Since our beginnings as a species, we have relied directly upon wild creatures for our survival. To sustain our lives and communities, it was inescapable that, like all natural phenomena, human beings would engage directly in the life-and-death struggles that mark the essential are irreversible truth of existence. Perhaps the great American mythologist, Joseph Campbell, put it best when he was asked about what he considered the most basic element of our existence to be. His reply: Flesh eats flesh! There is no escaping this fundamental natural law.
While we can make many decisions about land, there is one thing we simply cannot do. We cannot make any more of it. What we have, we have — and wildlife’s future depends very much on how we use the lands, both public and private, now resting within the powers and authority of private citizens and governments. The land debates, including the private property issues of ownership and management of residing wildlife, cannot realistically be divided into separate public and private sector discussions. All land is intertwined economically and ecologically.
Early conservation pioneers succeeded because they understood how to convey the importance of their ideals to the public. However the conservation movement has to a large extent moved away from an agenda of trying to convince society of its social, cultural, and economic value. We no longer strive for the hearts of our nations’ publics. The conservation community has replaced this with an emphasis on membership rosters and obtaining political influence, both often emphasizing specific issues that can hardly be viewed as being of the greatest public value or concern.
