Conservation owes debt to hunters

There seems to be a growing dialogue presently about the striking difference between hunting and conservation efforts. Hopefully, I can put the record straight.

I’m an avid hunter who has a passion for the outdoors. Outside our mundane existence, I feel alive. To feel the wind whip around; to smell the leaves on a crisp fall day. Nothing improves my state of mind more.

There are many individuals in today’s society who want to rip apart the foundation that hunters have created for wildlife conservation. These two ideas are one and the same. To give an example, many state wildlife organizations are funded by the income generated from hunting-license sales. Without similar avenues of revenue, organizations such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation or the National Wild Turkey Federation would not be able to focus on conservation efforts. These two groups and many comparable ones would face damaging hardships if certain rights were taken away from hunters, causing a decrease in apparel, membership, and license sales.

In layman’s terms, a decreased population of hunters equals less protection for species that we love.

“Trophy hunting” is another area of contention. Now, I do not condone killing an animal in order to hang a souvenir; I take an animal’s life to provide food. However, hunters who go after that once-in-a-lifetime “trophy” do provide necessary monetary increases to conservation organizations. Case in point, Cecil the Lion.

Without going into detailed explanation, an individual paid a ton of money to an outfitter in Zimbabwe to hunt and harvest a well-known lion. With the backlash that ensued, Zimbabwe was forced to cull a multitude of lions in order to maintain proper ecosystem management; an influx of large carnivores would be hazardous to the environment as more predators would eat more prey, throwing the system into chaos.

Hunters did not want to deal with likely repercussions, so many stopped paying the thousands of dollars for guided hunts, causing a steep decrease in conservation funds for the country. By harvesting lions, and paying large sums of money for the opportunity, hunters fueled Zimbabwe’s conservation efforts.

This thought process is lost on numerous individuals. Many can’t comprehend that hunting an animal will save hundreds of others; it feels wrong. However, by looking at the details of the Cecil the Lion case, hunting and conservation are shown to have a direct correlation. One cannot exist without the other.

I’m not attempting to persuade anyone to hunt; if you don’t want to, don’t. It’s truly that simple. However, please take the time to understand that without hunters in the world, conservation would not exist. If one needs more proof, just look at the amount of revenue hunters provide to preservation efforts compared to People for the Ethical Treatment of animals. Readers will find it startling.

Aaron Blakely Huntsville

David Filipi Clintonville