Environmentalists vs. Conservationists

[Oldwyoelkhunter]

A historical perspective

The definition OC Hunter presented is the one I learned in my Wildlife management classes way back when. I am now a retired state wildlife biologist 40 years later and it still is the one I ascribe to.

Wildlife courses back then were attended and taught largely by folks who loved hunting and fishing and passionately wanted to help assure that wildlife populations were managed wisely, including use whenever possible. It was the rare hunter who didn't consider himself or herself a conservationist and was proud of the fact.

During the 70's the idea of conservation was hijacked by those that were largely preservationists. Although there is a distinct difference between the traditional idea of conservation and today's environmentalism the media has blurred the difference. The former is practical and science based while the latter is largely emotional and not always based on science.

As a result it is often difficult or impossible now to sell sound conservation practices to the public because they confuse conservation with the whacko environmentalism so frequent in the news. Even many hunters "the first conservationists" are starting to see sound conservation through the same inaccurate filter. Conservation has lost its well deserved credibility as a result. When this happens with hunters it saddens me deeply.

Many hunters like myself tend to be politically conservative but more and more we see conservative pundits squarely against wise management of natural resources. It's puzzling because what is more conservative than wisely using our valuable natural resources?

 

[noharleyyet]

The definition OC Hunter presented is the one I learned in my Wildlife management classes way back when. I am now a retired state wildlife biologist 40 years later and it still is the one I ascribe to.

Wildlife courses back then were attended and taught largely by folks who loved hunting and fishing and passionately wanted to help assure that wildlife populations were managed wisely, including use whenever possible. It was the rare hunter who didn't consider himself or herself a conservationist and was proud of the fact.

During the 70's the idea of conservation was hijacked by those that were largely preservationists. Although there is a distinct difference between the traditional idea of conservation and today's environmentalism the media has blurred the difference. The former is practical and science based while the latter is largely emotional and not always based on science.

As a result it is often difficult or impossible now to sell sound conservation practices to the public because they confuse conservation with the whacko environmentalism so frequent in the news. Even many hunters "the first conservationists" are starting to see sound conservation through the same inaccurate filter. Conservation has lost its well deserved credibility as a result. When this happens with hunters it saddens me deeply.

Many hunters like myself tend to be politically conservative but more and more we see conservative pundits squarely against wise management of natural resources. It's puzzling because what is more conservative than wisely using our valuable natural resources?

Excellent post.

 

[BuzzH]

Although there is a distinct difference between the traditional idea of conservation and today's environmentalism the media has blurred the difference. The former is practical and science based while the latter is largely emotional and not always based on science.

I would like to respond to this, mainly because I see no reason to discredit one over the other...as long as both aren't taken to extremes. When you care about resources, landscapes, etc. its pretty darn tough to take emotion out of it...when we do, then how much do we really care?

Recently, I read something very similar, in Bud Moore's book "The Lochsa Story" that I believe applies:

"This is not a matter of applied science versus human emotions. We need both. Contemporary scientific knowledge, important as it is, represents but a small fraction of the enlightenment needed to fully understand and appreciate the biotic and abiotic workings of any place. There is plenty of room for, indeed an absolute need for, insights from the heart and soul and for that feeling that comes from intimate association with whole and healthy land. Many problems, both past and present, in the Lochsa, were not caused by lack of knowledge but instead resulted from an illusion that we knew much more than we did about the land...and that suggests to me that we should be conservative when harvesting resources"

As a result it is often difficult or impossible now to sell sound conservation practices to the public because they confuse conservation with the whacko environmentalism so frequent in the news. Even many hunters "the first conservationists" are starting to see sound conservation through the same inaccurate filter. Conservation has lost its well deserved credibility as a result. When this happens with hunters it saddens me deeply.

I agree, but feel there are places like this, where hunters still have a chance to educate the public and restore credibility to conservation and what it means. The media can be a constructive tool...as much as it can be destructive at times.

Many hunters like myself tend to be politically conservative but more and more we see conservative pundits squarely against wise management of natural resources. It's puzzling because what is more conservative than wisely using our valuable natural resources?

