I'd like to share a little thinking I've been having lately. I don't even know exactly how this is going to come out in the end, but I'm going to give it a try in writing it down. I'm just writing this, for the most part, off the top of my head, without references. Just my opinion. Well - here goes.

Natural is one of those words that humans like. We are a part of nature, whether we like it or acknowledge it or even are aware of it. And nature can be a pain in the ass, especially when mosquitos bite, or tornados flatten cities, or Tsumani's wash away whole regions, or earthquakes shake apart large parts of continents. Oh yeah, let's not forget, war, slavery, exploitation.

But then again, nature creates spring, beautiful flowers, birth, animals, sunsets, sunrises, fogs, snow, beautiful mountains and canyons, and on and on. It creates love, and admiration, and art and excellence.

All in all, most people associate with nature. They want to be natural, feel natural, eat natural, dress natural. And for good reason. To be in tune with nature can be a great thing. It's, well, just the natural thing to do.

Wouldn't you know it, but people wanting to sell things have figured out that people like natural things, and that if their products are perceived as "natural" they can probably sell more of them. Once products started being sold as "natural" and were selling well, the flood gates were open. Now everything is natural, whether it really is or not.

It's bad enough when it deals with food. But, if you are educated about your foods, you can keep from getting duped. For example, a wild blackberry is natural. A box of commercial processed breakfast cereal, such as cheerios, well, let's just say it's much less, regardless of any legal definitions of natural and what companies will say about their own products. Something that grinds up foods and reprocesses them in factories - well, that isn't my view of "natural." And, to tell you the truth, I was never fooled by any fake butter, and I'm sure that "mother nature" wasn't either. But there it is on the box! "Natural!"

To me, when I hear the word natural, my gut reaction has always been to think of something that has come about not because of humans.

A typical example of something natural would be the Grand Canyon. It's millions of years old, but man didn't make it. It was made by the force of time. A typical example of something not natural would be...let's see....how about gasoline? We all use that, and that comes from refineries. That's about as far from natural as you can get.

But it isn't just food where "natural" comes to play. Natural has become an important factor in consideration of management of "public" lands.

There are lots of public lands in the US. They come in lots of varieties. City parks, County parks, State parks, state conservation areas, state natural areas, state forests, state wildlife management areas, national forests, national wildlife refuges, national parks, corps of engineers land, and on and on.

It's hip now to manage your land in a "natural" state. But how can you manage land in a natural state? TVA went so far when it controlled the Land Between Lakes national recreation area as to put in their management plan that a lot of the land was to be designated as "managed natural." I never did completely understand the concept.

In Illinois, my home state, there are designated "natural areas." These are designated under a state law. That state law contains the following language:

"All areas within the State except those that are expressly designated by law for preservation and protection in their natural condition are liable to be altered by human activity. Natural lands and waters together with the plants and animals living thereon in natural communities are a part of the heritage of the people. They are of value for scientific research, for teaching, as reservoirs of natural materials not all of the potential uses of which are now known, as habitats for rare and vanishing species, as places of historic and natural interest and scenic beauty and as living museums of the native landscape wherein one may envision and experience primeval conditions in a wilderness‑like environment. They also contribute generally to the public health and welfare and the environmental quality of the State."

This statement is an acknowledgement that just about all of the state is "altered by human activity" and that the natural areas are supposed to not be like that. They are supposed to be kept in "primeval" conditions. One definition I found for primeval, which is pretty consistent with all of the definitions that I have read, is "Of or resembling the earliest ages in the history of the world."

So what a responsibility the Illinois state legislature put on that land - to resemble the earliest ages in the history of the world. But, we know that isn't possible. The environment has changed so many times since them, that we don't even know what things were like at the earliest ages of history. We've had ice ages, floods, droughts, and who knows what all. And many times with ecological questions, the devil is in the details, and little of that has been recorded - humans didn't even exist! And surely the state legislature knew that. Didn't they?

But on a common sense level, in the most "natural" use of the word "natural," (in regard to "natural areas") it would mean pieces of land that haven't been logged, farmed, built upon, had roads or towns put on them, etc. - a condition where man has not interfered in any major way with the ecological succession of the land. And the Illinois law provides for a process to make it (supposedly) very difficult if not impossible to alter than unaltered condition. And while the act does provide for plans to be developed (a rather secretive process) which include providing for "management" of the areas, the first two words in the phrase in the act describing the overall function of these plans are "preservation" and "protection." Any "management" must be for these purposes only.

It's common knowledge in the lingo of the public land management debate that "preservation" has a certain meaning. It, to an extent, in the lingo, runs opposite to "conservation." Preservation means that you don't do much to the land - just let it go along on it's own. Conservation, on the other hand, means active management to provide products from the land.

Again, this has evolved somewhat since the Natural Areas Act was passed, but there is no doubt that when the legislature used the terms "preservation and protection" as the first two functions of plans for natural areas, it meant to indicate that limiting disturbance is first and foremost.

So how have the governmental agencies dealt with trying to keep these designated natural areas "primeval?" First, they changed the definition of primeval. They arbitrarily determined that "natural" (or primeval) is "presettlement," meaning before European settlement, which, they date at about the early 1800s. The biggest problem with this is that is not pre-settlement. In fact, it's after settlement had already been occurring for many decades.

Nevertheless, agencies like the Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources rely on dates when surveyors laid out the townships and sections, in southern Illinois, about 1804 or 1805 as to what is "natural." Trouble is, the details have been lost or never recorded. But basically, that is what the IDNR and other agencies set forth as their standard for what is "natural." I can't say I agree with that.

And can you believe it, in every case, in the last 200 years since then, the landscape has changed! Wow, what a coincidence. Nevermind what is causing the changes. The important thing is to try and put the environment back to how it was in 1804-05. That's what the thinking is. And wouldn't you know it - the way you do that is to alter nature - the very thing that the natural areas act is trying to protect these areas from.

Some of the changes that have occurred in these natural areas are simply "natural." Trees grow, plants and animals that have been there for a long time continue to survive, and earthquakes, landslides, etc. either have or have not altered the shape of the landscape.

But these areas don't have concrete walls around them that block out all outside influence. In fact, there are no borders in reality. Just air. And so, there is always an influx and outflow of things in any given piece of landscape. I see it on my place all the time. Certain things pass through - don't stay. They mix in for a while with what is here.

But there are cases when new things come in and stay. Plants do it more frequently, but animals do it too. That's been going on forever, but at a much slower rate than now - primarily because humans have mastered pretty rapid global travel which is moving these plants and animals around with them.

Some of these get into "natural areas." No one plants them, (hopefully), they just distributed in some other way - either by animals, wind, rain, streams. Sometimes, there almost seems like there is some magic to it because some species can just show up in mass.

So, when this occurs, you now have a new species which comes in which is not in the 1804-05 chart for what is "natural." Under the rule that only this condition is what constitutes "natural" then those plants must go. But, in order to eliminate them, humans have to alter the environment, something that the Act strongly prohibits.

So some rule has to give in this situation. I don't buy the whole theory that 1804-05 landscapes (whatever the details of those were) are the definition of natural. There is great uncertainty as to what that landscape and indigenous culture was like at that time, so any attempt to characterize the time is going to be filled with much conjecture and personal bias. In addition, environments change, without or without humans. There is no such thing as a static environment, especially in the temperate zone. And, as I said before, the settlement had begun long before that - the landscapes had already begun to be influenced by that. That time period certainly doesn't qualify as "primeval" do you think?

People in control of administering these lands, though, operate by it. They should be operating by the law instead. Remember the Illinois Natural Areas Act? It says that almost of all Illinois is "liable to be altered by human activity" and that natural areas would be "preserved and protected."

This is where the conflict in the law and what the land administrators are doing become very obvious to me. There is no doubt that if you read through the whole act, that the act provides that a plan be developed for administering these natural areas. And the act allows "management." But, the Act already provides, in the very first sentence, that the purpose of "expressly designating" natural areas is for their "preservation and protection." "Preservation and protection" of natural areas is in contravention of lands (most of the state) that are "liable to be altered by human activity."

So, any management has to be for the purpose of "preservation and protection." It certainly shouldn't be a human activity that alters the landscape, at least not one that leaves any kind of noticeable impact.

Yet, these land administrators are burning these areas, with fires started with multiple ignition points, and dozens of active humans carrying out the activity. They cut trees, or girdle them. They even spray herbicide compounds into the environment, even though it takes humans carrying in spray tanks (or who knows, maybe ATVs) and operating them. It also takes refineries to refine these complex compounds that are the active and inert ingredients in these plant poisons. These compounds aren't found in nature - at least until humans put oil and who knows what through refineries.

All of this human activity is occurring on natural areas. It is altering the land. It isn't natural. In many cases, it to try and protect a single species, or maybe a few. No doubt that in a changing environment, species responses will change. Biodiversity is worth recognizing and considering, but first, we have to learn how to define it. Efforts to keep species from becoming extinct have been fruitful in some cases. But, the actions need to be minimal and targeted. As Al Gore used to say (and now Obama has used it), "you shouldn't use an axe when a scalpel is what is needed."

Unfortunately, the same people who are paid to make the decisions to carry about these activities are the same ones paid to carry them or see that they are carried out. That creates a financial incentive to do things. If you "preserve" land, you don't need to do anything. There's a budget incentive to actively "manage", and that is conflicting with sound judgment on just what the purpose of any management of these areas should be.

Agencies like the Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources, or the Forest Service, are trying to dupe the public into thinking that they can "manage" "natural areas." They've put a lot of resources into public relations to try and convince the public of that. It's not much different than some company using industrial grown corn and industrial grown palm oil, grinding that corn up into a powder, mixing it with the oil, baking it in gigantic industrial ovens, and then bagging them, would put on their label "natural." It's because we want to be natural, and they are exploiting that desire. They don't fool me. I know what natural is because I live in it. Humans burning, cutting down trees, and spraying herbicides isn't it, I'll guarantee you that. And I'll take the wild blackberry anyday over the Cheerio, even if I might get scratched reaching for it.

In the end, all of the alterations on the landscape that these people are doing will become obvious, and everyone is going to know that they aren't natural anymore. The sad thing is what we will lose in the meantime.