First let me say I'm not a Hunter, and please read the whole post before you decide you hate me!! I have my own reasons for being a non-hunter, but I do not find Hunting to be primitive or immoral. Some might argue it all went downhill once H. Sapiens picked up the habit, but truth is we didn't follow roots and grubs out of Africa. I don't believe I can marvel at the deadly beauty of a Tiger or thrill at the sound of a Wolf and give them a pass for acting on need or instinct against a Hominid hunting out of choice. I just wish our Conservation ethic had kicked in 10,000 years ago.
I believe that Hunting (especially in developed countries) is critical to Conservation. Right up there with economic prosperity. The truth is every Country on Earth is just a severe economic crises away from a "Bushmeat Armageddon". Or for that matter, an unreasonable environmental regulation away from complete corruption of the entire ethos. I really worry about America's Bears 100 years from now, when our National Forests are disconnected Islands, Asia's Bears are Extinct, and the Conservation protections afforded by Hunting interests (in the form of monetary investment and Conservation infrastructure {State Game Depts}) might not be in place. I'm not worried if New Jersey hunters kill 10% of resident Black Bears or even if Wyoming uses hunting (as a measure of total mortality) to manage it's Brown Bears. Managed hunting will not contribute to the extinction of those populations.
I believe that as a group Hunters and Fishermen contribute far more financially to Conservation than do a like group of Animal Welfare enthusiasts. Hunting depends on sustainable populations of game animals and on protected habitat; which of course directly benefits non-game populations as well. After 75 years of advocating Conservation Science even pro-hunting groups largely supported the re-introduction of Wolves to the Rockies, albeit provided that they were managed as a sustainable game animal. Those that use the appeal of the Wolf as an individual creature and not as an ecologically significant population, or worse yet as a biological Trojan Horse to work against the economic interest of landowners really undermine the chances of a long-term viable population of those animals.
The situation is similar here in Alaska with the re-introduction of the Wood Bison. The Feds declined the State's petition to have the Bison released on the Yukon Charlie Preserve (where I imagine the Feds enforcement of the ESA would be beyond State input). Now the Bison will be released in an area of State and Native Landholdings with exemptions from the ESA that will allow for State control and preserve Native economic interest. Which is logical and appropriate if the goal of the ESA is to prevent Extinctions and the goal of the Animal Lover is a free roaming population of North America's largest mammal in it's Native Range.
I believe the three most effective private Conservation Organizations in the United States are (providing a pass to the National Wildlife Federation and the Wildlife Conservation Society) Ducks Unlimited, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and The Nature Conservancy. The first two have Hunting as their reason of being and join the last in fighting sprawl. Many organizations raise individual donations on the individual appeal of a single animal, yet might be a little loathe at identifying the economic habits of their doners as being the primary current contributing cause of wildlife losses. Ban a Beaver trap, drive private trappers out of the activity, the State eventually employs trappers anyway, a environmentally active percentage of the Hominid population is lost to conservation interests, and the smugly satisfied voters buy one of the 250 new homes being built on a fallow (rewilded) farm with the added bennie of being "close to nature".
I don't hunt. The idea of a canned hunt disgusts me. Even the behind high fences/sure thing Texas Safari thing makes me grimace. But Hunting typically has been a reasonably sure thing, once you locate the animal. 10,000 Scimitar Horned Oryx, 20,000 Blackbuck, 30,000 Axis Deer living on protected, undeveloped land in sustainable, viable populations is proof positive for me. The animal welfare group that wielded the ESA (which remember has the goal of preventing Extinctions) against Texas Hunting Ranches offering Addax or Scmitar hunts (and I've thrilled at spotting both driving along the back roads west of San Antonio) outright stated that they were not interested in preserving any population subject to hunting. The group was content to have the animals exist tenuously as a Zoo Population (likely unviable) or in very small numbers in their Native Ranges (doomed). It is insanity. In my opinion.
Hunters appreciate wildlife differently than I do, and occasionally show an appaling ignorance about a species' natural history or lack of respect to what they are taking from the wild. However, who hasn't grimaced at a large group of Zoo Visitors wondering what kind of Deer are in that African Savannah Exhibit, or forbid asking an Education Volunteer how they train the Porcupines not to shoot their quills at the keepers and guests? Those visitors appreciate the wildlife they are enjoying differently that I do. But not less. The Zoo needs those visitors (learning something I hope)....and Conservation needs Hunters....and Landowners.
