Conservation 

Attitude

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

CIRCULAR 414-C
Part C

The Conservation Attitude

By Luna B. Leopold

CONSERVATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 414-C

This volume complete in four parts

Washington 1960
United States Department of the Interior

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretory

Geological Survey

William T. Pecora, Director

First printing 1960 

Second printing 1964

Third printing 1965 

Fourth printing 1967

Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 414

CONSERVATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

PART C

The Conservation Attitude

By Luna B. Leopold

Presented before the annual meeting of the Milwaukee County 

Conservation Alliance, Milwaukee, Wis., December 5, 1958.

Forsaking his inheritance and its assurance 

of a comfortable existence, Guatama Buddha 

adopted the life of a pauper to seek the intellectual joys of pure contemplation. Under a 

mulberry tree, it is said, he propounded a 12- 

point program of ethical conduct stressing the 

development of a disinterested outlook in each 

individual. Temples, ritual, and idols he considered distractions from the basic need. He 

felt that there was a basic need for the development of an attitude.

The Brahmins as well as the lower castes 

recognized the merits of the system suggested 

by Buddha, but they molded his teachings into 

an accessory to existing rituals and dogma. 

They soon forgot that Guatama wanted no 

idols and no temples. They forgot his admonition that an attitude w^s the thing that really 

counted. Despite his expressed wish, today 

Buddha in stone, in bronze^ and in gold ponders 

these things in thousands of temples and hears 

the prayers of millions who still seek the truths 

of an ethical life.

Today, conservation has its temples. The 

temples of conservation include hundreds of 

irrigation reservoirs; it has prayer-sticks in miles 

of contour plow furrows, and the Buddha of a 

drop-inlet structure looks down on a conservation pool in myriad detention dams.

Conservation is well established today in the

minds of the American public. It seems appropriate to analyze at this time just what it is that 

is established in the public mind. In what 

ways have we, too, substituted the temples, the 

ritual, and the idols for an attitude?

What concept of conservation is established 

in the minds of Americans? Conservation involves the idea of sustained yield of renewable 

resources, and prevention of extravagant waste 

in nonrenewable ones. In a less specific sense, 

conservation implies the preservation of values, 

and the use of a resource for the public good 

through an indefinite future. In a third, and still 

more subjective sense, conservation connotes 

natural or wild things, the country and landscape beyond the confines of our own back 

fence.

A moment's contemplation of these concepts 

makes it immediately apparent that the concepts in the first definition, sustained yield and 

extravagant waste, are relatively objective things 

which can be measured and studied. Five 

loaves and two fishes can be weighed, tagged, 

and price-marked. They can be rung up on a 

cash register. The prevention of waste can be 

measured, in a way, in twelve baskets gathered

full.

In the second concept of conservation, a 

preservation of values implies that worth must 

be evaluated. Use for the public good means 

that there should be some way of determining 

what is in the public interest, and what is not.

15
This is where the conservationist begins to 

have trouble. There is an immediate tendency 

to express value in the ordinary daily-life measure, dollars. Therefore there is pressure to 

express one mallard as equivalent to $2.00 or to 

say that one goose equals $6.00. This leads to 

an even more spurious equation that the value 

of a park is measured by the dollars spent by 

park visitors in the local stores. Surely a park 

has a far greater value than that, but expression 

of this greater value is not simple. In any 

event, the matter becomes confused when the 

public good is measured strictly by the number 

of people using a resource.

An important element in the present-day 

conservation movement is the idea of the 

wilderness reserve. The reserve system means 

setting aside specific areas as wilderness and 

keeping these areas free from the encroachment 

of roads, as well as other types of development. 

Following an initial suggestion that wilderness 

reserves be designated in areas of Federal forest 

land, a system of such tracts was delineated by 

the Forest Service beginning with the Gila 

reserve in New Mexico and Arizona. Later the 

wilderness reserve concept was extended to particularize different kinds of tracts, differentiating 

wilderness, primitive areas, and other classes 

of reserves.

The wilderness concept is closely allied to 

the concept of national parks. The park system 

involves two kinds of uses: so-called recreational 

development and, separately, areas preserved as 

wilderness both within the confines of a single 

national park. The park system is characterized 

by complete protection from hunting and from 

the cutting or transplanting of vegetation. At 

the same time, the park system implies the 

development of roads, access trails and, in the 

most accessible areas, concessions, as well as 

camp grounds and picnic areas. Road development and concession areas are for the express 

purpose of drawing the public, opening up

such areas to recreational use. This contrasts 

sharply with the idea of wilderness protection, 

where access is limited to those traveling by 

foot, by pack train, or by canoe. This paradox 

in the administration of parks exemplifies the 

conflict between alternative uses of a resource, 

each competing use being justified by its classification as conservation. Can conservation 

mean all these things?

