Reprinted from my Land Ethics column in the International Hunter Education Assoc Journal, Summer, 2007
When I was a budding wildlife student, years ago, the differences between the concept of "conservation" and "preservation" were fairly well understood. In the early 20th century wise leaders created National Parks, such as Yellowstone, to preserve large tracts for our future. Teddy Roosevelt expanded this system and went on to create many National Forests. These were just some of the activities of a society concerned about the conservation of our natural resources and the preservation and protection of lands for all Americans. These actions, and others, were stimulated because rampant pre law timbering and market hunting were ravaging our forests and wildlife.
These activities led to the evolution of the conservationist movement by people who were concerned about timbering and hunting with no laws or regulations. They got laws passed and established a system of timber and wildlife management and programs that remain as a tremendous conservation movement success story. These activities also led to the preservationist movement led by people who wanted to protect nature from all use. And so began an evolution of these two distinct concepts both of which, in certain situations, were important in saving habitats and wildlife.
The distinction of conservation and preservation was simple. "Conservation" meant the wise use of our natural resources. "Preservation" meant the total protection of a natural resource. Hands off, stay out, don’t touch. Relative to hunting the difference was clear, but today that distinction is disappearing and the results for our present system of wildlife management can be very bad.
Urbanized America is not exposed to the realities of nature and relies on the press, television, etc. for their "education." That’s a shame because the press is also lost in the street lights and pavement of the cities and they have helped create the image that preservation is the same as conservation.
All to often we see the press referring to the conservation of wildlife in such a way as to infer that there should be no management (meaning no hunting), but a total protection. There are situations where total protection is needed, and one could state that in those few situations, total protection is a wise use of natural resources. But in most situations, total protection is preservation, not conservation. The difference can be huge.
Just the other day I read a newspaper headline that said, "Conservation groups ask judge to halt wolf-kill reward program." The article concerned the efforts of the Alaska Fish and Game Department to control wolf numbers. I don’t want to get into the wolf issue in Alaska as that would take a whole column, but the groups listed therein often hold anti hunting positions. Those groups do some good things for habitats, wildlife, etc., but they also take positions opposed to wildlife management agencies, and to label them as "conservationists" is incorrect. In many situations such groups would better fit the preservationist philosophy.
That newspaper headline is not an exception, in fact it has become the norm. Over the past fifteen years it is common for anti hunting organizations, such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), to be referred to in the news as "conservation" organizations. Based on the mission of the HSUS, that would be an impossibility. They are opposed to most hunting. Go to their web site and you will learn that they are opposed to recruiting children into hunting because it "teaches them that animals are nothing more than live targets." This is a blatant, biased statement that has no relation to the real values that hunting offers children today. No, the HSUS is definitely not a "conservation" organization no matter how often they or the press use that term.
In June 1990, California residents passed a state referendum, Proposition 117, banning all mountain lion hunting. To the naive, the proposition sounded quite good. It was called "The Wildlife Protection Act," and the name does have a ring to it. But, even though many movie stars urged citizens to vote for this referendum and "preserve" the mountain lion, humans and lions have suffered. There are more negative human-lion incidents and even human deaths than ever before. Why? First, humans are spending more time hiking, biking and living in lion country. Second, with no hunting, lions have lost some of their fear of man. Third, there are more mountain lions out there than ever.
However, what is troubling is that the loss of lion hunting has led to a loss of revenues via license sales formerly used to manage mountain lions. Even further, the state is no killing as many mountain lions each year as problem animals as were harvested when hunting was legal. This isn’t a "wise use" of this great natural resource. It is a waste of that natural resource. Interestingly, even though the game agency is forced to kill many mountain lions each year, there has been no outcry from those same movie stars and anti hunters who misled the California public on the referendum issue. Clearly a conservation approach here would be much better than the hands off, stay out, don’t hunt approach the state wildlife agency has been forced to take.
Consider the grizzly bear situation where the concept of conservation has evolved into preservation. The media and various anti hunting organizations have led the public to believe that; (1) grizzly bears are an endangered species everywhere, (2) hunting has led to this situation, and (3) hunting should never be used as a management tool for this species. Let’s consider the facts.
In the 1970's the Yellowstone grizzly population was indeed endangered with only two-three hundred animals. However, since the early 1990's grizzly numbers there have increased from 4 to 7 percent each year. As numbers increased, more and more negative encounters with humans occurred. If this growth continues, there will be a time when some grizzlies will have to be removed. The logical and most economical and effective approach would be to use hunters to help manage the grizzly. But don’t expect that to happen any time soon.
When the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to remove the grizzly from the endangered list in 2007, preservation groups such as the Sierra Club (often referred to as a conservation organization in the press) went on red alert to generate opposition. Other groups did the same. If you go to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s web page, you will read the headline, "Conservationists will fight to overturn the grizzly bear decision." (There goes that "conservationist" term used to describe an organization that wants total protection for grizzlies — meaning "preservation.")
Our system of wildlife management is really straightforward. Trained wildlife biologists develop strategic plans on managing species. They inventory what is out there and they inventory what the public can tolerate relative to species numbers. They assess the habitat to determine how many animals can survive and be healthy within that habitat. Then they develop a harvest strategy that will maintain a healthy habitat and healthy population. We call it conservation ... a wise use of our wildlife resources. The money to do most of the above comes from hunters (read that "conservationists") who buy licenses and pay excise taxes that fund our state wildlife agencies.
The problems enter when those who really, deep down, want no hunting at all get involved politically and legally. Using the courts and politicians to manage wildlife throws the above, successful wildlife management system into chaos (and of course, that is the very objective of organizations that use this approach). Consider the black bear situation in New Jersey. There are too many black bears in New Jersey and the wildlife biologists in the game agency support a hunt to curtail numbers and reduce negative encounters with people. However, anti hunting groups feel that those negative encounters can be eliminated by non-lethal means and they have convinced politicians to "preserve" the black bear. Time and time again the suggested alternatives to hunting bears have failed and they will in New Jersey too. That situation will only get worse in the future unless hunting can be utilized to manage them.
Hunting has not been allowed in most of our National Parks. Thus, in many parks, deer and elk populations have caused major over browsing and over grazing of habitats. State wildlife agencies have become frustrated with National Park Service policy that prevents hunting to create healthier habitats and wildlife species. This spring The Wildlife Society and thirty other conservation and hunting organizations urged the Secretary of the Interior to allow the use of hunting as a management tool for overpopulated game species in National Parks.
I am not suggesting that there are situations (and even some National Parks) where hunting should not be utilized. But I am strongly urging everyone to think hard about the negative ramifications the preservation approach has on most of the hunted wildlife in America. And I am asking you to make sure you understand the difference between conservation and preservation. The future of wildlife management may depend on it.
