Dear (Fellow) Naturalists,
Kyle here. You may not remember, but we have met before. I ran into you in Algonquin, chatted birds with you at Pelee, and paddled alongside you on Georgian Bay. We are actually old friends, you and I, and I have enjoyed getting to know you.
I must be frank though, if this fruitful relationship is to continue. Sometimes I find you just a little frustrating. It's not your lack of fashion sense or social couth that bothers me (usually). No, my concern is that sometimes, just sometimes, you can be a bit elitist.
Now I know you may find this hard to hear and believe, but try to think about it objectively. I saw you turn your nose up at the cyclists who disrupted your morning trail-walk. I heard you mutter under your breath when a band of dog-walkers frightened away the bird you were eyeing. And I watched you scorn with derision when the new guy at the office confided that he was a hunter.
You talk a good game about wanting others to enjoy and appreciate nature, but I'm beginning to learn that you have a very narrow idea of what that means. What you mean to say is that you want others to enjoy nature, but only as long as they enjoy nature
like you do. Cyclists, dog-walkers, rock-climbers, hunters, fishermen and other 'users' of the outdoors need not apply.
You believe, I think, that all of these other forms of outdoor recreation do more harm to nature than good. You view them all too often as the enemies of conservation, and even think of them as less worthy than yourselves. You feel that only you truly understand nature, and that others just don't get it.
Well naturalists, I think you are in desperate need of a reality check. The fight for conservation is a perennially uphill battle, and one that deserves a united front. If nature-lovers are set on squabbling amongst themselves, what kind of image will we present to the policy-makers and dollar-holders? Here we truly must take advantage of strength in numbers.
There is much more to this equation than simple math though. What you often fail to recognize is that the key to conserving nature is assigning it value. Certainly nature has value to
you, but that value is something unquantifiable, and governments and businesses work in dollars and cents not sentiment and emotion. This is where outdoor recreation shows its worth.
These nature 'users' bring about a measurable, quantifiable value for nature. Hunting, fishing and other outdoor sports are profitable, so governments find them worthy of attention. The government of Ontario, for example, administers hunting and fishing permits and levies fines against violators. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources claims to have sold 766000 Outdoors Cards in 2011 alone. At about $10 each, it doesn't take an economist to understand we're dealing with big bucks.
The beauty of this system is that outdoor sports only have value if their practice remains possible, and it remains possible only if nature is intact. Any hunter, fisherman or mountain biker worth his salt recognizes that the deterioration of nature means the disappearance of his favourite passtime. Therefore nature
use breeds conservation, and lo the naturalists and hunters share a common goal. Granted there are certainly irresponsible outdoor enthusiasts, but if we're going to judge a group by only its most objectionable members, you naturalists are certainly not all peaches and cream.
Because most nature users recognize the need for conservation, they are not hesitant to commit money to the cause. Non-profits like Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited receive this money via donations, membership fees and fundraising activities, then invest it in initiatives like wetland conservation and stream restoration. Ducks Unlimited protects over 940000 acres of habitat in Ontario alone, while the Nature Conservancy of Canada - supported more by naturalists than hunters - protects 405260 acres nationwide*. And do you know where those Outdoors Card fees go? You guessed it: wildlife and fisheries management.
I should clarify at this point that I am not a hunter or fisherman, a mountain biker or even a dog-walker. I won't claim that I always agree 100% with those who are, or that I think the above-mentioned non-profits are perfect. But I know and have known sportsmen (and women), and I know that their love and appreciation for nature is as genuine as mine, even if their relationship with it is a little different. I also know (as does anyone who works with children or animals) that working
with is much more productive than working
against, and that fostering cooperative relationships is a better way to affect change than infighting and head-butting.
So I implore you, naturalists, to open your hearts and minds to all those who appreciate nature. Allow yourself to consider the notion that anyone who has motivation to conserve nature should be your friend, and that together we present a stronger voice than we could apart. Be prepared to talk through differences and contribute to productive discussion without becoming confrontational, overprotective or entitled. Don't allow elitism to take precedence over what is truly important.
It seems this has become a lengthy letter and I hope, my dear fellow naturalists, that it has caused no offense. I hope to run into you for many years to come, in Algonquin, at Pelee and on the Bay (and to continue taking gentle jabs at your choice of attire). Keep fighting the good fight, look for opportunities to make new friends from old enemies, and don't let the small things sway your focus from what really matters.
Your Friend,
Kyle
*I by no means intend to imply that NCC is inferior or unworthy - they are a fantastic organization that does excellent work. I include the numbers here only as a useful and thought-provoking comparison.
