6 ms·

I am reminded of an organization I read about years ago with the tag line "Seeing like a mountain." It was founded by someone who noticed that excess deer were

I am reminded of an organization I read about years ago with the tag line "Seeing like a mountain." It was founded by someone who noticed that excess deer were stripping the mountain of vegetation and they concluded that reintroducing wolves was important for creating a sustainable environment. In the US, deer-vehicle collisions make deer the deadliest animal for people that we have in this country. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-deadliest-animals-in-the-us.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-deadliest-animals-in-... In the US: Deer–vehicle collisions lead to about 200 human deaths and $1.1 billion in property damage every year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer%E2%80%93vehicle_collisions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer%E2%80%93vehicle_collisi... Part of my incomplete BS in Environmental Studies was a class in quantifying the economic value of natural resources. I did a case study on wetlands in the San Francisco Bay Area that are currently quietly being threatened by the county rail plan. The US used to pay people to fill in swamps and create "productive" land and then learned that swamps do useful and valuable things of various sorts. We updated the name from swamp to wetlands, overhauled their public image and reversed policy. We now protect and restore such areas. Quantifying the economic value to humans of a natural resource is a good means to convince people it needs protecting and it is in your best interest to protect it. This is not "charity" and shouldn't be viewed as a sacrifice. We are cutting our own throats when we ruin the world because of fixation on some overly simplified idea that it needs to put money directly into our pockets for humans to care about it. One of the best ways to fight such entrenched ideas is to quantify just how much it costs us to think that way.

swayvil 5y ago
The intellect is always going to offer only a vastly over-simplified perspective. But it's our #1 tool. So popular that we literally cannot imagine not using it 24-7. And furthermore we invariably call that model of reality, "reality". I mean that's just how it is. Possible antidotes for this ubiquitous plague of profound blindness : drugs, art, disaster, meditation... What else?
yoaviram 5y ago
The name of the organization is probably based on an essay called "Thinking like a mountain" by Aldo Leopold. Writing in 1949, Leopold is considered to be one of the first ecologists. It's a beautifully poetic and prophetic text. I happen to be living on a mountain in southern Tuscany. A place where wolf where hunted to the brink of extinction and the deer population is exploding. This essay resonates with me in profound ways. The essay (PDF): https://www.ecotoneinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/aldo-leopold-tlam.pdf https://www.ecotoneinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/aldo-l... PS. the whole book is worth reading.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Thanks. It's possible the tagline was Thinking like a mountain rather than seeing like a mountain. I want to say the organization was called Denali but that is now the name of a mountain in Alaska that was formerly known as Mt. McKinley. That change occurred in 2015. So searching for Denali gets me results for that specific mountain and things related to it, not for an environmentally oriented charity. I am failing to find verification that there ever was such an organization. So I don't know if I am misremembering the name.
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    Denali is the original name of the mountain. Given by the indigenous people living there. Some dude just started calling it Mt McKinley for political reasons and everyone just accepted that, this decision was simply reversed.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      > Given by the indigenous people living there. Well, some of them called it something kinda-sorta close to that. Other groups of indigenous people called it by other names. Alaska Natives aren't one homogeneous group, by any means. It's quite large, so it was visible to many different groups (on a good day I can see it from here, and it's about 130 miles/200 km away). But Denali is definitely better than McKinley, no question about that.
SapporoChris 5y ago
First, yes I'm for reintroduction of wolves. However, "In the US: Deer–vehicle collisions lead to about 200 human deaths and $1.1 billion in property damage every year." Really is a poor argument for it. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm USA annual number of deaths: 2,854,838. So, deer kill about .007% of USA population annually. I don't want to downplay the tragedy, but I wouldn't recommend spending a large amount of the budget on this.
- danny_codes 5y ago
  Technically .007% of Americans kill _themselves_ by driving into deer. The way you worded it makes it sound like the deer are going man-hunting!
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    really makes me concerned for the high suicide rate in the deer population
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - SapporoChris 5y ago
    Okay, I laughed outloud. Thank you, I'll try to word it better next time.
    - epistasis 5y ago
      Thank you for your good nature on this topic. Driving is a fraught issue, in that we have all sorts of social attitudes around it that prevent us thinking critically about the necessity and costs of driving. I've always been skeptical of driving, since I lost my best friend to it in high school, and saw others lose their friends. But. Since I've had children, I've been completely radicalized, and find it hard to even discuss the issue with a lot of people because my views have diverged so much from the mainstream. I unintentionally offend people all the time, and seeing your attitude gives me hope for finding more productive ways to express my views, like danny_codes did here.
pomian 5y ago
As you have written before, most of us who have worked with environmental issues in the real world, have long tried to 'value ' the environment. Forests, wetlands, waterfronts, etc. Common scenario, let's say there is a beautiful bay. Many tourists visit to see the view. Condos are built around the bay. Now there is no view. There are no tourists. Water quality in and around the bay degraded. But when trying to stop the development, the only arguable economic value, is the amount of the taxable value of condo, and 'housing starts' . There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc. It's been a lot of years since I took the class, but those things can be valued. One of the things I did in my case study of Suisun Marsh was quantified how much the marsh cleans up the water and what it would cost if humans did it with a water treatment plant. Suisun Marsh is also a historic birding area and the rails go through there for that reason. It brought tourism. You can place dollar values on tourism, water quality and other things. It doesn't get done a lot but can be done. A lot of places with such assets are small town or rural. Planning jobs tend to pay better in the big city so your best talent tends to end up designing cities and planners often hate their jobs because they don't get to do what they wanted to do. Planning something good for people and the environment that makes economic sense and gets buy in from enough pertinent stakeholders is hard. So, all too often, "money talks" instead.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc. The sub branch is "environmental economics." My cousin got his PhD in it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics
- ummonk 5y ago
  There is still ample view in the Bay Area, while we're in the midst of a severe housing shortage. The marginal loss to the view / waterfront / water quality from a new development is more than outweighed by the marginal gain in housing availability.
Loic 5y ago
A very nice video about the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
mcguire 5y ago
Unrelated to your point, I have a friend who was a wildlife biologist / game warden for a US state. At one point, at least one insurance company was trying to pressure the department of game and fish to issue many more deer hunting licenses, to reduce the number of deer-vehicle collisions.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  I don't think getting a license is hard, but the fees keep going up. Hell even a fishing license is $56.00, and that has many restrictions. I'm one of those liberal guys who has never hunted, and only use barbless hooks when I did fish. (I stopped fishing after I caught a Batray in the bay. It cried like a baby on the pier. I really played with my head. I put him back of course.) My point is I don't like high fees--for anything. I knew a jail guard years ago, and he said there are people in jail over not buying a license. (Starts with license, and no show, blah, blah, blah, prison. This was in Mississouri.) My point is I don't like these high fees we are being charged.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
  I heard about this via a podcast before! Just a clarification, the thing that the insurance company wanted the department in charge to do was issue (make available) more deer tags, not licenses. Hard to say more without knowing which state.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    You are correct. The idea was to reduce the deer population. (AL)
hyperpallium2 5y ago
In an adversarial legal system, no one represents "externalities". Parts of Australia have a deer problem, but despite cultivating a reputation for deadly animals, most of it lacks large terrestrial predators, so introducing wolves is an even harder sell than in the US. It also has prior historical experience with introducing a species to address a previously introduced species, which then becomes a problem itself: foxes for rabbits; cane toads for cane beetles. cue Simpsons
- ecdavis 5y ago
  Foxes were introduced to Australia for sport hunting, not to control the rabbit population. The presence of rabbits likely helped foxes spread across Australia. I agree with your point, though.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Even the Devil was given his Advocate... Interesting observation.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  There was also dung beetles :https://www.csiro.au/en/research/animals/livestock/dung-beetles https://www.csiro.au/en/research/animals/livestock/dung-beet... Which by most peoples measure, was a success. I don't agree with this "Swallowed a spider to catch the fly" approach though.
scoot 5y ago
> Part of my incomplete BS As opposed to part of your complete BS? :D (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
Spooky23 5y ago
Great points. Most people don’t understand the dangers of deer. I grew up in a rural area of New York - from age 16-20, I hit or was hit by 5 deer in vehicles, including one that jumped off an embankment and landed on and went through my roof. That wasn’t a uniquely unlucky track record either. If I recall correctly NY State Troopers were involved in ~500 collisions with deer annually at that time (mid 90s)
dillondoyle 5y ago
Draining lakes is a good topic right now. Check out some articles about the floods in Canada right now; a big factor is the draining (it needs constant pumping) of a lake for farming. draining did produce a lot of really productive fertile land. So maybe the cost benefit makes sense maybe you can do the math for us! but we're starting to see the true cost of our actions https://fvcurrent.com/article/sumas-lake-flooding-history/ https://fvcurrent.com/article/sumas-lake-flooding-history/

