3,981 research outputs found
David H. Kaye : Engaged Reliefs
No full textBarbeau views Kaye's "Art Fabric" as a synthesis of traditional weaving techniques and other media. Statement by Kaye. Biographical notes. 7 bibl. ref
Interview with Martin Murie by Roger Kaye, December 16, 2002
No full textOral history interview with Martin Murie as interviewed by Roger Kaye.
The subject of the interview is Martin's father, Olaus Murie.
Name: Martin Murie
Keywords: History, Employees (USFWS)INTERVIEW WITH MARTIN MURIE
BY ROGER KAYE DECEMBER 16, 2002
MR. KAYE: This is an interview with Martin Murie by Roger Kaye, December 16,
2002. Mr. Murie, thank you for being willing to talk to be about this. I asked you about
your father, and the types of values and ideas that motivated him to work for the
establishment of the Arctic Refuge.
MR. MURIE: Right. Well I up studying Biology and then Philosophy at Berkley and so
on at the time of the struggle for the Arctic Refuge, so I don’t have first hand contact. I
wasn’t really even on the edge of that struggle. But I would like to say that when my
father was the Director of the Wilderness Society his great emphasis, and he told me this
more that once, was to build a grassroots activism across the country in support of
wilderness. His goal, concrete goal anyway, was not to talk wilderness and get other
people talking about it, but use that as a tool to build membership. He refused to go to
Washington you know. He wanted to stay out west on the ranch. That was part of that
whole attitude that it takes masses of people to really make change. I think that was the
basic attitude that he took with him to Alaska.
MR. KAYE: In his advocacy for Arctic Refuge, he emphasized, and I see repeated use of
the phrase, ‘intangible values’. In fact, he writes of saving the intangible values as
embodied in this move to establish the Arctic Range. Do you have a sense of what he
meant by intangible values?
MR. MURIE: Well, that’s a hard one isn’t it? Nowadays we are using the word
‘spiritual’ an awful lot. I think we are overusing the word. Intangible is more of a word,
and I am just guessing now, you’ll have to understand, that he didn’t like to specific
particularly what anybody would get from wilderness. He wanted to keep it open. So
intangible is more of a vague kind of word.
MR. KAYE: He also used the word ‘spiritual’ quite a bit, too in his writings in relation
to this place.
MR. MURIE: Of course, and I think that’s a word that is very hard to pin down, you
know. I can’t specify just where is was, but he once said, “Why don’t we defend
wilderness simply because we like it?” See what I mean? He wasn’t one for trying to
formulate a rule like Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic, although he certainly agreed with that
Land Ethic. In his own work he sort of shied away from getting too involved in the big
Metaphysical defense. In my mind, he was a little more down to earth.
MR. KAYE: I know you told me once before that your father worked closely with quite
a few people, and his ideas were, to some degree, a product of Leopold, Marshall,
Zahniser and other folks. Was Aldo Leopold, do you think a considerable influence on
your father’s thinking?
MR. MURIE: I am not equipped to say that one way or the other. But at that time
there were a lot of people influencing each other. To chose one person as sort of the
David Brower that everybody took the message from would, I think be false to history.
Life is more complex. Rachel Carson later was a great influence on everybody. But they
influenced each other. Rachel read people’s work. They met each other and talked things
over. A lot of that interaction is just lost to history. We don’t know what all happened.
MR. KAYE: Your father uses the word ‘wildness’. That seems to be the context of
most of what he wrote, and certainly in relation to Arctic Refuge. In what sense was
wildness so important to him?
MR. MURIE: Well, again, you’re trying to pin me down to somebody else’s ideas. I am
not equipped to do that. It’s like the word spiritual, or spiritualism. These are very
complex words. It’s very hard to speak for someone else about that.
MR. KAYE: Your father was widely known. In fact, reading in the articles written after
his death the word humility kept reoccurring. Was that pretty much a characteristic of
him, do you think?
MR. MURIE: Yes it was. There’s no question about that. But he had, underneath it all
a strong stubbornness you know. So you get a combination of genuine humility but there
were certain lines he just wouldn’t cross you know. He’d dig his heals in. He didn’t
mind going against the current.
MR. KAYE: Do you recall any of the things he said about the Refuge or the purpose of
it, or what motivated him to work so hard for it?
