Hunting and the Environmental Movement

Go to just about any web forum on guns or hunting and you'll likely find a screed by a hunter or gun owner about those "liberal tree-huggers trying to abolish hunting or take our guns." The vitriol directed at groups such as the Sierra Club or the Nature Conservancy is heated in its tone and almost nonstop. In particular, most hunters seem to equate the Sierra Club with PETA (People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals), a group with an avowed anti-hunting bias.

The problem with this perception is that it's not true. The Sierra Club fully supports hunting and counts 20% of its membership, including several high-ranking officials, as hunters and anglers. The Club is a full supporting member of the Outdoor Writers Association of America (a collection of writers for the so-called Cast and Blast magazines such as Field & Stream).

The National Audubon Society, another frequent target of hunters and gun owners, also actively supports hunting, and has frequently published articles in its magazine promoting more cooperation between hunters and environmentalists. One of its most respected conservation writers, Ted Williams, is an avid hunter and angler.

The Nature Conservancy, often pilloried by hunters for "taking hunting lands out of the public domain," actually allows hunting on most of its lands and actively promotes hunting on them as a wildlife management tool. The Izaak Walton League of America was started by hunters and continues to be a strong advocate of hunting. Most environmental groups that don't actively promote hunting, such as Defenders of Wildlife, choose to offer no stance on hunting, either for or against.

The tragedy of this antipathy hunters seem to feel for the mainstream environmental movement is this: a coalition of 35 million hunters and anglers with the 60% of Americans who describe themselves as environmentalists would be an unstoppable political force for change in environmental policy. After all, both groups have the same end goal: protect and preserve wildlife and wildlife habitat -- environmentalists for its intrinsic beauty, and hunters and anglers so they may continue to have game to hunt and fish.

Why do hunters and gun owners in particular distrust the mainstream environmental movement? I believe this distrust is born of fear-mongering by pro-gun groups, in particular the National Rifle Association. The NRA, a champion of the 2nd Amendment, has for years equated the environmental movement with liberalism, and liberalism with gun control. In short, the NRA has managed to convince its constituency that, against all logic, the environmental movement is both anti-gun and anti-hunting.

But hunters need to look at who the NRA supports. In the last two election cycles, here are just a few candidates to whom the NRA has donated money: Senator Mel Martinez (0% rating by the League of Conservation Voters), Senator Jim DeMint (14% rating), Senator John Thune (14% rating) and ex-Senator Rick Santorum (14% rating). According to the Center For Responsive Politics pro-gun lobbies (primarily the NRA) have, since 1990, donated almost 19 million in campaign cash, with 85% of it going to Republicans -- most of whom it can be said have a decided anti-wildlife bias.

In effect, hunters who support the NRA in a misguided belief it is protecting their gun rights are harming the very wildlife on which they depend to ply their pastime. They are filling in wetlands, denuding forests and developing wilderness. They are killing the animals they by logic should be protecting.

To be fair, a lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of the environmental movement. Kudos are due to the Sierra Club for its outreach movement, but more can be done. Mainstream environmentalists need to forcefully reassure gun owners they have no intention of joining the anti-gun movement. Democratic politicians can more intently explain they have no designs on sporting arms or target weapons.

Hunters, too, need to realize the error of their ways. After all, what good is it to have the right to bear arms if there is nothing left to shoot? There is much to be gained and too much to lose by this illogical schism between hunters and environmentalists.