Great article. I think people also often falsely believe that only “modern” humans have been impacting nature and wild places, that we have to remove ourselves in order to protect and preserve them. Indigenous/first nations/native Americans have been stewarding and managing ecosystems here long before we showed up, through use, harvest, fire setting, even planting tree species. They were in a close and intimate relationship with their environment, and taking actions to manage it for their wellbeing and that of the other living things. I am fortunate enough to have learned lots of Indigenous peoples here in eastern Canada, and I like their use of the word stewardship. We are looking after the environment actively, because we are part of it too.
Thank you for a thoughtful and informative explanation. It would be interesting to read someone’s counter perspective just to see both sides of an issue (if there are truly two sides to this issue).
Hunting is permitted in much of my area, North Western New York. Here there is an overpopulation of deer that causes forest biodiversity to be poor, the deer eat much of the understory. I don't understand why the predator and ungulate populations are not kept in better balance by the game quotas of the Fish and Wildlife Service. I've heard many areas across the US have the same problem. What's up with that?
The last Grizzly in Arizona was killed in the 1920's as told by Aldo Leopold. I understand the last one in Colorado was killed in 1979 by a bow hunter who killed it with an arrow using his bare hands which if true makes The Revenant look like a highschool wreslting match..:)
Hunting has been very helpful in conservation as have charitable groups like Nature Conservancy. There is a whole fee system that offsets the costs as well.
I am however always troubled with the idea that wilderness and wild lands must somehow always be reduced to some economic cost-benefit analysis. That thinking is what will propel the looting of the West that sits now like a pending storm. How do we put a price on a hike in the mountains, a view of mountains across a pristine lake, or the quiet solitude of a mountain meadow in summer. Americans, indeed all human, need and appreciate wonder.
Finally given that before we 'tamed the west' it exisited at virtually no cost to anyone and the benefit of many. We manage it because we are here and wish to use it or wish it would leave us alone. So in some sense we are bearing the costs of our own making.
Let's not completely buy into the same narative we may find ourselves fighting. I remain an ally.
I understand that sentiment for sure. It's very easy to take wildlife for granted, and assume it would be better off without human intervention. But that's just not reality. The animals you see today are only there as the result of deliberate efforts to restore their populations. In order to continue the presence of that wildlife, we must also continue those efforts, while adapting to new challenges and realities. Losing sight of that is counter productive.
Non profits like Nature Conservancy (much of its operations can be better defined as preservation) are valuable and all, but they very much do not achieve anything approaching the scale of government level efforts. Only cohesive, continent-wide planning and programs are able to meet the challenge here.
I agree Wes. We all have a part to play and hunters are an important part and I am glad you are here to present a rational and friendly face to it. In southern NM the Gray Ranch is different look at how to protect land. It still supports a working ranch.
Conservation is a complex topic. When I lived in Britain, conservation areas had been under the hooves of livestock for so long that conservation demanded they keep some livestock there to sustain the habitat. Our history is not quite so deep but it does give some perspective.
I always loved the idea of the Buffalo Commons the Poppers promoted. As aquifers dry up it may yet be feasible.
Extreme cost of preservation? That is simply silly. Hunting is fine and has important merits. Th Game Lands of NC (NC Wildlife Resources Commisson) preserve important habitats and recreation areas, plus allow hunting. Preservation, wildlife corridors, climate change carbon management (by default if there is relatively intact healthy ecosystems), etc. provide far more benefits than extreme costs.
Maybe you are preaching in part to the choir, but I must hit the pause button on 'extreme cost'.
As Wes defined preservation- you can’t preserve a recreation area and allow hunting.
This is also specifically addressing quantifiable costs, because people are needed to do the work of designating, lobbying for, managing, protecting, researching, etc. we need to pay those people and pay for the work they are doing. We know there are other incredible benefits of preservation and conservation, but we need people to be able to work towards those things. They won’t just happen.
That’s why Wes’ closing to the article is what’s really important to me. We need a lot of conservation and mixed use that generates revenue, so that it can invested directly back into those places, and carry the cost of the areas that do need to keep humans out, or certain human activities.
Externalities is one area. Not all benefits can be quantified. Conservation also takes money.
In general I am not going further down this rabbit hole with you.
To me there are far larger more basic questions of climate change exponentially getting worse. I am not overly concerned arguing about conservation vs preservation. Both are inherently good things and both are well worth the investment.
There's a ton of externalities to both. National Parks bring billions in tourist spending to gateway communities and obviously have a ton of value in simply preserving our nations most special places. But there's a reason every pretty place isn't a national park.
For contrast, we can also look at most of the rest of the world, which lacks public lands outside of the few parks, along with conservation efforts away from small parcels of private. Visit those places and you will not see wildlife outside of parks. How sustainable do you feel that is?
I have traveled some to both public and private protected areas. America is not the only place with good conservation and preservation priorities.
And Wes at this moment surviving and resisting the fascism that is trying to take hold in America. And in general focusing my other time on self-care is far more important to me. I actually have a deep background and degrees in these fields, but I will say this is my closing response.
I wish you well in your continued Substack publishing.
Thanks Joe. When you're ready to share relevant facts and numbers I'm all ears. Good luck to all of us through this what's hopefully a short lived experiment in fascism!
Great article. I think people also often falsely believe that only “modern” humans have been impacting nature and wild places, that we have to remove ourselves in order to protect and preserve them. Indigenous/first nations/native Americans have been stewarding and managing ecosystems here long before we showed up, through use, harvest, fire setting, even planting tree species. They were in a close and intimate relationship with their environment, and taking actions to manage it for their wellbeing and that of the other living things. I am fortunate enough to have learned lots of Indigenous peoples here in eastern Canada, and I like their use of the word stewardship. We are looking after the environment actively, because we are part of it too.
Thank you for a thoughtful and informative explanation. It would be interesting to read someone’s counter perspective just to see both sides of an issue (if there are truly two sides to this issue).
There's really only a single argument: reality.
Hunting is permitted in much of my area, North Western New York. Here there is an overpopulation of deer that causes forest biodiversity to be poor, the deer eat much of the understory. I don't understand why the predator and ungulate populations are not kept in better balance by the game quotas of the Fish and Wildlife Service. I've heard many areas across the US have the same problem. What's up with that?
Good article. A couple of comments.
The last Grizzly in Arizona was killed in the 1920's as told by Aldo Leopold. I understand the last one in Colorado was killed in 1979 by a bow hunter who killed it with an arrow using his bare hands which if true makes The Revenant look like a highschool wreslting match..:)
Hunting has been very helpful in conservation as have charitable groups like Nature Conservancy. There is a whole fee system that offsets the costs as well.
I am however always troubled with the idea that wilderness and wild lands must somehow always be reduced to some economic cost-benefit analysis. That thinking is what will propel the looting of the West that sits now like a pending storm. How do we put a price on a hike in the mountains, a view of mountains across a pristine lake, or the quiet solitude of a mountain meadow in summer. Americans, indeed all human, need and appreciate wonder.
Finally given that before we 'tamed the west' it exisited at virtually no cost to anyone and the benefit of many. We manage it because we are here and wish to use it or wish it would leave us alone. So in some sense we are bearing the costs of our own making.
Let's not completely buy into the same narative we may find ourselves fighting. I remain an ally.
I understand that sentiment for sure. It's very easy to take wildlife for granted, and assume it would be better off without human intervention. But that's just not reality. The animals you see today are only there as the result of deliberate efforts to restore their populations. In order to continue the presence of that wildlife, we must also continue those efforts, while adapting to new challenges and realities. Losing sight of that is counter productive.
Non profits like Nature Conservancy (much of its operations can be better defined as preservation) are valuable and all, but they very much do not achieve anything approaching the scale of government level efforts. Only cohesive, continent-wide planning and programs are able to meet the challenge here.
I agree Wes. We all have a part to play and hunters are an important part and I am glad you are here to present a rational and friendly face to it. In southern NM the Gray Ranch is different look at how to protect land. It still supports a working ranch.
Conservation is a complex topic. When I lived in Britain, conservation areas had been under the hooves of livestock for so long that conservation demanded they keep some livestock there to sustain the habitat. Our history is not quite so deep but it does give some perspective.
I always loved the idea of the Buffalo Commons the Poppers promoted. As aquifers dry up it may yet be feasible.
Extreme cost of preservation? That is simply silly. Hunting is fine and has important merits. Th Game Lands of NC (NC Wildlife Resources Commisson) preserve important habitats and recreation areas, plus allow hunting. Preservation, wildlife corridors, climate change carbon management (by default if there is relatively intact healthy ecosystems), etc. provide far more benefits than extreme costs.
Maybe you are preaching in part to the choir, but I must hit the pause button on 'extreme cost'.
As Wes defined preservation- you can’t preserve a recreation area and allow hunting.
This is also specifically addressing quantifiable costs, because people are needed to do the work of designating, lobbying for, managing, protecting, researching, etc. we need to pay those people and pay for the work they are doing. We know there are other incredible benefits of preservation and conservation, but we need people to be able to work towards those things. They won’t just happen.
That’s why Wes’ closing to the article is what’s really important to me. We need a lot of conservation and mixed use that generates revenue, so that it can invested directly back into those places, and carry the cost of the areas that do need to keep humans out, or certain human activities.
Explain more. Preservation is inherently a cost. Conservation is income.
Externalities is one area. Not all benefits can be quantified. Conservation also takes money.
In general I am not going further down this rabbit hole with you.
To me there are far larger more basic questions of climate change exponentially getting worse. I am not overly concerned arguing about conservation vs preservation. Both are inherently good things and both are well worth the investment.
There's a ton of externalities to both. National Parks bring billions in tourist spending to gateway communities and obviously have a ton of value in simply preserving our nations most special places. But there's a reason every pretty place isn't a national park.
For contrast, we can also look at most of the rest of the world, which lacks public lands outside of the few parks, along with conservation efforts away from small parcels of private. Visit those places and you will not see wildlife outside of parks. How sustainable do you feel that is?
I have traveled some to both public and private protected areas. America is not the only place with good conservation and preservation priorities.
And Wes at this moment surviving and resisting the fascism that is trying to take hold in America. And in general focusing my other time on self-care is far more important to me. I actually have a deep background and degrees in these fields, but I will say this is my closing response.
I wish you well in your continued Substack publishing.
Thanks Joe. When you're ready to share relevant facts and numbers I'm all ears. Good luck to all of us through this what's hopefully a short lived experiment in fascism!
Yes thank you Wes. I hope you help do your part. Your gentle words are that of a wise leader.