Oh man. I want to respond to everything. This was a lot of fun to read, and very informative, and really optimistic in a lot of ways. Thanks to everyone for responding thoughtfully, it's a nice break from the monotony of internet vitriol I seem to encounter on a daily basis.
Ok. Here we go:
I equate the environmentalist mindset as viewing the natural world as a place where man should be a spectator. I equate the hunter-conservationist mindset as viewing the natural world as a place where man is one of the many participants on the landscape.
I hadn't really heard this idea until I either read of watched something from Steve Rinella on being a participant vs being a spectator. He went on to specifically talking about people who hike or backpack as being spectators rather than participants, which didn't necessarily sit right with me. I feel like hunting isn't the only way to be a participant in the landscape, although it is one that is most definitely primal, athletic, and profoundly intimate. I'd say that someone who is backpacking through high mountain country is more of a participant than someone who is tree-stand hunting over a food plot.
That being said, without spending a lot of time in the high country, I doubt I ever would have had any interest in taking up hunting. In political terms you might call me a flip-flopper, because I consistently change my views according to my life experience. Talk to me after my first hunt, and I might not feel the same way about the dichotomy between the spectator and participant. To be fair, I've always hated being left out.
Really interesting comments above and I agree with Fin that those who participate typically have a greater insight than those who do not, though I think there are exceptions. I work with "participants" in the form of firefighters. To them all things in the woods can be solved with fire. Ask a logger about management in the woods and their answer will be a corollary to firefighters and their occupation. Ask a Wilderness advocate and the conclusion follows. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't count out the observers, because sometimes observing can give someone a better perspective than participating. Kind of like trying to give yourself relationship advice when you are in love.
Ultimately, I think the words environmentalist and conservationist are not that useful or meaningful, much like liberal, progressive,conservative, etc. Some labels are good, but when they occur on such a varied continuum, and have been hijacked by people with agendas, replacing the symbol with the substance will be more accurate and useful when describing the values of an individual or groups of individuals.
I think if we go back to sports as an analogy, we see that there are a lot of expert spectators that fill in some much-needed roles in between the spectators and participants. Typically, we call them coaches, referees, and journalists. A lot of these men and women might not have played the sport that they're intimately involved in, but they're experts just the same. In hunting, we might call them rangers, game wardens, mentors, wildlife biologists, or perhaps the non-hunter who is educated enough to continue conversations into their own community that provide a different lens on what the hunting community really and truly is.
Labels. They're so necessary to language, but can be so incredibly divisive when that label carries so many different interpretations. A chair is a chair, but an environmentalists and conservationists mean such different things to each of us. At the core of both labels exists a group of human beings trying to do what they think is right.
The one glimmer of hope I see is the food movement here in California. Many on the far right like to rage on diatribes about “those liberals”, but that isn’t working when it comes to decisions through DFW or the Commission. But, it’s “those liberals” who are picking up a shotgun or rifle for the first time and are now seeking to be a participant in nature as opposed to being a spectator. They are reading books like the Omnivores Dilemma, The Mindful Carnivore and Call of the Mild. They’re following guys like Steven Rinella and Hank Shaw and seeking to share in the bounty that the forests, fields and bodies of water can provide. But most importantly they are going to learn about what conservationists do, how the Fish and Wildlife Commission makes decisions and the negative impacts that anti-hunters have in the Commission. If those on the right would wake up and see they have a new ally that will carry great weight in more liberal circles we just might be able to make some changes here in California.
I am one of "those liberals", which is a nerve-wracking thing to say. I shot a gun for the first time a few weeks ago. I have friends that will be mortified when they find out I already have one gun and I'm on my way to a second. And then hopefully, I'll be able to have a conversation with them and maybe invite them to a dinner that I truly procured myself. We shall see.
I love what JR says here, because it gets down to the heart of the issue, which is making hunting palatable to those who simply don't know any better. I'll simply let all of those sleeping allusions lie.
