#home .banner-thumbnail-wrapper { padding: 24px 0; }

Source:

  • Widely help unsupported assumption perpetuated by hunters.

The truth:

Hunting just skews natural population dynamics, disrupting the self-regulating trophic cascade. Then more hunting is framed as the self-serving population control "solution" to the problem caused by hunting in the first place. Plus, funds for conservation generated by hunting are wildly exaggerated.  

 
When the value of federal land programs are put into the mix of wildlife conservation today, hunters’ contributions diminish to a mere 6 percent of funding nationwide, a paper released in October says.
— "Study: Non-hunters contribute most to wildlife," WyoFile, Nov. 2015
 

Hunting causes/entails:

  • Skewed populations: Hunting predators causes prey to overpopulate while hunting prey takes food from predators and causes them to start stalking backyards and public areas, both then used to justify "population control."
     
  • Further rigged populations: Programs are in place to artificially bolster “game” populations transported over state lines for this purpose, further rigging population dynamics and justifying more "population control." 
     
  • Manipulated habitats: Wildlife management services even fell forests in open glade areas with high deer populations to artificially create hunting spaces, destroying bracken regrowth with toxic herbicides.
     
  • Institutional privilege: Because state wildlife agencies gain income from hunting, trapping and fishing licenses, a powerful hunting lobby actively promotes and empowers hunting as "wildlife management.
     
  • Extinction: Hunting has contributed to the historical extinction of animal species including Southern Appalachian birds, passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, eastern elk, eastern cougar, Tasmanian tiger, great auk and more.
     
  • Exaggerated perception of conservation funds: The funds generated from hunting for conservation programs only account for 6% of such funding nationwide (see below). Groups like Nature Conservancy and land trusts contribute far more. Yet people believe "sportsmen pay for wildlife."
     
  • An outdated model: The post-frontier "North American Model of Wildlife Management" (based on "sportsmen" interests) previously fueled conservation funding but is now outdated, but still favored.
     
  • Power imbalance: "Sportsmen" still hold a monopoly due to the persistent perception amongst the public that hunters contribute more funds and ecosystem services than they actually do, combined with hunters' longstanding relationships with agencies (and a lack of those with non-hunters, leading to resistance/indifference/mistrust of non-hunting interests and revenue sources) and the fact that, per researcher David Molde, “The guys who stand up and shout the loudest are the ones that shoot deer, elk and bighorn sheep.” 
 

Annual contributions to habit/wildlife conservation from the 10 largest non-profit conservations ($2.5B)

The 10 largest non-profit conservation organizations contribute $2.5 billion annually to habitat and wildlife conservation; of this, 12.3 percent comes from hunters and 87.7 percent from the non-hunting public. Source: Nevadans for Responsible Wildlife Management, WILDLIFE CONSERVATION & MANAGEMENT FUNDING IN THE U.S. By Mark E. Smith & Donald A. Molde, October 2014
 
Sportsmen favor the current system, which places a heavy emphasis on their interests through favorable composition of wildlife commissions and a continued emphasis on ungulate management.
— Mark E. Smith & Donald A. Molde, Nevadans for Responsible Wildlife Management
 
 

The Facts

Gain a clear understanding of the various ways animal agriculture harms our planet. 

Learn More →

 

The Myths

Challenge the narratives that downplay the negative impacts of animal production & vilify vegan diets.

Learn More →