I mostly agree. I have one small nit to pick, though. The duck club owners aren't preservationists. It isn't as if they are advocating a non-consumptive use of a renewable resource. The ducks.

That in my eyes makes them conservationists.

Other than that, I have to admit to being totally confused. When actual wealthy preservationists such as Greenpeace, the Audobon Society, the Sierra Club, et al, find a sympathetic judge and ruin whole economies and impoverish people I never see the AP reporting about how the rich are setting themselves against the poor.

NOOO! Then it's those who care for Gaia versus those who want to rape here.

I'm actually impressed that the AP took a relatively neutral tone in this article. Still, the stench of it is that while the wealthy may have as sort of a side-benefit done something good for the environment in the pursuit of evil bloodsport, they're still keeping the locals down.

Meanwhile, in California what used to be rich farmland is a dustbowl because the enviros have convinced a judge that water can't be diverted for irrigation because it might be harmful to the delta smelt.

And on the east coast near Cape Hatteras they have something called a National Seashore Recreation Area where you can't recreate anymore. Because you might disturb nesting Piping Plovers.

Towns and farms that people have lived in and worked for generations are being ruined. People driven into poverty. Yet I never read anything that implies that the rich enviros might be the bad guys, or that the poor people being ruined may have a point when they argue they should be able to pursue their livelihoods.

But these duck hunters? They're selfish and standing in the way of progress.