I was listening to a radio program a few weeks ago and they were talking about this conservation group that bought a hunting license for a section of British Columbia (Canada). The idea was that this group was/is opposed to big game hunting and by buying the license they are able to control how hunting is done in this area and they said they would ban big game sport hunting in this area. I thought that was so cool. But then as the show went on it was revealed that this conservation group was not opposed to hunting in general and they are working with First Nations in the area to develop a good hunting strategy.

A few weeks ago I was reading a "letter to the editor" in some paper where the writer was saying that hunters have a vested interest in conservation and therefore people opposed to hunting and seal "harvesting" don't understand this point. Hunters want the animals to survive so they can go and shoot them.

In both of these instances there is the distiction made between "regular" hunters and "sport" hunters. And I think the distiction should also be made between the "old time" hunting where hunters would wipe out entire species of animals and the present day "conservation" hunters.

It got me to thinking.
-- Do hunters make better conservationists since they have a vested interest in keeping the animals alive?
-- I wonder if true animal lovers (ie not hunters) have more of a passive interest in conservation.
-- Is it true that the big conservation groups are made up of hunters or at least those who are not opposed to hunting?
-- What are some of the larger animal-friendly conservation groups?
-- Is Earthsave more about environmental concerns rather than active conservation?
-- Do you think veg*ns should be more involved in conservation of wetlands and such areas?

I'm aware that if eveyone would switch to a vegan diet that the earth would be far better off and therefore veg*ns are conservationists of the highest order. But I'm talking about the present situation and the protection of wetlands and sensitive eco systems that are being eaten up by development. Are hunters doing a better job of protecting these areas?

From an article (written 7/30/98) by Merritt Clifton (a life-long vegetarian):

The environmental organizations formed around the first Earth Day forgot the humane component when they set aside vegetarianism to seek popularity, sought political clout by courting hunter/conservationists, and eventually allowed hunter/conservationists to set the agenda. By the 10th Earth Day, 18 years ago, the environmental movement had already been swallowed by the meat-chomping old guard it originally opposed.

The animal protection and animal rights causes, which should be even more committed to vegetarianism, swirled down the same drain when they tried to borrow political influence by uniting with the old guard hunter/conservation fronts such as the World Wildlife Fund and the National Wildlife Federation, as well as aligning themselves with coopted evironmental fronts like Greenpeace, which hasn't opposed sealing and fur trapping since 1986, and declared in 1994 that "in principle" it doesn't oppose whaling either.

So I'm also wondering which environmental groups to watch out for too.

Does anyone know which major groups are opposed to hunting and which ones are in favour of it?

--World Wildlife Federation (or am I thinking of World Wildlife Fund)
-- Ducks Unlimited
-- Others

Do hunters make better conservationists since they have a vested interest in keeping the animals alive?
Technically, hunters have a vested interest in keeping species viable, which is different from keeping animals alive. For instance, most hunters are opposed to measures which protect keystone species since they directly compete with them for prey.

I wonder if true animal lovers (ie not hunters) have more of a passive interest in conservation.
"Animal lovers", as a rule, are preservationists. They would prefer that an ecosystem be inherently dynamic as opposed to the more static view of ecosystems which hunters favor. In other words, "animal lovers" generally hold the view that no animal can be more important than another, whereas hunters take a more utilitarian view in believing that species which man deems more "valuable" will suffer less if they are managed to our benefit.

Is it true that the big conservation groups are made up of hunters or at least those who are not opposed to hunting?
It is true that hunters/fishermen spend more money on environmental protection than "animal lovers".

What are some of the larger animal-friendly conservation groups?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question, but I am not aware of any animal-friendly conservation groups.

Is Earthsave more about environmental concerns rather than active conservation?
I don't understand the question. How can one be a conservationist without concern for the environment? Unless, of course, you're speaking of conserving species by confining them in zoos.

Do you think veg*ns should be more involved in conservation of wetlands and such areas?
Yes.

I cannot think of another group of citizens who have a self-imposed excise tax on specific equipment. Maybe because they do not exist.

Look up how much money the Pitman-Robertson and Dingel-Johnson Acts have provided for ALL species.

I am reminded of this quote, which rings louder today than ever:

In a civilized and cultivated country, wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsman. The excellent people who protest against all hunting and consider sportsman as enemies of wildlife are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is, by all odds, the most important factor in keeping the larger and more valuable wild creatures from total extermination.

