Conservationist Shane Mahoney on Dialogue

>> PRESENTATION OF "DIALOGUE" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE FAMILY'S LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO. >>> COMING UP, MY GUEST TODAY SAYS WE OFTEN TAKE FOR GRANTED THE WILDLIFE WE HAVE IN OUR COUNTRY AND HOW IT CAME TO BE PROTECTED. AND HE SAYS IF WE'RE NOT ALL INVOLVED IN CONSERVATION, WE COULD LOSE WHAT WE HAVE. A CONVERSATION WITH HUNTER-PHILOSOPHER SHANE MAHONEY NEXT ON "DIALOGUE." STAY TUNED. >> HELLO AND WELCOME TO "DIALOGUE." I'M MARCIA FRANKLIN. MY GUEST TODAY SAYS THAT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE IS A CRITICAL ACT OF CITIZENSHIP. SHANE MAHONEY IS A WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST WHO SPEAKS ALL OVER THE WORLD ABOUT CONSERVATION. A CANADIAN BY BIRTH, MAHONEY IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGIC SCIENCE FOR THE CANADIAN PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR. HIS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH HAS FOCUSED ON THE POPULATION DYNAMICS OF LARGE MAMMALS AND ON PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTIONS. BUT HE'S PERHAPS BEST KNOWN FOR HIS ARTICLES, FILMS, AND SPEECHES ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSERVATION. "OUTDOOR CANADA" MAGAZINE NAMED HIM ONE OF THE 10 MOST INFLUENTIAL CONSERVATIONISTS IN CANADA, AND "OUTDOOR LIFE" MAGAZINE HAS NOMINATED MAHONEY FOR PERSON OF THE YEAR. HE'S IN BOISE TO ADDRESS THE NORTH AMERICA WILDLIFE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. THOSE ARE FISH AND GAME OFFICERS FROM THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. AND IN 2012, HE WAS THE KEYNOTE SPEAKER AT THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME'S WILDLIFE SUMMIT. WELCOME BACK TO IDAHO. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YOU MUST LIKE IT. YOU KEEP COMING BACK. >> I DO. I LIKE IT VERY MUCH. WHAT IS NOT TO LIKE? >> ONE OF THE REASONS THAT PEOPLE LIVE HERE IS BECAUSE OF THE DIVERSITY OF WILDLIFE. SOMETIMES IT IS HARD TO SEE WHETHER THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS AT ALL BECAUSE IT IS SO BEAUTIFUL HERE. YOUR CONTENTION IS THAT IF WE'RE NOT CAREFUL, WE COULD LOSE WHAT WE HAVE AS I SAID IN MY INTRODUCTION. >> I THINK IT IS GENERALLY TRUE, THINGS THAT WE VALUE MOST IN LIFE, CLOSEST TO US, IN THE NEED OF PROTECTION AND VIGILANCE. IN THE CASE OF WILDLIFE, HISTORY OF HUMAN KIND'S ENGAGEMENT HAS GIVEN US PLENTY TO REFLECT ON AND REALIZE THAT IT IS VERY EASY FOR THINGS TO GET OUT OF BALANCE. THE RISE OF THE CONSERVATION MOVEMENT, ITSELF, IN FACT, WAS BORN IN THIS COUNTRY, AND IN OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD OUT OF CRISIS AND OVEREXPLOITATION. WE SEE TODAY, YOU KNOW, VIRTUAL KALEIDOSCOPE OF CHALLENGES, DEVELOPMENT, REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTUR AGRICULTURE, DEMANDS THAT PEOPLE WISH TO PLACE ON THE ENVIRONMENT GENERALLY. NOTHING TO SAY THAT THE NATURAL WEALTH OF A NATION WILL LAST FOREVER UNLESS IT IS PROTECTED IN SOME WAY. >> YOUR CONTENTION WE NEED TO BROADEN THE BASE -- TRADITIONALLY, IN IDAHO, HUNTERS AND ANGLERS, PAY THROUGH THEIR LICENSES TO HAVE THE FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT. BUT THERE IS TALK NOW IN THE WILDLIFE SUMMIT IN 2012, GENERATED THIS, ABOUT BROADENING THAT BASE AND HAVING PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT HUNT ALSO CONTRIBUTE INTO THE SYSTEM, ALSO HAVE A STAKE IN IT. DO YOU SUPPORT THAT? >> I DO, OF COURSE. A LOT -- FIRST OF ALL, PUBLIC TRUST RESOURCE. IT BELONGS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE. IT IS NOT SIMPLY SOMETHING THAT IS THERE FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF PEOPLE WHO MAY WISH TO FISH AND HUNT, ALTHOUGH HISTORY IS VERY CLEAR THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE HUNTED AND FISHED HAVE MADE TREMENDOUS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE, BUT IT IS A PUBLIC TRUST RESOURCE. IT BELONGS TO EVERYONE. IT NOT ONLY BELONGS TO THE GENERATION OF TODAY, IT BELONGS TO THE GENERATIONS OF TOMORROW AND THOSE TO FOLLOW AFTER THAT. SO, IT -- IT IS, THEREFORE, THE RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE TO FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO IT, BUT WITH THAT COMES A RESPONSIBILITY, I BELIEVE. AND I BELIEVE THAT ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BE MAKING A CONTRIBUTION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE. >> THROUGH THEIR TAX MONEY? THROUGH PURCHASES AT VARIOUS STORES? HOW DOES IT WORK IN CANADA? >> IT IS A DIFFERENT SYSTEM IN CANADA. MOST OF THE FUNDING TO PROVINCIAL AGENCIES, GENERAL REVENUE. >> TAXES. >> YES, TAXES. LICENSE FEES FOR HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES GO DIRECTLY TO THE AGENCY. >> DO YOU LIKE THE SYSTEM BETTER THAN THE ONE THAT WE HAVE THAT PUTS IT ALL WITH THE HUNTERS? >> I THINK THE SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENT. EACH HAS ITS OWN STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES. STRENGTH OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM, DEDICATED SOURCE OF FUNDING THAT PEOPLE CAN PREDICT PREDICTABLY RELY ON. CANADA IS A LITTLE LESS PREDICTABLE IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE MANY COMPLEX DECISIONS THAT GOVERNMENTS MUST MAKE ABOUT THE ALLOCATIONS OF FUNDING. I WOULD SAY AS BOTH COUNTRIES HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO EXAMINE THE MODELS EACH HAS AND TO BORROW FROM THE STRENGTHS OF EACH AND WHITTLE AWAY AT THE WEAKNESSES AS BEST WE CAN. >> IN IDAHO, A BIT OF ANTIPTHY BETWEEN HUNTERS AND OTHER CONSERVATIONS. WITH SOME SAYING NO, WE DON'T WANT TO BROADEN THE BASE BECAUSE THEN THE NONHUNTERS WILL HAVE MORE SAY IN HOW THE FISH AND GAME MONEY IS USED. WHAT'S YOUR SENSE ABOUT THE NEED FOR THE GROUPS TO COME TOGETHER AND WORK ON THIS AND HOW THAT MIGHT HAPPEN? HOW THEY CAN DO THAT? THERE IS A LOT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. >> WELL, THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S TRUE. I THINK IF WE REFLECT ON THE DYNAMICS AND DIALOGUE THAT OCCUR IN SOCIETY ON ALMOST ANY ISSUE. ALMOST ALWAYS A DIVERSITY OF VERSION, RIGHT TO FREEDOM, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, HOW WE ALLOCATE MONEY FOR EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES. I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TENSION HERE. HISTORICALLY, THE CONSERVATION MOVEMENT GAINED ITS STRENGTH FROM THE FACT THAT IT WAS BROADLY BASED. MANY PEOPLE FORGET THE FACT THAT THERE WERE FAR MORE THAN HUNTERS AND ANGLERS INVOLVED IN CONSERVATION. THIS IS NOT TO DIMINISH THE CONTRIBUTION THEY HAVE MADE. AS A HUNTER AND ANGLER, I KNOW THAT MANY, MANY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HUNT AND FISH ARE ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT CONSERVATION. I THINK IT IS NATURAL FOR A GROUP THAT HAS GIVEN SO MUCH, THAT SEES MONEYS THAT THEY, THEMSELVES, SPEND BEING DIRECTLY USED FOR CONSERVATION TO FEEL THAT THEY MAY BE A LIMB THREATEN -- LITTLE THREATENED BY A BROADENING OF THE BASE AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE CHERISHED TRADITIONS THAT THEY HAVE. UNDERSTANDABLE HUMAN REACTION. BUT I THINK THE LONG ARC OF TIME AND THOUGHT WOULD REVEAL THAT WE MUST HAVE THIS BROADER COALITION OF PEOPLE WORKING FOR WILDLIFE. THE CHALLENGES THAT WILDLIFE WILL FACE IN THE 21st CENTURY ARE ENORMOUS. THEY'RE ENORMOUS EVERYWHERE. THEY'RE GOING TO BE ENORMOUS IN THIS STATE. NO PLACE WILL ESCAPE IT. TO THINK THAT A PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE, A SMALL PERCENTAGE CAN ALONE CARRY THE FREIGHT FOR ALL THAT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROCESS, IS JUST -- IT'S JUST NOT TENABLE. >> YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE IN YOUR OWN PROVINCE OF THE VAST COD FISHERIES THAT USED TO EXIST THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAME OVERFISHED AND IT WAS TAKEN FOR GRANTED THAT THERE WAS COD AND -- TIED TOGETHER AND THEN IT WAS GONE. >> YES, AND I THINK THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION, AND THERE ARE MANY OF THEM AROUND THE WORLD. THIS HAPPENS TO BE A VERY PERSONAL ONE FOR ME, BECAUSE I'M FROM THERE AND I LIVED THROUGH IT AND I SAW WHAT IT DID. YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL DEPENDENT ON THE NATURAL WORLD. THERE IS NO ESCAPING THIS PHENOMENON. IT IS A BIOLOGICAL REALITY. AND WE COME TO REALIZE WHEN THESE RESOURCES THAT WE RELY ARE ON LOST OR SEVERELY DIMINISHED, JUST HOW SIGNIFICANT THE HUMAN IMPACT CAN BE. AND IT TAKES A TOLL ON A CULTURE AND ON A SOCIETY. IT MAKES A MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE IN THE QUALITY OF LIFE. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE ARE SO NATURALLY PROTECTIVE OF THESE THINGS. THEY WANT THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE MAINTAINED. BUT WHAT SOMETIMES WE FAIL TO REALIZE IS THAT IT'S ONLY THROUGH THOUGHTFUL, STRATEGIC COORDINATED ACTION BETWEEN ALL LEVELS IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING POLITICAL ELITES AND BUSINESS ELITES, THAT WE ACTUALLY MANAGE TO SAFEGUARD THESE RESOURCES. WE ONLY HAVE ONE PLANET. AND AS FAR AS WE KNOW, GOOD PLANETS ARE VERY HARD TO FIND. >> SO, SOME OF THE SPECIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOUGH ARE KIND OF CONTROVERSIAL. LIKE WOLF. >> YES. >> PEOPLE WANT TO PROTECT ELK, WHICH AN ICONIC SPECIES HERE. >> OF COURSE. >> OTHERS WANT TO PROTECT WOLVES, WHICH USED TO BE HERE AND HAVE BEEN TRANSPLANTED HERE, BROUGHT BACK IN. AND SO MUCH ACRIMONY OVER THIS TOPIC. IT IS NOT ALWAYS THIS EASY TO TALK ABOUT THESE SPECIES, AS, YOU KNOW, COD. >> NO, I MEAN, I THINK THE WOLF ISSUE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ONE FOR MANY, MANY REASONS. TO STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THIS DEBATE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT ONE OF THE GREATEST CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMAN PROGRESS IN MY VIEW THAT HAS EVER BEEN MADE WAS THE INVENTION OF THIS IDEA OF CONSERVATION. THAT WE COULD LIVE WITHIN THE NATURAL WORLD AND YET WE COULD MAINTAIN THE DIVERSITY OF IT. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MADE ENORMOUS CONTRIBUTION TO THIS INTELLECTUAL MOVEMENT. AND I THINK ONE OF THE GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE NORTH AMERICA -- THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARY ACHIEVEMENTS FOR THE 21st CENTURY IN THAT WE STILL HAVE THEM. SECONDLY, WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT WE WENT THROUGH A LONG PERIOD OF REDUCING PREDATORS AND MAKING GREAT EFFORTS TO REDUCE THEIR NUMBERS FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. TO PROTECT VARIOUS OTHER ELEMENTS IN OUR SOCIETY THAT WE VALUED. THIS ALLOWED WILDLIFE POPULATIONS, GAME POPULATIONS, IF YOU WILL, DO VERY WELL. THEY EXISTED IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE BIG PREDATORS. NATURALLY WHEN YOU BRING THEM BACK, WHATEVER THE MOTIVATION, WHATEVER THE DESIGN, WHEN YOU BRING THEM BACK, THEY ARE BOUND TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE REAL CHALLENGE IS TO TRY AND FIND A SENSE OF BALANCE IN THIS. SHOULD BIG CARNIVORES BE MANAGED AS OTHER WILDLIFE POPULATIONS ARE? ABSOLUTELY THEY SHOULD. SHOULD WE BE ENCOURAGING LARGE POPULATIONS OF BIG CARNIVORES THAT ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS IN THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE? I THINK THAT IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK TO BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE STILL HAVE LANDSCAPES SO VIBRANT AND FULL OF LIFE THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN THESE BIG CARNIVORES IS SOMETHING THAT EVERY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN CITIZEN OUGHT TO BE PROUD OF. HUNTERS WILL, OF COURSE, REALIZE THAT THE TAKE THAT THOSE CARNIVORES -- THESE CARNIVORES ASSUME IS THEIRS FROM THESE PREY POPULATIONS WILL CONVICT TO SOME EXTENT WITH THE OPPORTUNITIES TO HUNT. THAT'S REAL. IT WILL BE MORE REAL IN SOME PLACES THAN IN OTHERS. BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT AS LONG AS WE ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE ABUNDANT OPPORTUNITY FOR HUNTING, AS WELL AS OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO SEE ALL KINDS OF WILDLIFE IN THEIR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, WE CAN ALL FEEL A MEASURE OF SUCCESS IN THIS REGARD. THE REMOVAL OF ANIMALS FROM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTING AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR STATES TO MANAGE THEM, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING, FRANKLY. >> DO YOU HAVE A CONCERN THEN ONCE THERE IS HUNTING AGAIN, THAT THEY WILL -- THEIR NUMBERS WILL PLUMMET? >> I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT POINT. THERE IS VERY, VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT NORMAL, LAWFUL, YOU KNOW, HUNTING AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO SIGNIFICANTLY DIMINISH THE NUMBER OF WOLVES. WHERE WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL, IF YOU WISH TO USE THAT TERM, IN DIMINISHING THE NUMBERS VERY SIGNIFICANTLY, IT HAS BEEN BY TAKING EXTRAORDINARY MEANS. AND IN THE PAST, THAT HAS INCLUDED ALL KINDS OF THINGS FROM POISONING ANIMALS TO SHOOTING THEM FROM AIRCRAFT TO DOING, YOU KNOW -- >> WHICH DOES HAPPEN, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES COME IN -- >> IT STILL DOES HAPPEN. YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S -- I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, A BROAD MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WANT TO SEE US RESORT TO IF WE CAN HAVE A MANAGEMENT OF THE CARNIVORE POPULATIONS WITH LAWFUL, LEGAL ACCESS, HUNTING ACCESS, THEN I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WOULD CERTAINLY PREFER TO SEE THAT. SO WOULD I. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE RISK, IF YOU WILL, THAT WOLF NUMBERS WILL BE VERY SERIOUSLY DEPLETED AS A RESULT OF NORMAL RECREATIONAL, LEGAL HUNTING ACTIVITY, IS EXTREMELY LOW. >> I WANT TO GET BACK TO YOUR POINT ABOUT CONSERVATION AS AN ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP -- ACT OF CITIZENSHIP, AS I MENTIONED IN THE INTRODUCTION, AND THAT IT NEEDS TO RISE EVEN HIGHER ON POLITICIAN AGENDAS AS WELL. LET'S TALK ABOUT WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT CONSERVING ANIMAL SPECIES IS A CRITICAL ACT OF BELONGING TO A COUNTRY OR AN ACT OF CITIZENSHIP IN A COUNTRY. >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, OUT OF THE SENSE OF OUR OWN PRESERVATION, WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE RELY FUNDAMENTALLY ON THE NATURAL WORLD AND WE HAVE NO REPLACEMENT FOR THIS. SECONDLY, I THINK WE ALL -- >> STARTING TO CLONE ANIMALS. >> STARTING TO CLONE ANIMALS, BUT EVEN THAT IS USING NATURAL MATERIAL OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS PROVIDED. BUT I GUESS THE POINT IS THAT WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT WILDLIFE IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY EXISTS AS A BAROMETER OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE NATURAL WORLD. YOU CANNOT HAVE ABUNDANT WILDLIFE. YOU CANNOT HAVE ABUNDANT FISH POPULATIONS. YOU CANNOT HAVE THESE THINGS, THIS WILD BEAUTY AND THIS WILD ABUNDANCE UNLESS THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ITSELF IS SUSTAINING AND HEALTHY. AND SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, WILDLIFE GIVE US THE QUICKEST SNAPSHOT OF WHETHER OR NOT THOSE ENVIRONMENTS ARE RESILIENT. SO, I THINK FROM THOSE PERSPECTIVES, IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE VIEW ONE OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES AS ENSURING THAT THAT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IS MAINTAINED. BUT EVEN BEYOND THAT, IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT WILD ANIMALS TAUGHT US TO BE HUMAN. THEY WERE OUR ORIGINAL INSPIRATIONS FOR ART. YOU KNOW, THE CAVE ART IS -- AND THE EARLIEST SCULPTORS, CLEAR INDICATIONS OF WHERE WE SOUGHT OUR FIRST INSPIRATIONS OF BEAUTY AND THEY CAME FROM ANIMALS. THE VERY IDEAS OF OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM WERE DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN ALL OF OUR MYTHOLOGIES. THEY HAVE STRONGLY INFLUENCED US THROUGH TIME IN ANY NUMBER OF WAYS. AND THEY STILL REPRESENT CREATURES THAT WE RECOGNIZE, SHARE A GREAT DEAL WITH US. AND THAT IS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE ARE SO INTRIGUED BY THEM, MESMERIZED BY THEM. YOU COULD GIVE ME 50 CHILDREN FROM 50 NATIONS AND PUT THEM IN THE ROOM WITH THE GREATEST TOYS EVER INVENTED BUT BRING ONE WILD CREATURE INTO THEIR MIST, AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE CHILDREN WILL TURN THEIR ATTENTION TO THAT WILD CREATURE. THIS IS A TRUTH THAT WE CANNOT ESCA ESCAPE. THEREFORE, IF WE WANT OUR CHILDREN TO HAVE A SENSE OF THE BALANCE OF LIFE AND THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE AND JUST HOW EXTRAORDINARY THIS WORLD CAN BE, SURELY WE MUST FEEL THAT TO KEEP THESE WILD OTHERS WITH US IS PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY WE HAVE AS PARENTS AND AS CITIZENS. >> YOU SAID INDEED THAT ANIMALS HAVE TAUGHT US TO BE HUMAN. >> YES, I THINK THEY DID. I THINK ONE OF THE GREAT EXPERIENCES OF MY LIFE HAS BEEN VISITING THE CAVE ART SITES IN SPAIN IN PARTICULAR. AND IN MUCH OF THAT ART, SOME OF WHICH WAS CARRIED OUT INTERMITTENTLY OVER A 30,000 YEAR PERIOD, WHICH IS QUITE A LONG TIME, YOU KNOW, YOU SEE THESE CREATIONS WHICH WE CALL THEREOMORPHS WHICH ARE HALF HUMAN AND HALF ANIMAL. MY INTERPRETATION OF THESE IS VERY CLEAR, AT SOME POINT EARLY MAN STRUGGLED WITH THIS IDEA WHERE THE SEPARATION WAS BETWEEN HIS LIFE AND THE ANIMALS WHICH HE HUNTED IN ORDER TO SURVIVE. THIS AMALGOM OF