Nature Unbound: Bureaucracy vs. the Environment

Randy T Simmons, Ryan M. Yonk, and Kenneth J. Sim

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

Copyright © 2016 by the Independent Institute

All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by electronic or mechanical means now known or to be invented, including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review. Nothing herein should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Institute or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

Independent Institute

100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621-1428

Telephone: 510-632-1366

Fax: 510-568-6040

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.independent.org

Cover Design: Denise Tsui

Cover Image: © Mny-Jhee / Shutterstock

LC CIP Data Available

Contents

1Politics, Ecology, and Entrepreneurship

2Political Ecology

3Environmental Political Entrepreneurship

4The Politics of Nature

5The Clean Air Act

6The National Environmental Policy Act

7The Clean Water Act

8The Endangered Species Act

9The Wilderness Act

10Renewable Energy Legislation

11Conclusions

Appendix: Federal Land Policy

Notes

References

Index

Acknowledgments

About the Authors

Other Books by the Authors

Praise for Nature Unbound

About the Independent Institute

Independent Studies in Political Economy

1

Politics, Ecology, and Entrepreneurship

WHAT IF WHAT we think we know about ecology and environmental policy is just wrong? What if environmental laws often make things worse? What if the very idea of nature has been hijacked by politics? What if wilderness is something we create in our minds, as opposed to being an actual description of nature? Developing answers to these questions and developing implications of those answers are our purposes in this book. Two themes guide us—political ecology and political entrepreneurship. Combining these two concepts, which we develop in some detail, leads us to recognize that sometimes in their original design and certainly in their implementation, major U.S. environmental laws are more about opportunism and ideology than good management and environmental improvement.

Political Ecology

A well-respected ecologist at Utah State University spent much of his academic life studying landscape changes in and around Yellowstone National Park. When we asked him what ought to be the correct policy for managing the park, anything ranging from actively managing nature to letting nature just happen, a policy known as natural regulation, he responded that he does not make policy recommendations; that is for the politicians and agency personnel.

We believe his answer is consistent with what many ecologists would say—their job is to study ecological processes, not to get involved in the politics of management. There is, they believe, somehow a separation between science and politics. Science may inform politics, but they are separate endeavors.

A major theme of this book is that a separation between science and politics is nearly as rare as unicorns. There is a politics of ecology, even though many ecologists refuse to participate in it, at least overtly. This political ecology is the politicization of ecology—not necessarily the science of ecology, although it often is—but beliefs about ecology held by the public, press, and policymakers. Those beliefs have become increasingly political. Political ecology underlies the foundational laws of U.S. environmental policy. We will demonstrate that these laws are based on mythology intertwined with naiveté about political processes and false assumptions about environmental processes.

Popular political ecology is based on a flawed understanding of ecology. This misunderstanding is best described as the balance of nature, which holds that when nature is left undisturbed by humans, it remains in or returns to a perpetual state of balance and harmony. The balance of nature belief asserts that if we let nature take her course, the environment will take care of itself.

If the premises of the balance of nature belief were correct, then one would expect that allowing nature to take her course in environmental policy-making would lead to the protection and enhancement of biological diversity and ecological integrity for natural resources of the United States. If, however, the balance of nature belief is a political and mythological construct, policies and management based on it will fail to produce the desired results.

The balance of nature belief is romantic and emotionally appealing. It is comforting to believe that nature could maintain and repair herself if only humans would stop meddling in her affairs. Unfortunately, this belief is outdated, has been rejected by modern ecologists, and is simply wrong. Policies based on the balance of nature ideology are ineffective and counterproductive; western environmental philosophies based on these outdated, romantic, even religious assumptions are misleading.¹ That does not change the fact, however, that the balance of nature belief is alive and thriving in the United States among university students, the general public, political activists, and politicians.

Furthermore, balance of nature solutions (also called steady-state solutions) to environmental challenges are presently at work throughout all of modern U.S. environmental law and policy. Reading the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, or any other major environmental law quickly shows that it is based on equilibrium ecology, which is another term for the balance of nature. Ecologist Norman Christensen, Dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, wrote that such laws are based on the idea that systems tend toward these stable end points and that they are regulated by complex feedbacks—a sort of balance of nature that is almost Aristotelian.²

Environmental Political Entrepreneurship

A second major theme that drives our analysis is political entrepreneurship. Environmental preservation is a fundamentally political enterprise. Legislation, regulation, policies, and evaluations are political actions. We suggest that their outcomes might be better understood if we use the lens of political entrepreneurship.

In 2012 we attended public meetings for President Obama’s proposed solar energy zones on public lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The zones would supposedly allow for expedited review and approval of solar energy farms. Opponents of the solar energy zones outnumbered proponents by a wide margin, and some members of the public who were attending the meeting were highly emotional. Most of those who spoke were in favor of solar energy in principle, but not in the particular areas proposed by the Obama administration. Speakers opposed a solar energy zone in the Wah Wah Valley in Utah, for example, because it would destroy pristine views. Dark skies proponents opposed sites in central Arizona because of their possible effects on stargazing. Impacts to desert tortoise habitat and fragile ecosystems were stated as reasons for opposing proposed sites in California. Almost everyone at these meetings claimed to be a stakeholder representing some portion of the public interest. A few people spoke out against the proposed solar sites as representing a silly infatuation with an inefficient and therefore wasteful technology. The BLM employees listened politely.

The conversation at the solar energy zone hearing included references to unspoiled ecosystems, pristine landscapes, the balance of nature, and endangered and threatened species such as the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, flat-tailed horned lizard, golden eagle, desert bighorn, and desert tortoise. Later, the Western Lands Project filed a protest with the U.S. Department of the Interior claiming the solar zones would destroy one of the last remaining floristic frontiers in the United States and called the proposal to establish solar energy zones as taking the least enlightened path possible, while attempting to create the illusion of innovation and progress.³

The solar energy zone conversation illustrates how political activists attempt to capture policy processes to achieve their goals. Politicians, political appointees, bureaucrats, and members of organized interest groups evoke emotions and make claims about the public interest to promote their agendas. Paradoxically, their efforts result in legislation and regulation that are often designed (unintentionally or even intentionally) to fail. Sometimes the failure results from legislation and ensuing regulation based on ecologically incorrect assumptions and insufficient knowledge. Alternatively or even concurrently, the legislation is the result of a process that allows narrow interests to trump more general interests. This process is known as political entrepreneurship.

We use the term entrepreneur broadly to mean homo agens (the human actor) who possesses the propensity to pursue goals effectively, once ends and means are clearly identified, but also possesses the alertness to identify which ends are to be sought and what means are available.⁴ Political entrepreneurial behavior is alertness to unnoticed opportunities to achieve policy outcomes.⁵ For example, an astute political entrepreneur from an environmental advocacy group may claim in a comment on a National Environmental Policy Act document that impacts to a species have been inadequately analyzed. The resulting reanalysis will cost the project money and may delay its implementation until the analysis is deemed acceptable. Thus, the entrepreneur has achieved an outcome (time delay and cost increases) that may please his or her constituency.

Defining political entrepreneurship as alertness to unnoticed opportunities spreads the area of focus from just the study of heroic figures such as John Muir or Theodore Roosevelt to include bureaucrats, political appointees, members of interest groups or think tanks, and interested individuals. Political entrepreneurs can be those who advocate for proposals as well as those who attempt to block them. Political scientist John Kingdon sums up our notion of political entrepreneurship nicely. He said political entrepreneurs invest their resources—time, energy, reputation, and sometimes money—in the hope of a future return.⁶ We would add that the future return might be to preserve the status quo.

Just as ecosystems are characterized by competition, disturbance, and succession as organisms attempt to succeed and even thrive, politics is a struggle by competing interest groups and individuals such as Muir, Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and Aldo Leopold to impose their ideals on the rest of society. Political scientist Robert A. Dahl summarized the process years ago: The making of government policy is not a majestic march of great majorities united upon certain matters of policy. It is the steady appeasement of relatively small groups.⁷ The people do not create environmental legislation. Organized groups do, sometimes achieving private gains at the public expense. Peter Kareiva, chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy, explained part of what is going on:

Beneath the invocations of the spiritual and transcendental value of untrammeled nature is an argument for using landscapes for some things and not others: hiking trails rather than roads, science stations rather than logging operations, and hotels for eco-tourists instead of homes. By removing long-established human communities, erecting hotels in their stead, removing unwanted species while supporting more desirable species, drilling wells to water wildlife, and imposing fire management that mixes control with prescribed burns, we create parks that are no less human constructions than Disneyland.⁸

The Disneylands created by these political processes come at someone’s expense, but seldom at the expense of the political entrepreneurs and their followers.

Implications

Our claims about political ecology are not new. Everyone knows that acts of Congress are political. That is why there are so many lobbyists in Washington, D.C., and state capitals. What is unique in our analysis is the emphasis on politicized or political ecology and entrepreneurship.

Chapters 2 and 3 lay out in some detail the science and politics of political ecology. Some conclusions are startling, disconcerting, and unpopular: stopping logging in the Pacific Northwest will not restore the forests to their pre-Columbian state; saving an endemic species makes little biological sense; nature must be managed; ecosystems (however defined) are not delicately balanced; today’s ecosystems did not result from nature taking its course; American ecosystems were not in a state of equilibrium when European settlers arrived; and the ecology of our landscapes is more complex and reliant on human intervention than originally thought. The idea that nature has an idealized and balanced state is mythology. Although many scientists no longer promote the balance of nature, environmental organizations still find it useful, and our environmental laws are still predicated on it.

In Chapter 4 we reflect on the politics of defining terms like nature, wilderness, and natural. Nature undisturbed has been a useful myth for political entrepreneurs for many decades. As we will see in more detail throughout other chapters, it justified and animated a long-term political movement to preserve nature, to return much of the United States to an invented state of natural balance, and to create a host of federal laws and subsequent regulations.

Chapters 5 through 9 apply our political ecology analysis to major U.S. environmental legislation: the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Wilderness Act. Chapter 10 is a case study in the political uses of renewable energy legislation. These chapters review history, assumptions, and especially the opportunities for political entrepreneurship in how legislation was created and then applied.

Chapter 11 lays out some basic ideas for redesigning environmental policies. We recognize that political pressures work against such redesign, but we remain pragmatically hopeful.

Finally, we have included an appendix that reviews the history of public land management. It provides background for Chapters 5 to 9 but, unlike those chapters, does not concentrate on a single legislative act.

2

Political Ecology

IN HIS BOOK about the relationships between humans and nature, ecologist Daniel Botkin explains that ecologists and other environmental scientists reject the balance of nature or steady-state assumption. He claims, however, that models, theory, management policies, recommendations, etc., in ecology assume that ecosystems and species are in a steady state and will never change, period. He continues,

If you ask ecologists whether nature is always constant, they will always say, ‘No, of course not.’ But if you ask them to write down a policy for biological conservation or any kind of environmental management, they will almost always write down a steady-state solution.¹

Although environmental science may reject the balance of nature ideology² (while supporting laws based in it), the general public tends to accept it wholeheartedly. A 2007 study of undergraduate students in the United States showed they believe this term is descriptive of real ecological systems. In addition, the students continue to believe in the balance of nature even after taking courses in environmental science.³

In his book about reinventing nature, William Cronon claims, Many popular ideas about the environment are premised on the conviction that nature is a stable, holistic, homeostatic community capable of preserving its natural balance more or less indefinitely if only humans can avoid ‘disturbing it.’⁴ This assumption, which he calls problematic, descends from the work of botanist Frederic Edward Clements, for whom the landscape is a balance of nature, a steady-state condition maintained so long as every species remains in place.⁵

Central to this belief is the presumption that nature is highly structured, ordered, and regulated and that disturbed ecosystems will return to their original state once the disturbance ceases. This view of nature is an integral part of successional theory, in which species are thought to replace one another in ordered procession culminating in climax communities. It continues to animate many modern activists. On the World Wildlife Fund’s website, for example, there is a section titled Ecological Balance that contains the following text:

Ecological balance has been defined by various online dictionaries as a state of dynamic equilibrium within a community of organisms in which genetic, species and ecosystem diversity remain relatively stable, subject to gradual changes through natural succession and A stable balance in the numbers of each species in an ecosystem.

