** - John's definition of a park: 'an area that is more-or-less natural looking, and intended to stay that way into the foreseeable future, with some formal restrictions on "development"' - Development is a bit of a fuzzy term, and natural is also a fuzzy t...

**What is a Park?** - John's definition of a park: 'an area that is more-or-less natural looking, and intended to stay that way into the foreseeable future, with some formal restrictions on "development"' - Development is a bit of a fuzzy term, and natural is also a fuzzy term - Park = protected area = reserve = preserve = refuge = sanctuary = commons = natural area - IUCN Classification: - 1a. Strict Nature Reserve - E.g., natural reserve area in Dinosaur Provincial Park - 1b. Wilderness Area - E.g., Wilmore Wilderness Area - 2\. National Park - E.g., Banff National Park - 3\. Natural Monument or Feature - Generally applies to some geological phenomenon i.e., a spring, grove of trees, etc. - 4\. Habitat or Species Management Area - Something unique of nature that needs special attention - E.g., Buffalo National Park -- save the Plains Bison from extinction - 5\. Protected Landscape or Seascape - An area with humans and surroundings where the unique interaction warrants protection -- for both people and the landscape - 6\. Protected Areas with Sustainable Use of Natural Resources - i.e., sustainable activities like fishing, logging, etc. NOT mining or something of the likes - Each of these has values in itself, one is not better than the other - IUCN definition of Protected Area: 'a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated, and managed through legal or other effective means to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values' **Parklands** - Parkland: a type of idealized landscape akin to what you see in European parks (e.g., manicured lawns, open grassy meadows/lawns, trees, ponds, streams, rolling landscape) - Seems to have appeal to us as humans - The natural region in which we live is the aspen parkland - Maintained historically mainly by fire **Approaching History** - The history represented in this course is John's perspective in the face of the history of ecology - "Whiggishness": assuming the current perspective is the 'right' and 'enlightened' perspective and look at the past for precursors **Reading: IUCN Parks Classification** **\ ** **Origin of Park I** Parico = Latin for enclosure (origin of the word park) The notion of a 'park' came from Europe in the 1700s and wealthy/feudal landowners who had hunting reserves on their land, was 'enclosed'. Hired 'game/riverkeepers' to ensure there was enough game when they wanted to go hunting -- precursors of park wardens/rangers. Warden = agent of the gov't that enforces a set of regulations Superintendent = head of a big park Governmental, regulatory feel to parks today How did these people see the world around them (Europeans/European settlers in America)? they did not like the natural world at all; 'domain of evil; where beasts dwell' - Informed by their rather strict interpretations of Christianity - Wilderness was an outcome of 'The Fall' (loss of the Garden of Eden) - Civilization = pastoral, rural civilization (extension of 'Christian goodness') The smaller the wilderness got, the easier it was for people to see the good in it Gilbert White: 'Natural History of Selborne'  began a whole literary tradition of nature writing; was living a pastoral, rural existence -- commented on birds and plants he saw throughout his day (Arcadian tradition) Arcadia was portrayed as a utopia; 'pastoral history with nature' - This was the take that White had on the area in which he resided - He saw the natural world as contemplating the creator - Seeing people in their 'attended settings' -- the natural theatre for people White himself was living a gentleman's life -- had lots of money and land, well-educated (Oxford) -- at the time of his writing, that was a version of ecology (nature-writing) - Influenced Thoreau (Book - Walden: Life in the Woods); bragged of his portrayed 'simple life' -- was not a peasant, had money and was well-educated and well-connected in society Thoreau was part of the 'romantic transcendental movement' -- included Muir and Ralph Waldo Emerson very Christian perspective on the world and their place in the world - Were also engaged in 'natural theology' - Natural theology: contemplating the creation to contemplate the creator Romantic: Put great stock in the community of nature Transcendental: to rise above nature, both spiritually and morally to ascend to a greater picture of 'stuff' - They were expressing the view that you can value nature for its own sake - May seem a modern view but... - Preservationism (which is the opposite of Conservationism) is very strictly associated with the romantic transcendental movement -- saw nature as a spiritual place (something with spiritual value), saw it as sacred John Muir became a big force behind the Yosemite Park - Yosemite was set aside by the influence of Muir and many others by the gov't in 1864 -- the first government park that we can identify anywhere on earth that matches the current notion of a park -- became a national park in 1890 First national park was Yellowstone 1908 -- Hetch Hetchy Valley; designated for a dam project (preservationists fought against it and lost) Yellowstone National Park - geysers, mountains, wildlife, etc. - Recognized by the government, became the first national park in 1872 (governed by the federal gov't -- before they even had a notion of national