"We have to be participants." Exactly this. That's the language that more precisely describes what is going on when we hunt, fish, forage, bird watch, mushroom hunt, investigate streams, study, camp in the open, backpack, ... We *participate* as a member of the natural world-one species amongst many. I am a staunch environmentalist. I am also a hunter and fisherman. I have donated to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers for many years. They are an outstanding organization.
@@sachinraghavan4556 I am not a hunter but I am an environmentalist who has done a fair amount of conservation work. Hunting is not just about meat consumption but also prevents the overpopulation and colonisation of certain species. Hunting is way more important than you think and what you are saying is an insult to both the craft and the intricacies of environmentalism.
Hunters are the #1 conservationists. Think about it, hunters want game to hunt and they want space/habitat to hunt in and they’re willing to pay for it. Ask an anti hunter how much time, effort, and money they put into improving habitat or game numbers. Hunters give these animals value which keeps their conservation funded and their habitat undeveloped.
i don't know. though i don't hunt i kind of understand what you're saying but i think hunters conservation stops at hunting areas. hunters obviously eat animal based foods. producing meat, eggs, and dairy is far more land and resource intensive than producing plant based foods. hunters strike me as the kind of people who don't understand human overpopulation is the greatest environmental threat the world faces and are fine with people having babies just for the sake of having babies. i doubt many hunters recycle. i think hunters are more likely to drive over sized vehicles with lousy MPG because they think they look cool rather than drive a hybrid or EV. i think when a hunter goes to a store they do not bring a reusable tote bag. they don't even reuse the plastic bag as a garbage bag, they just toss them in the garbage. i think they want to keep hunting areas around just so they can hunt, not because they care about the natural world. am i wrong?
@@eatpigsnot Given your assessment is completely stereotyped based on broad generalizations yes it would be difficult for you to be more wrong. Do you buy land and maintain it as good habitat to sustain a healthy population of wild game? Hunters do. People who purchase factory farm raised meat at the grocery store and act like they’re in some way superior to people who eat organic free range deer they harvested themselves baffle me. The only way you could be a superior conservationist is if you were completely vegan AND you purchased acres and acres of land to maintain as wild habitat but very few people would every do that. I believe your heart is in the right place but the lesson here is hunters give those land and animals real value. We need the local population to have a vested interest in preserving a healthy population and habitat for future generations to enjoy. If you think I’m wrong ask yourself how much time you’ve put into habitat restoration or how much money you’ve spent on conservation. My family spends around $10,000 a year to keep our land ideal habitat for wildlife that would otherwise be developed because we place value on preserving these animals and lands for future generations to enjoy.
@@johnmurphy3784 i don't doubt some hunters maintain a small amount of land so they can hunt, but i think it stops there. i don't know of anyone who thinks factory farmed food is better for the environment than eating wild game, but don't most hunters eat from a store or restaurant most meals? they are not killing their own food for 3 daily meals 365 days per year.
Environmentalism needs Conservationalism. The environment needs to be managed. Its a romantic and disconnected thought that, just turn the environment loose and things will be okay. Cattle Ranchers, disease, human population, so much more could be reported on too
The Earth would be fine turned lose if man were not turned lose on her surface. We are the problem. The Earth is fine without us. Its us who are not fine without Earth, yet we destroy it. I hope this changes.
Well I'm glad they pointed out human involvement in conservation is for our own psyche and not the Earth. The Earth gets along fine without us. Its living with us, that's the issue. Glad to see passionate and honest people.
I don't want to start an argument, but I think your statement about the Earth doing fine without us is referring to some completely unrealistic state. There are 8 billion people on Earth and we have and continue to affect every part of the world. So, unless there's some mass human die-off, we are responsible for managing every bit of what's left of nature.
Earth, the rock, will be fine. Earth the ecosystem is in terrible shape, well-abused by humans. The more people participating in nature (and not just using it as a playground), the more they will be driven to care for it.
@@mikebryant8507 As silly as it sounds....yes. Maintaining a relatively "even" population, prevents the wild "swings" in population. I'll use deer as an example. When numbers are high, they eat a LOT (predator numbers also increase)...and they basically eat themselves out of house and home. They are also more susceptible to illness/disease and starvation. Their numbers plummet, along with predator numbers. One of the areas I used to hunt had a huge population...I saw deer every time out in the woods and I could be selective about which deer I harvested. Well, they got a "bug" and hundreds died off, going to waste. I did continue hunting that area, but didn't harvest any deer from there again, because I rarely ever even saw a deer. Ten years later, the numbers are coming back, but not like they were.
@@eatpigsnot When you rely on animals for food you gain a respect for that animal and it's environment. Virtually ever hunter I know appreciates nature much more than city people believe. The few stereotypical idiot hunters tend to overshadow the people with a deep appreciation of the forest. And they are the ones who put the money into circulation for conservation efforts. So realistically hunters do way more for the wildlife.
This was a great video. I spend at least $400 every hunting season to MAYBE put a deer in the freezer. I don't have access to public hunting areas because the ones near me in Virginia have been taken over by anti-hunters to (say they) like to ride horses and mountain bikes. They still need to have rigidly managed hunts or the deer population would explode, cause vehicle accidents and spread diseases that typically occur in overpopulated herds.
I hunt where there are hikers and such. Sorta related, BHA advocates for hunting and fishing, but also for a reduction in things like off-road vehicle access which are destructive and loud. Deer populations. We also need to advocate for less sprawl and an increase in predator populations.