ANIMAL, MAN, STRUGGLE TO DEFINE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OURSELVES AND THEM. IT WAS IN FINDING THAT DIFFERENCE THAT WE REALIZED OUR HUMANNESS DID CARRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK OF -- >> I THINK THEY CAN PLAY A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN AT LEAST TWO WAYS. ONE IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT THAT ALL PEOPLE BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN SOME CONTACT WITH WILD ANIMALS AND TO SEE IN REAL LIFE ANIMALS THAT THEY MAY NEVER HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE OTHERWISE. >> EVEN IF THEY'RE CAGED OR -- >> EVEN IF THEY ARE CAGED. >> I THINK THE SECOND VALUE OF ZOOS, OF COURSE, IS THAT THEY CAN BE AS BREEDING FACILITIES VERY IMPORTANT FROM A CONSERVATION PERSPECTIVE. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO GIVE US THE VIEW OF THE WILD OTHERS IN THE SAME WAY AS IF WE EXPERIENCE THEM IN THEIR OWN HABITATS. BUT I DO THINK WHILE AT SOME TIMES IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE THEM UNDER SUCH CONFINEMENT, I STILL THINK IT IS A VALUABLE EXERCISE FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO AT LEAST SPEND SOME TIME AND SEE SOME ASPECT OF ANIMAL BEHAVIOR THAT THEY WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE ABLE TO WITNESS. >> IS THERE MANY, MANY PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD WHO DON'T SEE ANY WILDLIFE ANYMORE? I MEAN, TALK ABOUT THE -- THE SOME OF THE THREATS THAT THE WILD OTHER, AS YOU PUT IT, ARE FACING, IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD WHERE THESE CONSERVATION EFFORTS HAVE NOT TAKEN HOLD? >> YOU KNOW, IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION. BECAUSE WE DEBATE ISSUES INTENSIVELY AND RIGHTFULLY SO HERE IN NORTH AMERICA. WHETHER THE WOLF ISSUE, ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND WHETHER PEOPLE SHOULD CONTINUE TO HUNT AND FISH OR WHATEVER THE DEBATE MAY BE. WE OUGHT TO STAND BACK AND REFLECT ON ABSOLUTELY BLESSED WE ARE TO EVEN HAVE THOSE DEBATES. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE BILLIONS, LITERALLY BILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD TODAY WHO FROM THE TIME THEY'RE BORN UNTIL THE TIME THEY DIE WILL NEVER HAVE A SINGLE EXPERIENCE IN VIEWING THE PIECE OF WILD BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY OR A WILD ANIMAL. BILLIONS OF PEOPLE. HUGE PERCENTAGE OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE WILL NEVER HAVE A SINGLE MOMENT OF THAT EXPERIENCE. AND, SO, YOU LOOK AT OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD AND YOU REALIZE THAT THE DEBATE IS NOT OVER WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BIG CARNIVORES AND THEY TAKE SOME PERCENTAGE OF A POPULATION OF A PARTICULAR SPECIES, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THAT REGION MUST EAT THOSE WILDLIFE EVERY SINGLE DAY JUST TO SURVIVE. AND THE CONSERVATION CHALLENGE IS NOT ONE OF POLICY DEBATE. BUT IT'S ONE OF THE REALITY OF LIFE OR DEATH FOR PEOPLE. AND THE CHALLENGE OF CONSERVATION, THEREFORE, BECOMES ESCALATED THAT THOSE KINDS OF STARK REALITIES. WHAT CHOICE DO WE MAKE? DO WE MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN PEOPLE AND ANOTHER WILD CREATURE? >> OR TAKING THE HORN OF AN ANIMAL AND SELLING IT AND NOT GETTING MUCH MONEY, BUT DOING IT TO SURVIVE. HOW DO -- HOW DO YOU GET THOSE PEOPLE TO CARE WHEN THEIR VERY LIVELIHOOD DEPENDS ON THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WILDLIFE? PERCEIVE IT DOES. >> IT IS A LONG ROAD, OF COURSE. AND