I’ve been thinking about this a lot for the past few days. As a qualifier to my comments I’ll admit that I’m a relatively new hunter (grew up with a dad who hunted but only really got deep into it myself about six years ago) and therefore lack the institutional knowledge and experience that many of you have. I’ve always been deeply in love with the outdoors though, just never thought much about or got involved in the politics of conservation before I became a hunter. More than fishing or camping or backpacking or any of the things I did growing up in the West with wild places around wild things, hunting has created an urge in me to invest in the future of these things and become involved. I think there is something to this.
Successful, legal, diy hunting requires an understanding of complex rules. It requires detailed planning and financial investment, obtaining permits and finding spots, and a willingness to be persistent through trial and error and lots and lots of time. More than anything it requires an understanding of the natural world far deeper than just going out and looking at it. Someone is either willing to put themselves through that because the drive within them tells them it’s worth it, or they give up. But going through it and finding success lights a fire. Even as a little kid I had a thing for mule deer. I had some exposure to them, and thought they were cool. I liked the way they stotted. But they never kept me up at night and I’m not sure I would have went to bat for them until I became a hunter.
I say all that because I’m not sure the same understanding of or commitment to wildlife (at least to those species that hunters care most about) is likely for most people without this context, though there are no doubt some. Others have shared that more stakeholders need to brought to the table to contribute to funding management and in many ways I agree. If the goal of the NAM is to conserve wildlife in trust for the benefit of the people, broader contributions to that goal are now necessary. However, sharing more of the burden of funding wildlife management with the broader spectrum of outdoor enthusiasts, it’s easy to imagine hunting becoming rapidly diminished as a tool in wildlife management. More voices at the table means the potential for wildly differing views in approach, and no doubt some of those voices would advocate for more of a hands-off (no/less hunting) approach to wildlife management. That is the slant coming from Oregon at least, where many people enjoy the outdoors but have an antagonistic leaning toward hunting. This trend would likely grow with increased and more urbanized populations in Western states.
On the other hand is the ever-growing commodification of game species, in which hunting becomes unattainable to most through either price or access or both. I prefer the former to the latter, but IMO if that’s going to work we’re going to need to be damned smart and unified as a hunting community in the ways we portray hunting and its intrinsic benefits if we have any hope of it lasting into the distant future.
TLDR:
@neffa3 might be right—we might be screwed.
