Michigan State University Extension
Ag Experiment Station Special Reports - 03229570
07/28/98
January 1995 Special Report 70
Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station,Michigan State University
SPECIAL REPORT
Integrated Natural Resource Systems Lead Author: Chris Vanderpool
Introduction
Throughout history, humans have manipulated natural resources to produce the food, fiber, and materials they needed to sustain growing human populations. Such harnessing and use of natural resources to meet the needs of the human enterprise throughout the development of human civilization have resulted in marked, sometimes beneficial and often detrimental, alterations in natural resource systems throughout the world.
Within Michigan, such alteration of the natural system occurred with the 50,000 drainage districts in southern Michigan to convert the "trackless swamps" to agricultural land and with the initial logging of the vast stands of white pines in northern Michigan. Wastes from the industries which emerged in Michigan were disposed of in a random and eclectic manner, and gravel, sand, and minerals were extracted with no environmental consideration. Each of these activities was conducted by entrepreneurs focused on single economic considerations of profit within a narrow and specialized range of natural resource management. There was little integration of effort, activity, or management of natural resource systems. This narrowness of vision continues today. There is little communication or integration between agriculture, manufacturing, and recreation, the three primary industries supporting the economy of the state. And yet, the natural resources of the state serve as the base which allows each of these economic enterprises to prosper.
Good examples of the interactive linkages of importance to each of these economic industries is seen in both 1) the management and control of the waters of the state, and 2) the interface between agriculture and natural resources.
The political boundaries of Michigan include portions of four of the five Great Lakes which contain about 17 percent of the standing freshwater of the earth. While the citizens of Michigan enjoy access to abundant freshwater resources, they have no rivers that they can use to export wastes downstream. Even the Detroit River enters Lake Erie which washes the shores of Michigan. Thus, while the agricultural, manufacturing, and recreation bases of the economy of the state all depend on an abundant supply of high quality water, each of these economic enterprises affects the quality of the waters of the state.
To maintain the advantage offered by their abundance of high quality freshwater, the citizens of Michigan must be extremely careful with the wastes they generate, the way they use their land, and particularly careful about the quality of the water they discharge after it is used for domestic, industrial, or agricultural purposes. The impacts of all such activities on the land of Michigan are integrated into the waters of the Great Lakes. Increased nutrient and sediment levels and elevated metals and other toxins in the fish of the Great Lakes indicate a lack of an integrated approach in the use of the natural resources of the state.
Since its inception, agriculture has been tightly linked with natural resources, and the agricultural bounty realized has been a direct function of the type and abundance of available natural resources. In many human cultures, agriculture is practiced as an extractive industry and soils continue to be degraded throughout the world. Continuation of the observed rate of soil degradation from 1945 to 1990 suggests an effective half-life of the vegetated soils of the earth of about 182 years. Such conversion of land to agricultural purposes alters the entire ecosystem, and the resulting impact on soil structure and fertility, quality and quantity of both surface and groundwater and the biodiversity of both terrestrial and aquatic communities diminishes both present and future productivity.
The three primary bases of the economy of Michigan are intimately interlinked with each other and with the natural resource base of the state. The primacy of economic activities in the use of natural resources has led to these resources being defined as commodities which, in turn, has led natural resource issues to being conceptualized in terms of particular industries. This narrowness of focus on the individual industries and even on individual entrepreneurs characterizes the history of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES). MAES, as currently structured, has had no choice but to react and respond to demands that themselves have been generally organized around industries and commodities. Responses to the various clientele or commodity groups define the activities of MAES specialists and create a diffuse vision of Michigan's natural resource system which only maintains the fragmentation of broad scale resource management within Michigan. The continuing separation of agricultural and natural resource research efforts, partly as evidenced by having both SAPMA and SAPMINR reports, is but another example of the problems of integrating efforts to truly manage the natural resource systems of the state.
This report describes the complex interaction of Michigan's natural resources with each other and with the social system. It begins with a history of the changes in the natural resource base over the last 1,000 years as it has interacted with human society. The complexity of this story provides a context for current efforts to integrate the management of Michigan's natural resources. The second section outlines the system-based theoretical approaches, drawn from the disciplines of natural ecology and human ecology, that can help us to understand these interactions. The report concludes with questions and reflections on the implications of the discussion for MAES.
SECTION I: HISTORY OF MICHIGAN'S NATURAL RESOURCES
The history of natural resources in Michigan is as fluid and difficult to characterize as any ecosystem. Simultaneous forces interacted in complex and even chaotic patterns. Michigan has passed from an early period in which the economy was dominated by agriculture and foraging, through a period dominated by agriculture and natural resource exploitation, to a period dominated by agriculture and an urban/industrial economy. The history of Michigan's natural resources has several important themes:
1. The relationship between ideology and property rights and the ways in which the environment has been exploited or conserved.
2. A continual building up of institutions and regulations to monitor and protect the environment.
3. The influence of changing technologies, particularly transportation technologies, and their constantly shifting impacts on the environment.
4. Perhaps most importantly, the history of Michigan's natural resources reveals the complexity of the interactions between social forces and the environment as well as the interactions among environmental impacts themselves. Various social forces have determined the distribution of land use between natural resource exploitation, agriculture, industry, residence, and recreation. They have also regulated the intensity of that use. These uses have affected the land through soil erosion, changing wildlife habitats, rates of harvesting or over-harvesting of wildlife and natural resources, and pollution. These changes have interacted in complex ways with streams, groundwater and the lakes. Finally, the environmental impacts, mediated by various economic needs, have catalyzed changes in institutions and regulations which have led to new social forces.
WHEN ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE WAS SLOW: 1000-1814.
Even in pre-colonial times there was a Muskegon - Bay City line. In those days it was roughly the line of transition between the deciduous forest which covered the southern part of the Lower Peninsula and mixed deciduous/coniferous forest which covered the northern half of the Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula. The former area was characterized by oak, hickory, elm, ash, beech and maple while the later boasted red, white and jack pine, hemlock and fir in addition to beech and maple (Tanner 1987).
The economy in the southern half of the Lower Peninsula was based on the intensive cultivation of introduced species: corn, beans, and squash. It is estimated that these crops had completed their arrival from Central America around 1000 AD. This cultivation was supplemented by hunting, particularly deer and turkey. The northern half of the Lower Peninsula and the eastern tip of the Upper Peninsula had an economy based on some intensive agriculture but had a much larger hunting and foraging component. Fish were particularly important. These near-shore fisheries consisted mainly of gill net fishing for whitefish and lake trout. The western part of the Upper Peninsula had an economy based mainly on wild rice. This diet was supplemented by some light cultivation, hunting, and fishing (Tanner 1987).
Colonization by Europeans began when trading posts were established by the mid-1600s as the fur trade moved into the Great Lakes region. Beginning in the mid-seventeenth century, this export-oriented trade would continue without regulation until the 1880s (Hosford and Horstik 1987). Early French settlers also engaged in subsistence farming in the Detroit area (Graff 1974).
UNCHECKED EXPLOITATION: 1814-1860
During this period, mining, lumbering, and agriculture came to dominate Michigan's economy. No checks on this exploitation existed, whether from the concern of individuals for the future or through legal channels.
In 1814, the federal government made Michigan lands available for purchase by individuals (Hosford and Horstik 1987). These lands were transferred to individuals as fee simple property which granted them almost absolute ownership rights. There has been no time before or since when property rights over land have been so strong, either ideologically or legally, as they were in nineteenth century America.
In the southern part of the Lower Peninsula, where the land was best suited for agriculture, farmers began arriving from the east. In 1810, the non-Native American population was only 4,762 people but by 1860 it was 749,113 and seven million acres were under cultivation. Ninety-three percent of these cultivated acres were in the southern Lower Peninsula, which consisted largely of drained wetlands (Dickison 1950). The wetlands, which now cover 5.6 million acres, represent only half of the 11.2 million acres prior to 1780. Great Lakes coastal wetlands of about 106,000 acres now exist compared to 369,000 acres prior to 1780. A major contributing factor to this immigration was the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825. This was an early example of what was to be a recurring theme in Michigan natural resource history: the intended and unintended consequences of the interaction between transportation technology and the environment.
In the northern parts of the state, the forest land was also being rapidly transferred into private hands, most importantly for mining and lumbering (Hosford and Horstik 1987). In the early 1820s, copper was first discovered in the Upper Peninsula. The news was slow getting out, however, and the copper boom did not take place until 1843, just after the publication of the first geological survey (Hosford 1978). Iron mining, mainly open pit, began in the late 1840s. Both of these industries expanded very rapidly after the opening of the Soo locks and the ore docks at Marquette in the mid- 1850s (Hosford and Horstik 1987).
This period marked the beginning of the great lumber boom. From 1830 through the end of the century, 160 billion board feet of pine and 50 billion board feet of other species were cut (Hosford and Horstik 1987). The dominant harvest technique was clear-cutting, which meant destruction of wildlife habitat on a massive scale in addition to extensive soil erosion. Much of the timber was used to build the early urban centers or exported from the state. Mining was a huge source of demand. Beams were used for propping up the tunnels in the iron and copper mines and, more importantly, charcoal was used in ore processing.
The lumber industry in this period relied on streams to transport the logs to sawmills. Grave damage was done to the streams by this process as the huge quantities of logs eroded the banks and channels of the streams. This led to a court case in 1853 between riparian land owners and lumber interests that was settled in favor of lumber: any stream that one could float a log down was defined as navigable and right-of-way guaranteed (Hosford and Horstik 1987). The logs degraded fish habitat and the loss of the Michigan grayling can be directly tied to the destruction of their habitat by the logs and the massive soil erosion brought about by the clear-cutting of the timber (Hosford and Horstik 1987). The timber and mining industries, operating unchecked under a dual ideology of unlimited resources and absolute property rights, had multiple environmental effects which were to have repercussions for generations. The most salient of these repercussions was to be for the thousands of farmers who would try in later years to farm the pine plains that were left behind after the trees were gone. These pine plains occupy much of the upper Lower Peninsula north of Clare and many segments of the southern portions of the Upper Peninsula.
THE EMERGENCE OF PRO-CONSERVATION INTERESTS: 1860-1890
The last part of the nineteenth century saw an increase in the speed and capacity of transportation technology that was to accelerate the devastation of Michigan's natural resources. At the same time, the first responses to the unchecked exploitation of the previous period began to emerge.
By the 1860s, settlers were arriving in Michigan at the rate of 100 people a day. The total population in 1860 was 749,000, a figure that was to rise to 2,094,000 by 1890 (Hawley 1949). This period was not only characterized by substantial population growth; there was the beginning of a major shift in the population's location. The state was 13% urban at the beginning of this period and 34% urban at the end. The number of farms, however, continued to grow and the acreage under cultivation doubled. By 1890, there were 172,344 farms cultivating 14 million acres (Dickison 1950).
It was at this time that concern with environmental degradation began to be translated into the first tentative responses. These early responses came from sporting interests whose use of natural resources began in earnest at this time. Sporting interests emerged as a competing economic use of the land that was not based on strong property rights and had a direct interest in conservation. This was the beginning of a struggle between sport-oriented and commercial/subsistence users of resources that has influenced Michigan conservation policy ever since. In 1859, sporting interests had a major victory with the first restrictions of any kind placed on the harvest of deer; a season limited to the last five months of the year. The first sportsmen and women's association was formed in Grand Rapids in 1875 and they succeeded in getting legislation to ban the export of hunting spoils in order to put a stop to commercial hunting (Peterson 1952). Sporting interests also began to challenge commercial fishing and the first commercial fishing regulations were put into effect in 1875. The coverage of the state with railroads was a part of this change, and hunting and fishing expeditions based on railway use were offered. The first out-of-state advertising campaign for Michigan hunting and fishing began in the 1870s (Peterson 1952).
This period marked the establishment of the first public decision-making bodies related directly to conservation. The State Board of Fish Commissioners was formed and the Office of the State Game and Fish Warden began. The first state fish hatchery opened. In response to the great fires which swept across the middle of the state in the mid-1880s, the first government forest fire programs were begun (Hosford and Horstik 1987).
The railways that the hunters and fishers were using to get to their quarry, however, were not built for their benefit. Their main purpose was the movement of timber and once again transportation technology had a devastating effect on northern Michigan. The timber cutters were now free to move away from the navigable streams and they quickly penetrated the hinterland, clear-cutting those areas that had previously been beyond their reach.
The interactions between timber cutting and other environmental degradations are one of the best demonstrations of how tightly interlinked Michigan's natural resource and social systems are. Perhaps most illustrative is the way the longterm effects of the timber industry produced a continuous tragedy for the next two generations: the ongoing attempts to farm the pine plains. For the most part, the land that supported hardwood forests was usable for farming after the trees had been cleared. This "first the axe, then the plough" pattern had been constantly repeated throughout the European conquest of North America. The Michigan pine plains, however, were characterized by sandy soil on which it was very difficult to establish successful agriculture. Even when it was successful, it is estimated that it took seven to twelve years to develop the land. Particularly in this early period, when there was little credit available to farmers and high prices for agricultural inputs, farm failures were common (Hosford and Horstik 1987).
THE FIRST GREAT CONSERVATION MOVEMENT: 1890-1920
By the turn of the century, Michigan was beginning to reap what it had sown during its careless, earlier history. Concern for conservation grew from the preserve of a few sports people to a mass movement. Government began to take a very active, if somewhat disorganized, interest in conservation.
This period witnessed great changes in the Michigan population. Again there was rapid population growth, from 2,094,000 to 3,668,000; 75% growth in 30 years. At the beginning of this period the population of Michigan was just over 60% rural, at the end it was just over 60% urban (Hawley 1949). During this period, the number of farms in Michigan reached its peak at 207,000 in 1910, cultivating 17,500,000 acres. This was just under half of Michigan's 37,000,000 total acres. Total acreage, however, did not begin to decline until the mid-century (Dickison 1950).
This was a period of great changes in attitudes toward the environment in Michigan and across the nation. The conservation ethic received the ultimate approbation with a White House conference in 1908. It also reached its peak in the Michigan legislature. Closed deer hunting counties and bag limits began to appear (Ryel et al. 1980). Legislation was passed on the protection of song birds and anti-sale legislation passed which brought to a complete end legal commercial hunting. People's interest and concern was particularly held by the plight of the passenger pigeon. In 1897, legislation was passed which classified the passenger pigeon as a song bird and therefore protected. It was too late. The last passenger pigeon died in 1914 at the age of 29 (Hosford and Horstik 1987).
Another innovation in this period was the active propagation of desired species. Game propagation began. The fish hatchery system began to use its "Wolverine Fish Car". This was a converted Pullman which carried fingerlings around the state. Sportsman provided the bulk of the labor for the actual planting of the fish (Hosford and Horstik 1987).
In the beginning of this period, lumbering and its associated problems were continuing at an ever increasing rate. The peak year for lumber production was 1892, with 25 million cubic meters produced. After this time, production fell precipitously. By 1920, it had dropped to 5 million cubic meters. The original forests were almost completely gone (Whitney 1987).
Forestry was beginning to be taken seriously and the problems of the pine plains were getting attention. The new century saw the creation of the first permanent Forestry Commission in Michigan and thus the beginnings of control over lumbering. The first state forest reserve was established with associated tree planting campaigns. There was a good deal of political resistance to forestry at the beginning of the period. This resistance was related to the ongoing land problems in the pine plains and the unwillingness of many landowners to admit, even indirectly, that their land was not agriculturally valuable. There was resistance to forestry simply because it was a new idea on a large scale. The Michigan Agricultural College's own Dr. Beal pronounced the idea of large scale reforestation "preposterous". These sorts of attitudes, fortunately, did not prevail and forest conservation gained increasing acceptance. The University of Michigan began to offer the first forestry degree program (Hosford and Horstik 1987).
The pine plains problem continued throughout this period. More and more of these lands were coming into state ownership through tax delinquency. In 1893, the state legalized homesteading on tax delinquent land and a few years later they authorized outright sale. Massive land speculation began to take place, but the basic problem of the land's near worthlessness for agriculture remained. In 1909, the Public Domain Commission was established to try to deal with the problem. They rationalized the sale of the land by reorganizing it into larger units. The ideology that said that the "right" place for land was in private hands was still strong and the commission continued to treat the land as potentially useful for agriculture.
The first Michigan state park was created in 1895 on Mackinac Island. But there was no agency created that was responsible for state parks in general. It was not until 1917 that there were any appropriations made for state parks (Hosford 1978).
THE RATIONALIZATION OF INSTITUTIONALIZED CONSERVATION: 1920-1960
The middle of the twentieth century was a time in which the institutional products of the conservation movement began to be organized into comprehensive regulatory institutions. Tourism became a truly major industry. This period also saw the end of the mainstream ideological commitment to extreme forms of private property rights which had become outmoded in the face of ecological reality. Concern for conservation was also extended in a significant way to the Great Lakes.
By 1920, Michigan was already an urban state. The percent of the population living in cities grew only 20% during this period; from 61% in 1920 to 73% in 1960 (Hawley 1949). The number of farms dropped to 112,000, half of the 1910 high point. The number of acres under cultivation also began to fall. During this period it dropped 21% to 15,000,000 acres (Dickison 1950).
This was a time of increasing population mobility which had implications for the natural resources. Conservation interests were becoming ever more powerful, particularly sports people and the tourist industry. The 1920s saw a tourism boom: from a half a million visitors in 1920 to four and half million in 1925 (Peterson 1952). Many of these were attracted by the natural beauty of the state. In 1939, Michigan issued more fishing licenses than any other state (Hosford and Horstik 1987). But, sporting and tourist interests were not the same. In spite of the tourist influx almost all deer hunters, for example, were still local. In 1920, only two percent of the 37,147 deer hunting licenses sold were for non-residents. In 1960, when the number of licenses sold had grown to 460,915, those sold to non-residents was still only two percent (Ryel et al. 1980).
Around 1920, Michigan had a number of conservation bodies and conservation laws but these institutions had been put together in an ad hoc fashion. The Public Domain Commission was merged with three different agencies and took control of services related to forestry, state lands, forest fire control, and fish and lake conservation. The Michigan State Parks commission was formed. These two agencies, and the responsibilities of numerous single issue commissions, were then brought together and the Michigan Department of Conservation was born. At the time of its creation, it was the broadest natural resources management agency in the nation.
Another arena where some rationalization was finally taking place was in dealing with the public lands. The Great Depression was a time of massive tax delinquency. In 1922, the Land Economic Survey Division was created and charged with determining the economic potential of Michigan public lands. This survey started a shift in official attitudes toward recognition that the pine plains lands were never going to be agricultural. In 1934, a USDA Land Use Planning Program, with input from 1,700 citizens serving on committees, concluded that 90% of state lands should remain state lands (Hosford and Horstik 1987). This was the period when land use laws began to appear, in the peculiarly American form of zoning (Geisler 1980).
Fortunately, during the eight years immediately following this decision about state lands, the Civilian Conservation Corp was in existence. One hundred thousand Michigan men were available for tree planting, fighting forest fires, and building infrastructure and camp grounds. At the end of the period, large amounts of the state's public lands were available for managed forestry and recreational use which would prove economically invaluable (Hosford and Horstik 1987). Timber production bottomed-out at 3 million cubic meters in 1940, and by 1960 had grown to 4 million cubic meters. These were the beginnings of the harvest of the "new forests" that had been planted since the nineteenth century devastation (Whitney 1987).
Management of the Great Lakes was undergoing a process of creating and rationalizing conservation measures. The first water pollution legislation was passed in 1929, creating the Water Resources Commission. One catalyst for focusing attention on the Great Lakes was the sea lamprey, an exotic species which preyed particularly on lake trout. The Great Lakes fishery nearly collapsed as a result of over fishing and the invasion of the parasitic sea lamprey. The lamprey made its first appearance in Lake Erie in 1921 and continued its invasion through Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, reaching Lake Superior in 1954. The first lampricide was developed and used in time to aid the lake trout population in Lake Superior, but not the other lakes. In 1945, the first salmon were planted in Michigan, but the major effort to bring this species to the Great Lakes did not take place until later (Hosford and Horstik 1987). The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was created in 1955, primarily to coordinate and direct the lamprey control program. It was during this period that the commercial fish catch began to drop. The U.S. catch for the Great Lakes had remained around a half million tons from the earliest records in 1855 to around 1920. By 1960, it had dropped to 340,000 tons where it stayed through the 1970s (USBC 1979).
This period witnessed the near depletion of the deer population in Michigan, largely due to the loss of habitat through logging. In 1921, the number of licenses sold fell to 28,000, and only half of those were filled (Hosford and Horstik 1987). In the same year, the bag limit was reduced to one buck (Ryel et al. 1980). Up until the end of World War II, the majority of the southern peninsula counties were closed to deer hunting with firearms, and often to bows. After the war, such drastic measures were no longer considered necessary.
FROM CONSERVATIONISM TO ENVIRONMENTALISM: 1960-PRESENT
Recent history has seen great changes in the way we think about our natural resources. The concept of conservation, which had defined environmental conflicts for 100 years, gave way, or perhaps was expanded to, a holistic concern for the ecology of the environment. New problems were discovered and institutional responses became more and more differentiated and technically complex.
This period has seen changes in the demographic trends that characterized Michigan in the past. In 1960, the state's population was 7,834,000. This number grew until the 1980s when the overall population of the state stabilized at around 9,300,000 (USBC 1979). There was only a .03% change in population during the 1980s.
Michigan cities began to lose population. In the early 1980s, Wayne County lost more population than any other county in the United States (Raymondo 1987). At the same time, the rural areas of northern Michigan began to experience an influx of migrants. Of the 88 Michigan counties, only 23 reported a positive net in-migration between 1980 and 1985. Almost all of these 23 counties were in the northern half of the Lower Peninsula. In absolute numbers these in-migrants are not a large group, but for these counties they often mean a double-digit percentage increase (Russel and Russel 1989). They mean fragmentation of northern Lower Peninsula land which increases the difficulties of large-scale land management. Retirees seeking the enjoyment of Michigan's natural resources are the driving force in this change.
Michigan has remained among the top 20 agricultural states, but this has taken place on many fewer farms and much less acreage. In 1987, Michigan had 51,172 farms, half as many as in 1960 and only one quarter of the high point at the beginning of the century. Cultivated acres in 1987 stood at 8,181,320, 55% of the figure for 1960 (USBC 1990).
During the 1960s, interest in natural resource conservation began to evolve into a more general interest in the health of the natural environment. Conservation institutions were in place and functioning, but pollution of the ground, air, and water remained. Public concern in Michigan and, indeed, throughout the western nations, intensified and in many instances took the form of a critique of the human relationship to nature as a whole. This shift was symbolized by the first Earth Day in 1970. One of the implications of the shift is an increase in the complexity of environmental monitoring and policy creation.
The 1970s saw several advances in the protection of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was reached among Great Lakes national, provincial, and state governments. By the early 1980s, efforts were being made to improve the amount and quality of the data needed for assessing the health of the lakes. The major problems were due to different monitoring approaches that produced incommensurable data (GLWQB 1982).
Pollution control laws, public funding for air and water treatment programs, and active pollution control agencies were established by the early 1970s. A very valuable fishery had developed in the Great Lakes with the control of the sea lamprey and the introduction of the Pacific salmon that grew rapidly on the enormous populations of alewife, another exotic species that flourished in the lakes. High levels of pesticides and other industrial chemicals were found in these salmon as a result of many years of unregulated use. The effects of persistent pesticides on other wildlife, notably birds, became evident. Restrictions or the elimination of the use of certain pesticides resulted. Mercury was found in the fish and biota of Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie due to industrial discharges.
Forest lands totalled about 18 million acres and the timber market improved. Recreation and tourism had become the second leading sector in the Michigan economy, having replaced agriculture (Sommers 1977). Forest product markets continued to expand.
Concern grew with groundwater and drinking water. Michigan passed the Safe Drinking Water Act and legislation controlling solid waste management was enacted in the seventies. In 1982, a Groundwater Quality Division was created in the MDNR. In keeping with the ongoing relationship between environmental quality and transportation technologies, fully half of the groundwater contamination in Michigan comes from transportation related sources. A 1982 study revealed that of this contamination, 25% is from petroleum, 13.5% is from "unknown" sources which are mainly petroleum, 7.5% is from road salt and 4% is from oil and gas exploration. Outside of transportation, 22% is from heavy industry (a good deal of which is transportation related), 5.5% comes from light industry, only 2% comes from agricultural runoff, and 1.5% from municipal waste. Miscellaneous sources account for the rest (DNR 1982).
An instructive set of environmental interactions revolves around the use of salt in removing ice and snow from roads. Salt is a big contributor to several environmental problems. The 27 tons of salt used on a mile of road does not stay on the road. Salt spray has been shown to cause damage to plants over 1,500 feet from the roadside. The white pine has been shown to be particularly susceptible to salt damage, as are fruit trees, which provide a large part of the state's agricultural income. The slow but continual buildup of sodium and chloride in our lakes and groundwater is causing many other problems for plants and wildlife. Sodium has been shown to aggravate numerous medical problems in humans, such as high blood pressure. Groundwater contamination of wells which supply drinking water has been a growing problem in the New England States. Additionally, salt acts as a salt lick by enticing deer and other wildlife onto the roads, increasing their likelihood of being hit by cars.
This recent period has witnessed an increase in the introduction and reintroduction of species. The largest and most successful of such efforts has been the introduction of coho salmon into the Great Lakes. This effort began in earnest in 1966 and may be one of the best of the world's few examples of a successful exotic species introduction. There also have been attempts to reintroduce moose to the Upper Peninsula.
Further improvement in air and water quality occurred by 1990, as indicated by increasing populations of fish-eating birds, such as bald eagles and cormorants. Applied pollution control technology has removed a large percentage of undesirable wastes from discharges. Additional reduction in pollutants via end-of-pipe controls would now be very expensive. Pollution prevention, conservation or input management is obviously the most efficient way to reduce pollutant discharges from both point and non-point sources to our waters and air at this time.
Michigan's agricultural production system integrates into nearly every aspect of the hierarchy of natural system organization. This structural interface takes the form of technology which is often designed precisely for purposes of biological isolation. The selection of crop and livestock production enterprises to best fit production niches is the important step. There must be continual adjustment in response to markets, environmental impacts, and newly emerging technologies.
Modern agriculture achieves its high productivity, whether of crops or animals, by concentrating available nutrients. Protecting the environment requires that the nutrients be contained in the upper soil layers (away from groundwater) and held within field and farm boundaries. But even when great care is taken, the crop seldom takes up more than half of the applied nutrients. It is increasingly believed that recovery of the remainder within the soil or in alternative "sponge" crops is essential to reduce off-season leaching into groundwater or to runoff. A second idea which is currently being actively pursued is managing soils for higher soil biological activity. Soil biotic activity levels appear to be driven by diversity of crop and of substrate. If true, cover crops and crop rotations contribute not only to the efficiency of nutrient containment, but to the internal soil uptake and turnover of nutrients. Another major area of interface in nutrient flow is the opportunity in agriculture to accept nutrients from "clean" sources such as yard wastes or food processing through composting. Finally, a crucial area of interface is pest control. Long-term control requires managing the genetic evolution of the pests to prevent development of resistance to whatever control measure is used and ensuring temporal and spatial diversity of crops. Integrated pest management through use of biocontrols is an essential part of reducing pesticide loading on the environment.
The local benefits of agricultural systems are often ignored. Agriculture provides Michigan with local goods and services, and these activities go beyond services directly tied to food production. Waste recycling and the sale of compost are excellent examples. The provision of hunting areas is a major area of interaction that should have greater public awareness. As farmers charge for hunting rights as part of their business they become more conscious of maintaining wildlife habitat which has major ecological benefit beyond the target hunting species. The wide range of more dilute and less economic public benefits, such as greenbelt maintenance (at low fire hazard) and visual benefits of an open and diverse landscape, are a definite public good.
Development of good farm land and forest lands for other purposes continues to be a recognized resource problem (Rustem et al. 1992; Sommers et al. 1977). Shorelines of lakes and streams have undergone extensive recreation and residential development. Cities occupy about 3% of the landscape as do highways, airports, streets and railroads (Sommers 1977). Presently, there are more than 49,000 miles of improved roads and almost 71,000 miles of paved roads crossing the Michigan landscape and its numerous streams and rivers (O'Malley 1993). Sommers (1977) projected that urban and suburban land use would exceed 8% of the landscape by 1985.
The plants that grew on the land, or that now grow on the land, largely reflect the status and potential of renewable natural resources and suggest best management options. Plant community composition, its growth rate and stage of succession greatly influence environmental quality and animal populations. Well established terrestrial plant communities modify air and water quality, prevent erosion and rapid runoff, retain and recycle nutrients, enhance groundwater recharge, stabilize stream flows and reduce water temperature fluctuations as well as furnish food and shelter for animals. The quality of water resources is closely integrated with land use. In addition to the surviving native biota, resource managers must contend with a considerable number of exotic species introduced into the Great Lakes region and Michigan. Some exotic species were introduced intentionally, such as salmon, and pheasants and plants and animals related to horticulture and agriculture. Other organisms, such as weeds, sparrows, starlings, zebra mussels, ruffe, alewives, carp, dutch elm disease, gypsy moth, purple loosetrife, Eurasian water milfoil, etc., were otherwise introduced. Except for the continued conversion of productive lands to less productive uses, the introduction of exotic species of plants, animals and diseases poses the greatest threat to the potential of Michigan's renewable natural resources.
IMPLICATIONS OF MICHIGAN'S NATURAL RESOURCE HISTORY
The history of Michigan's natural resources has been a history of complex interactions between basic demographic, economic, ideological, and legal changes, and the environment. During the early period, a combination of absolute property rights, a view of resources as unlimited, and a very short-term economic logic produced massive devastation. Then a conservation ethic began to take hold which, supported by proconservation interests that followed a longer term economic logic, asserted the right of the whole community to take responsibility for what was happening to Michigan's environment. Throughout Michigan's history these shifting social trends interacted with each other and with changes in land characteristics, water quality, wildlife issues, and pollution. They underwent a continuous process of institutionalization into laws and governing structures which gave form to the effect they would have on the environment. These complex interactions continue to define Michigan's human ecology today.
SECTION II: THEORIES OF INTEGRATIVE APPROACHES
What are the theoretical perspectives which can aid us in understanding the sort of complexity revealed by this history of Michigan's natural resources? This section provides a brief review of the ecosystem-based approach to understanding both natural ecology and human ecology. Natural ecology is understood by applying ecosystem concepts to understanding the interchange of material, energy, and information in the material world. Human ecology is understood by extending these ecosystem concepts to include the communication-based social system which structures the material world in response to social imperatives.
NATURAL RESOURCES AS A SYSTEM
The future demands for the products of Michigan's lands or waters, such as forest products, food, fiber, hunting, fishing, recreation and aesthetic value, will increase with the human population. Managers of agricultural resources and renewable natural resources have similar goals in meeting these demands, namely, the maximization of outputs and a reduction of costs or inputs. Management of these demands and production of the desired products while maintaining our producing capital, will be a major challenge. How we conceptualize this challenge or problem will in large part determine our response. Given the basic complexity of the landscape and its biota, the phenomena of succession and retrogressions, a multiplicity of managerial goals and a desire for more efficient production of natural products, it is obvious that some framework or model within which these diverse components can be assembled and interrelated is necessary. Natural resource managers have long been aware of this need (Costello 1957; Lutz 1959).
THE ECOSYSTEM CONCEPT
The ecosystem concept provides a framework or model for understanding natural resources (Odum 1963). Models are a useful tool in resource management, but should not be viewed as a panacea to all problems. Constructing a model(s) aids in conceptualizing a problem, organizing knowledge, communicating complicated phenomena, determining data needs and providing hypotheses for testing. Models should also lead to a better understanding of how a system works, its limits, and how to optimize desired outputs and manage inputs (Odum 1989).
The ecosystem is a basic unit of nature and can be defined as any spatial or organizational unit which includes living organisms and non-living substances interacting to produce an exchange of energy and materials between the living and non-living parts. This exchange of matter and energy is organized by information-based systems which can be found in both nature and human society. An ecosystem can then be visualized as a network of components within established boundaries, linked by the flow of energy and materials. It is also useful to view ecosystems as hierarchies of structure and function and in terms of levels of organization within the total ecosystem (Allen and Starr 1982). Albert, et al., 1986, viewed the Michigan landscape as a nested hierarchy of ecosystems designated as regions, districts and sub-districts based on climate and physiography that could form the basis for the analysis of the Michigan ecosystem.
ECOSYSTEM MODELS
Ecosystem models have long been recognized and used by mankind although not expressed in these terms (Major 1969). Models are great simplifications or abstractions of the real world. We use models of our complex personal environment to make the most of our decisions in life. Ecosystems are even more complex and require even greater simplification for the human mind to grasp.
Energy is the fundamental requirement of all life (Odum and Odum 1971). Every material or resource has an associated energy cost so that potentially limiting resources are limited in part because of their energy costs (Hall et al. 1986). Therefore, ecosystem inputs, outputs, functions and flow rates can be aggregated where necessary or convenient, and expressed in energy equivalents (Odum 1983). This simplifies great complexity and allows straight forward comparisons between diverse functions and system components, as well as between other ecosystems. If we determine the quantities and rates of energy flow in an ecosystem over time, we will have a good understanding of the system, its limits and potential for the efficient production of desired products.
Once ecosystem boundaries are known, system analysis begins by evaluating inputs to the system in terms of energy and materials from surrounding systems. Outputs from the system and its internal organization and dynamics are subsequently evaluated. Materials and energy may be in the form of water, wind, gases, nutrients, sunlight, fuels, soil, biota, minerals, or organic materials. When a system diagram has been derived with the significant connections between established components, inputs and outputs, simulation can begin. Such an analysis would be considered holistic in approach.
Analysis of an ecosystem should have as one of its primary objectives the determination of the flow rates of materials and energy as inputs and outputs to the system, as well as between internal components. The rate of flow of energy and materials through ecosystems fundamentally influences their structure, stability and capability to recover or adapt to change.
Modern systems analysis has been applied to ecosystems just since 1962 (Schultz 1969). The development of systems theory and analysis, high speed computers, remote sensing and the accumulation of large amounts of data on ecosystems make it possible to build models, rapidly perform the computations required for model simulation and validation, and make predictions that optimize decision making about natural resources. A great diversity of models exist in the literature, a situation likened to "the Tower of Babel" (Odum 1983). As pointed out above, the energy way of thinking would do much to alleviate this situation. Furthermore, ecosystem analysis and simulation based on energy, provides a way of integrating data from various disciplines, a requirement for the team approach necessary for holistic ecosystem modelling.
HUMAN ECOLOGY: INCLUDING THE HUMAN SOCIAL SYSTEM IN THE ECOSYSTEM CONCEPT
Human ecology begins by viewing human beings as one species among many in the biosphere, but as a species that is unique in its ability to communicate and create social systems. Human ecology dates back at least to Malthus and its two driving scientific values are holism and interaction. Human ecologists proceed by looking at any phenomena as being situated among other phenomena and exchanging matter, energy, and/or information with them.
The human social system is not made up of energy and materials; rather, from an ecosystemic viewpoint it is most helpfully viewed as a set of informational subsystems. The economy is one of these. The economy uses money as a communication device that organizes how goods (matter and energy), including natural resources, are manipulated and exchanged among human beings. The political system, and its organization of offices, is another subsystem that processes information and communicates decisions (Habermas 1987). These decisions also organize the uses of natural resources, often indirectly by setting up rules that influence how the economy will function.
BASIC HUMAN ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTS
The classic model that best describes human ecology's general approach is called the ecological complex or, more commonly, the POET model. POET stands for population, organization, environment, and technology, which the model claims are the basic categories for understanding the relationship between the social system and its natural environment (Duncan and Schnore 1959). Here, population is the society's demographic characteristics, organization is the many ways the society organizes itself, environment is the natural environment, and technology defines the technical capacity for environmental manipulation. Human ecologists often emphasize relationships in which social organization gives form to technologies and populations which in turn affect the environment. The model does not claim any directions of causality among its components; indeed, it claims that it is the constant interaction between the components which must be understood.
More modern formulations of the social/environmental interface tend to be more specific. It is usually economic forces which most proximately give form to interactions with natural systems. Markets, the organization of work, and decisions about technologies to be used, all play a role. The institutions that underlie the economic forces are in turn given form by social structures which include patterns of social interaction, the class structure, social networks, and other linkages. Additionally, there is a growing interest in historical and cultural dimensions of using the environment. This includes understanding how a community came to use and view the environment in a particular way, including the management measures that have been tried in the past. Cultural dimensions involve the norms, values, and world-views that currently define relationships to the environment. One area of growing interest is the formation and reproduction of what people believe to be true about the natural environment. This includes studying folklore and quasi-scientific myths about nature as well as understanding the processes and extent of dissemination of scientific knowledge. Finally, the demographic dimensions of populations, i.e., size, distribution, migration, and growth patterns, often influence the magnitude of environmental degradation (Vanderpool 1987).
In the 40 years that the POET model and these other considerations have been giving shape to research, particular relationships within the ecological complex have, of course, become more salient than others. Different types of social-environmental interactions give rise to different types of questions. The rest of this section describes the questions that have most commonly arisen in research on social systems utilizing natural resource systems.
INSTITUTIONS
Society's exploitation of natural resources always has a particular economic organization which must be understood. Part of this is understanding the variables emphasized by neo-classical economists, e.g., supply, demand, costs, etc., and models of where and how these variables will come into equilibrium. At a deeper level, the question of the institutions that give form to the interaction of the neo-classical variables arises. In human ecology, INSTITUTIONS ARE DEFINED AS SETS OF RULES THAT GIVE FORM TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR; these institutions may or may not be an organization of formal offices of the kind that is brought to mind by the more general use of the word institution. It is around the institutions that govern behavior towards the resource that the neo-classical models will come into equilibrium (Bromley 1991).
The most important type of institution, and therefore a central concept in human ecology, is property rights (Ciriacy-Wantrup and Bishop 1975). Ownership is the most basic way that human society defines and relates to any part of its environment. Property rights take many forms, for they define not only who owns a piece of the environment, but whether there will be any ownership at all, and which of the many possible forms the rights and privileges of ownership may take. One possible form of property rights is no property rights. History has seen many examples, particularly in fisheries and forestry, of how a lack of property rights, absent any other institution governing the exploitation of a resource, has led to vast over-exploitation (Gordon 1954). At the same time, there are many instances, nineteenth century Michigan timber for example, when strong property rights aided and abetted over-exploitation.
In any particular situation of resource exploitation, the human ecologist will begin by understanding the institutions which govern the use of the resource. It is important that these institutions be viewed historically by studying the implications different institutions at different times have had for the resource in question.
TECHNOLOGY
The second set of questions that have emerged as critical for human ecologists have been the implications of technological changes for the exploitation of a resource. A particular resource may or may not be capable of being moved toward a state of depletion by human exploitation. Changing technologies change the level and the rate of depletion. For example, Native American exploitation of the Great Lakes fisheries did not initially need to be governed by institutions because, with the technology they had, the fisheries could not be rapidly depleted. When new technologies were introduced, the situation changed and the Great Lakes fisheries became susceptible to high rates of depletion. Rapid stock depletion represents only a technical possibility, not an inevitability. New technologies do not introduce themselves. It was the demand for fish that was the force behind the depletion of the Great Lake fisheries. The fact that a new set of technologies makes a resource susceptible for depletion does not determine whether depletion will take place; that is the role of the economic institutions. Questions about the implications of technological change in resource exploitation, as used by a population under particular institutions, is one of the most commonly found types of human ecological research (e.g., Cottrell 1955; Nowak 1987).
VALUES
The third set of research questions is the basic values of the communities involved in resource exploitation. These values take various forms. There are values which are related to the resource through the governing institutions. These are values such as what is a "fair" distribution of the resource and among whom it should be divided (Gelles 1991). One example from Michigan's history was the conflict between commercial fishers, a small, relatively poor group whose whole livelihood was a stake, and sports fishers, a large, wealthy group with only the ability to indulge in its hobby in a particular location at stake.
There are ideological values that support particular institutions as being the correct way to do things. These may or may not even be related to the resource itself. For example, how someone views, in general, the proper role of the free market as opposed to the role of the government may have important implications for their view of institutions that govern resource exploitation, in spite of the fact that these views were formed in the context of much wider ideological struggles. An example of this, again from fisheries, is the use of transferable quotas as a management device. These transferable quotas mimic strong property rights and allow "market forces" to aid management. This use of "market forces" appeals to conservative politicians and economists who are predisposed to view markets as morally superior to government regulations.
Value systems not only influence which institutions will be formed to govern the resource; they play an even more important role in the extent to which an institution is seen to be legitimate (Hackel 1990). The less legitimate an institution is perceived, the larger the amount of resources that have to be spent on enforce-ment mechanisms to insure that the institution is effective.
Other values attach directly to the resource itself. Communities will see a forest or a lake as much more than just lumber and fish. We have all had important experiences with nature, often resulting in strong feelings for particular places or species. These feelings may be extremely important, and directly related to a person's most basic identity formation. These values cannot be treated lightly, or even as less important than other values related to the exploitation of the resource. Of significance here, is how a community has traditionally used a resource (Johannes 1978). The claims of "traditional users" will often carry weight in negotiations over a new set of institutions governing the resources.
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
A fourth set of important questions is the structure of the communities involved in the exploitation of the resource (Vanderpool 1987). It is almost always a mistake to think of a community as a homogeneous entity. All communities have divisions and such divisions may have pivotal implications for resource exploitation, either directly or indirectly. Those who are most actively engaged in the physical exploitation of the resource may not be the ones gaining the most immediate benefit from their activities. Such benefits will often accrue to distant parties with little stake in the long-term future of the resource (Bunker 1985). There may be a history of open conflict over the resource and these patterns will have implications for the effective governance of the exploitation. Divisions such as these have to be understood and fairness dictates that particular attention has to be paid to the relationship between the institutions regulating the resource exploitation and the most vulnerable groups in the community.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
Natural resource issues are strongly affected and even defined by the many different kinds of social movements that organize and campaign around them. Sociological theory understands social movements as ways that members of a community that share a common concern mobilize the resources needed to address that concern (Dietz et al. 1989). Because they tend to coalesce around particular resources, they tend to be fairly narrowly focused. This focus is almost always on changing or maintaining very particular economic institutions. One common form, for example, are the lobbying efforts that are mobilized by business interests at an industry level. But even the environmental movement has a tendency to be organized around a relatively narrow set of institutional issues. The intersection between social movements which focus on particular issues and natural resource systems which constitute myriad complex interactions presents a challenge for both those who are trying to understand human ecology and those who wish to set policy.
SCALE
The last set of crucial research questions in human ecology are the implications of scale. Scale is critical along three dimensions. The first is simple geographical scale, the second is temporal scale, and the third is institutional scale, or the breadth of issues that an institution is related to. While it is true that many of the basic questions about resource exploitation take the same form whether you are talking about the global oil supply or the fish in one pond, the answers to these questions are very scale dependent. Small ecosystems can vary greatly due to local influences over short time frames while a larger ecosystem of which the small ecosystem is a part, varies little overall. In terms of diversity, larger ecosystems will have more plant and animal species and varied topography than small systems in a given biome.
Scale is related to the technology that is used, the sizes of the human organizations that are involved in exploitation, and the implications of changes for other communities and/or resources. Most importantly, scale, almost by definition, determines the reaction time of the systems involved, both natural and social (O'Neill 1989). The typical community around a small Michigan lake may be more likely to see the implications of how they fertilize their lawns for the health of their lake quickly because the lake will react to the increased nutrients quickly. They can call a meeting on fairly short notice, hire a limnologist to give them the technical information they need, make a decision, and then act on that decision by the following spring. Management of the Great Lakes is a very different thing. The Great Lakes do not change quickly, so problems may be far advanced before they are even noticed. Then, organizing the governments of two nations and ten states/provinces into action is a more formidable task.
Not only are things slower at the larger levels, but there are implications of scale for the quality of the reactions. It is more difficult at higher levels to come to a common understanding of what is actually happening. Smaller communities can often come to a real consensus while larger entities have to rely on bargaining between competing interests, even at the level of definitions. Larger communities have more competing interests that need to participate in the bargaining and it is harder to maintain democratic processes at larger scales (Michels 1949; Olson 1965).
The institutions that are created are compromises that no one is completely satisfied with and which require higher degrees of coercive enforcement. The difficulties that larger scales present put pressure on decision makers to reduce the scale they have to deal with. This is particularly true of avoiding the implications of temporal scale and making short-term, short-sighted decisions. Such actions lead to problems being displaced, rather than resolved.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH OF NATURAL AND HUMAN ECOSYSTEM THEORY
The major implication of these theoretical reflections for MAES and the Michigan DNR is the adoption of a systems approach to studying the points of interaction between the natural and social systems. This would mean the creation of a research agenda with the following elements:
1. Studying the key points of integration within the various natural ecosystems of Michigan, including:
a. the chemical level;
b. the biological level, and
c. the geomorphological level.
2. Studying the key points of integration between the natural resource system and the human social system, including:
a. Michigan's economic and political institutions governing both behavior toward natural resources and the formation and implementation of natural resource policy;
b.the state of knowledge and beliefs about natural resources held by the people of Michigan;
c.and the values that the people of Michigan attach to these resources, economically, ecologically, and aesthetically.
3. Studying the integration between points 1 and 2. These elements of the research agenda provide the subject matter for a comprehensive research design, but approaching natural resource problems from an integrated perspective also has epistemological implications.
Integration involves understanding the development of both horizontal networks and vertical hierarchies. Integration also always involves some combination of four integrative processes:
1. evolution and adaptation; 2. dependency and interdependency; 3. dominance, and 4. conflict.
Evolution and adaptation imply the need for a historical dimension in every research effort. In terms of dependency and interdependency, system integration always involves a set of contributions to and requirements from the systems that are integrated. These first two integrative processes can apply to both human and natural systems and they are present in all instances of system integration. The last two processes apply only when the human social system is involved, and they may or may not be present in any given instance. The third integrative process is dominance. Social systems can dominate natural systems, actively changing them to meet imperatives arising in the social system alone. The last integrative process is conflict. Uses of natural systems often involve conflicts within the social system, most often between competing user groups. Understanding any natural resource problem as a living process of integration means understanding how processes of evolution, dependence and interdependence, dominance, and conflict are present in the integrative process.
CONCLUSION
Research in natural and human ecology is a complex endeavor. Interactions among and between social systems and natural systems can only be understood from a multi-disciplinary perspective. The tendency of industries and social movements, on the other hand, is to narrowly focus their concern on particular economic institutions and commodities. This restricted vision has important implications for the Department of Natural Resources. Addressing ecological issues in their complexity will be problematic because of the narrow interests of the social groups and forces they are responding to and, at the same time, managing.
One clear need is to focus our activities and efforts on integrating the various human sponsored activities with the availability of natural resources to ensure sustainability of the Michigan ecosystem. This is not just a challenge, but an opportunity for MAES to be a leader in the race to manage both human and natural resources in an economically, socially, environmentally, culturally, and ethically rational manner. The sort of integrative activity required goes beyond simply integrating the various commodity-based research efforts and must include the research efforts of those involved in agriculture, rural and community development, regional planning, and other disciplines which address problems comprehensively.
There are some immediate, practical problems to be addressed. One is the organization of MAES at both the administrative and scientific levels. How, given the social organization of natural resource-related interests, can MAES broaden its vision and avoid being driven by narrow concerns? The organization of scientific disciplines and the demands of publication also encourage reductionism. One challenge for MAES is organizing its own system of rewards in such a way that participation in multi-disciplinary, problem-focused, task forces is made attractive to its scientists. Another is developing theories, methods, and data which bring disciplinary perspectives together. While "general systems theory" did not turn out to be the great revolution that it seemed to promise a generation ago, a great deal of hard intellectual work has taken place in many disciplines, particularly natural ecology and human ecology, which can provide a new conceptual basis for multi-disciplinary teams.
In effect, the central focus must be on the State of Michigan as a functional, interactive ecosystem. How can policies be effective without understanding the integrative nature of the technical, scientific, and social realities that underlie any issue? If MAES is going to participate in the management of the natural resources of Michigan through research and education, in cooperation with state government agencies, for the long-term good of the citizens of the state, it should develop greater integrative, cooperative, collaborative means of addressing the research required to meet the needs in the state. We would like to conclude by suggesting some questions central to natural resource policy in Michigan.
Should MAES have the same type of links and relationship with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources that it has with the Michigan Department of Agriculture? How can MAES carve out a leadership role among other agricultural experiment stations in addressing integrated natural resource problems? How can MAES address the need for integrated approaches in extension and teaching as well as research? MAES should organize and sponsor a cross-disciplinary national conference on integrated natural resource systems. Such a conference would give social and natural scientists a chance to address and expand the theoretical perspectives that provide a framework for effective combinations of expertise in dealing with natural resource problems.
The most central question, however, is how the consideration of natural resource systems can be structurally integrated into MAES in the face of the unavoidable tendency for research to be driven by interests concerned with particular commodities, "hot button" issues chosen by social movement activists, or other narrow foci. Can MAES, at the very least, reduce the degree that it reflects a commodity driven definition of natural resources within its own structure? An advisory committee on integrated agriculture and natural resources issues should be created. Such a committee, consisting of natural and social scientists and able to draw upon expertise from many disciplines, would explore how to create a degree of comprehensiveness in all MAES research activities. Another possible function of the advisory committee would be to examine how MAES can confront agricultural and natural resource issues from the perspective of the truly broad-based and long-term interests of the entire state. These are all questions that need to be addressed as we look toward Michigan's 21st century of managing its natural resources. Michigan and MAES must be leaders in developing and sustaining integrated approaches to natural resources.
REFERENCES CITED
Albert, A., S. Denton and B. Barnes. 1986. Regional Landscape Ecosystem of Michigan: New Research in Landscape Ecology. School of Natural Resources. University of Michigan 48109. 32 p.
Allen, T.F.H., and T.B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 310 p.
Bromley, D. 1991. Environment and Economy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bunker, S.G. 1985. Underdeveloping the Amazon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ciriacy-Wantrup S.V., and R.C. Bishop. 1975. "`Common Property' as a Concept in Natural Resources Policy." Natural Resources Journal 15:713-727.
Costanza, R. 1984. "Natural Resource Valuation and Management; Toward an Ecological Economics." In Integration of Economy and Ecology: An Outlook for the Eighties. Sweden: University of Stockholm Press, pp. 7-18.
Costello, D.F. 1957. "Application of Ecology to Range Management." Ecology 38:49-53.
Cottrell, F. 1955. Energy and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Department of Natural Resources. 1982. Assessment of Groundwater Contamination: Inventory of Sites. Groundwater Quality, Michigan Department of Natural Resources: Groundwater Management Strategy for Michigan, Task 3.
Dickison, W.E. 1950. Trends in Michigan Agriculture. East Lansing: Michigan State University Dissertation.
Dietz, T., P.C. Stern, and R.W. Rycroft. 1989. "Definitions of Conflict and the Legitimation of Resources: The Case of Environmental Risk." Sociological Forum 4(1):47-70.
Duncan, O.D., and L.F. Schnore. 1959. "Cultural, Behavioral and Ecological Perspectives in the Study of Social Organization." American Journal of Sociology 5:132-146.
Espie, M. 1990. Michigan Agricultural Statistics 1990. Michigan Department of Agriculture, 88 p.
Geisler, C.C. 1980. "The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control Revisited." In Buttle, F.H. and H. Newby (Eds), The Rural Sociology of Advanced Societies: Critical Perspectives. London: Croom Helm, pp. 489-526.
Gelles, P.H. 1991. "Channels of Power, Fields of Contention: The Politics of Irrigation and Land Recovery in an Andean Peasant Community." In Guillet, D. and W.P. Mitchell (Eds), Irrigation at High Altitudes: Socio-political Aspects of Water Control in the Andes. Boulder: Westview.
Gordon, H.S. 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: the Fishery." Journal of Political Economy 62:124-142.
Graff, G.P. 1974. The People of Michigan. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education State Library Services.
Great Lakes Water Quality Board (GLWQB). 1982. Proceedings of the Roundtable on the Surveillance and Monitoring Requirements for Assessing Human Health Hazards Posed by Contaminants in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, 17-18 March, East Lansing, MI: International Joint Commission.
Habermas, J. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume II Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reasoning. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hackel, J.D. 1990. "Conservation Attitudes in Southern Africa: A Comparison Between KwaZulu and Swaziland." Human Ecology 18:203-209.
Hall, C.A.S., C.J. Cleveland and R. Kaufman. 1986. Energy and Resource Quality, the Ecology of the Economic Process. University Press of Colorado. Niwot, CO. 80544. 577 p.
Hawley, A. 1949. The Population of Michigan, 1840 to 1960, an Analysis of Growth, Distribution, and Composition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Horstik, C.K. and K. Hosford. 1987. "Michigan's Conservation Story_the Early Days." Michigan Natural Resources Magazine. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.
Hosford, K.R. 1978. Evolution of the Organizational Structuring and Land Resource Responsibilities of the Department of Natural Resources in Michigan 1785-1978. East Lansing: Michigan State University Dissertation.
Hosford, K.R. and C.K. Horstik. 1987. "History of Michigan Natural Resources." Michigan Natural Resources Magazine 56(3):2-67.
Johannes, R. 1978. "Traditional Marine Conservation Methods in Oceania and their Demise." Annual Review of Ecology Sept. 1978:349-64.
Lutz, H.J. 1957. "Applications of Ecology in Forest Management." Ecology 38:46-49.
Major, J. 1969. "Historical Development of the Ecosystem Concept." In George M. VanDyne (Ed), The Ecosystem Concept in Natural Resource Management. New York: Academia Press, pp. 9-22.
Michels, R. 1949. First Lectures in Political Sociology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Michigan State University Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center (TTRRC). 1986. Travel and Tourism in Michigan: A Statistical Profile. East Lansing: Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center Research Monograph No. 1.
Nowak, P.J. 1987. "The Adoption of Agricultural Conservation Technologies: Economic and Diffusion Explanations." Rural Sociology 52(2):208-220.
Odum, H.T. and E.C. Odum. 1976. Energy Basis for Man and Nature. New York: McGraw-Hill, 296 p.
Odum, H.T., 1983. Systems Ecology. New York: Wiley _ Interscience, 644 p.
Odum, E.P. 1963. Ecology. New York: Holt.
Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
O'Malley, Michael. 1993. Personal Communication. October 29, 1993. Michigan Department of Transportation.
O'Neill, R.V. 1989. "Perspective in Hierarchy and Scale." In Roughgarden, J., R.M. May, and S.A. Levin (Eds), Perspectives in Ecological Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 140-156.
Peterson, E.T. 1952. The History of Wild Life Conservation in Michigan 1859-1921. East Lansing: Michigan State University Dissertation.
Raymondo, J.C. 1987. "Who's on First." American Demographics 9(9):38-41.
Russel, D. and M. Russell. 1989. "The Great Grey Woods." American Demographics 11(5):49.
Rustem, W., W. Cooper, S. Harrington, and A. Armoudian. 1992. Michigan's Environment and Relative Risk. Michigan Relative Risk Analysis Project. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 49p.
Ryel, L.A., C.L. Bennett, Jr., M.L. Moss, and D.G. Parks. 1980. A History of Deer Hunting in Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division, Report No. 2868.
Santer R., 1989. "Land and People of Freshwater: The Geography of Michigan." In Richard J. Hathaway (Ed), Michigan: Visions of our Past. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Schultz, A.M. 1967. "The Ecosystem as a conceptual tool in the Management of Natural Resources." In S.V. Ciriacy_Wantrup and James J. Parsons (Eds), Natural Resources: Quality and Quantity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sommers, L.M. (Ed). 1977. Atlas of Michigan. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Tanner, H.H. (Ed). 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
United States Bureau of the Census (USBC). 1979, 1990. Statistical Abstract of the United States. New York: Grosset and Dunlap.
Vanderpool, C.K. 1987. "Social Impact Assessment and Fisheries." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:479-485.
Van Dyne, G. 1969. "Implementing the Ecosystem Concept in Training in the Natural Resource Sciences." Chapter 10. In George M. Van Dyne (Ed), The Ecosystem Concept in Natural Resource Management.
Whitney, G.G. 1987. "An Ecological History of the Great Lakes Forest of Michigan." Journal of Ecology 75:667-684.
Zahniser, T.E., P.B. Chetri, J.F. Bartholic. 1992. An Assessment of the Resource Base for Agriculture in Michigan. Special Report 35. Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Michigan. 75 p.
Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources List of Reports
Acknowledgements
Overview Reports SR 67 --SAPMINR Highlights SR 68 --Michigan Natural Resources Policy SR 69 --Demographic, Social and Economic Trends SR 70 --Integrated Natural Resource Systems
The lead author would like to thank the members of the writing committee (Erwin Evans, John Hart, Richard Harwood, Niles Kevern, and Darrell King) for their individual and collective contributions to the development of the manuscript. During his time on the committee, Kurt Pregitzer made many valuable suggestions on issues to be developed. Chris Shafer, special assistant to the deputy director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, provided useful suggestions for enhancing the quality of the final manuscript. Special thanks to Douglas Wilson, research assistant to the committee, who contributed so much to the writing and strength of the paper. Melissa Gilroy patiently corrected and formatted several drafts of the manuscript and deserves a hearty thanks for always being ready to efficiently help in producing a document. Finally, Vincent Bralts and the SAPMINR steering committee should be commended for conceiving the idea that an integrated approach to natural resources is essential to the development of the future of Michigan's natural resources.
Focus Reports SR 71 --Timber and Timberland Resources SR 72 --Lumber, Furniture, Composition Panels and Other Solidwood Products SR 73 --Pulp, Paper, Allied Products and Wood Energy SR 74 --Fisheries SR 75 --Wildlife SR 76 --Tourism SR 77 --Boating and Underwater Recreation SR 78 --Camping, Trails and Dispersed Recreation SR 79 --Water Resources SR 80 --Land Resources SR 81 --Nonrenewable Resources SR 82 --Natural Resources and Communities
Reports on the Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources
This special report is one of a series (listed below) prepared for a project of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES) called the "Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources" (SAPMINR). The project was designed to take an inventory of the current status of Michigan natural resources, identify emerging trends, and appraise future opportunities. The purpose was to assist MAES in establishing priorities and planning programs. Both overview and focused topic assessments have been made. The overview reports provide background information on the political, economic, and social environments influencing Michigan natural resources. The focus reports examine specific resources, including timberland resources, fisheries and wildlife resources, parks and recreational resources, and land and water resources. The SAPMINR project began in early 1993. At that time, interdisciplinary teams of MSU faculty members, graduate students, federal and state government officials, and others collaborated to develop preliminary reports. In March 1994, a SAPMINR conference took place during MSU's Agriculture and Natural Resources Week. The objective of the conference was to provide a public forum for discussion of the preliminary reports. Based on interaction with conference participants, the authors prepared the final drafts of the special reports (SR). This report should not be considered final. Efforts to analyze the past and forecast the future are ongoing. Even so, this report is a base for dialogue on both the status and potential of Michigan natural resources. To receive any of the reports listed below, contact: MSU Bulletin Office, Room 10B Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1039.
The Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station is an equal opportunity employer and complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
printed on recycled paper using soy based ink
New_1:95_.75M_TCM_CW