The other day I saw a bumper sticker: "Mommy, What Were Trees Like?"
The obvious implication is that trees of every species are on the verge of extinction due to mankind’s activities. As the implications of the bumper sticker began to settle into my brain I experienced a sense of unease out of proportion with the obvious lack of facts behind the implied premise. I tried to forget it. This was just another tree hugger, who had probably never been in the forest, displaying her lack of knowledge and understanding. But there was more, there was a disturbing discontent bothering me about this silly bumper sticker.
It was more than the simple fact that I disagreed with the implication or my low opinion of philosophical bumper stickers in general - a cowardly means of making a point, literally made while the purveyor of the opinion drives away from any possible requirement of defending her statement. Of course this was part of my discomfort, the unfulfilled need to present argument against the bumper sticker, against the righteous condemnation of mankind as a manipulator of nature for his survival and comfort, to point out to the owner of the car and bumper sticker that manipulating nature even while we respect it is what we must do to live a comfortable life. But her bumper sticker made those that do it somehow evil to be alive, or at least evil to be living beyond the level of cave men and in numbers greater than can be sustained by hunting and gathering.
But what finally occurred to me was that it was the divisiveness of the statement that caused me to feel a mild depression when I thought of it. The bumper sticker demands the taking up of sides in the environmental argument and squelches all thought of discussion on the issue of common sense timber harvesting, again ignoring the reality that our lives depend on it.
The revelation inspired by this line of thought is that I am an environmentalist. I grew up surrounded by the forests in question. I hunted and fished and camped and hiked in the mountains and forests of east-central Idaho where logging is (was) a way of life, and where simple observation proves that trees in general are not in danger. If they were I'd be among the first to protest because I love nature; the mountains, forests and streams have been a part of me as long as I can remember; just as they are a part of the lives of those hard working individuals that make their livings in the timber industry.
Those of us that are what I call “Common Sense Environmentalists”, people who love nature and understand that we can use its bounty without destroying it, have to do something. We need our own Environmentalist Organization to counter the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and the like; to point out to the world that loving nature does not have to mean reverting to cave men.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI attended a week long Conservation Camp in 1962 sponsored by the Indiana Department of Fish and Wildlife. It was a formative experience and has helped guide my personal philosophy regarding the environment. Humans are part of the environment and should be responsible stewards of it. That necessarily means we would use it and protect it.
I'm with you on this. I think you've laid out a reasonable, responsible approach. As you know, many of our fellow citizens are at the mercy of radical groups and the courts have been their willing accomplices.
Right now our cattle producers are under attack. My wife is working on an article for publication that reveals the strongest environmentalist is the modern rancher.