swayvil 5y ago

The intellect is always going to offer only a vastly over-simplified perspective. But it's our #1 tool. So popular that we literally cannot imagine not using it 24-7. And furthermore we invariably call that model of reality, "reality". I mean that's just how it is. Possible antidotes for this ubiquitous plague of profound blindness : drugs, art, disaster, meditation... What else?

yoaviram 5y ago

The name of the organization is probably based on an essay called "Thinking like a mountain" by Aldo Leopold. Writing in 1949, Leopold is considered to be one of the first ecologists. It's a beautifully poetic and prophetic text. I happen to be living on a mountain in southern Tuscany. A place where wolf where hunted to the brink of extinction and the deer population is exploding. This essay resonates with me in profound ways. The essay (PDF): https://www.ecotoneinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/aldo-leopold-tlam.pdf https://www.ecotoneinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/aldo-l... PS. the whole book is worth reading.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
Thanks. It's possible the tagline was Thinking like a mountain rather than seeing like a mountain. I want to say the organization was called Denali but that is now the name of a mountain in Alaska that was formerly known as Mt. McKinley. That change occurred in 2015. So searching for Denali gets me results for that specific mountain and things related to it, not for an environmentally oriented charity. I am failing to find verification that there ever was such an organization. So I don't know if I am misremembering the name.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  Denali is the original name of the mountain. Given by the indigenous people living there. Some dude just started calling it Mt McKinley for political reasons and everyone just accepted that, this decision was simply reversed.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    > Given by the indigenous people living there. Well, some of them called it something kinda-sorta close to that. Other groups of indigenous people called it by other names. Alaska Natives aren't one homogeneous group, by any means. It's quite large, so it was visible to many different groups (on a good day I can see it from here, and it's about 130 miles/200 km away). But Denali is definitely better than McKinley, no question about that.

SapporoChris 5y ago

First, yes I'm for reintroduction of wolves. However, "In the US: Deer–vehicle collisions lead to about 200 human deaths and $1.1 billion in property damage every year." Really is a poor argument for it. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm USA annual number of deaths: 2,854,838. So, deer kill about .007% of USA population annually. I don't want to downplay the tragedy, but I wouldn't recommend spending a large amount of the budget on this.

danny_codes 5y ago
Technically .007% of Americans kill _themselves_ by driving into deer. The way you worded it makes it sound like the deer are going man-hunting!
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  really makes me concerned for the high suicide rate in the deer population
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- SapporoChris 5y ago
  Okay, I laughed outloud. Thank you, I'll try to word it better next time.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    Thank you for your good nature on this topic. Driving is a fraught issue, in that we have all sorts of social attitudes around it that prevent us thinking critically about the necessity and costs of driving. I've always been skeptical of driving, since I lost my best friend to it in high school, and saw others lose their friends. But. Since I've had children, I've been completely radicalized, and find it hard to even discuss the issue with a lot of people because my views have diverged so much from the mainstream. I unintentionally offend people all the time, and seeing your attitude gives me hope for finding more productive ways to express my views, like danny_codes did here.

