Why Hunting Isn't Conservation Article

[Hoodie]

Thank you for the posting this, really appreciate seeing diverging perspectives present on RS.

Really liked the "mutualistic" vs. "domination" perspective specifically which was new for me:

"Among the general public, more people hold a mutualistic outlook (35%) than domination (28%).[vii] The mutualistic orientation has been ascendant in the U.S. at least since 2004, according to the survey. Hunters and wildlife managers, on the other hand, tend to hold a domination orientation—a set of values that are in retreat."

Iḿ a fan of the mutualistic worldview.

But I have to wonder how many of those 35% holding the ¨mutualistic¨ outlook have been to a Burger King in the last week, given that less than 5% of Americans are vegetarians.

It´s more like 35% of Americans think domination is off-putting, so they outsource it as a matter of convenience. Then they go watch semi-domesticated wildlife from a paved road in Yellowstone and really feel like they´re a part of the ecosystem. When they get home they eat a nice piece of dominated animal flesh that somebody else wrapped in cellophane for them.

At a certain point, for certain people, what we´re calling a ¨mutualistic worldview¨ is just being out of touch with the fundamental realities of one´s existence.

None of the above would apply to vegans or vegetarians. But I have a problem with the mutualism/domination dichotomy being applied to people who merely choose to disregard their domination because it makes them feel bad.

 

[jolemons]

However you want to spin it. I formed my opinion about you when you wrote about loving wolves and saying they didnt hurt elk or deer populations.

Read my post and replies again. I didn't say any such thing. It's water under the bridge now, but you clearly misinterpreted anything that I wrote.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[gbflyer]

A lot of interesting reading available about sport hunting in Africa and its effects on game populations, especially dangerous game and predators, and what happens to the game when the hunting is ended politically.

 

[fort fireman]

I heard this guy on a podcast, so read the article to see what his points were. Surprisingly, he makes a cogent argument that I tend to agree with. I've been concerned about hunters going all in with the hunting is conservation justification lately.

Why Hunting Isn’t Conservation, and Why It Matters

By Kevin Bixby Featured Image (c) laura c carlson, Canid Collapse, graphite, watercolor, and mulberry ink, 2020 In late December 2014, I received a call from

rewilding.org

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I read the article but I feel there are a lot of holes in his "good" arguments. To many to go into but as an example, where he states that the nonhunting population contribute at least a third of the revenues to state and federal agencies. Now on the surface that may be true however at the current estimation only 5% of the population are hunters. Sooooo, when 95% or the population gives only 33 % of the money I feel that 5% do have a bit more clout in having a say. Per capita they ARE doing more to better the hunting but also the total package for all game and nongame animals. Not to mention all those NON hunting game watchers and other people that enjoy healthy abundant animals. Even if they will villify those that contribute more than those that like to sit on the side and complain about it. Not to mention that a lot of us hunters also donate our time and money in other conservation projects like RMEF,NWTF,DU and the list goes on. Sure in return we enjoy better hunting opportunities, I will not apoligize for that . It does seem to be simply an emotion piece with little substance behind his "good " points and arguments. JMHO

 

[Laramie]

Yep, hunt, guide, land manager, rancher, Capitalist, pro 2A, Christian. Go search my posts over the last 8-9 years, good luck finding anti-hunting comments. Pro native species conservation and ecological diversity, for sure.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

It's one thing to truly try to understand another's argument but another to be swayed by it. Make no mistake, anything presented by this individual has nothing but bad intentions for hunters in mind.

Can you explain what you mean by pro native species and ecological diversity? To the masses here on RS that means you are pro-wolf. Most making that argument also incorrectly claim the species of wolf being introduced are native.

To be clear, I understand his arguments. I just don't agree.

 

[jolemons]

It's one thing to truly try to understand another's argument but another to be swayed by it. Make no mistake, anything presented by this individual has nothing but bad intentions for hunters in mind.

Can you explain what you mean by pro native species and ecological diversity? To the masses here on RS that means you are pro-wolf. Most making that argument also incorrectly claim the species of wolf being introduced are native.

To be clear, I understand his arguments. I just don't agree.

Agreed, thanks for sharing your opinions. Not swayed by it, but i do tend to agree with some of his points. More so, I think we hunters need to build a stronger justification than "hunting is conservation" for our passion. It's going to get us backed into a corner.

Yes, I'm pro predator, including human predation. I'm not supportive of how most wolf reintroductions have been handled, but I tend to lean pro wolf as part of my philosophy.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[jolemons]

I read the article but I feel there are a lot of holes in his "good" arguments. To many to go into but as an example, where he states that the nonhunting population contribute at least a third of the revenues to state and federal agencies. Now on the surface that may be true however at the current estimation only 5% of the population are hunters. Sooooo, when 95% or the population gives only 33 % of the money I feel that 5% do have a bit more clout in having a say. Per capita they ARE doing more to better the hunting but also the total package for all game and nongame animals. Not to mention all those NON hunting game watchers and other people that enjoy healthy abundant animals. Even if they will villify those that contribute more than those that like to sit on the side and complain about it. Not to mention that a lot of us hunters also donate our time and money in other conservation projects like RMEF,NWTF,DU and the list goes on. Sure in return we enjoy better hunting opportunities, I will not apoligize for that . It does seem to be simply an emotion piece with little substance behind his "good " points and arguments. JMHO

Good points. To play devil's advocate, what if the source of funding for wildlife agencies changed so that non-hunters became the primary source of funding. Since you feel we, the hunter, should have more say in how game is managed, more hunting opportunities, etc., wouldn't that mean that we lose that expectation in that scenario? The non-hunter then would get more say? That is one of my concerns because some states have had proposed legislation in committee that would do just that.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[fort fireman]

Good points. To play devil's advocate, what if the source of funding for wildlife agencies changed so that non-hunters became the primary source of funding. Since you feel we, the hunter, should have more say in how game is managed, more hunting opportunities, etc., wouldn't that mean that we lose that expectation in that scenario? The non-hunter then would get more say? That is one of my concerns because some states have had proposed legislation in committee that would do just that.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Could we get steam rolled? ABSOLUTELY, we are after all by current estimations only 5% of the population and dropping. In many cases we are already getting pushed out little by little. I agree we need to fight the good fight to get old hunters back, bring new hunters in and keep the good ones we have. We need to stay educated. However the article that was posted IMHO does little in the way of facts to change my mind. Hunting is indeed conservation and hunters as a whole are the champions for good conservation practices. The facts speak for them selves, there is NO other system like the North American model and it works well. That is merely my take in regards to the article posted.


Last fall I spent close to a grand to go to Montana and hunt elk. I spent 2 weeks and basically it was a hiking trip with some gorgeous scenery and a few cow elk and a moose sprinkled in. Name me one non hunter that would pay that for a hiking trip. Conversely most everyone on this forum alone would and has done exactly that gladly.

 

[Aginor]

Good points. To play devil's advocate, what if the source of funding for wildlife agencies changed so that non-hunters became the primary source of funding. Since you feel we, the hunter, should have more say in how game is managed, more hunting opportunities, etc., wouldn't that mean that we lose that expectation in that scenario? The non-hunter then would get more say? That is one of my concerns because some states have had proposed legislation in committee that would do just that.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yes, if they’re paying an equal amount they should get an equal say, however, right now they already have a major say without footing anything and it’s exceedingly unlikely that they will relinquish that power. Overruling biologists and science with their feelings has gotten baiting and hound hunting eliminated in my state. You can point to tons of recent examples of Jersey cat ladies who’ve never stepped foot outdoors or given two thoughts to predator/prey relationships voting to reintroduce wolves to Colorado or ban grizzly hunting in BC. My point being that non hunters already have a say in how wildlife is managed even though they’ve had little to no part in funding it. So at this point it’s pretty moot to ask if we’d relinquish control if they paid more. They already have control. I just think it’s time they start paying

 

[Laramie]

I'm not supportive of how most wolf reintroductions have been handled, but I tend to lean pro wolf as part of my philosophy.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Wolf predation of big game can't be controlled. They are being introduced to replace hunters in the conservation equation. Period.

Human predation of big game can be controlled. Hunting has proven to be a more effective tool for managing big game populations at or near carrying capacity.

Your either on one side of the fence or the other. If we want stable big game populations, at or close to top carrying capacity, we can't have a healthy wolf population.

 

[bcv]

The wolf has no Off Button and hunters are conservation in that there is no larger cash cow paying for conservation than the hunting community.

 

[tpicou]

If we want stable big game populations, we can't have a healthy wolf population.

I don't think the greater body of peer reviewed literature supports this statement. I think what you mean to say is if you want to keep tag numbers at or above current limits then you can't have a healthy wolf population. But don't conflate that with ecological carrying capacity of ungulate herds.

Edit: Btw, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being anti-wolf because they will affect huntable herd size. IMO it's just best to come out and say that's the reason.

 

[Hoodie]

Everybody in my state complains about predators.

Then they all pay non-resident fees to go hunt Idaho, which has 10x as many wolves.

 

[jolemons]

I don't think the greater body of peer reviewed literature supports this statement. I think what you mean to say is if you want to keep tag numbers at or above current limits then you can't have a healthy wolf population. But don't conflate that with ecological carrying capacity of ungulate herds.

Edit: Btw, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being anti-wolf because they will affect huntable herd size. IMO it's just best to come out and say that's the reason.

Well said. I'm in the minority, I'd rather have apex predators in most suitable habitat and would accept less hunting opportunity for that dynamic. However, the selfish part of me still appreciates having some states where the are higher big game populations with heavy predator control. We're going to lose one of those states, CO, in the next decade.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[jolemons]

Yes, if they’re paying an equal amount they should get an equal say, however, right now they already have a major say without footing anything and it’s exceedingly unlikely that they will relinquish that power. Overruling biologists and science with their feelings has gotten baiting and hound hunting eliminated in my state. You can point to tons of recent examples of Jersey cat ladies who’ve never stepped foot outdoors or given two thoughts to predator/prey relationships voting to reintroduce wolves to Colorado or ban grizzly hunting in BC. My point being that non hunters already have a say in how wildlife is managed even though they’ve had little to no part in funding it. So at this point it’s pretty moot to ask if we’d relinquish control if they paid more. They already have control. I just think it’s time they start paying

Sort of. Our hunting dollar supports the state game and fish agencies which are governed through statute and the commission. The only influence that non hunters tend to have on them is when they circumvent the system through ballot initiatives, constitutional amendments, etc.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Datslab]

I have to get ten posts before I can pm members about gear. This seems like a rabbit hole. Good luck

 

[Rob5589]

Agreed, thanks for sharing your opinions. Not swayed by it, but i do tend to agree with some of his points. More so, I think we hunters need to build a stronger justification than "hunting is conservation" for our passion. It's going to get us backed into a corner.

Yes, I'm pro predator, including human predation. I'm not supportive of how most wolf reintroductions have been handled, but I tend to lean pro wolf as part of my philosophy.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

So as a hunter, I need to justify my motives?

 

[jolemons]

So as a hunter, I need to justify my motives?

Individually, no. Collectively, yes. That's what pro-hunting groups have been doing for us. If not, we don't stand a chance and as another poster aptly stated above, we'll be steam-rolled.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Aginor]

Sort of. Our hunting dollar supports the state game and fish agencies which are governed through statute and the commission. The only influence that non hunters tend to have on them is when they circumvent the system through ballot initiatives, constitutional amendments, etc.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Ballot initiatives are precisely what I was referring to. If they can use it, they will as is becoming ever more obvious

 

[lyle_destroys]

I just spent 10 minutes typing out reasons on why I disagree with this guy and his stupid article but erased it all because this is the internet and I'm not going to change anyone's mind regardless of what I say, so here's what I AM going to say:
This moron and his absolute lack of real world life experience are obvious and his ideas of policy would surely work as well as free healthcare and national education standards. I hope he gets hit by a Prius somewhere in san fran, I assure you I won't shed a tear. I'm tired of the PC bullshit and the left trying to demonize me for the way I live.