Civility in Conservation: where do historians stand?

Protests and debates -- the whole history of conservation?

There's an interesting movement afoot to instill civility in conservation.  Leading biologists like Jane Lubchenco describe as destructive the fierce and polarizing debate now underway between those who argue that nature should be protected for its intrinsic value, and those who advocate for conservation on the basis of the services nature provides to humans.  They also urge a more inclusive discussion, shifting beyond the few men who dominate, allowing younger scientists, women, and others to have their say.  In other words, enough already: let's look for common ground, not victory, in these debates.

Civility certainly makes sense: it's always frustrating to see environmentalists and others (like, say, Naomi Klein) dismissing those who try to work with diverse interests (including capitalists).

But I also wonder whether environmental historians bear some responsibility for, at least implicitly, celebrating conservation as an inherently acrimonious field.  Consider an often-invoked origin story: the timeless and irreducible conflict between preservation (John Muir), and conservation (Gifford Pinchot).  And do historians' accounts of wilderness preservation tend to see a refusal to compromise as a strength, and bargaining as a sign of weakness � a willingness to give way on principle?  Perhaps not � and yet this might be implied by historians' tendency to focus on those places, such as pristine wilderness, for which compromise is seen as most unhelpful.

Should, instead, historians seek to write a more inclusive account of conservation: one that includes a wider range of views, participants, and places worth protecting; and one that celebrates compromise as well as victory?

I'd be really interested to hear any comments on this from those who think about the history of nature conservation!