“societal values toward wildlife have shifted in the United States toward more of a “mutualist” perspective, meaning people are more focused on wildlife protection and compassionate management”
I am really struggling to understand the mutualist view. Perhaps someone has some insight into how it can make sense?
Here’s how I view wildlife management:
-There were established ecosystems across the Americas prior to the arrival of humans.
-As humans colonized the land, it ushered in a mass extinction, mostly of megafauna.
-A second mass extinction event began with European immigration in the 15th century.
-In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s an increasing number of people desired to slow, halt, and even reverse the mass extinction by focusing on habitat and wildlife management.
-Through the rest of the 20th century we restored, managed, and protected wildlife and habitat on an unprecedented scale, largely through funds generated from hunting. Meanwhile, new threats to wildlife and habitat grew as we continued to modify natural landscapes.
-In the 21st century there is a far broader base of support for maintaining wildlife and habitat, making hunters a small minority of the total base. However, hunters continue to fund a disproportionately large share of wildlife and habitat management.
-Nearly every ecosystem in the US is now highly disrupted as a result of human activity. Habitat oftentimes exists in small fragments, and there are token populations of many wildlife species which used to be far more abundant.
-In order to preserve species and historic habitat, humans must continue to actively manage both. If we take our hands off the wheel, habitats and species disappear.
-If you end hunting, a massive alternative funding mechanism for managing wildlife and habitat is necessary.
-If you end hunting, you destroy the segment of the population who values habitat and wildlife more than any other advocacy group of similar size or larger size.
-Hands off management is impossible in today’s world, if we care about keeping species from going extinct. The only way to restore non-human “natural” management is to restore the pre-Columbian habitat, and relocate the whole human population from North America.
-Culling animals from an ecosystem is now an essential component of successful wildlife and habitat management. If you ended deer hunting in Iowa within 10 years deer would swarm across the landscape like locusts, destroying everything and causing a ton of motor vehicle collisions.
-If you eliminate hunting, animals are then culled by paid professionals via sharpshooting, and trapping. The only the difference between paying someone to shoot and trap and allowing the public to hunt and trap is the former is funded by taxpayers and the latter actually pays the government for the opportunity.
Hunting by humans in NA is only an unnatural activity if we turn back the clock to the Pleistocene, which we cannot do. Humans have been part of ecosystems in the Americas for thousands of years. We hunt, fish, trap, gather, and modify landscapes, today just like we did 10k years ago. I’d you want prudent and sustainable support for wild things and wild places, hunters are a fantastic asset, and also an involved member of ecosystems and animals.
Lastly, wild animals live violent and competitive lives. They often starve, kill, or injure one another or get ripped apart by predators. Shooting an animal vastly shortens that animal’s suffering.
So given all this, how is eliminating hunting a net positive for the antis?
We already see how Joe is doing... As for Yemi... Okay, okay - I'll be optimistic until proven otherwise!
sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu
