The same argument can be made for pesticide/chemical free production
systems. Environmentalists, many laypersons and now, legislators assume
that because there are a few successful examples in the organic production
arena (and several vocal proponents) that all of agriculture can make the
immediate shift to nonchemical, low input, production practices and still
maintain our current level of productivity and quality. Agriculturists
(whatever that is) are thought to be slow to embrace environmental issues.
Why should they when they are faced with the economic consequence of
narrowing an already narrow margin? Moreover, inherently there is little
logic to the idea that someone would want to overtly degrade a system that
is the reason for their being.
Legislators have joined the discussion with programs like Total Resource
Conservation Planning (e.g., Virginia) where farmers will be expected to
produce management plans that uphold an environmental agenda. Farmers are
caught between a rock and a hard place with disincentives for not complying
with conservation planning objectives and yet lack the tools (planning and
production) to assume a more sustainable approach
Land Grant Institutions (LGI) are given the responsibility (in part) for
providing the tools and now are smacked with accusations of being unwilling
to change, unresponsive and being down right lazy. Shifts in the
research/extension/teaching agenda are slow coming and there is no question
that they still have many programs that without an infusion of incentives
or disincentives will not change. It would be convienent to be able to
rely on attrition to infuse new philosophy and energy but today attrition
usually means a lost position/program. Thus, don't expect the LGIs to
respond as readily as many would like. I don't think that the goal in this
case should be a middle ground - we must develop sustainable systems for
agriculture as well as natural resource management and urban systems. But
it's what's required to make the "transition" of philosophy, action and
resources where a middle ground may only provide the means to bring the
issues to the table. As it stands now we don't have the table.
>Peter Donovan raised an interesting point regarding
>environmentalists having a bias in favor of native critters as
>opposed to (instead of?) those species useful to man. The
>pejorative tone does little to foster cooperation between two
>groups with the same basic goal: ensuring a sustainable future
>for people *and* beasts *and* plants alike.
>There is no homogeneous, monolithic group of individuals called
>"environmentalists", just as the label "sustainable
>agriculturalist" covers a disparate assemblage of producers. But
>lets accept these titles for ease of discussion.
>Peter is correct that environmentalists (E) do favor indigenous
>species over introduced species. I suspect most E are concerned
>with the loss of habitat and germ plasm. The introduction of
>species into new environments can have devastating consequences
>for native species. This is where E can come into conflict with
>agriculturalists (A). The more rabid among the E would argue "no
>new introductions at all!"
>Extreme A, on the other hand, march forward under the command to
>"feed and clothe humanity!" A heavy burden indeed. Neither E's
>nor A's extreme position is tenable. Compromises must be made
>and that only will occur with dialogue. E must accept the use of
>non-indigenous species, unless they insist we return to a
>lifestyle where a 40-year-old was an "elder." The
>agriculturalists must recognize their responsibility to not
>devastate the environment with their practices. I always though
>the sustainable ag (SA) people walked the precarious tightrope
>between these two groups fairly well. The results may not be
>pleasing to the extremes, but no compromise is perfect.
>The SA and E both benefit from and need the support of the other
>if we are to have an enjoyable and comfortable future.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
F. William Ravlin
Department of Entomology
VPI & SU
Blacksburg, Va 24061
Ph: (703) 231-6826
Fax: (703) 231-3982
ravlin@vt.edu (Bill Ravlin)