Value+of+the+Varmint 

Jordan Mundell February 23rd Annotation #2 “Value of the Varmint,” Donald Worster

“Value of the Varmint” serves as chapter 13 in Donald Worster’s __Nature’s Economy__. It is a brief history of the early years of the conservation movement, and how it was different that one might think. Today, we think of conservation as being synonymous with the green movement and environmentalism. However, this was quite for from the truth. In the early 1900s, conservation came about due to the unregulated economic boom of the late 1800s. As a result, people started to think that we need to be more efficient with the resources at hand. Conservation meant seeing nature as a resource, and it was mankind’s responsibility to manage it, and harness it efficiently. Worster emphasizes this by discussing “varmints” and how they were treated in the early 20th century. Varmints are predators that were only seen by humans to be a nuisance and trouble makers, such as wolves and coyotes. What they didn’t realize at the time was that these predators played a pivotal role in ecological systems in controlling populations of other species in the system. Perhaps led by a transition to post-normal science and uncertainty, predators were hunted nonetheless, mandated by federal and state governments. By the time we realized, it may have been too late.

A couple of institutions are also discussed, mainly the Bureau of Biological Survey, the group that had most of the anti-predator supporters. On the other side were groups like the Sierra Club and the American Society of Mammalogists.

Worster uses Kaibab Forest deer explosion as the turning point for conservation. Predators were hunted to the point of near elimination. The deer population boomed, resulting in over population, over grazing, then starvation and sickness, resulting in a lower population than before. At this point, people started to question fi they were doing the right thing. However, the predator population was still not looked at favorably. The piece then details the transition from this human-centered, selfish view, to a holistic, ecological view of the environment. It focuses mainly on two people Pinchot, who pioneered the productivity and managerial technique when it comes to nature, and Leopold, who first learned the teachings of Pinchot, but then converted to an ecological outlook.

“The equation of animal and vegetable life is too complicated a problem for human intelligence to solve, and we can never know how wide a circle of disturbance we produce in the harmonies of nature when we throw the smallest pebble in the ocean of organic life.”

Essentially, the environment is a delicate balance that adapts on its own, and artificial changes made by us can lead to irreparable.

“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong; we may begin to use it with love and respect.”

For the longest time, humans have put themselves above all else when it comes to the earth, a pyramid structure, with us on top. What this quote is saying is that in order to be able to use the earth, first we need to see ourselves as only a part of a large network that share the same environment.  Towards the end, I found it interesting when he talks about the concept of extending inalienable rights to animals, since the situation these predators were in seemed to mirror similar ones of oppression in human history.

“The rights of life and liberty—perhaps even the pursuit of happiness—must belong to all beings, for all are members in the biotic community.”

The biggest thing that I took out of the article is that humans are naturally selfish due to our position in the environmental hierarchy. The article was written in the 70s, about the first half of the century, yet it still applies to today. Arguably, we haven’t made as much progress as we would have liked. The first step in making true “progress” is having everyone understand that we only have one earth, and we need to share it. But therein lies the problem, since then you battle against ethics and morals, as the article also points out. Some think we should ensure that the balance of nature is preserved, while others believe we should be the dominant force, and it is hard to convince someone that their values are wrong, even with scientific evidence.

The value of the ‘varmint’ is a physical thing to an ecological system, but the way they have been treated through much of the 20th century (and even still today), serves as a metaphor for the dangers that human ignorance can cause.