Peer Edited
The Landscape of Paul Errington’s Work
JAMES A. PRITCHARD,1 Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3221, USA
DIANE M. DEBINSKI, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1020, USA
BRIAN OLECHNOWSKI, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1020, USA
RON VANNIMWEGEN, Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-4901, USA
Abstract
The 50th anniversary of the publication of Paul Errington’s Of Men and Marshes will occur in 2007. Using ‘‘landscape’’ in a figurative
as well as a physical sense, we examine Errington’s life in wildlife science as well as the places where he conducted his research.
While Errington’s scientific work on predation has received acclaim, we argue his research also contributed to fundamental
changes in cultural and popular views of wetlands. Similar to Aldo Leopold, Errington’s writings transcended science and ethics as
he wrote about the intrinsic values of marshes. Errington’s attempts to translate his scientific experience for a wider audience
ultimately contributed to public understanding of the importance of restoring wetlands. As we reflect on the public roles of wildlife
professionals, Paul Errington’s work provides a visible road map to follow. (WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN 34(5):1411–1416; 2006)
Key words
biography, ethics, marshes, muskrats, naturalists, Ondatra zibethicus, Paul Errington, predation, professional wildlife
management, wetlands.
Reflections on American wildlife science and management
have tended to emphasize the roles of familiar figures such as
Joseph Grinnell, Victor Shelford, and Aldo Leopold
(Dunlap 1988a, Meine 1988, Croker 1991). We contend
the life and work of Paul Lester Errington (1902–1962)
provides another shining example for professional wildlife
managers to emulate. During his lifetime he was referred to
as one of 4 influential pioneers in animal ecology (Bodenheimer 1958). Errington’s contributions to wildlife biology,
particularly in regards to predation, the concept of compensatory mortality, and cyclic phenomena, are well known
(Scott 1963, Carlander and Weller 1964, Schorger 1966).
Errington’s work, in part, created the necessary conditions
for consequent shifts in popular perceptions of predation
and, therefore, eventual changes in federal wildlife policy.
Concomitantly, his concern regarding disappearing wetland
habitats of the Midwest led him to write essays discussing
the positive values of marshes. In the midst of a subtle and
profoundly transformed Midwestern landscape, Errington
perceived a place for wild creatures to live in places
unmodified by human hand. We argue that Errington’s
advocacy contributed to slowly shifting American attitudes
about wetlands. Consequently, Errington’s intellectual
legacy reached much wider than the Midwestern landscape.
‘‘Intensely Curious’’
In 1902 Paul Lester Errington was born in Bruce, South
Dakota, USA. He was ‘‘intensely curious about free-living
wild creatures and he was extraordinarily sensitive to beauty
in the out-of-doors’’ (C. Errington, unpublished correspondence; Errington Papers, box 35/1). Roaming marshes and
stream banks, Errington practiced the crafts of natural
history, picking up and handling all sorts of creatures. He
contracted polio at the age of 7, and in recovery he spent as
1
E-mail: jpritch@iastate.edu
Pritchard et al.
Paul Errington
much time as possible outdoors to build himself up
(Schorger 1966). Errington kept a keen memory of his
early experiences in the out-of-doors, chronicling them in
The Red Gods Call (Errington and Errington 1973). As a
young man, he began to trap furbearers to earn money.
Errington entered graduate study at the University of
Wisconsin where he worked with Leon Cole, a specialist in
genetics who had an interest in birds. Errington also spent
quite a bit of time in Aldo Leopold’s office. Leopold was not
appointed to the University of Wisconsin staff until 1933, so
Errington was not formally his student (Terres 1966).
Leopold took an interest in Errington and his writing and
some long discussions were held at the Leopold home (Meine
1988). Upon Leopold’s recommendation in 1932, Iowa State
College hired Errington as assistant professor of zoology,
where he directed the nation’s first Cooperative Wildlife
Research Unit for 3 years. Ideas continued to flow both ways
through their association. When Leopold needed comments
on a manuscript (that turned into the influential 1933 book
Game Management), he sent it out to 6 other scientists,
including Paul Errington. It is a sign of their close
relationship that, in 1948, Errington wrote the memorial
for Aldo Leopold published in the Journal of Wildlife
Management.
