A Quote by Wendell Berry

Why should conservationists have a positive interest in... farming? There are lots of reasons, but the plainest is: Conservationists eat. — © Wendell Berry
Why should conservationists have a positive interest in... farming? There are lots of reasons, but the plainest is: Conservationists eat.
Urban conservationists may feel entitled to be unconcerned about food production because they are not farmers. But they can't be let off so easily, for they are all farming by proxy.
If conservationists will attempt to resume responsibility for their need to eat, they will be led back fairly directly to all their previous concerns for the welfare of nature.
Shelters, conservationists, those concerned about unnecessary cruelty toward the animals we eat, and people working against species extinction fight to preserve the true riches of our planet, our real inheritance. These are big, critical goals.
Dreher is correct in saying that traditionalist conservatives also have been conservationists...I think most conservatives should agree that this is an area we need to think more about.
Polite conservationists leave no mark save the scars upon the Earth that could have been prevented had they stood their ground.
It would be absolutely useless for any of us to work to save wildlife without working to educate the next generation of conservationists.
In Central Virginia, farmers are some of our strongest conservationists. They understand the complex ecosystems they inhabit, and they cherish the role they play as stewards of the land.
We still need conservationists who will attempt the impossible, achieving it because they aren't aware how impossible it is.
Now, many of us in the Labour Party are conservationists - and we all love the red squirrel. But there is one ginger rodent which we never want to see again - Danny Alexander.
Conservationists have, I fear, adopted the pedagogical method of the prophets: we mutter darkly about impending doom if people don't mend their ways. The doom is impending, all right; no one can be an ecologist, even an amateur one, without seeing it. But do people mend their ways for fear of calamity? I doubt it. They are more likely to do it out of pure curiosity and interest.
There would be very little point in my exhausting myself and other conservationists themselves in trying to protect animals and habitats if we weren't at the same time raising young people to be better stewards.
When you look at farmers and ranchers, for example, they are our first environmentalists. They are our first conservationists. When you look at the greatest asset that they have, it is their land. They care about the water that they drink. They care about the air that they breathe. We should see them as partners, not adversaries.
I see young men, my townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of. Better if they had been born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf, that they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were called to labor in. Who made them serfs of the soil? Why should they eat their sixty acres, when man is condemned to eat only his peck of dirt? Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?
Much like the conservationists who previously have received the Audubon Medal, including Stewart Udall, Rachel Carson and Ted Turner, I realize that this recognition cannot be a cause to rest, but a spur to continue our work.
It's when the conservationists became environmentalists that everything went bad. It stopped being about the environment. It became about controlling society.
Armies and former soldiers are working in the field to help protect elephants. Some have suggested staining the ivory; cameras and trackers have even been embedded within the tusk; others have arranged for tusks to be removed pre-emptively by conservationists.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!