homepage - programs - sierra sportsmen - people - drew pogge interview
Drew Pogge recently authored a piece in High Country News about being pulled in two directions — "The Loneliness of the Redneck Environmentalist." Given
so many of us sometimes feel between two worlds, it is not surprising the article was one of the most popular articles High Country News has recently featured. We speak with Drew about his "loneliness," and what it means to be stuck in the radical middle of the outdoors.
1. You describe your youth as growing up a "redneck"-- what qualifies as a redneck upbringing?
Well, first off, I use the term "redneck" as a title synonymous with "rural," or "country." Many still use the term "redneck" to connote ignorance, intolerance and bigotry. That stereotype seems to be weakening, but in the context of many environmental arguments, it is anything but complimentary.
For me, it wasn't that I was raised "redneck," it was that the people I grew to identify with were often those labeled as such. I lived mostly in rural suburbs, and my parents were highly educated professionals, but I spent time on our family farm in Iowa, and it was there that I first really connected with the environment. Tromping through the crick-bottoms, fishing for bass and catfish, going out to feed and inspect the cattle — these were formative experiences. My family always instilled in me "country" ideals that hard work is the best anyone can do in life, and that "persistence will prevail."
My friends have always been outdoors-people. Whether it was fishing, hunting, canoeing, biking, skiing, or building off-road vehicles, the people I have always felt most comfortable with are "rednecks." I never understood kids who wanted to stay inside, so by default I found friends who shared my recreational values.
My "redneck," or country upbringing had less to do with how I was brought up, it was more about who I chose to associate with, based mostly on a single common denominator; love of the outdoors.
2. Your environmental awakening occurred in college. What "converted" you — knowledge, maturity, experience, influence of friends or environment?
Basically, it was a culture shift. In place of hunters, fishers, and motorheads, I found myself surrounded by hikers, bikers, skiers and paddlers. These people also loved the outdoors, but in a different, and arguably less consumptive way. I essentially found my niche in Montana, with people who lived to play outside, but also took responsibility for protecting their playgrounds. And environmental attitudes among traditional sportsmen and women-hunters and fishers-were also different; more openly environmentally conscious than those of my upper mid-western friends. All of these people cared deeply for wild places, and it became clear to me that so did I. Once I educated myself a bit, it also became clear that the ways in which I was enjoying the outdoors via motorsports were at times irresponsible. It was tough to decide where I drew the line. And I guess I'm still struggling with that distinction today.
3. Why do you think there is a perceived schism between "rednecks" and "enviros"?
As in any conflict, the battle lines are dictated by extremists on both sides. "Rednecks", as recognized by the mainstream environmental movement, are blind to the impacts that motorsports, over hunting and fishing, and habitat losses are having on our lands. This picture of "rednecks," while not completely untrue, is not a good representation of a broad, diverse group of people. There are more moderates than not. There are more socially and environmentally conscious citizens than not. But there are the extremists who perpetuate a negative and highly emotionalized image of "rednecks" destroying the land.
On the same token, "greenies," as recognized by right-wing crowds, are liberal tree-huggers whose goal is to take away the civil liberties of sportsmen and motorized recreationsists. Again, this is not a good representation of the environmental movement as a whole. Yes, conservation oftentimes means limiting human impact in sensitive or heavily trafficked areas, but there is an unfounded assumption that everyone who supports environmental conservation wants four-wheel-drives banned, or hunting seasons eliminated. Some people undoubtedly agree with this ideology, but they too are few.
There are extremists on both sides, certainly, and they tend to be a vocal lot, but the schism that has arisen is, in my estimation, as manufactured as it is unproductive. By stirring up conflict, the extremists on both sides have created platforms from which they can preach, and the tragedy is that sensationalization rarely leads to constructive change.
4. You state "Many of my old redneck friends spend far more time in the natural world than the self-proclaimed environmentalists bent on protecting it." Given this intimacy with the outdoors, how do you explain your "redneck friends'" dismissal of environmental ethics?
A large part of their dismissal of everything "green" has to do with the sensationalism discussed above. For many people on both sides, large parts of their identity are wrapped up in being an "environmentalist" or being a "redneck." If they relate in any way to the other side of the issue, what happens to their identity? I believe that for most "rednecks," the dismissal of environmental ethics is less about disbelief, and more about presentation. Most every "redneck" I know is rational, sane and intelligent, but how likely is it that anyone is going to listen to an argument — even a good one-coming from self-labeled environmentalists, a group they have been conditioned to resent? And it goes both ways; most of my "greeny" friends aren't known for being overly sympathetic to the arguments of rational "rednecks." It all boils down to the ridiculousness of these titles and the associated stereotypes of "ignorant redneck" and "tree-hugging greeny."
5. Here's a question from a co-worker: "Let's say his sweeping generalization about enviros as city dwellers who only experience nature in their local IMAX theater is true. So what? Don't we still need them, shuffling from their Priuses into courtrooms and lecture halls to defend wilderness?"
My point wasn't that we don't need city-dwelling activists-we absolutely do, perhaps most of all. But I can appreciate the concerns of my "redneck" friends who see legislation passing, and laws changing based on lobbyists who may never even visit the places where they are affecting change. Is it right for someone to speak on behalf of a forest, grassland, or wetland they have never seen or experienced? That's a difficult question. But I do empathize with those people who resent unseen puppeteers changing policy for land they use and value. Lobbyists, activists, and lawyers are important to preserve and protect fragile, priceless environments, especially locally voiceless places like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
My point was that it is sometimes difficult for me and others like me to see these people as copatriots in the same movement. What do we have in common? You say they drive a Prius and spend all their time in courtrooms and lecture halls. How then, can I relate, as a "redneck" who drives a truck and hasn't set foot in a courtroom? Are they really representing what is best for our public land? Are we on the same page? I don't think these are unreasonable questions.
6. Do you see groups that bridge the redneck/environmentalist gap?
There are groups and partnerships that are bridging the gap. Specifically, there are growing numbers of partnerships between farmers and ranchers, and sportsmen and conservation groups. These relationships make sense, and the reason they work is that many of the people involved have taken it upon themselves to do something. Groups like this one, the Sierra Sportsmen, continue a long tradition of sportsmen conservationists. There are partnerships like the Diablo Trust in Arizona that rely on a cooperative of ranchers, environmentalists, scientists, artists and recreationists to sustain a high level of environmental health, while agricultural production, recreational opportunities, and culture also thrive. Partnerships like these prove that bridging the gap is not only possible, but productive.
7. What gives you hope the places and critters we all love outdoors can be protected for future generations of rednecks and enviros to enjoy?
It may sound odd, but for me a lot of hope comes from the conflict over land use. It's so complex, so emotional, and so important to so many people. It tells me that if nothing else, everyone involved on both sides of the issue loves the land. They may love it for different reasons or to different ends, but people are clearly wrapped up in the land, and when people are that invested in a place, it seems impossible that it should be destroyed.
Call me an optimist, call me an idiot, or just call me a redneck-environmentalist, but I believe that people are basically good and will do the right thing when it comes down to preserving the land and its many resources for their children.