# Why aren't conservatives conservationists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000 "2009-04-04T21:52:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/21 "2009-04-05T01:02:02Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Can you give me just one example? It’s an interesting notion. It’s been ages since I read the book, so I’ll rely on this review: > [@](#): > > [Park directors embraced one incoherent strategy after another. In 1915, they began a program to eradicate wolves, mountain lions, and coyotes in the park to protect elk. Rangers got part of their salaries in pelts. They were assisted in the effort by the US Biological Survey, which had embarked on a systematic campaign to eliminate predators throughout the west. > > At the same time, authorities were setting up serious long-term problems between grizzly bears and people by establishing feeding stations at open dumps and providing bleachers for people to watch the bears forage through the garbage. Then, when the bear population increased, they closed the dumps, forcing the animals to seek food elsewhere - at campsites and in the towns outside the park. The bears grew thin and many were killed raiding trash in Gardiner and other settlements, but the new policy held. > > The elimination of predators led to an increase in elk far beyond the carrying capacity of the park, so authorities embarked on a herd reduction program that encouraged hunting at the park boundaries. These were little more than canned hunts, with hundreds of elk killed by roadside hunters. The public didn’t like the hunts, so they were stopped. When the herd increased again, park officials solved the problem by feeding them through the winter in spite of the non-interference policy. > > The overabundance of elk put nutritional pressure on other hoofed animals, and the stressed bighorn sheep developed pinkeye during the winter of 1981-82. Pinkeye is treatable, but the noninterference policy held fast. However, rangers were allowed to shoot the animals that fell from the cliffs when they were temporarily blinded by the disease. The bighorn herd dropped from about 500 animals to 180. > > Throughout this narrative, Chase makes sure that the reader understands that these policies were not the result of a cavalier attitude towards the animals but rather were undertaken in sincere efforts to protect the park and its plants and animals under the direction given by Congress.]([National Animal Interest Alliance](http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/yelstn01.htm)). That kind of pattern has happened again and again. Animal A is endangered, so we protect them. This leads to increased numbers of Animal A, who eat lots of Plant B … the growth of which which means that Plant C is crowded out, and reduces the numbers of Animal D (who feeds exclusively on plant C), and is really really bad for Predator E, who eats Animal D. And now Predator E is endangered … And we look back on things like designated grizzly-feeding areas and say “we’re so much smarter now” … missing the point that those mistakes were made by intelligent, concerned people who really thought they were doing the wisest thing. And that we do in fact make the same mistakes now. Take for example, the plan to fight global warming by requiring the use of biofuels. Great idea, eh? [http://www.cato.org/pub\_display.php?pub\_id=8206](http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8206) > **[Palm oil: the biofuel of the future driving an ecological disaster now](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/apr/04/energy.indonesia)** > > The numbers are damning. Within 15 years 98% of the rainforests of Indonesia and Malaysia will be gone, little more than a footnote in history. With them will disappear some of the world's most important wildlife species, victims of the rapacious... [http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press\_releases/burning\_palm\_oil\_fuels\_cli\_23082006.html](http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/burning_palm_oil_fuels_cli_23082006.html) The Big Myth is that nature exists in some sort of perfect harmony, and it’s only bad old humans that mess it up. In reality, the environment, including the climate, is always changing, always in flux, whit species always growing or shrinking or becoming extinct altogether. We understand it very, very, very poorly. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/22 "2009-04-05T01:58:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yeah, right. :rolleyes: Because demanding that you be allowed to marry the person you love is exactly the same as forbidding people to marry the one the love. Because wanting to follow your own religious beliefs or lack of same is the same as wanting to write your religious beliefs into law. Because laying waste to the ecology is the same as not laying waste to the ecology. Wanting to keep and bear weapons is the same as wanting to deprive citizens of the right to keep and bear weapons. Wanting to use lightbulbs which do not contain mercury is the same as wanting to force people to use lightbulbs which contain mercury. Wanting to choose how and whether to donate to charity is the same as wanting to force people to give to charity. > [@](#): > > Yup; those are _realllly_ similar. Yup; those are _realllly_ similar. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/23 "2009-04-05T02:41:07Z")
> [@furt](#): > > It’s been ages since I read the book, so I’ll rely on this review: Not being familiar with the book, but being VERY familiar with the NAIA, do you have any reviews, cites, etc., that aren’t from them? Not having any knowledge of him, it’s quite possible that the author is extremely concerned about animal welfare, conservation, etc., but the NAIA is pretty much the opposite, so I’d like a better second-hand source for the material, if possible. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/24 "2009-04-05T02:49:21Z")
