Conservation Could Use Some More
Conservationist Hunters
The Take home Message
- The conservation landscape is changing quickly and hunters risk being marginalized within the conservation community unless they change as well.
- If hunters hope to maintain a voice in conservation decisions, the hunting community needs to recognize and embrace the trend away from game-centric management and towards diversified conservation stakeholders and holistic ecosystem management.
- Conservationist hunters can take the lead in integrating the hunting community and the conservation community, and both hunting and conservation will benefit if they do.
The full story
Hunters have a long history of influencing wildlife management and conservation in North America. It started with the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and George Bird Grinnell who shaped the view of how we manage American landscapes and established the role of hunters in protecting populations of game species. It continues today as funding hunters provide for wildlife management and conservation through the purchase of licenses and with taxes paid to purchase hunting equipment, as dictated by the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937.
This is a narrative you may know well. It has been spread far and wide, most often by hunting-interest groups, but also by state fish and wildlife agencies. The idea has even gained scientific legitimization through something called the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, a philosophical model describing one part of the American conservation complex. In some ways, most notably in the recovery and protection of game species, the North American Model has been a resounding success. It’s no exaggeration to say there probably wouldn’t be elk or turkeys or white-tailed deer roaming the United States if not for the work of hunters.
Still, the modern conservation landscape bears little resemblance to the conservation landscape experienced by Roosevelt and Grinnell. Today, the conservation community cannot effectively manage our native ecosystems without diverse revenue streams and a broad group of stakeholders. This trend toward diversification will (and must) continue if we hope to successfully protect our natural resources. As it does, hunters risk being further marginalized in the conservation community. Even state agencies that are now largely funded by, and cater to, hunters will be increasingly tasked with developing conservation and management plans inclusive of more diverse recreational uses.
At the same time, the ecological research community is quickly improving our ability to understand communities and ecosystems as cohesive units instead of random collections of species. Single-species or game-centric management is likely a relic soon to be pushed aside for more holistic management strategies. This worldview is becoming more common in university classes like those I teach and will likely find its way into management agencies as a new generation of wildlife biologists graduate from student to professional in the conservation community. It’s a worldview that will fit nicely with increasing pressure to diversify management goals as funding sources become more diversified.
From my perspective as an ecologist, it is clear that a shift toward more holistic ecosystem management is happening all around us. As it does, there will be decreased focus on game species. The writing is on the wall. No longer will management agencies be able to focus so heavily on deer or ducks or turkeys. The roles played by hunters in managing our natural resources will change over the next several decades. They must. The cultural shifts necessary for hunters to stay relevant in a changing conservation landscape amount to a shift in conservation ethics more dramatic than any since the days of Roosevelt and Grinnell. If the hunting community is inflexible in the face of change, I suspect they will see their influence decrease exponentially.
This is a narrative you may know well. It has been spread far and wide, most often by hunting-interest groups, but also by state fish and wildlife agencies. The idea has even gained scientific legitimization through something called the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, a philosophical model describing one part of the American conservation complex. In some ways, most notably in the recovery and protection of game species, the North American Model has been a resounding success. It’s no exaggeration to say there probably wouldn’t be elk or turkeys or white-tailed deer roaming the United States if not for the work of hunters.
Still, the modern conservation landscape bears little resemblance to the conservation landscape experienced by Roosevelt and Grinnell. Today, the conservation community cannot effectively manage our native ecosystems without diverse revenue streams and a broad group of stakeholders. This trend toward diversification will (and must) continue if we hope to successfully protect our natural resources. As it does, hunters risk being further marginalized in the conservation community. Even state agencies that are now largely funded by, and cater to, hunters will be increasingly tasked with developing conservation and management plans inclusive of more diverse recreational uses.
At the same time, the ecological research community is quickly improving our ability to understand communities and ecosystems as cohesive units instead of random collections of species. Single-species or game-centric management is likely a relic soon to be pushed aside for more holistic management strategies. This worldview is becoming more common in university classes like those I teach and will likely find its way into management agencies as a new generation of wildlife biologists graduate from student to professional in the conservation community. It’s a worldview that will fit nicely with increasing pressure to diversify management goals as funding sources become more diversified.
From my perspective as an ecologist, it is clear that a shift toward more holistic ecosystem management is happening all around us. As it does, there will be decreased focus on game species. The writing is on the wall. No longer will management agencies be able to focus so heavily on deer or ducks or turkeys. The roles played by hunters in managing our natural resources will change over the next several decades. They must. The cultural shifts necessary for hunters to stay relevant in a changing conservation landscape amount to a shift in conservation ethics more dramatic than any since the days of Roosevelt and Grinnell. If the hunting community is inflexible in the face of change, I suspect they will see their influence decrease exponentially.
Unfortunately, there are those in the hunting community who are promoting exactly such a steadfast resolution to maintain the status quo. If someone questions the importance of hunters in conservation, the solution is just to yell louder about it. In my opinion, those folks are overplaying a weak hand because such an argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the place hunting holds in the conservation and management community. The hunting community can’t simply keep doing what they are doing and hope to maintain influence. At the very least, hunters and hunting-interest groups must do what they rarely have done and recognize and work with other stakeholders who have and continue to play a role in conservation. Continued propaganda that hunters are the most effective conservationists in the United States might be beneficial in swaying perception of hunting among a public that pays little attention to the hobby otherwise, but it does little to increase the influence of hunters in the conservation community. Quite the opposite, it only serves to ostracize hunters from most of the conservation community. We need hunters to think more broadly about natural resource management and advocate for management agencies to do the same. In short, we need more conservationist hunters in the United States.
Conservationist hunters can play an important role in changing conservation ethics within their families and social circles, at local and state levels, and in hunter-interest groups to which they belong. Some of these changes are small, like supporting conservation organizations not related to hunting. Hunters should absolutely continue supporting conservation efforts of groups like Ducks Unlimited but should also spread their time and money among groups that affect conservation in different ways, like The Nature Conservancy or Audubon Society. This outreach from the hunting community to the conservation community as a whole will do wonders for the perception of hunting and help promote hunters as a relevant voice in conservation.
Conservationist hunters can play an important role in changing conservation ethics within their families and social circles, at local and state levels, and in hunter-interest groups to which they belong. Some of these changes are small, like supporting conservation organizations not related to hunting. Hunters should absolutely continue supporting conservation efforts of groups like Ducks Unlimited but should also spread their time and money among groups that affect conservation in different ways, like The Nature Conservancy or Audubon Society. This outreach from the hunting community to the conservation community as a whole will do wonders for the perception of hunting and help promote hunters as a relevant voice in conservation.
Some changes might take more effort but can be endlessly rewarding. We need hunters to take the time to learn to identify the species they encounter that are not game species, and use that knowledge to educate children. Birds and small mammals and trees become so much more interesting if you can distinguish a tufted titmouse from a nuthatch, a vole from a deer mouse, or a maple from a sycamore. Watching ants or spiders go about their business is fascinating if you know enough about their biology to understand what they are doing. I’m always amazed at how much more people care about the things in nature they can identify and understand. Conservation hunters can be the group that influences the way the next generation sees nature.
Conservationist hunters can also effect change in state and federal management and conservation agencies. Management agencies often function to maximize hunting opportunities because that is what hunters generally say they want. A shift in the general conservation ethics of hunters towards a more holistic view of the environment could do wonders for how our public lands are managed. If conservationist hunters make it clear they would accept lower game densities in exchange for more insect, bird, and small mammal diversity, the future of game management can support conservation instead of work independently of it. Agriculture and non-native cool-season grasses so common on conservation areas in the eastern United States might be replaced with native warm-season grasses. Political appointments to positions of prominence in management agencies might be more measured if conservationist hunters vocally oppose the appointments of unqualified personnel. The ongoing and repeated introductions of exotic species for hunting might stop in favor of protection and management of native species. A larger portion of funds derived from hunting-related taxes could be used to manage and promote diverse and healthy ecosystems instead of producing dense populations of game species. Better yet, conservationist hunters could be powerful advocates for the adoption of other sources of revenue aimed at helping conservation.
The future of conservation in the United States will be much brighter if management agencies, hunting-interest groups, and popular hunting media outlets put the money and effort they currently use to canonize hunters as conservationists into advocating for a real shift toward a more holistic conservation ethic among those same hunters. Hunters have been a force in conservation and wildlife management over the past century. Our natural resources will be best served if conservationist hunters take that mantle for the next century.
Conservationist hunters can also effect change in state and federal management and conservation agencies. Management agencies often function to maximize hunting opportunities because that is what hunters generally say they want. A shift in the general conservation ethics of hunters towards a more holistic view of the environment could do wonders for how our public lands are managed. If conservationist hunters make it clear they would accept lower game densities in exchange for more insect, bird, and small mammal diversity, the future of game management can support conservation instead of work independently of it. Agriculture and non-native cool-season grasses so common on conservation areas in the eastern United States might be replaced with native warm-season grasses. Political appointments to positions of prominence in management agencies might be more measured if conservationist hunters vocally oppose the appointments of unqualified personnel. The ongoing and repeated introductions of exotic species for hunting might stop in favor of protection and management of native species. A larger portion of funds derived from hunting-related taxes could be used to manage and promote diverse and healthy ecosystems instead of producing dense populations of game species. Better yet, conservationist hunters could be powerful advocates for the adoption of other sources of revenue aimed at helping conservation.
The future of conservation in the United States will be much brighter if management agencies, hunting-interest groups, and popular hunting media outlets put the money and effort they currently use to canonize hunters as conservationists into advocating for a real shift toward a more holistic conservation ethic among those same hunters. Hunters have been a force in conservation and wildlife management over the past century. Our natural resources will be best served if conservationist hunters take that mantle for the next century.