THERE IS NO MAGIC SOLUTION TO GO IN AS A WELL-WISHER AND SUDDENLY RECREATE THE CULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE WORLD, AND, SECONDLY, WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT EVERYONE OF THESE NATIONS OF THE WORLD THAT HAVE THEIR OWN CULTURE, THEIR OWN NARRATIVE, THEIR OWN HISTORY AND EXPECTATIONS. >> ARE YOU PLEASED WITH WHAT THE INTERNATIONAL UNIONS ARE DOING ON THESE ISSUES AND THE LAWS, ARE THEY STRINGENT ENOUGH, FOR INSTANCE, ON POACHING, AND ON IMPORTATION OF THESE -- >> WELL, IT IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER LAW WILL WORK. I MEAN, THE LAW IS VERY STRINGENT IN SOME CASES. IN THE CASE OF ROACHING RHINO HORN AND ELEPHANTS AND OTHER ANIMALS FOR THAT MATTER, IN SOME COUNTRIES, ARMED PATROLS SHOOT TO KILL, AND THEY KILL HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE POACHING THOSE ANIMALS. ONE WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT'S A PRETTY STRICT LAW. BUT THE QUESTION IS, WHAT'S THE SOLUTION? AND SURELY THE SOLUTION HAS TO BE THAT WE MUST FIND A WAY FOR THE LOCAL INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO BENEFIT FROM WILDLIFE IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY SEE THAT THERE IS A CONSERVATION VALUE IN THEM. >> SUCH AS -- >> A CLASSIC CASE, A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES IN AFRICA. MANY AFRICAN COUNTRIES THEMSELVES ARE LAUNCHING THEIR OWN PROGRAMS. BUT WE -- WE NEED TO REFLECT ON THESE INTERNATIONAL CHALLENGES BECAUSE OUR OWN DEBATES CONSTANTLY NEED A SENSE OF MODERATION IF WE ARE TO DEFINE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL WAYS TO CONSERVE WILDLIFE IN NORTH AMERICA. THE FIRST STEP IN THAT REGARD IS TO REALIZE THE SCALE OF OUR PROBLEMS AND ALSO THE INCREDIBLE SCALE OF OUR SUCCESSES OVER THE LAST 125 YEARS. IT COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. WE COULD BE SITTING HERE TODAY WITH NO ELK. WE COULD BE SITTING HERE TODAY WITH ABSOLUTELY NO MOUNTAIN SHEEP. NO GRIZZLY BEAR, NO WHITE TAIL -- AND THAT'S WHERE WE WERE HEADED. >> AND IT WAS A TOUGH FIGHT TO GET THAT DONE. >> IT WAS EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT. PEOPLE LOOK BACK ON THE LONG NARRATIVE OF HISTORY, PEOPLE WHO HAD SUCCESSES HAD SUCCESSES BECAUSE IT WAS EASY OR THEY WERE GIFTED -- >> OR EVERYONE THOUGHT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. >> IT WAS NOT THE CASE, LAUNCHED, AND THE IDEA OF CONSTRAINT BEING PUT IN PLACE, HUGE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL FORCES WERE -- THE FACT THAT CONSERVATION SUCCEEDED AND THAT WE NOW GENERATIONS LATER ARE THE BENEFICIARIES OF THIS WILDLIFE LEGACY IS A TESTAMENT NOT TO THE EASE OF SUCCESS, BUT A TESTAMENT TO THE COMPASSION, COMMITMENT, DRIVE, AND DETERMINATION OF THE LEADERS OF CONSERVATION IN THIS COUNTRY -- >> NOT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PASSION ON BOTH SIDES, PEOPLE ARGUING OVER WOLVES BECAUSE THEY CARE -- AT LEAST THEY CARE. >> YES. >> YOUR CONCERN IS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE APATHETIC, THAT DON'T CARE AT ALL. AND WHAT ARE THE STRATEGIES FOR REACHING THEM, HAVING THEM CARE, AND HAVING THEM UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF WILDLIFE IN THEIR WORLD, IF THEY CAN GO TO A ZOO AND SEE IT OR WHATEVER, THEY'VE GOT OTHER TROUBLES IN THEIR LIVES. >> THEY DO. BUT I THINK THAT, FIRST OF ALL, IT IS A GOOD THING THAT WE HAVE A DIVERSITY OF VIEWS WITH RESPECT TO THE LIVES AND DEATHS OF WILD CREATURES. I DON'T HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY AT ALL