Advocates for sustainable use need to do much more than consider their own impacts on the environment. Their adversaries are those who want to see many common usages curtailed or banned. Many "environmental organizations" are constantly active in the political arena in ways that ultimately harm not only human users, but often, the environment itself. Commercial fishermen know this very well. They are constantly under siege from "environmentalist" NGOs that want all fishing activity stopped, but who will settle for increasing restrictions on fishing along the way. NGO strategy is to impress politicians with their power to influence public opinion.

Recent examples may be seen in the Environmental News Service, a web site that often features the activities of protest NGOs. The strategy of these groups is to either sue US government agencies that have jurisdiction over US waters or national parks, or to present evidence to those agencies that many US citizens are concerned about policy matters involving use of resources.

Oceana is a case in point.
 
This relatively new organization drummed up support for its claim that the National Marine Fisheries Service is not enforcing marine conservation laws. Oceana's strategy was to make claims about exorbitant fish bycatch on their web site, then collect petitions from readers who believed the information. An announcement made by the organization claimed that specific public response to be "the largest number of public comments ever submitted on an ocean related matter". With that statement, Oceana's triumph was then compounded when NMFS administrator Conrad Lautenbacher publicly acknowledged and received the first boxes of petitions from Oceana's Carolyn Hartmann. Sixty thousand people had apparently responded with hard copy statements of protest that targeted NMFS failure to prevent the claimed bycatch of non- target species.

Oceana then called on NMFS to more stringently control commercial fishing, by putting inspectors on more vessels, and through other means. The goal appears to be to make it so difficult to legally fish, that fewer vessels will engage in fishing. Oceana's demonstration of its power to influence sixty thousand people, was enough to initiate a government agency's increased involvement with commercial activity.

Once again, a protest NGO has proven that the illusion of widespread public support for outrageous claims is enough to cause a political reaction favorable to the NGO. This amounts to resource management through manipulated public opinion, rather than management through scientific inquiry and data-based unbiased observations.

And now, Fund for Animals
 
In a similarly strategic move, the Fund For Animals sued the National Park Service because it allows snowmobilers to access national parks for recreation during winter. The Fund cited studies that allege the presence of snow machines increases physiological stress on wolves and elk. The stress marker is an increase in a certain hormone that may be detected in the feces of these animals. Those doing the study, however, stated that there is no evidence that the animals are harmed by those stress levels, as their populations have remained stable.

Nevertheless, the Department of the Interior has decided to ban the use of snowmobiles in most national parks, starting in the winter of 2003-2004. In this case, the ban is apparently based on political reaction to the 1997 lawsuit, which was based on claims that "stress" itself, not real data about changes in animal survival rates and population levels, is significant.

The Fund For Animals has claimed the feces tests "could" indicate that wolves and elk might one day be harmed by the presence of snowmobiles in national parks in winter.

_____________________________

IWMC believes that all those who use natural resources, ranging from marine fish to snowmobile trails, must be aware of the strategies being developed to prevent those usages. Responsible resource users must act in a positive manner to let government officials know that they support scientific observations of the impacts of those usages, but not false claims of harm, or attempts to prevent legitimate resource use through unscrupulous manipulation of public opinion.

In addition, responsible users must protect their interests by convincing other members of the public that they respect the environment and use it legally and safely.

Everyone should remember the historic impact of NGO-manipulated public opinion on scientific management of fisheries the world over, Atlantic harp seals, elephants in Africa, and furbearers in North America. In each case, the protest NGOs have not improved the environment, but their actions have caused proven adverse impact on the animals, on people who live with them, and on the common environments they all share. Management of natural resources must be based on respect for science as a basis for decision making, and on respect for those people who wish to use those natural resources in a proven safe and responsible manner.