ARE WE ENTERING AN AGE OF SMARTER ADVOCACY?
Hook and Bullet: A New Old Movement Is Rising Again
By Todd Wilkinson, 12-16-06
 |
|
 | |
|
|
|
I'll never forget the sea of faces in the room long ago when I attended my first Duck's Unlimited banquet with my dad.
I was a teenager carrying a freshly-issued hunter's safety card and all around were folks in the community where my parents owned their restaurant coming together in the name of habitat conservation.
Working class shopkeepers, local pharmacists, doctors, lawyers, hardware store owners, barbers, and purveyors ofcatalog mail order outfits who each had shingles up on Main Street.
Duck's Unlimited wasn't then, nor is it now, a radical group espousing a radical idea, nor was its membership radical, nor its politics, nor its mission. It was meat and potatos.
Is the expression of hunters and anglers still meat and potatos or is it Hummers and goat cheese?
Is it people who work their tails off during the week so they can spend a few hours relaxing in the wilds with their kids or is it people in trophy homes living in the middle of winter range but who don't see their own hypocrisy?
Is it Bubba and Joe-Bob tearing off at first light on their ATV to a distant place in the backcountry so they can harvest an elk and get back in time to watch football on Sunday afternoon or is it traditionalists who use their vacation time getting out for a couple of days every fall so they can make a quiet stalk because they love the idea of leaving all audio and visual signs of civilization behind?
Is the hook and bullet crowd comprised mostly of NRA members who buy the argument—which frankly I find incredibly paranoid—that the government is about to come and confiscate our shotguns and hunting rifles or is it compromised of a wide cross section of society that believes loss of habitat and loss of exposing kids to the joys of hunting and fishing are the greatest threats to hunting and fishing, not gun control?
Safeguarding prairie potholes etched into the northern Great Plains by retreating glaciers millennia ago makes sense if you recognize the connection between stable waterfowl populations and the presence of breeding habitat for ducks.
It's not rocket science. Yet as moronic as it might seem, some people apparently can't put it together in their minds.
Akin to DU, western elk hunters and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are keenly aware of parallel considerations for wapiti. The same holds for dues-paying devotees of Trout Unlimited. Pick your own species. It has its own organized constituency. I'm willing to suggest here that to imply members of these groups are motivated only by rational self interest of putting meat in the freezer, or to committing acts of blood lust, or to indulging their love of recreation selfishly, is naive.
The reason most people go afield isn't simple; it's wonderfully complex and for the majority, it's forward looking. How can you think about your kid's world and not be?
Most of us who have firearms in the gun case and fishing gear in the mud room see the big picture because that's how we were raised. We didn't learn it by watching a hunting show on TV or attending a rally of environmentalists or participating in a shovel brigade bound for Elko, Nevada.
Sportsmen and women I know (and New West outdoor columnist Bill Schneider expertly alludes to this often in his columns) are able to notice the invisible kinds of things besetting a landscape that membersof the non-hunting and non-fishing public don't always comprehend.
Despite attempts made by some in our society to paint outdoors people as Neanderthals who amble forth out of caves every morning with bare knuckles dragging on the ground, there's a kind of ecological literacy present here that urbananites do not necessarily possess because they didn't experience it firsthand.
A few nights ago I ran into a biologist and former public servant on the streets of Washington, D.C. named Steve Belinda. Steve used to work for the BLM in the Pinedale, Wyoming Field Office and was charged with assessing and mitigating the impacts of energy development. He tried internally to get the BLM to take seriously its role in protecting mule deer and sage grouse habitat in the face of massive landscape-level disturbance caused by energy development that continues to grow in the Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline.
Eventually, Belinda quit out of frustration and went to work for a fairly new national hunting and fishing group called the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. TRCP reminds me of the welcoming spirit of those Duck's Unlimited banquets of long ago.
More than anything else, TRCP says it is devoted to the idea of smart advocacy for wildlife habitat and it refuses to accept the arguments that hook and bullet enthusiasts are blindly captive to one political party or another; or that they pledge allegiance only to the issue of gun rights; or that they believe significant despoliation of the the environment must occur in order to have jobs; or that hunters and anglers are some sort of fringe component of the modern conservation movement and of lesser relevance to society than PETA.
I met over dinner with Belinda and Jim Range, TRCP chairman (and a person widely respected as a sportsman and strategic thinker on both sides of the political aisle), TRCP president Matt Connolly, formerly the head honcho of DU (and a seminal figure in wetlands conservation over the last few decades), and Terry Riley, a field coordinator for the organization's New Mexico office. These are good rational, pragmatic-minded men and if I have any complaint, it's that there needs to be more sportswomen stepping forward and espousing their own convictions publicly.