This was said by our ONLY envronmental president, Theodore Roosevelt.

I don't understand the question. How can one be a conservationist without concern for the environment? Unless, of course, you're speaking of conserving species by confining them in zoos.

I already covered this in my long winded (which is perhaps why you missed it, lol) OP:

I'm aware that if eveyone would switch to a vegan diet that the earth would be far better off and therefore veg*ns are conservationists of the highest order. But I'm talking about the present situation and the protection of wetlands and sensitive eco systems that are being eaten up by development. Are hunters doing a better job of protecting these areas?

I like what you said here:

"Animal lovers", as a rule, are preservationists. They would prefer that an ecosystem be inherently dynamic as opposed to the more static view of ecosystems which hunters favor. In other words, "animal lovers" generally hold the view that no animal can be more important than another, whereas hunters take a more utilitarian view in believing that species which man deems more "valuable" will suffer less if they are managed to our benefit.

I think even animal lovers need to be made more aware of the impact of the first world lifestyle on sensitive eco systems. For instance, where I live, people are allowed to throw out twice as much garbage at Christmas time. Merry Christmas to the environment. :(

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question, but I am not aware of any animal-friendly conservation groups.

You didn't misunderstand my question. I wasn't sure if there were any or not. I find it strange that there are no animal-friendly conservation groups. But I also find it strange that until Earthsave there were no major animal-friendly environmental groups, especially seeing as how meat eating is so environmentally destructive. But now we have Earthsave and perhaps soon we will have an major animal-friendly conservation group.

I find the whole idea of hunters doing such a great job of conservation to be disgusting. I mean think of this name -- Ducks Unlimited. In talking to someone yesterday I found out they are in favor of duck hunting. Their name totally commodifies an animal -- they simply want an unlimited supply of creatures to kill. Would they still go out and protect wetlands if they weren't allowed to kill ducks? I don't think so.

And you should have seen the outrage in a community where a goose and an emu were beaten to death at a petting zoo by some teenage boys. You see that is truly an outrage. But if you hunt a goose and shoot at it and the goose gets away injured and dies a slow death there is no outrage. One must choose the right kind of torture. In both cases there was no need for the person to cause the animal to suffer. And the goose that survived was totally in mourning over her dead lover. She wouldn't eat or sleep properly and would spend most of her time walking back and forth over her dead lovers body. Of course we know that animals don't have feelings like us humans. As if. But I have hope because when you explain it to people like that they either listen and agree or listen and become outraged because they know that logic condemns them.

In the same way logic dictates that pigs and dogs should be covered by the same laws. Logic dictates that children in the third world should be treated like children in the first world. Logic clearly states that we shouldn't pour into our water here what we wouldn't want to drink downstream. In each of these cases we can choose to be consistantly torturous or consistanly compassionate and I think the vast majority of people will choose compassion if they understand the options.

If you read enough of the US hunting magazines (we have a whole basket full, since hubby is a hunter), most of them talk about wildlife management. Not conservation. They want to manage animals (keep them healthy, at a certain population level, etc) I always giggle when I hear that - like anyone can manage Mother Nature :rolleyes:

But yes, they do have an interest in keeping the animals healthy and alive. They don't want to kill sick deer and eat it (although those same hunters will go to their local super discount store and buy package beef from who knows where)

Whether or not they are better at managing wildlife than environmental groups - I honestly don't know. The main difference between those conservation groups that are pro-hunting, and those that aren't, is that they disagree on one major point - what is the purpose of animals on earth?

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Greenpeace. I recently read a book about the history of the organization and learned a lot. While some of the founders of Greenpeace were not vegetarians, they did a lot to preserve wildlife (whales, seals, etc) as well as to preserve peace by trying to block nuclear testings - which also helps preserve the environment but not allowing chemicals to fill the oceans, etc.

Just my 2 cents :D

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Greenpeace. I recently read a book about the history of the organization and learned a lot. While some of the founders of Greenpeace were not vegetarians, they did a lot to preserve wildlife (whales, seals, etc) as well as to preserve peace by trying to block nuclear testings - which also helps preserve the environment but not allowing chemicals to fill the oceans, etc.

Just my 2 cents :D

Greenpeace is mentioned in the OP:

From an article (written 7/30/98) by Merritt Clifton (a life-long vegetarian):

The environmental organizations formed around the first Earth Day forgot the humane component when they set aside vegetarianism to seek popularity, sought political clout by courting hunter/conservationists, and eventually allowed hunter/conservationists to set the agenda. By the 10th Earth Day, 18 years ago, the environmental movement had already been swallowed by the meat-chomping old guard it originally opposed.

The animal protection and animal rights causes, which should be even more committed to vegetarianism, swirled down the same drain when they tried to borrow political influence by uniting with the old guard hunter/conservation fronts such as the World Wildlife Fund and the National Wildlife Federation, as well as aligning themselves with coopted evironmental fronts like Greenpeace, which hasn't opposed sealing and fur trapping since 1986, and declared in 1994 that "in principle" it doesn't oppose whaling either.

In college, we learned a very important concept, it's called Oxham's razor. I basically says:

"The greatest good for the greatest number."

Look at the recent re-discovery of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Without the money paid for by the Federal Duckstamp, those hardwood swamps would not exist. These lands were paid for directly by hunters.

How many of you have purchased Federal Duckstamps? Even though I do not hunt, I still purchase mine every year.

Many hunting organizations are the ONLY groups who directly purchase habitat and restore many additional acres. Yes some animals are hunted on some of these land, but isn't that better than them not existing at all?

In college, we learned a very important concept, it's called Oxham's razor. I basically says:

"The greatest good for the greatest number."Occam's razor is about simplicity of explanations (nothing should be posited unnecessarily) and the latter is the Utilitarian principle. I don't think there's a direct connection between them.

In science we also go with the rule that, "The simplest solution is usually the most correct."

Scientists leave it to the uniformed to complicate things.

I believe they are. I don't buy that it's due to their "love of nature" though.

Here are some interesting tidbits about the Federal Duck Stamp program

http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/Info/Stamps/stampinfo.htm

Federal Duck Stamps are a vital tool for wetland conservation. Ninety-eight cents out of every dollar generated by the sales of Federal Duck Stamps goes directly to purchase or lease wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Understandably, the Federal Duck Stamp Program has been called one of the most successful conservation programs ever initiated and is a highly effective way to conserve America’s natural resources.

Since 1934, the sales of Federal Duck Stamps have generated more than $670 million, which has been used to help purchase or lease over 5.2 million acres of waterfowl habitat in the U.S. These lands are now protected in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System.

I believe they are. I don't buy that it's due to their "love of nature" though.

You haven't talked to many hunters have you?

You've never been to a Ducks Unlimited, RMEF, or other hunting organization's dinner's have you? It's not uncommon for hunters to put down thousands of dollars each, in a night that directly goes into puchasing habitat.

What about the tens of thousands of man-hours volunteered on an annual basis for nesting box and banding programs?

You haven't talked to many hunters have you?

You've never been to a Ducks Unlimited, RMEF, or other hunting organization's dinner's have you? It's not uncommon for hunters to put down thousands of dollars each, in a night that directly goes into puchasing habitat.

What about the tens of thousands of man-hours volunteered on an annual basis for nesting box and banding programs?

Dude. I agreed with you. Chill.

A man might "love" his wife so much that he'll kill her before he lets anyone else have her. To him it's love but to most people it's just sick. In both cases I think they have their own selfish reasons for doing what they do.

Dude. I agreed with you. Chill.

No need to chill, I was just pointing out you learn more by listening to the enemy than preaching to the chior.

Here's some more evil hunters do:

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/2005/1031/2209589.html

The number of resident licenses, tags, permits and stamps issued in 2004 increased 4.1 percent over the previous year to 33,111,202, while the non-resident quantity posted at 3,020,395, an increase of 5.6 percent over 2003.

Hunters continue to contribute more and more dollars in pursuit of their sport.

The 2004 figures show gross cost paid by hunters for licenses, tags, permits and stamps — the primary funding source for wildlife conservation and management programs in America — was $703,794,135.24. That total represents an increase of 3.5 percent over 2003

No need to chill, I was just pointing out you learn more by listening to the enemy than preaching to the chior.


So are you the enemy then? :lol:

From the Canadian Wildlife Federation website:



Wildlife-related activities, such as bird-watching, photography, hunting, and fishing, account for more than $10 billion in economic activity in Canada each year. Other commercially harvested wildlife species contribute significantly to local economies. We need look no further than the examples of northern cod and Pacific salmon to see the economic havoc the loss of species can inflict....

What are the major threats to species in Canada?

A staggering 80 per cent of species now listed by COSEWIC are at risk due to loss of habitat. The cause? Expanding human populations and the myriad of activities that accompany them. A result no less injurious than outright habitat loss is habitat fragmentation. Isolated remnants of habitat are often too small and disjointed to support viable wildlife populations.

Two activities that significantly contribute to habitat loss are agriculture and forestry. The State of Canada’s Environment — 1991 remarks that “agriculture has probably the greatest effect.” Clearing forests and replacing natural vegetation with crops, draining wetlands, using chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides, plus the commercial farming of native and exotic game species, are examples of agricultural practices that harm wildlife. Old-growth and mixed-growth forests continue to lose ground to intensive logging, forest fires, and insect infestations.

http://www.cwf-fcf.org/pages/issuesandactions/issuesspeciesatrisk_e.asp?section=9&page=60&language=e


I wonder if someone should inform them that the meat based diet is responsible for over agriculturalization.

A man might "love" his wife so much that he'll kill her before he lets anyone else have her. To him it's love but to most people it's just sick. In both cases I think they have their own selfish reasons for doing what they do.

Exactly. It's not that they love animals -- it's that they love to kill animals. I asked the question before in this thread: Do you think that hunters would continue to protect these eco systems if they couldn't kill the animals that lived there. I don't think so. Strange love.

That being said, I do think veg*ns need to become more active in conservation. We are being put to shame by the animal killers. I would love to buy "stamps" from a conservation oganization that doesn't promore animal violence.

I also find it strange that promotional ads and literature from animal killing conservation groups never seem to show someone hunting and killing animals. I wonder if their support would drop dramatically if this were the case. I know of two people who were fooled into supporting them and I would've been fooled a few years ago.

It's not that they love animals -- it's that they love to kill animals.
I don't think it's necessary to bifurcate. It is entirely possible to love animals in general while killing individual animals. We all do it everyday whether we admit it or not.

Do you think that hunters would continue to protect these eco systems if they couldn't kill the animals that lived there?
You're generalizing. Some would and some wouldn't.

I would love to buy "stamps" from a conservation oganization that doesn't promore animal violence.
You want to put your money were your mouth is? For every stamp you buy from the DNR that's one less stamp that a hunter can use to kill an animal.

I also find it strange that promotional ads and literature from animal killing conservation groups never seem to show someone hunting and killing animals. I wonder if their support would drop dramatically if this were the case.
I often wonder why PeTA ads fail to show employees euthanizing dogs, or why ALF propaganda never mentions the number of liberated animals that die after being released. Why doesn't SHAC mention the number of human beings that would suffer needlessly without animal research?

I know of two people who were fooled into supporting them and I would've been fooled a few years ago.
I know of millions that have been fooled by AR propaganda. What's your point?

I wonder if someone should inform them that the meat based diet is responsible for over agriculturalization.
I'd be glad to. But first allow me to inform you that a diet based on wild game requires the protection of far more habitat than a diet which relies heavily on agriculture.

So are you the enemy then? :lol:

If by enemy, you mean someone who'd rather come to their own conclusions through research and education, rather than be told what to think.

Then ABSOLUTELY.

I don't think it's necessary to bifurcate. It is entirely possible to love animals in general while killing individual animals. We all do it everyday whether we admit it or not.

First of all you lose points for making me go look up "bifurcate". Exposing my limited vocabulary certainly isn't called for.

Second, I do believe it is possible to love animals in general while killing individual animals. Same as it is possible to love humans while enslaving some of them or beating them (this analogy has already been made) or whatever. Same as people can love the environment, the fresh air of the outdoors, while contributing to the pollution of the environment. We all do it everyday but hopefully more and more people will choose more and more compassionate alternatives. People have different concepts of what compassion looks like -- for me it means avoiding the needless torture and/or killing of animals, people and the environment.

You're generalizing. Some would and some wouldn't.

You are correct. I did not take a survey. I put the question out there and I gave my opinion. What's your opinion? Do you think more would or wouldn't (the answer you gave seems vague). I happen to think that it's doubtful that hunters are, in general, more concerned about the environment and sensitive eco systems than others who don't hunt. I believe that if they couldn't kill the animals there that most hunters would quickly lose interest in those eco systems.

You want to put your money were your mouth is? For every stamp you buy from the DNR that's one less stamp that a hunter can use to kill an animal.

