E-21 BC guys

Just listened to episode 21 with the Boone & Crockett Club guys discussion.
Enjoyed it alot,and it gave me more to think about...just what I need.lol

I now have a much better understanding of BC & what they represent in total.
Always just figured it was a trophy club ,basically.
I now see a group working in the shadow of Teddy,only making a modern cast to the shade & light.
I also am glad to see I'm still a true conservationist,regardless of who has tried to hijack the term for themselves these days.......the envirowackos, who also stole the environmentalist name and ruined it.

Once again, good stuff Randy!
I'm thinking of joining now.

It's interesting, to hear this relative hard line stance against environmentalism. It's not something I agree with and have a hard time understanding it. I don't see a whole lot of conservationists out there in the general public. What I do see are a lot environmentalists and a lot of anti-environmentalists (those that generally want unfettered rights to rape and pillage our natural resources).

I personally know a few "envirowackos" but I know orders of magnitude more anit-environmentalists, people against all environmental regulation.

If I had to side with a group, which I feel we, as actual conservationists will need to need to do if we want to enjoy any significant political presence (or at the very least need to pick a side to NOT alienate), then I'm buying a prius, renewing my REI membership, wearing nothing but pataguchi, and siding with the environmentalists.

Even if that path leads to my grandkids never hunting, at least they'll have somewhere to recreate and wildlife to observe. I can't stomach the idea of anything less.

I guess it's not that I don't support conservation and would prefer it as the guiding principle on natural resource management in this country, but I just don't think bashing environmental groups is beneficial to the cause.

neffa3 said:

It's interesting, to hear this relative hard line stance against environmentalism. It's not something I agree with and have a hard time understanding it. I don't see a whole lot of conservationists out there in the general public. What I do see are a lot environmentalists and a lot of anti-environmentalists (those that generally want unfettered rights to rape and pillage our natural resources).

I personally know a few "envirowackos" but I know orders of magnitude more anit-environmentalists, people against all environmental regulation.

If I had to side with a group, which I feel we, as actual conservationists will need to need to do if we want to enjoy any significant political presence (or at the very least need to pick a side to NOT alienate), then I'm buying a prius, renewing my REI membership, wearing nothing but pataguchi, and siding with the environmentalists.

Even if that path leads to my grandkids never hunting, at least they'll have somewhere to recreate and wildlife to observe. I can't stomach the idea of anything less.

I guess it's not that I don't support conservation and would prefer it as the guiding principle on natural resource management in this country, but I just don't think bashing environmental groups is beneficial to the cause.

Click to expand...

You don't see a lot of conservasionists out in the general public? You haven't been paying attention to the "general public" on this website. Furthermore, some environmental groups bring the "bashing" on themselves. A path where my grandkids cannot hunt is unacceptable to me. And why I am a hunter/conservationist. No Prius required. mtmuley

mtmuley said:

You don't see a lot of conservasionists out in the general public? You haven't been paying attention to the "general public" on this website.

Click to expand...

That's completely correct. In the valley I live in, with 50,000 people, I had to join an online forum that draws users from all over the country to actually find this tribe, to be able to have intelligent conversations about hunting and wildlife and access and public land and real world politics, etc. I found hunters here, lot of them, an environmentalists, and anti-environmentalists, but not one person I would say is a conservationist. So maybe I have a skewed perspective, or am just pessimistic, but I don't see where conservationists have enough political sway without joining more similar minded groups (at least on some items), including the moderate environmentalists. We both love critters, we both love public land, and recreating on those lands. That's too much in common to put up a wall between us.

Honestly, I think that labels do more to hurt the movement to protect wild places than help it, and I think people actually have way more in common with each other than they think. I grew up with what some would consider hippie parents, we didn't hunt and my parents certainly used republican as a four letter word. My wife's family are huge hunters and used the word liberal in the same capacity. Both of our families love the woods and I grew up hiking, skiing, biking, ect. When I started hunting with my wife my parents thought it was a bit strange, but after a couple of years I talked my dad and father-in-law into going with me on an elk hunt and they hit it off huge and were thick as thieves the whole trip. Seems to me that the animosity between political groups is largely artificial created by the media to get eyeballs on the screens and sell print and that when people actually listen to each other and hang out the realize they care about the same stuff. My dad and father-in-law might not vote for the same president this election but you can bet your ass they will be there screaming Colorado tries to dispose of public lands.

I think the best thing we can do as hunters is be ambassadors for our sport and ethics and carefully explain to others why we do what we do. In the long run cultivating allies within like minded groups is way better than creating enemies by arguing who loves nature the best conservationists or environmentalists

https://vimeo.com/158050990
I like this.
I believe that hunting is conservation, and that conservation goes hand-in-hand with environmentalism. But real environmentalism, that makes a tangible difference to positively impact The environment.
There are a lot of so-called environmental groups, that have very few if any results to show for the millions of dollars they received from their donors.
The guys at the top are happy. Their trial attorneys are really happy, but the environment that they claim to love often times does not see much of a benefit.

Interesting comments. I've spent a lot of time researching and studying both Conservation and Environmentalism. I am surprised at how much academic study has been made of the two ideologies. The history is actually very interesting if you are into how people and cultures form their ideas, how the ideas get implemented, and how the ideas evolve as the political and social landscape changes.

