Having served on numerous councils, boards, collaboratives, committees, etc., I have often observed missuses of the terms conservation and preservation. Such missuses often appear intentional, in order to enjoy the benefit of better optics.
As I serve on decision-making and advisory boards, my motto is: “Beware Preservationists masquerading as Conservationists.”
I’ve seen preservation agendas pushed by people who have titled themselves as conservationists. There is a very large and important difference between the two.
Preservation means to preserve something or someplace by locking people out or disallowing activities. Examples of that are Marine Protected Areas where people are not allowed to fish or collect shellfish for the family dinner table.
Another example is not allowing divers to take parts and pieces from wrecks within a Marine Sanctuary managed by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.
Conservation means to carefully assess and manage a resource (for example fish and shellfish) with the golden goal of sustainability and to enhance habitat to support healthy populations.
That means manage to maintain surplus populations of fish and animals and then set seasons, size limits and bag limits to allow for recreational and commercial take, because we like to eat wild fish and game which tastes way better that farmed fish and animals and is also generally better for us.
Wild stocks are well-managed while our heritage and traditions of families/friends fishing and hunting together are safeguarded by conservation practices.
I have argued against someone calling themselves a conservationist, while they propose absolute preservation. That is where I have to say something.
As a fisherman, I and my parents and grandparents, have been putting our money, time and effort into conservation efforts to have healthy habitat and abundant wildlife. Consequently, it bothers me when someone with a “lock-it-all-away” mentality poses as a conservationist while making preservationist proposals.
Public optics are typically better served by being viewed as a conservationist than a preservationist. Many folks have family and friends who fish or hunt, and don’t feel it is right to lock anglers and hunters out of an area without clear proof that there is a big problem for which preservation is a guaranteed fix. We already have exceptionally good wildlife management science and practices in place.
A classic example of this wolf in sheep’s clothing scenario is looming on the horizon as California prepares to implement Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “30 by ’30” executive 0rder. The wording says 30% protected waters and land by the year 2030. We have vast areas with special protections, such as Marine Sanctuaries, MPAs and military closures, and we are already well over the 30% mark.
Now the preservationists are coming out and demanding that the only level of protection that should be counted toward the 30% is absolute no-take. Are they making these preservationist demands under the guise of conservation? Yes of course, because the term conservation plays better than the term preservation.
I take a stand against absolute lock-down, no-take preservation when it is not necessary to have healthy habitat and abundant wildlife. Our tried-and-true adaptive fisheries management is based upon conservation and sustainability, and I don’t want emotional preservationists pirating that from the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and keeping grandpa and kids of the good fishing spots and hunting grounds.
