Tree-hugging hippies and bloodthirsty killers – environmentalism makes strange bedfellows

Image source: Wikimedia Commons
You wouldn’t expect Greens, who often refuse to eat animals, to have much in common with hunters, who enjoy shooting and eating them. But shared perspectives on factory farming, personal responsibility and an affinity for nature are providing much needed common ground in order to bring about important political and societal change concerning environmental issues. Funny how looming disasters have a way of bringing some people together.
The ecology movements around the world have diverse origins in terms of politics, philosophy and lifestyle. This shouldn’t be too surprising considering we have to share the planet and perhaps contrary to our behavior, it is in all our interests to keep it healthy. Though the philosophy of the Green movement in the United States owes a lot to Henry David Thoreau (1817-62), a vegetarian and political radical who practiced civil disobedience, American style conservationism also has its roots in individualism and survivalism.
Of course these days environmentalism is generally a more accepted and public concern. This can be attributed in part the so-called Green movement of the 1980s, especially in Europe, but in America, environmental legislation was first spurred on by hunters known as ‘gentleman sportsmen’ such as president Theodore Roosevelt. In the 1960s environmentalism reached a broad spectrum of Americans, prompting significant lawmaking by the early 1970s, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, effectively incorporating Green concerns into the federal government. But the Green movement itself had a harder time in America than in Europe and was at worst successfully portrayed by business interests as a bunch of flaky ‘tree huggers’ who stood in the way of development and progress.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons
Into the new millennium, the American Green movement has made inroads by courting the interests of those traditionally less comfortable with the ‘environmentalist’ label, such as hunters, labor unions and religious groups. There is surely still disagreement and some bad blood between opposite ends of the environmentally-conscious spectrum, but lets hope cooperation continues if it means affecting important, positive change. Group hug anyone? No, I didn’t think so.
By Graham Land
Additional resources:
Christina Larson “The Emerging Environmental Majority”, Washington Monthly, May, 2006
Matt Miller “Hunters, Anglers and Climate Change” from nature.org
Tags: environmentalism, Green, Green movement, hunters, treehuggers
4 Comments
You can also log in to post a comment.


Hi fishsnorkel. I’m not sure that I said conservation is ethics. Traditionally it has been about human enjoyment. That’s how it started in the US: by preserving parks so people could enjoy them. It is still that way in many instances. It has also taken the form of health and survival: as a fight to protect clean water, food and air.
If algal blooms are as important as any other form of life including human, than that is your belief, but if it is human welfare you are chiefly concerned with, don’t you find many forms of conservation and aspects of “living green” to be beneficial to humanity?
Hi Graham. That’s fine. But is it objective natural history? I don’t care what people say or do, but I do care about the subjective corruption of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, and I do care about Life’s reputation, because, as I’m sure you will agree, Life has been portrayed as a pathetic Homo-dependent infant by the conservation community and, considering that it has survived uninterrupted for 3.5 billion years (i.e. about 90 million times longer than conservation has even existed)that is appallingly disingenuous. If conservation is ethics as you suggest, then it is not objective natural history and should not be presented as such.
Yes, some Greens want to eradicate some invasive species, while some are vegans, or just advocates of recycling. In other words, there are different ideologies and practical applications of ideology within green or conservationist causes.
Re: “Greens, who often refuse to eat animals”, why do they often kill animals as well then? Indeed, they’re always trying to eradicate invasive species and, given that all animals want to survive, I can’t see any intrinsic difference between meat animals and any other animals. Yes, there is a difference to people who think external appearance is important, but I would like to suggest that life is life regardless of what it looks like, and that death is death regardless of how many remain.