Aldo Leopold: A Sand County Almanac
A reaction paper by Thomas Pedtke, December 8th, 2016
Even in a region known for its monetary and ecological poverty, the Sand Counties,
whose very name implies a destitution of soil, vegetation, and life, Aldo Leopold finds a
generous multitude of examples for demonstration of the beauty of primeval nature. His
scattering of passages, assorted as the organically harmonious and inseparable elements of
nature, capture and refine, for any reader to imbibe, the wonder and joy of someone who
approaches true familiarity with the land, in an impressively great fraction of its true depth and
richness. He distills indeterminate years of experiential comprehension into an accessible few
pages, inciting in anyone the desire to equal his appreciation of nature.
Leopold seems to disdain the political conservation efforts of his time. Scattered
throughout his work are references to “economic conservationists,” “alphabetical
conservationists,” and various other terms of derogation that he devises for them. He projects,
as I interpret it, a distinct dissatisfaction with what such government-sanctioned and politicallymotivated conservationists are doing, if not some gratitude at their existence. On at least some
occasions, he even entertains a general distaste for the scientific approach itself, characterizing
its ruthless pursuit of reductionistic understanding as “dismemberment,” and rebuking its
tendency to serve humankind’s immediate temptations. Not having seen his times, I can only
infer that this reflects the state of conservation and science itself, while he lived and wrote;
very likely, at that time, science was truly very short-sighted and reductionistic, and
conservation was both pragmatic in focus and insipient in popularity. I believe that Aldo
Leopold would be pleased to see the progress of human society since the publication of this
work. Compared to the conservation and science he describes, the conservation and science of
my times seem quite improved, taking more holistic perspectives, and seeking more than the
aggrandizement of humankind in our century. Or so it seems to me. This improvement may, in
considerable part, be a deed of Leopold’s; after all, this work of his, his best-known literary
legacy, is replete with sage new perspectives.
Not being familiar with Leopold’s intellectual context, nor with the academic climate of
his times, I cannot personally gauge just what portion of his thought was original to him. I do
not know how many of his many conceptual innovations were common between him and other
contemporary intellects. But what enters my mind, without the least equivocation, as I read this
work, is this: If Aldo Leopold was the first to say these things — then he changed ecology. With
the last thirty-two pages, he gave irrefutable voice to radically new ways to approach, to
consider, even to perceive natural systems, as well as human morality itself. In one thin volume,
he redefined ecology, as a discipline, as a pursuit, and as a way of life; both literally, and in far
deeper ways. If we consider this book to be the beginning of everything it represents, then we
owe the greater part of modern ecology to its author.