ABOUT THIS ISSUE
Published by Emporia Kansas State College
Prepared and issued by The Department of Biology, with the cooperation of the Division of Education
Editor: Robert J. Boles
Editorial Committee: James S. Wilson, Gilbert A. Leisman, Jo Lynne Dick, Robert F. Clarke
Online format by: Terri Weast
The Kansas School Naturalistis sent upon request, free of charge, to Kansas teachers, school board members and administrators, librarians, conservationists, youth leaders, and other adults interested in nature education. Back numbers are sent free as long as supply lasts, except Vol.5, No.3, Poisonous Snakes of Kansas. Copies of this issue may be obtained for 25 cents each postpaid. Send orders to The Kansas School Naturalist, Department of Biology, Emporia Kansas State College, Emporia, Kansas, 66801.
The Kansas School Naturalist is published in October, December, February, and April of each year by the Kansas State Teachers College, 1200 Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas, 66801. Second-class postage paid at Emporia, Kansas.
"Statement required by the Act of October, 1962: Section 4369, Title 39, United States Code, showing Ownership, Management and Circulation." The Kansas School Naturalist is published in October, December, February, and April. Editorial Office and Publication Office at 1200 Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas, 66801. The Naturalist is edited and published by the Kansas State Teachers College, Emporia, Kansas. Editor, Robert J. Boles, Department of Biology.
The author was a professor of biology at EKSC from 1929 until his retirement in 1968. He was the chairman of the committee that founded The Kansas School Naturalist in 1954 and was its editor for the first 14 years. He has written 11 previous numbers of the Naturalist, the most recent being NATURE POETRY, December 1973. He has started work on a second issue on nature poetry, tentatively scheduled to appear in December 1975.
Thanks are due Editor Boles for the cover of this issue, and to my wife Ruth for her careful reading of the manuscript and other assistance.
Professor Emeritus of Biology Emporia Kansas State College
"We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil ; all committed for our safety to its security and peace ; preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work, and, I will say, the love we give our fragile craft. We cannot maintain it half fortunate, half miserable, half despairing, half slave to the ancient enemies of man, half free in liberation of resources undreamed of until this day. No craft, no crew can travel safely with such vast contradictions. On their resolution depends the survival of us all."
"In April 1970, an explosion occurred on board the spaceship Apollo 13, seriously affecting its life-support systems and threatening the lives of its three crewmen. Fortunately, careful planning for emergencies had been carried out in advance by NASA technicians, and rapid decisions about emergency action were possible. Such decisions were made, the astronauts performed with courage and ingenuity and were able to survive the mission.
That very same April a much larger spaceship was also in deep trouble. Its life-support systems were malfunctioning, it was running out of vital supplies, and half of its overcrowded passengers were hungry. But on this spaceship there had been no emergency planning; indeed there was not even any crew. Most of the first-class passengers were under the impression that the ship existed only for their benefit, and spent their time squabbling with each other and maneuvering to insure themselves the lion's share of the dwindling stores. The tourist and steerage passengers lived and died mostly in misery, unable to get their fair share and unaware that even a fair share was by then inadequate. That spaceship was, and is, the Spaceship Earth."
"To see the Earth as it truly is, small and blue and beautiful in that eternal silence where it floats, is to see ourselves as riders on the Earth together, brothers on that bright loveliness in the eternal cold·-brothers who know now that they are truly brothers."
What these three Americans - a stateman, a biologist, and a poet-were telling us is that it is our environment; it belongs to all of us as passengers on Spaceship Earth. However, the fact that it is our environment does not keep us from wanting to blame the other fellow for what has been going wrong with it. Some blame industry, and especially the automobile, and indeed we know that in certain areas industrial and automobile pollution have reached intolerable levels. Some blame agriculture, and of course the
excessive use of herbicides, pesticides, and nitrate-phosphate fertilizers has resulted in some dangerous situations. Some blame the profit system, and in fact, we often pollute the environment simply because it is cheaper or more profitable to throwaway the product than to repair it. It should be noted that some who blame our system don't realize that the Soviet Union and, to a lesser degree, China, have much the same environmental problems that we have.
Some want to blame technology, and it is true that the rise in pollution parallels closely the rise in technological development. Some blame the aggresive nature of the human animal, a species that seems to operate on the winner-take-all principle. Some blame our affluence; we throwaway pop bottles, beer
cans, and radios that don't work just right, simply because we can afford to throw them away. Some blame the politicians, many of whom are influenced most by those who stand to profit by one kind of political action and not by another. And so on, and so on, and so on!
When all aspects of the environmental crisis are considered, we eventually come to the conclusion that has been distilled into a single short sentence by one of America's foremost comic-strip philosophers, POGO, in the now somewhat overworked statement that " We have met the enemy and he is us." Indeed, it is us, the people. and especially the people of the United States, who are the polluters of OUT only environment.
I took my title from the February 1973 number of The Progressive, which included a "panel discussion"
contributed by seven prominent Americans. Among these, Senator Gaylord Nelson had this to say: "We must start. it seems to me, with a recognition of the hard global realities. We live on a finite planet,
with limited resources and a limited capacity to support life... The environment has become a worldwide
issue because a deteriorating environment greatly intensifies almost every problem faced by man."
Senator Philip Hart commented that, "The middle-class environmentalist, after all, thinks almost exclusively in terms of preserving the status quo - or better yet, turning back the clock. He wants to make the water and air as clean as they once were-even if this diminishes production or makes it more expensive . . But that inner-city fellow with meager income has a totally different view of environmental improvement. The status quo is bad news for him ... His most pressing environmental needs - housing, schools, medical facilities, and so on-are all dependent on production, and cheap production at that."
Professor Clarence A. Schoenfeld, University of Wisconsin, editor of The Journal of Environmental Education, concluded his article with: "problems of pollution, pesticides, and people are all of one piece, all
interconnected, each unsolvable in the final anaJysis unless all are solved-an intricately woven fabric. Snip one thread and the whole thing begins to unravel ' stitch up one tear and you begin to restore the whole.
This is the gut message of modern environmentalisms.
And George Anderson, legislative director of Friends of the Earth, wrote: "Some of the most effective groups are city or statewide coalitions, involving not. only local chapters of Friend"' of the Earth or the Sierra Club, but also labor unions, senior citizens' groups, public health groups, and inner-city residents. Not that these coalitions spring up effortlessly; somebody has to organize them. In some cases the environmentalist was the organizer, as with many clean-air coalitions. In other cases, such as fights against urban freeways, urban groups took the lead The job of building a coalition is seldom easy because every organization tends to be uneasy about its independence. But it has been done hundreds of times around the country."
From Ecology Action Guide
by Alan Bock
Ecology is simply the study of the mutual relationships between organisms and their environments (surroundings). In their evolution on the earth, organisms have multiplied and dispersed themselves in such a way as to become intricately woven into the environment, and in so doing have also modified the environment. This has resulted in a worldwide network and life and environment known as the ecosphere, which is thus the "home" of all living things on Planet Earth. Organisms have only two choices - they must fit into the conditions of the ecosphere or perish. All species now alive have of course managed to adapt themselves. Thus we might define ecology somewhat more specifically as the study of the ways in which living things, including ourselves, interrelate to each other and to the non-living factors in their surroundings - light, air, water, minerals, and the like.
Let us have a look at the basic principles of ecology. Each ecology textbook has its own characteristic way of expressing these; for present purposes I have chosen two lists, taken from two recent paperbacks, and placed them side by side for comparison.
From The Closing Circle
by Barry Commoner
While at first sight these two may look quite different, the more you study them, the more alike they seem
to be. For example, the Commoner list does not specifically include Number 4 of the Bock list, but it certainly is implied in "Nature knows best." Through the long period of evolution of life on the earth the most stable ecosystems are those with the greatest variety, and the most unstable are those with only a few species. And so with the others: if you study the two lists carefully, you can then come up with one of your own, superficially perhaps different from these two, but including the same concepts in your own words.
Among those who studied the environmental crisis, most are agreed that the main problem areas are those associated with 1. industrial activity, 2. energy use, 3. food production, 4. consumer activities, and 5. land use. It must be kept in mind that each of these interacts with the other four. For example, the food
industry makes use of agricultural products and of energy, in order to meet the needs and desires of customers. Both manufacturers and consumers produce wastes for which space and methods of disposal must be found. Transportation uses energy to carry industrial workers to their jobs, bring food from farm to city, and make parks and recreational areas available to those who live at distances from such areas.
The tremendous impact of industrial activity on the environment results mainly from the fact that the
use rate of many industrial products has grown much faster than has our population - this is of course the result of our affluence. Commoner wrote in The Closing Circle that "The winner of this economic sweepstakes, with the highest postwar growth rate, is the production of non-returnable soda bottles, which has increased about 53,000 per cent in that time." Note that the winner is a "throwaway" item - it is of course Pogo's us who actually throwaway all these bottles.
