Re: Save the Wolves!
^^^^ That's my thought exactly.
Here's a term for consideration: "pseudo-conservationist". We need to internalize that term and then make it part of the common language. A pseudo-conservationist is someone who looks and talks like a conservationist but has another agenda (enforcing a personal morality on the public and/or raising money). It's not a new concept to a lot of us, but it has to get out in the open.
Another thing to think about and discuss with non-hunters (in a non-confrontational way) is the immorality of ignoring real threats to wildlife and instead hypocritically concentrating on one species. Any group that argues that one species is "innocent" of what man has done and so should not be "punished" while at the same time arguing that another species can't be saved is immoral and hypocritical.
- If we're going to argue that wolves are innocent then we have to admit that caribou are also innocent, and if we don't we're being hypocritical and inconsistent;
- If we can save species on the verge of extinction or extirpation (and we can and have) but don't, we're immoral;
- If we choose to support an unthreatened species over a threatened species on the basis of emotion or money we are not conservationists nor are we accepting science.
I use the term "we", but I think everyone knows who I'm actually talking about. When you're talking to a non-hunter, especially if they are low information, keep it low tension and simple, but make the twin points of immorality and hypocrisy.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey