This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

ROANOKE, Va. - It was refreshing to see the National Rifle Association sit down with Democratic leaders in Congress recently to close loopholes in background checks that could prevent a future tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech.

That's because polarization on issues dealing with gun rights, wilderness, wildlife management and open-space preservation often results in stalemate.

Part of the problem, according to Paul Hansen of the Izaak Walton League of America, is many hunting and gun groups identify with Republicans, but environmentalists mostly gravitate toward Democrats. Those groups avoid meeting with each other for fear of alienating longtime supporters.

The other problem Hansen identified at the recent Outdoor Writers Association of America conference is that, too often, groups are so self-righteous that they leave little room to move the party line.

"When people act too self-righteously, they hurt the cause," said Hansen, who represents a hunting-oriented group with a long history of protecting the environment. "It could help the cause if there was more humility and groups did more listening. . . . Polarization is bad for conservation."

Too often, environmental groups have difficulty listening to hunters and anglers, Sierra Club official Bart Semcer said. That makes working together difficult.

Success often comes easier at the local level, where partnering on projects can be easier, Semcer added. For example, the NRA and Sierra Club worked to save a prairie in Houston from airport development, and Safari Club International and the Sierra Club formed a partnership to save wilderness in South Dakota.

A major sticking point comes when philosophies about hunting differ.

Some organizations, though recognizing the value of some wilderness, are more pro-management.

"We draw a line at anti-management folks bent on preservation to the exclusion of all other kinds of uses," said Steve Williams of The Wildlife Management Institute. "There are those folks who support the needs of the management of fish and wildlife habitat versus groups that feel humans don't need to do anything and wildlife will survive on its own. That's crazy. Humans created a lot of problems we face."

Matt Miller, who works in Idaho's Nature Conservancy program, said much of the progress made in Gem State projects would not have happened without the help of hunters.

How does this apply to Utah?

It's difficult to see a conservative hunting organization such as Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife partnering with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance or Sierra Club on a project. Local chapters of Ducks Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy seem like more logical partners.

But who knows?

If Safari Club International can team with the Sierra Club to preserve wilderness in South Dakota, anything is possible.

Ducks Unlimited's Gregg Patterson put it best. He said the process is a bit like what kids learn in kindergarten. Partners trust each other until one of them betrays that trust. Each partner must contribute to the effort. And working on smaller projects works best.

---

* TOM WHARTON can be contacted at wharton@sltrib.com. His phone number is 801-257-8909. Send comments about this column to livingeditor@sltrib.com.