Reply to the Commentary by Dr. John C. Reed

• Published in: ARCTIC
• Main Author: Pruitt, Jr., William O.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: The Arctic Institute of North America 1962
• Subjects: Wildlife habitat; Arctic; Buckley; Subarctic
• Online Access: https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/66628

The Commentary by Reed in Arctic 15:1 expresses opinions not shared by many of those who are interested in the future of the North. The quotation from Robertson, with which Reed agrees, is virtually a touch-stone for those engaged in the exploitative and extractive industries, whether in the arctic, temperate, or tropical zones. It is also, in my opinion, quite outdated. For example, it was formerly believed that the extractive industries were the mainstay of the non-military Alaskan economy, yet Buckley clearly showed that the financial return from fisheries and wildlife is greater. . Perhaps the greatest obstacle to a balanced program of research on northern resources are inappropriate temperate zone concepts. All permanent human occupancy of land (as Dr. Bader points out) is based on local use of renewable resources. In the temperate zone man can get away with such misuse of the land as strip-mining and burning forests so as to expose the country rock because vegetational succession is relatively rapid and the land can recover. In the Arctic and Subarctic all schemes for exploitation and use must be rigidly controlled because the consequences of misuse (through faulty application of traditional temperate zone procedures) are extreme and long-lasting. The temperate zone concept of laissez-faire in regard to everyday use of renewable resources is a dangerous concept for the Arctic and Subarctic. .