Conservationist Hunters and Policy Debates
Whether we like it or not, conservation of our natural resources has become a political issue in the United States. As with most other issues, conservation debates are drawn in black and white and presented as caricatures of reality. It’s Republicans vs. Democrats. Hunters vs. PETA. Oil-hungry conservatives vs. granola-loving hippies. Few want to take the middle ground in this debate, and that void of moderate voices creates an opportunity for conservationist hunters to maximize their influence.
Hunters are in a unique position to influence conservation debates in this country if they choose to do so. While the ranks of hunters are beginning to include more urban and liberal members, most hunters are still conservative and rural. They are more likely to be Republican and unlikely to be labeled tree huggers. Hunters have rightfully earned a place at the table in conservation discussions, meaning their collective voice can carry weight with politicians and management agencies. If they use that voice to promote real conservation and not only game management, it will have an effect on how we manage our natural resources in the United States. Conservationist hunters can, and should, use their collective voice to influence hot button policy debates that will fundamentally shape the larger conservation landscape moving forward.
Conservation hunters are already actively engaged in some of these policy debates. For example, hunters play an important role in the conversation about land use in the United States. Battles are raging over how we use both federal and state lands, especially in the west. In recent years, there has been a troubling number of publicly owned lands either downsized or downregulated. While the ultimate decision on how we use public lands should consider indigenous groups, resource needs, and recreational uses, the decisions to remove so much land from protection represent a huge loss for conservation.
For many hunters, public land represents their best, or only, opportunity to hunt. If removal of protections or increased resource extraction on public lands becomes a trend, access to public land for hunting will decrease. The movement to remove protections from public lands could thereby threaten natural resource and conservation funding on a national scale. Many hunting and fishing groups also fear a future with lessened access to public lands. Several such groups even joined a lawsuit arguing presidents had no authority to reduce the size of a national monument, as President Trump did in 2017 with Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah. These lawsuits likely represent an action taken against a political ally, demonstrating that we can at least try to remove conservation from typical party politics in the US. That said, please don't assume that these hunting- and fishing-interest groups do or should voice the opinions of all conservationist hunters. Take the time to call or email your representatives in Congress. Make it clear that you’re a hunter and you care about protection of public lands to maintain biodiversity and access to hunting opportunities. It will make far more impact on many lawmakers than another letter from a hunting-interest or environmental group.
As contentious as the land use debate is, it pales in comparison to the gun rights debate swirling in the United States. The gun rights debate has the potential to be full of landmines for hunters and hunter-interest groups, and therefore for conservation. Still, this debate is a perfect example of why the middle ground is the right one for conservationist hunters to maximize their influence. This argument is distinct from the more general gun rights debate, and I offer no opinion about whether you or a group to which you belong should support unlimited gun rights for 2nd Amendment reasons. My argument here is much narrower as gun rights relate to conservation.
There are the obvious reasons why hunters would want to protect rights to own firearms for hunting. Guns are ingrained in the fabric of hunting culture in the United States. For most hunters, guns are the tool for the job, and hunting participation would decline if only bows or traditional weapons were legal. Guns are also often family heirlooms passed down through generations; in my case, the guns I treasure are an old sporterized Mauser .308 deer rifle with which I’ve shot more deer than I can remember and an old Remington 1100 that I carried along miles of quail fields in my youth. I’ve long since upgraded to more expensive and nicer guns, but those two hold a special place because they came as gifts from my Uncle Bob and Uncle Jim. There are also indirect reasons why hunters might support gun ownership, like the increased abundance of game thanks in part to the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes. It would seem then that hunters have little choice but to fall on the side of unlimited gun rights, and I think many or most hunters probably do.
As an ecologist, conservation biologist, and hunter, I see potential for the argument of unlimited gun rights to backfire on conservation. A sporting rifle or semiautomatic handgun is far from necessary for hunting. Still, it is not uncommon to see (factually true) arguments that such guns are functionally similar to more traditional firearms used for hunting. In some cases, it is gun-interest groups like the NRA making this argument. In others, it is hunters or hunter-interest groups. Can these guns be used for hunting? Sure, and some people do exactly that. However, sporting rifles and handguns are so divisive in American culture that it represents a risky strategy for those hunters and hunter-interest groups who care deeply about conservation to dig their heels in on the argument that such guns are used for hunting. It’s also risky to argue that if these guns become illegal, my bolt-action deer rifle and long-barreled shotgun will soon be outlawed as well. This is a classic case of the slippery slope fallacy that makes it seem only two options exist. In this case, either all guns are legal or soon none will be.
Hunters are in a unique position to influence conservation debates in this country if they choose to do so. While the ranks of hunters are beginning to include more urban and liberal members, most hunters are still conservative and rural. They are more likely to be Republican and unlikely to be labeled tree huggers. Hunters have rightfully earned a place at the table in conservation discussions, meaning their collective voice can carry weight with politicians and management agencies. If they use that voice to promote real conservation and not only game management, it will have an effect on how we manage our natural resources in the United States. Conservationist hunters can, and should, use their collective voice to influence hot button policy debates that will fundamentally shape the larger conservation landscape moving forward.
Conservation hunters are already actively engaged in some of these policy debates. For example, hunters play an important role in the conversation about land use in the United States. Battles are raging over how we use both federal and state lands, especially in the west. In recent years, there has been a troubling number of publicly owned lands either downsized or downregulated. While the ultimate decision on how we use public lands should consider indigenous groups, resource needs, and recreational uses, the decisions to remove so much land from protection represent a huge loss for conservation.