MR. MURIE: I just refer you back to the fact that I just happened to not be with him or
Mardie during that time. I can only talk about his general attitude towards wilderness all
over the world. He had a great international view of it. He discovered a naturalist in the
Soviet Union who was speaking up for the animals. He went to New Zealand and so on.
He had a global view. And the Arctic was very close, and dear to both him and my
mother. But they also just fought for wilderness everywhere, as much as they could.
MR. KAYE: It’s interesting that you mention the global view. I see in many of his
writings about this place, he refers to the ‘planet Earth’ like this place would help us
understand the universal processes of the Earth. It seems like Arctic Refuge was perhaps
symbolic of a much bigger concern that he had, a global, as you say, lesson or?
MR. MURIE: Well, I think environmentalist feel that way. Don’t you? [They feel]
that’s it’s a global problem and you just work on the parts that you know the most about
and that are close to you. It’s like my mother; she worked on trying to protect the Red
Desert in Wyoming for example. I am sort of a second generation in that struggle. I don’t
know, it seemed to me that Leopold and others did have this global view.
MR. KAYE: After the Range was established there was a question of naming it. There
was a proposal to name it after your father, and he strongly resisted that.
MR. MURIE: Oh, absolutely!
MR. KAYE: After his death, I saw a letter that your mother wrote resisting any effort to
name it after him. Why did your father resist place names like that?
MR. MURIE: Both my father and his brother, my Uncle Adolph just couldn’t stand that
kind of thing. For example, Mount McKinley; here was a sacred mountain to the natives
of Alaska and we come along and name it after a President. No, they were just absolutely
against that sort of thing. I remember once when Zahnsiser and Olaus were talking. I was
just a kid then and I was just a pitcher with big ears. But I remember clearly Zahniser
sort of bringing up the idea that a certain mountain could be named after him if he gave his
permission. I think the USGS as involved in that possibility. And Olaus said right away,
“No, absolutely not Zonny, that’s just out of the question!” I can’t remember his
arguments. It just was the vehemence with which he absolutely refused. It’s also no
secret that my family, when the Murie Center was established in Moose, Wyoming, we
objected to the use of the name.
MR. KAYE: Oh really?
MR. MURIE: Oh yes.
MR. KAYE: And why was that?
MR. MURIE: Well, we didn’t think that either Adolph or Olaus would like it. And we
felt it was an intrusion into our own lives. I guess the rest of the family felt the same way
that Olaus did, that naming that kind of thing after a particular person tends to lead to
kind of idolatry. It’s just not the right kind of thing to do. I could right you a whole book
about it!
MR. KAYE: I wonder if a name is symbolic of something that he resisted then, perhaps
humility or something?
MR. MURIE: Humility was at the basis of it, I am sure of that. The same with my
Uncle. They were both very strong in that. They objected to the egotism of which some
people went into wilderness. They objected very strongly. They grew up in wild
country and spent their lives in it. It wasn’t just something for Adolph, you know.
They lived it.
MR. KAYE: They obviously believed that one should bring a humble approach, and
perhaps; I get the sense from your father’s writings that wilderness was perhaps a lesson
in restraint and humility. It symbolized a larger scale approach we should have towards
nature. Is that correct, do you think?
MR. MURIE: Let’s see, would you repeat that?
MR. KAYE: I was just wondering; wilderness seemed to be a symbol of humility and
restraint towards the natural world. Maybe I am reading something in to your father’s
writings, but that’s the sense that I get.
MR. MURIE: Well that is certainly your privilege. And it could be. Again, I just don’t
like to, right off the bat, try to read his mind on that. He had a kind of a very down to
earth, close to experience view of wilderness. He didn’t like to get involved in high
philosophical doctrine. In all of his writing, he certainly thought it would be good for us
in, as you say spiritual values. He used that word a lot. But he didn’t get too specific
about that, at least when he talked in my hearing. I am not acquainted with all of his
writings.
MR. KAYE: Gee, these are some of the questions I wanted to ask you about. Is there
anything you’d like add about his perspective of wilderness, or the Arctic Refuge, or the
future he saw for it, for example?
MR. MURIE: No, I just would like to emphasize his feelings of humility, and his
wanting a grass roots approach. In fact, he said once and you’ve probably read this
somewhere, I can’t remember where it was, that “This country will never be safe for
wilderness until the American people want it”. I think that is sort of near the bedrock of
his political tactics anyway.
MR. KAYE: I guess in looking at his tactic for the Arctic Refuge it was not very
aggressive compared to say, David Brower and his approach toward “dinosaur Olaus” [?]
MR. MURIE: That brings up another point. Do you know of John Waterman’s work
on Olaus’ life in Alaska?
MR. KAYE: No.
MR. MURIE: Well, he has a contract with a published for not a biography of Olaus, but
a study of his role in Alaska in saving the Arctic Refuge, the political aspects of it.
MR. KAYE: Oh yeah, that’s right, he interviewed me about that this summer.
MR. MURIE: So you know about that?
MR. KAYE: Yeah, it isn’t done yet. He’s still working on it.
MR. MURIE: Well now, what’s your project? Like this interview, what would you do
with all of these interviews?
MR. KAYE:….the influence of say Seton on ….
MR. MURIE: Well, we all, at least two generations of people grew up on Seton. In just
introducing people to the fun of being outdoors and playing Indians. I think he was a
pivotal person in that particular generation. Then the Bureau of Biological Survey and all
those people that got tied up with the Biological Survey and the Journal of Mammalogy
this is part of the talking to each other that contributed to the cultural change that you are
trying to trace down.
MR. KAYE: I read an article that your father published very early called Boyhood
Wilderness. Do you remember that article about his boyhood on the Red River?
MR. MURIE: Yeah, he wrote more than once about that. I think, is the one that you
have the Living Wilderness one?
MR. KAYE: Yeah.
MR. MURIE: I have that one.
MR. KAYE: He traces, and I think he mentions Seton, but also this sense of adventure
like getting out of town and living like an Indian, or imagining he was.
MR. MURIE: That’s right. But see, they got it from Seton. They had his books. Then
when I was growing up, those books were in the library in Jackson Hole.
MR. KAYE: What other books do you think might have influenced your father? Did he
mention any others that were important at that formative time?
MR. MURIE: I can’t speak with great authority on that. I do know that Thoreau was in
the library there when I was growing up. There was Thoreau and Emerson. My father
didn’t read nearly as much as my Uncle did. That was interesting. My Uncle, he’s
another person who is even more modest. He’d talk to a lot of people. People like that
probably had influence too. It’s awful hard to trace it down. Both of those brothers
influenced others and were influenced by others.
MR. KAYE: I look at the word ‘evolution’ as it reoccurs through your father’s writings.
Apparently, he was more interested in preserving natural processes than features or
specific wildlife of places like the Arctic Refuge. Is that your sense?
MR. MURIE: I think he felt that if we lost fauna and flora that it would be a great blow
to evolution. He had sort of a feeling that evolution was a very prized thing. It was a
wonderful discovery. But again, he didn’t want to get all metaphysical about it. He just
liked it that’s all. He thought that maybe it would lead somewhere.
MR. KAYE: In what sense do you mean?
MR. MURIE: I don’t want to put words in his mouth. We did talk about it. Just after
the War we traveled a little together. I was kind of upset, just coming back from Italy,
and he tried to give me some feeling of optimism that no matter how bad things were,
evolution was a part of the Earth’s history and we were evolving towards something
good. I did ask him, “Where are we going?” But he wouldn’t answer that. He didn’t
want to …these things are hard to put into words.
MR. KAYE: Yeah, it is. It interesting. I remember in one paper that was for The
Journal of Wildlife Management or something his last sentence was, “Evolution is our
employer.” Implying I guess that the agencies should consider that instead of just wildlife
and just features.
MR. MURIE: Yeah, I think you’re right. And you could put a philosophical tag on it
and say that he believed I teleology. [?] Philosophically, if you got down to a rigorous
analysis, you’d probably have to say he was a teleologist, and that evolution was
pointing somewhere. It was kind of a Brooksonian approach. But I don’t know why it
is, I hate to pin anybody down that way.
MR. KAYE: Oh yeah.
MR. MURIE: That’s sort of the general area he was in. Most of the time he was just
living life now, and wilderness was something to protect and fight for and enjoy without
worrying about metaphysics.
MR. KAYE: Was he driven in that sense, to use his information to protect place?
MR. MURIE: I don’t know about “driven”. He had certain amount of field data that he
that he certainly used. That’s a kind of a double life that biologists lead. You get
published in a journal, but you also use that data for whatever you’re trying to do as an
environmentalist. He wasn’t really a…just to watch him around the ranch there he
certainly doesn’t give the impression of a “driven” person. But he was always busy. He
was always painting or drawing or writing or just walking around. He didn’t sit around
much.
MR. KAYE: It’s interesting. He worked for the agency that I work for and he left. I
guess circumstances were such that his work wasn’t interpreted as he thought, perhaps,
in terms of the role on predators.
MR. MURIE: Oh, well that was a long running battle that he and Adolph and others too
fought inside the Bureau. But it wasn’t until he was offered the Wilderness Society
Directorship that he actually resigned. That’s the way I remember it. But there was a
tremendous history inside those Bureaus during those times. Leopold and other talking to
each other, and as I say its just lost to history, but a lot of going on.
MR. KAYE: We tracked down a few records of what he wrote about it and he is very
strong about his feelings about the role of predators and especially the Coyote.
MR. MURIE: That’s right, and Adolph was in on that too you know. That’s another
bone in my craw that people talk about Olaus, and they forget about Adolph. They
influenced each other. They worked together all of the time, supporting each other.
Adolph was the Park Service Biologist and Olaus was the Survey Biologist. They both
were in on all of these things.
MR. KAYE: Again Martin, I want to thank you for your time here
The Science of DNA Identification: From the Laboratory to the Courtroom (and Beyond)
No full textKaye, David H.. (2007). The Science of DNA Identification: From the Laboratory to the Courtroom (and Beyond). Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/156336
Recommended from our members
Kaye Bock Award Winners
No full textThe Kaye Bock Award is given to the author (or authors) of the best paper, as determined by the editors, in each issue of the Berkeley Planning Journal that was written by a student (or a team of students). The award is named in loving memory of Kaye Bock to honor her unbounded concern for and commitment to graduate students. This award is also intended to be an eternal expression of gratitude from the Berkeley Planning Journal to Kaye for her critical and caring support during our first two decades of publication. The Kaye Bock Award is accompanied by a $250 cash gift
Interview with Anore Jones by Roger Kaye, December 16, 2002
No full textOral history interview with Anore Jones. Roger Kaye as interviewer.INTERVIEW WITH ANORE JONES
BY ROGER KAYE DECEMBER 16, 2002
MR. KAYE: This is an Oral History interview with Anore Jones who was Anore
Bucknell in 1959. It is conducted in Fairbanks, Alaska by Roger Kaye on December 16,
2002. Anore maybe we can begin with a brief biographical sketch. Maybe you could tell
us where you came from and what brought you to Alaska and what you did here.
MRS. JONES: Actually, I came to Alaska when I was sixteen, after my junior year in
High School in Seattle. I had grown up for six years on a small island, Waldron Island in
the San Juan Islands, which are northwest of Seattle. This island had no ferry, no
electricity and it was actually very pioneer type living. I used horses to farm. I also
milked the cow, raised a garden and fished. I learned a lot of that. I was very tuned in to
the land and farming and subsistence as a child growing up. It gave me a background of
relating very closely to the land, and appreciating it. I went to Alaska a sixteen with an
American Friends Service Committee work camp. It is a silent Quaker’s branch. They
have work camps all over the world. We went to the village of Beaver on the Yukon
River. It’s in the middle of the Yukon Flats. Twenty-five of us, mostly college age and
up lived there for the summer and built thirteen log cabins. It was a relocation for the
village because the river was wearing away their houses. That was my first Alaska
experience. It was light all of the time. It was a new environment with new plants and it
was really exciting. I didn’t really want to go home after that. I went to the University of
Alaska and started in on a special program that let people start without having finished
High School. Celia Hunter was really the person who was instrumental in putting
together that work camp. Hence, she was my contact in Alaska. And she was always
my very dear friend and helped me get started. She was the one. She influenced me a lot,
probably more that any other single person throughout my whole life, or, my time in
Alaska. From that work camp, I didn’t go home. Actually, after the work camp, nine of
us loved it so much we really didn’t want to just jump on a plane and fly back. So with
the help of the villagers in Beaver and their equipment, we put together a log raft and
floated down the Yukon; two hundred and fifty miles to Tanana. We gave the logs to the
Indian Chief there and flew back to Fairbanks. It was an incredible trip to see the
wilderness of Alaska. My start was in a native village learning as fast as I could, in three
months, about the subsistence, food and lifestyle there. Then I was traveling through this
wilderness, the Yukon travels through Rampart. We were camping. My picture of
Alaska was quite different. And again, I didn’t want to go home so I started at the
University in Biology. The next summer, I worked with Celia and Jenny at Camp Denali.
