Who's Making Conservation Happen?

This a reply to your passionate post, which seems to be mainly concerned with hunters, and non-hunters. Non-hunters apparently know less then the first about conservation. I feel for your passion, but I'm going to point out mistakes. I haven't read all the other posts, perhaps some are attacking hunters. In any case, here goes, based just on what you have said.

• Answers:
  
• My clothing comes from plants. I imagine yours does, unless it's from petroleum.
• I wear leather sandals, from the skin of a dead camel.
• I eat a vegtarian diet, similar to the 'Strongest man in the world', well certainly Russia, Bakhrom Akhnazarov.
• For medicine I use only food and some minerals like Iodine.
• To keep warm I dress in wool, and light wood fires.
• This shows that hunters don't provide us with those things.
  
  
  
• I am not saying what I have done to help a human today, it's a rhetorical question, you assume the answer's nothing.
• Children are also dying in Palestine and Iraq and Afghanistan. That's because of war. It is possible to be kind to animals and to humans, equally.

My business is conservation. I know more than the average hunter about conservation. I was a hunter, and learn't an enormous amount, but little about conservation itself; My grandfather was a gamekeeper, and I grew up in the trade. We didn't think of it as conservation, it was simply traditional, and the landowner was an ancient Lord, who wanted to keep the life that way; he wasn't into 'new money'.

You love hunting and you say you love animals. I take it you mean you think you love animals. Perhaps it's just words. Humans and love...I'm sure you are in awe of nature, but that's not the same as loving animals. Saying 'I love animals' doesn't give a person any credit in their views concerning animals, it's a platitude, nothing more. Do you love every single protozoan? Most actual overs of animals are city-dwellers, those you seem to despise, with pets.

Hunters are not the people funding conservation. All people from all walks of life fund conservation, through taxes, direct debits, indirectly through shopping, even buying airtickets. Example, tigers are supported through government funds, and no hunting is allowed, and hunters have no part in the preservation of tiger country, in India.

Funding conservation is not conservation. All conservation monies is paid in wages and overheads. Most of that money puts further pressure on biodiversity, as it is spent.
Not all hunters live outside BIG cities, and not all non-hunters libve inside BIG cities.

Now I'll turn to the main issue, as I see it in your post: Who is making conservation happen? Well, it's not happening really.
What hunters now know about conservation they have been taught in retrospect. The reason hunters help in efforts is incidental, as it was found that they preserve the habitats for hunting; this was pointed out to them, in the remnant habitats they used, by professional conservationists, in lobbeying for protection satus. Hunters willingly joined them.


Prior to modern consumerism, vegetarian societies as much as hunters, preserved their environment. How? One of the best ways of seeing thisis how abcient cultures in marginal mountain areas exist symbiotically ion a fragile environement. The mountains have poor soils, and are vulnerable to sudden loss of biodiversity ion a fragile environement. At the same time they are responsible for onward flow of water. If the soil was to be degraded, loss of mountains and soil would occur, and it would take many hundreds of years for it to restore. The main way conservation is preserved is by strong local leadership (traditional cheifs), coupleed with respect (not radoration) and religious taboos. There is enormous respect for each living community of plants and animals, the diversity etc. An example is, in one place is that it is forbidden to wear red shoes or urinate! in a forest so as to not displease the gods, along with many practical restraints. The point being, they see the world as alive, and populated with spirit, in plants and animals, but also each habitat has it's presiding deity.That was just a breif look: the main thing contrinuting to conservation is a traditionall culture in situ, which has marginal markets, and strong (non-central) local government, plus respectful religious lore (non-materialistic).

The reason we are losing biodiversity (flora and fauna) is due to loss of habitat. Most loss of habitat is due to economics and materialistic consumer lifestyles. Hunters contribute to that like most people; unless you live in the forest, and entirely by the forest. If you eat any food grown in the mass factory farming Industry, you are contributing to loss of biodiversity. Same for toilet rolls, elecricity, cars, guns, etc.
You are right, that hunters play an important part in preserving remnant forest. Conservation now, practically and in terms of knowledge, is not about a fight between hunters and others.

Incidentally, so far as eating three meals a day, I definately wouldn't say its good to feed an animal three times a day, for example a gun dog; we bred them for the King. It is arguable that, even for humans - not children, one large meal aday might be a better watyto regulate appetite, growth and energy.
Warm regards,
John