Editor's note: I came across this piece in the newsletter of the Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA). Lonnie's comments focus on wildlife, not watersheds, but his points are right on target for integration of management. Reprinted with permission from Outdoors Unlimited and Lonnie Williamson. Copyright May 1992).

Where are all the naturalists? Lots of biologists are here, many ecologists are there, and over yonder are beaucoup environmentalists. There's even an ebbing pool of conservationists about. But apparently, no one admits to being a naturalist anymore.

This peculiar situation came to mind recently during rereading of an old George Bird Grinnell book titled Duck Shooting.

Grinnell was the definition of naturalist. He observed and hunted wildlife for knowledge as well as fun. He turned his fun into a passion and fashioned a weapon of his knowledge to help wild animals and the natural world on which they depend.

Grinnell's breadth and scope could be defined by his association. He enjoyed roles in the National Audubon Society and the Boone and Crocket Club. He also edited Forest and Stream Magazine, in which he exhorted the thrill of waterfowl hunting and simultaneously pressed the need to shoot fewer birds. And he was perceptive enough to realize waterfowl depend on wetland protection, among other things.

Through all this, Grinnell never recognized a contradiction between his love for and study of wildlife and his joy of hunting. He was a naturalist, a person who is a part and not apart, someone who serves as natural predator, differing from other killers mainly through intelligence and compassion.

Grinnell was far from unique in his day and decades thereafter. But now, his kind seems lost amid waves of educated deep breathers spouting theory and accompanying buzzwords.

Habitat diversity, which has been understood and promoted at least sine the 1930s, apparently is being shelved for biological diversity, which no one can fathom or even define adequately. The move is away from maintaining various types of waters and wetlands, seas of grassland and forest and other habitats important to wildlife. The trick now is to "manage for natural biodiversity," an all-encompassing concept inconceivable to the practical mind in a developed nation of 250 million people who depend on agriculture, forestry, industry and business.

The reality is more people means more land and water development and less wildlife. It means that wildlife must be fit into people's use of land and water. People always have and always will have preference over wild things. That's the way it is. The job is to control human spread, greed and misuse of natural resources to benefit wildlife as much as possible. Concern arises whether the modern rush to biodiversity, biological conservation, environmental landscaping and other nouveau speculation can yield that.

Naturalists may be able to do it. They brought wildlife back from the depths of excessive exploitation during Grinnell's time. They might possibly be the ones capable of keeping it viable.

The dearth of naturalists today seems a product of polarization. The critical mass of which Grinnell was a part apparently is splitting into camps of preservationists, academicians and gunslingers, with people fleeing for one group or the other. Compromise is old-fashioned.

For me or against me attitudes abound. On one side there are moral and irrelevant arguments against hunting. Conversely, there are equally absurd contentions by the other far-outs that hunting, forestry and livestock grazing are good for wildlife. Then there's the opinion that embracing biodiversity solves all. With these people, things are black or white. There are no gray squirrels.

Among the hopes of curing this untenable situation is OWAA (And the WMC? -Ed.). Within this organization, there is an encouraging remnant of the old naturalist philosophy, that wildlife can be used but must be maintained.

Wouldn't it be a kick if the future of wildlife and its many uses depends more on OWAA than any other group? Wouldn't it be lovely if OWAA helps produce a found generation of naturalists that experience, study, know and convey...a generation such as Grinnell's that is equipped to make a difference rather than a ruckus?

I know, I know, OWAA is a professional organization of communicators, blah, blah, blah. But it is more than that, because "Outdoor" means something in addition to location or subject. "Outdoor" embodies the broadness of nature and the human's role in it. Thus, OWAA is a perfect home and school for naturalists. I hope the organization continues in that role, while helping folks to communicate better.

Editor's note: I hope the WMC can be these things to Watershed folks. I think it can. See Barry Tonning's article on Page 8 for suggestions on media communications.