“As a father, I have an obligation to do everything I can to pass along healthy landscapes and clean waters.”
When the trout no longer swam upstream, smoke sullied Montana’s hillsides in May, and snowpack vanished in early winter, Todd Tanner founded one of America’s leading conservation organisations: the Montana-based Conservation Hawks. While much of the American conservation establishment retreated from climate advocacy after the 2011 “Climategate” controversy, fearing political backlash or donor loss, Tanner did not shy away from the fight for a liveable planet, a fight he describes as an existential commitment. Conservation Hawks is built around one central belief that has carried Tanner through his work: climate change is the greatest threat to the future of hunting and fishing in America. With about 50 million hunters and anglers nationwide, sportsmen and women can move the climate debate in spaces that rarely hear it, yet need it most. This is precisely where Tanner believes the fight must be fought and won. His documentary films, Cold Waters, and In the Heart of the Rockies have resonated widely and toured internationally throughout the years, helping establish a space for pragmatic, bipartisan climate action within one of the country’s most tradition-bound communities.
Icarus Complex writer and researcher Linda Förster sat down with Tanner to talk about moral clarity, bottom-up conservation, and the love for wild places that keeps him, and his cause, moving forward.
Linda Förster: Was there a defining moment when you recognised that climate change is the most pressing issue facing us all? How did that moment ultimately lead to the creation of Conservation Hawks?
Todd Tanner: In my case, it was less about recognising that climate change would be a massive issue. I think I realised it was going to be a serious problem back in the late ‘90s, and more that we, collectively, as humans, were not doing anything about it. I don’t really understand how it’s possible for our culture to ignore an existential threat. That just doesn’t make any sense to me. There were a couple of moments, though, that really resonated. First, my son Kian was born back in March of 2005 and all of a sudden the future had a name and a face. And then, in late 2009, hackers stole emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and tried to discredit climate science. As a result of that extremely effective smear campaign, a lot of the conservation organisations I was following here in the U.S. stopped working on climate. They got tons of pushback from funders and members who claimed that climate was a hoax. I guess you could say that those conservation organisations stuck their toe in the bathtub and decided that the water was just too hot. We formed Conservation Hawks because the people that we had hoped would represent America’s hunters and anglers in the climate conversation decided to walk away from the issue. Somebody had to stand up, and since no one else seemed up to the task, we decided to do what we could.
LF: Conservation Hawks is based in the beautiful state of Montana. You are surrounded by the Rocky Mountains, and close to Yellowstone and Glacier National Park. Over the years, what empirical and qualitative changes have you personally witnessed in Montana’s landscapes due to climate change?
TT: It’s hard to name them all, but I’ll give it a shot. Our local winters are warmer. Spring comes earlier, as does the runoff from our mountain snowpack. Our fire season starts earlier and runs later. We’re seeing smoke in May and June, which was unheard of just a few years ago. Our summers are hotter and drier. Drought is becoming far more prevalent, which exacerbates the issue with wildfires. Our rivers run lower and warmer through the summer and fall. Wildfire smoke used to be relatively rare, but now it’s common in July, August and September. Our forests are suffering from higher temperatures and drought conditions, along with increased insect infestations, so we’re seeing way more dead and dying trees. The timing of our elk and mule deer migrations are shifting, as are the migratory patterns of our ducks and geese. Our trout streams are suffering from heat, drought and lower oxygen levels. We even had to buy an air conditioner, which was unheard of in Montana 25 or 30 years ago.
LF: On your website, you mention the need for sportsmen to lead policymakers “back towards sanity.” What steps have you taken to engage and pressure governmental bodies? What can individual citizens and NGOs do to drive change on a local and national political scale?
TT: Conservation Hawks is a 501c3 nonprofit, so we’re not really allowed to get involved politically. We would lose our nonprofit status, and our ability to raise money if, for example, we came out in favor of a political party or told people not to vote for a candidate because of his or her views on climate change. What we can do, though, is educate people who don’t realise how important climate change is to our future, or how much is at stake. When people realise that the entire natural world is at risk, and that our kids and our grandkids will suffer from our inaction, they’re far more likely to pay attention and get involved. As for what individuals can do – they can vote for candidates who take climate seriously and who will take the necessary steps to move us away from fossil fuels and towards clean, renewable energy. They can write letters to their local media outlets and advocate for strong action on climate. They can support companies who are trying to address climate, and withhold their support from corporations that are focused solely on profits. They can purchase energy efficient appliances, electric vehicles, and solar panels for their roofs. They can push their electricity supplier to switch to cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy. They can call their senators and representatives and demand action on climate. And they can talk to their friends and family members and co-workers and tell them why climate action is so important, and so urgently needed. NGOs are a little different. More than anything else, they can help create and organise grassroots support for focused and substantive climate action. They have the ability to bring people together and point them in the right direction, which is vital.
LF: Your documentaries are accessible, fact-driven, and rhetorically persuasive. On your website, you also reiterate that “when we talk about climate change with our friends, family or colleagues, we should be knowledgeable, accurate and persuasive.” Why is accessibility important to Conservation Hawk’s mission?
TT: Most people need to feel knowledgeable on a subject before they’re willing to engage on it. They also need to know that they’re not going too far out on a limb, and that other folks will be there to support them — to have their back. As you might guess, we’re trying to give anglers and hunters the tools to talk intelligently, and effectively, on climate. It’s not enough to realise climate change is a huge threat. They have to be able to communicate effectively, and we can model that communication at the same time we offer emotional and moral support.
It’s not enough to realise climate change is a huge threat. They have to be able to communicate effectively, and we can model that communication at the same time we offer emotional and moral support.
LF: In your article for Forbes, Death By Polar Bear, you wrote about the disconnect created by framing climate change as a distant issue, using symbols like polar bears and melting ice caps. People often need a personal or local connection to act. How can conservation organisations adjust their messaging to make climate change feel more immediate and relatable?
TT: That’s actually pretty simple. They can talk about the impacts to local ecosystems, and local economies, and local culture. They can discuss the increased cost of food and other necessities. They can talk about all the health issues associated with warming temperatures and other climate-related impacts. They can talk about our kids and grandkids, and about our responsibility to leave future generations a healthy planet and a robust economy. There are a ton of ways to personalise the message, but those organisations need to know exactly who they’re trying to reach, and they need to communicate in a way that comes across as honest and authentic. It doesn’t work, for example, when environmental activists try to talk to anglers and hunters about climate. They don’t really speak the same language, and they don’t trust each other.
LF: In the same article, you highlighted that “if you want to save the United States from greed, avarice, and flat-earth idiocy, you turn to men and women with patriotism in their hearts and a passion for defending our American heritage.” How do you navigate the partisan divide on climate issues, and how do you ensure patriotism is directed toward conservation and climate action?
TT: I wish I had a good answer for you. When we started Conservation Hawks in 2011, the partisan divide in the U.S. was significant but not insurmountable. Since then, things have grown considerably worse. We do our best to remain nonpartisan and stay out of the political fray, of course, but since climate is an issue that is typically seen as partisan, it’s harder and harder to engage people on the facts without having them retreat into their personal political biases. This problem isn’t unique to climate. The U.S. population is far more polarised, and far less willing to engage with people on the other side of the political aisle, than it was 10 or 20 years ago. We also have to realise that there’s a part of our target demographic that we simply can’t reach because they are so entrenched politically, and so unwilling to question the dogma flowing down to them from people they trust. That will likely change as the reality of the situation grows clearer, one of our CH board members likens the most serious climate impacts to getting hit by a wooden club, but it may not change as quickly as we want it to, or need it to. When we started Conservation Hawks in 2011, the partisan divide in the U.S. was significant but not insurmountable. Since then, things have grown considerably worse.
We do our best to remain nonpartisan and stay out of the political fray, of course, but since climate is an issue that is typically seen as partisan, it’s harder and harder to engage people on the facts without having them retreat into their personal political biases. This problem isn’t unique to climate. The U.S. population is far more polarised, and far less willing to engage with people on the other side of the political aisle, than it was 10 or 20 years ago.
LF: You’ve described the work of advocating for the planet as “depressing as hell.” What sustains you and keeps you motivated in the face of opposition and the magnitude of the climate crisis? If you could achieve one transformative change in America’s approach to conservation and climate change, what would it be?
TT: Those are important questions for anyone who works on climate. My personal motivations have stayed relatively constant over the years. I love the natural world and I feel a strong responsibility to pass it down unsullied to future generations. After all, the folks who come after us should have the same opportunities to enjoy our woods and waters as I’ve enjoyed over the years. At the same time, my son Kian, and his generation, deserve to grow up and grow old on a livable planet. As a father, I have an obligation to do everything I can to pass along healthy landscapes and clean waters. With regard to a transformative change, I’d love for Americans to realise that we are literally connected to everything around us, and that when we injure the natural world, we inflict those same injuries on ourselves and the people we love. Conversely, when we treat the world around us with respect, and when we act as stewards and caretakers, we help to heal ourselves and the people we care about. We don’t have to trash the world we live in. We can, and we should, all strive to leave things better than we found them.
With regard to a transformative change, I’d love for Americans to realise that we are literally connected to everything around us, and that when we injure the natural world, we inflict those same injuries on ourselves and the people we love. Conversely, when we treat the world around us with respect, and when we act as stewards and caretakers, we help to heal ourselves and the people we care about.