The energy problem is a two-branched one - the course of the energy, and the pollution effects. Coal, once the main source of industrial and home-heating energy, is still abundant; it is, however, the dirtiest fuel to burn and the hardest to handle from source to consumer. Natural gas, the cleanest burning the shortest supply. Hydroelectricity is almost pollution-free, but there aren't many good spots left for hydroelectric p;ants. The windmill yields pollution-free energy, but the winds are highly variable in both direction and
velocity. The tides are and certain (and pollution-free) but in a few places are they high enough to yield significant amounts of energy. We optimistically look to the future for "unlimited" amounts of nuclear energy, but much research needs to be done before we can be assured of both adequate and safe nuclear energy.
The basic food supply is a consequence of the natural process of photosynthesis, which is nonpolluting.
In the earlier stages of agriculture the waste products of animal husbandry were also nonpolluting, i.e. barnyard manure was returned to the soil. But recently, the use of and chemical fertilizers has introduced
some serious pollution problems into a once safe industry. Also, increased affluence places a greater burden upon agriculture. As we can afford it we like to eat more of our protein in the form of meat, and the meat-producing animal needs about six to twelve calories of food to produce one calorie of food for the dining-room table. Further, as we eat more meat we build more and feed lots, concentrating more and more animal wastes. It has been estimated that the livestock of the United States produce an amount of manure about the equivalent in terms of pollution to sewage from a population of one to two billion people. About half of this is concentrated in feedlots and dairies; of this half not much is returned to the soil.
The products of agriculture and industry finally arrive at the consumer. We may think that the great
locomotives, ocean transport planes, oil drills, and strip-mining shovels are ends in themselves, really they exist only so that Texas grapefruit, Japanese radios, and other products from all over the world may be to us consumers, wherever we are. Most of our great industrial complex operates to put the things we as individuals need and want into our homes, schools, and offices. So eventually nearly everything produced ends up in the sewer, trash can, or junk pile. These materials are not just old newspapers and magazines, shopping bags, tin cans, bottles, apple cores, banana peelings, broken toys, junked automobiles and TV sets, but also detergents, solvents, cleaners, paint removers, bleaches, lubricants, unused drugs, and many other chemicals. According to most estimates, we put out about three to five pounds of this stuff per person per day, only a small fraction of which is being reclaimed or in any environmentally sound way.
As for land use, we in the United States would at first seem to be in good shape - about one fourth of our land is used for crops, about a third for grazing, and another third for forests, public and private. This
leaves somewhat less than one tenth for cities, highways, airports, reservations, and the like. Thus it
does not seem that the cities are "swallowing up" the countryside, or that we are in danger of a shortage of
crop or grazing land. But when we realize that the rural population is less than one tenth of the total, and
that many of the rural people actually work in town, that the food for 90 percent or more must be transported into the crowded cities, that the growth of cities is almost all in the suburbs, that the inner city becomes the home of those who cannot afford to move out, that therefore the deterioration of the inner city becomes almost self-perpetuating, that waste disposal facilities must be outside the central city, and that mass transit is inefficient or nonexistent, we can see some serious problems of space use. We shall have to figure out ways of using our space to better advantage. One trouble is that we can move only from where we are; we must rebuild the cities we have; we don't or can't start out with new cities. There are a few
exceptions; brand-new cities are being planned in a few locations. Such cities should have the benefit of the very best of over-all planning.
How many people could the earth support? No one knows the answer, nor can there be an entirely satisfactory answer, because so much depends on the standard of living, the quality of life, and how these are to be shared. If we are willing to assume a minimum quality of life, with everyone living underground so all land surface could be used for growing crops, with the entire ocean cultivated like a giant fish pond, with everyone eating as a first-order consumer, that is, eating algae, yeast, or synthetic foods (no meat!),
with unlimited energy available, and with all pollution problems solved, including the solution to all the social and psychological problems of crowding, noise, and the like - well then, we could probably assume top population of 10, or 20, or 30, or ... ? billion. But I think most of us would agree that these are ridiculous assumptions.
When we speak of "adequate nutrition" for the world population, do we mean 1200, or 1500, or 1800, or
2400 calories per person per day? Are we thinking of suitable percentages of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates, and minimum levels of minerals and vitamins? If we are talking about what the human physiology books describe as adequate human diet, the world population now suffers from serious malnutrition (no matter how well we Americans, who comprise somewhat less than six percent of the
world 's population, may eat).
By some criteria the world is already seriously overpopulated. If we think of the "American standard
of living" as the desired norm for all of mankind, we must note that we 220 million Americans use about a third of the world's resources, leaving about two-thirds for the other 94 per cent. If all people were to live as we do, the world could support about 650 million persons, or only about one fifth of the present population.
We do not even know what the limiting factors will be. Several writers have noted recently that the world's population has become more and more dependent on crops that grow on marginal land, and that more
and more crops are being grown with increasing amounts of nitrogenphosphate fertilizers. We are already
having troubles with excess nitrate in the drinking water in some areas. The source of this excess is almost
certainly the nitrogen fertilizers. Also, it is an unfortunate fact that phosphate must be applied at a rate
of 2.5 to 3 times faster than the rate of increase in crop yield. Not only does the phosphate excess cause troubles in lakes and ponds, but this also means a future depletion of the phosphate supply. Laing has written that "without recourse to this combination of phosphate-poor land and phosphate fertilizer, the Earth is estimated to be capable of supporting a human population of no greater than one to two billion people," i.e. a third to a half of the present population.
Of course, I do not know what the optimum population of the world would be. Neither do you. But in thinking about this problem, you should bear in mind that the present-day food problems have arisen
because human population has already outrun the capacity of the environment as now organized to support it. If humans try to solve the problems by modifying the environment still further, they simply
make the problems worse. We are on a collision course, and "postponing the evil day" will simply make the
collision worse. It will be necessary for population growth to be brought under some kind of control, so that
the population can level off at a permanently sustainable level, whatever that may prove to be.
WHAT CAN I DO?
So what does all of the above mean? If the enemy is "us," then it is "us" that must improve the environment. And we must do it within the "rules" of nature, i.e., within the limitations of space, resources, and our own requirements. This is by no means easy, because we moderns have come to think so much in terms of linear "one cause-one effect" relationships that we seldom stop to realize that in the real world in which we live "everything is connected to everything else." Each cause is itself the effect of something that happened before. Correspondingly, each effect in turn brings about other changes. For example, plants grow by drawing materials from the soil, the plants are eaten by animals, the waste products of the animals when returned to the soil become nutrients for soil microorganisms and plants whose roots grow in the soil, the animal bodies are decomposed by bacteria into simpler substances which again become nutrients, and so through repeated cycles. In our industrial society, however, we are prone to think of a machine, for example a bottling machine, producing and filling pop bottles, which are bought, the pop consumed, and bottles thrown into the trash can or along the roadside, with no further effects on the machine, the bottle, or ourselves.
So you ask yourself, "what can I do?" Well-first of all, you can be well informed. This was not so easy 15 or 20 years ago, when writings in this field were few and the books expensive. But now, in addition to textbooks and technical works, we have a wealth of well-written paperbacks that describe and discuss
every aspect of ecology and environmental change as related to human problems:
big vs. little dams
DDT and other pesticides
ecosphere and ecosystems
forests and woodlands
soil and soil organisms
superhighways and mass transit
trash and litter
APG and related movements
For those of you who are teachers - all of the above and many more can provide topics for reports, study programs, and individual and group projects. For example, at a recent science fair I saw an excellent
study of the effects of a popular herbicide on plants at various stages, demonstrating clearly that at certain
stages in their development, plants can be harmed by the very herbicides designed to protect them.
An annotated list of useful paperbacks, all under two dollars and some under one dollar, begins on page 14. This is by no means a complete list; there are many more, and new ones appear all the time. A little time spent browsing in some of the larger bookstores will let you see for yourself the great variety of modern books on environmental problems. And of course we now have a flood of useful and informative articles in both popular and scientific magazines and journals. If you happen to be a teacher, as so many readers of The Kansas School Naturalist are, you have a special opportunity and obligation, not only to keep yourself informed, but also to help others become so.
So, being informed, what can you do? Well, for starters -- while lunching in your car, what do you do with your candy and gum wrappers, pop bottles, paper napkins, etc.? It's so easy to roll down the window and throw them out! Instead, you can put them in the trash bag. If you picnic at a roadside park, how do you find it? Cluttered with used paper plates, cups, napkins, plastic forks? OK, so you do a bit of tidying up before you leave. You can pick up the beer cans and wrappers and toss them into the trash can. This will not only improve the looks of the place -- it will make you feel good.
You can save energy by running the furnace a bit lower and the air-conditioner a bit higher, and by using
the smallest light bulbs that will give you the necessary light. And you can turn off lights not in use; I happen to be particularly adept at forgetting to turn off lights -- I must change!
You can save materials, by using things until they are worn out rather than throwing them away at the first
signs of wear. You can carry a shopping bag to market and thus use fewer paper bags; you can buy fewer
throwaways and more returnables. And if you must use throwaways, don't just throw them away -- put them in the trash containers where they belong.
You can observe the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit, or better yet, cut it down to 45 or 50. The time you lose
will be negligible in most cases, and besides at the slower pace you can relax and see what's going on in the landscape instead of peering down the road with tunnel vision. There is much less chance of an accident at 45 or 50, you'll use less gasoline and put out less pollution.
You can avoid "jackrabbit starts" when the light turns green; each such start uses enough gasoline to propel your car several blocks at normal speed. When you get a new car you can look for one of the little jobs that will deliver 25 or more miles per gallon and use a third less parking space than one of the gas-guzzling dinosaurs that now clog our facilities and cost two to four or five times as much as they should.
Maybe you can travel some other way than by automobile. Bock says in The Ecology Action Guide "As
compared to other means of transportation (including walking) the auto is less efficient in its use of space. One highway lane 12 feet wide can carry a maximum of 3,600 passengers per hour in automobiles. Half-filled busses using the same space can carry 60,000 people each hour. Half-filled trains will cart 42,000 passengers per hour, or twelve times as many as the auto. Bicycles do not do quite so well. Only 10,600 people per hour could use the same space, which is only 2.8 times as efficient as using automobiles. Walking is not even as efficient as that, though it still beats the automobile. Of course,
all this does not take pollution into account, nor does it say anything about the more than 40,000 deaths per year from automobile accidents, the 135,000 permanent injuries, nor the billions of dollars property damage and loss. Anyway, bicycles are good transportation devices, not just for kids but for adults too -- good exercise, no pollution, not much of a parking problem, a small investment. And whatever happened to walking?
You can get into the recycling game. If you have room for a small garden you can start a compost pile
which will put most of your kitchen garbage back into the soil where it belongs, contributing to your season's flowers and vegetables. If your community has a paper or other recycling program, you can take
advantage of it and encourage others to do so. You can make the point by writing notes and letters on recycled paper; you can buy correspondence paper so labelled.
If you're a smoker, you can kick the habit, thereby saving yourself some money for other things you might
want, keeping the worst kind of polluted air out of your lungs, and leaving the air about you a bit cleaner
for your neighbors -- and with absolutely nothing to lose.
If you have a fireplace you can use it only when you need the heat, not just for decoration or atmosphere. Wood smoke is not a serious pollutant, but wood is a resource, to be conserved. During cool mornings and evenings you can use the fireplace to "take the chill off" and save running the furnace. When the fireplace is not in use, keep the damper closed.
Fire, as such, has always been a part of the environment. In the immediate vicinity of Emporia for example, the Flint Hills with their magnificent stands of big bluestem grass represented a type of fire
climax long before the coming of the white settlers. But a forest or prairie fire can also be a calamity. It is up to anyone going into these areas to help in preventing useless and destructive fires. So be careful!! when you use a campfire. Don't build an open camp fire at all if the wind is very strong. Don't let flying sparks start a fire some place else. And put the fire out before you leave.
If you enjoy fishing and hunting, fine. Both activities offer the best of opportunities to get into the open and enjoy nature, and your license fees finance many excellent conservation programs. It's a pretty good idea to take only what you plan to eat, leaving the rest for next time or for someone else.
And while we're on wildlife -- have you thought of buying alliga tor shoes? You can a void wearing any kind of garment derived from any kind of wild animal except those in plentiful supply. Bobcat pelts have recently brought as much as $60 each. Such a price contributes to serious reduction in the numbers of this useful predator. There are plenty of fur farms to supply all you need to wear, without upsetting the already delicate balances of the endangered species.
