Re-arranging the deck chairs...

I listened to a radio program the other night concerning the controversy surrounding a new Cabela's store in Billings, MT. Three people were invited to represent the differing viewpoints in this "debate". In short, the problem Montanans have with Cabela's is that they've expanded beyond retail sale of hunting and fishing equipment and now have a real estate department (Cabela's Trophy Properties) which sells residential ownership in "hunting preserves" -- i.e. pretty much like a high-end golf course development, except the golf course is replaced by acreage on which the owners can hunt. Apparently, Montanans don't like the idea of private ownership of wildlife.

A few minutes into the program, it struck me that the viewpoints being represented were so close together, and the the underlying, unquestioned assumption was a much more valuable topic for discussion.

So I wrote the program producer/interviewer a letter:

Brian;

I always enjoy your programs because in my mind you do a great job of choosing questions and asking them. What struck me about the views represented on this program is that they all see wildlife as something that humans have a right to "manage"; i.e. wild animals are understood to be the property of humans, to be used as a "resource" for recreation. The ONLY difference among your guests was whether wild animals are the property of the collective political entity, or private owners.

Hmmm. Not a very wide spread of perspectives here!

I realize you probably selected your three guests because they're the ones involved in this "debate". OK, but there really is a lot more at stake here, because that prevailing viewpoint, the one that sees all other life forms on the planet (not to mention the non-living substances such as coal, water and genetic material) as "resources" belonging to humans, is precisely the one that has brought us to the brink of climate chaos, and dare I say, the current US war on Iraq.

Why? When we view something as a resource, it then has a market value and the potential to be abundant or scarce. It's obviously in the best interests of people and companies who "own" such resources to advertise their scarcity and drive up the monetary value. (A barrel of oil cost $25 at the beginning of our invasion of Iraq). In light of what is happening in the polar regions, in our pine and spruce forests, and in Glacier National Park, debating whether or not Cabela's should have "Trophy Property" projects in Montana is a bit like politely discussing what color the soldiers' uniforms should be over tea and crumpets.

What are the alternatives to such a view?

• Traditional Native American understanding of the human place on Earth.
• Eastern philosophies on sentient life.
• Ancient and current Christian views on stewardship.
• 19th C American Transcendentalism (Thoreau, et. al.).
• Mid-20th C American conservation (Leopold).
• Deep Ecology

If you haven't already, I invite you to create a program where the folks who view wildlife as "resources" and those who understand the place of humankind in a much grander planetary scheme have a chance to exchange their views. It would a much more challenging and far-reaching discussion.