Conservation in North America is experiencing an identity crisis of sorts lately. The meaning has been pushed and pulled in this or that direction, kidnaped, held for ransom and generally abused until it’s come to mean just about anything.
Recently I read an article in the outdoor magazine of my state division of Parks and Wildlife that discussed this very subject. It was reassuring to read that my state had been having some of the same thoughts I had. What’s not so clear is what to do about it.
coloradooutdoorsmag.com/…
The most obvious meaning of conservation became a divisive catch phrase during the 80s, that time when James Watt was Secretary of the Interior. People then called it the “wise use” movement, which to detractors meant strip mining and clear cutting the entire planet. I think more emphasis on the word “wise” would have been, well, wise. On the other side acceptance that “use” is part of the equation would have gone far to avoid current pitfalls.
At it’s heart conservation is wise use. Use such that one has a sustainable resource, hopefully forever. In this case the author of the linked article above, Jerry Neal, is talking about Wildlife Conservation, a subject dear to the heart of my state division of Wildlife, and to myself too. I am after all a conservationist hunter, and we pay the bills.
Jerry lists six things everyone should know about wildlife conservation.
First in addition to the definition I’ve offered he also says conservation means management. Being a reader of Leopold I’d have to agree.
On his second point Jerry goes into the differnce between conservation and preservation.
The terms conservation and preservation are often used interchangeably, but their main ideologies differ greatly. In contrast to conservation’s “wise-use” principles of wildlife, preservation is the “non-use” or hands-off approach to resource management. Despite their opposite meanings, however, conservation and preservation can work harmoniously when managing wildlife. In fact, a good conservation strategy may include themes of preservation. For example, wildlife biologists may establish a refuge free from humans to re-establish critical habitat or to protect threatened or endangered species. But, by itself, preservation is not a feasible long-term strategy for managing wildlife, and those who suggest that wild animals are best served by a complete abdication of human involvement are misguided.
The third point is who pays, which is basically hunters and shooters but he breaks it down further.
In his fourth point Jerry names some of the private and other entities that support conservation. NGOs that actually, like, conserve.
Finally Jerry’s fifth point brings forth the folks I’d call anti conservationists. No not big oil or developers, the conflicting interests we have with them are obvious and manageable.
While it’s important to acknowledge legitimate conservation organizations, it’s equally important to identify groups that are at odds with science-based conservation. In recent years, some animal rights activists and environmental-extremist groups have attempted to brand themselves as “conservationists” in an effort to fight the negative stigma that’s associated with their preservation-only, antihunting and activist agendas. Despite adopting this moniker, most of these organizations dedicate their time and resources lobbying against hunters and anglers and fighting programs and legislation that support true conservation. Unfortunately, these efforts often undermine science and take away Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s ability to establish sound policies for land-use and fish and wildlife management. Moreover, antihunting and preservationist initiatives often lead to problems like overpopulation of wildlife and increased human/wildlife conflicts. Instead of sportsmen managing wildlife populations through controlled hunting—a critical component of conservation—wildlife officers must euthanize animals that become habituated to humans or that grow beyond the carrying capacity of the habitat. The bottom line is that most animal rights groups oppose conservation, and their policies do little or nothing to actually support or fund wildlife management in Colorado.
Last month I had the opportunity to see a couple of these anti conservation orgs in operation at a large meeting. They were the only groups attendant that were not a part of the conversation. They had lawyers and activists and they were making prepared statements for press releases and getting all het up, but at the end of the day they conserved nothing.
Our wildlife conservation model here in the states known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was designed to protect and nurture species. We’ve done very well, maybe too well, wildlife populations are thriving, it’s the management part that seems unprepared for the times.