Carnivores are gaining in Europe, thanks to the public and governments' willingness to embrace them. But in the US, they're still feared by a largely ignorant population.
What is the difference between Americans and Europeans when it comes to large carnivores?
It is that that many Europeans believe they can coexist while Americans believe that a definite separation must be kept. The governments of both reflect the attitudes of their respective public opinions.
At least that's what the latest from the US journal Science tells us.
In Europe, the populations of wolves, bears, lynxes and wolverines have seen gains, according to the article. This is also in a place with much less land area than the US and untouched natural habitat is pretty much unknown.
Of course, there are still conflicts when it comes to farmers and carnivores. But unlike the US, instead of killing the predators, the farmers are compensated by the government. That's something that would get the Limbaughs and Hannities of the world to scream bot eco-extremism and socialism in the same breath.
Not only that, but the conspiracy theories about Agenda 21, a nonbinding agreement still have a hold of many Americans' imagination. Sort of like the "the 97 percent of scientists who tout global warming are in on a conspiracy" arguments you see at places like Free Republic and Reason Magazine.
It's the compounding of isolating nature and unwillingness to spend money to protect it that has seen America's predators constantly hunted down and killed. Some Game and Fish authorities in the state proudly display their killings of these creatures, smiles and all, like trophy hunters.
The urban and rural divide in the US doesn't help either. Sure, that exists in other countries as well, but in the US the two sides are forced to fight over the same pot of cash. There is no real dialogue between the two, the city dwellers are willfully ignorant when it comes to hearing the concerns and needs of their rural counter parts. At the same time, the country dwellers are resentful and suspicious of the city dwellers, believing they only show up to tell them what to do.
There is no dialogue when it comes to preservation and conservation between the two. Having lived in a rural area most of my life, I cannot recall one instance of any conservationists ever visiting and holding a conversation on how to make things work. But, living in the city I've noticed that you can see them all the time.
That's a huge problem. Not only in conservation, but when it comes to progressives spreading their message beyond their footholds in citified America. Instead of saying "hey, we got some ideas so lets sit together and see how we can make things work" we get "we know what we're talking about and you're a yokel who can't grasp big ideas."
Does that really sound like something that works? It probably wouldn't work in reverse either and considering that, why not re-evaluate how progressive ideas are communicated?
Of course, it's part of our mass political culture to seek conflict and absolute victory over compromise. Sure, a lot of people are happy with that, but there are a lot of people who've just dropped out too, sick of the shouting and frustrated with the lack of anything getting done. And for the sake of our planet, not to mention country, we have to figure out how to get things done. The other option is just to allow it burn.
J. Robert Hall is a journalist from Arkansas. He welcomes readers to friend him on Facebookor follow him on Twitter.