PRESERVATIONISTS VS. CONSERVATIONIST: NOT ALL ENVIRONMENTALISTS SHARE THE SAME APPROACH, BELIEFS

We see it often on television. We read about it in our local and national newspapers. With titles like "Environmentalists block major project," or "Environmental activists chain themselves to trees," the connotation is that environmentalists are radicals.

Sometimes, there is a feeling that environmentalists are out to undermine society by some dubious plot to destroy our economies, so we may all live in log cabins and eat wild hickory nuts.

The purpose of this article is to attempt to dispel some of the inaccuracies surrounding the environmental movement. I want to distinguish between radical leftist environmental groups and collectively what are known as conservationists.

Finally, I want people to know what most conservationists believe in and problems that concern us.

Conservationists are environmentalists, but they are not limited to biologists and scientists. Many people who are business leaders, medical doctors, farmers, and politicians are also conservationists.

There are arguably two types of environmentalists: preservationists and conservationists. Preservationists believe that large tracts of land should never be used or modified by humans. Some, but not all, preservationists are anti-hunting or fishing.

The radical element of the environmental movement is comprised of extreme preservationists. These are the so-called tree-huggers and other people who do crazy things like blow up businesses and roads, etc. Conservationists believe in the wise use of our natural resources (not to be confused with the radical anti-environmental group of the American West known as Wise Use).

Conservationists believe in hunting and fishing. Conservationists, although recognizing the need for setting aside natural areas for rare species, scientific study, ecological functioning, and aesthetics, do not believe, for example, that all forests should become museums and that farming is a bad thing for the environment.

My opinions that follow may not be that of each and every conservationist, but generally represent the consensus of the whole.

Contrary to what some influential business and political leaders may contend, conservationists believe in economic growth. We also believe that we can have the best of all worlds: we can have economic growth and healthy environments.

Many conservationists subscribe to the sustainable development concept, which simply means that carefully planned economic growth can be meshed with environmental concerns such that both sides prosper. This requires that conservationists and business leaders work together to solve problems.

In situations where this concept has been applied, businesses have reduced start up costs and experienced economic growth at rates above expectations.

One of the oldest examples of sustainable development is agriculture. By rotating crops, no-till planting, establishing grassed waterways, and leaving a 50- to 100-foot corridor of trees along streams, the farmer saves and enriches the soil and wildlife flourishes. Sometimes this means a few acres are taken out of production and sometimes wildlife, like deer, become a problem, but there are ways to compensate for idle ground and to reduce deer populations.

Conservationists believe in property rights. Contrary to the accusations of little games of "I spy", conservationists do not concern themselves with what private citizens do on their land. The only exceptions to that are pollution events, which harm the environment or kill animals. Many conservationists live on farms and acreages and we do not appreciate anyone poking around our property or telling us what to do either.

Because conservationists feel so strongly about this, we would never allow our governments to "control" what we do on our property to save a species. For example, the Endangered Species Act has been labeled as a "land grab run amok."

I have never heard of an instance where the federal government has condemned land in the name of endangered species, yet I have seen countless condemnations in the name of economic progress. A recent example here in southeastern Missouri is the government's attempted condemnation of land above Cape Girardeau to build a dry storage reservoir for flood control.

Conservationists are concerned about human population numbers. This is not a critical problem in the United States, yet, but urban sprawl and the loss of valuable agricultural land is becoming an issue. Often, conservationists are criticized by PETA, who are anti-hunting and fishing activists.

The fact is that diminished fish and wildlife resources are more likely the result of good farm ground being converted to other less wildlife-compatible uses as opposed to over hunting and fishing. This is where sustainable development could be used to create greenways and set aside good farmland to avoid hundreds of square miles of concrete jungles like our large metropolitan areas. As prime farm land diminishes and populations grow, something is going to come to a head.

Conservationists are dumb-founded by the pseudo (false) debate referred to as people versus animals. A good conservationist never places critters over people. Most conservationists have families and children. I wouldn't cause hardship for my family over the well-being of an animal, so why would I do it to other people?

The real problem in this "debate" is whether the project is really necessary, or if it is, can some other alternative be used. In most of these people versus animals issues, the project is either unnecessary or people are being too cheap or lazy to seek reasonable alternatives.

Yes, sometimes the alternative may cost a little more, but will a few extra dollars/person hurt us so badly that we must destroy "lesser" forms of life in the name of progress? And what about those lesser forms of life? How much different are they from us? And how beneficial? As science expands, we have learned that these less complex life forms hold many secrets.

For example, it's long been known that most sharks do not develop cancer. It seems that dogfish sharks produce a substance named squalamine, a natural cancer-fighting agent. Research continues into understanding how many lesser forms of life can regenerate limbs, but we advanced humans can not. A great proportion of our medicines come from plants and animals. What if we simply dismissed them as unimportant as the last chance of a cure for cancer slowly dies off because of our ignorance?

Who knows, maybe even the pallid sturgeon, an endangered species and a source of controversy on Mississippi River projects, may save your life someday. We won't know if it is gone.

Finally, conservationists despise pork-barrel projects. A pork-barrel project is one that is very costly, but benefits only a few people and most of the time has seriously negative environmental impacts.

Conservationists, like all people, don't want to pay taxes above and beyond what is necessary, but it seems our government finances more unnecessary, over-inflated pork-barrel projects than ever before. Where do all these projects come from? The answer is greed. Our government is still a government of the people.

The government doesn't make up these projects just to keep busy. These projects are introduced by our elected officials. Our government was founded on the principle that the majority rules, but is this what happens? What really happens is the vocal special interest groups, and usually those with lots of money who are looking to make more money (greed), lobby for big, expensive projects and convince our elected officials (by a promise of votes) to sponsor bills in the legislature for their construction.

Conservationists do not wish to stand in the way of "progress". But, many of us are disillusioned by the way the system operates, which is clearly different than what our forefathers intended, and the negative labels we receive simply because we wish to live on a healthy planet.

Robert Hrabik is a fisheries research biologist with the Missouri Department of Conservation.