My take on it (to the OP) is that conservatives generally view the left as sky-is-falling Chicken Littles prone to alarm for no good reason and who are anti-business and pro-government in their philosophies to boot. Thus, when the left starts complaining that we’re running out of trees and we need laws to protect them, the right looks out and sees trees as far as the eye can see (and as a renewable resource anyway), and views these concerns as baseless alarmism and an attempt to promote further government control over American private life and enterprise. The left also seems to resent the harvesting of trees because companies are harvesting them in order to _make money_ :mad:, where the right applauds the harvesting of trees because then everything from houses to salad bowls to toothpicks get made, and we view those as good things that enhance the quality of life. I think the same type of attitudes exist on both sides where global warming, snail darters or anything else environmental is concerned. The left is fearful and wants government control (which come to think of it is pretty much liberal ideology in a nutshell) and the right wants to be left alone in order to get things done and be free of needless and possibly hostile government interference. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/25 "2009-04-05T03:20:16Z")
Personal property rights vs. environmental protections are one problem. Hunting vs. taking photos is another. Ducks Unlimited is one of the most successful non-governmental conservation group (wetlands protection), and is heavily backed by hunters. I think that a large part of the problem is the duality in our politics. The Left “owns” the environment as a cause, so the Right can not embrace it and instead has to openly fight it. I find a similar issue with guns - there are plenty of Left Wing Gun Nuts out there, but they are shunned by the “leaders” of their group. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/26 "2009-04-05T03:38:56Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Not being familiar with the book, but being VERY familiar with the NAIA, do you have any reviews, cites, etc., that aren’t from them? Not having any knowledge of him, it’s quite possible that the author is extremely concerned about animal welfare, conservation, etc., but the NAIA is pretty much the opposite, so I’d like a better second-hand source for the material, if possible. I have no idea nor concern about who or what NAIA is. It’s irrelevant. I linked to a synopsis of a book, and a generally accurate one as far as I can recall. If you don’t like them, google the name of the book and read one of the dozens of other summaries of the book on the internet. The author was very much concerned about the environment, but one of the main points of the book, and the one that applies to this thread, was that things at Yellowstone kept getting fouled up by exactly the people who were sincerely trying to do right by the ecosystem with their new grand schemes. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/27 "2009-04-05T03:44:17Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] If we’re going by the U.S. “buzzword” conservative then what we’re really talking about are Republicans. Historically speaking most Republican Presidents have engaged in some forms of environmental activism; Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to be a conservationist and also was a self-labeled conservative. Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency. [/QUOTE] > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And the modern Republican party isn’t like that anymore. Regarding conservationism and conservatism, there’s a strong element of truth to that statement. Up until 1980 or so, most environmental issues were not so politically and ideologically divisive as they were later. Be they liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, most people advocated legislation against pollution and for wilderness preservation. It really wasn’t until Reagan was elected and his selection of [James Watt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt) as Interior Secretary that anti-environmental attitudes started becoming ingrained into the Republican Party and mainstream conservatism. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/28 "2009-04-05T03:50:37Z")
Why aren’t ‘progressives’ in favor of progress? Because the words Conservative and Progressive have been highjacked and have no relation to their original meanings. They are both double-speak propaganda words. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/29 "2009-04-05T04:06:10Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I have no idea nor concern about who or what NAIA is. It’s irrelevant. No, it’s not irrelevant. If the link had simply been text from the book, it wouldn’t matter where it came from. Since the link was to a synopsis provided by an extremely biased organization, one is hard pressed to get an understanding of what the author’s actual arguments were. > [@](#): > > I linked to a synopsis of a book, and a generally accurate one as far as I can recall. If you don’t like them, google the name of the book and read one of the dozens of other summaries of the book on the internet. I have, which is why I questioned your particular link. I was able to find plenty of people who critiqued the book, while still showing admiration for many things in it, such as [here](http://www.yellowstone-online.com/2006/12/looking-back-at-alston-chases-playing.html). I’m pretty sure that he’s not a lobbyist for the “debarking” industry. > [@](#): > > The author was very much concerned about the environment, but one of the main points of the book, and the one that applies to this thread, was that things at Yellowstone kept getting fouled up by exactly the people who were sincerely trying to do right by the ecosystem with their new grand schemes. And one of the critiques of the book is that this point was based on what the author considered to be an optimal Yellowstone, **in his opinion**. Either way, now that I’ve found other links with summaries of the books, and without the heavy bias, I’m happy to stop this highjack in its tracks. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/30 "2009-04-05T14:08:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Why aren’t conservatives conservationists? Because Conservatism has been hijacked by Commercialism and Corporate-ism, & can no long think of itself separately from those doctrines. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/31 "2009-04-05T14:48:10Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Wanting to keep and bear weapons is the same as wanting to deprive citizens of the right to keep and bear weapons. Regulation!=deprivation. > [@brazil84](#): > > Wanting to use lightbulbs which do not contain mercury is the same as wanting to force people to use lightbulbs which contain mercury. Fluorescent lightbulbs contain very little mercury, and their energy efficiency means that less electricity is needed for the same illumination, which means less mercury is released from the coal burned to power it. A ban has been announced, yes, but that was signed by George Bush. > [@brazil84](#): > > Wanting to choose how and whether to donate to charity is the same as wanting to force people to give to charity. Forcing? Who’s doing that? Everybody wants others to donate, to the point of giving tax breaks. Who’s proposing mandatory gifts to charities, other than businesses involved with the United Way? > [@brazil84](#): > > Yup; those are _realllly_ similar. With your distortions, sure. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/32 "2009-04-05T14:59:37Z")
First, as \*\*Tamerlane \*\*pointed out, it’s a question of conflicting interests, and conservatives are generally more protective of individual property rights. Second, large-scale conservation efforts are generally very expensive – either in terms of government spending, or in state-mandated costs to private business – which is more likely to rankle the small-government folks. As I understand it he’s not a conservative, but [this](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1&hp) NY Times article on Freeman Dyson and AGW is worth a read. Essentially, he’s saying that the problems associated with climate change are quite uncertain, whereas the costs of a large scale effort to throw it unto reverse – to the extent that we even know what they are – are huge. Example: > [@NY Times Magazine](#): > > To Dyson, “the move of the populations of China and India from poverty to middle-class prosperity should be the great historic achievement of the century. Without coal it cannot happen.” ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/33 "2009-04-05T16:10:33Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I think the same type of attitudes exist on both sides where global warming, snail darters or anything else environmental is concerned. The left is fearful and wants government control (which come to think of it is pretty much liberal ideology in a nutshell) and the right wants to be left alone in order to get things done and be free of needless and possibly hostile government interference. And your post goes a long way towards explaining why the left thinks the right is the party of “I got mine, fuck you.” ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/34 "2009-04-05T16:13:14Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > > [@Der Trihs](#): > > > > They want to force the people to live and think the way they want; reshape the world according to their fantasies . . . > > The same could be said of many liberals. [Example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=513024). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/35 "2009-04-05T16:47:45Z")
Thread’s open, Bubba. You got profound insights to offer, ain’t nobody stopping you. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/36 "2009-04-05T18:09:38Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > And your post goes a long way towards explaining why the left thinks the right is the party of “I got mine, fuck you.” Why must it be “I got mine, _fuck you_”? I’d characterize it more like “I got mine, why don’t you get yours”? The only people who think the conservative position is I Got Mine, Fuck You are people who want to take away what others have earned and spend it on behalf of those who have chosen a less stressful, less risky and less industrious - and therefore less financially rewarding - way of life, and who therefore seek to demonize the earners by attributing to them selfish and inflammatory sentiments they don’t have. Why should you be entitled to some of what others have worked for just because you exist? If you’re running low on food do you feel entitled to walk into your neighbor’s house and help yourself to some of his food simply because he has some and you don’t? Would you feel entitled to take money from his wallet because he has more than you do and you happen to need some? And would you call him selfish or uncaring when he objects? Chances are you wouldn’t, and if not what’s the difference between your doing it and the government doing it on your behalf? Why can’t you just provide for yourself instead of wanting to take what others have earned and then calling them names or accusing them of inflammatory sentiments when they object? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/37 "2009-04-05T18:17:15Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yeah, right. :rolleyes: Because demanding that you be allowed to marry the person you love is exactly the same as forbidding people to marry the one the love. Because wanting to follow your own religious beliefs or lack of same is the same as wanting to write your religious beliefs into law. Because laying waste to the ecology is the same as not laying waste to the ecology. > > Yup; those are _realllly_ similar. Yeah, right. :rolleyes: Because Liberalism is defined by only three issues . . . and you get to pick which three. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/38 "2009-04-05T18:32:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Thread’s open, Bubba. You got profound insights to offer, ain’t nobody stopping you. Who, me? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/39 "2009-04-05T18:42:20Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Why must it be “I got mine, _fuck you_”? I’d characterize it more like “I got mine, why don’t you get yours”? …calling them names or accusing them of inflammatory sentiments when they object? “And here endeth the lesson”, said Father Scrooge, closing the breviary… ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000/40 "2009-04-05T23:49:41Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Cite? I believe that Teddy actually considered himself a [progressive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_roosevelt). > > :dubious: Read the book Theodore Rex (by Edmund Morris), in addition to being a great read it makes it quite clear that Roosevelt called himself a conservative. In the book there is even a quote from Roosevelt himself that explains that his definition of conservative is not maintenance of the status quo but a policy of gradual and structured change. In T.R.'s opinion change was certain, but the manner in which societal changes happened could be managed and controlled. Roosevelt openly detested the concept of “experimentation” with society at large, which is what he felt liberalism was all about. We can argue about whether T.R. as a conservative but _he himself_ called himself one. He also called himself a progressive, these terms aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive when you realize that one word can’t encapsulate the entirety of a person. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-conservatives-conservationists/492000.md?page=3)