Dr. Martin Hash Podcast

As a person who cares about the environment more than sport or short-term monetary gain, I consider myself a “conservationist.” That was the name applied to my beliefs when instilled as a child, and as yet hasn’t changed in meaning. The seminal guardian angel of nature in the United States was Theodore Roosevelt, a man of particular turn-of-the-last-century destiny. Not only did Teddy establish the Forest Service, and make “Conservation as a National Duty” part of his presidential platform, he actually created the political climate that allowed him to do those things by founding the Boone & Crockett Club, which was instrumental in preparing and getting conservation legislation passed. Roosevelt, as well, piqued the public's imagination through prodigious conservation writings in books and magazines. No person has had a more thorough belief in the importance of nature, its value, and its future, combined the political expertise, will-power, and perseverance to protect it, saying "conservation means not only preservation of natural resources, but the prevention of the monopoly of natural resources, so they should inhere in the people as a whole."

However, there is a distinct difference between Teddy’s “conservationist” and today’s “environmentalist.” Wikipedia is the best source of the popular notion of environmentalism: “Environmentalism as a movement covers broad areas of institutional oppression.” Theodore Roosevelt's name is never mentioned. On the other hand, going to Wikipedia again, we find a definition of “conservation” that Teddy and I would agree with: “Chiefly in the United States, conservation is seen as differing from environmentalism in that it aims to preserve natural resources expressly for their continued sustainable use by humans.” And BTW, Theodore Roosevelt is prominently mentioned. That pretty much sums it up: conservationism is respectful of liberty while environmentalism is socialist claptrap.