Are hunters environmentalists?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mr_dove

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
645
Location
Denver
Odd question for you hunters out there.

I'm sure that most hunters realize that there hobby depends on having a healthy environment where animals can have a place to reproduce and also live. I'm sure most hunters also enjoy the quiet of nature, the beauty of lakes, ponds, streams, etc. So, according to my logic, hunters (and fishermen) make the perfect environmentalists because they wish to preserve the natural environment that they enjoy.

The problem that I see is that environmental groups are probably all anti-hunting because they see hunters as a destructive force rather than a group that really wants to enjoy nature.

I could be totally off base here though. Perhaps hunting is only about the kill and hunters don't really "enjoy" nature per se.
 
Just like with all groups, you will see all types with hunters. You have guys that hunt for the food, some just to kill something, poachers ($$$), etc.

Greg
 
Ahem, hunters have been and still are a major force behind preservation of wildlife habitat and protection of species.

Turkey, Elk, Duck foundations spend real money protecting forrests, mountan meadows, ponds and swamps.

The vast majority of hunters don't harvest game on each trip out. Most of them go to the woods/river/mountain to get out "in the woods".

I think I'd call many of them "environmentalists" (and I don't even hunt and I'm a avid environmentalist)
 
Environmentalists are fanatical whack jobs that believe humans have have no right to to natural resources (themselves excepted).

Hunters and fishermen.......persons...... are more correctly conservationists. We believe in managing wildlife and habitat at a sustainable yield for both consumptive and non-consumptive uses.
As conservationists all wildlife and wild habitat benefits as one cannot exist without the other.
 
Conservationist- a person who actually spends time in the woods or at least outside, and cares for it. A conservationist is a person who might join Ducks Unlimited or Trout Unlimited and spend their weekends getting their hands and clothes dirty improving habitat, taking wildlife surveys or educating the next generation of hunters/fishermen.

Environmentalist- a person who dwells in a city, may have taken a environmental class in high school or at the community college, cares for the environment, but really doesn't have a clue. They typically spend their weekends at Starbucks wearing dirty clothing and sipping $5 lattes out of a disposable conatainer waiting for the next protest of an evil corporation to be formed.
 
Cracked Butt +1 --- nailed it.

I'm getting a bit put out with Trout Unlimited with their latest magazine issue... about "global warming". Horse ****!
 
Hunters are why there are still wild places in the US.

Without the millions upon millions of dollars ponied up by hunters and fishermen in the form of license fees, taxes on sporting goods, and even given charitably to organizations like Ducks Unlimited or Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, none of the preservation or conservation would be possible.

hillbilly
 
Groups like Ducks Unlimited have done arguably more for wet land conservation and protection that the Sierra Club.

By default, hunters need to protect game and habitat. If they don’t, then they can’t hunt.
 
Hunt licenses, taxes on ammunition, etc. paid by hunters account for about 90% of all conservation funding, as I recall.

Enviro-wackos claim the credit for protecting wilderness, but it's hunters who are footing the bill.
 
Environmentalists are fanatical whack jobs that believe humans have have no right to to natural resources (themselves excepted).

Hunters and fishermen.......persons...... are more correctly conservationists. We believe in managing wildlife and habitat at a sustainable yield for both consumptive and non-consumptive uses.
As conservationists all wildlife and wild habitat benefits as one cannot exist without the other.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Yup, lets put some numbers on it!!


As per the NSSF,

Each day sportsmen (Don't even start that "sportsperson" BS with me!) contribute more than $3 million to wildlife conservation efforts. That's over $1.5 billion a year.

To date Hunters and fishermen have contributed over $20 billion for wildlife conservation.

Hunters contribute some $30 billion to the US economy every year including some 986,000 jobs are created from the hunting industry.

There are over 10,000 private organizations such as RMEF and DU that contribute an additional $300 million to each year to wildlife conservation efforts.

For every tax dollar invested in wildlife conservation, sportsmen contribute $12 dollars.

So lets break it down.

Over $1 billon annually from state hunting and fishing license sales.

$427 million annualy from taxes paid soley by sportsmen. (this was in 1997 it's more now!)

$300 million from other sources

$153 million from state funds that derive those moneis from hunitng and fishing taxes and license sales.

HUNTERS AND FISHERMEN PROVIDE more than 75% of the annual income of all of our 50 states conservation agencies!!


So are we environmentalists? No we are conservationists in fact we are THE primary conservationisits in the WORLD and do more good for the environment and wildlife than any and all of your environmentalist put together X 10...PERIOD!!!

I've been preaching this for years in regards to Africa and America and everwhere else. (Remember those elephant hunting threads?)If it wasn't for regulated sport hunting there would be no wildlife left and there would be a one hell of a lot less wild country as well.

Next time you go out for a hike in some fabulously wild stretch of Americana you can thank a hunter!!

An environmentalist doesn't want you there, they belive in unrealistic preservation not wise use.. There is a huge difference!!!


IMHO

Greg
 
An environmentalist is nothing more than a communist in sheeps clothing.

The "ecology" studies were made out of whole cloth.

BTW ... I was at the first Earth day ... 1969 IIRC. Ecology was a quack science then and still is..
 
Hunters and fishermen.......persons...... are more correctly conservationists. We believe in managing wildlife and habitat at a sustainable yield for both consumptive and non-consumptive uses.
As conservationists all wildlife and wild habitat benefits as one cannot exist without the other.
Click to expand...

While I absolutely agree that those who hunt and fish tend to be conservationists as defined, I'm not willing to give up the "environmentalist" label. I do worry about the air quality and the effect on fishing and forest health (and breathing, of course). I do worry about the strip mining of old growth redwood, and the impact on deer hunting. In short, I think I am both a conservationist and an environmentalist.

I just don't like sharing oxygen with most of the other self-described environmentalists. Why can't THEY go find another label?
 
Odd question for you hunters out there.

I'm sure that most hunters realize that there hobby depends on having a healthy environment where animals can have a place to reproduce and also live. I'm sure most hunters also enjoy the quiet of nature, the beauty of lakes, ponds, streams, etc. So, according to my logic, hunters (and fishermen) make the perfect environmentalists because they wish to preserve the natural environment that they enjoy.

The problem that I see is that environmental groups are probably all anti-hunting because they see hunters as a destructive force rather than a group that really wants to enjoy nature.

I could be totally off base here though. Perhaps hunting is only about the kill and hunters don't really "enjoy" nature per se.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the rest of this thread yet and answers may vary, but here's my $.02... and the question ain't all that odd, IMO.

As a hunter, I do enjoy being out there. If I didn't like being out there, if I didn't like wildlife, why bother. And sportsmen do more for the evironment and wildlife than all those whacky groups ever thought about doing positive. Ever hear of the Pittman-Robertson act, I think it's called? The one that channels tax dollars from sale of sporting equipment into state fish and game departments to improve habitat and all?

I don't think your so off base. Hunting ain't all just about the kill. It's about being there and seeing what all you wouldn't see if you'd stayed home. The part of hunting that IS about the kill ain't just about the kill; it's about eating what you harvested. Partaking of the bounty of the land.
 
"Oh, Mr. Environmentalist is also a hunter. That's an interesting combination."

"I hunt quail, Jeremy. They're overpopulated in this region and they're decimating the grubworm population. You got a [expletive removed for the sake of grammaw] problem with that?"

See, that guy in Wedding Crashers nailed it. :D For those of you who haven't seen it I won't give away any more.
 
The Sierra Clubbers and Audubon's birders get a free ride on the backs of hunters--and our billfolds.

A birder can get a thrill from seeing a member of a vanishing species--witness the fuss over the Ivory Billed Woodpecker--but a hunter needs to have an animal population in surplus in order to be able to hunt. The hunter has a stronger vested interest in the overall health of any ecosystem. And, the same deal holds for fishermen.

I note in passing that no game animal in North America is endangered. Further, any game animal population which has shown any decline during the last half-century has had that happen as a result of population growth, not hunting. Population growth with the extension of suburbia and the development of "exurbia" has meant habitat destruction.

Art
 
Population growth with the extension of suburbia and the development of "exurbia" has meant habitat destruction.
Click to expand...
Another factor,
 
Last edited:
The problem that I see is that environmental groups are probably all anti-hunting because they see hunters as a destructive force rather than a group that really wants to enjoy nature.
Click to expand...
Yes that is what you see because many, but not all, so called environmental groups do not truly give a rat's arse about the environment. Many hunters do care about the environment and about wildlife preservation. Most of the money that goes toward wildlife management in this country comes from hunting and fishing tax dollars (every hunting/fishing item sold in the US is taxed before it ever hits the shelves with a tax specifically earmarked for wildlife), sales of licenses, and donations - that is an absolute fact. No animal in the USA has ever been brought to extinction by sport hunters, in fact many have made their way back from near extinction due to sport hunters and such groups as Ducks Unlimited. The same holds true for fish and fishing.

Most environmental groups, especially the most vociferous ones are comprised of a bunch of fairly well meaning but ill informed people, who are lead by screaming whackos. Just take a look at PETA, ALF, ELF, The Humane Society of the United States (not to ever be confused with local humane societies) and so forth. ELF for example is responsible for setting a large number of fires, how good is that for the environment?

Of course, not all hunters and fishermen are concerned with the environment, some just take what they can without putting back. Yet, the great majority are truly concerned with it and want to see it prosper possibly even more so than anyone who just attends rallies and screams out slogans such as save the raccoons!

Best regards,
Glenn B
 
The one that always gets me, is when some "environmentalist" or other observer will see a hunter with a dead deer/duck/elk/whatever, and say, "Now there's one less deer/duck/elk/whatever for me to see in the woods."

From what I've learned talking to various people on campus, the environmentalists want to cut the hunters off, let the animal populations boom so there are more for people to enjoy. They don't understand concepts of carrying capacity, reproductive rates or survival rates. Many cannot fathom that the big bull elk that a hunter killed had sired a number of the calves that will be born next spring.

I cannot count the number of times I've butted heads with professors over the concepts of hunting and fishing. Comments such as "bombing fish" and "we're not part of the natural cycle" are fairly common. I have much more success educating the people my age, many of whom hail from more civilized areas of the country and regard Keene, NH as the sticks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Old-fashioned guns gaining popularity among hunters
Replies
7
Views
957
LAK
L
T
  • Locked
Curse of the Albino Buck
Replies
6
Views
1K
PotatoJudge
P
J
  • Locked
Hunters Donate Record Amounts of Meat to Soup Kitchens
Replies
4
Views
485
learningman
L
3
  • Locked
Economic Value of Ohio Hunters/Anglers
Replies
3
Views
433
308win
3
C
  • Locked
Feral Hogs as Food
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
9K
MCgunner
M
Back
Top