Guest Column

Living Leopold: The Rise of a New Agrarianism

How economics and a renewed land ethic is making an old idea new again.

By Guest Writer, 10-19-09

In 2009, we celebrate the centennial of the arrival of the great American conservationist Aldo Leopold to the Southwest as a ranger with the U.S. Forest Service. Over the course of a diverse and influential career, Leopold eloquently advocated a variety of critical conservation concepts including wilderness protection, sustainable agriculture, wildlife research, ecological restoration, environmental education, land health, erosion control, watershed management, and famously, a land ethic.

Each of these concepts resonates today – perhaps more so than ever as the challenges of the 21st century grow more complicated and more pressing. But it was Aldo Leopold’s emphasis on conserving whole systems – soil, water, plants, animals and people together – that is most crucial today. The health of the entire system, he argued, is dependent on its indivisibility; and the knitting force was a land ethic – the moral obligation we feel to protect soil, water, plants, animals, and people together as one community.

After Leopold’s death in 1948, however, the idea of a whole system broke into fragments by a rising tide of industrialization and materialism. Fortunately, today a scattered but concerted effort is underway to knit the whole back together, beginning where it matters most – on the ground. Leopold’s call for a land ethic is the root of what is being called a new agrarianism – a diverse suite of ideas, practices, goals, and hopes all based on the persistent truth that genuine health and wealth depends on the land’s fertility.

In Latin, agrarius means ‘pertaining to land’ and this resurgent movement includes a dynamic intermixing of ranchers, farmers, conservationists, scientists and others who aim to create a regenerative economy that works in harmony with nature. It starts with land health and local food production – the foundations of ecological and human well-being – and extends to watershed rehabilitation, riparian restoration, progressive cattle management, biodiversity conservation, open space protection, and much more.

Aldo Leopold is the spiritual mentor to this hopeful effort.

Agrarianism is on the rise for three main reasons: first, it requires that we feel “the soil between our toes,” as Leopold put it, meaning it requires an intimate understanding of how land actually works. In turn, this encourages what Leopold saw as the role of individual responsibility for the health of the land. “Health is the capacity of the land for self-renewal,” he wrote, and “conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this capacity.” In other words, the new agrarianism is ecological – it blends scientific understanding of land health with local knowledge into a manageable whole. One goal of this blending is to build resilience, which is the ability to handle shock and change – a good idea for the 21st century!

Second, it’s economic. Unlike environmentalism, which never developed an economic program to go along with its preservation and human health programs, agrarianism is a practical retort to industrialism. It confronts our economy, the source of most environmental ills, and thereby gives the average American an alternative to participating in an unsustainable model of economic growth. It’s not theoretical either – it exists and it works, as evidenced by the many examples of good stewardship across the nation.

Third, the new agrarianism walks the talk of a land ethic. It encompasses soil plants, animals, and people, striving for a harmonious balance between all. “There is only one soil, one flora, one fauna, and one people, and hence only one conservation problem,” Leopold wrote in the Sand County Almanac. “Economic and esthetic land uses can and must be integrated, usually on the same acre.” A land ethic means coexistence – between urban and rural, domestic and wild, people and nature, bread and beauty.

Additionally, and perhaps just as importantly, a new agrarianism sparks joy. It requires care and affection and love and laughter to succeed, including affection for one another.

Although it is difficult to quantify how big this movement is today, it is easy to explain why agrarianism is on the rise: we are all agrarians now. Our health and wealth depends on what we choose to eat, how we produce our energy, where our water comes from, who benefits from sustainable practices – and each has its root in the land.

As we edge deeper into the challenges of the 21st century, the issues of resilience, coexistence, food, and hope, couldn’t be more important.

Courtney White is the executive director of the The Quivira Coalition, which is holding its 8th Annual Conference, “Living Leopold,” November 4-6th, 2009, in Albuquerque. For more information see www.quiviracoalition.org

NewWest.Net welcomes guest columns of all kinds. Submit yours to editor@newwest.net.

[End of article]
Comment By Jim Bailey, 10-20-09

Nice words, Courtney, and I know you are sincere. Two points: First, we "environtalists" are not opposed to economic solutions, or to paying our way. That's why we have Pittman-Robinson, Go-Colorado, and many other programs. The big question left unanswered by Leopold is "What is the appropriate balance between the ethical and financial obligations of the private and public sectors in caring for the land?" Today, the economic solutions of much of agriculture include scads of public subsidies. In rereading Leopold, I find great frustration on his part, with landowners who responded to conservation only "with an outstretched palm". I contend the balance is even further out of wack today. We continue to give away or sell private access to the public trust resources of air, water, public land and wildlife. Second, we must remain skeptical of "progressive cattle management". Progressive must be defined, and recent history indicates much that has been touted as good for the land has been self-serving. I'm all for "good" management of cattle and of grazing lands, but not everywhere. Why must we graze cows or woolies, at minimal cost to the lessee, on some of our public lands where they eliminate possibilities for wild bison or bighorn sheep? Why did I recently run into cows on both roads into the south side of Dinosaur National Monument? Why did my friend recently float the Missouri in Montana and find cows "everywhere" and almost no cottonwood regeneration? Wildlife conservation is a gift that we give to each other, but too much of activity on the land today is far too one-sided. Jim Bailey, Belgrade, MT

Comment By Talia, 10-22-09

Very well put, Jim, thanks for your contribution to this discussion. I heartily agree from Wyoming. I even see the Nature Conservancy overgrazing to try to prove it can be done "right" or that it is profitable or possible to do dry-land ranching without selling out or going out of business. Some places are just not appropriate for cattle :(

Comment By Roy, 10-26-09

The answer to the future is in a few simple statistics.
Global human population 1927: 2 Billion, 1950: 3 Billion, 2008: 6 Billion ... do we see a trend here?

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/living_leopold_the_rise_of_a_new_agrarianism/C41/L41/