This line of thought leads directly into the 

third and most subjective concept involved in 

conservation. The idea of natural, wild things 

is, no matter how thin you slice it, an essential 

element in what people think of when they 

speak of conservation. Sports in the woods or 

wilds require a least a semblance of naturalness 

in the setting. A natural setting contributes 

materially to the esthetic pleasure. Futhermore, 

the aspect of sportsmanship under wild conditions connotes an ethical exercise in which conscience and self-discipline play a part. When 

hunting and fishing'are separated from these 

esthetic and ethical connotations, they may be 

recreation but they are rather for removed from 

the usual concept of conservation. A baited 

duck-blind or an illegal bag may be recreation, 

but gone is that restraint which is an essential 

element in a conservation attitude.

As one deals with those concepts which are 

far enough down the scale of objectivity to defy 

simple monetary evaluation, he is increasingly 

pressed to substitute visible symbols which in 

themselves may not be any direct measure of 

conservation value, but which by a round-about 

reasoning are felt to be indicative of such value. 

These are the idols and the prayers sticks, the 

temples and the trappings. If we who consider 

ourselves conservationists are worthy of that 

name, it is not too early to analyze our own 

attitudes critically, to ask ourselves whether the 

idols and the prayer sticks, to which we point 

with pride, have become substituted in our 

minds for conservation.

16
I think all human beings are easily taken in 

by labels. It is because people believe they can 

understand something better when it can be 

pigeonholed, tagged, or named. Labels make 

things black or white. Soon we forget what 

was behind the label, or how the original differentiation was made. Therefore, when one 

label is more popular than another, anything 

anyone wants to sell or promote is tagged with 

the popular label, and immediately becomes 

better or different.

At this moment, conservation is a popular 

label. As a result there are plenty of programs, 

practices, special interests, and misrepresentations riding the coattail of a popular movement.

There is not only great attention to what 

something is called, but there is also a preoccupation with visible signs idols you might 

say. Things which can be seen and counted 

become synonymous with basic accomplishment. 

The number of miles of farm terracing can be 

counted and may be sold as a measure of how 

much conservation is being applied to the land. 

A careful scrutiny may reveal that the only land 

management measures which are in widespread 

use are those that are financially beneficial to 

the operator. Yet these measures may be advertised as conservation in the broad sense, and 

in fact they may become the only things being 

done on a program which is called a conservation program.

One of the pointed and I might add 

heartening indications that at least a few land 

managers have seen through the popular labels 

was a statement made by a Wisconsin farmer 

testifying before a recent hearing of the Water 

Resources Committee.

"Practices such as contour strip-cropping and 

terracing are very important, but I maintain 

that they do not get at the source of the trouble, 

which is soil compaction and a very low organicmatter content in our soils.

"It should be the goal of every farmer to

restore and maintain his soils in a spongy, organically rich condition.

"I do not feel that the State or Federal agricultural agencies have given this phase of conservation work the emphasis it deserves."

This land manager indicated, in effect, that 

government agencies have become principally 

concerned with keeping soil in place. He said 

our concern ought to be on the quality of the 

soil. If we did that, the other would follow. 

The visible signs of so-called conservation 

terraces and the like can be measured and 

advertised. The basic accomplishment is more 

subtle. Payments or incentives, Federal or 

State aid, may go to the man who has the 

nicest temples and idols to the conservation 

gods.

In some instances, visible signs of accomplishment of conservation, signs of having done 

something, may be less important than visible 

signs of having done nothing. When you 

find a piece of really fine canoe water or a little 

remnant of prairie flowers, you may thank your 

lucky stars for this visible sign that man has 

done nothing here.

In analyzing the field of conservation I come 

to the conclusion that there is need for recognition of an attitude, a way of looking at resource 

problems which allows the existence of values 

which are noneconomic, but nevertheless real. 

A conservation attitude would recognize esthetic 

and ethical values as distinct and immiscible 

with economic ones. It would admit that 

maintenance, of esthetic values of a resource 

may be incompatible with development of economic values but would not make esthetic and 

ethical values compete with economic ones in 

monetary terms.

By such an admission, competing uses may 

be viewed in a framework which allows choices 

to be made on reasonably objective grounds 

rather than behind a screen of distortion and 

of differing definitions.

17
Stream pollution involves the loss of three 

kinds of values. First, in more extreme form, 

pollution may be a direct threat to public health, 

and health is a commodity which civilized communities do not evaluate in dollars, though 

for some purposes dollar valuations are placed 

on certain aspects. Second, pollution can be 

viewed in terms of the dollar cost of purification 

necessary for use of the water. Third, pollution 

as a stench and an unpretty condition can be 

viewed as an esthetic degradation.

On the other hand, streams are, polluted 

because economic pressures prevent municipalities and industries from adequate treatment of 

wastes which must perforce be disposed of in 

bodies of water.

Let it be recognized at the outset that in an 

industrial world waste disposal is a mandatory 

as well as a logical use of rivers and lakes. The 

problem is not whether streams are to be used 

for transport of wastes, but what it is worth to 

the community to keep waste disposal within 

limits of esthetic and salubrious acceptability.

In the case of Brandywine Creek, Pennsylvania, 

the citizenry of the area decided that they 

wanted the stream cleaned up. They did Jiot 

decide this because it was economical or because 

it would attract tourists to the local stores. 

Public health was not the issue. The decision 

was based on a desire for more pleasant surroundings in which to live, in other words on 

an esthetic premise. The local industries participated in this venture. Local and temporary 

pollution by industrial waste should not be 

interpreted as lack of willingness to cooperate 

but should be accepted as a result of circumstances. The pollution abatement of the 

Brandywine can, I believe, be attributed to a 

conservation attitude.

We Americans Must decide what we want for 

ourselves as well as for our children. We want 

the advantages of a mechanized civilization, but 

we also appear to want a culture having certain

intellectual, esthetic, and ethical values. Resource development and use brings these into 

competition, and decisions must be made. 

Many of the conflicts in the use of natural 

resources stem for a confusion of these different 

kinds of values. If all resource development, 

and use is judged by economic yardstick alone, 

resources having principally esthetic and ethical 

values will continue to disappear as rapidly as 

they have in the past half century. With regard 

to areas of real wilderness, we are already on 

the flattening portion of a die-out curve which 

is approaching zero.

Like Buddha's followers, we seem to have 

forgotten that it was the attitude which was 

the important thing. We have substituted the 

idols and the temples for the attitude, and we 

have moulded conservation into a trademark to 

help sell preconceived ideas. Let us take a new 

look at resource development and resource use. 

Development or use which is economic rather 

than esthetic should be compared strictly and 

objectively with alternative lines of action using 

uniform criteria for judging economic value.

For resources which are principally noneconomic in value, let us decide whether we want 

them, but not by assigning a dollar sign to 

scenery and not by making the sale of hot dogs 

a measure of the worth of a park. Thomas B. 

Nolan, director of the U. S. Geological Survey, 

recently made a significant addition to the definition of conservation which, in my opinion, 

provides a framework within which a conservation attitude may function. He said that 

conservation must have the positive objective 

of "better utilization of our resources and our 

environment in order to make possible better 

and fuller lives for all the people." In this 

context conservation can mean development 

of a resource such as water or minerals, and it 

can also mean preservation of a resource in its 

natural state such as a scenic landscape or a 

piece of wilderness. Development or preser18
vation would depend on which is more conducive to a better and fuller life for the people 

of the country.

To achieve a better and fuller life it seems 

to me necessary that we look beyond the temple 

idol of monetary evaluation. We must think 

beyond the prayer sticks of the voluminous 

reports which obstensibly determine whether a 

given project is justifiable.

It would seem to me less esoteric and far more 

honest to decide that certain elements are necessary for better and fuller lives without dreaming up ways to put meaningless dollar values 

on them; then to weigh the other elements 

having monetary value by uniform and objective 

procedures, so that alternative uses of the resource can be compared, and choices among the

alternatives made on sound monetary grounds. 

We who call ourselves conservationists must 

be the first to identify land-use and resourcedevelopment measures which are financially 

sound investments, quite justified without a 

conservation label. We would then fortify our 

position and consolidate our ranks when there 

was need to maintain or protect some esthetic 

value, some piece of scenery, some wood lot 

full of ladyslippers, some stretch of white wateror of wilderness, which could never be justified 

on strictly economic grounds. It will require 

a self-restraint which can come only with the 

development of a conservation attitude for us 

to fly the conservation banner only on those 

things whose value lies not in our pocketbook 

but only in our heart.

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1967 O-Z76-029

19