INTRODUCTION

We really can't pinpoint exactly when or where it began, but it's out there. When first studied, it was identified as a phenomenon of the American West1, the land of wide open spaces, where seldom is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day. Now it is observed in one form or another in all 50 states2, and its leaders claim the support of millions of members, although there are probably fewer than 100,000 if membership is measured by active participation and payment of dues.3
"It" is the overt opposition to conservation initiatives, environmental protection laws and regulations that has developed in this country in the last fifteen to twenty years. Known by different names in different parts of the country, it will be referred to in this paper as the Anti-Conservation Movement.
Conservation and environmental protections are frequently implemented in the form of land use regulations. These are often expressed in terms of the activities which can or cannot be conducted in certain areas, such as prohibitions against building in flood plains. Some opponents of such protections define the issue as one of property rights: government should not be able to tell them what to do on their land; they should be trusted to be good stewards who will put the land and its resources to Wise Use. Yet, while cloaked in language extolling the sanctity of private property and the right of the individual citizen to be free to do as he or she pleases wit that property, the reality of Anti-Conservationism is that it is primarily about narrow economic self-interest. The corporate interests which stand to benefit most from the deregulation promoted by Anti-Conservationism seem to care far more about their financial bottom lines than about the impacts of their activities on people, including their own workers, or on the natural environment.
This report will first undertake to broadly define the Anti-Conservation Movement in a national context - what are its positions and goals, and how are they articulated. It will then focus on the Midwest for an examination of how Anti-Conservation goals are being furthered in individual states. Finally, it will survey the Wisconsin political landscape to see if, and how, the Anti-Conservation agenda is being advanced locally and how the use of money may be influencing environmental policy.
Beginning with the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), Clean Water Act (1972), Endangered Species Act (1973), and Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 federal environmental protection laws created a framework to conserve, protect and improve this country's natural environment, health and safety. These specifically environmental laws have been complemented by labor laws and work place safety provisions administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This effort has been bolstered by state laws and regulations; some merely implement federal law, while others afford greater or different protections.
In conjunction with this legislative and regulatory activity there has matured in this country an environmental consciousness - an awareness of the general health and safety implications of environmental protection. Today a majority of Americans consider themselves environmentalists.4 They are concerned about the condition of the natural environment. They care about the implications for humans of changes in, and deterioration of, the environment.
Yet this is not the only sentiment that has grown in the past two decades. At the same time that most Americans developed an awareness of their environment and its importance to them, there has arisen a more or less organized opposition to government regulation in general, and to environmental and land use regulation in particular.
These people are the Anti-Conservationists, or property rights advocates, or "multiple use" proponents, or whatever they call themselves to obscure their true identities and motives. The Anti-Conservationists fall generally into two categories. There are those who truly believe that nothing has changed in the two centuries since our republic was founded which would warrant government regulation of private property. These people are primarily owners of property in rural areas and sparsely populated western states. They are generally the most vocal, visible proponents of Anti-Conservation ideology. They have a definite self-interest at stake, but it is largely limited by their property boundaries.
The second type of modern Anti-Conservationist is motivated not by ideology or a dedication to what this country stands for. Their interest is not to be left alone simply for the sake of being left alone, but because of the cost regulation imposes. This second group is the corporate Anti-Conservationists - Mining, Timber, Agriculture, Petroleum and Chemical producers, All Terrain Vehicle manufacturers and others who stand to profit, sometimes enormously, from deregulation. This group is not nearly as directly visible or vocal. Instead, their message is often carried by their customers and by the employees of these industries, people who are persuaded by their employers that regulations threaten their jobs. But whatever their identity or motivation, this paper is a look at the activities of Anti-Conservationists in America's Heartland.
Chapter I draws heavily on The War Against the Greens, by David Helvarg. That book provides a fascinating and frightening insight into the violent fringe of the anti-conservation Wise Use movement. Rather than disrupt the flow of that chapter with endless footnotes, I acknowledge his work up front and recommend The War Against the Greens in its entirety to readers who want a detailed examination of the origins, development and violent tendencies of Wise Use.
This paper is not so ambitious. It seeks only to identify in the Midwest those people, groups and policy initiatives which fit into the national Anti-Conservation picture. It seeks to accomplish this through interviews with dozens of individuals throughout the region who have worked on issues which have brought them in contact with some manifestation of the Anti-Conservation Movement. This is a compilation of their collective experiences.
Chapter III, which focuses on Wisconsin, includes a detailed examination of campaign contributing by industries which would benefit from adoption of all or part of the Anti-Conservation agenda. The findings may surprise, or they may simply confirm suspicions. We encourage readers to review the methodology and invite them to perform similar analyses in other states. We would like to learn of your findings and hereby extend an offer of whatever help we can give. A study of how money impacts policy and an analysis of who is winning and who is losing can help to expose the Anti-Conservation Movenent for what it is -- elevating greed and profit above health, safety and future wild places.