California Coast & Ocean

Perhaps people like me--outsiders in certain respects among both hunters and environmentalists--can provide a bridge between the two camps, which are becoming ever more polarized to the detriment of their particular and common interest in preserving shrinking habitat and protecting wildlife. After all, when working together, these groups achieve stunning results. From the many wetlands enhancement projects to the decisive defeat of the Bush Administration's ill-conceived efforts to sell "surplus" national forest to the highest bidder, this alliance is a natural for habitat protection that will benefit our nation and world for generations to come.

Unfortunately, these alliances may be the exception not the rule, as both communities appear to be dominated now by people with extreme and limited views. On one side, groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)--fervent advocates for dogs and cats--score victories at the expense of ecosystems. Dogs (with their walkers) and feral cats (with their feeders) have gained ground in parks and natural areas, killing off songbirds, lizards, small mammals, and native plants. Meanwhile, major environmental organizations eschew the "bait and bullet" crowd, perhaps in an effort not to antagonize an urban audience resistant to hunting. Many remain locked into gloom-and-doom messages that increase people's anxieties but fail to reveal possible pathways toward a positive future.

On the other side, hunters have seemingly hitched their wagons to the National Rifle Association's Second Amendment struggles. The rhetoric of the NRA and its opposition to all proposals to restrict firearms permeates much of the dialogue within the hunting community, diverting hunters from seeking common ground with urban people who don't hunt, or even oppose hunting, but care about the natural environment.

The survival of hunting, and the future of conservation benefits achieved by the hunting community, depends, in my opinion, on the ability of hunters to convey an appealing message in California, where youth homicide gun deaths, mostly in urban areas, totaled 794 in 2003. Conversely, groups like the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Wilderness Society, and others must recognize that they need help honing a message with some appeal to middle America; appealing to hunters would be a bridge to previously unreachable constituents.

The entire conservation community--hunters and nonhunters alike--is losing the public relations battle, indeed the whole war, against the real threat to wildlife: habitat destruction. Neither contingent appears able to develop a message extending much beyond its own base.

Urban and suburban residents, particularly those with environmental leanings, have much to learn about the historic and current contribution of the hunting community to conservation. Hunters, for their part, have much to learn about interacting with their fellow citizens in constructive ways that emphasize conservation, rather than the Second Amendment. Both must demand that government guarantee and deliver adequate protection of natural resources, before it is too late.

"Hunting is inhumane," anti-hunters argue, over factory-farmed chicken.

"It's my right to own any gun I want," hunters blast back.

Yet there are broad areas of common interest where pitched battle against a common enemy could be waged.