Sounds interesting. How would that work? Wouldn't I be putting money into the coffers of some animal killing organization? I would rather put my money into an organization that is into conservation and is against duck hunting. Maybe Castor could tell me more how it all works. I have the feeling that if more and more non-hunters bought the tags the management officials would realize that they could safely issue more tags. That's also why I don't support the adopt-a-turkey program. The more turkies that are bought and kept alive one year, the more will be produced for slaughter the next.

I often wonder why PeTA ads fail to show employees euthanizing dogs, or why ALF propaganda never mentions the number of liberated animals that die after being released. Why doesn't SHAC mention the number of human beings that would suffer needlessly without animal research?

I don't really know too much about these organizations so I will withhold comment about their specific methods of informing the public what they are about. Maybe someone else who knows more about them will have something to say. If they are intentionally withholding information then I would be against that too. What does "SHAC" stand for?

I know of millions that have been fooled by AR propaganda. What's your point?

That organizations that are looking for support (financial or otherwise) should be upfront about what they are about. If people who are in favour of duck hunting and protecting duck habitat want to put money into Ducks Unlimited then that's fine. But if people are opposed to duck hunting then I think they should be told upfront that they would be supporting an organization that isn't opposed to duck hunting. Then those people could put their money elsewhere. Perhaps buying Duck Stamps if that would work the way you say it would.

I'd be glad to. But first allow me to inform you that a diet based on wild game requires the protection of far more habitat than a diet which relies heavily on agriculture.

Ok, you've informed me. I was already aware of that. I'm also aware that to harvest a certain percentage of humans for food would also be an eco-friendly idea. Same with harvesting dogs, cats and other animals that are off limits in the western world. I'm just not interested in the idea of killing animals (including humans) for food. I've already posted a story about a goose that was beaten to death and the outrage that followed. Imo, one goose is the same as the next. People do love animals and are opposed to inflicting needless pain and death on them. Many cultures around the world have brought in measures to protect certain species of animals from human torture. We only need to become more consistant in implementing these compassionate ideas. To truly embrace that love for animals though would require a fundemental shift in how society operates. This will be a gradual process. Realizing that violence is woven into the fabric of our society is useful. Embracing that violence will mean that it will continue on a lot longer than it has to.

The debate on hunting has probably been played out many times here on VB so I won't continue down this road. My intent in starting this thread was to get some information and now I have that information. Thankyou Judas's Carrot for your contribution.

Of course it would be rude of me to have my say and run away. So I'll give the last word to you (of course others may take up your points with you).

Sounds interesting. How would that work? Wouldn't I be putting money into the coffers of some animal killing organization? I would rather put my money into an organization that is into conservation and is against duck hunting. Maybe Castor could tell me more how it all works.

The ONLY organization I know of that does squat for animals and does not support hunting is the Cousteau Society. Truth is hunters are the only ones who put their money where their mouths are. Without them, there would be NO money for any state wildlife agencies, no Federal or State Wildlife refuges. Also, there would be no money for the management of ENDANGERED SPECIES.

I have the feeling that if more and more non-hunters bought the tags the management officials would realize that they could safely issue more tags.

This has been suggested by several anti-hunting organizations. The main reason it fails everytime is that they won't pony up the bucks to make a dent. Even then, the only difference would be for limited draw areas where only a limited number of tags are allotted. That means puchasing a license and an application then IF you get drawn buying the tag. It's not cheap Probably at best a $200 venture and that is only if you are a resident. Non-residents pay several times that amount.

I just don't see any of these so-called Animal-Rights organizations having the funds to put enough money into this year after year to make a difference.

Remember, hunters pay more than $700,000,000 every year.

http://www.nrahq.org/hunting/hunterdollars.asp

Here's some additional info.

http://federalasst.fws.gov/

http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?AoI=generic&PRloc=common/PR/&PR=110105Hunter.cfm

So if I were to purchase a hunting license or whatever, I would help conserve the animals habitat, or help conserve the animals-to-be-killed habitat? Is there any other way to support the natural wildlife's habitat, without in turn, exploiting them in a sense?

Occam's razor is about simplicity of explanations (nothing should be posited unnecessarily) and the latter is the Utilitarian principle. I don't think there's a direct connection between them.

Yep-a-doodle:

"Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. "

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html


A "scientist" who doesn't know what Occam's razor is....? Castor...?:confused: