Hydrophilic
Well-known member
Hunters can, at times, find themselves in an awkward position. They benefit greatly from a public land system which places the 'common good' over private exploitation and maximum profits. Hunters also benefit from 'The Public Trust doctrine' which, again, places the 'common good' and 'sustained yield' over maximized profits for the few. This seems to rebel against capitalism, and the irony hasn't gone unnoticed. President Reagan even declared himself a sagebrush rebel who wanted to transfer federal land to state and private hands.
Hunters can also be at odds with private property owners, pro-development industry, and the general public who seek representation in a multiple use policy.
Going forward, as we experience more habitat loss and more concern about climate change, the train of public perception will be leaving the station. Lets look at a basic statistic.
4% of the US population hunts
40% of the US population considers themselves an environmentalist
What segment has more sway over public opinion at large? Especially with a younger conservative base that is pushing for an environmental platform?
Environmentalists.
Which leads to the question: Can hunters and environmental groups find common ground more often and become a stronger coalition to contend with? Let's look at their common goals.
Goals of hunters: To consume and conserve wildlife, improve and protect the natural environment.
Goals of environmentalists: Conserve wildlife, improve and protect the natural environment.
Hunters and environmentalists have more common ground than people think, why don't they seem to work together? When the environmental movement first started it was largely bipartisan. The movement was a response to pollution, rivers on fire, and general perceived environmental degradation. In fact, the ESA was almost unanimously passed in a bipartisan fashion. Same with the Clean water act. Governor Tom McCall, perhaps Oregon's finest environmental governor (1967-1975), was a republican. It's hard to imagine the same cooperation in todays climate.
Of relevance to continued decline of bipartisan support for environmental issues is the little talked about Anti-environmental movement - a corporate funded response to the first earth day and the growing environmental movement which threatened big money. This movement has degraded the environmental movement among both political parties with republicans showing the sharpest decline in support. Jeffrey Clements is an attorney (operates a bipartisan nonprofit dedicated to overturning citizens united) who dissects the relationship between the environmental movement, the anti-environmental movement, and a decades long winning streak of corporate 'rights' which has resulted in corporations now donating billions to political races through Super PACs. The end result is a populace that feels increasingly out of touch with their elected officials, who potentially have been bought.
Of course, other wedges between hunters and environmentalists include ESA litigation which directly competes with hunters interests, lingering anti-gun anxieties, and some environmental policies that have hampered extraction industries in rural areas.
From the environmentalist perspective, hunters are narrow sighted 'single species' conservationists who are sometimes generalized as voting for environmental deregulation platforms and supporting the NRA.
Will hunters and environmentalist agree on everything? No. But I believe both groups can be valuable assets to each other. Environmentalists will get hands on, consumptive users that engage intensely with resources. They would also have better access and abilities to build trust with rural communities. Hunters would have increased exposure to public opinion, different political avenues to explore, public land allies, and by infiltrating environmental organizations they would have more influence on the movement itself.
Is it feasible, it's hard to say. But the potential is enormous. Just look at a recent mega victory in Bristol Bay, Alaska - the last salmon stronghold. Hunters, anglers, and environmentalists joined forces and accomplished more than they could on their own.
www.themeateater.com
Hunters can also be at odds with private property owners, pro-development industry, and the general public who seek representation in a multiple use policy.
Going forward, as we experience more habitat loss and more concern about climate change, the train of public perception will be leaving the station. Lets look at a basic statistic.
4% of the US population hunts
40% of the US population considers themselves an environmentalist
What segment has more sway over public opinion at large? Especially with a younger conservative base that is pushing for an environmental platform?
Environmentalists.
Which leads to the question: Can hunters and environmental groups find common ground more often and become a stronger coalition to contend with? Let's look at their common goals.
Goals of hunters: To consume and conserve wildlife, improve and protect the natural environment.
Goals of environmentalists: Conserve wildlife, improve and protect the natural environment.
Hunters and environmentalists have more common ground than people think, why don't they seem to work together? When the environmental movement first started it was largely bipartisan. The movement was a response to pollution, rivers on fire, and general perceived environmental degradation. In fact, the ESA was almost unanimously passed in a bipartisan fashion. Same with the Clean water act. Governor Tom McCall, perhaps Oregon's finest environmental governor (1967-1975), was a republican. It's hard to imagine the same cooperation in todays climate.
Of relevance to continued decline of bipartisan support for environmental issues is the little talked about Anti-environmental movement - a corporate funded response to the first earth day and the growing environmental movement which threatened big money. This movement has degraded the environmental movement among both political parties with republicans showing the sharpest decline in support. Jeffrey Clements is an attorney (operates a bipartisan nonprofit dedicated to overturning citizens united) who dissects the relationship between the environmental movement, the anti-environmental movement, and a decades long winning streak of corporate 'rights' which has resulted in corporations now donating billions to political races through Super PACs. The end result is a populace that feels increasingly out of touch with their elected officials, who potentially have been bought.
Of course, other wedges between hunters and environmentalists include ESA litigation which directly competes with hunters interests, lingering anti-gun anxieties, and some environmental policies that have hampered extraction industries in rural areas.
From the environmentalist perspective, hunters are narrow sighted 'single species' conservationists who are sometimes generalized as voting for environmental deregulation platforms and supporting the NRA.
Will hunters and environmentalist agree on everything? No. But I believe both groups can be valuable assets to each other. Environmentalists will get hands on, consumptive users that engage intensely with resources. They would also have better access and abilities to build trust with rural communities. Hunters would have increased exposure to public opinion, different political avenues to explore, public land allies, and by infiltrating environmental organizations they would have more influence on the movement itself.
Is it feasible, it's hard to say. But the potential is enormous. Just look at a recent mega victory in Bristol Bay, Alaska - the last salmon stronghold. Hunters, anglers, and environmentalists joined forces and accomplished more than they could on their own.
Pebble Mine Permit Denied, Conservationists Seek to Bury it Forever
The fiercely contested Pebble Mine will not receive a critical federal permit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced on Wednesday. This action likely strikes a death blow to the contentious copper and gold project proposed for the Bristol Bay region of Southwest Alaska, but conservationists...