In 1934, Paul Errington married a law school graduate and
English instructor, Carolyn Storm. Carolyn was listed as a
co-author with Paul only once, oddly enough in an article on
the experimental tagging of young muskrats (Ondatra
zibethicus), rather than an essay. A synergistic relationship
grew between Paul’s experience and scientific work and
Carolyn’s writing skills, contributing to the creative
endeavors reflected not only in Paul’s many scientific papers
but also the production of several books edited by Carolyn.
After Paul’s death she worked with manuscripts in progress
to create Of Predation and Life (1967), The Red Gods Call
(1973), and a collection of published essays, A Question of
1411
Values (1987). Paul Errington remarked that Carolyn was
‘‘my best literary critic’’ (Schorger 1966).
The Landscape of Science and
Conservation
Hunting was woven indelibly into the larger fabric of
wildlife conservation from 1890 well into the 1950s (Reiger
2001). A main issue for conservation during the late
nineteenth century was the regulation of market hunting,
followed closely by the regulation of sport hunting, which
caused vociferous discussion (Trefethen 1975). Major
legislation was passed from 1890 to 1915, creating bag
limits and limited seasons (Flader 1976, Warren 1997).
Errington remained a hunter throughout his life. Over
time he became very cautious when it came to opinions on
wildlife management, carefully gathering evidence and
taking his time in coming to conclusions. He did not leap
on the bandwagon to restrict hunting, nor did he fall into
the camp that openly derided ‘‘protectionists.’’ Errington
remained convinced that wildlife could be wisely harvested
but he grew uncomfortable with cultural values that focused
solely on utilitarian land use to the exclusion of other values.
By the early 1930s, it had become evident to the
conservation community that providing hunting regulations,
while an important step, had not stopped the decline of
wildlife in North America (Meine 1988). Aldo Leopold felt
that conservation had to continue in the context of an
economic juggernaut, and the rift between ‘‘protectionists’’
and sportsmen was detrimental to wildlife (Meine 1988).
Errington, Leopold, Herbert Stoddard, and others perceived
that large-scale modification of habitats had created
conditions that disfavored wildlife, presenting the next
major challenge for conservation.
Errington had close ties to The Wildlife Society
throughout his career. Three of Errington’s closest correspondents (Aldo Leopold, Herbert Stoddard, and H. L.
McAtee) were instrumental in the creation of The Wildlife
Society in 1936–1937. During the early 1940s, Errington
served on The Wildlife Society’s Committee on Professional
Standards, which worked on establishing a national set of
professional standards, and encouraged states to put game
departments on a merit-based system of civil service
(Errington Papers, box 11–12). Errington took his turn on
the editorial board of the Journal of Wildlife Management, as
well as editing for Ecology for about 10 years. In 1962, the
year of his death, he was the only person whom The
Wildlife Society had honored twice for outstanding
publications. In 1962 The Wildlife Society awarded
Errington the Aldo Leopold Medal for ‘‘achievement and
service to wildlife conservation.’’
Historians of biology generally have seen the late
nineteenth century and the early twentieth century as a
period of transition from natural history traditions and
practices to a new laboratory-centered biology that emphasized experiment (Rainger et al. 1988). In Landscapes and
Labscapes: Exploring the Lab–Field Border in Biology, Robert
Kohler (2002:58) argues that ‘‘the movement to reinvent
1412
natural history [c. 1890–1915] opened up the potential for a
border region of mixed laboratory and field practices.’’
Errington can be seen as a scientist who embodied both
natural history traditions as well as a ‘‘modern’’ propensity
to develop and emphasize theory. Errington certainly
utilized the methods of natural history, in that he was
keenly observant of animal sign and behavior. He spent over
30,000 hours in the field observing and performing research
centering on muskrats (Errington Papers, box 35). It was
precisely these observations in the field that yielded clues
that Errington transformed into theory. Errington stated
that the ‘‘mainstay of my field observations on the muskrat
was ‘reading of sign’’’ used together with ‘‘quantitative
indices from specimen material’’ (Errington 1963a:86).
Redefining Predation
The most significant intellectual contribution Paul Errington made to ecology was to redefine the meaning of
predation (Schorger 1966). Prior to Errington predation
generally carried connotations of deleterious effects on
wildlife. Especially in the popular mind, essential qualities
of predator and prey were exaggerated in importance prior to
Errington’s work. Hunters tended to overstate the relative
vulnerability of deer (Odocoileus spp.) and, in general,
believed that fewer predators would mean more game. These
concerns influenced leading federal land administrators to
attempt the eradication of wolves (Canis lupus), coyotes (C.
latrans), and cougars (Puma concolor) during the 1920s and
1930s (Lopez 1978, McIntyre 1995, Robinson 2005). Land
managers and wildlife biologists began to reassess their
positions, however, in the wake of the Kaibab deer herd
disaster of the mid-1920s (Dunlap 1988b). Colleagues wrote
that Errington was ‘‘particularly anxious to replace the
generally accepted public view of predators as vermin by the
more realistic view of predators as a part of the natural
control of populations’’ (Carlander and Weller 1964:447).
To redefine the role and implications of predation,
Errington carefully waded through a marsh of another
kind: the facts and theory of population dynamics.
Errington focused entirely on the study of free-living
populations. Today, as we hear calls for scientists to get
out from behind their computers and back out in the field,
we might think of Errington and his clear sense that, for
studying native species, life was best lived outdoors (Pyle
2001). As Errington examined concepts of population
dynamics, he carried out long-term studies (up to 24 yr)
on bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), avian predators,
muskrats, and mink (Mustela vison) in Iowa and Wisconsin,
USA. Errington believed long-term studies were significant,
telling the chairman of the Iowa Conservation Commission
that ‘‘my policy is to hammer away at relatively few
problems with the hope of really getting some place with
each one.’’ (Errington Papers, box 11/5).
The Meaning of Predation
A fundamental problem was a popular misconception of
what regulated animal populations (Errington 1967).
Wildlife Society Bulletin
34(5)
Errington wrote that people confused ‘‘the fact of predation
with effect of predation’’ (Errington 1967:235). For a more
accurate picture of predation’s effects, one had to understand
‘‘compensations,’’ or compensatory mortality. In conversations and correspondence with Aldo Leopold and W. L.
McAtee during the 1930s, Errington developed his ideas
about the factors limiting populations.
Errington focused on the relationships between predation
and disease mortality in animal populations. Of course,
hunters also had an impact on game populations. Errington
mentioned hunting as one form of compensatory mortality,
while Durwood Allen took the idea further, infusing the
compensatory hunting argument into game management
(B. W. Menzel and W. R. Clark, Iowa State University,
unpublished report; Errington Papers, box 35/4). The
inverse relationship between density and proportion of
young originally was reported by Errington and, as Aldo
Leopold put it, this principle of inversity provided ‘‘the
scientific explanation of why game can be hunted at all’’
(Errington Papers, box 3/5).
Errington did more than create a theoretical understanding for other scientists. He allowed science to inform his
philosophical view of predation’s role in the ongoing life of
wildlife populations. ‘‘Predation,’’ Errington wrote, ‘‘belongs in the equation of Life.’’ Death was integral to life
processes, and taking flesh for some creatures was just as
natural as those that subsisted on vegetable matter, ‘‘as
natural as anything could be’’ (Errington 1967:239).
Errington and Advocacy
Along with other scientists, Errington had deep concerns
about burgeoning human populations placing increasing
demands on natural resources. His 1940 article ‘‘On the
Social Potentialities of Wildlife Management,’’ published in
the Journal of Wildlife Management, emphasized how the
work of wildlife biologists benefited humankind and how
our species is not as far removed from the natural world as
some perceived: ‘‘Over and over again, one may see parallels
in population phenomena and behavior of man and of other
mammals. The parallelism does not stop with mammals,
and the deeper one explores the ecology of living things the
more pronounced it seems to become and the greater the
lessons that might be extracted from it’’ (Errington
1940:452). He called upon his colleagues to recognize the
social implications of their work when he stated that ‘‘the
outlook for modern man may appear dismal, but, if our
unhappy species ever does learn to manage itself and thus
earn a measure of peace, some of the foundation may
perhaps have been laid by workers in ecological fields,
including our own’’ (Errington 1940:452).
Most scientists make their professional contributions
within their field of expertise, and only reluctantly venture
into the world of advocacy. Indeed, fundamental splits
within the Ecological Society of America occurred as a result
of concerns that advocacy would damage the professional
credibility of scientists, both individually and as a professional society (Tjossem 1994). Such discussions continue
Pritchard et al.
Paul Errington
today. Scientists (Errington included) consciously tried to
keep scientific publications free of value statements. Yet as
W. L. McAttee wrote to Errington, scientists ‘‘trying to
keep strictly to their role are handicapped in dealing with
propagandists,’’ whether protectionists or exploiters (Errington Papers, box 16/6). Errington did not want to see a
free-for-all in the Journal of Wildlife Management, but he did
think an edited section on conservation should be included.
Like Aldo Leopold, Paul Errington ventured into the
realm of philosophical advocacy for natural resources and
wildlife. This was a careful and philosophical voice
questioning basic societal norms and an interpretive voice
from natural history traditions illuminating the life and
essential values of wetland environments. What, Errington
asked, was the significance of these wetlands to humans?
In 1947 he published an essay titled ‘‘A Question of
Values,’’ in the Journal of Wildlife Management. Errington
noted that ‘‘the growing literature on integration of ends for
sound and permanent land use contradicts the thesis that
progress must inevitably be accompanied by what we have
been pleased to call the ‘conquest of nature,’ with its topheavy artificialities and its wastefulness.’’ In the essay he
discussed the innate appeal of the outdoors to the human race:
‘‘To me, with gun in hand or without, the appeal of the outof-doors seems chiefly conditioned by the relative diversity
and completeness of its native fauna and flora and the
naturalness of its topography’’ (Errington 1947:269).
Two Mistakes in Management
Errington argued that 2 chief mistakes generally are made in
wildlife management. The first mistake was ‘‘the ‘cleaning
up’ and ‘doctoring’ of places that should be left alone’’
(Errington 1947:270). Even though he proceeded from the
perspective of people who were very comfortable with
manipulations involved in wildlife management, Errington
thought that there should be limits, that some places should
be spared the transforming human hand.
Errington was part of a larger movement to preserve areas
where ‘‘natural conditions’’ still prevailed, an argument that
carried particular resonance for animal ecologists. Victor
Shelford, Charles C. Adams, and others created a committee
within the Ecological Society of America focusing on
identifying natural areas and advocating the preservation of
‘‘natural conditions’’ in these places (Pritchard 1999).
Possibilities for science featured prominently in their
thinking. As Errington put it, scientists believed ‘‘that
important things may be learned about laws of life from wild
populations living on wild areas’’ (Errington 1957:142). This
impulse to preserve naturally functioning systems by
restraining the manager’s hand was manifested (among
other places) in advocacy on behalf of predators and in a 10year intensive discussion that culminated in the Wilderness
Act of 1964. In the midst of this setting, Errington spoke for
predators, marshes, and wetlands.
The second chief mistake in wildlife management, wrote
Errington, was the ‘‘ ‘control’ of native vertebrates’’ (Errington 1947:270). Preceding Errington, economic ornithologists
1413
had investigated the food habits of birds of prey, pointing out
to farmers which birds actually did them more harm than
good (Dunlap 1988a). Errington advanced the discussion
beyond the simple calculus of consumption into the realm of
ecology, the relationships between all the elements of a living
system. In considering wildlife that may be considered pests,
such as birds of prey, ‘‘Let it be understood that among the
so-called vermin are some of our most beautiful and valuable
of wild creatures’’ (Errington 1947:271).
