Is Conservation an Endangered Philosophy?

Rational discussion and debate is required before a democratic society decides which land-use policies are appropriate on either public or private lands. And because what's "right" and what's "wrong" are value judgments, a democratic society's land-use decisions represent the collective value judgments of its citizens. Citizens formulating rational value judgments need to know three things: (1) the effects of their choices, (2) whether they consider these effects to be costs or benefits, and (3) how much relative weight they choose to assign to each of these costs and benefits. Responsible value judgments about natural resource policies require a well-informed citizenry. Furthermore, responsible value judgments require information firmly grounded in reliable scientific data, rather than perception or "factoids" ("false, exaggerated, or misleading information that is made believable by constant repetition"1). Unfortunately, news coverage of natural resource issues is often sensationalized by misinformation that promotes "outlandish scenarios of environmental doom"2 where none is warranted.

Why does the American public readily accept the media's often distorted views of natural resource issues and consider such reports balanced and objective? One underlying reason is that, thanks to ever-advancing technology, fewer and fewer people are directly involved with the production of food and fiber or understand the necessary processes. As urban citizens become further removed from the land that supports them, they lack personal knowledge or experience to help them understand alternative natural resource policies; consequently, people become more susceptible to misinformation. Seventy-eight percent of the present U.S. population resides in metropolitan areas compared to 63% in 1960. And metropolitan America isn't just "back east." Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Texas, and Washington each has more than 75% of its population residing in metropolitan areas.3

Although the urbanized citizenry's perception of the importance of natural resource products has diminished, this doesn't mean the real importance of these products has declined. Natural resource products will always be fundamental to human existence no matter how many of this nation's citizens choose to ignore this fact. As Gifford Pinchot, a pioneer conservationist, so eloquently writes,

Without natural resources life itself is impossible. From birth to death, natural resources, transformed for human use, feed, clothe, shelter, and transport us. Upon them we depend for every material necessity, comfort, convenience, and protection in our lives. Without abundant resources prosperity is out of reach.4

Our urban society's increasing ignorance of its need to obtain necessary goods and services from natural resources is accompanied by a predictable alienation from the underlying philosophy of natural resource management-conservation. The very idea of "use without abuse" for sustained yield of renewable natural resources is becoming increasingly foreign to an urban populace that looks on rangelands and forests only as places to be played in, or to be set aside and admired like a porcelain statuette on a fireplace mantel. It appears that the earlier prevailing public policy of conservation is rapidly being replaced by preservationism. This is a significant turn of events, for natural resource management has little place in American society if the urban, voting populace doesn't view resource use as a desirable or necessary societal goal. Before urban citizens can learn that resource use can be accomplished judiciously and responsibly to ensure sustainability, they must first believe that resource use is, in fact, a worthy goal. Until that basic creed becomes ingrained once again into the American conscience, this nation will continue to adopt more and more excessively restrictive land-use policies.

Natural resource outreach and Extension programs are urgently needed to convince the urban populace that resource conservation is a necessary and desirable societal goal. Of course, any one of several ecologic or economic disasters would also serve to re-establish the lesson of natural resource dependence, but a proactive educational program aimed at preventing such disasters seems preferable. Urban audiences must be reminded that house paint, deodorant soap, printing ink, and toilet paper are all products of trees; that automobile tires, floor wax, insulin, and leather basketball shoes are all products of cattle; and that cough medicine, chewing gum, baseballs, hair spray, and wool sweaters are all products of sheep. The continued supply of these and countless other products depends on the wise use of this nation's renewable natural resources.

The conservation message can be distributed a wide variety of ways-pamphlets, interpretive displays, magazine articles, and newspapers. The message also can be spread in seminars and workshops. However, in addition to these traditional Extension outlets, the conservation philosophy needs to be promoted to the urban populace via the not-so-traditional mass communication media of radio and television. Using these media effectively will require documentaries and commercials of the highest quality, sometimes incorporating well-known personalities. These efforts also will be expensive and probably require realignment of funding priorities, but it will be money well-spent.

1. D. L. Ray, Trashing the Planet: How Science Can Help Us with Acid Rain, Depletion of the Ozone, and Nuclear Waste (Among Other Things) (Washington, D.C.: Regenery Gateway, 1990).

2. W. T. Brookes, "Sense and Nonsense on the Environment," The Quill, LXXIX (January/February, 1991), 14-19.

3. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992).

4. G. F. Pinchot, Breaking New Ground (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1947).