|
A remembrance and recognition of Fitz Eugene Dixon’s contribution to Acadia Partners and some thoughts about how that contribution extends much deeper and encompasses much more than the financial support that he committed to this organization.
We often make the case for conservation by arguing that conservation brings benefits to mankind. This may be true, but it also takes us away from what may be the real work that needs to be done, which is to develop a “land ethic.” Focusing on the utility of Acadia National Park and of other conserved places reinforces the idea that the Park and the animals and plants that live there are just property and that our relationship to the Park, as Aldo Leopold put it, “is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations.” This essay argues for a deeper, more reciprocal relationship with nature, and for a different rationale for conservation.
Yesterday I told the story behind the decision that Gouldsboro needs to make about its two bronze bells. Now let’s have a look at how the town is making the decision. The approach grows out of traditions here in Maine. It touches on the values underlying the mission at Acadia Partners.
The question of how communities go about making decisions is central to our work at Acadia Partners and SERC. Gouldsboro is faced with a decision about two bells. This decision is a good example–and a good jumping off point–to use in some broader thinking about how communities make decisions. But, first, I need to tell you about the bells, and about hurricanes and shipwrecks. It is a story that stretches back 140 years.
As we work to grow Acadia Partners and to support SERC, we are continually learning new things. We are meeting new groups, reading new research, and making new connections.
This WebLog — or “Blog,” to use the more familiar term — is a place for us to capture and share these discoveries and insights. Sometimes […]