In Weis and Butler’s Salt Marshes the authors recall the ongoing destruction and disappearance of salt marshes across the country. Though the authors condemn humanity’s “dominion over nature” and criticize us for recklessly exploiting the wetlands to cater to our personal needs, I believe their criticism is a bit harsh. Although the salt marshes have been gradually disappearing since the late 17^th century, there were certain periods of time where the exploitation of the wetlands was somewhat essential to our society’s growth and survival.

Salt marshes have been manipulated as early as 1675, when the Dutch settlers migrated to the United States. To the settlers, the salt marshes were initially seen as source of infestation and disease. At the same time, since the wetlands couldn’t be used as farmland, in order for the settlers to be able to harvest and farm crops, they had to dry up portions of the wetlands. Because the settlers lived during the pre-scientific era, they knew nothing about the environmental consequences and effects the destruction of salt marshes would have. Not only were their actions a result of being oblivious and unaware, even more so, the facts we know about the productivity and biodiversity within the salt marshes had not yet been discovered.

As a result, I would propose that the actions and behavior of the colonists could be categorized as “innocent destruction” of the salt marshes. I don’t believe that the colonists can be blamed or held responsible for the environmental degradation associated with the salt marsh destruction. In many aspects, this elimination of wetlands was somewhat necessary for the survival and success of the newly established communities at that time. Moreover, were it not for the dikes and sluice gates created, many parts of New England, like Manhattan and Meadowlands, wouldn’t exist today.

On the other hand, the destruction of marshes in recent years cannot be labeled as “innocent.” With the full knowledge of environmental consequences along with scientific evidence proving how harmful destruction of wetlands can be, there are no excuses for our actions and exploitation of salt marshes. In this case, I believe we have taken advantage of the nature around us without fully considering the vast amount of negative effects our actions generate. Nowadays, there is significant salt hay farming but for reasons other than basic survival. Farmers are exploiting this resource in order to make large profits. In addition, we are draining marshes and filling them in all because someone decided they wanted to expand a city or town beyond the land’s original topographic borders. Who are we to decide we want to expand the amount of dry land just to satisfy our own human needs. What about the animals that live in the salt marshes, or the organisms that feed off of the salt marsh plants? How will they be able to survive?

Furthermore, are we correct in assuming we can take any unowned, undeveloped land and call it ours? Not necessarily, but at the same time, this has existed as standard human practice for hundreds of years. Even so, I think it is hard to justify why our human desires and needs – which in this case seem excessive rather than essential to our survival – are more important than any other creatures’ needs?