greenlight - Citizen Journalism onEarth

Editor's Picks |  Read All Community Posts

Lessons From A River

A river in the Castkills

This is a story of stories.

It is about one night on a river. It is a story about listening, about healing and about nature. This story is the reason I am here, now, talking to you.

A few weeks ago, I drove with my father up to the Catskill Mountains in northwest New York. We were to stay at The Brooklyn Club, an old fly fishing club tucked into the bank of the little branch of The Beaverkill River.

We had come with the expectation of chasing trout. And that we did. But it wasn't the fish that mattered; it was what happened in the quiet spaces in between.

To pull into the club is to settle back in time. There is no parking lot, no sign. The flag pole is still hewn from the same tree, the face of the cabin still worn past the recognition of red, and the spring still giving forth water so cold enough to make your teeth brittle.

In writing about this club, Sparse Grey Hackle, a famous angling author, called his story "The Lotus Eaters" for the way nothing ever changed. He's largely right. The kerosene lamps still flicker over stories by the fire and the beds are still built logs. Into these, the initials of old members and guests are carved -- a tapestry of people made familiar through a simple gesture.  Standing on the porch, I ran my hand over my own initials, and those of my father's. When he got sick, they were still there. When he is gone, I will likely stand there again, and reach out and remember his place.

It is a place he has taught me -- the comfort of standing knee deep in a river.

That evening, I made the familiar trek down the arching gravel pathway to the river's edge. The river water was clear, the evening warm, and the bugs -- food for trout, good news for fishermen -- hatching.

Turning upstream, I left the path and stepped in the river, favoring the push of cold water against my legs. I left it only to hop over a rock, or take cover under the low branches of a tree.  

I stopped in the middle of Flood Run -- a long stretch of river interrupted by a healthy scattering of boulders, laid as though a hand tossed coins into a pool on a whim. On one side is a grassy bank, on the other gravel. Upstream the pool disappears around a corner marked by fast water, so all you can do is listen to confirmation of constancy. Below is a knoll of high grass onto which deer often emerge, stand and stare back at you in recognition.

Up in the air, silhouetted against a clear sky, I could see the feint outline of such bug species as Blue Winged Olives, Sulfurs and Caddis. Each was dancing out their own riddle, spinning and diving, waiting to mate, having molted, and then to die.

Down on the water, the surface was speckled with the silent rise of trout. Sometimes a tail visible, sometimes a shiny back. But often no indication of what lies beneath. Just a circular disruption, soon erased from the blackboard.

Here, then -- in between the visible sky and unsolved motion beneath -- is the fishermen's place. It is our place to watch, listen and learn. The better fishermen are the ones who know the narrative written onto a river each night. They know the evening opens as the temperature cools. That the characters are predictable only by the season, not the day. That the themes of this story are always birth, temptation and death in arresting succession. Only those fishermen who can read the air and the water correctly participate in performing that particular evening's story.

The rewards are a captured in an instant. When the surface turns and the line tightens with the force of a fish there is a moment -- silent and solitary -- in which there is nothing. And then, suddenly, there is everything again.

It is in these moments that a pair of promises are made. One is constancy. The other is conservation. Only one of these promises is mine to make, but I have committed myself to both.

For this is how I came to understand nature. As a riddle, a promise, a force and a shared vision that something beyond ourselves is not only possible, but enduring.  This is a belief born of a landscape. I have waded the waters of many rivers around the world, and found them to tell similar stories, and to make similar promises.

You could say that I came to fly fishing through books. My dad has written about fishing, as have many of our friends. Our house is filled with books about rivers the world over. While its certainly true that I've learned about fishing through them, I feel like it's properly the other way around. Fishing taught me about stories. Before I could read I could fish. I joke that my father took my last diaper off of me and placed a fly rod in my hand. Thing is, it's not far from the truth.

If ever there can be an explanation for why we fill our days with tasks, this is mine. I write about the environment to reenact the lessons learned on the river -- of observation, of self education and of translation. Of quiet connection.

There is a another, more personal reason: it's the best way I know to help protect the rivers, mountains and coastlines I care about. I'm talking about the quiet places constantly under threat. In sharing their story, I hope you might come to care enough about them too.

Walking back from the river that night under cover of dusk, I retraced a path I would mark many times again. I took off my boots by the flickering light of the kerosene lamp, wiped the sweat from my brow under the spring and, as I walked towards the warm glow of the dining cabin, ran my hand along the rough edges of the names marked on the wall.

I settled down to the dinner table to listen to my father and his friend who had been fishing down stream. I heard their stories of bugs, fish and water. They had been nearly a mile down river, wading through water that passed between my legs only minutes before. But they had been in a completely different river blessed with more bugs and more fish. It was another chapter, written by older, more experienced hands.

By night's end, who had caught what didn't matter. We sat in front a fire and shared our stories. From the wall, worn faces of the club's founders looked down. For a moment that stretched for an hour, there were together, leaning out, listening.

(Photo provided courtesy of Zero-X @ flickr. Used under the Creative Commons license.)

Back to blog post

Comments

  • Kelly M. wrote on July 06, 2009, 10:14AM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    A beautiful story, and an insightful one. I really like your point regarding the promises of constancy and conservation. Its so easy slip into the mentality that we humans hold nature and all of its components in a world of our own construction--indeed, so many of our proposed solutions to environmental challenges reflect just this. But it is just as you describe, a fragile, tense, and often capricious relationship that direct experience alone can illuminate. Its humbling, to fit ourselves into this larger story, but absolutely necessary. Thanks for sharing.

  • Steven Earl Salmony wrote on July 08, 2009, 07:56AM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    Lesson from the oceans.........

    Imagine for a moment that we are looking at an ocean wave, watching it move toward the shore where it crashes finally at our feet. The wave is moving toward us; however, at the same time, there are many molecules in the wave that are moving in the opposite direction, against the tide. If we observe that the propagation of the human species worldwide is like the wave and the reproduction numbers of individuals in certain locales are like the molecules, it may be inaccurate for the latter to be looked at as if it tells us something meaningful about the former.

    Abundant research indicates that most countries in Western Europe, among many other countries globally, have recently shown a decline in their rates of human population growth. These geographically localized data need not blind us to the fact that the absolute global human population numbers are skyrocketing. The world’s human population is like the wave; the individual or localized reproduction numbers are like the molecules.

    Perhaps a “scope of observation” problem is presented to everyone who wants to adequately understand the dynamics of human population numbers.

    Choosing a scope of observation is a forced choice, like choosing to look at either the forest or the trees, at either the propagation numbers of the human species (the wave data) or localized reproduction numbers (the molecular data). Data regarding the propagation of absolute global human population numbers is the former while individual or localized reproduction data are the latter.

    From this vantage point, the global challenge before humanity could be a species propagation problem. Take note that global propagation numbers do not vary with the reproduction data. That is to say, global human propagation data and the evidence of reproduction numbers of individuals in many places, appear to be pointing in different directions. The propagation data are represented by the wave; the reproduction data are represented by the molecules moving against the tide.

    In the year 1900 world’s human population was approximately 1.2 to 1.6 billion people. With the explosive growth of the global human population over the 20th century in mind (despite two world wars, ubiquitous local conflicts, famine, pestilence, disease, poverty, and other events resulting in great loss of life), what might the world look like in so short a period of time as 41 years from now? How many people will be on the planet at that time? The UN Population has recently made its annual re-determination that the world’s human population will reach 9.2 billion people around 2050, and then somehow level off. No explanation is given for how this leveling-off process is to occur.

    We can see that the fully anticipated growth of absolute global human population numbers is about 8 billion people for the 150 year period between 1900 and 2050.

    Whatever the number of human beings on Earth at the end of the 21st century, the size of the human population on Earth could have potentially adverse impacts on the number of the world’s surviving species, on the rate of dissipation of Earth’s resources, and on the basic characteristics of global ecosystems.

