
I’ve spent most of my adult life working in and around what people broadly call “environmentalism.” I care deeply about wildlife, natural landscapes, and the long-term health of the places we live. That hasn’t changed.
What has changed is my comfort level with much of what modern environmentalism has become.
And I’ll admit up front that this may sound like an afternoon rant—but it’s really an observation formed over decades.
The “fruitcake” problem
(That is a technical term.)
One of the ongoing challenges environmentalism has faced is that many people who strongly embrace “the environment” are perceived as being a little… out there. Sometimes unfairly. Sometimes not.
I’ve always loved wildlife, but I’ve never been able to fully connect with ideologies that drift into absolutism—anti-hunting at all costs, arguments that ignore basic ecological realities, or emotional positions that seem detached from how real landscapes and real communities function.
Healthy ecosystems are not managed by slogans. They’re managed by people who live in them, work in them, and understand trade-offs.
The insulation gap
Another long-standing issue is who environmentalism tends to attract.
Many people active in environmental causes are financially insulated from the daily realities most people face. When your housing, food, and income are secure, it’s much easier to advocate for solutions that increase costs or restrict livelihoods—especially when you won’t bear those costs.
That disconnect matters.
Stewardship that only works for people with money is not stewardship. It’s lifestyle branding.
The fundraising illusion
Over time, many large environmental organizations have evolved into something else entirely. They’ve become fundraising machines—well-oiled, well-branded, and very good at separating people from their money.
The pitch is familiar:
Want to save a whale? A redwood tree? A rare bird?
Send us cash and feel good about yourself.
Then you go back to living your regular life.
I’ve always struggled with that model. Because if it actually worked—if donations alone fixed ecological problems—then why is nearly every ecosystem on Earth still in decline?
At some point, that question deserves an honest answer.
You can’t outsource stewardship
Stewardship isn’t something you outsource to a nonprofit. It’s something you practice.
It’s local.
It’s personal.
It involves work.
And yes, it often involves earning a living.
People protect what supports them. Hunters, anglers, farmers, foresters, and land managers have historically been some of the strongest conservationists—not because they were told to feel guilty, but because their livelihoods depended on healthy systems.
That reality rarely fits neatly into modern environmental narratives, but ignoring it hasn’t helped ecosystems recover.
Why I’ve always focused on earning from stewardship
This is one reason I’ve always tried to link conservation and stewardship to economic activity.
Not exploitation.
Not extraction.
But use with responsibility.
If stewardship cannot support people economically, it will always remain a side project for the privileged. If it can support people—through land management, local food, habitat work, re-commerce, education, or small-scale enterprise—then it becomes part of daily life.
That’s when it scales.
A closing field note
I’m not anti-environment. I never have been.
But I’ve grown increasingly skeptical of environmentalism that:
-
Relies on guilt instead of responsibility
-
Raises money instead of changing behavior
-
Moralizes instead of engaging real people in real places
Stewardship isn’t flashy. It doesn’t make great fundraising videos. It doesn’t offer instant emotional relief.
But it works—slowly, imperfectly, and locally.
And after a lifetime in this work, that’s the direction I’ve chosen to walk.
These are simply observations from the field. Others may see things differently. That’s fine. Stewardship begins, after all, with paying attention.