Should
hunters fear a conservation coalition that includes non hunters?
The sad and
often perverse slaughter of wildlife that marked the European colonization of
North America remains one of the great examples of how selfish purpose has the
capacity to impoverish both nature and society. Fortunately, the great
innovation we term conservation was itself an outcome of this unfettered
onslaught and exemplifies how the spur of crisis can raise both a nation's
conscious and its resolve to progress. Indeed, the fading thunder of the once
innumerable bison still echoes in our consciousness. It persists as a shadowed
reality that settles upon our debates surrounding the future of wildlife on
this continent today.
The great
transformation that marked the rise of conservationist thinking inNorth America
was fashioned by individuals who cared deeply about the natural resources of
Canada and the USA. Their efforts,
launched agai nst improbabJe odds, led to the system of laws, policies,
conventions, and institutions we recognize today as the North American System
(Model) ofWildlife Conservation.This is the only fully integrated continenraJ
system of conservation in the world and its spectacular and sUStained recovery
of wildlife is unsurpa sed. Irs success bears witness to the power of a
citizenry whose motivations to protect wildlife and their cherished hunting and
wilderness traditions would not be denied.
There can
be no doubt that this system habeen convincingly led and significantly
maintained by individuals and organizations in support of sustainable wildlife
use, but it was from the beginning joined by a much wider coalition of interests
that included legions of non hunters as well. The early commitments of women's
organizations to halt theslaughter ofshorebirds and the legendary wilderness
advocacy of John Muir can never be dismissed nor denied. Nor must we ever
forget the tireless devotion of dedicated hunters’ l Ike Theodore Roosevelt and
George Bird Grinnell to the con ervation of songbirds and a wide range of other
nongame species. In their love of all nature, these advocates were united,
though certainly many differences of opinion existed and intense debates and
disagreements over specific is sues were inevitable.
Over time,
this original coalition has become fractured, leading, in my opinion, to a
weakening of the conservation movement.It has become almost fashionable to
align oneself with a narrower view of what matters in conservation, a narrower
view of what is worth fighting for. Far too of ten this decision has been considered and
encouraged along the fault line of hunting, as though it is somehow inevitable
that we must disagree over this founding tradition and that no inclusive
coaJition for wildlife is possible because of hunting. This is ridiculous on so
many fronts that it boggles the mind to even tale it seriously.
For it is
incontrovertible that the vast majority of North American citizens support fair
chase, legal hunting, thus offering no
social majority context for conservationists of any stripe to regard hunting as
the celebrated and unavoidable cause of dissent. On the contrary, this support for hunting shows
that there is every reason to believe and accept a broad sociaJ agreement on
the legitimacy of hunting, and to use this as a basis for coalition building,
not as an excuse for inevitable dissent. Furthermore, the efforts of the
hunter-naturalists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in
providing both the philosophical and legislative foundations for the recovety
of diverse wildlife is beyond challenge, and has a deep and vibrant literature
in its support. And, beyond question, it was the hunter naturalist ilk of Leopold and company in the 1930s who
laid the scientific foundation for wildlife management and conservation policy.
If all this
weren't enough, there is the irrefutable truth that hunter dollars directly and
indirectly pay for the majority of staterun wildlife conservation programs and
have consistently done so for over half a century. So why is this divide over
hunting presented aa barrier to building a broader coalition? Is there real
validity to this muchdiscussed chasm? Is it only one side of the divide that
promotes this? Or do both sides promote the idea and encourage it as a barrier
to cooperative engagen1ent on the larger conservation issues of ow•time?
I know from
personal experience that some would point tO a (contrived) historical
narrative, suggesting that this divide
was a deliberate construct decreed by the wilderness advocate John Muir of Sierra Club fame and the sustainable
use/hunting advocates like Boone and
Crockett Club (best represented by Theodore Roosevelt), and is thus a
longstanding reality. The truth of the matter, however, is that history does
not support this narrative. Muir and Roosevelt had differences of opinion,
certainly, but they were also very much admirers and supporters of one another
in many regards. (The real division that came between Muir and the sustainable
use community is well documented. It was over domestic livestock grazing on
federal lands, not hunring.)
So why do
we find it so difficult to form a broader coalition on conservation? Is hunting
really the barrier it is portrayed to be? Or is it just a distraction, designed
to take the eyes and minds of people off the real issue? Is it possible that on
both sides of the aisle we are afraid of a broad coalition? Is it just remotely
possible that many players in the conservation arena find it both convenient
and advantageous to force an artificial divide upon the broad mass of potential
recruitS and membership by offering them a choice that will confer a sense of
allegiance and fraternity? Are we afraid of a broad coalition because we fear
our individual influence may then be diminished?
Well, who
can really say? But just in case the hunting public and our hunting
organizations are afraid of this, would offer the following personal
observations.
We have nothing
to fear.We arestrong and can become even stronger. The coalition will be
formed; the movement in its direction is already underway. Hunters will lead,
follow, or become irrelevant. So we need to take the lead, become the tip of
the conservation spear and once again welcome all those who care for wildlife,
helping them to understand hunting or to accept itS contribution, even while
they remain less than totally comfortable with it.We must be the leaders, the
conveners, the broad-minded, clle confident, the welcoming, the statesmen and
women of conservation. We must
lead the
next conservation revolution.To do less will be to choose the narrow view and
the self-righteous and self-congratulatory path that has never been the way or
motivation of the true hunter.
We began
the conservation revolution over a centmy ago by being inclusive. Let us not
abandon this great history nor diminish the hopeful pam we have forged. Let us
recover our idealism, for the sake of wildlife, our nations, and ourselves.