The Company You Keep: 
Sportsmen and Environmentalists Coming Together
- by Brian McCombie
This story first appeared in the Nov. 14 edition
of Wausau's "City Pages."
You may have seen the bumper stickers that read "Stop Sulfide Mining,"
small protests against plans to open the Crandon Mine. But did you
notice who produced the sticker? Or did you assume it was the work
of an environmental group?
Or consider the words of this environmentally concerned individual:
"The Crandon Mine is a chance for total pollution. It's a chance
for slag heaps, toxic dumps, and acid water. Until they [Crandon
and the DNR] can show the people of Wisconsin there are sulfite mines that
can operate safely, and show us a mine that's been shut for ten years and
isn't polluting, we don't want it!"
What do bumper sticker and quote have in common besides their opposition
to Crandon Mining? Both are the work of Wisconsin sportsmen.
While many varieties of this bumper sticker exist, look closely and you'll
see that at least some of them are the work of Muskies, Inc., a group dedicated
to preserving and enhancing musky fishing nationwide and in Wisconsin.
The quote is from William Buckley of Marshfield, a hunter, fisherman,
President of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, and a Wood County representative
of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, a group of sportsmen that advises
the DNR.
Sportsmen championing environmental issues? And even working with
environmentalists?
"Oh, definitely," says Anne Kieffer, chair of the local Sierra Club
chapter, Wisconsin River Country. "I think that's been proven with
Crandon Mining. Fisherman especially are concerned with the quality
of water that could be effected by the mine. On an issue like this,
it's the immediacy of the threat that brings [environmental and sportsman's]
groups together."
Sometimes the two communities form actual partnerships; other times
their efforts parallel each other. Historically-speaking, it's true
that sportsmen and environmentalists haven't always had close ties.
In fact, they've frequently seen each other as the enemy. Today,
though, the two camps are increasingly recognizing the value of cooperation,
as has happened over the Crandon Mine.
"We've always known that we've had common ground with conservation and
sportsman's groups," says Jim Wise, vice chair of Environmentally
Concerned Citizens of the Lakeland Areas (ECCOLA) which is fighting the
Crandon Mine. A hunter and angler himself, Wise says that Crandon
Mining "has tried to say that the only people who don't want sulfite mining
are radicals and Earth Firsters. And that's simply not true."
"Environmentalists and sportsmen have put aside any perceived differences,"
says Wise. "We have to look at having clean water, clean air, and,
let me say, clean government. In the bigger picture, all sides need
to work together to change the face of our government by literally changing
the faces of those who govern us."
Sara Johnson has seen the benefits of such cooperation first hand.
She's the executive director for River Alliance of Wisconsin, a river advocacy
group based in Madison and founded nearly four years ago. In many
ways, River Alliance is the epitome of sportsmen and environmentalists
working together. Founding board members came from groups like the
Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, and the Federation of Flyfishers. Today,
its 600-plus members continue to reflect this intermingling of environmental
and outdoor interests.
One of the River Alliance's key victories came in June 1997 when it
reached an agreement with Wisconsin Electric over hydro-electric plants
the company operates in the Menominee River basin area. The plants
are coming up for federal re-licensing, and rather than going through the
lengthy, adversarial process of butting heads with environmental groups,
Wisconsin Electric decided on a different approach: negotiating with
River Alliance on the many ecological issues concerning hydro-electric
plants. After nearly two years of give and take, Wisconsin
Electric agreed to remove three dams altogether, operate their dams to
provide more consistent river flows, and install fish barriers on all water
intakes so fish won't be sucked into the turbines and killed.
"It was a tremendously big win for Wisconsin's rivers," Johnson says.
"And the only reason it was possible was because environmentalists and
sportsman's groups like the Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, and the Federation
of Flyfishermen pulled together to participate in the re-licensing process."
Wisconsin Electric won, too. By reaching an agreement with River
Alliance before applying for a new license, the company streamlined a re-licensing
process that can take up to five years. This should save Wisconsin
Electric several millions of dollars it would have otherwise spent on environmental
studies, impact statements, and possible litigation.
Crandon Mining and hydro-electric plants are just two of the places
where enviros and sportsmen find similar concerns. Through the Wisconsin
Conservation Congress, sportsmen, like their environmental counterparts,
have responded with a loud "No!" to the Wisconsin Air National Guard's
proposed expansion of the Hardwood Air-to-Ground Bombing Range in Juneau
County.
"Our major concern is the loss of 7,000 acres of forest," says William
Buckley, referring to the Wood County land that the expanded range will
take, 6,200 acres of which is county forest. "Wisconsin is
losing public lands at an alarming rate."
This last point is of special concern to Buckley and the state's sportsmen.
Buckley talks about the situation in Texas, where less and less public
land is open for recreation. With the remaining public under increased
use pressure, private land owners find it profitable to rent out their
property to wealthy hunters. Buckley finds it ominous that lease
arrangements like these are becoming the norm in Buffalo County north of
La Crosse.
"I can see, by the year 2050, a solid urban corridor running from Chicago
up through Green Bay," Buckley says. "And a population in Wisconsin
up to 8 million people. If this happens, what will it mean for hunting
and outdoors recreation opportunities? I think you'll see them shrink
as affluent people come in and rent lands for their own use."
Pen in Hand
Read today's outdoor writers and their publications, and you'll also see
this shift to the enviro-sportsman occurring.
"A strange new animal stalks the woods of North America: the
eco-redneck," writes Steve Chapple in his new book, Confessions of an Eco-Redneck
(Plenumn Press, $24.95). "It is an obvious irony to some, an unintentional
one to others, but these days sporting persons and environmentalists are
apt to be one and the same."
One and the same because you can't fish in waters thick with toxic waste,
can't hunt if wildlife habitat has been destroyed by bulldozers and developers.
As Chapple stresses throughout this collection of short, humorous essays,
if you're one of America's 50 million anglers and 15 million hunters, you're
going to have to care about and fight for our increasingly-threatened environment.
And if you're an environmentalist, well, you don't necessarily hunt
or fish. But who is more likely to support the issues you care about?
Golf course and condominium developers? Corporations that see rivers
as convenient places to dump used chemicals? Or those sportsmen who,
like yourself, have a definite stake in clean air and water?
Enter Chapple's eco-rednecks. When they're not hunting or fishing,
they frequent country taverns, drive pickup trucks, and listen to Jimmy
Buffett. Their idea of a first-class dinner? Grilled venison
chops and lots of cold Budweiser. Oh, and eco-rednecks are more than
a little tired of hearing that it's only vegetarians, animal rightists,
and Greenpeacers who are environmentalists. As Chapple argues,
Who loves the mountains more than those who hunt them? Who
has done more for wetlands than duck hunters? More to stop nickel-and-dime
trailer courts, subdivisions, and septic tanks at streamside than trout
and bass organizations?
Todd Smith also agrees that sportsmen and those in the environmental movement
have a great deal in common. He's the editor-in-chief of Outdoor
Life, which with its 1 million-plus subscribers is arguably the most influential
of the country's outdoor magazines.
"We're living in a changing world," says Smith. "As time moves
forward and land becomes more and more scarce, I think there will be many
more opportunities for hunters and fishermen to work with environmentalists.
And I'm all for that."
Smith notes that Outdoor Life, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary
in 1998, has a long tradition of its writers and editorials backing pro-environmental
policies and programs. The magazine, for example, supported the Clean
Water Act. It also called for the creation and continuation of the
Conservation Reserve Program, which generates wildlife habitat by paying
farmers to let agricultural lands go fallow. The magazine's conservation
pledge asks it readers to "protect and conserve the natural resources of
America," and "to educate future generations so they may become caretakers
of our water, air, land and wildlife."
Wolf River Blues
A similar ethic can be found operating today in an environmental organization
like American Rivers, which promotes river stewardship nationwide.
Founded in 1973, and with a membership of approximately 21,000, American
Rivers is probably best known for its annual Ten Most Endangered Rivers
list.
"A huge part of our membership are people who recreate on rivers,"
says Chad Smith, Outreach Coordinator at America Rivers' national office
in Washington, D.C. "Many are flyfishers, canoeists, and kayakers.
And of course there are those who are interested solely in river conservation."
Nationally, American Rivers works with both environmental and sportsman's
group to find ways to protect and preserve our country's waterways.
Smith notes that American Rivers has worked with fishing organizations
like B.A.S.S. and the Isaac Walton League in the past, and is now creating
alliances with a number of waterfowl hunting groups.
In the Dairy State, American Rivers has teamed up with the River Alliance
of Wisconsin to try to stop the Crandon Mine from opening. For both
groups, the concern is the terrible ecological consequences of having a
sulfite mine at the headwaters of the Wolf River. That's why in April
1997 the Wolf appeared on American Rivers list of endangered waterways.
According to an America Rivers report, the Wolf River
faces imminent and permanent ruin by [Crandon's] proposed zinc/copper
sulfite mine. Often called one of Wisconsin's most beautiful rivers,
the Wolf is threatened by an estimated 44 million tons of mine waste laced
with mercury, lead, zinc, arsenic, and sulfuric acid.
As the River Alliance's Sara Johnson notes, "The threat to the Wolf River
has pulled together environmentalists and conservationists like no other
issue in the history of the state."
But if cooperation between these groups makes so much sense, why hasn't
it happened more often, in and out of Wisconsin?
Dividing Lines
In the September/October 1996 issue of Sierra, enviro-sportsman Ted Williams
published an essay entitled "Natural Allies." In it, Williams calls
for increased cooperation between the various sportsman's and environmental
groups because of their common concerns for the clean water, clean air,
and viable wildlife habitat. Citing Chris Potholm, a professor of
government at Bowdoin College in Maine, Williams argues that hunters and
anglers joining with environmentalists would be an "invincible" combination
as the two groups would represent "60 to 70 percent of the [voting] population,
an absolutely irresistible coalition."
The letters to the editor that followed Williams' article were instructive
in understanding the potential splits between these two communities.
While some praise William's call for cooperation, others angrily denounce
the whole idea. The common thread here was that hunting
is a "Neanderthal form of recreation," and hunters like Williams are blood-thirsty,
sick individuals. Unite with these mentally defective types?
Not on your life.
Williams notes that the word "environmental" creates suspicion for
many readers of the hunting-fishing magazines for which he also writes.
Articles and essays of his with a pro-environmental slant invariably draw
protest. "If you insist on bringing up controversial environmental issues,
you do not become a sportsman's magazine but an environmental magazine,"
one reader responded. "There are [already] too many 'do-gooder' magazines
on the market today..." Or, "Ted Williams has betrayed sportsmen
everywhere," one angry reader wrote in response to another piece which
dared to use the "E" word.
Anne Kieffer of the Wisconsin River Country chapter of the Sierra Club
sees things a bit differently. Though not a sports person herself,
she has no problem with responsible hunting and fishing. But she
feels there may be some problems with sportsman's and environmental groups
coming together.
"On hot-button issues like the Crandon Mine, these groups can and will
cooperate," says Kieffer. "But on other levels, like the depletion
of the ozone layer, it's much harder to find a consensus."
Kieffer usually attends the Marathon County annual meeting of the Wisconsin
Conservation Congress. Though she's careful to stress that the Conservation
Congress always approves the various environmental issues up for discussion,
she notes that they come up near the end of meetings after hunting and
fishing concerns have been dealt with. At this point, a meeting that
started with 200 people may have only a dozen participants left.
"It's really hard to get a sense of how sportsmen feel about the environment,
simply because there's not that many of them left when these issues come
up," Kieffer says.
Chad Smith of American Rivers thinks the problem is that, "In the past,
the messages given out by environmentalists and sportsmen were relatively
the same, but they weren't sending them out in the same way. Plus,
enviros tended to shy away from alliances with hunters and anglers.
They felt it would be politically incorrect to sign on with sportsmen."
There was a time, Smith remembers, when these groups disagreed on how
to manage forests. Environmentalists, for example, opposed clear
cutting. Hunters, though, tended to like limited clear cutting as
it created better habitat for game species like deer and turkeys.
"That smaller issue got in the way," says Smith. "But the broader
question--which they agreed on--was the importance of healthy forests.
They came to understand that you need a balance between preserving habitat
and using the land."
Whatever their divisions, and a certain political reality can't have
escaped both groups. As Jim Wise of ECCOLA argues, coalitions of
sportsmen and environmentalists have much more political clout and influence
than either possess individually. When Big Business or Big Government
wants to do something potentially harmful to the environment, it's difficult
for a single organization to effectively block these actions. But
a broad coalition of enviros and sportsmen has a much better chance of
getting attention for their positions, rallying public support, and ultimately
affecting change.
Of course there will be disagreements on specific issues. But
as Wisconsin sportsmen and environmentalists are finding out, it doesn't
really matter why you oppose a toxic sulfite mine or what particular recreational
activities you hope to save. The important thing is that you both
work to stop the mine from ever opening.