Conservation without ideology?

In response to Kim Thorburn’s opinion “Conservation should not be driven by ideology,” (Jan. 24), I would first like to acknowledge the importance of scientific data in conservation policy. Thorburn is correct: personal or political bias should not cloud the assessment of scientific data. With that being said, Thorburn’s attempt to separate policy from ideology is misguided. Policy without ideology is more likely to be influenced by public pressure. Science alone cannot provide a basis for how we manage our resources.

Suppose a policy says, “If the population of a species is x, then people can take y individuals without impairing the resource supply.” However, science only gives us information about population size and health; it does not tell us what to do with that information. We set standards for x and y given ideology z. The implied ideology is that the resource supply is something we ought to care about. This “ought” is not something we get from science; it is something we derive from a value theory of ethics. If we value the common good, then we ought to maximize resource enjoyment for all people by maintaining the supply.

Conservation policy and ethics are inextricably linked. How do we value other organisms? Do we value them as mere means to an end or as ends in and of themselves? If policy reflects our values, then ethical concerns about hunting do matter.

Bottomline: policy always rests on ideology. Thorburn’s mandate does not omit ideology; rather, it presupposes it.

Rebecca Strauch

Spokane