Environmentalist, Preservationalist, and Extremist

[Born to be Wild]

Environmentalist, Preservationalist, and Extremist?

Please help me in my understanding. I joined this site approximately February.
I have spent many hours going around in circles with what I thought was an environmentalist

This is my first experience with an environmentalist. I just thought environ’s chewed Grape Nuts. :grin: This is new to me (seriously).

What I ask for is your vote and your definition of the three above.

Thanks,

Dan

[ 06-29-2003, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[The Fishing Geek]

They're all good/beneficial. We need them for balance.

[RvW]

Its difficult to believe that there isnt a small portion of all three in everyone. (see "no" votes)

Extremist was difficult to answer until I realized what I consider myself in the other two categories.

I wouldnt call myself an environmentalist, or a preservationist due to both roles being a label with specific extreme characteristics which do not entirely apply to me. But Im not better defined otherwise and I accept the label dispite being underqualified. (Thus making me, in a sense, an extremist?)

On a grand scale, it seems the environmentalists and preservationist are fighting a losing battle, and I more often root for the underdog in a noble fight.

So for what its worth, I voted: yes , yes and sometimes. If I didnt believe there were more people like me, Id have voted NO, on #3

[ 06-29-2003, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[Tilla]

I think the concept of preservationists is misconcieved since there is always change, except in the minds of some.

[Born to be Wild]

They're all good/beneficial. We need them for balance.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">TFG, I agree with part of your statement; “We need them for balance.” I think we need environmentalist for balance, or compromise. I wasn’t into politics until recently (except fish politics) and believe Kitzhaber was referred to as an environmentalist and thank him for some of our beneficial changes and success in the turn around of our coastal wild coho (even though I’m not a democrat and disagree with their party on most issues).

But there isn’t any balance or compromise in an extremist point of view. They seem to see or promote things there way and there is no other way as far as they are concerned.

I’m not sure what preservationist means, but if it means preserving everything the way it stands presently, you can’t do that without limiting population growth. If it means attempting to go backwards (in some aspects) and attempt to bring everything back to the way it was 100 or let’s say 1,000 years ago, that is impossible also unless you turn the whole pacific northwest into one big reserve.

Maybe I should have included “conservationist” but it is probably the same as one of the three I mentioned?

Actually I’m just an uneducated dummy and would like to see some folks define the meanings of all of the above. As I mentioned this is a new experience with me and might I add, and interesting and frustrating one.

It's difficult to believe that there isn't a small portion of all three in everyone.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">cirrhosis-of-the-river,

As soon as I know the exact definition of all three of these regarding the habitat/environment, I might comment on your statement and might or might not agree with you.

Dan

[Silver Hilton]

I'm not sure that it's easy to get a common definition of the terms, or that they are really related. It's also a mistake to treat them as being all the same.

From a definition standpoint, environmentalists are those who value efforts to conserve and improve the environment of the planet, generally through conservation of resources, reduction of consumption, and reduction of pollution. They tend to be suspicious of commercial interests in the resource businesses, such as mining, oil, and timber, as well as those businesses that use large amounts of resources or use commonly owned resources to dispose of industrial waste.

The definition of an extremist is anyone who disagrees with me and refuses to admit that they are wrong. :smile: Seriously, I don't think the term can be easily defined. The word itself is rarely used except to belittle an opponent. In the very phrasing of your question, it's clear that you believe the term is derogatory, when applied to environmentalists. Some of the environmentalists no doubt describe the republicans as extremists in their desire to roll back various ordinances. It's hard to use the term productively, I think.

Now, how valuable are they?

Take environmentalists, for example. I'm certainly at least a mild environmentalist, in that I think it's probably wise to be cautious about dumping stuff into the rivers, and pumping smoke into the air. I recycle most of the time, and don't use a lot of chemicals on my lawn.

Now, would I do this if some extremist environmentalists hadn't gone to the wall along the way and made us aware of the issues? Don't know, but I suspect that the extremists make us more aware of issues. An extremist named Rachel Carson made us aware of the perils of DDT, and now the eagles and herons are coming back. I don't think that was bad.

Now, preservationists, they come in a variety of different flavors, and I guess my feelings about them depend on what they are trying to preserve. Some folks went to the mat some years ago to keep the Columbia gorge undeveloped. I kinda like the results. Teddy Roosevelt decided to preserve Yellowstone. I kinda like that.

I am not aware of an preservationist efforts that took place fifty years ago that we now regret, though they may certainly be out there. In general, I tend to view the acts of protecting and preserving as being inherently conservative, in the sense of being cautious, and that goes well with my world view. We can always use it tomorrow if we save it today, but the reverse is not true.

The world isn't making any more wilderness, old growth timber, rivers, or oil, at least not quickly. I think it's prudent to be cautious about using what we have.

Sorry for rambling. I worked hard on the siding today, and a glass of wine is having that pleasant effect.

[ 06-29-2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[lingslayer]

In my view we as fisherpeople all need to be environmentalists to some degree. I know we use our environment but do our best to be good stewards of the habitat that we and our our prey live in. We clean up our messes and don't further pollute the water etc. We care about the habitat (environment) that we all use when we're outdoors. This is what Jen and others are doing when they organize river and beach clean-ups etc. Farmers were the first environmentalists. They took care of the land that fed them/us, so it could continue to do so in the future.

The preservationists think we need to shut down the woods by blocking/gating the roads and turning the oceans into marine reserves with no damaging vehicles (of any kind) allowed. This includes 4x4s or quads and m/c in the woods and powerboats on the water (they make wakes accelerating bank erosion and pollute with petroleum and hydrocarbons). So if you don't own horses or mules be prepared to walk in the woods and or row, paddle or swim in the water only. Don't build fires there either as it will cause the area to be left in an un-natural state. These folks think the world would be better if we all lived in a National park. No use would be allowed except totally non-invasive practices/use.
The problem with preservation is too few/no one get to use what is "preserved".

Extremists are people that believe no act is reprehensible if done in the spirit of their cause. Like the burning of the SUVs in Eugene, they often do more harm than good to the environment they claim to be protecting. The smoke from all that burning oil and plastic was far more toxic than the tailpipe emissions those SUVs would have produced.
These folks tend to be driven by emotion and aren't thinking straight.

Just MHO here,
Jamie

[Pete]

It seems to me that without some modifiers, the terms are over broad and widely misused. Consider how much more meaning is conveyed by a term like "Ted Williams Preservationist" or "Teddy Roosevelt Preservationist" or "David Brower Preservationist". All three men put significant effort into preserving natural resources, but Ted Williams was a sportsman and advocate that brought things to public attention and tried to influence legislative process to achieve his goals. Roosevelt placed huge blocks of public property into protected status, but may not have anticipated the scope of the threats to some of those resouces. Brower founded the Sierra Club and fought vehemently to prevent some of the first hydroelectric dams from flooding magnificent wilderness areas. All were preservationists, but their methods, objectives and achievements are markedly different.

[RvW]

Dan. I assumed there would be some very good definitions posted Which would be far more enlightening than my own feeble attempts.
I think you have a pretty solid idea of thier meanings. How they apply to me is irrelevant to the discusion but, Im somewhat curious if my own ideas of the words are as accurate as they should be.

Any lings down there in Depot? I spent a week there one day. (seriously, I lived there on the north spit, also owned that little old house next to the bookstore. Lots of memories there in DB)

[ 06-30-2003, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

You should have listed Conservationist too. You find environmentalist on the bottom of your boots when you go into the dog kennel. Conservationists believe in “Wise Use”.

[Fish_N_Russ]

I think usually its a mistake to give people labels or titles or whatever you want to call it. I am guilty as the next person for doing this though :depressed: . When you throw the label in, you are assuming someone acts/behaves/believes a certain way.......this may or may not be the case, and it may be the case for one issue but not when dealing with another...and vice versa. For example, I am very 'environmentalist' when it comes to some issues, but since the wife came from a timber familly I am aware of other aspects that wouldnt necessarily be 'environmentalist' thinking :smile:

[AuntyM]

I don't always agree with environmentalists. :grin:

I nearly always disagree with preservationists. :grin:

Extremists are a problem not because of extreme views, but because of their resistance to compromise. Yup. Extremists could be the company president paying off legislators so he can strip mine, or the guy who stakes himself to the road to stop some heavy equipment. :grin:

I almost always agree with conservationists.

But then, I have no problem labeling people, based on my understanding of their positions.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Of course they are useful. I wouldn't be able to tell who was wrong if it weren't for people who don't agree with me!!