Midwestern Wetland Landscapes
The landscape of Paul Errington’s work, professional,
philosophical, physical, and personal, revolved in and out
of the dwindling wetlands of the American Midwest. The
particular research sites where Errington worked exemplify
the history and status of wetlands in the Midwest. Most of
Errington’s research sites have seen a reduction in the extent
of marsh habitat for several reasons.
Changes in Errington’s Research Sites—Wetlands
and Muskrats
To more fully examine Errington’s legacy in the land where
he worked, we quantified changes between the 1950s and the
present in the landscapes where Errington did most of his
Iowa marsh research. Based on the maps and descriptions in
Paul Errington’s Muskrat Populations (1963a), we identified
7 study sites where Errington carried out his research on
muskrats. We compared aerial photos of the 1950s era to
those of the present to quantify changes in Errington’s
research sites. We defined 3 land cover types as: 1) open
water–waterway, 2) marsh, and 3) developed–converted.
At each site, we delineated a site boundary based on legal
land parcels that could be recognized in both time periods;
the resulting boundary contained the muskrat study areas
and determined the extent of surrounding land that would
be categorized as converted–developed. We digitized the
entire area within these delineated boundaries in ArcGIS
8.3 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands,
California) in geodatabase format for 2 time periods. We
based the ‘‘Early’’ or historic land cover on aerial photos
taken in 1953, 1955, and 1958, whereas we based the
‘‘Late’’ or recent land cover on infrared aerial photos taken
in 2002 by a cooperative effort of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. We scanned early photos at 800 dots per inch
(high resolution), cropped them to manageable site sizes,
and georeferenced them to spatially correspond to the
prereferenced 2002 photos. We measured absolute measures
of land cover change in hectares for open water, marsh, and
developed–converted cover, and we measured waterways in
meters. From these absolute changes, we calculated the
proportional change in each type as a percentage of the early
cover that increased or decreased in area or length.
Since Errington did his work, some general trends are
evident when considering all the sites. As an aggregate, the
sites have experienced a substantial increase of 60% in open
water (although only a minor [5%] increase in waterways), a
large loss of marsh (34%), and a noticeable increase in
1414
developed–converted land cover (þ26%). Some of the sites
have become public recreation areas, which increased the
extent of open water for boating but reduced the extent of
emergent vegetation, where muskrats thrive.
As for the muskrats, the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources publishes an annual ‘‘Trend in Iowa Wildlife
Populations and Harvest’’ report (Iowa Department of
Natural Resources 2002). Muskrat population sizes based
upon pelts purchased by dealers are reported annually. The
number of pelts purchased is strongly influenced by both
pelt value and habitat condition, so the numbers reported
are not actual population size estimates but they do provide
information on the minimum population sizes. Regardless,
there has been a strong decrease in muskrat population sizes
over the past several decades. Muskrat populations are
known to cycle, and Errington spent much time pondering
the reasons for these cycles (Errington 1951, 1954). Iowa
muskrat populations have been down for several decades and
have not rebounded. This change is due to several factors,
including loss of habitat to agriculture, siltation or dredging
of marshes, and pesticide use (W. R. Clark, personal
communication), and is indicative of changes in wetland
habitats.
The Values of Wetlands
When Paul Errington worked on muskrat ecology, he went
out into a ‘‘marsh’’ to do his trapping. Today we are more
likely to call these places ‘‘wetlands.’’ This transition was
part of a much longer change in attitudes regarding
wetlands. The first scientists to worry about using precise
terms to describe wet places were soil scientists (the United
States Department of Agriculture’s Division of Agricultural
Soils began survey work in 1899). It generally was thought
that wet places were without significant value, and that
‘‘reclamation,’’ or draining these lands for agricultural
purposes, was worth public investment. During the 1950s
and 1960s the necessary and beneficial ecological functions
of wetlands came to be more widely recognized, both for
urban and for rural landscapes. In 1955 the National
Wildlife Federation spread the good word of ‘‘Save
America’s Wetlands’’ for its annual national wildlife week
promotion (Vileisis 1997). In 1957 Errington published Of
Men and Marshes, specifically in hopes of slowing down the
continual draining of wetlands.
