As a new hunter, I've read and heard a lot about how hunters have contributed to wildlife conservation in the US. (Some would say that "contributed" is too weak a word - maybe "driven" is more accurate.) There's no question that this true. Game animals are around now in high numbers largely because hunters funded the programs that helped recover their populations.
But I also wonder what exactly hunters and anglers think of the word "conservation"? What exactly is being conserved? A cynic or critic might say "hunters only care about conservation that benefits them: they mostly just support conservation efforts that give them more of the animals they like to hunt; they don't care about non-game animals, eco-system health (admittedly a vague term), etc". As a blanket statement I'm sure this is false. But is there any truth to it? Do we see conservation first and foremost as "more ungulates", and less about other considerations (e.g. biodiversity). No doubt there is a variety of opinion on the matter, so I'm curious to hear from you.
A random hypothetical question to provide an example:
Suppose by a collection of efforts, we could raise the ungulate populations of a region well above historical population densities. Possible ways: putting a bunch of water troughs in an arid area; removing most predators; clearing vegetation or burning old-growth forests at greater rates; significantly increasing food supplementation in winter; removing vegetation that ungulates don't like and replacing it with plants they do like. And so on. Let's say as a consequence of this, population densities double, to levels never seen before. And they stay that way for many years. Is this a good thing? What are the pros and cons that you see?
Feel free to point me to another post if this discussion has happened before.
But I also wonder what exactly hunters and anglers think of the word "conservation"? What exactly is being conserved? A cynic or critic might say "hunters only care about conservation that benefits them: they mostly just support conservation efforts that give them more of the animals they like to hunt; they don't care about non-game animals, eco-system health (admittedly a vague term), etc". As a blanket statement I'm sure this is false. But is there any truth to it? Do we see conservation first and foremost as "more ungulates", and less about other considerations (e.g. biodiversity). No doubt there is a variety of opinion on the matter, so I'm curious to hear from you.
A random hypothetical question to provide an example:
Suppose by a collection of efforts, we could raise the ungulate populations of a region well above historical population densities. Possible ways: putting a bunch of water troughs in an arid area; removing most predators; clearing vegetation or burning old-growth forests at greater rates; significantly increasing food supplementation in winter; removing vegetation that ungulates don't like and replacing it with plants they do like. And so on. Let's say as a consequence of this, population densities double, to levels never seen before. And they stay that way for many years. Is this a good thing? What are the pros and cons that you see?
Feel free to point me to another post if this discussion has happened before.
Last edited: