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)