Download biod10

Gabriel E. Tamaska
March 27, 2001
What ecosystem management really is
What exactly is ecosystem management? In the dictionary ecosystem is defined as “a system formed by
the interaction of a community of organisms with its environment.” And management is defined as “the act or
process of taking charge of; supervising.”(Lycos dictionary) It would seem ecosystem management is taking charge
of and supervising the ecosystem, that is simple enough, but why does the ecosystem need managing. It seems to
have done rather well for itself over the last billion years. The answer is simple; we want to use the ecosystem’s
resources and still have them available to us in the future. Indeed, we have vastly increased the land’s natural
carrying capacity through our management, but at what cost?
The basic premise behind the idea of ecosystem management is that humans can manage the ecosystem
better than it can manage itself. Were the ecosystem free of human pressures this would be ridiculous since all the
components in the ecosystem are evolving and have evolved to exist in the most efficient (easiest) way possible.
The ecosystem contains a degree of complexity that baffles human minds and computers, leading us to resort to
complex mathematical models that represent a simplification of what the ecosystem is. The ecosystem does have
human impact, though, and so in many ways people can manage the ecosystem better than it can manage itself.
Humans can manage the ecosystem to produce a greater timber or sap yield than it naturally would. We
can manage it so it will support abnormally high populations of game animals. We can manage it so that visitors
can safely interact with wildlife. All these management practices have been done and they are certainly better that
the alternative. In the early 19th century timber harvest in MI was not managed and massive fires raked the state,
burning the land and throwing pollution into the atmosphere. Under management trees are harvested and new ones
are planted, the forest is given some meant to recover and produce a future yield. We can manage the ecosystem to
continue producing the resources and services we are so hungry for, we can manage it to suite our needs and
continue functioning. We can’t manage it, though, for biodiversity, for the complex balance each species within
has. That part of ecosystem management is best left to the ecosystem itself, but it won’t be, because we want our
continued resources and to get them we must make the ecosystem produce them.
Granted, recently policy makers have tried to shift ecosystem management away from the heavy use and more
towards ecosystem preservation and natural function, but it still management, and any function reached is artificially
maintained. Grumbine states five ecosystem management goals, and all reflect the priority of human use.
“Maintain viable populations of all native species in situ.” It sounds noble but it has problems. First, the wording
viable populations infers that “excess” population is expendable, and we don’t truly know what a viable population
is. Second, this absolutely stops any evolution, since all present native species are to be maintained and all new
species eradicated. “Represent, within protected areas, all native ecosystem types across their natural range of
variation” This too sounds good, and it is certainly a step up, but it too has problems. Like the first, it stops
evolution, and ecosystems are all tied together. If a contiguous gradient is preserved in a series of fragments will the
fragments still function the way they used to? “Maintain evolutionary and ecological processes.” The first two
statements are counter to this one, and it is hard to maintain what we don’t understand. There may be subtle changes
that we don’t recognize and fail to preserve. “Manage over periods of time long enough to maintain the
evolutionary potential of species and ecosystems.” This could be done, but it is ironic to preserve evolutionary
potential while stopping evolution. In addition if ecosystems are limited to fragments they will have to space to
evolve. “Accommodate human use and occupancy within these constraints.” This is the clincher…human use.
This is probably the one goal that will be accomplished. The whole purpose for this plan is to accommodate human
use. Were humans to all move to a city and recycle every resource (leaving the ecosystem to itself) ecosystem
management would not be necessary, but we want our timber products and our gold rings, ore peaceful picnics and
thrilling pictures. We want land to build our homes on and protection from the displaced animals. To do all this the
ecosystem must be human managed.
It is an ironic point that for all we know we can’t reproduce ecosystem function. Out attempt in the
Biosphere II failed, people came out months early, eager to breathe earth’s ample oxygen. It seems that the
ecosystem is maintaining its function, despite our best efforts. People dominate the planet and we are going to use
the ecosystem to support our needs. I admit, I like my nice clothes ant hot tea, a nice fire and plenty of books, all
luxuries derived from the ecosystem. Since people will not leave the ecosystem alone it must be managed but I
would argue that ecosystem management is not so much the management of the ecosystem as it is the management
of the humans using the ecosystem. The trend is toward friendlier use. While there is still a long, long way to go,
and while the present proposals fall short, they are certainly better than the alternative.