Wild ecology is a topic of vast importance to the International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources (IFCNR). Certainly, the conservation and preservation of the Earth’s wildlife and wild places are issues of vital concern and definitely fall within the IFCNR mandate. However, of equal priority is the fact that global efforts to conserve and protect wildlife and wild habitat have often devastating consequences on indigenous cultures, the sovereignty and economic development of emerging nations, global and domestic trade, as well as the perceptions of the public, press and politicians charged with creating and implementing resource use-related public policies.

Today, many factors are converging on the desire to conserve Earth’s magnificent wildlife and wild places. Some are hopelessly, dangerously, and even intentionally myopic. Regulatory, legislative, and legal actions undertaken in the name of “saving the animals” often present cultures, governments, professions, and corporations dependent upon resource use with dire consequences. Those consequences can mean the end to trade, severely inhibiting regulatory mandates, the abolition of the outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing, as well as the endangerment of an ancient culture.

Just as the argument is made that the loss of a wild species is a loss for all generations, so too, IFCNR argues, that the loss of the Earth’s cultural diversity is an equal diminishment of our lives and of our natural bounty. IFCNR also points out that efforts by non use individuals and NGOs to eliminate the natural predator/prey relationship among animals (including humanity) do not conserve nor preserve wildlife or wild places. Rather, they change the wild to the domestic eradicating the essential differentiation between the two. A strict allegiance to the non-use ideologies espoused by more extreme NGOs neither conserves nor preserves wildlife. It changes the equation.

Efforts by non-use NGOs to abolish such activities as hunting, trapping, commercial and recreational fishing, etc. as well as the means to participate in them (i.e., outlawing firearms, traps, fishing equipment) can prove counter-productive.

Adherence to the principles of sustainable use, however, in no way suggests unregulated abuse of wild resources. Sustainable use demands understanding, knowledge, communication, and cooperation among all parties involved. At times a moratorium on a particular use of a particular species may be needed. All such decisions must be seen within the context of the true meaning of the concept of “conservation.”

In its truest form “conservation” of a wild species, wild place, or other renewable resource means to nurture it to the point where its abundance allows for virtually every “use” whether consumptive or non-consumptive. This is the equilibrium IFCNR strives to achieve.