From Readers

Your Letters and Comments

We Cannot Afford to See People as Opponents

Arriving on the heels of an election that seems to bode ill for the environment, the quote on the cover of the Fall 2004 issue of Conservation in Practice struck me as inspired: “We cannot afford to see people as opponents-especially not those who oppose us.” While seemingly a conflicting statement, the key word is “see:” how we view others, the roles we cast them in. The 2004 presidential election showed a deeply divided country with very little real dialogue between those with opposing views on many topics. Viewing others as opponents or casting them as villains does not seem to have gotten us anywhere, especially those holding the minority views. With both the administration and Congress controlled by people who don’t seem to place a high priority on the long-term conservation of our natural resources, dialogue among those on all sides of conservation issues is more important now than ever. There is still a place for litigation and other antagonistic tactics, but with the political environment becoming less sympathetic to conservationists’ views, dialogue must become an increasing part of conservationists’ repertoires. Too many conservation organizations spend too much time preaching to the choir (members) and not enough time engaging in dialogue with fishers, loggers, developers, and others. As long as we view others as opponents, we will continue to talk across each other or not talk at all. Real conservation progress in today’s political environment will require dialogue among people with opposing views, not casting our “opponents” as villains.

GINGER A. REBSTOCK

Department of Biology

University of Washington, Seattle

Tired of Priorities?

The Fall 2004 Numbers in Context piece in Conservation In Practice describes yet another number game one can play to direct the international flow of conservation dollars and effort. By focusing on biomes and how well protected they are in the face of habitat conversion, this particular priority-setting scheme provides a compelling case for a greater focus on temperate grasslands and Mediterranean woodlands. This is quite a contrast to the “biodiversity hotspot” credo that urges us to pour our efforts into tropical rainforests. Another alternative might be to emphasize the places that provide the greatest ecosystem services-that approach would lead us to focus on Canada and Russia. And yet another calculation might factor in governance and corruption as a sort of “feasibility” index. It is pretty hard to establish the superiority of any one priority-setting scheme over another. Many priority-setting schemes make good sense and none of them can be “tested” or falsified in the usual spirit of science. They are simply different ways of looking at the world. Yet they have commanded numerous journal pages and hours of discussion. Personally, I am getting tired of such priority-setting analyses and numerology (even though I have myself written papers on the topic). Here is why. The reality is that we need to do conservation everywhere. If we fail in any biome, we will have failed miserably. Perhaps the best approach would be to simply produce a map of where money is being spent on conservation and then make an effort to fill the gaps. Also, conservation is as much about strategies as it is about places. All this attention on prioritization maps ties up a lot of energy and may distract us from the tougher question of figuring out what works as opposed to where to work. Do not get me wrong-I think those temperate grasslands and Mediterranean scrublands do need more effort than they are currently getting. But what really troubles me is that we do not have a map of where money is being spent by all the major players in conservation (see Jon Christensen’s “The Uneasy Chair” in that same Fall 2004 issue of Conservation In Practice). We analyze to death priority-setting schemes while we fail to analyze which strategies (easements? nature parks? zoning restrictions? etc.) warrant the greatest investment.

PETER KAREIVA

Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management,

University of California, Santa Barbara

Environmental Studies Institute at Santa Clara University, California

Don’t Shoot the Messenger

I enjoy “The Uneasy Chair” columns and, being in the business of conservation decision support, I was especially intrigued with Jon Christensen’s “Don’t Shoot the Messenger” (Fall 2004, Conservation In Practice). I was not surprised by the Smith Fellows’ finding that there is no correlation between conservation needs and funding levels. Given my experience with industry, government, and nonprofits, the problem is hardly limited to philanthropic funding. That study was an interesting start, but more illuminating would be an analysis of what factors go into the actual funding decisions. What is clearly needed and increasingly desired is a methodology for incorporating and making explicit and transparent the factors that go into decisions. This need not eliminate or even cast a bad light on politically-based decisions, but casting some light usually is illuminating, even for those making the decisions, and can lead to fundamental changes in the quality of the decision process and the decisions themselves.

PATRICK CRIST

Science Applications Manager

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia