November 8, 2024 | By:
Down Marsh Fork northernmost poplars; Arctic NWR wilderness addition. (C) Dave Foreman

Post-election Defense, Hope, and Resistance

Top Image: Down Marsh Fork northernmost poplars; Arctic NWR wilderness addition. (C) Dave Foreman

Note: We are very aware of the grave and serious threats this administration poses. And this letter has little to do directly with incoming admins goals of mass destruction. It is a response to that threat, and we believe that the ground bipartisan relationships and deals to protect nature are still possible, despite Dr. Orange. As do many other organizations publishing on the topic this week. One of our former board members just wrote: “We need to remember that many Republicans have long been conservationists but that Magas are a terrible subspecies.” All duly noted! Everything that was out there before the election is still there. If we can keep it.

The mood was sour and downtrodden as staff and board members joined our weekly “worker bee” meeting. It was the morning after the election, and I am sure the same scene was repeated nationwide as organizations gathered around one fundamental question: “What now?”

I was not in the mood to talk strategy. It was too soon to discuss adjusting each of our programs. But then I remembered the foundation upon which The Rewilding Institute was built. I thought about all we know in how to get things done under the thumb of unfriendly administrations.  And I watched the energy of the meeting shift. 

Dave Foreman taught us to be open to working with anyone willing to sit across a table and talk about protecting nature. For a long time, he was a registered Republican. He would constantly remind us that some of the biggest conservation wins in history were due either in part or wholly to Republicans. Dave never saw conservation as a partisan issue. It didn’t make sense to him that only Democrats should care about conservation. A shared passion for conservation was all that mattered; he embraced any opportunity to collaborate with those who cared for their state’s wild legacy.

In October 2019, during the first Trump administration, Dave wrote: 

When Republicans Loved Endangered Species

Once upon a time, conservation was bipartisan, with leadership from both Republicans and Democrats at various stages, from the administration of Teddy Roosevelt to that of Richard Nixon and a bit beyond. In the early days of the New Mexico Wilderness Study Committee in the 1970s, many of its leaders, even yours truly, were Republicans. We worked closely with New Mexico’s Republican members of Congress—Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Manuel Lujan, Jr.—on new Wilderness Areas, including a pocketful of areas stoutly opposed by the Forest Service, such as the Sandia Mountains and Chama Canyon Wilderness Areas. When, on my trips to Washington, D.C. for The Wilderness Society and NMWSC, I strode the marble hallways of the Congressional office buildings I always had appointments with the Republican staff of the House Interior Committee to palaver over strategy.

In 1973, one of the great conservation bills was passed with the strong support of Republican members of Congress. The Eastern Wilderness Areas Act was fought by the Forest Service as though it would usher in Armageddon. And yet, its lead sponsor in the Senate was Republican James Buckley (brother of William F. Buckley) and in the House by Republican John Saylor, who had been the lead House sponsor of the 1964 Wilderness Act.

But what of the great bugbear of today’s congressional Republicans (better called Trumpicans)—the 1973 Endangered Species Act?

Today the Endangered Species Act is under threat as never before by Republicans and the Trump administration. But on July 24, 1973, the Senate unanimously approved the Act, followed on September 18 by a House vote of 390-12. It was gladly signed by President Gerald Ford, also a Republican.

In debate on the bill, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), speaking in favor, quoted former Senator Spong who had said that “Extinction is quite literally a fate worse than death.” Stevens added, “I agree.” Senator Marlow Cook, (R-KY) recommended the legislation include “a provision which would prohibit the destruction or modification of the critical habitat of such [endangered] species.” Senator Bill Roth (R-DE), said in support that the Act was a “long overdue piece of legislation,” and Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) added, “It is a fact that man has been the culprit in bringing certain species to the point of extinction: it would be a double indictment against humanity to ignore the present situation and allow the destruction of our resource of wildlife to continue.” Senator Charles Percy (R-IL) called for the Senate to act promptly and “hopefully unanimously” on the bill, and it was so. (Read the full Campfire piece here.)

Dave taught us how much more amenable politicians can become when they get away from the lights and cameras, especially once they are off the campaign trail. Listening to him talk about getting big things done for nature with bipartisan support was a masterclass in the true art of the deal. 

The board and staff of The Rewilding Institute primarily come from the tail end of an era where it was possible to work on both sides of the aisle to get things done for wild nature. That’s what I talked about at our meeting when things began to brighten a bit. 

After the meeting, I reluctantly logged on to Twitter, prepared to witness democracy bleeding out in real-time. Instead, the first thing I saw was the following tweet from Gary Wockner, a true riverkeeper and the strongest advocate for wild waterways I have ever met.