And while we're on something close to wildlife -- pets -- if you must keep a dog in town, for goodness sake give the poor animal some space to play and run around in without letting him get into neighbors' yards and gardens. And for heaven's sake, don't let him use the public street for a toilet. The city is not a natural place for most breeds of dogs; it's no kindness to keep a dog in the city unless you give him as nearly as
possible natural conditions for his kind of life style. If you keep pets, make use of safe and easy birth
control methods, so you don't have the problem of "finding good homes" for the offspring, which usually
means nothing more than "getting rid of them."
You can have a garden, even though you have only limited space. The home magazines, such as American Home, Better Homes and Gardens, and the like, also the newspaper garden sections and the leaflets available at the offices of county agricultural agents, all have suggestions for small gardens, even
in spaces as tiny as window boxes. And there are window "greenhouses" that make a garden possible even if you live in a fifth-floor apartment. The radishes you grow may not be any bigger or more nourishing than those you could buy in the store, but you get that smug feeling of having created them yourself; this you cannot duplicate in the store.
If you are a gardener, try to get along without pesticides and herbicides as much as you can; if you use them, avoid the persistent kinds. There are on the market many "safe pesticides" such as the old standard
pyrethin. At all events, avoid DDT, dieldrin, chlordane, lindane, and any others containing mercury or lead.
You can write your legislators, congressman, senator, mayor, and public officials of all ranks, letting them know how you feel about issues you think are important. Don't use a form letter; write it as you really feel, in your own words. Don't be sarcastic or belligerent; this makes the whole thing look the work of a crank. Officials like to hear from their constituents, even when they don't agree. Frequently they will take
the time to answer giving their viewpoints.
You can refrain from buying a lot of tin and plastic trinkets, baubles, charms, "jewelry" and what-not, most of which are nothing more than junk-in-the-making, and all of which could disappear without harm to any
really significant aspect of our lives.
You can join an organization or two, and take as active a part as possible in their programs. A list of national organizations follows. Some local affiliations are listed for Kansas; other states have comparable organizations. You can explore the situation in your own state and locality.
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS
AMERICAN NATURE STUDY SOCIETY, Mrs. John Geisler, Secretary, Milewood Road, Verbank, N.Y. 12585
Dedicated to the promotion of environmental education; publisher of the quarterly Nature Study.
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH , 30 East 2nd Street, New York, N. Y. 10017
A national organization dealing with all aspects of environmental improvement, with special emphasis on public information, Publisher of Not Man Alone. Many local groups, for example the Wichita group; D. G. Glamann, 7:31 N. Mt. Carmel, Wichita, Ks. 67203.
IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE, 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 806, Arlington, Va. 22209
This former "fishermen's club" has broadened its interests to cover all aspects of wildlife protection and conservation. Many local groups.
KANSAS ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY, Amelia Betts, Secretary, Baldwin City, Ks. 66606
Many states or regions have comparable groups: most of them offer excellent opportunities for contacts among professional ornithologists, game managers, teachers, and interested birdwatchers.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BIOLOGY TEACHERS, 1420 N. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
A broadly based organization of biology teachers which has in recent years placed much emphasis on ecology and environmental science. Many affiliated state or regional groups, for example the KANSAS ASSOCIATION OF BIOLOGY TEACHERS, Stanley D Roth, Jr., Secretary, Lawrence High School, Lawrence, Ks. 66044.
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, 750 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022
This former "birdwatchers' society" has broadened its interests to include all aspects of environmental improvement; known especially for the Audubon Screen Tours; publisher of Audubon Magazine and Audubon Field Notes; many local groups.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 141216th Street, N.W , Washington, D.C. 20036
Broadly interested group working mainly in conservation, but recently with increasing emphasis on the legal aspects. Publisher of National Wildlife and distributor of books, wildlife stamps, and the like; many local and regional groups, for example the Kansas chapter, Ted Cunningham, Executive Director, Route 1, Wamego, Ks. 66547; publisher of The Kansas Sportsman.
SIERRA CLUB, 1050 Mills Tower, San Francisco, Calif. 94104
This broadly based environmental group has been a pioneer in many kinds of environmental protection activities, especially in the legal field, such as class action suits for the protection of specifically endangered areas. Kansas activities under the Rocky Mountain Chapter, P .O. Box 3241, High Mar Station, Boulder, Colo. 80303.
WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 729 15th Street, N .W., Washington, D.C. 20005
A generally interested group, with special emphasis on lobbying activities and court action for the preservation of natural areas.
The following list is restricted to paperbacks, all under two dollars and some under one dollar. Most of them can be obtained in the larger bookstores ; they can also be obtained directly from the publishers. A list of publishers' addresses follows the reference list; if you order directly from them you should include 15 cents per copy for mailing and handling.
ALEXANDER, TAYLOR R. and GEORGE S. FICHTER, Ecology. 1973, Golden Press, $1.95
A general approach, in terms of basic principles, including also chapters on tools and techniques, wildlife management, and the endangered species: reference list and index; well illustrated: a Golden Science Guide.
BOCK, ALAN, The Ecology Action Guide, 1971, Pyramid, $1.25
Man and Nature: partners or enemies? Basic ecological principles, followed by practical suggestions as to what each of us can do for environmental improvement; suggestions for getting organized for action.
BRUBAKER, STERLING. To Live on Earth, 1972, Mentor, $1.50
Ecological dangers threatening the earth, with special reference to the pros and cons of the different kinds of recommended action; reference list and index.
CALDWELL, WILLIAM A. (Ed.), How to Save Urban America, 1973, Signet, $1.50
A Regional Plan Association book with groups of chapters on housing, transportation, the environment, urban poverty, cities and suburbs. Graphs, tables of data, photographs, lists of cooperating agencies.
CARSON, RACHEL, Silent Spring, 1962, Fawcett, 95¢
The now classic discussion of the dangerous results of the unwise use of pesticides and herbicides, which according to many interested persons "started the whole thing" -- detailed reference list and index.
EHRLICH, PAUL R., The Population Bomb, 1968, Ballantine, 95¢
Analysis of the population problem in terms both of basic ecology and of the other environmental problems; what is being done, what needs to be done; footnotes and reference list.
EHRLICH, PAUL R., and RICHARD L. HARRIMAN, How to be a Survivor, 1971, Ballantine, $1.25
Spaceship Earth, its passengers and crew, the first-class and second-class cabin, the steer-age; control systems and who controls them; where we are headed if we continue on present course; appendices and reference list.
GRAHAM, FRANK JR., Since Silent Spring, 1970, Fawcett, 95¢
History of the pesticide controversy and the progress in pesticide control since the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson's famous Silent Spring; reference list, index, and several ppendices, one of them a rather lengthy list of the most commonly used pesticides.
HAY, JOHN, Nature's Year, 1961, Ballantine, 95¢
A near-classic around-the-year description of environmental changes on Cape Cod; month by month, beginning with July, perhaps even more pertiEent now than in 1961.
ILLICH, IVAN, Energy and Equity, 1974, Perennial, 95¢
Environmental effects of industrialization and the overuse of energy, types of pollution and their effects, suggested courses of action, references.
LAYCOCK, GEORGE, The Alien Animals, 1966, Ballantine, 95¢
Case histories of the results of transplantation of animal species to other environments, the results often unfortunate because not enough was known about the ecology of the animals involved, but in a few cases beneficial, e.g. the ringneck pheasant, which has become an important game bird without upsetting the local habitats and niches.
LEOPOLD, ALDO, A Sand County Almanac, 1966, Ballantine, 95¢
A series of essays on wildlife, ecology, wilderness, types of habitats, conservation, seasonal succession, and related subjects, many of which were originally published during the 40's and are as relevant now as then.
McNULTY, FAITH, Must They Die?, 1972, Ballantine, 95¢
A case study of a situation in which two functions of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife are at odds with one another; the black-footed ferret which depends for its survival on the prairie dog, as officially an endangered species, while the prairie dog is officially a pest to be exterminated or controlled, often with the extremely deadly poison 1080.
MEADOWS, D. H. et. al., Limits to Growth, 1972, Signet, $1.25
Discussion of exponential growth, extrapolation of growth data to the year 2000, in terms of population, industrialization, pollution, and resource use. "A report of the Club of Rome project on the predicament of mankind."
ADDRESSES OF PUBLISHERS
Ballantine Books, 101 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10003
Bantam Books, Inc., 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10019
Fawcett World Library, 67 West 44th Street, New York, N.Y. 10036
Golden Press, Western Publishing Co., Inc., 1220 Mound Avenue, Racine, Wisconsin 53404
Menton Books, New American Library, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10019
Pyramid Books, Mail Order Dept., 9 Garden Street, Moonachie, N.J. 07074
Signet Books, New American Library, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10019
|The Kansas School Naturalist||Department of Biology|
|College of Liberal Arts & Sciences|
|Send questions / comments to
Kansas School Naturalist.
|Emporia State University|