Wildlife preservation came to depend politically on metropolitan voters’ esthetic interest

Evidence

In the mid-1960s, the Fish and Wildlife Service began to feel pressure to assume new responsibilities. The pressure came from two directions. First, a growing number of Americans wanted the chance simply to enjoy wildlife – to watch wild creatures in the outdoors. The demand was especially great in metropolitan areas. Second, a growing number of scientists and conservationists wanted the government to act to protect endangered species. The need was urgent, the supporters of new legislation argued, because the destruction of wildlife habitat was accelerating rapidly. Again, the problem focused professional attention on the attitudes of urban and suburban residents. “If we want room for wild animals in the wild places of our country,” ecologist Raymond Dasmann argued at a 1966 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “we will need an interest in wild animals among our city voters.” — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 841

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Metropolitan residents’ demand to watch wildlife reframed conservation as esthetic appreciation — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 842; Wildlife conservation had to reorient toward cities because future voters knew only urban environments — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 846; Conservation concerns migrated from forests and farms into metropolitan areas — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 1537 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Conservation concerns migrated from forests and farms into metropolitan areas #expands (0.90) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 1537
• Aesthetic preference often quietly drives ecological choices #exemplifies (0.85) — Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass, 722