“Given that Trump has won 2 of the 3 last elections supporting anti-environmental policies, this should be a final wake-up call for the environmental movement to move in a non-partisan direction that works to embrace a more diverse mix of Americans. I encourage green groups and colleagues to focus on our core, non-partisan strengths, including protecting and restoring clean and healthy soils, air, waterways, forests, and wildlife habitat, as well as climate messages and policies that unify rather than divide.” Gary Wockner

Dave was insistent and masterful in reminding people of our conservation history. It is a useful tool for framing successful arguments around current issues. America’s conservation history is loaded with bipartisan teams pushing through wilderness bills, protecting roadless areas, and endangered species. We can put that framing to good use now, more than ever.

While we aren’t naive about the current political temperature and the differences between today’s GOP and the party it was in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, parties and individuals can still, sometimes, be different things. We realize it is vital to try to work with anyone who shares a modicum of Leopold’s Land Ethic. 

The future of our planet hangs in the balance, and the conservation battlefield is the most challenging it has ever been. Still, we at The Rewilding Institute are unwavering in our resolve, pushing forward with all our might. And we are backed by the priceless lessons Dave taught us. We are all in this together.

Now is the time to restore bipartisan support for conservation! We old geezers for conservation are counting on you, young conservative folk. —Uncle Dave, in the Sandia Wilderness, listening to the uplifting song of my chickadee friends.

Other helpful articles & inspiration:

The Peace of Wild Things,” Wendell Berry

Deconstructing Today’s Land Grab” Dave talks about the idea of “returning” land to states and defending our public lands.

Dave talks about the importance of public lands here. “[Public] lands are why the United States has a conservation legacy unmatched elsewhere in the world.  […] I know of no other country that has such a set-up with its citizens owning and having a strong say in the running of one-third of the country’s land acreage.” 

Spread Rewilding Around the Globe!

Click Here to Leave a Comment Below

Sharon Jerge - November 8, 2024

Than you for this post election thought. I also felt the country is doomed but you have given me faith that we can still help it survive this challenge. Thank You

Reply
Rocky Bryan Naff - November 8, 2024

I was pleasantly surprised at the “balanced” point of view in this article. I would challenge every environmental group to try to work with the new administration. As best I can remember, President Trumps “backward” steps with conservation largely dealt with oil and gas needs. I am reminded about the doom and gloom from environmentalists when the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was first put into operation. Within weeks, moose were using the pipeline supports to scratch themselves just as they would use a tree. That’s not to say that it was trouble-free: Exxon-Valdez.
We are not ready for a petroleum-free world. We need to ease out of it.
Work WITH the new administration. Find compromise. Find better solutions.
My guess is, both Baron (Trump) and Elon will encourage President Trump to moderate his views on the environment.

Reply
    Jack Humphrey - November 8, 2024

    Rocky,

    Thanks for your reply, but I have to make something clear about this post. We have no illusions about the work ahead under this administration. And the bipartisanship I spoke of was not aimed at the national level, which we perceive as nothing but a giant brick wall to bang our heads against.

    This is about working locally/regionally with reasonable people, wherever we might find them. They may be rare, but if we find someone, we won’t shy away from reaching out because of the letter after their name. Nothing more was meant by this post. The thought of applying Dave’s wise words to the true MAGAS never crossed our minds. There’s no time and little assurance our efforts would bear fruit growing in that blackened soil.

    Reply
Makuye - November 8, 2024

Well, Conservation is the most inherently conservative perception possible. HOWEVER, it does not correlate AT ALL with pathological utilitarianism – the idea that all exists solely for exploitation.
That mindset was not unique to the Euroimmigrants – the killing and use of Wolf skins as disguise by Pawnee, for example, was a method of deceit that fooled bison, who spot concerted approach as predatory (we CALL it “confusion” when attention to a conspecific Bison causes bolting in the same direction, instead of examination of stimulus, but as you understand, it is the most efficient method of social species to benefit from the extended senses called sociality.).

The herding sans all ethical consideration or even personal morality of republicans behind malignant narcissist/complete libertarian (NO laws apply to him, in his view) Trump, reflects the same in those of that party since Reagan, as far as quick reference shows.

That’s a dissociated pathology – to have no understanding or concern of that which is unknown. When wolves were restored to Yellowstone plateau, the pathological sedentism of ungulates, which like humans, settled and polluted their very water and the most fertile of ecosystems, they restored attention and motivation. (Bison gather in late afternoon from their dispersed foraging in the fertile area, herding to the dry brushy uplands. You can experience this on any nonwinter day).
The wolves themselves, in winter, disperse to follow the lesser ungulates out of the park, and become vulnerable to the Euroamerican gunners , who kill for “trophy” to show dominance over any conservationists who desire that wolves should exist. The hunters openly express this motivation.

When life itself, and the living biosphere are made subject to simian/primate intraspecies dispute and terror coalitions, the result has been that extinction event you witness.

That appears to be the only issue involved in the attempt to create a DIFFERENT human coalition outside of present partisan mutual abhorrence.
The hypnotizing issue involves the delusions called religion, the perception of humans exceeding their social tolerance (this occurs in most species, as they change behaviors toward others in response to population densities. Foreman recognized this, and likely formed his partisan opinions due to that resulting habitat modification/destruction.)

As you see, I have no answer, and merely attempt to clarify so that useful questions can replace the solipsistic delusions of social humans competing due to perceptions of limited resource.

So long as the sedentism, territorial anxiety and partition, and resource arrogation are taken as having overriding value, humans will continue to compete for exploitation “rights” for EVERY habitat becoming regarded as available or vulnerable for exploitation.

Reply
Ned Mudd - November 8, 2024

I wouldn’t consider arguing with Dave; but MAGA isn’t a political party. They’re plutocratic ideologues with no interest in views other than their own. The moderate voices of reason now find themselves talking to deaf ears. 

The future won’t resemble the good ole days; what used to work may soon become irrelevant. We may possibly witness the repeal of bedrock environmental statutes, crippling old school eco-defense tactics. The so-called environmental movement has become sorely predictable, which is likely to become a serious stumbling block in the struggle to defend wild ecosystems. As every snake knows, it’s good to shed your skin every so often, even at the cost of a little discomfort. 

As Abbey said, “Where all think alike there is little danger of innovation.” What’s needed now is not despair, or even anger; but radical innovation. Soon. 

Reply
    Jack Humphrey - November 8, 2024

    I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. We are in new territory, once again, because it isn’t even going to be like the last time he was in office. My favorite in your response, “What’s needed now is not despair, or even anger; but radical innovation. Soon. “

    Reply
Loras Holmberg - November 8, 2024

I am a conservationist. I am whistling as I skip along since the election of Trump/Vance. Biden/Harris have been flooding the country with illegal immigrants due to borders more open than closed. That likely will now end. Our wildlands and wildlife within the U.S. are doomed if people numbers keep going up. I propose: Have a U.S. with 200-300 million people long-term. I realize the number of people is currently higher than that. Loras Holmberg (Lh*******@ms*.com)

Reply
    Jack Humphrey - November 8, 2024

    We must remember that walls, designed like they are now, are a no-go for Jaguars and other species across the border. Such a blunt instrument has no place on the border when it endangers and restricts the flow of wildlife moving through their traditional corridors. The word “wall” has been replaced by the more ephemeral “immigration” so maybe the border can go back to what was working well before the mad rush to build any more wall through extremely sensitive areas. But who knows what they’ll do. They don’t even know. It was all campaign bluster just 5 minutes ago.

    Reply
      Loras Holmberg - November 9, 2024

      Agree that jaguars need to roam free. Beautiful animal. But the tradeoff of an incomplete wall is diminished wildlife and wildlands across the entire U.S. as population swells. “Conserved areas” won’t be conserved areas if demand for natural resources such as minerals and lumber swell. Of higher importance, go after employers who hire citizens of other countries that are in the U.S. illegally.

      Reply
Jeff Hoffman - November 8, 2024

I never considered being an Earth First!er to be political, despite friends’ objections to that attitude. Wilderness and wildlife advocacy transcend politics, and are more of a spiritual issue. If you are spiritual and feel as one with the rest of the Earth and the native life here, then you advocate for and prioritize the natural environment and all the native life there. Despite mostly agreeing with the pre-Trump left (I don’t agree with it at all now), I never considered myself a leftist because my priority was always the natural environment.

Considering that, I don’t see how any wilderness & wildlife advocate could be freaked out by the election of Trump. Can you not see all the horrible things that, just to list 2 examples, the Biden/Harris and Obama administrations did? The worst environmental actions of the previous Trump administration were those that were continued by Biden/Harris; most were reversed, mostly in court, some by Biden/Harris. This is not to say that Trump can’t be worse; of course he can. But it’s not like we’re going from a good situation to a horrible one. Maybe we’re going from a slightly less horrible situation to a slightly more horrible one, but that’s about it.

As usual, the biggest problem with environmental politics is that while everyone except psychotic people likes the natural environment, only a tiny fraction of us prioritize it. This is ultimately a failure of human mental & spiritual evolution. Humans obsess on all the wrong things, like intellect, ego, and unnaturally and very harmfully manipulating the natural/physical world. Instead, we should focus on expanding our wisdom, empathy, and consciousness. I have no solution for getting humans to do that, but it’s clearly what needs to be done. See this outline for more details: https://rewilding.org/fixing-humans-by-expanding-our-consciousness/

There will be no magical short term solutions here. It took millennia to get into this mess, and will take that long to get out of it. Our ultimate goal should be to lower human population to 5-10 million globally while returning to living as hunter-gatherers, but that’s thousand of years away. The longest journey begins with one step, and we need to take that step now.

Reply
Leave a Reply: