Kim Thorburn: Animal rights ideology is not conservation

By Kim Thorburn

A well-funded coalition of radical animal rights groups is having some success in taking over the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Their latest move was on Oct. 19 and 20, with a Washington Fish and Wildlife Reform Convention, free for by-invitation-only attendees at Vashon Island’s Camp Sealth, including vegan meals. The website with the conference program mysteriously disappeared on Oct. 18 but not soon enough to lose the list of steering committee members who represent the pantheon of state and national animal rights organizations and who frequently provide media quotes and opinion editorials attacking the WDFW. Speakers were also the state’s animal rights familiar faces covering the usual topics of hunting bans, stopping hatchery production, denying hunter and angler contributions to conservation and opposing lethal removals as a sometimes-necessary tool to protect imperiled species or mitigate human conflict.

The stated purpose of the convention did not attempt to mask animal rights rhetoric: to transform the WDFW “into an agency that prioritizes conservation over consumption, emphasizes the intrinsic value of individual animals and healthy ecosystems, and represents the values of all the people of the state.” Setting aside the bombast, let’s be clear. Animal rights ideology is not conservation.

The WDFW is a conservation organization and even in the case of game species, conservation must be prioritized before hunting or fishing opportunities. Seasons are often limited or closed for conservation concerns. Only in the minds of extreme animal rights believers are consumptive wildlife practices, meaning hunting, fishing, and killing wildlife for management purposes, antithetical to conservation.

To deny the historic and ongoing contributions to wildlife conservation by hunters and anglers is revisionism. Along with the boots-on-the-ground conservation work of hunter and angler conservation organizations, such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Ducks Unlimited, a long-established federal funding model of game conservation continues to be the main source of revenue for many state fish and wildlife agencies. These governmental organizations are responsible for conservation of all wildlife but struggle with resources to carry out their nongame species responsibilities. For several years, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has led a broad-based coalition to advocate for stable federal funding for nongame species conservation in a bill called the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. The WDFW is also requesting a large general fund appropriation for nongame species conservation work.

Wildlife conservation and management emphasizes wildlife populations and communities in their ecosystems. Outside of animal rights rhetoric, the meaning of “intrinsic value of individual animals” is not clear. The intrinsic value of my dog is probably more important to me than you. Nor is it clear what species have intrinsic value. I once heard in a heated discussion of the topic that lions had more value than butterflies.

The WDFW has limited authority when it comes to ecosystem conservation. The agency owns nearly a million acres of land in Washington and manages it for healthy wildlife habitats. It is strengthening its partnerships with other public lands agencies to be a voice for wildlife conservation. The animal rights din frankly strains the agency’s work with private landowners and some conservation districts because of constraints in meeting landowner needs.

Finally, to claim this convention’s purpose was to represent the values of all the people of the state is complete falsehood. Animal rights is a quasi-religion being pushed to ban other cultural perspectives on wildlife that comprise consumptive practices. These include people who hunt and fish, indigenous people who interact reciprocally with the earth, people whose livelihoods are impacted by wildlife, and people who manage and recover imperiled species that don’t have “intrinsic value.” Banning cultural practices for ideological reasons is akin to such actions as prohibiting the wearing of hijab, i.e., bigotry.

It will be a sad day for cultural diversity and wildlife conservation if these well-heeled and disinforming animal rights organizations achieve their goal of transforming the WDFW.

Kim Thorburn is a Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissioner. The views expressed are the author’s and do not represent the commission.