In a previous Tufts Daily article, I advocated for summer jobs that are intrinsically linked to the local community and ecosystem. This was not merely out of a desire to create a generation of fishermen and farmers. In isolation, it is too easy to believe idealistic rhetoric that disregards practical solutions to tackling environmental issues. I believe that those emotionally removed from the land around them place undue value on preservation rather than conservation.
To provide context, the environmental movement can be split into two subcategories: preservation and conservation. Preservationists seek to preserve the land indefinitely from any use or interaction — examples of this include wildlife preserves. Conservationists take a different approach by acknowledging the need for nature to be protected while ensuring that nature is used in sustainable ways.
This summer, I worked at an environmental non-profit while also obtaining my commercial fishing license. Through my interactions with career fishermen, I’ve come to understand that the way we approach environmental protection must be changed. In the field of fisheries management, we must adopt a program of abundance-based management, scaling the legal maximum of caught fish to match the local population data, rather than preventing humans from using parts of the ocean altogether. This creates a more precise way of ensuring species stability while also allowing humans to engage with the environment as they have always done. Abundance-based management is already in place, but it has been traditionally used in specific situations as an alternative to consistent catch limits. Incorporating programs like abundance-based management on a broader scale could balance economic and environmental interests without having to choose between preserving a section of land or giving businesses free reign. Under this model, environmental zones are not explicitly closed down — resource harvesting is instead scaled based on current availability. Businesses can stay open and continue to harvest the resource while the environment is monitored to prevent overharvesting.
Preservationists and conservationists both advocate for environmentalism, but their methods of execution are different. The most famous example of this debate was between John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. The critical argument between the two men was over the Hetch Hetchy Valley in California. Muir wanted the valley to remain untouched, believing a proposed dam would ruin both Yosemite and, by precedent, every national park. Pinchot advocated for limited development which he believed would help provide San Francisco with water access. The ultimate result? The Hetch Hetchy valley is now responsible for providing 80% of San Francisco’s water and is home to multiple hydroelectric projects, while Yosemite was the sixth-most visited national park in 2023.
We cannot view the Earth as a piecemeal composition of land with sections either that can or cannot be disturbed by humanity. This dystopian view of sprawling urbanization interrupted haphazardly with tracks of land will never be enjoyed by anyone. The environment is not a series of interchangeable parts but a cohesive, interconnected community.
Humans are as much of a part of nature as the songbird or a blade of grass blowing in the breeze. We were not transported to Earth by an alien spaceship and consequently are not invaders of nature. Instead, we are a part of the environment, and conservation practices should reflect that. We must understand that we are not somehow superior to nature, residing above it, but rather deeply embedded within it.