parks) - Motive of the gov't was to control the development of tourism in a 'tasteful way' - Sounds familiar to Banff... Royal National Park in Australia was the next one to be developed Canada's first National Park: Banff (1885) originally designated 'Rocky Mountain Park" - Important players: Railroad (CPR) and Gov't - Railroad wanted to recoup their funds for building the tracks, made railway hotels Rivalry and resentment occurring b/w NA and Europe - Europeans saw NA's as having no history/achievements to brag about -- this notion of the 'Wonders of the World' -- human-made things (pyramids, London Bridge, Eiffel Tower, etc.) - It became popular to think in terms of superior natural wonders in NA compared to the man-made wonders in Europe (i.e., Niagara Falls) The federal gov'ts of both countries (Canada/USA) decided to control/regulate the development of 'natural wonders' which became the primary motive of early national parks -- make sure roads/trails were planned carefully, tourism facilities were impressive, etc. Government wanted to regulate Banff; CPR wanted to make money. CPR began building monumental hotels along the railroad (i.e., Banff Springs Hotel) - Hot springs are believed to have health-giving properties (why parks have been built around them; Banff, Radium, etc.) These early parks are NOT built on principles of conservation, or around preservation of nature. STILL the control of tourism of development is a major motive in parks. Rocky Mountain Harry Yount: wild west cowboy defending Yellowstone (legacy of the park ranger -- first one!) Maybe don't romanticize rangers! Rangers seen as 'guardians of people'... also 'hosts' to the tourists. - Predominantly male job up until quite recently; lots of sexist attitudes US Army soldiers in Yellowstone: guarding against any attempts of unauthorized tourism and any Indigenous folks that felt they had a right to be on that land... when the Park was first established they were administered by the Department of War, Interior, and Agriculture (structure of government was fundamentally different) **Origin of Parks II** The town of Banff was named after some place in Scotland, it wasn't BNP until 1930. - Canadian gov't studied the US situation before establishing Banff, the purpose of establishing was to preserve the scenic landscape for profit (tourism) - Original notion was to create in Canada what is similar to Swiss mountain tourism in the Alps - No original intent to preserve ecological function or anything of that matter - Banff Springs Snail was discovered in 1935 "Unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations" - What sort of impairment is implied here? Scenic impairment, impairment of wilderness that people are paying to see... Early park use created this dichotomy of preserving nature for its own sake and preserving nature for human use. Carl von Linnae Linnaeus: established taxonomic classification as we use it today (Systema Naturae) - Early figure in the anti-arcadian tradition: matter of fact, science-y - Professor, botanist; worked in Sweden - Important figure in academia at the time - Wrote the Economy of Nature 1745 - Linnaeus' book about ecology - Also deeply religious; views based not only on the Bible but also the Scala Naturae - There is a hierarchy of living things (i.e., bugs -- mammals -- people -- God) - Saw nature as fundamentally static/fixed - But within the fixed system there was re-occurring cycles - Species have strict geographic limits - The evolutionary process is not done thus we are typically at the end of the array; however natural selection does not work backwards so it will never replace something well-adapted to something less well-adapted - Thomas' Theorem: if situations are defined as real then it will be treated as if real and the consequences will become real - Genetic rescue -- general public having a sense false of security; 'if we screw up, we can always bring it back' -- 'we can engineer everything in ecology' - The Allee effect -- can't just throw in a small \# of reproductive individuals, you need a certain size (applies for conservation and biocontrol) - Evolutionary change in living things over time - Darwin built on Linnaeus' notion - Not exactly modern ideas - Darwin changed the nature of biology by demonstrating the natural selection should be the basis of biology; inspired especially by Thomas Malthus (Malthusian trap) -- used this as a basis for natural selection (not every born organism can survive) - Darwin was not politically motivated -- naturalist at heart Contrast: Herbert Spencer (much more political and not much of a biologist) - American; big emphasis was on too much competition and heartlessness in the world - Did not understand natural selection; not what he meant when he said 'survival of the fittest' -- characterized Darwinian thinking - Was an organicist, saw the natural world as one big superorganism Gregor Mendel (Darwin was unaware of Mendel): Mendel showed that heredity is particulate, genes can be this or that (not just blending of parent's genes)... Darwin was unaware of this The term 'science' was coined in 1840 'Ecology' was coined in 1866 **Leopold, Evolution, and Metaphor** Evolutionary-Ecological Conservation Ethic - System of ideas that is associated with Aldo Leopold - Science-based; incorporates evolutionary biology, ecology, environmental science (as they existed in the 1940s) - Time of the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis Land Ethic (Aldo Leopold) - Not very scientific terms involved (i.e., beauty) Has the land ethic kept up in science or more of an article of faith? If you take a long-term evolutionary approach, then nature become the theater for which all the evolutionary processes play out. Evolution is an ecological idea; when the organism meets the environment and the environment selects those who are well-suited. Ecology has a short-term perspective (i.e., ecological research is a few years... finished products of the evolutionary process). - Leads us to the key notion that there is an identifiable, single, correct state for all ecosystems/organisms (is this correct?) - That's what the idea of ecological integrity plays on Thomas' Theorem: if situations are defined as real, they become real in their consequences Metaphors: e.g., Mother Nature/Gaia **Pinchot and Resourcism** Resource Conservation Ethic (Resourcism) -- became an American idea Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909; Republican) - Exemplar of 'American masculinity' - In 1903, established a separate kind of protected areas - Started with Pelican Islands National Wildlife Refuge (1903) on the coast of Florida - Set aside as a refuge due to the feather trade to ensure the birds would not be killed - Supportive of national parks and public land - Very well-connected and well-liked; on good terms with John Muir + Gifford Pinchot Pinchot (forester) established the Resourcism concept - Believed nature existed for human use; idea was to conserve the resource given to us by the 'Creator' (conserve did not mean preserve in those days) - "The greatest good for the greatest number, for the longest time" - Phrase originated from utilitarian ethic philosophers - "The greatest happiest for the greatest number" - Wanted forests to be harvested at the maximum sustainable harvest "Ballinger-Pinchot Affair" - Pinchot fired by new President's (Taft) minister Ballinger (who believed in private lands) - Resulted in a split of the Republican party (Roosevelt + others became the Progressives) Strong American notion of private lands -- based on the idea of landowner's rights and a deep belief that trespassing is 'evil' (the act of just stepping on someone else's land) - For those who like to get outside, it becomes difficult to find a place to go outside Roosevelt's refuges also allow hunting today -- more of a refuge from trespassing perhaps than a refuge for the wildlife "Countryside Code" North America has a lot more prohibitions on public land access than other countries All of these concepts are still in play today **Ranger-Poacher Theme** "Ranger-Poacher Theme" -- narrative, deeply-rooted notion that the rangers are the good guys protecting the environment and the poachers are the bad guys trying to wreck it for everyone else - Originated from the game reserves in wealthy Europe where rangers would protect landowner's private property from those unable to hunt or fish (not enough accolades) - We have notions of who has the legitimate right to hunt/fish for the animals in protected areas - Anything (animal) with commercial value is likely to be a target for someone - Common assumption that protecting fish and game is equated to protecting the environment The Ranger-Poacher model is not always the best model for management Notion that anyone who takes anything out of the park is doing something wrong; deeply engrained in the ranger culture Notion that rangers do not only protect nature, but they are conserving the values/ethics of the area they protect The Hunter's Game by Louis Warren - Two different ethics in play amongst the early immigrated Europeans - 1: Hunting is a manly activity pursued by men and should be a fair contest between a male hunter and a male animal (the deer can hear you coming and run away so therefor it's fair) - About masculinity; what it means to be a proper man - 2: A responsible proper man provides food for his family (does not matter what the age or gender of the animal is) - The first group considered this "cowardly" to hunt for female/young animals - However, saw overgrazing by deer (predators had already been eliminated by people) as only males with nice racks were taken Suffield National Wildlife Area: determined that wild horses were unnatural and removed them and replaced them with elk - They moved out of the area and began grazing on livestock food and crops - Allowed hunting and people only wanted to hunt the large bulls These things happen due to CULTURE and not environment Slippery Slope Fallacy: occurs when someone argues, without providing adequate evidence, that a certain action or proposition will lead to an undesirable outcome via a series of events - Idea upheld by Parks that if one person picks a berry every person will pick a berry and there will be none left... It is a metaphor! It is not an objective description of the state of things **Indigenous People and Parks** Indigenous peoples usurped from their lands and cultural places for the establishment of parks throughout North America - As if they had been relegated as being in the past by parks even though parks say they keep parks in a state of the past (not modernizing/expanding) which creates and inconsistency in their logic "Banff Indian Days": making Indigneous peoples form Mini Thnî dress-up and dance for tourism -- romanticization/fetishization of Indigenous cultures **Bunny and Belaney** J. "Bunny" Harkin: 1911-1935 was the Commissioner of the Dominion Parks Branch ("Father of National Parks in Canada") Parks were a matter of commodifying nature - Harkin liked the idea of modelling Canadian mountain tourism after