Dennis Anderson: Hunters, anglers echo public opinion on environment

A widely held assumption among hunters and anglers is that their experiences in the field and on the water make them better stewards of the environment than most other people.

The reasoning is that because sportsmen and women value fish and wildlife, and the pursuit thereof, they will expend extra effort -- financially, politically and otherwise -- to preserve the types of habitats those species (and wild creatures in general) need to thrive.

Steve Hirsch, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources assistant fisheries division director, reiterated that assumption last weekend at the DNR's annual fishing roundtable in St. Cloud.

Hirsch said that while it's not uniformly true, it nevertheless is occasionally, and perhaps even frequently, true.

What is known is that for the better part of 70 years, hunters and anglers have approved taxes and other special charges on their licenses and on the equipment they buy. Money raised is used to support most of the nation's conservation programs.

So in that regard, people who hunt and fish do qualify as unique in their conservation efforts.

Still, the question persists: Do outdoor enthusiasts differ in their beliefs about the environment compared with the public at large?

That was one question the Star Tribune Minnesota Poll attempted to answer last fall in a survey of Minnesotans' conservation attitudes.

Many of the findings were published in the Star Tribune (Dec. 16-19) as part of the four-part series "The State We're In," reprints of which are available (see accompanying story).

Additional findings, published here, suggest that the attitudes of those who say they are hunters or anglers really aren't any different from the general public.

Developing the poll

The poll, in which 1,014 Minnesota adults participated between Oct. 4 and Oct. 14, 2001, was generally intended to determine:

• Whether Minnesotans believe they are closer to nature and better at protecting their natural resources than people of other states.

• Whether any of several groups of Minnesotans, including hunters and anglers, are "greener" than others.

• Whether Minnesotans' commitment to environmental protection is greater than or less than their commitment to other public needs: public education, tax rebates, economic growth, traffic-congestion relief.

As the C12 graphic illustrates, responses were not significantly different in any group.

The graphic also summarizes respondents' answers to four additional questions (in each, respondents were asked to choose one of two statements that more closely reflected their opinions).

Choices posed by the four questions were:

• "Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth," or, "Economic growth should be given priority even if the environment suffers to some extent."

• "Our public schools should be sufficiently funded, even if it means there is not enough money to protect and maintain the state's lakes, rivers and forests," or, "Protection of the state's lakes and rivers should be given priority, even it if means public schools don't get all the money they need."

• "Paying lower taxes should be given priority, even if it means not providing enough money to protect and maintain the state's lakes, rivers and forests," or, "Using money to protect the state's lakes, rivers and forests should be given priority, even if it means paying the current tax rate."

• "Using money to relieve transportation congestion in the metro area should be given priority, even if it means not enough money for the state's lakes, rivers and forests," or, "Using money to protect the state's lakes, rivers and forests should be given priority, even if it means no relief for metro area traffic congestion."

Few differences

Hunters and anglers didn't distinguish themselves significantly in those answers, either.

Instead:

• Respondents who were nostalgic and politically conservative were more likely to agree that Minnesotans are more connected to nature than people elsewhere.

• Men and older Minnesotans were most likely to say the state's lake water quality has improved.

• Older, more educated Minnesotans, Democrats or independents were most likely to say the state's environmental laws aren't tough enough.

• Those most likely to choose improved funding for conservation over economic growth, lower taxes, traffic-congestion relief and public education weren't necessarily hunters and anglers, but Minnesotans who are younger, have more education, are DFLers or independents.

DNR regional director C.B. Bylander of Brainerd said Friday the poll's findings can be disheartening or encouraging.

"I think there's has been an expectation that environmental education programs developed in recent years would somehow help instill in hunters and anglers a stronger conservation ethic than the poll indicates," Bylander said. "In that respect, the poll results are discouraging.

"But it's also possible that hunters and anglers don't stand out because the public has caught up to them. Maybe the poll is a reflection that the conservation opinions of people who don't hunt and fish have caught up to those who do."

Mike McGinty, executive director of the Minnesota Waterfowl Association, said he was not surprised by the finding.

"We have 11,000 members in an organization that is specifically designed to address the interests of ducks, duck habitat and duck hunters -- this in a state that has over 110,000 duck hunters," McGinty said. "Today, the fact that you buy a duck hunting license or a fishing license might not mean what it once did. A lot of people who hunt or fish get out only one or two weekends a year. They're too busy to go more often than that. They've got kids to put through college or whatever, so their opinions on conservation are more likely to mirror society in general."

Gary Botzek, executive director of the Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Legislative Alliance, echoed McGinty.

"People's lives are so busy," he said, "that it's hard for many who hunt and fish to position those activities as high in their lives as they once might have. In that respect, perhaps it's not a surprise that hunters and anglers' opinions on conservation and the environment aren't any different than anyone else's."

Good news, too

Leaders of some hunting and fishing groups have claimed in recent years that public apathy is to blame for the loss of some the nation's natural resources.

True as that might be, another truth might be that people who utilize those resources most often -- hunters and anglers -- aren't committed enough to conserving them.

Hunters and anglers have been preached to about conservation for many years.

But perhaps they're not yet converted.

Therein, for all of us, lies a challenge.

-- Dennis Anderson is at danderson@startribune.com .