    For too long a time human population growth has been comfortably viewed by politicians, economists and demographers as somehow outside the course of nature. The potential causes of global human population growth have seemed to them so complex, obscure, or numerous that a strategy to address the problems posed by the unbridled growth of the human species has been assumed to be unknowable. Their preternatural, insufficiently scientific grasp of human population dynamics has lead to widely varied forecasts of global population growth. Some forecasting data indicate the end to human population growth soon. Other data suggest the rapid and continuous increase of human numbers through Century XXI and beyond.

    Recent scientific evidence appears to indicate that the governing dynamics of absolute global human population numbers are indeed knowable, as a natural phenomenon. According to unchallenged scientific research, the population dynamics of human organisms is essentially common to, not different from, the population dynamics of other organisms.

    To suggest, as many politicians, economists and demographers have been doing, that understanding the dynamics of human population numbers does not matter, that the human population problem is not about numbers, or that human population dynamics have so dizzying an array of variables as not to be suitable for scientific investigation, seems not quite right.

    If I may continue by introducing an extension of my perspective.

    According to the research of Russell Hopfenberg,Ph.D., and David Pimementel, Ph.D., global population growth of the human species is a rapidly cycling positive feedback loop in which food availability drives population growth and this recent, astounding growth in absolute global human numbers gives rise to the misperception or mistaken impression that food production needs to be increased even more.

    Data indicate that the world’s human population grows by approximately two percent per year. All segments of it grow by about 2%. Every year there are more people with brown eyes and more people with blue ones; more people who are tall and more short people. It also means that there are more people growing up well fed and more people growing up hungry. The hungry segment of the global population goes up just like the well-fed segment of the population. We may or may not be reducing hunger by increasing food production; however, we are most certainly producing more and more hungry people.

    Hopfenberg’s and Pimentel’s evidence suggests that the magnificently successful efforts of humankind to increase food production in order to feed a growing population has resulted and continue to result in even greater human population numbers.

    The perceived need to increase food production to feed a growing population is a widely shared and consensually validated misperception, a denial both of the physical reality and the space-time dimension. If people are starving at a given moment of time, increasing food production cannot help them. Are these starving people supposed to be waiting for sowing, growing and reaping to be completed? Are they supposed to wait for surpluses to reach them? Without food they would die. In such circumstances, increasing food production for people who are starving is like tossing parachutes to people who have already fallen out of the airplane. The produced food arrives too late; however, this does not mean human starvation is inevitable.

    Consider that human population dynamics are not biologically different from the population dynamics of other species. Human organisms, other species and even microorganisms have essentially similar population dynamics. We do not find hoards of starving roaches, birds, squirrels, alligators, or chimpanzees in the absence of food as we do in many “civilized” human communities today because these non-human species are not annually increasing their food production capabilities.

    Please take note that among tribal peoples in remote original habitats, we do not find people starving. Like non-human species, “primitive” human beings live within the carrying capacity of their environment. History is replete with examples of early humans and more remote ancestors not increasing their food production annually, but rather living successfully off the land for thousands upon thousands of years as hunters and gatherers of food.

    Prior to the agricultural revolution and the production of more food than was needed for immediate survival, human numbers supposedly could not grow beyond their environment’s physical capacity to sustain them because global human population growth or decline is primarily determined by food availability. Looked at from a global population perspective, more food equals more human organisms; less food equals less human organisms; and, in one and all cases, no food equals no humans.

    Thank you.

    Steven Earl Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
    http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176

  • hellaD wrote on July 11, 2009, 01:39PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    I can feel the peace and stillness coming through in the writing of this article. It reminds me of Derrick Jensen's book A Language Older than Words. It is so important to take time to listen to what nature is saying.

  • Ben Carmichael wrote on July 11, 2009, 02:35PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    Thanks your comments, all.

    Your comment has reminded me to order "A Language Older than Words." It's been on my reading list for years. Thanks for the nudge.

    Best,
    Ben

Comment on this post
OnEarth is a quarterly magazine of thought and opinion on the environment. OnEarth and the Greenlight blog are open to diverse points of view; the opinions expressed by contributors, online commenters, and the editors are their own and not necessarily those of NRDC.


Subscribe to Magazine | Site Map | About OnEarth | All Authors | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Media Kit | Contact the Editors | NRDC Home

NRDC