Despite the many problems facing wildlife and rural people along Delaware Bay, fortunately, there are some very important conservation assets. Foremost among them are the superior infrastructure of land in public and private conservation ownership and the extraordinary productivity of the bayshore’s marshes, farms and forests. Truly, they are among the most productive in the eastern U.S., perhaps the world. In my previous blog, I suggested two fixes for the bay’s conservation problems that could spur a transformative change:
- Sportsmen and wildlife watchers (defined formally as people who leave their house to seek wildlife) uniting to form a new bay-wide coalition to effect change
- Creating sustainable pathways for local farmers, fishermen and foresters to create wealth
Oysterman, Barney Hollinger, holds a bag used to hold oyster spat for cultivation.
Atlantic Cape Fishery sells these oysters as a branded product call “Cape May Salts”Uniting the interests of outdoors people may seem simple, but it is not because the two main groups are enmeshed in an aspect of our national partisan conflict. Somehow the sportsmen of my youth, which included people like my father, drifted from the political left to the right. They shifted ideologically for many reasons unrelated to conservation, but also because they feared losing the right to own guns and to hunt. Environmental groups moved in the opposite direction, despite the fact that most of the important national environmental legislation occurred during the Republican administration Richard M. Nixon. They did so for many reasons but foremost was their constant battle to prevent the dismantling of environmental protections often initiated by the right. Both groups are suspicious of each other which keeps them firmly divided.
This partisan divide of the conservation community may make sense in a national setting, but less so at the state level and not at all along the Delaware Bayshore. A few things are clear. First, no one is going to take away the right to own guns in our lifetime. Moreover, hunting is still part of the fabric of rural life, just as it has always been, and for good reason. The growing influence of humans on New Jersey’s landscape has lead to the need to reduce human-wildlife conflict, for example, reduction of deer, goose and beaver populations; the meat is of great value to working class people, and hunting is traditional recreation that most can afford. Most scientists would agree that overhunting is not the problem it once was.
Second in the same way, it would take a monumental effort to dismantle the vast network of environmental regulation in New Jersey. We are just too many people in too small a place. It plays well for conservative politicians to act like they want to free everyone from government and even better for commercial interests that exploit our resources and walk away leaving residents with the destructive aftermath. The destruction of horseshoe crabs illustrates this phenomenon well. In fact, the loss of environmental quality harms rural folks the most. The preservation of wildlands is a prerequisite for all user groups, and the productivity of the land leaves room for job creation. Habitat enhancement and restoration, town center development, sustainable forestry, farming and fisheries all create jobs in a thriving natural system.
The truth is both groups need to do work to create a union of interests. A few small changes illustrate what is possible. First, hunters could burnish their image by self-imposing new standards for ethical hunting behavior. Most hunters already adhere to these standards anyway and the few that do not should not be killing animals. Second, a corps of elite hunters, composed of those willing to become expert in hunting technique and ethics and ensure good relationships with land owners and the public, could replace companies hired by townships (where hunting is banned) to kill excess wildlife. In this way, these animals would be honored instead of being exterminated as though they were pests.
The remnants of the Pine Mount Creek Dike in Greenwich, NJ.
A partnership effort to restore the dike failed for a number of reasons including spiraling costs caused by burdensome permitting requirements.Meanwhile, streamlining environmental regulations related to infrastructure improvements and the restoration or enhancement of wildlife habitat would be of great value to rural people while still protecting sensitive habitats. Currently, replacing bulkheads or docks damaged by storms often pushes bayshore homeowners into a nightmare of regulatory overreach that often leads to extraordinary permit and reconstruction costs. Moreover, most wildlife habitat conservation endeavors – such as beach restorations, dike reconstruction and forest improvements – get tied up in permitting requirements because they are treated in same way as housing developments. Forestry in New Jersey is practically dead because of such regulatory strangleholds. The same is true for the cultivation of seafood and other productive fisheries endeavors.
Clearly, the issues that divide these two groups of conservationists, sportsmen and wildlife watchers, can be fixed. Doing so would push everyone toward a more cohesive conservation movement that would become a mighty force for New Jersey wildlife. Keep in mind that the combined population of sportsmen and wildlife watchers would equal a voting block of nearly one fifth of the state’s population (~1.5 million of a total population of ~8 million). Do you think politicians would listen to that voice?
