Identification of Differences in Hunting Management in Poland and Selected European Countries in the Context of Sustainable Development

The purpose of this article was to identify significant differences in the hunting management process in Poland and selected European countries in the context of their impact on the preservation of biodiversity and the implementation of the idea of sustainable development. The goal was achieved through the analysis of hunting management in selected European countries through the prism of the assumptions made by Aldo Leopold in 1933. Based on the analysis carried out, it was found that hunting management in relation to Leopold’s postulates has best been undertaken by France. Moreover, the wild game management process should be actively implemented and based on the still up-to-date, universal postulates of Leopold, which can be treated as a model approach.

Reflection V

The year was 1979. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, a book by James Lovelock (1919–), was published to much fanfare.1 To much less, “Some Fundamentals of Conservation in the Southwest,” an essay by Aldo Leopold (1887–1948), was also published2—posthumously, exactly three decades after Leopold’s celebrated environmental classic ...

Treading Lightly

This chapter casts conscientiousness as a virtue that is concerned with monitoring one’s impacts upon the world, from attending to and seeking to minimize the embedded carbon or virtual water in consumption activities to the awareness of and concern for one’s relationships with others that share our physical environment. In this respect, to be conscientious is to seek to minimize negative impacts on the environment but also to work positively to ensure that environmental quality is maintained and accessible, and to practice a form of citizenship in working with others to do the same. It is a virtue that, as Aldo Leopold noticed, is threatened by technologies and physical distance that separate modern humans from the land and its productive capacities, but may be enhanced by disclosure and transparency efforts that are assisted by information technology, which can increase cognitive awareness of our dependence and impacts upon our environment.

Introduction

As a verbal descriptor, theoretical concept, and natural unit of biological organization, “habitat” has a long history in ecology. Use of the term dates back over 250 years to Linnaeus. However, the modern concept of habitat was slow to emerge. Starting in the early twentieth century, it became relatively common to use “habitat” as a descriptor for the vegetation and other environmental conditions where a species is found. Eventually, habitat came to be defined in a more multi-faceted way as the physical structure of the place where a species exists as well as the resources provided at the location. More so than any other ecologists, Joseph Grinnell and Victor Shelford are to be given the most credit in bringing about our modern concept and definition of habitat. In the 1920s, Georgy Gause conducted what was probably the first quantitative study of habitat; he examined the habitat associations of 15 grasshopper species. In the 1930s, through the writings of Aldo Leopold, wildlife ecology emerged as an academic discipline distinct from ecology. In studying habitat, wildlife ecologists were also attempting to determine the habitat requirements of a species. This was another important step forward; recognition that daily survival of individuals and maintenance of the population and species came about to the extent that necessary habitat conditions and resources were met. Although there is currently some debate about the exact definition of habitat and related terms, the modern concept of habitat is widely accepted.

Colapso climático y la ecoética biofílica: la pandemia de la COVID-19 en la antesala

Este artículo muestra la importancia de atender la crisis del calentamiento global desde una perspectiva eco-ética. Se muestran los datos relevantes sobre la crisis del clima a fin de dejar atrás la idea de un mero cambio climático y entender que estamos ante la posibilidad de un colapso irreversible cuya antesala es la crisis sanitaria de la COVID-19. Desde el punto de vista ético, ubicamos la causa de esta situación en el antropocentrismo endogámico que nos ha centrado en el ejercicio del poder y el desarrollo de una tecnología que altera sistemas complejos como el clima y pierde control frente a ellos. Sugerimos como antídoto una eco-ética pensada por Aldo Leopold capaz de incorporar (en esta primera aproximación) las observaciones y planteamientos éticos de autores contemporáneos como Jared Diamond y Dale Jamieson. Lo común a todos ellos es la importancia que conceden a la construcción de un sujeto biofílico, humilde ante el conjunto de la vida, y decidido autónomamente a contribuir al mejoramiento del planeta a pesar de la realidad adversa.

A Critique of Aldo Leopold Land Ethic for Environmental Management

There is no question of doubt that Aldo Leopold (1887-1948) is regarded as the most influential figure in the development of an economic environmental ethics. The cornerstone of his environmental ethics is science. In fact, the science of ecology in the real sense of the term was developed during his life time and it would not be an exaggeration to say that he was the first person to call for a radical rethink of ethics in the light of science. In his collective essays published posthumously as A Sand Country Almanac (1949), the essay ‘Land Ethic’ included in this book is the systematic presentation of an eco-centric ethics. This work attempt to critique Aldo Leopold Land ethics for environmental management. This work applauds Aldo Leopold ‘land ethic’ because he sees the ecosystem as an organic wholes and its values implicit in concepts such as integrity and stability, health and well-being. However, this work criticized Aldo Leopold ‘Land Ethics’ because his view of organic model of ecological systems is inadequate. This is because of the fact that species within an ecosystem could exist outside the organism. Thus, Aldo Leopold ‘land ethic’ is not holistic enough.