The next paragraph begins, The most important point being that the natural balance in an ecosystem is maintained.⁶

Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, is perhaps most responsible for popularizing the idea of a balance of nature. Although she noted that "the balance of nature is not a status quo; it is fluid, ever shifting, in a constant state of adjustment, she also claimed that it is no more possible to ignore the balance of nature than a man perched on the edge of a cliff can defy the law of gravity."⁷ Silent Spring promoted the notion that a delicate and static balance of nature stands in danger of being upset by humans. Carson claimed that it took eons of time for life to reach a state of adjustment and balance with its surroundings.⁸

A belief in a balance of nature gives a strong moral context to environmental protection. From Rachel Carson to Barry Commoner (who famously said, everything is connected to everything else), the Club of Rome, Al Gore, and the deep ecologists,⁹ there is not only an acceptance that a balance of nature exists but also a belief that upsetting the balance of nature is morally wrong.

This view is not modern, progressive, or scientific. As John Kricher explains in his book, The Balance of Nature: Ecology’s Enduring Myth, the balance of nature ideology is in reality an old conservative religious view of the natural world that dates to the dawn of written history.¹⁰ Contrary to the constancy and stability of the balance of nature ideology, however, disturbance and change are the normal order in the evolutionary history of the Earth. For example, glaciers have advanced and retreated over the surface of North America repeatedly in the last 3 million years.

Not only has the climate fluctuated widely, but what we in the United States view as normal (that which we have experienced during our lives or since the birth of our nation) is, when viewed from a perspective of the last several hundred thousand years, an abnormally warm, dry period. The normal climate for most of Canada, for instance, is several thousand feet of ice, not what we see today.¹¹ As one might expect, the distributions of plants and animals have also contracted and expanded over time. Local extinctions are a fact of life, as is the extinction of entire species. Disturbance and change are the only ecosystem constants.

Previously, we noted Daniel Botkin’s assertion of a disconnect between the scientific knowledge of ecologists and their policy prescriptions. Such dissonance is not restricted to ecologists but is, we believe, widespread among natural scientists in general, regardless of their disciplines. It is stated clearly by Yellowstone National Park historian Paul Schullery. Although he was writing specifically about aboriginal influences on North American ecosystems, the following statement applies broadly:

Even among those of us who know and accept this evidence there is a lingering feeling that things were somehow right back then, that some fundamental state of harmony existed between humans and the rest of nature and that North America was a kind of environmental Eden until Europeans arrived.¹²

Lack of Wildlife

One reason for the prevailing popular view of North America as Eden is early accounts that describe uncountable numbers of wildlife prior to widespread European exploration and settlement. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, for example, recorded herds that were a moving multitude that darkened the plains from one horizon to the other.¹³ Flocks of passenger pigeons were reported to have blocked out the sun for consecutive days.

Historical records, however, do not support the notion that North America once teemed with wildlife. Although some have claimed, for example, that moose in the Rocky Mountains numbered in the tens of thousands before they were slaughtered by unregulated hunting, early fur trappers seldom reported seeing or killing even a single moose.¹⁴ When Peter Skene Ogden’s fur brigade killed three moose near present-day Phillipsburg, Montana, in 1825, he noted that it was the first time any of his men had seen a moose in their total of nearly 300 man-years in what is now the western United States during the early 1800s.¹⁵

Although not as rare as moose, elk were also historically uncommon in the Rocky Mountains. Between 1835 and 1872, for example, twenty different parties spent a total of 765 days traveling through Yellowstone on foot or horseback, yet reported seeing elk only once every eighteen days—in 1995, prior to gray wolf reintroduction, there were nearly 100,000 elk in that ecosystem.¹⁶ The same was true in the Canadian Rockies, where early explorers reported seeing elk only once every thirty-one days.¹⁷

Moreover, mule and white-tailed deer, antelope, and bighorn sheep were also generally rare or absent when the Rocky Mountains were first visited by Europeans. Accounts of starvation and killing horses for food are common in early journals.¹⁸ The Lewis and Clark expedition ate 190 dogs and 12 horses in areas where wild game was not available.

Except for Idaho’s Snake River plains and adjacent areas, few bison were ever seen west of the mountains. The 2013 bison count in Yellowstone National Park estimated there are 4,600 bison, but between 1835 and 1872, early explorers encountered bison only three times during 765 days in the ecosystem.¹⁹ The Columbia Plateau and the Great Basin were practically devoid of game at historical contact.²⁰ How can we square that historical record with Lewis and Clark’s accounts of massive herds of bison and flocks of countless passenger pigeons?

There are at least two possible explanations. First, the bison herds and pigeon flocks were freak population events caused by a sudden disappearance of millions of Native Americans. Second, the bison herds in particular were primarily found in buffer zones between competing tribes, where hunting pressure was low.

Writers have long recognized that Native Americans lacked immunological resistance to epidemic and endemic European diseases and that many epidemics reduced aboriginal numbers by 50 to 90 percent at each passing.²¹ Anthropologist Henry Dobyns postulated that Native American populations were severely reduced a hundred years before the Pilgrims set foot at Plymouth Rock.²² Professor Ann Ramenofsky, who tested Dobyn’s hypothesis against the archaeological record, found that the tribes along the middle Missouri River were decimated by European disease ca. 1600 AD, 200 years before the arrival of Lewis and Clark, who were the first Europeans to leave a detailed written record of exploration in the western United States.²³ Taking this factor into consideration, several authors have revised aboriginal population estimates for North America upward to 100 million or more. In 1492 more than 2 million native people may have lived in California alone, and at least 1 million natives occupied the Hawaiian Islands.²⁴ Native populations that depended on agriculture in the eastern United States and in the Southwest were particularly dense.²⁵ Moreover, aboriginal people had significant impacts on the environment, often stripping forests for fuel or clearing land for crops that, in turn, increased soil erosion (Diamond, 1988).²⁶

These Native American populations were decimated by early contact with Eurasian diseases including tuberculosis, typhoid, diphtheria, smallpox, whooping cough, influenza, yellow fever, scarlet fever, and measles. This disease holocaust swept through native peoples and, according to some estimates, killed 95 percent of them. Two results of this depopulation were (1) wildlife no longer competed with Native Americans for food, and (2) most hunting ceased.

Lack of Competition

In his book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann cites work by archaeologist Thomas W. Neumann showing almost no pigeon bones were found in archaeological sites.²⁷ There are bones from many other birds and even fish, but few from passenger pigeons. That is odd if there were in fact huge flocks of passenger pigeons historically. The pigeons roosted in large flocks and were famously dumb—they could be knocked from trees with poles, for example. Mann cites Neumann as saying, If they are so easy to hunt and you expect people to minimize labor and maximize return, you should have archeological sites just filled with these things. Well you don’t.²⁸ Neumann concludes the pigeons were simply not numerous before Europeans arrived. After disease killed off many if not most of the humans who had been competing with the pigeons for mast (nuts of all kinds), the pigeon populations exploded. He calls the huge flocks observed by Europeans, outbreak populations—always a symptom of an extraordinarily disrupted ecological system.²⁹

The bison story is similar to the pigeon story. Hernando de Soto’s expedition spent four years in the Southwest and did not record seeing even one bison, but they recorded seeing a land heavily populated with people. One hundred years later, the French explorer LaSalle saw almost no people but huge bison herds. In his classic book on the history of bison, biologist Valerius Geist wrote, The post-Columbian abundance of bison in North America, however, was almost certainly due to the decimation of a large portion of the Native American’s population by Eurasian diseases that decreased human hunting of bison.³⁰

Buffer Zones

Lewis and Clark and others did see large herds of animals sometimes and nearly starved at other times. One reason is likely the existence of aboriginal buffer zones. In a paper, The Virginia Deer and Intertribal Buffer Zones in the Upper Mississippi Valley, Hickerson explains,

Warfare between members of the two tribes had the effect of preventing hunters from occupying the best game region intensively enough to deplete the (deer) supply … In the one instance in which a lengthy truce was maintained between certain Chippewas and Sioux, the buffer, in effect a protective zone for the deer, was destroyed and famine ensued.³¹

Our colleague Charles Kay uncovered frequent references to buffer zones created by Native American hunting.³² He found the following in Lewis and Clark’s journals: With regard to game in general, we observe that the greatest quantities of wild animals are usually found in the country lying between two nations at war.³³ In 1859 General Raynolds, who led an expedition across the Dakotas and Montana, found an abundance of grass but no game east of the Powder River. Along the Powder River, however, he reported an abundance of game and little grass, whereas to the west he again encountered an abundance of grass and no game. Raynolds noted that,

