Skip site map

[Original citation: Hoecker, Steve. "Human Population Growth: Striking at the Root." Bugle, Aug-Oct. 1997. 101-105. Reprinted by permission of author and publisher.]

Human Population Growth:
Striking at the Root

Can wildife and wild places survive our growing population's ever-increasing demands?

by Steve Hoecker

ach year we add 90 million people to the world's population. Each year the United States' population grows by 2.5 million. There are 25 million more people in the United States today than just 10 years ago. Another 10 million will be added by the year 2000.

Can our population continue to grow forever? What will cause population growth to stabilize? When human populations do stabilize, what will our quality of life be like? Will wild places, wild elk and elk hunting be part of that life?

Ten years ago, when I was a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Forest Service, I presented countless educational programs about wildlife to school groups, hunting and fishing clubs, scout troops and garden clubs. The theme was always the same: wildlife need good quality habitat to survive. Food, water, cover and space in the right configuration. Sound familiar?

My audiences were always receptive and appreciative. After each program, they felt good and I felt good. I believed I was contributing to wildlife conservation and making a difference. Over time, that conviction has paled. During the past decade, I've watched with growing dismay as our society attempts to squeeze more and more from the land, as user conflicts on public and private lands escalate, as roads increasingly dissect and fragment the landscape, as wild areas become more crowded, as housing and other infrastructure to support an increasing human population continue to gobble up land.

Most people don't wake up in the morning and say "I think I'll go out and destroy a 100 acres of wildlife habitat today." But humans have the same basic needs as wildlife -- food, water, cover and space. When push comes to shove, we take care of our own basic needs before we even think about wildlife. So as we add 2.5 million people to our nation's population this year, we will face some choices. Will we build additional housing for humans, or protect wildlife habitat and open space? Will we build more highways to relieve traffic congestion, or protect wildlife habitat? Will we build more reservoirs and divert rivers to irrigate crops to feed humans, or protect wildlife habitat?

Development may mean land scraped and leveled for houses, wetlands drained to plant crops, roads built to accommodate logging or dams built to tame spring floods. Whatever form it takes, though, development is a symptom, not the cause, of wildlife woes. Human population growth is the cause. As long as we focus on the symptom and neglect the cause, we will be fighting a losing battle; a rear-guard action. As naturalist Henry David Thoreau once wrote, "For every thousand people striking at the branches of evil, there is only one striking at the root."

Imagine a ship with a hole in its hull below the water line. People inside the boat notice a symptom caused by the hole: rising water within the boat. They focus on the symptom, and begin to frantically bail. As the boat sinks, so much energy is focused on the symptom of rising water, it doesn't occur to anyone that, perhaps, a more prudent strategy would be to both bail and fix the hole in the boat. And so it is with human population growth.

The symptoms are all around us. Here in Wisconsin, for example, we've recently reintroduced elk to a land from which they've long been absent. The first choice for a release site was the Bayfield Peninsula. But because of high human population densities and potential conflict with human interests such as farming, a less desirable release site was chosen in the most remote portion of the Chequamegon National Forest. Even then, politically, the reintroduction had to be classified as an "experimental study," to assess the impacts of the elk herd on expanding human interests.

Increasing human population compounds nearly every social and environmental problem we face as a society -- poverty, hunger, environmental degradation, loss of personal freedoms through an increasingly regulated life, crowding, loss of open space, depletion of natural resources, endangered species...

Many Americans recognize these changes, and the impact of continued population growth on their quality of life. A February 1996 poll by the Roper Center for Public Research found that 59 percent of Americans want to see the U.S. population smaller, or no larger, than its current size. Unfortunately, the magnitude of this cultural shift in thinking -- from growth to stability -- and the daunting task of how to even begin making changes, discourages most people from taking action.

The issue of human population growth carries an incredible stigma; the cultural and social taboos associated with it often result in self-censorship. Many wildlife professionals I know recognize the problems stemming from population growth, but prefer publicly to remain silent -- focusing, instead, on the need to protect and enhance wildlife habitat. This is an admirable and worthwhile pursuit, but often diverts awareness, attention and funding away from the underlying cause.

Fortunately, this self-censorship is slowly changing as the effects of unabated population growth become more dramatic. Increasingly, individuals and organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation, the League of Women Voters, the Audubon Society, Zero Population Growth and the Carrying Capacity Network are joining forces to raise public awareness and understanding about the connections between population growth and quality of life. These organizations actively promote solutions, such as changes in outdated social policies and tax laws that favor population growth. Such laws and policies are holdovers from a time when population growth was viewed as beneficial to a young and growing nation. It is estimated that population stabilization efforts have resulted in a world population with 400 million fewer people than if these efforts had not been undertaken. These results offer hope and encouragement that human population growth can, indeed, be slowed and stabilized.

But change comes slowly. Societies and cultures do not change until they recognize the need for change. How long will it take for us, collectively as a culture, to recognize the effects of human population growth on wildlife and our quality of life? The barrier to change is a lack of awareness and understanding.

Hunters and conservationists can play a more active role developing public awareness and understanding about the impacts of human population growth on wildlife and wild places. They can also join forces with others working to stabilize human population growth.

This is not to say we should abandon our efforts to protect and enhance wildlife habitat. Physicians frequently treat symptoms of disease to provide short-term relief. But we should also devote time and resources to treat the underlying cause. After all, the future of good, high-quality elk hunting hinges on the existence of wildlands not threatened by human population growth.

Speaking at a 1993 hunting heritage symposium in South Dakota, writer Ted Kerasote asked, "At what point does population growth preclude hunting, and shouldn't at least one of the topics at this conference have been 'The Role of Agencies in Limiting the Population Crunch?'"

I've been contemplating a similar question: Shouldn't nonprofit conservation organizations, such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, be working to accelerate the cultural change that needs to take place to bring about an awareness and understanding of the impacts of human population growth on wildlife and wild places?

These are tough questions. They can seem so overwhelming that many people turn away or channel their energy into efforts that seem more tangible and offer more hope. There is a wide array of legitimate and important conservation issues such as habitat enhancement, species regulation, biodiversity, forest fragmentation, high levels of individual consumption and urban sprawl. However, if we do not include stabilizing human population among these issues, and give it high priority, we're merely striking at the branches.

Steve Hoecker works for the Cheguamegon National Forest in Wisconsin, where he is leading the development of a regional visitor's center slated to open in May 1998. The educational facility will focus on long-term regional sustainability which, among other things, includes the impacts of human population growth and consumption on wildlife and wild places.