There is as many differences in the two ideologies as their are similarities. Modern Environmentalism is widely held to have started following WWII. It evolved from nuclear testing, air and water pollution, and some other issues that brought forth the unsustainability of activities occurring at that time. The popular laws that came from that period in the 1960s and 1970s had great support among both Conservationist and Environmentalists. Some trace the political and social capital for the Environmental movement to have come from the modern day Conservation movement that took hold 70-80 years prior.

Read any of the academic papers or books on the two ideologies and you will see some big differences. Differences that were more nuances 50 years ago, but have become quite wider gaps today. The core differences listed by most of the folks who have made study of the two ideologies would come down to few most basic differences; 1) Modern Conservation views humans as participants in the natural world, while Modern Environmentalism often results in efforts to make humans a spectator of the natural world, 2) Modern Conservation is usually based on local or state control/policies, while Modern Environmentalism relies more on National or Global control/policies, 3) Modern Conservation usually relies on human-centric management plans as its primary mechanism, while Modern Environmentalism relies more on legal, political, and social efforts as its primary mechanism, and 4) Modern Conservation is based on a land-based theory as originally stated by Aldo Leupold, while Modern Environmentalism is often based on a single species focus.

A lot of other differences exist. Too many to list here. Not saying one is right or one is wrong. Often times, both ideologies end up supporting/opposing the same ideas and they look very much alike. Other times, the mechanisms one uses and the difference between the spectator-participant paradigm causes the two ideologies to be on opposite sides.

The arguments we have over many issues, say wolves, grizzly bears, etc. are a function of whether we adhere to the tenets of Conservation or the tenets of Environmentalism.

I do not think it is healthy for the media to be using the terms interchangeably. They are very different ideologies. Most media are not going to do the research to learn the differences. That is too bad, as in the current political/social time we find ourselves, the differences are more amplified than ever. And the outcomes of policies will be far different based on which ideology is given priority in the processes used in resource management.

Fin, can you point me to some papers or books on the subject?

I tend to think that most environmentalists, at least the ones I know well, would actually support a more conservation ideology, if, for one, there were better education and PR about what conservation is and how it differs from other ideologies, and two, if they didn't feel that there were such strong forces attempting to plunder our natural resources. The thought being a strong destructive force needs an equally strong preservation force if the end goal is to get a conserved sustained use.

neffa3 said:

Fin, can you point me to some papers or books on the subject?

I tend to think that most environmentalists, at least the ones I know well, would actually support a more conservation ideology, if, for one, there were better education and PR about what conservation is and how it differs from other ideologies, and two, if they didn't feel that there were such strong forces attempting to plunder our natural resources. The thought being a strong destructive force needs an equally strong preservation force if the end goal is to get a conserved sustained use.

Click to expand...

Google "Conservation versus Environmentalism" and pages and pages of it will come up. Also, Google "Modern Environmentalism" and "Environmentalism History." You can do the same for "Conservation."

Many will quote Carolyn Merchant, an Environmental History professor at Cal-Berkley, as their expert on the Environmental movement. Certainly makes for some interesting reading if you are more inclined to approach natural world issues from a Conservationist perspective.

neffa3 said:

Fin, can you point me to some papers or books on the subject?

I tend to think that most environmentalists, at least the ones I know well, would actually support a more conservation ideology, if, for one, there were better education and PR about what conservation is and how it differs from other ideologies, and two, if they didn't feel that there were such strong forces attempting to plunder our natural resources.......

Click to expand...

Commonality among the ideologies of Conservation and Environmentalism exists in their agreement that the strongest force that results in, as you write, "plunder of our natural resources," is the human birth rate. Every tenet of Conservation and Environmentalism is impacted by the continuing growth of human population and the demands that growing population has on the finite resources of the planet. Competition for those resources, allocation of the resources, debates over how the resources should be converted to human benefit, are central to the debate, whether one comes at it from the Environmentalism or Conservationism perspective.

Big Fin said:

Commonality among the ideologies of Conservation and Environmentalism exists in their agreement that the strongest force that results in, as you write, "plunder of our natural resources," is the human birth rate.

Click to expand...

Very true, but the birth rate is also socially impossible to regulate (in the US) and is completely dependent on social trends and individual choices. Thankfully people are choosing to have fewer kids, at least some groups. The birth rate is the US (1.81) is now below the replacement rate (2.1) and we've only added 10 years to the life expectancy in the last half century.

This is one issue where you can make an argument that being a selfish person, wanting more money and more freedom for yourself, and thus not having kids, is a good thing.

glad I found this post, because I was going to make a new one!

Just listened to episode 21, and wanted to say thank you! I agree with Hank4elk, it was very informative, and I also realized how much the Boone and Crockett Club and its leadership are in line with my hunting and conservation ideologies. It was very refreshing, and great to hear the discussions and their points of view. I hope many more people listen to that podcast, it would help to enlighten a lot of folks who in the dark and complain about what is happening with land management but don't "look deeper" as Randy put it.

Boone and Crockett just got a new member!
Thanks again for a great podcast