Are Hunters Conservationists?
The Take home Message
- Some hunting-interest groups lean heavily into the idea that hunters are conservationists.
- Conservationist hunters do exist, and are becoming more common over time.
- Conservation-negative behaviors by individual hunters and conservation-negative positions by some hunting-interest groups suggest we have room for improvement in terms of the collective conservation ethics in the hunting community.
The full story
Bad conservation ethics among hunters range from litter to things far more nefarious.
If you hunt, it should come as no surprise that you can find a wide range of conservation ethics in the hunting community. There are hunters who take concrete actions to leave the natural world around them in better condition than they found it. There are also hunters that have pretty questionable conservation ethics. Clearly, not all hunters are conservationists. Even among hunters who consider their conservation ethics to be strong, I distinguish between a hunting conservationist and a conservationist hunter. The differences in conservation ethics of the two are subtle, but important.
A hunting conservationist takes a holistic view of the natural world and cares first and foremost about biodiversity and functioning in an ecosystem, even if they don’t use those scientific descriptions. Hunting is a secondary reason for a hunting conservationist to spend time in nature. Some hunting conservationists might simply view hunting as a personal pursuit that has little to do with conservation (this would be my view). Others might view hunting as a useful tool for conservation and management of ecosystems and as a means to protect and maintain biodiversity. My guess is that many hunting conservationists were first drawn to the outdoors for reasons other than hunting and picked up hunting as an adult. I suspect this worldview is rare, although I do think there could be immense public relations value for the hunting industry in attracting conservation-minded people into hunting, even if only casually.
A hunting conservationist takes a holistic view of the natural world and cares first and foremost about biodiversity and functioning in an ecosystem, even if they don’t use those scientific descriptions. Hunting is a secondary reason for a hunting conservationist to spend time in nature. Some hunting conservationists might simply view hunting as a personal pursuit that has little to do with conservation (this would be my view). Others might view hunting as a useful tool for conservation and management of ecosystems and as a means to protect and maintain biodiversity. My guess is that many hunting conservationists were first drawn to the outdoors for reasons other than hunting and picked up hunting as an adult. I suspect this worldview is rare, although I do think there could be immense public relations value for the hunting industry in attracting conservation-minded people into hunting, even if only casually.
I've met too many hunters that mistakenly shoot meadowlarks when hunting quail, largely because they look similar in flight.
Conversely, a conservationist hunter takes a more focused approach to conservation and management of natural resources. Hunting is their gateway to the natural world, and their reason for experiencing nature. A conservationist hunter appreciates biodiversity and acts to conserve species other than game through their actions.
In my day job as an ecologist, I have interacted with conservationist hunters who actively contribute to NGOs like The Nature Conservancy or Audubon Society, enjoy a day conducting citizen science on a Christmas Bird Count, or spend time helping with invasive species removal. I’ve met many hunters who teach their children to appreciate biodiversity for what it is. That can be as simple as teaching them the enjoyment of watching a coyote run in front of the deer stand or watching a songbird feed instead of plinking it with a pellet gun. There are movements to mobilize and recognize conservationist hunters who put their money and time towards conservation. Online communities have sprung up around the idea of a responsible conservation ethic among hunters. The conservationist hunter is not Bigfoot. They exist, they're much more common than hunting conservationists, and their ranks are expanding.
The propaganda of some hunting-industry groups would lead you to believe the rise of the conservationist hunter is a given. That the term "conservationist hunter" is internally redundant in their view. All hunters are conservationists they say. More hunters are just recognizing their right to claim the noble title of conservationist. To me, this argument is farcical.
Just ask yourself if today’s hunters are acting as conservationists simply because they have no other choice? Would hunters make the same decisions the hunters of the early 1900s made to spur on conservation given the current political climate and state of the natural world? If we removed the license fees and the excise taxes so commonly held up as examples of conservation by hunters, would hunters continue to support conservation voluntarily? If hunting regulations were removed, would we witness a tragedy of the commons as hunters drove some species back towards extinction?
I hope I'm wrong, but I unfortunately think the answers to such questions are clear. It's certainly true the average hunter is probably more ecologically savvy today than the average hunter was 125 years ago. Still, my personal interactions with hunters and several cultural practices in the hunting community make me question if the average hunter or the hunting community would champion conservation practices if given the choice. I have met far too many hunters that view ecosystems as functioning their best when manipulated to maximize hunting opportunities. Monoculture food plots are too often considered a conservation win. There are too many hunters with too little concern for protecting biodiversity of insects, plants, songbirds, or small mammals in the areas where they hunt, even though those groups dwarf the number of game species. I’ve likewise met few hunters in the field that could identify common grassland birds; more than one has laughed to me about shooting a meadowlark because they thought it was a quail. Some hunters even promote anti-conservation measures like the introductions of exotic species for hunting, with little concern for the ecological impacts of those species.
This attitude becomes even clearer when the banter at deer camp turns to predators. I suspect you have heard complaints about how there are too many coyotes or bobcats or hawks, most of which are so abundant because hunters of yesteryear thought there were too many bears, wolves, and mountain lions. I have had hunters brag to me about shooting hawks and how good predator control is vital for maintaining quail or turkey populations. If you follow any hunting groups on Facebook, you will regularly see hunters bragging about shooting coyotes, and other hunters almost universally praising them for doing so. Entire Facebook pages revolve around how wolves in places like Wisconsin are killing hunting opportunities.
In my day job as an ecologist, I have interacted with conservationist hunters who actively contribute to NGOs like The Nature Conservancy or Audubon Society, enjoy a day conducting citizen science on a Christmas Bird Count, or spend time helping with invasive species removal. I’ve met many hunters who teach their children to appreciate biodiversity for what it is. That can be as simple as teaching them the enjoyment of watching a coyote run in front of the deer stand or watching a songbird feed instead of plinking it with a pellet gun. There are movements to mobilize and recognize conservationist hunters who put their money and time towards conservation. Online communities have sprung up around the idea of a responsible conservation ethic among hunters. The conservationist hunter is not Bigfoot. They exist, they're much more common than hunting conservationists, and their ranks are expanding.
The propaganda of some hunting-industry groups would lead you to believe the rise of the conservationist hunter is a given. That the term "conservationist hunter" is internally redundant in their view. All hunters are conservationists they say. More hunters are just recognizing their right to claim the noble title of conservationist. To me, this argument is farcical.
Just ask yourself if today’s hunters are acting as conservationists simply because they have no other choice? Would hunters make the same decisions the hunters of the early 1900s made to spur on conservation given the current political climate and state of the natural world? If we removed the license fees and the excise taxes so commonly held up as examples of conservation by hunters, would hunters continue to support conservation voluntarily? If hunting regulations were removed, would we witness a tragedy of the commons as hunters drove some species back towards extinction?
I hope I'm wrong, but I unfortunately think the answers to such questions are clear. It's certainly true the average hunter is probably more ecologically savvy today than the average hunter was 125 years ago. Still, my personal interactions with hunters and several cultural practices in the hunting community make me question if the average hunter or the hunting community would champion conservation practices if given the choice. I have met far too many hunters that view ecosystems as functioning their best when manipulated to maximize hunting opportunities. Monoculture food plots are too often considered a conservation win. There are too many hunters with too little concern for protecting biodiversity of insects, plants, songbirds, or small mammals in the areas where they hunt, even though those groups dwarf the number of game species. I’ve likewise met few hunters in the field that could identify common grassland birds; more than one has laughed to me about shooting a meadowlark because they thought it was a quail. Some hunters even promote anti-conservation measures like the introductions of exotic species for hunting, with little concern for the ecological impacts of those species.
This attitude becomes even clearer when the banter at deer camp turns to predators. I suspect you have heard complaints about how there are too many coyotes or bobcats or hawks, most of which are so abundant because hunters of yesteryear thought there were too many bears, wolves, and mountain lions. I have had hunters brag to me about shooting hawks and how good predator control is vital for maintaining quail or turkey populations. If you follow any hunting groups on Facebook, you will regularly see hunters bragging about shooting coyotes, and other hunters almost universally praising them for doing so. Entire Facebook pages revolve around how wolves in places like Wisconsin are killing hunting opportunities.
It's disheartening for me to see events like varmint hunting competitions, which aren't conservation and actively harm the perception of hunters in general.
Surprisingly, it seems these opinions have no relationship to education or interest in animals. Acquaintances with biology degrees have spoken longingly to me about a farm where they hunt that has quail because of the wonderful predator control the farm undertakes. I know hunting biologists who are quick to shoot a rattlesnake or a coyote. Taken to an extreme, these ideas have culminated in organized predator-hunting competitions, where prizes are awarded to whoever kills the most “varmints”. None of these things represent a strong conservation ethic.
These ideas are not limited to individual hunters. There are also several hunter-interest groups who work to legitimize the idea of the conservationist hunter while actively opposing conservation efforts. A recent high-profile example involves the proposed reintroduction of wolves to Colorado. Hunter-interest groups like Safari Club International and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation poured money into opposing the reintroduction relying on a justification that wolves will limit hunting opportunities by killing game animals. I am unequivocal in my opinion on these campaigns. They are not pro-conservation. They are not even neutral to conservation. They are decidedly anti-conservation. Period. Reintroduction of wolves is one step toward increasing both biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Hunter-interest groups have every right to oppose the promotion of diverse and naturally functioning ecosystems, but it is undeniably hypocritical for them to do so while also promoting hunters as conservationists.
