Who thinks hunting has nothing to do with conservation ?

A ethical hunter is a conservationist! why do think there are conservation officers.......duh. And ';NO'; hunting isn't the only reason why there are extinct species! Ever here of habitat loss or over development! If it weren't for hunters that care so much for the beautiful flora and fauna that many take for granted it wouldn't be here today. We put more money and effort to make sure the habitat is here to stay for future generations to enjoy and take part in outdoor activity's. The money that we spend for licenses every year alone pays for conservation. Take wild turkeys for example. If weren't for hunters like the National Wild Turkey Federation working together to restore habit loss and reintroduce turkeys to other areas they very well have been extinct as of today! I think people who think hunter just like to kill and get there rocks off are just simple minded people who know nothing or little about what it takes to be a ethical hunter! Nature can no longer have a balance on itself for the greed of man is to great.Who thinks hunting has nothing to do with conservation ?
I'm shocked, all the answers to this so far sound reasonable. no bunny huggers. Good work everyone.Who thinks hunting has nothing to do with conservation ?
Hunters tend to be the most dedicated conservationist since they want sustainable wildlife and wildlife habitats so that they can continue to hunt.
MODERN DAY HUNTING





Hunting in the wild in the old sense ,even for food is an idea of the past





3路000 animals have gone in extinction in the last 50 years


loss of habitat,is global and on a grand scale.





Humanity has overstepped the Natural accepted equilibrium.


And the Animal populations have shrunk too much for us to pretend to be predators and nibble at the numbers that are left





The animals we got ,are now important components of Eco systems which we cannot afford to reduce.





All the professional hunters that i Know in Africa and Canada have become involved in conservation.





If we set up parks and breed animals ,we can let people cull some of them at high fees under strict supervision and let them believe that they are still hunters.





In this sense the hunting aids conservation because part of the money returns to the management of the animals.





Although there are also unscrupulous operators under this concept ,who for example dart lions and then let the brave hunter shoot the drugged animals for fantastic fees,but these operations are detested by regular conservationists.





The only real hunting today In africa ,is done illegaly by poachers who shoot Tigers,Elephants and Rhino`s for body parts that have great value on the foreign markets





Urbanizations and expanding farming operations deforestation for the production of Ethanol (


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a> gives opertunities to collect the animals that now find themselves with out habitat





And the market in first world countries like the USA entices the poor from these Natural teritories to hunt exotic animals for pets or for body parts such as the hides.And the only way to stop this is to stop deforestation and improve local economic conditions which will not even happen with the skies full of flying pigs.





And the USA still has hunting as part of their culture ,and they will regret it in the end when everything has gone
Not me, I think they are related, but it's a one way relationship.





Conservation will exist without hunting, hunting won't exist without conservation.
Hunting and conservation are opposites. The passenger pigeon was successfully hunted to extinction as was the dodo.
not me atleast .why do u???
I think the two are quite closely linked. Assuming hunting means the killing of animals from the wild.


Hunting can be beneficial in some sense in that it can provide money to continue the maintenance of reserves or species protection. It can also be beneficial through population control, so that mass deaths don't occur through things such as food shortages cause by large unnatural population sizes. But in these case population sizes and ecosystems must be well monitored in order to have some knowledge on the effects these actions will have on natural ecosystems.


Of course it can also be a negative and act against conservation, such as through illegal poaching.


It also seems to me that people become caught up on the cuteness issue, rather than thinking about the impact their own 'hunting' may have upon the environment (killing spiders in homes, or the culling of fruitivores (mammals and insects) that often occurs in the production of fod for human consumption).


This is a very complex issue and not something with clear black and white, wrong and right answers. Every situation is different.
There are preserves which allow for a specified number of kills to keep the herd size in check and assure ample feeding grounds for the other animals. This is necessary because preserves are a limited size and the animals are allowed to live free so it is important to find a way to keep the population in check. The other benefit is they are killed for food specific purposes. It isn't perfect but it is an option.
Certain hunting has everything to do with conservation. In New Zealand, we have a pest that is destroying the native bush and bird life. It was an introduced species and has no natural predator here. I have flown over and walked our forests and seen trees hundreds of years old, dead from the devastation of these pests. The opossum has been filmed taking birds eggs and small chicks from the nests. On top of that, they also strip the tree of all of it's foliage and the tree dies. In cases like this I feel hunting is a must if we are to conserve what we have.
In the ultimate sense, the energy and matter of something hunted is still conserved through eating and fertilizing. Non restricted hunting could and has wiped out species, but to mark a species has having a 'right' to be conserved seems to be playing with the environment. The environment is so complicated that it's hard to pick what to conserve [assumingly with the purpose to maximize our benefit somehow]. Yet, if we kill all the animals, guess what you are going to be eating for meat!


Err, I guess that puts me on the side that hunting and conservation are related.
If you are hunting to feed yourself then it has everything to do with conservation. Those who hunt and take only enough to sustain life generally have the greatest respect for life, habitats and the legacy for future generations. Shooting parties have nothing to do with conservation. Going to the supermarket has a massive impact on the environment and conservation; habitat loss, monocrops etc.





If the hunting is for sport; the intention is for the prey to be killed then no it has nothing to do with conservation.





As for other arguments which are given to support hunting they are totally indefensible such as regulating populations, culling to protect livestock etc. Nature, if left alone, will balance populations. We have lost chickens, geese etc to foxes. It was our fault. Foxes hunt. We were too lazy either to put them away that night, or to check housing or we simply ignored the guinea fowl's alarm calls.
homosexuals