Throughout Of Men and Marshes, Errington utilized his
strong suit, a lifetime of experience in trapping, observing,
and performing research, to emphasize the wildlife values of
wetlands. Writing about the pulse of life in a marsh through
the seasons, Errington brought forth the natural history of
birds, including geese (Anseriformes), plovers (Charadriidae
spp.), terns (Laridae spp.), coots (Fulica americana), owls
(Tytonidae spp. and Strigidae spp.), hawks (Accipiter spp. and
Buteo spp.), limpkins (Aramus guarauna), and blackbirds
(Emberizidae spp.). Ducks (Anseriformes) impressed Errington in their numbers and variety. He described the
activity of vertebrates in the marsh and at its edge, such as
muskrats, beaver (Castor canadensis), turtles (Testudines),
snakes (Serpentes), frogs (Anura), salamanders (Urodela),
Wildlife Society Bulletin
34(5)
mink, fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyotes, skunks (Mephitis
mephitis), and others. His descriptions of bulrushes, other
aquatic vegetation, and insects completed vivid images of
places where ‘‘there is so much life that the marsh seems
almost to boil over’’ (Errington 1957:24). Errington clearly
had a sense that wildlife brought both intrinsic beauty and
intrinsic value to the ecosystem.
Errington valued marshes for their wilderness qualities.
Recently, historians have suggested that wilderness has more
to do with our conceptions of a place than the place itself
(Soule and Lease 1995, Cronon 1996). Indeed, human
experience of nature was a value Errington associated with
wetlands. Like others of his time, he felt that wilderness
provided beauty that soothed the human soul, offering a
respite from the pressures of modern civilization. Marshes
‘‘could add greatly to human enjoyment if more people really
knew . . . . how interesting and beautiful marshes are,’’ wrote
Errington. In marshes he came ‘‘nearest to complete peace of
mind of which I seem capable’’ (Errington 1957:x,121).
An important implication of the wilderness critique is the
notion that nature is not only contained in isolated large
‘‘wilderness’’ areas but also exists all around us. Significantly,
Errington perceived wild creatures and essential qualities of
the wild in the fragmented and smaller natural areas of the
Midwest. Errington’s last essay, ‘‘The Pricelessness of
Untampered Nature,’’ was published posthumously in the
Journal of Wildlife Management. In this piece he lamented that
‘‘in many communities, what is original and irreplaceable
about Nature is gone, lost by default or by intent, piece by
piece.’’ Far from espousing some form of neo-vitalism,
Errington’s view of Nature’s essence might be summed up in
his suggestion that ‘‘to see the drama of Life in its age-tested
relationships is a privilege’’ that was becoming more difficult
to do in an intensely modified landscape (Errington
1963b:314). To Errington, marshes ‘‘comprise their own
form of wilderness. They have their own life-rich genuineness
and reflect forces that are much older, much more permanent,
and much mightier than man’’ (Errington 1957:x).
Errington was not naive about a Nature untouched by
humans, proposing that ‘‘to find places where one may even
imagine Nature in an undisturbed state has become all but
impossible. . .’’ (Errington 1963b:314). During the establishment of the University of Wisconsin’s arboretum, he was
perturbed by a casual remark from a fellow biologist to the
effect that all the ‘‘old underbrush, dead trees, and rotten
logs’’ should be cleaned out. Errington reminded him that
cavity-nesting birds and flying squirrels might have some
rights to the snags, to which he agreed. But if such a
knowledgeable person ‘‘could not appreciate the unique
value of a tract of public-owned, undisturbed wild land’’
near a city, ‘‘what chance can there be of preserving any
remnants of wilderness anywhere. . .?’’ (Errington
1963b:315). Errington put his finger on an issue visible
today. The tidying up of Midwestern agricultural landscapes
goes beyond a practical necessity to control weeds,
Pritchard et al.
Paul Errington
approaching a compulsion for neatness and order on the
land. ‘‘To allow vegetation to grow spontaneously may
invite charges of shiftlessness,’’ Errington wrote, ‘‘and it
may take outstanding leadership to convince people that
natural vegetation can with propriety be left undisturbed in
woodlots or odd corners’’ (Errington 1963b:317).
Finally, Errington also noted utilitarian values in wetlands,
describing how wetlands could fit in well with agriculture in
some places, urging ‘‘balanced judgment rather than to
swing back and forth from extreme to extreme in our
handling of water.. . .’’ Also to be valued were the
importance of wetland clusters to the breeding grounds of
North American wildfowl. To a wide audience, Errington
explained the attractions of hunting, and how hunting did
not necessarily reduce bird populations if care was taken to
provide good habitats and refuges. Hunting and trapping, in
short, were good reasons to conserve marshes. Wetlands
might contribute to the farm economy, either directly in
hunting and trapping, or by leasing those rights. Instead of
draining wetlands, landholders should use them to advantage with a new view to the ‘‘marsh as a biological entity’’
(Errington 1957:129).
Remembering Errington in the Landscape
Notably, 2 wetlands have been named in memory of Paul
Errington. The first is located near his boyhood home of
Bruce, South Dakota. The Paul Errington Memorial Marsh
is located in Brookings County and administered by the
Madison Wetland Management District (United States
Fish and Wildlife Service). The second marsh dedicated to
Paul Errington is located in Polk County, Iowa, about 4
miles northeast of Ankeny, Iowa, administered by the Red
Rock Unit of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Significantly, this is a reconstructed wetland, an artifact of
human intent and action.
Errington’s legacy lies not only in theories of population
dynamics but also in shifting cultural values that shaped
land-management practices in the Midwest and on federal
lands throughout North America. His contributions to
wildlife biology, population ecology, and wetland studies
changed the way we view the role of predators and the
importance of wetlands. Errington’s scientific voice is still
heard when we examine the literature on the role of predators
in the landscape. His philosophical voice resounds in his
writings celebrating the values of marshes and wild areas.
Acknowledgments
This article benefited from conversations with C. Errington,
W. R. Clark, B. Danielson, and W. Crumpton. Thanks to
W. R. Clark and L. Elwell for comments on early versions
of this work, and to T. Messmer and J. Wallace for their
expert editorial guidance. This study was funded by Iowa
State University’s Center for Excellence in the Arts and
Humanities.
1415
Literature Cited
Bodenheimer, F. S. 1958. Animal ecology today. Monographiae
biologicae. Version 6. W. Junk, Den Haag, Netherlands.
Carlander, K. D., and M. W. Weller. 1964. Survey of a life’s writing: Paul
L. Errington’s bibliography. Iowa State Journal of Science 38(4):447–
458.
Croker, R. A. 1991. Pioneer ecologist: the life and work of Victor Ernest
Shelford, 1877–1968. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.,
USA.
Cronon, W. 1996. The trouble with wilderness, or, getting back to the
wrong nature. Environmental History 1:7–28.
Dunlap, T. R. 1988a. Saving America’s wildlife: ecology and the
American mind. Princeton University, New Jersey, USA.
Dunlap, T. R. 1988b. That Kaibab myth. Journal of Forest History 32:
60–68.
Errington, P. L. 1940. On the social potentialities of wildlife management. Journal of Wildlife Management 4:451–452.
Errington, P. L. 1947. A question of values. Journal of Wildlife
Management 11:267–272.
Errington, P. L. 1951. Concerning fluctuations in populations of the
prolific and widely distributed muskrat. The American Naturalist 85:
273–292.
Errington, P. L. 1954. On the hazards of overemphasizing numerical
fluctuations in studies of cyclic phenomena in muskrat populations.
Journal of Wildlife Management 18:66–90.