I do think it’s important to give individual hunters and hunter-interest groups credit when they give real protection of biodiversity and land stewardship more than lip service. Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever sell seeds to build pollinator habitat and actively fight the myth that predator control is effective in increasing quail numbers with the truth that habitat management is far more important. There are hunter-interest groups like Ducks Unlimited doing great conservation work to protect entire ecosystems, and about a third of their funding comes from hunters’ donations (the remainder from federal and state agencies and other NGOs). Both hunters and NGOs should be lauded for the real conservation work they do. We should just call them out when they are inconsistent in their advocacy for conservation.
I understand that some might consider parts of this article unreasonably harsh in respect to the conservation ethics of hunters. I do this purposely to make a point about the absurdity with which hunting is often justified to the public and legislative bodies deciding on issues relevant to hunters. The simple act of hunting does not make you a conservationist and I find it difficult to label hunters as conservationists if their actions only support conservation involuntarily.
As a simple (but definitely incomplete) litmus test of your position along the gradient of conservation ethics, ask yourself this: are you as a hunter killing to conserve, or are you only conserving to the extent it allows you to kill? This is a tough question to answer, but if you are a hunter, it’s one that you should ask about yourself and about the interest groups to which you belong. It is a perfectly valid response to admit that you and your interest groups are not overly concerned with conservation beyond ensuring your game species of choice is abundant. It is not necessary for hunting to serve a conservation purpose to be of value. There are benefits to hunting beyond conservation. If those are the reasons you hunt, just be honest about it and don’t peddle the hunters-are-conservationists story that does not apply to you.
The rise of the conservationist hunters has been one of the most important shifts in the hunting community in generations. It's important not only for conservation, but as I'll argue in a future article, for the persistence of sport and recreational hunting in North America. It's safe to say that we need more conservationist hunters.
These ideas are not limited to individual hunters. There are also several hunter-interest groups who work to legitimize the idea of the conservationist hunter while actively opposing conservation efforts. A recent high-profile example involves the proposed reintroduction of wolves to Colorado. Hunter-interest groups like Safari Club International and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation poured money into opposing the reintroduction relying on a justification that wolves will limit hunting opportunities by killing game animals. I am unequivocal in my opinion on these campaigns. They are not pro-conservation. They are not even neutral to conservation. They are decidedly anti-conservation. Period. Reintroduction of wolves is one step toward increasing both biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Hunter-interest groups have every right to oppose the promotion of diverse and naturally functioning ecosystems, but it is undeniably hypocritical for them to do so while also promoting hunters as conservationists.
I do think it’s important to give individual hunters and hunter-interest groups credit when they give real protection of biodiversity and land stewardship more than lip service. Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever sell seeds to build pollinator habitat and actively fight the myth that predator control is effective in increasing quail numbers with the truth that habitat management is far more important. There are hunter-interest groups like Ducks Unlimited doing great conservation work to protect entire ecosystems, and about a third of their funding comes from hunters’ donations (the remainder from federal and state agencies and other NGOs). Both hunters and NGOs should be lauded for the real conservation work they do. We should just call them out when they are inconsistent in their advocacy for conservation.
I understand that some might consider parts of this article unreasonably harsh in respect to the conservation ethics of hunters. I do this purposely to make a point about the absurdity with which hunting is often justified to the public and legislative bodies deciding on issues relevant to hunters. The simple act of hunting does not make you a conservationist and I find it difficult to label hunters as conservationists if their actions only support conservation involuntarily.
As a simple (but definitely incomplete) litmus test of your position along the gradient of conservation ethics, ask yourself this: are you as a hunter killing to conserve, or are you only conserving to the extent it allows you to kill? This is a tough question to answer, but if you are a hunter, it’s one that you should ask about yourself and about the interest groups to which you belong. It is a perfectly valid response to admit that you and your interest groups are not overly concerned with conservation beyond ensuring your game species of choice is abundant. It is not necessary for hunting to serve a conservation purpose to be of value. There are benefits to hunting beyond conservation. If those are the reasons you hunt, just be honest about it and don’t peddle the hunters-are-conservationists story that does not apply to you.
The rise of the conservationist hunters has been one of the most important shifts in the hunting community in generations. It's important not only for conservation, but as I'll argue in a future article, for the persistence of sport and recreational hunting in North America. It's safe to say that we need more conservationist hunters.