Swiss mountain tourism - US and Canada saw each other as competitors for mountain tourism rather than collaborators Harkin was interested in a business model for parks (background as a businessman) - Automobile was transforming how people were moving around at the time Harkin was in power (automobile tourism) - Also promoted nationalistic pride (i.e., 'your rocky mountains') - Trying to control but also collaborate with the railways because they were also interested in commodifying mountain tourism Gray Owl -- 'Indigenous man', wrote about the beauty of the wilderness and conservation - Actually a white man from Britain, real name was Archibald Belaney - Made a fictive identity for himself - Did live with a group of Ojibwe people - Said his Indigenous wife convinced him that trapping was wrong - Hired by Harkin to be a spokesperson for Parks Canada - Did some good (humane approach to animals, conservation, wellbeing of Indigenous people) - Also a bigamist, a fraud, frequently in trouble for violent behaviour - Does the means justify the end? (consequentialist ethics) - No probably not! Huge disservice for Indigenous people **Reading:** History of Canada's National Parks - The improved tourism saw more support for parks but did they think of how large an influx it would eventually bring into certain parks (i.e., Banff) one day? - Do we expand infrastructure to facilitate this influx? **Parks, More Parks, and Quasi Parks I** When did parks start to become preserves for biodiversity and parts of nature? - For Canada, Point Pelee National Park (goes into Lake Erie), established in 1918 due to the urgence of birders and Percy Taverner/Jack Miner (ornithologists) for the preservation of birds - Involved the eviction of the Caldwell First Nations - Comes 33 years after the establishment of Banff, and 8 years before the discovery of the Banff Springs Snail (discovered by Bill Clench) In 2006, they announced the parks system of Canada was complete: representative national parks established all throughout Canada. Provinces began creating provincial parks, wilderness areas, etc. (categories of protection and recreational use). - A lot of big provincial parks in the North due to less land ownership up there Tend to feel understaffed and underfunded in parks (especially provincial parks). Provides a relieve from daily pressures with provincial parks. Parks: typically no hunting but fishing allowed with special licenses within provincial and national parks. Lots of nature preserves throughout Canada; Nature Conservancy Canada (NCC) has both private and corporate donors; buys properties and set them aside as protected areas (fee simple: owned outright, managed for their conservation goals); also have conservation easements where the owner enters agreement with NCC and specifies things such as no more development, et cetera. - NCC agrees to monitor and enforce the easement and even if the property is sold, the easement still stands and can only by rescinded through ministerial order - NCC has their own requirements to enter into an easement as they have limited funding Costa Rica has invested heavily in ecotourism (people who want to travel to see nature) -- invested in establishing many national parks early on Scotland just got into national parks, first one established in 2001 to manage for tourism as Loch Lomond was fairly popular **Parks, More Parks, and Quasi Parks II** Protected areas have increased globally immensely since the 1900s. International agreements (such as the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 1992) - 12% of the surfaces on land will be set aside to preserve those areas -- has been attained and succeeded since - 2020 -- 15% has been set aside, 7% of oceans have been set aside New goal has been set in 2020 for 30% marine and terrestrial to be set aside by 2030/2035... hopefully this is not just 'paper parks' - No management or enforcement, just delineated as a park on a map or on paper to meet some kind of goal or requirement e.g., Northwest of Bruderheim Natural Area - Set aside but became popular for ATVs and became a free-for-all due to no money for management NCC = land-trust organization (e.g., Bunchberry Meadows outside of Edmonton) Private parks (not covered by IUCN); conservation easements are an example of private parks For-profit parks (e.g., ecotourism lodges): private land-ownings that preserve nature for tourism (i.e., location in Trinidad) -- arguably some form of biodiversity conservation occurring (fish tank metaphor) Fishing reserves also exist Protected areas: research field station (land is protected from development to facilitate both research (sampling, etc. - contact with nature) and teaching) (e.g., Rangelands Research Institute owned by U of A (by Brooks)) - One of the original stated goals in Canada and USA but not often seen (due to red tape) - Parks tend to support a hands-off approach to nature **Parks as Arks** We often think as parks as refuges from harsh environments but is an oversimplification (e.g., yellow lady slippers growing in a ditch) Notion of parks as ecological islands/sanctuary An ecological island is the idea that not all islands are surrounded by water (i.e., a mountain island, a sand dune island) - Connected to island biogeography theory general notion that the number of species on an island is a balance between extinction and immigration rates (island effect) - SLOSS debate: whether it is better to preserve nature in one single large area or several small areas - Habitat fragmentation: if you break up the habitat