Another towering giant who is part of TRCP's team is board member Rollin Sparrowe, a biologist, who lives in the foothills of the Wind Rivers (and who had a vital hand, over the years, in promoting responsible wildlife management in state fish and game departments). Sparrowe is respected nationwide. And he's troubled by the fact that more thought isn't going into national energy policy and its consequences on the land wildlife needs to thrive.
Some of TRCP's priorities include improving the farm bill, guaranteeing access for hunting and fishing to suitable public lands, creating refuges against overfishing in our oceans, protecting roadless lands, and promoting alternative energy development because it's good for habitat protection, the overall environment and national security.
TRCP also has extended a hand of friendship to trade and union groups. The founders of TRCP refuse to accept the premise that positions like these are radical. With the clout it is rapidly mobilizing in Washington and across the country, it is bringing common sense, in the old Theodore Roosevelt way, back to thinking about the importance of sustainable healthy ecosystems.
Americans, Range says, are tired of division—hunters and anglers especially. For him, the power of this new old movement will be defined by what outdoorspeople are in favor of, not what they are against.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.
Comments
Americans ARE tired of division in the conservation "movement." If legitimate outdoorsmen are not credible spokespersons to them or to the rank-and-file critics of environmental "latte-drinkers", then those critics are not sincere or fair-minded supporters of responsible "game" habitat management.
Here's hoping that you are correct: TRCP cannot reasonably be considered "radical" and will have the same sort of universal impact on fence-sitting Americans that Ducks Unlimited once did.
Nice going!
Gerald Green
I'm going to have to be a bit cautious and disagree with your unqualified praise of the TRCP; there are things about these groups associated with TRCP that bother me. While it is important that the divisions in the conservation movement be healed. and while it is important that hunters and anglers return to their conservation roots to think in terms of strategic habitat protection rather than just the protection and production of game species, we cannot ignore legitimate problems.
One of those legitimate problems is how the economics of wildlife and habitat conservation practiced by groups like the RMEF and TU affects the public trust in wildlife, and specifically, how it affects the access of all hunters and anglers to fish and wildlife.
In other words, if these groups are successful in achieving their aims, what public benefit is there if there is a move toward European models of wildlife management, which emphasize the establishment and maintenance of private property rights in wildlife, and away from what people like Valerius Geist and Jim Posewitz have called the North American Model of Wildlife Management, which emphasizes common property rights in wildlife that belong to all of us, not to just a few?
I recall the huge fight in Wyoming a decade ago over "set-aside" hunting licenses; landowners made a tremendous push to force the Wyoming Game & Fish Department to grant them big-game hunting licenses that could be sold on the open market at a huge profit for landowner. The justification for set-asides was ostensibly that "landowners need incentives to protect habitat on private property." Trouble was, all the landowners who would have benefited from set asides were known to be quite weathy, and the purpose of the set-asides was not so much as incentives to protect habitat as it was to establish private property rights in those hunting licenses, and by extension in wildlife, to underwrite very profitable "ranch hunting programs."
The intent by wealthy landowners to establish private rights in public wildlife for ranch hunting programs is a very real one. To address that problem, I wrote an essay, which has been published on NewWest, about Aldo Leopold and the problems he had with the economics of wildlife conservation, which tended toward privatization even in his day. The problem is very real; and I direct you toward that essay for more information.
This situation of wildlife privatization is most extreme in the state of Texas. Talk to any hunter in Texas, which has very little public land, and ask him or her about the access problem. In Texas, landowners have effectively established de facto private property rights in wildlife, and the public is cut off from game that rightlyfully belongs to the public. The vast majority of hunters cannot afford to pay what the market will bear to hunt in Texas.
Wildlife privatization is a form of class warfare. That's the way is was and still is in Europe; I know that for a fact--I was stationed in Germany for four years. That's where we appear to be headed in North America.
In other words, in Texas and other states, landowners are engaging in the process of enclosing the commons in wildlife, with enormous negative impact on the common good.
As I look at the single species groups like RMEF and TU, I see a disturbing willingness to overlook this problem with private landowners and support efforts that tend to increase the control landowners have over wildlife for the purpose of profiting from hunting and fishing programs, contrary to the public interest. Indeed, the RMEF was supporting the so-called Private Lands/Public Wildlife program in Wyoming a decade ago until it became a political hot potato as Wyoming hunters wised up to what PL/PW was actually about. I have seen the same tendencies in TU in programs to improve trout habitat on private lands so that landowners could profit from commercial fishing. Yet, the public is excluded.
This is precisely the issue in Montana with the various landowner challenges to Montana's wonderful Stream Access Law.
In short, as hunters and anglers come together to solve problems of common concern, they should ask themselves whether the solutions advocated by TRCP and its partners protect the North American Model of Wildlife Management, in which wildlife is a public trust, or do they tend toward the European Model of Wildlife Management, which is in full force in Texas, which effectively privatizes wildlife and excludes the public.
