I couldn't disagree with this more.The idea that environmentalism is good for hunting is laughable. Most of the game we hunt thrives on early growth conditions that are generated by human impacts like logging. Since most environmentalists are also preservationists there is no reconciling with them.
On one side you have the environmental lobby which views humans as alien creatures on the land scape. On the other nature is viewed by what it can provide humans. IE nature is our garden to be used for our benifit. I side with the latter.
And FWIW the pebble mine thing is a catastrophe. It should have happened and now that it is dead a mine will be built in a third world country with very little respect for the environment. Because poor people don't give a shit about the luxury of environmentalism and the environment isn't bound by national borders. The Pebble thing was straight up NIMBY'ism.
First off, while logging and ag may create better habitat for some species of game animals, they do just fine in less impacted environments and I think most hunters do care about species that they can't shoot as well, which sometimes thrive in habitats that are not so modified by humans. And for Pete's sake, this forum is full of people who save and dream all year to hunt in wilderness areas where there's no logging, etc. Guess we're all just stupid for chasing the last few pitiful elk holdouts that didn't get the memo saying they'll be happier where all the roads are...In addition, this is not some either/or situation. We can manage for a mix of wildernessy land, as well as land that is used for activities like logging.
To say that all "environmentalists" (whatever the hell that really means) are strict preservationists is ridiculous. Most people who care deeply about the natural world are aware that there's a place for both the preservationist and conservationist philosophies. They may disagree with you about what that mix looks like, but that's hardly an irreconcilable difference in most cases. There are plenty of industries telling us it is though, as they do not like limits... They'd like to create the same level of polarization that we see in national politics because it benefits them.
And I utterly reject this argument that someone else is going to pillage their environment if we don't do it first. That's a fast road to nowhere good and a philosophy devoid of any morals. We can make good choices for the choices we can make.