for a species you isolate it and minimize populations - How is habitat fragmentation different from habitat loss? - Metapopulation dynamics: individuals do not exist as one population here and one over there but several small populations existing all over - Patchiness is an issue of several small areas -- however many organisms have evolved to live in 'patchy' environments - Habitat Amount Hypothesis = more land area will equal greater species richness Parks are usually established opportunistically, and then after the fact there is a narrative that the park was created as an ecological island of sorts **Mosquitoes** Mosquitoes are one of those things that effect how people view nature and interact with nature (e.g., West Nile Virus) - Birds (especially corvids) were a vector for the disease Mathematical modeling of an outbreak is an extremely fraught thing to do... hard to make accurate ecological predictions **Ellis Bird Farm and the S.V. of Gull Lake Nature Reserve** Quasi parks: places that qualify as parks/protected areas Ellis Bird Farm: funded by industry - Siblings stayed at their families farm; started putting up bird boxes for bluebirds - In 1970s, Union Carbide wanted land and met with the Ellis siblings who did not want to sell -- if Union Carbide promised to conserve their birds then they would sell - Created Ellis Bird Farm which is both a nonprofit company and its 640 acres of land - Done what they can to maximize habitat in a small area for birds -- hard actions taken against invasive species (e.g., NO house sparrows) Gull Lake - The lake has receded greatly since the 1960s -- likely due to hydrology and land-use change (went from parkland to agricultural use) **Parks and Paleontology** Parks and their fossils -- protection of nature, history, and geology (different than the protection of living things) - What does it mean to protect fossils? - Have been sitting underground for 70 million years... more protected arguably than when excavated (you 'prospect' for fossils) - Don't know a fossil is there until erosion occurs... once it reaches the surface, you are protecting it from further erosion If it's not on private land or in a park, you can curate the fossil in the name of the Crown (can't take it out of the province of where you collected it) Charlie Stelck -- Geologist at U of A (1999) - Fossil ammonite -- new species of ammonite found in a park while hosting a field school -- Park Warden took it, put it under the ground again, paved over it, it is now 'protected' in the park till this day Parks tends to not want to 'give up' fossils to geologists/curators... would rather let them erode in the park for most cases then let it be preserved and studied Dinosaur Provincial Park - In the early 1900s, there was the 'Great Canadian Dinosaur Rush' in AB where people were looking for fossils to bring to the museums/places where they worked - Provincial gov't looked at this and wanted to protect whatever fossils they had left for the AB province to utilize - Led to establishment of this park - Early park rangers would give tours of the badlands and protect the fossils - Dinosaurs lived in tropical deltaic swamplands, not badlands Create a 'jacket' to stabilize the fossil and bring it back to study (open the jacket) Coyote Regulation (AB) Bring it back to the Ranger-Poacher theme Is digging up a dinosaur similar to desecrating a grave? Fossils are not rare, access to fossils is rare (erosion) Parks are controlling access to the good spot to fossils **Preserving History** Parks 'preserve' nature but some preserve history, human or natural History disappears into the past, just how it works Historical preservation is a mainstream concept - Related to the notions of natural and cultural heritage - Heritage is usually used in a possessive sense as in we 'own' our heritage In some ways, the natural world is preserved for cultural reasons... - They talk about the environmental world in a historical sense "when my great-grandfather was in the park..." - Preserving evidence of history - Things like buildings, artifacts, etc. - Keeping things in their original state without decay Strange notion that somehow people or events can attach themselves to objects or places (= magical thinking) - E.g., a book being signed by the author somehow makes it feel as if the author is now attached to the book Thomas' Theorem = if situations are defined as real, they become real in their consequences Example: Petrified Wood National Park in Arizona - People take a piece of petrified wood from the park until they realize it is 'cursed' to take that wood and they will be brought bad luck, so they drop it in the 'conscience pile' in order to redeem themselves Historical preservation = perpetuating historical narratives Counter-factual reasoning = thinking about how things could be otherwise - E.g., what if no one discovered natural gas near Medicine Hat (the Gas City)? Another form of historical preservation: historical re-enactment or reconstruction (paleo-painters) "living history" - Can sometimes come across as propaganda, usually sensitive to not come across this way We like story but story always has slant, and because of that it is potentially problematic Parks Canada has created an idea called "commemorative integrity" for their national historic sites - "Healthy and whole", "not impaired or under threat (evidence of history is being preserved", "effective communication to public", "heritage values are respected in all decisions" **Research, Art, and Education** Cypress Hills Provincial