pomian 5y ago

As you have written before, most of us who have worked with environmental issues in the real world, have long tried to 'value ' the environment. Forests, wetlands, waterfronts, etc. Common scenario, let's say there is a beautiful bay. Many tourists visit to see the view. Condos are built around the bay. Now there is no view. There are no tourists. Water quality in and around the bay degraded. But when trying to stop the development, the only arguable economic value, is the amount of the taxable value of condo, and 'housing starts' . There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc. It's been a lot of years since I took the class, but those things can be valued. One of the things I did in my case study of Suisun Marsh was quantified how much the marsh cleans up the water and what it would cost if humans did it with a water treatment plant. Suisun Marsh is also a historic birding area and the rails go through there for that reason. It brought tourism. You can place dollar values on tourism, water quality and other things. It doesn't get done a lot but can be done. A lot of places with such assets are small town or rural. Planning jobs tend to pay better in the big city so your best talent tends to end up designing cities and planners often hate their jobs because they don't get to do what they wanted to do. Planning something good for people and the environment that makes economic sense and gets buy in from enough pertinent stakeholders is hard. So, all too often, "money talks" instead.
ethbr0 5y ago
> There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc. The sub branch is "environmental economics." My cousin got his PhD in it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics
ummonk 5y ago
There is still ample view in the Bay Area, while we're in the midst of a severe housing shortage. The marginal loss to the view / waterfront / water quality from a new development is more than outweighed by the marginal gain in housing availability.

Loic 5y ago

A very nice video about the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q

mcguire 5y ago

Unrelated to your point, I have a friend who was a wildlife biologist / game warden for a US state. At one point, at least one insurance company was trying to pressure the department of game and fish to issue many more deer hunting licenses, to reduce the number of deer-vehicle collisions.

hellbannedguy 5y ago
I don't think getting a license is hard, but the fees keep going up. Hell even a fishing license is $56.00, and that has many restrictions. I'm one of those liberal guys who has never hunted, and only use barbless hooks when I did fish. (I stopped fishing after I caught a Batray in the bay. It cried like a baby on the pier. I really played with my head. I put him back of course.) My point is I don't like high fees--for anything. I knew a jail guard years ago, and he said there are people in jail over not buying a license. (Starts with license, and no show, blah, blah, blah, prison. This was in Mississouri.) My point is I don't like these high fees we are being charged.
bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
I heard about this via a podcast before! Just a clarification, the thing that the insurance company wanted the department in charge to do was issue (make available) more deer tags, not licenses. Hard to say more without knowing which state.
- mcguire 5y ago
  You are correct. The idea was to reduce the deer population. (AL)

hyperpallium2 5y ago

In an adversarial legal system, no one represents "externalities". Parts of Australia have a deer problem, but despite cultivating a reputation for deadly animals, most of it lacks large terrestrial predators, so introducing wolves is an even harder sell than in the US. It also has prior historical experience with introducing a species to address a previously introduced species, which then becomes a problem itself: foxes for rabbits; cane toads for cane beetles. cue Simpsons

ecdavis 5y ago
Foxes were introduced to Australia for sport hunting, not to control the rabbit population. The presence of rabbits likely helped foxes spread across Australia. I agree with your point, though.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Even the Devil was given his Advocate... Interesting observation.
_carbyau_ 5y ago
There was also dung beetles :https://www.csiro.au/en/research/animals/livestock/dung-beetles https://www.csiro.au/en/research/animals/livestock/dung-beet... Which by most peoples measure, was a success. I don't agree with this "Swallowed a spider to catch the fly" approach though.

scoot 5y ago

> Part of my incomplete BS As opposed to part of your complete BS? :D (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Spooky23 5y ago

Great points. Most people don’t understand the dangers of deer. I grew up in a rural area of New York - from age 16-20, I hit or was hit by 5 deer in vehicles, including one that jumped off an embankment and landed on and went through my roof. That wasn’t a uniquely unlucky track record either. If I recall correctly NY State Troopers were involved in ~500 collisions with deer annually at that time (mid 90s)

dillondoyle 5y ago

Draining lakes is a good topic right now. Check out some articles about the floods in Canada right now; a big factor is the draining (it needs constant pumping) of a lake for farming. draining did produce a lot of really productive fertile land. So maybe the cost benefit makes sense maybe you can do the math for us! but we're starting to see the true cost of our actions https://fvcurrent.com/article/sumas-lake-flooding-history/ https://fvcurrent.com/article/sumas-lake-flooding-history/