UNDERSTANDING WHY SOME PEOPLE CANNOT UNDERSTAND HUNTING. I DON'T HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY WITH THAT WHATSOEVER. AND I BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO HUNTING CAN BE STRONG CONSERVATIONISTS JUST LIKE PEOPLE WHO HUNT CAN BE. I DO BELIEVE THE SMALL PERCENTAGES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE INTENSE DEBATE OVER THE USE OF ANIMALS, FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS TOO SMALL A FRACTION FOR US TO BE ABLE TO CONSERVE WILDLIFE IN THE LONG TERM. WE NEED THIS BROAD MIDDLE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GENERALLY SPEAKING NOT ENGAGED. >> YOU REACH THEM HOW? >> YOU REACH THEM BY FIRST OF ALL MAKING SURE THAT THE DIALOGUE BECOMES PUBLIC. YOU CANNOT SIMPLY HAVE THIS DIALOGUE OCCURRING WITHIN THE VESTED INTEREST GROUPS, WHETHER IT IS A GROUP ON ONE SIDE OR ON ANOTHER. THE PUBLIC DIALOGUE ON THE VALUE OF WILDLIFE AND THE VALUE OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES, THE VERY IDEA THAT BEAUTY RESIDES IN THE NATURAL WORLD, AND THAT WE CAN OEJ GO A SHORT WAYS TO RECREATING IT WITH THE BEST OF OUR ARTISTS, THAT MATTERS AND SHOULD MATTER TO PEOPLE ONLY BY EXPOSING THEM TO THIS AND BY BRINGING THEY WILL AND MAKING THEM PART OF THE DIALOGUE THROUGH PUBLIC LECTURES AND TELEVISION SHOWS, MAGAZINE ARTICLES, RADIO SHOWS AND DEBATES, ONLY BY BRINGING THE MESSAGE TO PEOPLE CAN YOU EXPECT THEM TO CARE. >> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE WILDLIFE ITSELF, THAT ANIMALS ARE -- THAT THEY FEEL PAIN, THAT THEY KNOW -- >> OF COURSE THEY ARE. I HAD A -- I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I'M A HUNTER. AND A FISHERMAN. AND I SUPPORT HUNTING VERY MUCH AS A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW. BUT I ALSO FIRMLY BELIEVE NO, ABSOLUTELY, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THAT THOSE WILD OTHERS ARE BUILT AS WE ARE. AND FOR ANYONE TO SUGGEST THAT THEY DO NOT FEEL PAIN OR HAVE INTELLIGENCE OR CAN DO EXTRAORDINARY THINGS IS SIMPLY RIDICULOUS. >> WE ONLY HAVE A MINUTE LEFT. THE TIME GOES SO QUICKLY. AS WE WRAP UP, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU MOVED FROM THE ARENA THAT YOU WERE IN, WHICH WAS SCIENCE, SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, INTO THE ADVOCACY ROLE? WHY WAS IT SO IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO HAVE THAT TRANSFORMATION AND DO WHAT YOU DO TODAY? >> I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU THAT I SAT BACK ONE DAY AND THOUGHT I SHOULD DO ALL OF THIS BUT THAT WOULD BE A LIE. I WAS DRAWN INTO IT BECAUSE I CARE DEEPLY AND ONE CONVERSATION LED TO ANOTHER. I DO A GOOD DEAL OF SCIENCE, PUBLISH REGULARLY AND SO ON. BUT I TELL YOU SOMETHING, SCIENCE ALONE ARE NOT GOING TO KEEP THESE WILD ANIMALS WITH US. WHAT WE NEED, PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO, ALL PEOPLE, IN AGRICULTURE, BANKING, WILDLIFE AGENCIES, SERVICE INDUSTRIES, TO GET TOGETHER AND TO WORK ON BEHALF OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY PLACE AND THIS EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCE. THE PEOPLE IN THIS STATE OUGHT TO REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE PARADISE IN WHICH YOU LIVE, BUT YOU HAVE TO WORK TO KEEP IT. >> THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS WITH US. CONSERVATIONIST SHANE MAHONEY. THANKS FOR TUNING IN TO THIS EDITION OF "DIALOGUE." >>> PRESENTATION OF "DIALOGUE" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE FAMILY'S LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF