The Real Conservationists

The systematic perversion of Environmental Ecology by Environmentalists and animal rights activists.

Environmentalism has been hijacked by people who are unqualified to save the environment. The social and political face of environmentalism has become attached to a radical jainist morality. Animal rights activism has polarized to extremes and has become synonymous with environmental activism. The result of this is a standard for protecting the environment by which the protectors quite literally cannot see the forest for the trees. I want to ask you, the reader, a question. Is it more important to treat animals with the rights traditionally reserved for humans or to preserve the ecological sustainability of the planet? The answer seems obvious. What is not so obvious, however, is whether or not this is a realistic choice that one would have to make. Unfortunately, the popular face of the environmental movement has been so marred as to force this line of inquiry. Extreme morality towards the organisms that make up the ecosystems of this world has a negative effect on our ability to preserve the ecosystems themselves.

What do I mean by "Jainist?"

The accusation of the environmentalist movement being dominated by a "radical Jainist morality" is meant to evoke an image of obsessive concern for the life of fellow organisms. This hyper-karmic awareness that would prevent the believer from harming even the most insignificant of organisms is often counter-productive. It demands massive time expenditure to be constantly wary of karmic minutia. While this sort of ideal is laudable, it is impractical for any person who is not themselves part of a monastic order; requiring excessive effort that could do more good if redirected. Also, this is not to say that all Jainists are nearly so obsessive about their 'karmic footprint,' only that some of the more extreme ideals associated with Jainism share common elements with the modern image of North American environmentalist philosophy.

Does it matter why you want to save the environment?

In order to continue this discussion we must first define the morality of environmentalism. Certainly most people would draw the line somewhere in regards to how extreme of measures they would would take to save the environment. However, most would recognize that any ecologically beneficial action that does more good than harm is probably acceptable. On that note, if someone is serving your environmental ideals without causing any collateral damage, would you begrudge their actions if you disagreed with their impetus to do them? This brings us back to this section's title: Does it matter why you want to save the environment? Keep that question in mind as we progress.

Pathological Morality.

The goals of environmentalism have been perverted by political stereotyping. Liberalism has been stereotyped as the only champion of the environment. As a result, so have other movements associated with liberalism been grouped in by association. I am referring to animal rights. That is not to say they are one in the same, only that the same people tend to be supporters of both. The problem with this is that animal rights activism has become a cancerous movement of pathological morality. It is honorable to hold sacred the lives of all living beings. However it is the nature animals such as ourselves that we must consume other organisms in order to survive. It has become the crusade of these people to draw a moral line above which they judge the actions of themselves and others. By becoming vegans, they are not responsible for the death of animals for their own consumption. These people protest the raising of domesticated animals for food and other purposes. Often these protests are in themselves quite inhumane. PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals) claims that domesticated animals should not be kept for our consumption. They suggest that these animals should be allowed to live free and naturally. These animals that have been domesticated for thousands of years would fare quite well after the animal rights revolution resulted in their liberation. They would fare well, of course, only so long as someone continued to care for them without any sort of production expected on their part. Logic dictates that the ideals of the animal rights movement would result in the extinction of many domesticated species.

Of course, PETA is considered by many to be a somewhat radical group. More mainstream animal rights activists would argue that they only promote that domesticated animals be treated kindly and humanely. These same people, however, will in the same breath demonize the killing of animals by hunters. Hunters have become something of a scapegoat of the "green" left. Hunters are treated as poorly sexed ignorant slobs by these people. However, I would have to question the person who argued that killing a cow for slaughter with a bludgeon upside the head is more moral than dropping a dear quickly and painlessly in its tracks with a rifle. What I am getting at is that the animal rights movement has gone far beyond strictly the humane treatment of animals towards the imposition of these peoples' guilty morality on others. In short, if you believe that we should not have domesticated animals, you are deluded. If you believe that killing a domesticated animal is any less human than killing a wild one, you are equally misguided.

This begs the question:

Is hunting environmentally friendly?

Some people would answer this question quickly and without a second thought: emphatically NO! This unfortunately is the sign of an individual who has already been swayed by the perverse animal rights movement. Unfortunately animal rights, as I have said, has become inextricably tied with environmentalism.

I can't blame someone for the knee jerk reaction of seeing hunting as an environmentally unfriendly practice. Indeed over hunting, as seen particularly in this country's history, contributed to the wholesale slaughter of many a valuable species. However, blaming hunting for unsustainable over hunting is like blaming humanity for war. Yes one causes the other, but to see the evil as its only aspect would be to deny a much greater whole.

Hunters are the real conservationists. Modern hunters are individuals who enjoy their sport and want to protect it for themselves and generations to come. When they are not fighting off activists who want their heads on pikes, they are doing what they can to ensure sustainable hunting practices. Why would a hunter practice conservation? Really it is quite simple: in order to hunt quality game without running out, one must ensure as healthy and lush an ecosystem as possible. According to Versus Country, sportsmen donate upwards of $700 million to conservationist efforts annually in the United States alone. If you disagree with hunting, thats one thing, but it would be irresponsible to deny that these people are responsible for some of the most effective conservation efforts in the world. Indeed, now we as a species understand that game animals have a definite minimum survivable population below which they should not be hunted. As a result, modern hunting practices are designed to sustainably regulate healthy ecosystems. Unfortunately this cannot adequately protect hunting habitats from human expansion. As a result, wealthy hunters routinely own massive tracts of land on which they carefully tend and protect a healthy ecosystem. But don't take my word for it, check out their own literature for yourself:

• Game Management Websites

Can you see the forest despite the trees?

An overwhelming movement of selfish, guilty morality has perverted the environmentalist cause. If a man were to kill a specific quota of deer in order to ensure that the population did not grow so large as to over stretch its food supply or become prone to pandemic illness, the modern environmentalist would, more often than not, portray him as a monster for having callously taken the life of bambi. In person I have been confronted by this same unbelievable argument. The question that you need to ask yourself is whether or not you think the morality of hunting represents more bad than species conservation represents good. If you think it is wrong to kill a wild animal, ask yourself how you feel about killing a domesticated one. This leads down a rather silly road of course. If, like the Jainists, you continue this line of thought, you would find yourself agonizing over the life of insects underfoot.

I'm not trying to tell you where to draw the moral line, only to point out that you are drawing a line. This is about relative degrees of morality compared with degrees of worth. Is the forest worth the death of a few trees?

Ethnography

My inspiration for this causal argument is a case study with which I have been closely involved.

Everglades National Park represents one of the United State's most diverse and fragile ecosystems. Considered a world heritage sight for both its value for posterity and high risk of destruction, the Everglades have become a hotbed of environmental legislation. Recent legislation, however, in the act of trying to impose more strict environmental regulation would have in fact had a negative impact. That is, if this legislation had been passed. In a state bill linked to the Oceans 21 act, it was proposed that the gulf coast of Everglades National Park near Everglades city be strictly limited in access to sport fishermen. Needless to say, the fishermen were outraged... I was outraged.

For years now I have been fishing the gulf waters of Everglades National Park with my Uncle. There is a small group of lifetime sport fishermen and fishing guides that would have had their past times and livelihoods destroyed had this legislation gone through. More importantly, however, this pro-environment legislation was so out of touch that in fact it would have had a negative impact on this rich marine ecosystem.

In all the years that I have been snook fishing with my Uncle, while having caught countless quality fish, the only trophies either of us ever took home while I was on the boat were photographs. To my knowledge, I never killed a fish. This is not to say I have a problem with killing fish, I catch many around here to eat. My uncle, as well as most of his fellow lifetime anglers, feels a great responsibility for the health of the waters of the everglades gulf coast. Sportsman of all varieties as a rule value nothing more than the continued well being of the outdoor habitats in which they hunt and fish. These people hold these lands and waters in deep reverence, and feel that they must be treasured and preserved for future generations. My uncle and the anglers of Everglades city are no exception. Their support has long been a primary driving force in the maintenance and preservation of the abundant ecosystems they enjoy.

The afore-mentioned legislation, being handed down from a state and federal level, would have prevented these people from the places that they love by virtually banning the use of motorized watercraft in the park. Unfortunately, these persons were trying to make legislation that would effect a people and a place that they had never seen. They were trying to save an ecosystem by evicting its most ardent defenders. This legislation would have allowed tourists to paddle canoes through the mangrove islands (as they can now), but would have barred fishermen from waters that they and their kin had fished responsibly for generations.

Some would claim that the fish take of the sportsmen is enough to disrupt the ecosystem, but allow me to dissuade you from believing such lies. Because the park is already forbidden to commercial fishermen, the actual impact of sport fishing is insignificant. Sport fishermen exist in very small numbers and catch very few fish; most of which are set free. And don't by any means doubt an angler's love for fish. If you think fishermen are bloodthirsty megalomaniacs, showing their dominance by tricking innocent animals with enticing bait, come along with me and watch my uncle as he nurses a snook: running water through its gills as to insure that it is healthy and able to swim back from whence it came. That fish may be bigger next year.