I think this is a direct result of the pundits not applying either emotion or science to their platforms. Everything is all or or nothing.To get their way, they have politicized and polarized the issue into a way of thinking that we simply CANT wisely use natural resources and must pick a side. Either lock it all up, or slick the resources for every last bit profit. Sadly, a large percentage of the American Public have chosen a side, rather than trying to work together.

BTW, great post!

 

[Gunner46]

The definition of either doesn't negate the other. It's the actions taken by those who espouse to one definition opposing the actions of others, whom don't adhere to the first mentioned, self-proclaimed stewardship, that creates a conflict, usually divided along a political line.

 

[Big Fin]

Since this thread started, I have encountered a very interesting situation with regards to the "other side" being upset that hunters might lay claim to the term "conservation." It gets back to my post earlier in this thread about them being rather chameleon-like. Here is the background.

Over the last two years I have helped some guys put together a non-profit that is going to do some big things for conservation. They have their 501(c)(3) letter; they have jumped through all the hoops. Two of the big conservation groups and one big industry company have agreed to be the founding partners. It will be launched later this fall and you will read about it on this website.

At the advice of a patent attorney, it was suggested to reach out to an environmental group that raises funds in a similar manner, but does so strictly in the environmental world. The purpose of such was to let them know that this new non-profit would be using a similar business model and that the new group would be filing for trademarks, etc, related to conservation, rather than environmentalism. That contact was made over the last few months and it has resulted in some interesting discussions.

The existing group's trademark applications are all "environment," "environmentalists," "environmentalism." No doubt, they wanted to lay claim to the world they operate in, environmental issues. Nothing in their marks. their literature, or their applications says a word about conservation, conservationist, etc.

The environmental group has informed this new group that if they don't change their name, wording, etc, and get rid of conservation as a hunting term, they will most likely contest any trademark filings the new group submits. They want to protect the public turf of conservation, even though all their literature, their trademark apps, all say "environmental."

I've been meeting with the new guys over the last couple weeks to discuss strategy on this new issue. My advice is to tell the environmental group to take a number and stand in line if they want to contest something. The enviro group laid claim to the world of environmentalism and did a good job of doing so in their legal documents. For them to now get protective and try to say that conservation is the same as environmentalism is not only a long stretch, but is turf I think hunters should defend.

These groups know that the word environmentalism has grown to be a four letter word in American lexicon. The abuses "environmental groups," mostly litigation groups, have interjected to the process has taken what was a good idea and soured Americans on the notion. Now, they want to claim they are conservationists and try grow a new identity.

Bullshit. They are as much conservationists as Hitler was a human rights advocate. I completely understand their motives for wanting to stake claim to the identity hunters have formed of the notion of conservation in America. But, I'm not inclined to let them put their stakes in the ground without pulling them up and resetting them where they belong; on the island of environmentalism.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I like to hunt and I love wild country. I want my water to be clean and I want my children to enjoy the same blessing and bounty that I enjoy. I also want to see renewable resources such as logging used in a responsible manner to provide economic stability for local residents. I don't know if I'm an environmentalist or conservationist or what. But it does look like I'm going to have to contact that same patent attorney that Big Fin referenced to see if I can get a trademark on the word "is". Perhaps I can hire one of our former POTUS to help me define its meaning.

 

[Gunner46]

"How you see war will be influenced by whether you are a participant or home watching it on your TV."

No truer words have been spoken.

God forbid that any more of us ever know this participation, and God too, only knows how much of our country would stop to think before they jumped on a PC bandwagon, if they had.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Excellent post, Oldwyoelkhunter!

Many hunters like myself tend to be politically conservative but more and more we see conservative pundits squarely against wise management of natural resources.

I agree and as an oldmontelkhunter, I have voted as a Republican most of my life, but the conservative Republican legislators in Montana have caused me and many others in recent years to exclaim, "They are making a Democrat out of me!"due to conservative lawmakers setting squarely against critical conservation and public lands protection.

 

[kenton]

Wildlife courses back then were attended and taught largely by folks who loved hunting and fishing and passionately wanted to help assure that wildlife populations were managed wisely, including use whenever possible.

I really appreciate this perspective Oldwyoelkhunter, and I can certainly tell you this has changed drastically. In my wildlife courses (all within the past ten years) it was about an even 50/50 split between the "hunters" and the "huggers". And let me tell you, there was a very defined separation between the two groups. Most "hunters" never talked to "huggers" and visa versa, but I always tried to take a different approach and see why each side felt the way they did. Now, to be fair, I certainly wasn't dealing with the extremes on either side but in my opinion the main difference is the perception each group has of each other. "Hunters" thought that all "huggers" were adamantly opposed to any and all consumptive activities. What I discovered was that most "huggers" weren't against hunting because it was consumptive, but rather because they weren't brought up around it. Some people might think it is a bad sign that people not brought up around hunting don't like it but I think the fact that people not involved in hunting are still drawn to the natural world. They just haven't yet figured out what we all know; hunting IS natural. On the other side, "huggers" thought that all "hunters" were guys driving around in pick-ups shooting anything that moves all the while with a beer in hand. This is were the most hunters can really help the cause (cause we can't all have TV shows, lol). It is vitally important that we can coherently articulate to the non-hunting population that we do care about the natural world but recognize that hunting is a natural part of it. At the same time, we must also strive to separate ourselves from "sportsman" that give hunting a bad name.

Yes, the environmentalists and conservationists are different because we don't realize how similar we are (extremes of both sides excluded).

 

[teamhoyt]

Great thread. Jr has it figured out. Gather both sides around plates of red meat and mashed potatoes. You can't really blame the environmentalists for their way of thinking with all those preservatives they put in tofu.

 

[NKQualtieri]

The definition OC Hunter presented is the one I learned in my Wildlife management classes way back when. I am now a retired state wildlife biologist 40 years later and it still is the one I ascribe to.

Wildlife courses back then were attended and taught largely by folks who loved hunting and fishing and passionately wanted to help assure that wildlife populations were managed wisely, including use whenever possible. It was the rare hunter who didn't consider himself or herself a conservationist and was proud of the fact.

During the 70's the idea of conservation was hijacked by those that were largely preservationists. Although there is a distinct difference between the traditional idea of conservation and today's environmentalism the media has blurred the difference. The former is practical and science based while the latter is largely emotional and not always based on science.

As a result it is often difficult or impossible now to sell sound conservation practices to the public because they confuse conservation with the whacko environmentalism so frequent in the news. Even many hunters "the first conservationists" are starting to see sound conservation through the same inaccurate filter. Conservation has lost its well deserved credibility as a result. When this happens with hunters it saddens me deeply.

Many hunters like myself tend to be politically conservative but more and more we see conservative pundits squarely against wise management of natural resources. It's puzzling because what is more conservative than wisely using our valuable natural resources?

Thanks for this post, OlWyo

This is one of my favorite things to think about within hunting and on the periphery of it, where I know there are plenty of people who'd be willing to support hunting if they understood the history and ethic behind it and were able to put human faces to what we think of as the sporting life, regardless of their political beliefs.

My general belief is that we're all going to have to figure out how to find more common ground. That hopefully amid all of this political extremism on both sides of the spectrum a more moderate movement is born.

How do we facilitate a conversation at all when many people have such vitriolic opinions of the other side?

That's the main problem we have to solve, because once everyone gets past the blinders and the stereotypes and the assumptions, there are actual breathing human beings behind all of these labels, and once we all pull away from the groupthink, we're able to have that conversations that can potentially change hearts and minds.

The internet is bad for this. The way any of it happens is face-to-face. Over a beer or over a dinner table or in a classroom or a hundred other places.

We as hunters have work to do. And a lot of it is going to have to start by breaking down assumptions of who the people on the other side are and figuring out how to get them on our team.

I've been thinking about this a lot over the past week especially. I spent the wkend with two girlfriends from Seattle and I took them to Yellowstone and a few of my favorite spots on public land around Bozeman.

I talked to them in detail about my plans to hunt this fall (something that was actually shocking to them initially) and what public land means for us as American citizens. They both went back to Washington with incredible imagery of both the wildlife and places that hunters have protected and they're now able to connect those things back to this right that we have as citizens. They're both staunch democrats, people that have never picked up guns, that have no desire to be hunters, and now they're allies in not only the fight for our public lands but in their desire to understand hunting as the complex thing that it is.

Two down, don't even want to know how many more to go.

 

[hank4elk]

I love this discussion and the perspectives it brings to the surface.
My mind spins trying to put myself in the places that overlap with what others have said and experienced themselves.
I've been thru the gauntlet.
Was a Sierra Clubber way back in 60's before the whole shebang was co-opted by what is called the left now.
Was an NRA member before the far right took over .
Neither now.....
Randy has been thru the gauntlet and does so everytime he speaks publiclly from what I have perceived.

I have a hard time dealing with the factions now after doing so professionally(Park Ranger) and volunteer ( Peer Reviews,Public/Congressional testifying) ,member of RMEF,CDA.NFHA.

I fed many a city treehugging blinder wearer their 1st venison or elk "Best Filet I've ever had"
..and many moved to the center in their views after.
Tried to do so with the other extreme by serving gourmet sauces over roast elk and natural ingredients to folks that just usually just stick it in a cooking bag and cover with Velveta or fry it in oil....LOL.

Like I said my mind is wandering...
"Hunting IS Conservation", I'm a carpenter who uses trees,but can't if there aren't any.....
When did Conserve get taken out of 'Conservative"?
When did Progressive become "Regressive"?
It's not Grampa's age anymore,and you can't eat silicon chips from a desk linked to "unlimited data" and never know a thing, truly and expect to survive!

 

[DrH]

Having spent 30 years doing both environmental work and managing game for a state agency, I think that those who feel conservation and concern for the environment are separate are part of the problem, part of the reason game birds and big game herds are in deep trouble in many places. Sage grouse are in the crapper in many places because millions of acres of sagebrush was sprayed to produce more feed for cattle and sheep. Now in many of those places we have a massive cheatgrass invasion adding fuel to the fire, literally. In my position, all I could do was try to keep the spraying off steep slopes that might be used by big game and out of creek bottoms. Oil and gas development reduced the Pinedale mule deer herd by 40% by destroying winter range. Despite hundreds of hours of negotiation, ultimately there was no control over that development, and little ability to change anything. Deer herds in many places in Wyoming and moose herds in western Wyoming over-ate their winter ranges because hunters would not allow the harvest needed to kill enough deer or moose to prevent population declines. I could go on, but won't, it just depresses hell out of me.
There is no free lunch. I live where there once were antelope, and most of the rest of you occupy space that once held wildlife. Developments of many kinds proliferate as the human population increases, a problem we aren't going to solve. Those developments all cause environmental impacts, and not only affect the ability of animals to survive, they have an effect on our ability to get licenses and access to hunt every fall. I won't even bring up the proliferation of roads and demand for out of shape hunters to be able to drive everywhere, hurting their ability to kill an elk because the elk run to refuge areas. We are often our own worst enemies, but do not want to hear about it or to change.
Time to quit labeling every environmentalist as the enemy, although some certainly are. I am an environmentalist/conservationist who has a dozen guns, has killed a lot of animals, and will kill more.
Over the last few years of my career, it became obvious to me that hunters had begun to mirror the "me generation" society around them, and real concern for game animals had begun to decline.
A lot of hunters are no longer interested in facts, still whining about wolves in NW Wyoming when studies near Cody show it is grizzlies and black bears that are taking calf elk, and cow elk going to the high country get insufficient protein to nurse calves. And ignoring the fact that nearly every elk herd in Wyoming is still above its population objective because hunters cannot kill enough elk to control populations despite issuance of multiple licenses. A hunter in southcentral Wyoming summed it all up last fall when he said to me, "Oh, that's some of that habitat crap again", dismissing facts in favor of his opinion. That summed up the reason I was happy to retire and why I no longer share Randy's shiny view of the hunter as conservationist.

 

[Whiptail]

DrH, you're my favorite curmudgeon!