The oversimplification of issues often forces us to choose sides even before we fully know the issue while the most vocal or vehement amongst us, shape issue-specific narratives. An unfortunate reality of the binary framing around these complex issues, is that oversimplified portrayals are often the more extreme perspectives, they are seldom completely accurate, and they often create very little opportunity for productive collaboration in pursuit of real solutions. Progress in resolving complex problems seldom happens in large leaps of progress promptly landing on perfection. Progress is typically an iterative process of gradual improvements toward a co-produced outcome. Absent the opportunities for productive engagement and true collaboration, the divide persists.

Unfortunately, even the broadly benefitting field of conservation isn’t immune to binary issue framing or partisan politics. However, I believe that within the field of conservation, there remains significantly more opportunities for true collaboration than exist in many other fields and professions. Although often the agencies, organizations, and individuals who are implementing conservation struggle with societal relevance, in places where conservation enjoys societal relevance, there is often strong support for the quality-of-life benefits found through spending time in nature and engaging in outdoor activities. Collaboration toward conservation agendas is especially possible in places where the benefits of conservation are understood and recognized. It is in these places and on broadly impactful issues where there remain significant opportunities toward the advancement of conservation agendas and support for fish and wildlife and their habitats. This support is often independent of political party, and we should work together in trying to keep it that way.

Despite the broad appeal of conservation, there are divisive issues that fall prey to the problems created by oversimplification and binary pigeon-holing that stifles productive engagement and collaboration toward workable solutions. Although not issues tied to a political party, I can think of a couple such cases, and they include lightning rod topics like wildlife killing contests and the use of lead ammunition. Both examples have proven to be exceptionally divisive, grossly oversimplified as “all or none” issues, leveraged (and sometimes inaccurately) by the loudest voices in the room on either side of the issues, and have benchmarked success only as the perfect solutions of either maintaining the status quo or a total and complete cessation. When perfect outcomes are the only goals or benchmarks for success, efforts are destined to fail.

Regardless of the issue, to be successful in conservation’s pursuit of solutions, we must find ways to thwart the most extreme voices also being the loudest voices. We must prevent the loudest and most extreme voices from shaping inaccurate narratives. We need to seek common ground through opportunities for engagement and collaboration. We should not let perfect be the enemy of progress, and we should resist the easy yet oversimplified binary framing of complex issues that forces the choosing of sides, where likely, the best solutions are somewhere in the middle.

In a recent discussion with a friend and colleague regarding the debate surrounding the use of lead ammunition and the complexity of the emotions of the issue, he suggested using artificial intelligence (AI) to find the solution. Jokingly we asked Chat GPT to formulate a children’s book regarding the complex issue of lead ammunition and the divide created by issues like it. Perhaps overly vague and even naïve, Chat GPT wrote a story about a boy named Timmy from the town of Evergreen and concluded that, “Timmy learned that it’s not about wishing away the old ways but about making thoughtful choices. He promised to be a hunter who respected both tradition and the environment. As the community came together, they found a way to cherish their heritage while looking after the world around them. In Evergreen, traditions stayed strong, and the community grew even closer. Timmy’s journey showed that understanding and balance could make the world a better place. And so, they lived happily ever after, with lead ammunition and new ideas working hand in hand.”

Perhaps we can borrow a little from AI and in particular focus on key words like “thoughtful,” “understanding,” “balance,” and “new ideas,” as we pursue solutions to challenging and divisive conservation issues. Even groups like our partners at Conservation without Conflict know that some level of conflict is inevitable. It’s how we approach that conflict that ultimately determines its fate. There remain significant opportunities within conservation for bipartisan collaboration toward the advancement of conservation agendas. Creating a holding environment that provides opportunity for the thoughtful understanding and balancing of new ideas, as those fostered by efforts like Conservation without Conflict, is key to a less divisive future for conservation.