One other label not mentioned in this thread yet is 'protectionist' or 'preservationist.' Those categories of people often march under the flag 'environmentalist,' but have a much more restrictive view of how land/animals should be treated.
Good point. I think non-hunting environmentalists as a whole tend to rally against a dominant human relationship over the natural world, and this can naturally predispose them to being against hunting, something they perceive as dominating nature. Which is why they need more exposure to ethical hunters.
Preservationists, like John Muir, are important IMO. They can also be short sighted, along with other factions of the environmental movement. For example, the notion that tree planting needs to be a primary method for combatting climate change. It definitely can be...but imagine how many
grasslands are going to be planted with dense stands of trees. Oak savannah's and certain pine savannah's support unbelievable biodiversity and these ecosystems need constant 'tree removal' (disturbance).
Here is a great article from The Atlantic, detailing a new environmentalist who joined a group to help wildlife. She initially was dismayed her instructor hunted, but now she hunts, a cool story and great press.
Stereotypes of gun-toting brutes and tree-hugging hippies miss the basic facts about who is protecting nature—and why.
www.theatlantic.com
My biggest worry for hunters is staying on good terms with public opinion, which will require reform periodically as the world changes. I think hunters and environmentalists have much in common. Different backgrounds, experiences, and understandings, along with political pressures, divide up what could be a really powerful force.