There was a lot of influence there. I was definitely biased on their side in first of all their
camp spirit in trying to let people enjoy the wilderness by traveling there and seeing it.
This was the spirit of Camp Denali. Out of this was growing the budding consciousness
of needing conservation awareness. That’s what they were trying to teach at camp.
They and Les and Terry Garrett and Fred Dean and quite a few others, and us students in
the Biology Lab we’d take our lunches and sit around a table in one room and talk and
visit. That’s how the concept of the Alaska Conservation Society formed and actually
began. There was a lot of very strong feeling about saving the wilderness, and
appreciating it in the first place, and saving it from the atrocities that seemed to be
happening all of the time right close at hand in Alaska. In the news in Alaska and around
the world it was shocking that people has so little sensitivity. And with the energy of the
era, or time, we were indignant. We were incensed. We were highly motivated to take
action and try to do something about it, on whichever front [we could]. Most or many of
us in the group that I was with were also into getting out and camping, hiking and going
mountain climbing and skiing. We were really quite comfortable in getting far out, and
away just like it’s your own backyard. It’s a very different feeling that unfortunately a
lot of people don’t share because when they get away from civilization like roads,
phones, cars and houses they have a fear. It needs to be tamed. It’s not a friendly thing.
We were seeing the wilderness, and we were comfortable in it. We also saw; it’s always
been very important in my life, and continues to be; the cycle, I mean the
interconnectedness of everything. The interconnectedness meaning the soil that grows the
plants that feed the animals, and all of which may feed us. The water cycle and pollution
and the lack of it. The health of the land and the plants and the people and the intense
interconnectedness in a million ways of directions and levels has always been a big theme
of mine. Since Waldron and since everything that’s happened in my life, it’s just very
interconnected. And I think a lot of people miss that sense of how interconnected it is. I
remember a very intense argument with on of my professors about that back in those
days when Biology was taught as studying discreet things as if they were the truth to
themselves, as systems and individuals. I was really arguing that it was worthless to
study this animal unless you studied it in its whole context through time. I mean
everything was related. And, as it turns out, I have to proudly point out; in the forty
years since then, I was right. It has become more and more obvious that it is all
interconnected. I was just able to feel it sooner. That’s what prompted taking action and
trying to do anything possible; stand up and testify, write letters, talk to everybody in
any direction to try and influence saving the health of the wilderness and it’s ecosystems
because of the interconnectedness. And ultimately, it’s all connected to each of us
because the health of this ecosystem we live in determines our health. It is so direct.
Since then, the next summer after that winter when I testified I went up north and worked
on the Cape Thompson Project. That was just a continuation of fighting for preserving
the Arctic Wildlife Range from oil. Way back then, it was obvious; the negative and evil
influence of oil was having in our world. It’s only continued to grow. We were acutely
aware of it long before it was an issue. Even today, it’s continued to be an issue. We
need to get away from the world exploitation, on so many levels. We need to not be
dependent on oil and there are so many other solutions. The next summer I was
employed up north in [sounds like] Temilina north of Point Hope in [unintelligible] in the
Cape Thompson Project.
MR. KAYE: What year was that?
MRS. JONES: It was the summer of 1960. That was just a continuation, only it was a
real battle. It was very serious. I worked with Les and Terry Garret and Les lost his job
over it. Les and I spent the summer talking about the ethics of science. That was some
very acute training I had about the ethics and principals. He lost his job because he
wouldn’t budge on his ethics. In reporting, and doing science for pure science as apposed
to doing paid science, where you were paid to get a certain answer because someone
wanted you to support their theory. That was the lesson of that Project Chariot [?] The
University was paying us to give the answers that they wanted. They didn’t want us to
give them the truth and we were fighting it. The Firecracker Boys, a book, talks about
that. That was the summer of 1960. In 1961 and 1962 during the summers I was in
Colorado. I was assisting Joan Foote, doing her Master’s thesis in the Needles. We
spent six weeks camping out in the Needles. Then I had the opportunity to work with
Dr. John Maher [?] doing an undergraduate research project. They were giving
undergraduates a research project to work on. I studied the downward migration of tree
islands, the wind and Alpine tree islands that grew layers and grew downwind. I did
some climbing. And again, I was pretty well insulated in my own group that was fervent
about ecological issues. But then 1962, during the spring before the second summer in
Colorado six of us climbed Mount McKinley. We did it by skiing through Park for a
week and then climbing up [name] Glacier, up the Carson’s ridge route, which hadn’t
climbed since the glacier had surged. This broke the old trail up there. The trail had been
smooth ice and after the surge it was very broken up glacier, which we were barely able to
find a way through, with all the crevasses from when the glacier dropped. That was
another wonderful experience that took six weeks. Just spending time out in the natural
world, the wilderness, and feeling comfortable and completely at home just like it’s a back
yard. You get a sense of peace, and rightness, and wholeness and satisfaction from being
at home with the land, or in that case, the ice for six weeks. I would wish it for the whole
world. It seems like a human ought to have that by rights, as opposed to the chaos and
political problems that are in the news every day, throughout time it seems like. There is
enough space for us to have that. After that, in 1963 I was really just disgusted with the
way that science dissected everything up and studied it with an agenda
instead of seeing the overall picture. That’s when I was going with Keith. We met
climbing in 1962. And that’s when we dropped out of school and went to Kobuk. We
went up there assisting John Henshaw on a Caribou survey. He was studying the
pressure it took; I forget exactly, but it was something about the Caribou tracks and ice
hardness. It was an obscure piece of science. It was the kind of stuff that was disgusting
as far as the value of it. We went up with him and camped and worked on that. He left
when his project was finished and we just stayed. One day, one month, and one year led
to the next. It wasn’t planned, but it’s just the way life evolved. We built a sod igloo for
the first winter and several winters after that. We lived the winter and did subsistence
living. It was all consuming in the fascination and the effort that it took. The fascination
to learn it and do it and the effort it took. We’d work enough to get the minimal
requirement of food and materials that we needed to live. We also tried to, we were
traveling, sort of playing with the old Eskimo style of, they would move from one food
source to the next. We lived up in Ambler for the winters, where there was fuel. And we
moved down to [sounds like] Coskabu for the summer to work and commercial fish. We
did some spring and fall camps, which again, were following the food. We’d move out of
the winter camp, at Ambler in April by sled and go out and camp over breakup. Then
we’d come back and go to Coskabu for the summer season and return. Then we’d go to a
fall camp for ice fishing. It was a lot of moving and packing and moving and packing.
And traveling, even with our modern gear, it was a lot of work. It was an interesting
lifestyle. Even through the time we were raising two daughters, we were camping and
traveling. It was pretty neat in a lot of ways. Of course the last sixteen years have been
here in southern California. But there was about twenty-three years in the Kobuk.
MR. KAYE: What year did you leave Ambler?
MRS. JONES: We left Ambler in 1986. We had twenty-three years up there, and five
years in Fairbanks.
MR. KAYE: And you live in California now?
MRS. JONES: Right, now we are care taking a ranch in the Sierras with some horses,
cattle and fifty some goats.
MR. KAYE: O.K. well, lets move on to the Arctic Refuge. I am interested in what
motivated people like you who worked to help establish the Refuge. I know that you
offered statements at the Congressional or Senate Hearings here in Fairbanks, as many
others did. The question is; Why did you get involved and was it a motivation to go and
visit the area as a recreationist, or was there some other motivation for you?
MRS. JONES: Again, I guess I jumped from history into sort of the whole thing. I had
hoped, vague hopes perhaps to visit there along with hundreds of other places, but the
real reason was this sense that we have to preserve the natural world for many reasons.
There are two main reasons. One being it’s been running forever, by itself, taking care of
itself, doing just fine and we’d best just leave it do that without messing it up. And the
reason we need this natural world, the wilderness, the land, the ocean, is because it’s our
life support on this Earth. What supports our lives the best is the wisdom of biology
running as it’s done for millennia because it’s doing it right. It is trial and selection and
man cannot improve on that. I guess it is seeing beyond the foolishness that man can fix
things better. We need to protect this because it’s our support. We need to protect the
natural ecosystem. And everything is so interconnected that protecting the Arctic
Wildlife Range is in many ways saving our health and our sanity as humans. That’s
protecting every little bit from being exploited and changed and civilized and having
people that move in and pollute and displace the animals. I guess the pollution has
always been a big thing. I cannot stand the way humanity pollutes the earth that feeds it.
That, in a nutshell, is important.
MR. KAYE: In your testimony, you stated, and I’ll just quote you here you talked
about this golden opportunity to preserve what was described as virgin ecological balance
of this land. You were referring to the proposed Arctic Refuge here. Was ecological
thought on this idea of natural processes prominent in this small group that you had, that
you got together in Fairbanks?
MRS. JONES: It was very strong. We knew it was important. We knew it was right.
And we knew that a lot of people didn’t know that. They needed to know it. I guess
that’s how everyone feels, but we really felt strongly on it.
MR. KAYE: You talked about your disagreement with the kind of biology that previous
type that more or less dissected and was reductionist, rather than looking at the whole,
the interconnectedness like you described. Is that kind of what your focus is, is larger
process in reaction to the more reductionist approach?
MRS. JONES: Right, definitely. Sensing that an ecosystem in order to work has to be
enormous. You can’t take out an acre and save it and say ‘O.K., now we did our part,
let’s pave over the rest’. You need a huge area. People say ‘Oh look at that wasted,
empty land, let’s use it’, but it is doing just what it’s supposed to do. It is recycling
water and growing plants that feed animals, or are harvested. Hopefully an appropriate
amount is harvested. But this gets to the point that I am not sure, I think then, I was
saying that man was the one going in and ruining it, as opposed to all of the rest of the
biology that is there. Since then, after having lived up north in particular, I have a very
different sense about, I would say, the modern civilization as we know it is what has been
changing and wrecking things. Man has been a part of the natural balance since the
beginning of time. The native people that lived before modern contact literally walked all
over every bit of Alaska and the world. They traveled way more than we do today even
with all of our modern help. Because they lived of the land and they traveled constantly.
They had to. They were just like the animals and had to move and be fluid. They were a
piece of the balance that needed to be reckoned with. So, taking man out of the picture;
that’s how we thought in the conservation circles then. Now, I realize that that is not
realistic. Man is a part of the natural balance. It’s just how man interacts that is at
question. The modern technology and thinking given to man today makes him quite
dangerous. Man has always been part of the system.
MR. KAYE: In looking at your testimony here, you offer this variety of reasons, largely
based on natural process for protecting this place. But you don’t even mention
recreation; that it would be a recreational ground. So was your motivation not oriented
towards your use, or potential use?
MRS. JONES: Recreation, I guess I didn’t then and don’t consider recreation like the
word is used because my living and my recreation are not distinguishable. I don’t go do. I
don’t go and take my boat on a trailer and go to a lake and play with it. That’s just not in
my vocabulary. My boat use was because I needed to go from here to there. My
walking, hiking and climbing mountains; that could be recreation, but it didn’t feel like
that. I didn’t use that word. It was more like; “If I am going climbing I am going up there
because I am curious”. I wanted to go up there, or I wanted to spend my time that day
walking. I never thought about it as going to recreate. Most of the time up north in the
Kobuk Valley and Coskabu area in northwest Alaska was what we were doing boating
around, dog sledding around, or whatever, fishing or flying, it wasn’t for recreation. It
was because we were living. The wholeness of life; one the health of life, the health of
growing good food that feeds us and keeping the air and rivers clean. The health of it and
the psychological health, the sanity, the beauty, the peace, the rightness of it the sense of
appropriateness and balance that come from the full ecological circle. The ground
growing plants that feed the animals that give birth that give food that goes back to the
ground. I mean, it’s just that we are biology. We forget it, but we are mammalian biology
basically. And we are part of the cycle very, very deeply. That’s more my sense.
MR. KAYE: Do you think at that time your, I guess, just knowing that a place existed or
would be preserved to maintain those qualities was important, just in knowing it’s there?
MRS. JONES: I think so. I think that’s part of the psychology of it. Knowing that it’s
there. Knowing that it’s working like it’s supposed to work. It’s a resource, and a
treasure. It should be the basis or ground work for everyone, but if we have to put in a
museum, draw lines around it and save a piece, I guess it becomes ever so much more
important to save it.
MR. KAYE: When you folks established the Alaska Conservation Society it was based
largely, I understand, on the notion of setting aside what became the Arctic Refuge; what
was it like, that group you were with? Tell me about some of the people, and what
you’ve described as a youthful idealism and enthusiasm that surrounded this proposal.
MRS. JONES: There was a bunch of students and a bunch of teachers, and some other
people in the community like Jenny and Celia. There was a lot of intense indignation
over wrongs to the precious natural world. There was a lot of sincere in depth talking
about understanding the problem, searching for solutions and realizing that we needed the
help of a lot more people. And there was a lot of problem solving to figure out how we
could help, and what we could do. We needed more people. We needed more
consciousness. There was a lot of idealism, for sure.
MR. KAYE: Who were some of the people? You mentioned Jenny and Celia. Who else?
MRS. JONES: Fred Dean, Jerry [unintelligible], Les and Terry Garrett, were the main
people who I was associated with. There were more because each of them had their
friends. Joan and Bruce Foote, Keith and I. There were quite a few more students but I
can’t remember names of other people.
MR. KAYE: Was George Schaller one of those students?
MRS. JONES: I think I was just after George Schaller’s time. If he was there in 1959, I
wasn’t personally really closely acquainted with him.
MR. KAYE: O. K. He was earlier, in the mid 1950’s.
MRS. JONES: There was David Klein. I am probably forgetting some obvious people,
but those were the people that I most remember, and remember working closely with.
We really did some problem solving and it wasn’t just, it was many, many lunch sessions,
many, many meetings through the years. It gathered energy and it kept growing. The
focus of course was the Arctic Wildlife Range, but there were a lot of other issues that we
had to deal with.
MR. KAYE: Where did you get your information on the Arctic Range? I mean, was it a
movie or books or articles?
MRS. JONES: For me, it was sitting and talking with people who had been there. It was
actually quite abstract for me. A slide show perhaps of those gorgeous pictures of it. It
was very abstract. I have learned a lot since then. There is a lot more than I was aware of
then. My information was mostly from Jenny and Celia. It was all second hand. There
was nothing direct.
MR. KAYE: So you didn’t need to be there yourself to be motivated, or to be concerned
about this place?
MRS. JONES: No, because it was a piece of the wild, natural land that had to be saved.
Whether it was that piece, or northwest Alaska where the Project Chariot was going, or
anywhere, even anywhere on the globe. But we were really into Alaska at that time. It
was what seemed to be most threatened at the moment. It wasn’t because it was that area
in particular. It was because that was the issue of the moment.
MR. KAYE: So the Arctic Refuge represented a bigger concern, you’re saying, that you
folks had?
MRS. JONES: Right.
MR. KAYE: Quoting your testimony again, you made the statement, “Our western
frontier t
Recommended from our members
Learning from success
No full textWorldwide, 40 years ago, universities and colleges in general were not very innovative in how they taught. Innovations, such as they were, tended to ride on the back of technology. For example, from 1969 onwards there were annual conferences, fostered by the US National Science Foundation, of academics interested in using computers in teaching the undergraduate curriculum. Since then the US federal government has promoted innovation through the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education. In the early 1970s, the Nuffield Foundation conducted a survey of innovations in learning and teaching, across the disciplines, in the UK universities and colleges. The Open University was an innovation on a large scale at the time: its methods and materials have been assimilated to some extent by other institutions. In the 1990s the UK government funded the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP) and the Computers in Teaching Initiative (CTI). The latter's more broadly based successor is the Learning and Teaching Support Network, with BEST as one of its 25 nodes. All these and other similar initiatives have helped to promote and raise awareness of successful innovations in universities and colleges, but what are the keys to success? On the basis of the BEST stories, we suggest seven
Context and Implications Document for: Learner Engagement: A Review of Approaches in the Psychology of Education and Art Education
No full textThis guide accompanies the following article: Claire Kinsella, David W. Putwain and Linda K. Kaye, Learner Engagement: A Review of Approaches in the Psychology of Education and Art Education, Review of Education, DOI:10.1002/rev3.306
Recommended from our members
Kaye Bock Student Paper Award
No full textThe Kaye Bock Student Paper Award is given to the author of the paper that is both an outstanding example of scholarship and exemplifies Kaye's commitment to underrepresented issues or peoples. The award is named in loving memory of Kaye Bock to honor her unbounded concern for and commitment to graduate students in the Department of City and Regional Planning. It is also intended as an expression of gratitude from the Berkeley Planning Journal to Kaye for her critical and caring support of the journal during our first two decades of publication. The winner is chosen by the editors of each volume of the Berkeley Planning Journal. The Kaye Bock Student Paper Award is accompanied by a $250 cash gift
- …