The presence of these animals [bison] in such large numbers in this barren region [Powder River] is explained by the fact that this valley is a species of neutral ground between the Sioux and the Crows and other bands nearer the mountains, or, more correctly speaking, the common war ground visited only by war parties, who never disturb the game, as they would thereby give notice to their enemies of their presence. For this reason, the buffalo remain here undisturbed and indeed would seem to make the valley a place of refuge.³⁴

Tribal territory boundary zones explain how early explorers could encounter an abundance of game in a few locations and a lack of game everywhere else. Many aboriginal buffer zones were up to a hundred miles wide or more.

The Myth of Untouched Wilderness

Clearly, North America was not a wilderness waiting to be discovered. Rather, it was home to tens of millions of aboriginal peoples before the arrival of Europeans and their diseases. Wilderness was not a concept understood or used by native peoples; no native language even contains a word for wilderness.³⁵

Africa’s Serengeti is often used as an example of how North America’s prairies must have looked before Europeans supposedly despoiled them. Today’s Serengeti, however, is not a true representation of wilderness in Africa. It is a romantic, European view of how primitive Africa should have looked.³⁶ One of the first things Europeans did was remove all of the Serengeti’s indigenous peoples, even though there had been hominoid predators in Africa for at least 3.8 million years and despite the fact that our species, Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa approximately 100,000 years ago. There is nothing more unnatural than an African ecological system without hominoid predators. The Serengeti, therefore, is not a natural ecosystem nor is it an example of how things were in North America before the arrival of Columbus.

Most national parks, wilderness areas, and nature reserves, are supposedly managed to represent the conditions that existed in pre-Columbian times (i.e., so-called natural or pristine conditions). The National Park Service has often called the northern portion of Yellowstone National Park America’s Serengeti and in official publications claimed that the current high populations of elk prior to wolf reintroduction approximated the numbers there before significant human intervention began in the 19th century.³⁷ Apparently, native people’s interventions were not significant, according to the Park Service.

But what is natural? If Native Americans determined the structure of entire plant and animal communities by burning vegetation and limiting wildlife numbers, then they created completely different situations than what we have today. A let-nature-take-its-course approach by modern land managers will not duplicate the ecological conditions under which those communities developed. Because aboriginal predation and burning created those communities, we believe they will be best maintained by duplicating aboriginal influences and processes. Furthermore, unless the importance of aboriginal land management is recognized and modern management practices changed accordingly, we fear our ecosystems will continue to lose the biological diversity and ecological integrity they once had.

As paradoxical as it may sound, nature has to be managed. Setting aside areas as wilderness has been suggested as one way to protect various endangered species. However, this will not preserve a remnant of the past. It will instead create conditions that have not existed for the last 10,000 years. North Americans, for instance, view the Amazon River Basin as a wilderness to be saved and protected. To indigenous peoples, however, the Amazon is a home—a home they have modified to suit human needs by burning vegetation, planting crops, and harvesting game.³⁸

Misleading Environmental Myths

In addition to the outdated assumptions described above, additional environmental myths are often invoked. These include the belief that ecosystems are highly evolved and delicately balanced and that old-growth forests were the norm in pre-European times.

Ecosystem Myths

Ecosystems exist only in the mind’s eye; they can be defined as anything from a drop of pond water to the entire planet; thus, an ecosystem is whatever you want it to be.³⁹ Ecosystems are not natural biological units like species; they are artificial constructs of the human imagination. What we commonly call an ecosystem is almost invariably some geographic unit, like the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem, or some other area that a group or groups are interested in saving, conserving, protecting, or preserving. And in many cases, an endangered species, like the northern spotted owl, the grizzly bear, or the wolf, is at the center of the debate to preserve one geographic area or another. Defining these areas as ecosystems provides emotional content to the debate.

In their campaigns to define and defend ecosystems, environmental activists often claim ecosystems are highly evolved and delicately balanced. But the most elementary classes in evolutionary ecology teach that ecosystems do not evolve. Individuals live and die, but only species evolve. Ecosystems generally become more complex over time, as new