Of Conservation and Mysticism, Democracy and Things

In its original concept this article was to be a review of events affecting conservation in the north in the decade since the Tundra Conference (Fuller. & Kevan 1970). Resolutions of the Tundra Conference urged international cooperation in research, inventory and management of resources in circumpolar regions; the setting aside of research areas; protection for threatened species of vertebrates; broadening and strengthening of ecological research in Canada; and attention to legitimate needs and aspirations of northern natives. In a message read at the opening session of the Conference the then Minister of Indian & Northern Affairs, the Honourable Jean ChrCtien, referred to new regulations pertaining to land and water, and to a “broad program of hydrological and ecological research”. He also expressed the hope that he would be able to establish new National Parks in northern Canada, set aside areas for long-term research (ecological reserves), and expand the research activities of the Canadian Wildlife Service. This, then, provides a framework for discussing recent developments in research on and management of renewable resources, and protection of lands and waters from exploitation. However, in my view, the really exciting developments, in Canada at least, have been in public awareness of environmental issues and our treatment of indigenous peoples. The recent publication in this Journal of Ritchie’s polemic (Ritchie, 1978) that applauds increased awareness but deplores the method by which it was accomplished provides me with another platform. Since I consider this issue of overwhelming importance, I intend to devote most of this article to it. For some time now I have been in the habit of exposing what I conceive to be my own biases before making pronouncements on environmental issues, and I propose to follow that course here. In general, I think it naive to believe that we will soon if ever achieve unanimity of opinion on complex issues such as environmental problems. I therefore respect the right, even the duty, of those whom I consider to be wrong-headed to express their views so that those views can be examined and tested in the broadest possible intellectual context. It follows from this that ideas that are found wanting, like hypotheses that fail experimental test, ought to be discarded, but it does not follow that the authors of those ideas are necessarily knaves or charlataris. I thus reject much of what Ritchie has to say without rejecting Ritchie. Indeed, I share his taste for malt Whiskey. I also admit to being the member of a Task Force who “was unfamiliar with either the tundra or the nature of seismic techniques”. However, the radio interview to which Ritchie referred made neither a lasting nor a painful mark on my memory and I expect it had even less impact on the