Best,
Robert
You raise some important issues regarding public access for the average guy. I joined the TRCP not because I agreed with every position or with every family member of the organization but with the overall direction and goals of the family. The part of the TRCP family that reflects my personal feelings on the issues you raise is the Life In The Open series produced by Ken Barret. Almost every episode brings up public access and the efforts to enhance and maintain it. His closing episode for the 2006 season was about hunting on BMA land in the Miles City area of Montana. Block Management Areas are funded through out of state license sales to promote cooperation between private landowners and the access requirements of field sport citizens. Mr. Barret always makes a point to connect public access with the vision of TR for field sports experiences. I share your concern over the direction of the RMEF. That being said I wish to acknowledge their many contributions to wild game enhancement.
I met Ken Barrett about 8 years ago when he was associated with Jim Posewitz at Orion--The Hunters Institute, when I participated in the first seminar Orion sponsored with Montana State on the philosophy and history of hunting. I have a lot of respect for both Ken and Jim.
Yes, RMEF does a lot of good things for habitat. However, I also remember the "Saturday Night Massacre" at RMEF some years ago when a number of people more committed to the public trust in wildlife than to the privatization direction in which the RMEF was moving were fired without warning. This raised a lot of red flags about RMEF for me. I also remember the commercialization series that Dave Stalling, when he was conservation editor at Bugle, initiated in 1998; it took him a year to get the series even approved, as there was tremendous opposition to it on the Board from members who supported commercialization and privatization of wildlife. I had the honor of having the last publication in the year- long series, an edited version of the Leopold essay mentioned in my previous post.
When I look at the TRCP website, what strikes me most is that the organization is closely linked to corporate America, through its board members, its staff, and its partners. After all, the conservation organizations are all corporations, albeit non-profit, but when you look at their websites, they are also an expression of corporate America. This makes me quesy. Are these organizations actually walking the walk, or are they just talking the talk?
I would feel a good deal better if TRCP and other organizations took solid, unequivocal stands in favor of the North American Model of Wildlife Management and the public trust in wildlife, and condemned all forms of wildlife privatization. As yet, they have not bothered to do so, although they certainly have had the opportunity. Jim Posewitz at Orion has been an eloquent spokesman not only for hunting ethics, but also the public trust and our style of wildlife management. It's not as if the other groups have never heard of it.
It seems to me that this is an important point. I'm certainly not opposing the unification of hunters and anglers and their organizations to work in concert to improve wildlife habitat as well as hunting and fishing opportunities. I do however have questions about the reliability of the processes and organizations that have sprung up to express that unification. Quite frankly, I don't trust them.
Robert
At the home page of the TRCP website: http://trcp.org their policy intiatives break down into 3 areas. Which, if any, do you take exception?
Which, if any of the policy intiatives of the TRCP that you find objectionable?
Responding to your ad hominem attack with the same is not only against the season, but pointless. Merry Christmas! May you recieve wisdom from God's grace.
Montana is on the list. In addition there are native tribes and private individuals that have their own herds in Montana.
Another thought provoking article ...
While bringing together various "species" groups may serve some good purpose, I notice that only the groups that have been "species specific" or "corporate based" are included at the table.
Right now in Montana, we are in the midst of a so-called bison "hunt" which in actuality is a "border shoot". Here on the west side of the park, there are only 4 buffalo out of the park (all bulls) and they are on privately-owned buffalo-friendly properties on Horse Butte. At the end of this "hunt" perhaps the hunters who have been SKUNKED will join in the call for more public land habit for bison and a major change in bison management. I support hunting and hunters but feel this "shoot" is premature. You don't have any other species being hunted where habitat hasn't FIRST been established. You don't have any other species being MIS-managed by the Montana Department of Livestock (and the other "go-along" agencies who are signatories to the interagency management plan). If the DOL tried these policies on elk in Montana, they could not get away with it because of the power and influence of elk hunters and organizations such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Right now, the ONLY groups I am aware of who are opposing this hunt are the BUFFALO FIELD CAMPAIGN and the GALLATIN WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION.
In the more than 12 years I have lived in Montana and advocated for the buffalo, I have contacted by mail, email and videos major hunting organizations in the state and the response has been almost uniform silence.
Why aren't the hunting groups, particularly the well-established and well-funded ones, calling for a halt to the policies that essentially dupe hunters into believing that you can hunt a species that is not allowed to exist in Montana?
In approving this "hunt", Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks hoped to get hunters interested in the bison management issue. Whether that happens is yet to be seen.
barb abramo
west yellowstone
The initiatives TRCP gets behind is why I am a proud member.
Gerald