The Intersection of Hunting and
Conservation In My Life
I recognize that I take a view on hunting and conservation that does not fit into most of the well-defined narratives you normally see on this topic. I know that many in the hunting community might be a bit dismayed that an avid hunter like myself is not particularly rah-rah about hunting. But if you're honest about it, I suspect you'll also recognize that hunters are used to hearing an overly idealized message about the greatness of hunting and hunters. Hunting-interest groups hammer on this message at every opportunity. Hunting magazines and hunting shows are unapologetic in their support of hunting as a noble pastime that is making the natural world a better place.
Conversely, I also know that some in the anti-hunting community might find some of the information on this website to be quite useful. Don’t let my words here be misconstrued though. I am in no way anti-hunting, and that is not the intention of this website. I support the right for sport hunting in the United States and abroad.
As an ecologist, I simply view attempts to justify sport hunting based on its conservation value as misguided most of the time. Like many of you reading this site, hunting and fishing were integral to my upbringing and the culture in my family and my hometown. The story about the importance of hunting for conservation was well engrained in my psyche by the time I reached college. I was militant about defending that story in discussions with my more urban classmates during my time as an undergrad. But here’s the thing: I’ve been working professionally as an ecologist for over 20 years now, and I can confidently say the story hunters generally hear about the conservation value of hunting, the story I would defend to my classmates, holds little resemblance to my lived reality in this field.
I wrote the following piece about my personal relationship with hunting and conservation quite some time ago. It was never really my intention to include this type of writing on my website, but some recent comments about other articles on this site have provided the impetus do so now. Hopefully, this helps explain my point of view by more explicitly detailing how I got to it.
Conversely, I also know that some in the anti-hunting community might find some of the information on this website to be quite useful. Don’t let my words here be misconstrued though. I am in no way anti-hunting, and that is not the intention of this website. I support the right for sport hunting in the United States and abroad.
As an ecologist, I simply view attempts to justify sport hunting based on its conservation value as misguided most of the time. Like many of you reading this site, hunting and fishing were integral to my upbringing and the culture in my family and my hometown. The story about the importance of hunting for conservation was well engrained in my psyche by the time I reached college. I was militant about defending that story in discussions with my more urban classmates during my time as an undergrad. But here’s the thing: I’ve been working professionally as an ecologist for over 20 years now, and I can confidently say the story hunters generally hear about the conservation value of hunting, the story I would defend to my classmates, holds little resemblance to my lived reality in this field.
I wrote the following piece about my personal relationship with hunting and conservation quite some time ago. It was never really my intention to include this type of writing on my website, but some recent comments about other articles on this site have provided the impetus do so now. Hopefully, this helps explain my point of view by more explicitly detailing how I got to it.
I grew up in a tiny town in western Missouri, right where the Ozark Mountains give way to the Great Plains. I was an obsessive hunter and fisherman from a young age. At five or six years old, my Mom would strap a life jacket on me and send me to one of the three neighborhood ponds to fish before and after school. I was hunting rabbits with a pellet gun soon thereafter. This period was fundamental to my development as both a sportsman and, oddly enough, as a scientist. For several years in elementary school, I collected “data” about what fish I caught on what lures on photocopied maps of the ponds. Throughout high school and undergraduate, I remained an avid hunter and fisherman. I competed in local and regional bass tournaments, and lived close enough to home that I could get to my family’s property to hunt deer, turkey, and quail nearly every weekend during the hunting seasons. Growing up, I was always pretty sure I wanted to do something with wildlife, and during my undergraduate degree, I focused heavily on the “traditional” wildlife biology classes: mammalogy (the study of mammals), ichthyology (the study of fish), habitat management, game management, and other similar courses. It is fair to say that at that point, I was on the path to become what we colloquially call a “hook-and-bullet” biologist; that is, a biologist who specializes in game animals.
A big shift in both my time spent hunting and fishing and my development as a scientist occurred during my master’s program and, especially, my PhD program. During my PhD, I had my first interactions with what I now think of as ecologists: those scientists asking questions about how the different players in natural systems interact instead of describing the natural history of this species or that. Specifically, I developed an interest in physiological ecology, the study of how the functioning of an animal’s body affects how it interacts with its environment. My budding interest in physiology played an important role in my shift away from an interest in game species, because it is rare to find top-notch physiological ecologists who work on game species. The small mammals and birds that have become the most common model organisms in my research are simply more conducive to addressing most of the research questions in my field. More importantly, around this time, my science shifted from being species driven to being question driven, which means that I don’t really care what species I work on as long as it’s appropriate to answer the question at hand. By the time I left my PhD, I had basically lost all interest in ever researching any specific game animal. I also made the decision during my PhD that I would never research a species I hunt to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.
My scientific worldview was definitely solidifying near the end of my PhD, but it became cemented during a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. A “post-doc” is a weird purgatory in the academic world sandwiched between a PhD and a permanent faculty position. Generally, it is a period for an academic to mature as a research scientist. This was the case for me, and my time in South Africa was profound. I spent a huge amount of my two and half years there conducting research on reserves and private land in areas few Americans ever visit. When I was in the office, I interacted with researchers who worked on the ground with all the large animals many American hunters dream of pursuing. I also met my future wife, a talented and beautiful biologist doing research on leopards and baboons. I was lucky to work with a group of amazing ecologists, and by the time I left South Africa, I was firmly entrenched as an ecologist myself.
My time in South Africa led me into a professor position at a midwestern university you likely don’t even know exists*. My main appointment is in a research unit that has a long and successful history built by a string of wildlife biologists. Nearly all their funding came from state agencies tasked with management of game species and hunting- and fishing-interest groups. The list of species commonly studied is a who’s who of game species: deer, turkey, ducks, quail, and furbearing species like raccoons and bobcats. It’s an interesting juxtaposition I find myself in some days: often surrounded by game-species biologists, with little interest in researching game myself. That said, because of this position, I still teach one classic wildlife biology class, Wildlife Techniques. This is a class every wildlife biologist in the country probably had at some stage of their career. We cover many of the basics of wildlife management: capturing and marking animals, estimating population sizes, and describing habitat.
While my interest in researching game species has decreased throughout my career, the time I spend hunting has increased steadily since I moved back from South Africa. My Dad and I now take yearly trips to a state we’ve never visited to hunt quail or grouse or pheasants behind my German shorthaired pointer Klaas. I make a point of spending 40 or 50 or 60 days a year either in the field or woods, but at this point, I have little concern with whether or not I actually harvest anything. I view hunting as the rare opportunity to get away from my computer and cell phone. I find that I can watch a bird jumping through the understory or a chipmunk foraging in the leaves for hours and my enjoyment with the hunt has nothing to do with what I bring home. In fact, I’m to the point where I don’t particularly like shooting animals. Maybe that is the result of studying ecology and conservation biology for nearly 20 years, maybe it’s just because I’ve gotten older.
To the non-biologist reading this website, my repeated differentiation of ecologists and wildlife biologists might seem academic, but it is highly relevant to the focus of this site. There is an undeniable overlap in the training, expertise, and scientific interests of ecologists and wildlife biologists. The principles that guide our day-to-day work are often the same. Purveyors of both subdisciplines are highly interested in conservation of natural resources, even if the two groups work towards conservations goals differently. Many people will even use both terms to describe themselves, often depending on the setting.
Still, there are fundamental differences between ecologists and wildlife biologists, even if we limit the discussion to just research biologists like me. In addition to the differences in scientific worldview (question driven vs. species driven research), there are practical differences that affect how we do our work. There is limited overlap in where ecologists and wildlife biologists obtain research funding, which often dictates the ultimate goal of a research project. Ecologists and wildlife biologists tend to go to different meetings and publish in different scientific journals, which means each group is often surrounded by likeminded scientists. Finally, while I have no numbers to back up this claim, my personal experiences in research biology lead me to believe that a much higher proportion of wildlife biologists partake in “consumptive recreation” like hunting and fishing.
I think this last point might explain why my view on the topic of hunting and conservation will be different than the one most hunters are accustomed to hearing from professional biologists. In general, hunters are far and away more likely to interact with a scientist who would call themselves a wildlife biologist than a scientist who would call themselves an ecologist, even though there are far more ecologists than wildlife biologists in the conservation community. I’m guessing few hunters have been exposed to the point of view of an ecologist because not that many ecologists spend very much time thinking about hunting. Hunting is largely irrelevant to what most ecologists and conservation biologists do day-to-day. There are just limited opportunities for most hunters to interact with ecologists. I don't run into very many ecologists who hunt. In my career, I've published papers with close to 100 other scientists, and I know of only a couple of them that hunt. The combination of my research in ecology and my interest in hunting and fishing makes me a bit of an oddball.
One major difference you will find between my approach to discussing hunting and conservation and the narrative you hear from hunter-interest groups is my repeated call for nuance and context. Ecologists rarely view anything in black and white. Everything has costs and benefits. Some aspects of hunting are conservation positive. Some aspects are conservation negative. It is not my goal to either canonize or demonize hunters. Some articles on this site will be more positive to hunters. Some less positive. I've learned over time that hunters often consider it taboo for a fellow hunter to discuss the conservation negative aspects of hunting. That is a point of view they usually experience coming from anti-hunting groups. When I discuss the negative aspects of hunting on this site, it's certainly not because I'm anti-hunting. It's because I'm an ecologist.
My goal on this website is to provide a resource for (mostly) hunters about the ecological implications of hunting, both good and bad. I hope more hunters will begin to acknowledge and recognize there are limits to the conservation value of hunting and not all hunting serves a conservation purpose. It is irresponsible and unrealistic to do otherwise. Conversely, anti-hunting and animal rights groups should acknowledge that hunting can sometimes serve a conservation purpose. It is irresponsible and unrealistic to do otherwise. Most arguments on this topic that lack context and nuance are disingenuous and serve little purpose for conservation and management of our natural resources.
Hunters should be proud of their pastime for many reasons. I just don’t think that conservation should be used as the justification for hunting in most cases. Sport hunting is the modern incarnation of practices that predate modern humans. It ties us to our past. Hunting can bring communities together and serve to strengthen human relationships through shared experiences. It can connect children to the natural world around them. Hunting can impart an appreciation of nature different from what a hiker or kayaker or photographer experiences. I love to hike, photograph wildlife, and kayak, but those are different ways to commune with nature than hunting. I appreciate all my time spent outdoors, but not always for the same reason. As an ecologist, I am in favor of any activity that can help people develop a well-rounded conservation ethic. Hunting and fishing can do that for some people. It did for me.
*Unless you're a basketball fan, then you know us as the school that shows up in the NCAA tournament every decade or so makes you Google "what the hell is a saluki?"
Still, there are fundamental differences between ecologists and wildlife biologists, even if we limit the discussion to just research biologists like me. In addition to the differences in scientific worldview (question driven vs. species driven research), there are practical differences that affect how we do our work. There is limited overlap in where ecologists and wildlife biologists obtain research funding, which often dictates the ultimate goal of a research project. Ecologists and wildlife biologists tend to go to different meetings and publish in different scientific journals, which means each group is often surrounded by likeminded scientists. Finally, while I have no numbers to back up this claim, my personal experiences in research biology lead me to believe that a much higher proportion of wildlife biologists partake in “consumptive recreation” like hunting and fishing.
I think this last point might explain why my view on the topic of hunting and conservation will be different than the one most hunters are accustomed to hearing from professional biologists. In general, hunters are far and away more likely to interact with a scientist who would call themselves a wildlife biologist than a scientist who would call themselves an ecologist, even though there are far more ecologists than wildlife biologists in the conservation community. I’m guessing few hunters have been exposed to the point of view of an ecologist because not that many ecologists spend very much time thinking about hunting. Hunting is largely irrelevant to what most ecologists and conservation biologists do day-to-day. There are just limited opportunities for most hunters to interact with ecologists. I don't run into very many ecologists who hunt. In my career, I've published papers with close to 100 other scientists, and I know of only a couple of them that hunt. The combination of my research in ecology and my interest in hunting and fishing makes me a bit of an oddball.
One major difference you will find between my approach to discussing hunting and conservation and the narrative you hear from hunter-interest groups is my repeated call for nuance and context. Ecologists rarely view anything in black and white. Everything has costs and benefits. Some aspects of hunting are conservation positive. Some aspects are conservation negative. It is not my goal to either canonize or demonize hunters. Some articles on this site will be more positive to hunters. Some less positive. I've learned over time that hunters often consider it taboo for a fellow hunter to discuss the conservation negative aspects of hunting. That is a point of view they usually experience coming from anti-hunting groups. When I discuss the negative aspects of hunting on this site, it's certainly not because I'm anti-hunting. It's because I'm an ecologist.
My goal on this website is to provide a resource for (mostly) hunters about the ecological implications of hunting, both good and bad. I hope more hunters will begin to acknowledge and recognize there are limits to the conservation value of hunting and not all hunting serves a conservation purpose. It is irresponsible and unrealistic to do otherwise. Conversely, anti-hunting and animal rights groups should acknowledge that hunting can sometimes serve a conservation purpose. It is irresponsible and unrealistic to do otherwise. Most arguments on this topic that lack context and nuance are disingenuous and serve little purpose for conservation and management of our natural resources.
Hunters should be proud of their pastime for many reasons. I just don’t think that conservation should be used as the justification for hunting in most cases. Sport hunting is the modern incarnation of practices that predate modern humans. It ties us to our past. Hunting can bring communities together and serve to strengthen human relationships through shared experiences. It can connect children to the natural world around them. Hunting can impart an appreciation of nature different from what a hiker or kayaker or photographer experiences. I love to hike, photograph wildlife, and kayak, but those are different ways to commune with nature than hunting. I appreciate all my time spent outdoors, but not always for the same reason. As an ecologist, I am in favor of any activity that can help people develop a well-rounded conservation ethic. Hunting and fishing can do that for some people. It did for me.
*Unless you're a basketball fan, then you know us as the school that shows up in the NCAA tournament every decade or so makes you Google "what the hell is a saluki?"