For many hunters, public land represents their best, or only, opportunity to hunt. If removal of protections or increased resource extraction on public lands becomes a trend, access to public land for hunting will decrease. The movement to remove protections from public lands could thereby threaten natural resource and conservation funding on a national scale. Many hunting and fishing groups also fear a future with lessened access to public lands. Several such groups even joined a lawsuit arguing presidents had no authority to reduce the size of a national monument, as President Trump did in 2017 with Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah. These lawsuits likely represent an action taken against a political ally, demonstrating that we can at least try to remove conservation from typical party politics in the US. That said, please don't assume that these hunting- and fishing-interest groups do or should voice the opinions of all conservationist hunters. Take the time to call or email your representatives in Congress. Make it clear that you’re a hunter and you care about protection of public lands to maintain biodiversity and access to hunting opportunities. It will make far more impact on many lawmakers than another letter from a hunting-interest or environmental group.
As contentious as the land use debate is, it pales in comparison to the gun rights debate swirling in the United States. The gun rights debate has the potential to be full of landmines for hunters and hunter-interest groups, and therefore for conservation. Still, this debate is a perfect example of why the middle ground is the right one for conservationist hunters to maximize their influence. This argument is distinct from the more general gun rights debate, and I offer no opinion about whether you or a group to which you belong should support unlimited gun rights for 2nd Amendment reasons. My argument here is much narrower as gun rights relate to conservation.
There are the obvious reasons why hunters would want to protect rights to own firearms for hunting. Guns are ingrained in the fabric of hunting culture in the United States. For most hunters, guns are the tool for the job, and hunting participation would decline if only bows or traditional weapons were legal. Guns are also often family heirlooms passed down through generations; in my case, the guns I treasure are an old sporterized Mauser .308 deer rifle with which I’ve shot more deer than I can remember and an old Remington 1100 that I carried along miles of quail fields in my youth. I’ve long since upgraded to more expensive and nicer guns, but those two hold a special place because they came as gifts from my Uncle Bob and Uncle Jim. There are also indirect reasons why hunters might support gun ownership, like the increased abundance of game thanks in part to the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes. It would seem then that hunters have little choice but to fall on the side of unlimited gun rights, and I think many or most hunters probably do.
As an ecologist, conservation biologist, and hunter, I see potential for the argument of unlimited gun rights to backfire on conservation. A sporting rifle or semiautomatic handgun is far from necessary for hunting. Still, it is not uncommon to see (factually true) arguments that such guns are functionally similar to more traditional firearms used for hunting. In some cases, it is gun-interest groups like the NRA making this argument. In others, it is hunters or hunter-interest groups. Can these guns be used for hunting? Sure, and some people do exactly that. However, sporting rifles and handguns are so divisive in American culture that it represents a risky strategy for those hunters and hunter-interest groups who care deeply about conservation to dig their heels in on the argument that such guns are used for hunting. It’s also risky to argue that if these guns become illegal, my bolt-action deer rifle and long-barreled shotgun will soon be outlawed as well. This is a classic case of the slippery slope fallacy that makes it seem only two options exist. In this case, either all guns are legal or soon none will be.
The argument that little difference exists between sporting rifles and traditional hunting firearms might make sense from the perspective of a gun-rights group. There is little public support for outlawing traditional hunting rifles, and if sporting rifles are essentially hunting rifles, gun-rights groups can argue there is no basis to outlaw any of these guns. From a conservation perspective, I see no benefit in taking this hardline approach. Some guns are better than none, because Pittman-Robertson will continue to receive funding and hunters can continue to regulate deer populations.
Consider a scenario where public opinion becomes strongly aligned against unlimited gun rights in the United States and new gun regulations gain in popularity. Frankly, I doubt that hunters, who make up less than 10% of the population, will be able to completely stop gun regulations if the political winds shift in that direction. I do, however, think conservationist hunters might be able to influence the severity of the effects of gun regulations on conservation and game management. The best-case scenario for conservation is that all guns remain legal for sale, but if that becomes untenable, the next best option is that bolt-action deer rifles and long-barreled shotguns escape regulation.
Reinforcing the slippery slope fallacy that either all guns are legal or no guns are legal does little to secure the future of funding for game management and conservation. Instead, conservationist hunters and hunting-interest groups should be changing the discussion to emphasize a gradient of gun styles and functions, thus minimizing the future losses in the value of hunting for conservation. It is also a logical backstop for conservation and management groups to be working toward, and I’ve been disappointed by the more hardline approach taken by groups like The Wildlife Society, who are ostensibly management and conservation organizations.
Whether in their daily lives, when dealing with state management agencies, or in discussions of hot-button policy debates, hunters and hunter-interest groups will be best served by avoiding extreme positions.
Consider a scenario where public opinion becomes strongly aligned against unlimited gun rights in the United States and new gun regulations gain in popularity. Frankly, I doubt that hunters, who make up less than 10% of the population, will be able to completely stop gun regulations if the political winds shift in that direction. I do, however, think conservationist hunters might be able to influence the severity of the effects of gun regulations on conservation and game management. The best-case scenario for conservation is that all guns remain legal for sale, but if that becomes untenable, the next best option is that bolt-action deer rifles and long-barreled shotguns escape regulation.
Reinforcing the slippery slope fallacy that either all guns are legal or no guns are legal does little to secure the future of funding for game management and conservation. Instead, conservationist hunters and hunting-interest groups should be changing the discussion to emphasize a gradient of gun styles and functions, thus minimizing the future losses in the value of hunting for conservation. It is also a logical backstop for conservation and management groups to be working toward, and I’ve been disappointed by the more hardline approach taken by groups like The Wildlife Society, who are ostensibly management and conservation organizations.
Whether in their daily lives, when dealing with state management agencies, or in discussions of hot-button policy debates, hunters and hunter-interest groups will be best served by avoiding extreme positions.