Those Mayflower Ecologists; R. Bradford

Recall the situation: A big dam, designed to impound certain waters for the dual purpose of flood control and water conservation, was stopped in its tracks, so to speak, when somebody discovered that, if com pleted, the dam's rising waters would seriously discommode a small colony of fishlets called Snail Dar ters. Mr. Bradford, of Ocala, Florida, Is well known as a writer, poet, speaker, and business organization consultant. 654 Nobody had ever heard of them except a handful of ichthyologists concerned with marine esoterica, but no matter. The reaction was prompt and fearless. No more con vincing example could be found, I suppose, of our concern for the wel fare and safety of minorities. It should make us take heart. Our con cern is not alone for the whales, sharks and tuna, but for the small est of nature's children! The Snail Darters are about two inches long, and they exist in sev eral types, or families. Those living in the area of the dam in question number, I believe it is estimated, at perhaps ten or fifteen thousand. The immediate problem was that these little creatures like shallow, active water; and the pressure and relative immobility of the impounded water THOSE MAYFWWER ECOLOGISTS 655 might well be their undoing.

Clearly, it was a tragic situation, a dramatic confrontation. On the one hand, here were sev eral thousand minnow-sized fish, about to have their native habitat radically changed and their lives imperiled, if not terminated. On the other hand, below the dam and for miles around there were a large number of human beings who had been led to believe that the dam would protect them from floods and fu~nish them with plenty of water for irrigation. Clearly there was a confliCt of interest. Clearly also, no person of conscience and compassion would let the rights and needs and conveniences of men and women take precedence over the comfort and safety of a colony of fish, be they big or little. After all, the fish were here first! Certain relevant observations may be made here. First,· the Snail Darters are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of piscatorial happi ness. What right has Man, in his quest for safety, and in his relentless chase after things material, to inter fere with the schedule of life which the Snail Darters have established as their own? Clearly, these little fish have a prior claim on the sym pathies of all reasonable. and com passionate creatures.

However, one's indignation begins to lose pressure at this point, when one reflects that the same observation might be made with respect to another species. This one, indeed, is much better known than the Snail Darter was until recently. I mean those fascinating little inverte brates called Lumbricus Terrestris -namely, the Earth Worms. They too have been cruelly and shame fully treated. What right has a member of the human species to dig them up from their cozy moist bur rows, impale them upon cruelly barbed hooks, and utilize their squirming death agonies for another ignoble and barbarous purpose namely, to lure innocent fish to the fatal indignity of the torturing hook, and the slow suffocation of the wa terless creel? Questions of Propriety It might also be noted that the Earthworms have another timely claim just now on our sympathy and understanding. You see, being her maphrodites, they do not follow the normal patterns of sexuality-a life-conditioning that should win them great sympathy among those people who are now so militant about the ((rights" of sex deviates.

But that,after all, is an aside. Apart from questions of moral and social propriety, there is also the question of what business the fed eral government has meddling in such matters in the first place whether in the life pattern of worms and snail darters, or in the damming 656 THE FREEMAN November and artificial distribution of water. But I suppose only a human troglo dyte, attached mentally to the Dark Ages, would raise such a point. However, a nice incidental· ques tion might be injected, namely, what of the waters themselves? They are things of nature, wild and free, cas cading from mountain heights to lower levels, and finding haven at last in the mothering bosoms of the Oceans. In the matter of freedom, let's be logical. What right does a government have to say to one sparkling stream, Go yonder in freedom, and to another, Stay here in sluggish damnation? Fortunately, such questions· occur less frequently these days than they might otherwise have done except for what· was surely an act of pre ventive Providence. And that brings us to those Mayflower Ecologists, a small group of heroic souls that have been, alas, unknown and neglected.

Much has been made, of course, of the freedom-loving independence of the Mayflower passengers as a whole-how brave they were, and adventurous; how willing they were to work and starve and sacrifice in the name and for the sake of free dom. And this is altogether fitting and proper. It is especially gratify1978 THOSE MAYFLOWER ECOLOGISTS 657 ing, I may add, to those who can discover a patronym and possibly an ancestor among them. All glory to their memory! But among them was the small group of seers that has been denied the credit and recognition it de serves. Indeed, their names are not even mentioned in the history books, which goes to show the in gratitude we often display toward our true benefactors, and our callous insensitivity to what they have done for us. What Might Have Been But the Snail Darter Case has helped correct this long-standing in justice. Sensitive souls realize at last how fortunate it is for us that among those Mayflower adventur ers there was a small but militant and fearless group of ecologists and environmentalists. Their names will never be known, but without their influence, and that of their spiritual descendants, dire things might have happened to our country.

Take that headstrong Governor Clinton, for example, who proposed to dig a canal across New York Sta te, from the Hudson River to Lake Erie. He had visions of long strings of barges, bearing freight and even passengers, and encourag ing commerce and industry, not only in the Mohawk Valley but along the Lake shores. He had the quaint no tion that it would, as the booster's phrase went, ttopen up the West." What nonsense! It would only have frightened the deer and disturbed wild life generally. Fortunately the project was killed in time, thanks to a devoted and fearless band of envi ronmentalists who saw through the crass commercialism of the whole plan. Then there was the crazy WeIland scheme for a canal around, of all things, Niagara Falls. The theory was that freight could be carried by low-cost water transport, through locks around the Falls, without dis turbing their beauty, and tp the great benefit of economic and social development. There was more promotional nonsense of similar kind. Fortunately it was killed in time and the Falls were saved.

But of course society still had to deal with those silly people up at what was known as the Soo, with their zany idea of connecting Lakes Huron and Superior for ship travel, with alleged economic benefits to the Minnesota, Michigan and Wis consin northwest areas, and indi rectly to the whole national econ omy. That scheme, too, got nipped in the bud-an environmental and ecological triumph that was no doubt greeted with enthusiasm by the otters, and which probably pre vented great by-pass inconvenience to the migratory Canadian geese. Worst of all, perhaps, there was that fantastic scheme to connect the 658 THE FREEMAN two great oceans by means of a canal across the Panamanian isthmus. How fortunate that the far-sighted ecologists were "ableto stop that one! Otherwise, there's no telling what might have happened. Such a vast ditch might have lowered the water tables of both continents, with disas trous effects" upon the health and happiness of bothm uskra ts and frogs. The toads might not have minded, being amphibians; but sheer disaster might have struck at Full Use of Potentialities sea, where the outflow of Pacific water might have altered the mat ing habits of the giant Galapagos turtles. This would have been tragic indeed.

So thank heaven for the Snail Darter Case, which served to bring these and some other matters into better perspective. And thank heaven also for those unknown Mayflower ecologists and their sociological heirs! , IDEAS ON LIBERTY IF the goal of mankind is to realize the potentialities of the species to the fullest, it becomes necessary to insure to all men the fullest possible personal freedom. Confining freedom of action to a few, in the totalita rian way, is simply unintelligent-not to mention its immorality; for such a limitation arbitrarily confines the quantity and quality of service to society which might otherwise be forthcoming. John Stuart Mill put the case for personal freedom-and for the free enterprise system-in its ultimate form when he said: HThe only constant and unfailing source of progress is liberty, for by it there are as many centers of improvement as there are individuals." Compulsion may force men to produce as much as their masters insist upon. I say tt may ," for it is doubtful that unfree men or slaves ever produce as much as their masters wish, even under the lash. But what is not doubtful at all is this: compulsion will not make men produce more and better things than the master themselves wish.

The theoretical maximum of production in an unfree society, there fore, is limited by the imagination of the few who are in control. SYLVESTER PETRO, ((Freedom and the Nature of Man"