Park -- cattle allowed to graze there... why is that allowable? Why is development allowed in the parks? Hypocrisy? "Take only photographs, leave only footprints" -- both can be strictly regulated as well in parks! - i.e., desert pavement: one footprint could stay for a hundred years thus people are not allowed to walk on it in the park Ranger-Poacher theme again: control of the things within the park, control of the image of the park, control of expertise (on who gets to call themselves the expert) - the right way to approach nature is "hands-off"; as gentle as possible Most park rangers do not realize by setting up these webs of red tape they lose the chance to learn about their park (by excluding research). Mandatory collaboration, mandatory co-authorship. Parks able to veto any conclusions or the entire paper if they don't agree with it. A lot of the same constraints that apply to research also apply to the arts. i.e., film crews coming into the park, commercial photography (Parks wants to controls its IMAGE, this can threaten that) (Research paper on how images of Lake Louise, etc. ruin people's perception of the parks) Summary: different culture and perception; what is the effect of your actions as you may come into conflict with the Parks. **Problem Wildlife** "There's no such thing as wildlife management; it's all people management" Most people's concern: predatory attacks by animals within the parks - Animals that get into foods or camps ('camp robbers') - Vehicle-animal collisions - 'Nuisance pests' -- no-one likes them (e.g., sand flies) - Allergies/bites/stings - Contracting diseases (zoonoses) -- e.g., tick with Lyme disease What are the solutions to all these problems -- public education Parks uses signage, pamphlets, and interpretation to educate folks on 'problem' wildlife Sometimes these conflicts result in animal relocation or are euthanized Fencing is used to prevent animal-vehicle collisions in tandem with animal crossings over highways (opposite of a zoo) Elk Island National Park's use of fencing to keep animals in (such as bison) Main theme: perception of risk - Determines someone's behaviour or perception of parks and natural areas - i.e., being scared of bears or rattlesnakes - A bison is more likely to kill you then a bear! - Very rare to be bit by a venomous snake! The risks are low and the rewards of immersing yourself outdoors is good Sometimes it can be an issue of liability... not a huge problem for parks ('acts of god') - Olympia National Park -- male mountain goat was aggressive and the goat gored a hiker in the femoral artery and the man died - Park was sued as they knew the goat was aggressive -- judge ruled in favour of the park but was sympathetic to the family **A Cognitive Aside** Diving into John's video, he opened with a question, asking "Do you ever wonder if integrity is just a metaphor?", then expanding this thought by asking if something can have integrity, can it also collapse? Which shows part of the issue with the term "ecological integrity". He then relates this to ecosystem collapse. If we aren't able to clearly define if something can collapse, how do we recognize a collapse versus just change? John mentions how for paleontologists, "ecosystem collapse" is used more regularly as a term because they can identify profound shifts in fossil composition in different strata. Again drawing back to collapse though, these shifts are not showing an ecosystem that goes from life to no life, but rather one type of life to another type of life. This reaffirms that change does not equal collapse, and therefore this seems to be a metaphor, which is one of the main focuses of this lecture. Before getting into metaphors too much, John explains cognitive science, also known as cognition. If you have ever asked yourself the question "how do other people think?", you have asked the crucial question of cognitive science. This is constituted of other fields of science such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, et. cetera. As scientists , cognition is important in understanding how we think, how we communicate results and findings to one another, and how we think about society as a concept and people in general. Within human cognition, there has been an emergence of a new model that John details that focuses on the idea that there are two modes of thought: In science, it is important to choose metaphors that are helpful rather than misleading. This brings forth the fallacy known as the "fallacy of argument from analogy". John explains that this means that if you propose a metaphor that thing A is similar to thing B, with respect to characteristics C and D, that you can then assume that they must also be similar with respect to additional characteristics E and F. This argument is faulty and is why we must be careful with the metaphors we use when communicating as we can easily make leaps in logic and be misled. This also leads into the importance of categorization, and that when we identify categories that we believe to be real. John posits that this is not just in terms of real versus imaginary, for example, "is it imaginary that there is such thing as the sasquatch". But rather it is also important to think about real categories opposed to nominal categories (also known as operationalist categories), that only exist because we have defined them into existence. It is important to recognize if this has occurred because it still does not bring a nominal category into reality. This phenomenon of treating something as real when it is not, is known as reification, where one is making their own reality. This is an issue in ecology, as reifying abstractions without evidence that they exist, can be tempting. However, on the other hand, if we just think of things in terms of what exists, the answers can be trivial such as "this individual organism exists like that bug, or that bird". This would not be useful in science, and rather we want generalizations that are useful to us. The matter of the fact is that metaphors are overall unavoidable, whether they are hidden or plain as day, and the best we can do is take time to think carefully and assess the categories and metaphors that we use to communicate. This means engaging the slow, methodical mode to examine them, so that we can conscientiously add these metaphors and categories to our fast, automatic mode of thinking. John then takes an aside from his aside to tell us about where the video is being filmed, which is the Len Thompson fishing pond on the outskirts of Lacombe. Tying the location into previous course material, John explains how this area doesn't qualify for any of the definitions for a park as it is a very constructed, industrial-like area with an angular pond filled with stormwater and introduced trout, surrounded by perfectly mowed grasses. However, he says that although it may be industrial-like, that doesn't mean it can't provide habitat, as black terns were shown flying overhead and waterfowl such as cormorants use the pond area. On an ending note of John's aside, the world's largest lure, modelled after a lure used for pike, is shown at the Len Thompson fishing pond. This ties back to categories that if this is the largest lure, is it trying to attract the world's largest lure user? Now I'll be moving onto Kueffer and Larson's paper, which had a main focus on language use for science communication. Kueffer and Larson establish that decision-making relies on reliable scientific evidence, and therefore any misinterpretation of evidence will impair decision-making. However, this becomes cloudy as knowledge can often be uncertain or incomplete in science, and it can be even more difficult to have clear discussions without anyone being misled. This proves important especially now when we are times of unprecedented times of change, where it has become a norm to have changing or incomplete knowledge, and thus a huge burden of responsibility is thrust upon effective science communication. In this article, Kueffer and Larson highlight an aspect of responsible reporting of scientific evidence that is often overlooked: METAPHORS. The first topic they tackle is the "performative quality of language at the research frontier". By performative, they mean that the language chosen leads to actual outcomes in the world. When an author uses a narrow scope of metaphors, it can restrict creative thinking and the diversity of research approaches, which is especially concerning when the outputs of said research can hold consequences for society. For example, in synthetic biology, when metaphors are used such as "evolution machine", it gives an implied ability to control biological systems that prioritizes instrumental use of life, rather than intrinsic or perhaps sacred ones. The values of the scientist or journalist writing the article can become present with their choice of metaphors if they are not diligent on presenting unbiased information. Another example using ecology is the phrase "ecosystem service", which emphasizes direct benefits one may derive from an ecosystem rather than perhaps more abstract benefits such as cultural value or stewardship. This does not mean the metaphor is wrong, but rather misleading as it narrows the interpretation of the whole truth of a phrase. Kueffer and Larson also cover the topic of inclusive and effective communication with the public. They use the example of 'invasive species', which can often be associated with metaphors of war such as "eradication" or "fight". This can hinder effective engagement as people think of invasive species in diverse ways, where positive effects of nonnative species may be more prevalent to someone rather than a 'need to eradicate' them. Therefore, when communicating with the public, there needs to be a balance between extremes, that avoids the use of hyperbole when communicating. Another example is when someone uses a 'doomsday mentality' when communicating about issues such as climate change (such as saying since the earth's temperature has risen, there is nothing we can do and so on and so forth). This can often ostracise audiences, and it has been found that a focus on solutions and cultural values when communicating results is more effective than fear-based approaches. Overall, the authors conclude that metaphors in scientific texts should be used to help audiences understand findings, and not to convince them without reasoning, and thus neutral and balanced language is needed. The authors use another example to show how diverse viewpoints can be about metaphors. They raise the point that some believe the use of terms such as "novel ecosystem" or "Anthropocene" in ecology could endorse 'human domination' of the planet and shift the current baseline of what we perceive as a natural ecosystem to one that is degraded by human influence. They also raise the opposing view that some say associating anthropogenic influence with nature will make people care about nature and take positive action to preserve it. Lastly, Kueffer and Larson cover the topic of engaging early with audiences. Rather than assuming it's a lack of knowledge that the public has that can be remediated by even more science communication, we can reduce the risk of poor science communication outcomes by engaging earlier with diverse communities to understand how to effectively use metaphors. In conclusion, Kueffer and Larson summarise that metaphors should be chosen in science communication for their factual correctness, social acceptability, neutrality and transparency. They recommend this be paired with collaboration between scientists and journalists, humanities education for biologists, diversity of communicators and metaphors, peer review of rhetoric and metaphors, and democratic deliberation and audience studies. **Aesthetics** Environmental aesthetics (the nature of beauty and ugliness) - Subdivision in philosophy - Aesthetics as a whole is the appreciation of art and the environment Four different approaches to environmental aesthetics: 1. Nature as Art/Scenery a. You appreciate the natural world the same you would a painting produced by a human being (i.e., landscape art, nature photography) b. Anthropocentric approach (not seen as fully justifiable) 2. Non-aesthetic Position c. The idea that nature does not have artistic meaning and should not be appreciated as art (not a popular position) 3. Post-modernist Position d. Idea that no culture/outlook has any privilege over another (science is not more important than a myth or folklore about nature -- not necessarily popular opinion either, in science you have the privilege of evidence-based arguments) 4. Pluralist Approach/Natural Environment Model e. Core = privileged, outer core = less privileged f. References nostalgia, acknowledging Indigenous knowledge as privileged but also notes that they should not have the same weight as science Pluralist view is well-aligned with actual thoughts and processes in environmental ethics and parks decisions Idea of preserving biodiversity as we might need aspects of it in the future? (e.g., do we really need pandas? -- preserving just for aesthetics?) **Ecological Integrity Introduction** - Does ecological integrity have constructive use or can it be misconstrued and misused? - Integrity (base definition): the fortitude of a building; the fortitude of a person - If a building lacks integrity, it leads to collapse **\ ** **Superorganisms** Habitat is a species-specific term; each species has adapted to that habitat Ecosystem \> ecozone \> ecoprovince \> ecoregion \> ecodistrict \> ecosection \> ecosite \> ecotope \> ecoelement (the actual living things) semi-arbitrary system Natural regions are decided by people; lots of places that look similar Individual organisms live in the same place = populations, populations all in one place = species, groups of species = community, then ecosystem, then biome - Conceptualization - Issue of taking these higher levels and call them a 'superorganism' where everything contributes to the system as a whole (organismic metaphor) History: - 1930s -- Frederic Clements -- for every place on earth there is a type of vegetation that will develop -- 'climatic climax' - Given the climate and topography, vegetation will eventually reach this climax state that is like a superorganism -- will remain that way in perpetuity after reaching this climax - Also created the idea of successional stages If natural areas were superorganisms, they would have boundaries instead of blurring into one another like how natural areas do Community was a metaphor... implying that plants have roles and jobs within an area as humans do (not true) Plants and animals are too different to be grouped together as a community Holists (see the whole part) vs. Reductionists (break it down to small parts) Reductionism is alive and well and making most the advances in science Aldo Leopold - his 'Land Ethic' is a superorganism Early environmentalist movement was informed by the 'holistic' approach, treating everything as a superorganism Ecosystems do not have heritability so they cannot evolve, therefore further disproving that it can be a superorganism Organisms do not perform ecological 'roles' for the good of the ecosystem or their species, but rather just for their own survival, and ability to reproduce Co-evolution is not an adequate counter-argument as it is VERY rare Pizza assemblage: ecosystems are like pizzas (self-assembling pizzas) - There is certain aspect of pizza that all pizzas possess (crust, sauce, cheese) - The rest is just ingredients; they just come together -- no matter what you put on it, it's still a pizza How could you judge pizza (ecological) integrity then? Is it not personal preference and aesthetics? The problem comes from assuming a proper state for nature, and that we know or can determine the proper state and it is our job to maintain that 'state' at all costs. **The Original State** We talk about parks in their original/pristine condition; leading to an assumption that the evolutionary process is finished and all of this is the final product Questioning if the periods before 1980s never warmed how they are now... Pleistocene -- period of ice ages - Each wave of glaciation grinds up the evidence that was left by the last wave of glaciation - 11 or so 'major' glacial waves - Humans are a product of the end of the Pleistocene in a way Period since Wisconsin glaciation -- Holocene (warm/dry period in the beginning) The last thousand years have shown quite a bit of variation in climate (cooling and warming trends, e.g., Little Ice Age (1400s-1800s)) Holocene was considered an interglacial period \