As a Life Member of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and committee member of the Gallatin Chapter, I have often heard, and taken for granted the slogan “Hunting is Conservation.” At first it just seemed like a slick new catch phrase designed as an attempt to bridge the gap between the hunting community that supports organizations like the Elk Foundation and non-hunters who might need some help understanding that hunting is not just about killing animals.
It has taken me a couple of years, reading the works of hunting conservationists like Shane Mahoney, listening to podcasts of visionaries such as Steve Rinella, and hearing public land advocates such as Randy Newberg, to fully grasp the meaning of these three words.
Several years ago, I present during a speech given at a Mule Deer Foundation banquet by key note speaker Jim Burnworth of Western Extreme. I didn’t know Jim personally and had not watched his television show. Tami and I were fortunate to be seated at a table with Jim and his family and spent an amazing evening getting to know them and discussing hunting. After listening to Jim talk about the time and preparation he puts in before the season even begins I realized the authenticity of Jim’s passion for hunting. When he began his speech I listened intently and his message struck a chord which has stayed with me since.
Jim spoke of elephant hunting and admitted that many, even some of us in the room that night, find the idea of hunting elephants distasteful. “Why”, he challenged us, “does anyone really need to kill an elephant? Some of you are probably looking at me right now thinking, “Really Jim, do you need to kill an elephant with your bow?””
Animals, he explained, can have either intrinsic or economic value, or both. Intrinsic value means the value of the animal unto itself; in its natural state, independent of some human notion of its financial value. When we drive through Yellowstone Park and observe a herd of wild bison we admire them and “value” them for what they add by just existing in this world. They enhance our experience while we interact with nature.
Economic value is the monetary value humans place on an animal. A steer has financial value based on the current beef price per pound. A kudu on a game ranch in South Africa has value based on hunting and trophy fees. On a macro scale, wildlife brings tourist and hunting dollars into the economies of countries such as Kenya and Tanzania.
The reality is, when animals are perceived to have economic value, humans tend to protect their interest in those animals by preserving the habit necessary to ensure their survival. The problem with intrinsic value alone is that, while most people love the concept of wilderness and wild animals, they are often reluctant to contribute financially toward their protection. Intrinsic value provokes deep emotional responses in humans. There are websites dedicated to the Yellowstone wolves with thousands of people following the lives of individual animals. Cecil the lion’s story is all too well known and his death triggered an international outcry that became a catalyst for both the hunting and anti-hunting communities. Yet, outside of parks and preserves, there is not enough being done in the name of intrinsic value alone to preserve the habit necessary to ensure the long term success of wildlife. Ultimately, it will be the loss of that habitat due to human population growth that will do far more to reduce wildlife than any external factor such as hunting. Farmland where I grew up hunting in Indiana is now tract subdivisions. Here in Montana, more and more homes are being built on the elk and deer wintering grounds of the Madison and Paradise valleys. It is easy to say that we love wildlife and want to preserve it, but when our chance comes to have our piece of the pie, our own dream home, few are willing to sacrifice that dream in the name of preserving habitat. And so house by house, subdivision by subdivision, we inch our way across the landscape. And we visit the national parks, pay our taxes, ignore the value of hunting as conservation and think all is well.
That night at the MDF banquet Jim spoke of the reality facing Africa’s elephants. In many cases elephants compete with the native populace for habitat. Elephants ransack villager’s gardens, destroy crops. As the human population spreads, conflicts with elephants increase. Where the people see no economic benefit from elephants, only the financial hardship caused by them, there is little incentive to protect them. In the African countries that embrace elephant hunting and the economic benefit provided by hunting fees, the attitudes are far different. In 2014 Conservation Magazine published an article titled “Can Trophy Hunting Actually Help Conservation?” The article included the following information regarding endangered species and hunting: A 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.”
Namibia has been a leader among African countries in understanding and promoting hunting as a means of conservation. An in-depth study on hunting and eco-tourism showed that only 16% of conservancies in the country would remain viable if they depended on eco-tourism alone, while only 59% could remain solvent on hunting revenues alone. The most successful conservancies in Namibia intermingled both hunting and eco-tourism. I have attached a link to that article at the bottom of this page.
So what does this mean for hunting and how do we as hunters use this information to our benefit? First we need to validate the emotional response to trophy hunting that many non hunters feel. If we cannot understand the perspective of non-hunters then we cannot engage in an intelligent, convincing conversation about the value of hunting. Many people see two distinct types of hunting; where one of the goals is attaining the animal for food; and for sport where the goal is the hunting experience and the collecting of a “trophy” with little regard for retaining the animal for personal consumption. Many in the non-hunting community regard “sport” or “trophy” hunting poorly. If we as hunters cannot understand why many people find killing primarily for trophies as distasteful then we are missing an important part of the conversation. Thankfully, there has been an increasing awareness within the hunting community that some of our practices seem to lack empathy, denigrate the animal and emphasize only the kill.
So why is hunting “conservation” and how do we engage our non-hunting friends in a conversation that reinforces the value of hunting for wildlife preservation? Let’s look at a few facts regarding monies collected for wildlife management in the United States.
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act became effective July 1, 1938. The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for restoration of wild birds and mammals and to acquire, develop and manage their habitats. Funds are derived from an 11 percent federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. These funds are collected from the manufacturers by the Department of the Treasury and are apportioned each year to the states by the Department of the Interior on the basis of formulas that consider the total area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. Funds for hunter education and target ranges are derived from one-half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment.
Since its inception, $11 billion has been collected from manufacturers and awarded to states through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax, making firearms and ammunition companies one of the largest contributors to conservation.
According to Ryan Bronson, Vista Outdoor Director of Conservation and Public Policy, Vista Outdoor alone paid over $87 million in Federal Excise Taxes during fiscal year 2017 to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Fund. These funds were generated on sales of firearms, ammunition and archery gear from Vista brands including Federal Premium, CCI, Speer, Savage, Stevens, Gold Tip and Bee Stinger. And that’s just one company.
No such taxes exist for binoculars, kayaks, hiking poles, tents, etc. that are used by birders, backpackers and others enjoying the outdoors and wildlife that hunting related dollars help protect.
Non Profit Conservation Groups
The 10 largest non-profit conservation organizations contribute $2.5 billion annually to habitat and wildlife conservation. The Nature Conservancy tops the list at $859 million annually, followed by the Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund and Ducks Unlimited, the latter at $147 million. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation was last of the top 10 at $54 million. To date, the RMEF alone has assisted in the protection of over 8 million acres for wildlife habitat. Non-hunting conservation groups do contribute considerably toward wildlife and habitat preservation efforts, but so do hunter supported groups such as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and the RMEF. As the Namibia study found, the most effective wildlife conservation efforts were realized from a combination of hunting and non-hunting revenue sources.
Hunting and Fishing License Revenue
In a survey done in the state of Florida, only 39 percent of responding anglers and 47 percent of hunters knew that 100 percent of all license dollars go to the state fish and wildlife agencies. States must dedicate 100 percent of license revenues to fish and wildlife management or risk losing their share of federal fish and wildlife restoration excise tax revenues. In 2017, according to the Federal Fish & Wildlife Services, over $853 million was collected from hunting license fees and $708 million from fishing licenses. That is a total of over $1.55 billion dollars collected and used for fish and wildlife management at the state level.
Imagine the impact on wildlife conservation if we lost those fees?
Hunting Really IS Conservation
The facts are indisputable.
- Financial support from taxes, license fees and hunting non-profit organizations plays a critical role in wildlife and habitat conservation.
- Sport hunting brings economic value to communities and countries which helps promote the preservation of game species and their habitat.
It is in the best interest of hunters and non-hunters to work together in the common cause of wildlife conservation. As hunters, we need to realize that while most non-hunters in the United States still support hunting, the perception that hunting is threatening endangered species and the behavior of some hunters threaten that support. The hunting community is a minority. We must take the proper steps to ensure that non-hunters view us in a positive light.
For those who stand firmly against hunting, who see it as amoral, unethical, cruel or just unnecessary for the conservation of wildlife, I ask that you put emotion aside and look logically at the hard facts. The long term survival of wildlife on this planet, as a whole, will be best served by a collaboration by all of us who have conservation as a common goal.