Day of the Condor – Part 2
In our day at Pinnacles, a couple of things became immediately obvious.
First, any time you go pig hunting during turkey season, you’re going to have turkeys gobbling all around you. It’s standard, Murphy’s Law type stuff, but it was sure brought home to me on Friday morning. We had a tom going off well within 100 yards of the trucks, and later found his huge tracks right down the road behind our parking spot.
…And of course, we saw nary a pig all morning long.
The other thing is that no matter how many condors there are in a given place, they won’t be anywhere in sight when you want to see them. True, we did spot two circling way up over the peaks, late in the afternoon, but since we were hunting within sight of the feeding platform, we really sort of thought we’d see something a little closer.
On a slightly more serious note, I also learned that Jim really is a lifelong hunter. It’s not a charade he puts on in the interest of selling the lead-free ammo message. He’s hunted from Alaska to Argentina, and you don’t have to talk to him long to get the feeling it’s as big a part of his life as it is to any other hunter. It was a stark reminder that you can learn a lot about someone by actually spending a little face-time with them. Communication in real time offers a whole world of opportunity you’ll never get from text messages and email.
This face-time is really the driving reason for our meeting. Jim was hoping to get some time together, not just to be a nice guy and take us hunting, but to show us a little bit of what’s going on with the condor program, and to bounce around some ideas about the lead ammo issue. He and I are largely in agreement on many key points around the condors and lead ammo, but we’re not perfectly aligned. It’s helpful to talk about stuff like this in person.
That’s something that came up several times while we were chatting… how much difference it makes to discuss issues in person, rather than behind the anonymous shield of a computer terminal. In fact, he and I both agree that one of the big reasons the lead ammo issue has become such a divisive donnybrook is because so much of the conversation has been conducted electronically. Not only does this permit a crazy exchange of misinformation and opinion disguised as fact, it also allows folks to discard any sense of decency or decorum when it comes to attacking people with whom they disagree. Nobody can punch you in the mouth on the Internet.
Jim seems to agree with my original assessment as well, in that the whole thing went out of control in CA as soon as it became a political issue and left the realm of wildlife management or conservation. On top of that, groups like HSUS got involved on the side of the condor advocates, while the 800-lb gorilla of the NRA stepped in on the other side… instantaneously polarizing the factions. The facts got buried in propaganda, distrust clouded reasonable argument, and when all was said and done, a decision was made that seemed to absolutely disregard the concerns of the hunting community.
The thing is, this is all stuff I’ve written about ad nauseum. It’s history, and history can’t be changed. How do we move forward?
I honestly believe the first positive step would be for hunters to take off the blinders of politics and distrust, and start to get more information about lead ammo’s real impacts in the environment. One good way to do this is to take the opportunity to talk to people like Jim, or members of the Peregrine Fund on a person-to-person basis. Find out what these folks are really all about, and I’d bet you’ll come away with a greater understanding of their dedication to the work they do with all wildlife (not only condors). In the process, you’ll also be educating them about where you’re coming from as a hunter, what motivates you, and what you care about.
There’s a lot of ignorance on both sides of the debate, and only through personal and meaningful conversation can the ignorance be dispelled.
I love the overall idea behind this post. So much more can be learned about “the other side” when we actually take the time to immerse ourselves in it – if, at least, for a moment.
And having a face to face conversation about something goes along way towards establishing a much better understanding of what’s being discussed. It’s easy to hide behind a computer screen and spew whatever you choose, but it’s a much different experience when the conversation is actually face-to-face.
It sounds like you’re taking the right steps, Phillip. And hunters all across the nation better be paying attention, because it’s only a matter of time before it reaches them too.
April 14th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Great stuff, Phillip. Although I’ve strayed a bit on my Ethics blog, that is really one major point I’d like to drive home, too.
I do not distinguish the various factions in the environmental community – I include conservation and “mainstream” enviro. groups, as well as straight-up hunting organizations (animal rights groups, by the way, aren’t environmental organizations).
I would have loved to get the time out there that you get. Judging from your success, it sounds like I was there in spirit…
April 14th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Amen, Phillip! I was lucky because I’d talked with Jim extensively for the story I did for Turkey Country about the lead ammo issue, so I had a pretty good idea where he was coming from. He’s good people, and I think hunters would be wise to avoid buying into propaganda from either side and just listen to people who really care about what’s going on – and who won’t shove black-and-white answers down our throats.
April 15th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
A great post, Phillip. And a great meeting, it sounds like.
There have been similarly divisive situations–also over lead–here in Vermont. As you say, it’s important for folks to move beyond unhelpful, polarized positions.
Thanks.
April 16th, 2010 at 4:30 am