|
Polarization might pose the biggest threat to conservation |
Tom Wharton, The Salt Lake Tribune
ROANOKE, Va.- It was
refreshing to see the National Rifle Association sit down with
Democratic leaders in Congress recently to close loopholes in
background checks that could prevent a future tragedy like the one at
Virginia Tech.
That's because polarization on issues dealing with gun rights,
wilderness, wildlife management and open-space preservation often
results in stalemate.
Part of the problem, according to Paul Hansen of the Izaak
Walton League of America, is many hunting and gun groups identify with
Republicans, but environmentalists mostly gravitate toward Democrats.
Those groups avoid meeting with each other for fear of alienating
longtime supporters.
The other problem Hansen identified at the recent Outdoor
Writers Association of America conference is that, too often, groups
are so self-righteous that they leave little room to move the party
line.
"When people act too self-righteously, they hurt the cause,"
said Hansen, who represents a hunting-oriented group with a long
history of protecting the environment. "It could help the cause if
there was more humility and groups did more listening. . . .
Polarization is bad for conservation."
Too often, environmental groups have difficulty listening to
hunters and anglers, Sierra Club official Bart Semcer said. That makes
working together difficult.
Success often comes easier at the local level, where partnering on
projects can be easier, Semcer added. For example, the NRA and Sierra
Club worked to save a prairie in Houston from airport development, and
Safari Club International and the Sierra Club formed a partnership to
save wilderness in South Dakota.
A major sticking point comes when philosophies about hunting differ.
Some organizations, though recognizing the value of some wilderness, are more pro-management.
"We draw a line at anti-management folks bent on preservation
to the exclusion of all other kinds of uses," said Steve Williams of
The Wildlife Management Institute. "There are those folks who support
the needs of the management of fish and wildlife habitat versus groups
that feel humans don't need to do anything and wildlife will survive on its own. That's crazy. Humans created a lot of problems we face."
Matt Miller, who works in Idaho's Nature Conservancy program,
said much of the progress made in Gem State projects would not have
happened without the help of hunters.
How does this apply to Utah?
It's difficult to see a conservative hunting organization such
as Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife partnering with the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance or Sierra Club on a project. Local chapters of
Ducks Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy seem like more logical
partners.
But who knows?
If Safari Club International can team with the Sierra Club to preserve wilderness in South Dakota, anything is possible.
Ducks Unlimited's Gregg Patterson put it best. He said the
process is a bit like what kids learn in kindergarten. Partners trust
each other until one of them betrays that trust. Each partner must
contribute to the effort. And working on smaller projects works best.
|
