Rambunctious Garden, written by Emma Marris, opens up with tales of conservation methods in Australia. In Chapter 2, Marris goes on to describe the Yellowstone Model. Marris is quick to assert her point that using baselines for conservation may not be the best, or even damaging, to the ecosystem. The author defines a baseline as a point in time at which conservationists aim to restore the land to “pristine wilderness.” It is most often pre-European. Instead, she says that ecosystems are constantly changing, and human efforts to preserve these lands should reflect that, instead of restoring them to an anachronistic time.
In Australia, conservationists have attempted to restore lands to pre-European times. The Australian Wildlife Conservancy, in 2009, tried to restore a 250 square mile piece of land, Scotia Sanctuary, to pre-European times. This project was arduous and expensive. The Australian plan faired well because it required killing feral animals like goats, foxes, cats, and rabbits. The hunters shot the goats, trapped the foxes and cats, and poisoned carrots to rid the rabbits. That is quite an extreme example (that PETA would dislike), but it worked in the sense that the “little furries” were now under no threat. Native species thrived. Therefore, Scotia Sanctuary proved that achieving a historical baseline was possible, under intense management. But what does “management” entail? Is this land no longer wild if it is “managed?” Maybe. Is this land no longer “pristine wilderness” because of human intervention? Not quite. Let’s look at America’s answer to the quest for pristine wilderness.
The Yellowstone Model serves as a guide to the world of what conservation is today: setting aside wilderness areas and banning human use apart from tourism. Never before had a society voluntarily restrained itself using natural resources in deference to higher uses of nature such as pure enjoyment (Marris). Now 13% of the Earth’s lands are protected areas. Is this necessarily right though? In 1877, Native Americans were forcibly removed from their lands. This is very ironic because it was the care of the Native Americans that first interested the conservationists in the land. Needless to say, the ecosystem suffered without its caretakers. I think Marris will use Yellowstone of what the face of conservation used to be. Sure, having this great area of “untouched” space is great but is it really productive? Does it really suit to the needs of the land and the people? She compares it a bit to the European model of aiding human use and avoiding extinction. Americans perfected this model of nothingness, leaving the land as it is, and exported that to the world. Both ideas are being debated here.
Emma Marris presents excellent cases so far. Australia’s model of returning to the baseline proved successful. Wyoming’s Yellowstone has also seen success. Both attempt to move their respected lands into “prestine wilderness,” Yellowstone with no activity whatsoever, and Scotia Sanctuary with human intervention. I am inclined to think that Marris believes in the latter.