Errington, P. L. 1957. Of men and marshes. 1996, Reprint. Iowa State
University, Ames, USA.
Errington, P. L. 1963a. Muskrat populations. Iowa State University,
Ames, USA.
Errington, P. L. 1963b. The pricelessness of untampered nature.
Journal of Wildlife Management 27:313–320.
Errington, P. L. 1967. Of predation and life. Iowa State University,
Ames, USA.
Errington, P. L. 1987. A question of values. Iowa State University,
Ames, USA.
Errington, P. L., and C. Errington, editor. 1973. The red gods call. Iowa
State University, Ames, USA.
Flader, S. L. 1976. Scientific resource management: an historical
perspective. Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference 41:17–30.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Trends in Iowa wildlife
populations and harvest—2001. Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, Des Moines, USA.
Knobloch, F. 2005. Botanical companions: a memoir of plants and
place. University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA.
Kohler, R. E. 2002. Landscapes and labscapes: exploring the lab-field
border in biology. University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Lopez, B. H. 1978. Of wolves and men. Scribner, New York, New York,
USA.
McIntyre, R., editor. 1995. War against the wolf: America’s campaign to
exterminate the wolf. Voyageur, Stillwater, Minnesota, USA.
Meine, C. 1988. Aldo Leopold: his life and work. University of
Wisconsin, Madison, USA.
1416
Paul Lester Errington Papers. RS 13/25/51. Special Collections
Department, Iowa State University Library, Ames, USA.
Pritchard, J. A. 1999. Preserving Yellowstone’s natural conditions:
science and the perception of nature. University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
USA.
Pyle, R. M. 2001. The rise and fall of natural history. Orion 20:16–23.
Rainger, R., K. R. Benson, and J. Maienschein, editors. 1988. The
American development of biology. University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, USA.
Reiger, John F. 2001. American sportsmen and the origins of
conservation. Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.
Robinson, M. J. 2005. Predatory bureaucracy: the extermination of
wolves and the transformation of the west. University of Colorado,
Boulder, USA.
Schorger, A. W. 1966. In memoriam: Paul Lester Errington. The Auk 83:
52–65.
Scott, T. 1963. Obituary, Paul L. Errington. Journal of Wildlife
Management 27:321–324.
Soule, M. E., and G. Lease. 1995. Reinventing nature?: responses to
postmodern deconstruction. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.
Terres, J. K. 1966. Correspondence to editor. The Auk 83:516.
Tjossem, S. F. 1994. Preservation of nature and academic respectability: tensions in the Ecological Society of America, 1915–1979.
Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Trefethen, J. B. 1975. An American crusade for wildlife. Winchester,
New York, New York, USA.
Vileisis, A. 1997. Discovering the unknown landscape: a history of
America’s wetlands. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.
Warren, L. S. 1997. The hunter’s game: poachers and conservationists
in Twentieth-Century America. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
James A. Pritchard is an adjunct assistant professor with the
Department of Natural Resources Ecology and Management and the
Department of Landscape Architecture at Iowa State University. His
primary interests are environmental history and the history of wildlife
science. After school hours he can be found on a bicycle in the
company of his children. Diane Debinski is an associate professor in
the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology at Iowa
State University. Her primary interests are in the areas of conservation
biology, restoration ecology, and landscape ecology. Her field
research focuses on prairie restoration, habitat fragmentation, and
effects of global climate change. In her free time, she enjoys biking,
hiking, and canoeing with her family. Brian Olechnowski received
his B.S. from Cornell University, and currently is a Ph.D. student at
Iowa State University. His primary research interests are in avian
ecology and conservation. In his free time, he enjoys running, hiking,
camping, wildlife watching, and music. Ron VanNimwegen received
his B.S. and M.S. from Iowa State University. He currently is a Ph.D.
student at Kansas State University. His primary interests are in
behavioral ecology and conservation (specifically of birds and
mammals). In his free time, he enjoys nature photography and
practicing his culinary skills.
Wildlife Society Bulletin
34(5)