"...some believe the Federal Government should foot more of the bill" lol. The Federal Government is $30.4 trillion in DEBT! The US is the most indebted country on Earth. And we're fast approaching the time when we're going to find out why that matters. Buckle-up!
The debt is beside the point. We also need a military. We also need universal healthcare (badly). We need to significantly fund conservation. We need a lot of things. How we get there is a separate discussion.
@@t0dd000 How is the debt; "beside the point"?? The US currently spends over two trillion $$$ more each year than it can raise in taxation. The US is broke! The Government currently has to spend almost half a trillion per annum just on debt servicing costs. If interest rates go up to fight inflation, those debt servicing costs could easily consume over two-thirds of the Government's entire revenue! If that happens Government expenditure on social services will have to be cut to the bone! That means existing welfare payments will be cut! The only alternative is to 'monetize' the debt payments (print the cash) which will crash the dollar and impoverish the entire country. Welcome to your future!
"We have to be participants." Exactly this. That's the language that more precisely describes what is going on when we hunt, fish, forage, bird watch, mushroom hunt, investigate streams, study, camp in the open, backpack, ... We *participate* as a member of the natural world-one species amongst many.
I am a staunch environmentalist. I am also a hunter and fisherman. I have donated to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers for many years. They are an outstanding organization.
You are not a carnivore nor a predator and you have zero necessity for meat consumption.
@@sachinraghavan4556 I am not a hunter but I am an environmentalist who has done a fair amount of conservation work. Hunting is not just about meat consumption but also prevents the overpopulation and colonisation of certain species. Hunting is way more important than you think and what you are saying is an insult to both the craft and the intricacies of environmentalism.
@@richardjohnson7379why there is overpopulation and perhaps those who do hunting have interest in keep herbivore overpopulated?
Good time to call or write to your Senators and Representatives and tell them you want to fund, protect, and KEEP PUBLIC LANDS IN PUBLIC HANDS!
Please take a kid or someone new fishing or hunting and camping enjoy America's public lands
Amen!
Hunters are the #1 conservationists. Think about it, hunters want game to hunt and they want space/habitat to hunt in and they’re willing to pay for it. Ask an anti hunter how much time, effort, and money they put into improving habitat or game numbers. Hunters give these animals value which keeps their conservation funded and their habitat undeveloped.
By killing then off. Hunters logic
It's so sad that we have to use such perverse ways to save habitat.
i don't know. though i don't hunt i kind of understand what you're saying but i think hunters conservation stops at hunting areas. hunters obviously eat animal based foods. producing meat, eggs, and dairy is far more land and resource intensive than producing plant based foods. hunters strike me as the kind of people who don't understand human overpopulation is the greatest environmental threat the world faces and are fine with people having babies just for the sake of having babies. i doubt many hunters recycle. i think hunters are more likely to drive over sized vehicles with lousy MPG because they think they look cool rather than drive a hybrid or EV. i think when a hunter goes to a store they do not bring a reusable tote bag. they don't even reuse the plastic bag as a garbage bag, they just toss them in the garbage. i think they want to keep hunting areas around just so they can hunt, not because they care about the natural world. am i wrong?
@@eatpigsnot Given your assessment is completely stereotyped based on broad generalizations yes it would be difficult for you to be more wrong. Do you buy land and maintain it as good habitat to sustain a healthy population of wild game? Hunters do. People who purchase factory farm raised meat at the grocery store and act like they’re in some way superior to people who eat organic free range deer they harvested themselves baffle me. The only way you could be a superior conservationist is if you were completely vegan AND you purchased acres and acres of land to maintain as wild habitat but very few people would every do that. I believe your heart is in the right place but the lesson here is hunters give those land and animals real value. We need the local population to have a vested interest in preserving a healthy population and habitat for future generations to enjoy. If you think I’m wrong ask yourself how much time you’ve put into habitat restoration or how much money you’ve spent on conservation. My family spends around $10,000 a year to keep our land ideal habitat for wildlife that would otherwise be developed because we place value on preserving these animals and lands for future generations to enjoy.
@@johnmurphy3784 i don't doubt some hunters maintain a small amount of land so they can hunt, but i think it stops there. i don't know of anyone who thinks factory farmed food is better for the environment than eating wild game, but don't most hunters eat from a store or restaurant most meals? they are not killing their own food for 3 daily meals 365 days per year.
Environmentalism needs Conservationalism. The environment needs to be managed. Its a romantic and disconnected thought that, just turn the environment loose and things will be okay.
Cattle Ranchers, disease, human population, so much more could be reported on too
human overpopulation is the disease; everything else is a symptom
The Earth would be fine turned lose if man were not turned lose on her surface. We are the problem. The Earth is fine without us. Its us who are not fine without Earth, yet we destroy it. I hope this changes.
Well I'm glad they pointed out human involvement in conservation is for our own psyche and not the Earth. The Earth gets along fine without us. Its living with us, that's the issue. Glad to see passionate and honest people.
I don't want to start an argument, but I think your statement about the Earth doing fine without us is referring to some completely unrealistic state. There are 8 billion people on Earth and we have and continue to affect every part of the world. So, unless there's some mass human die-off, we are responsible for managing every bit of what's left of nature.
Earth, the rock, will be fine. Earth the ecosystem is in terrible shape, well-abused by humans. The more people participating in nature (and not just using it as a playground), the more they will be driven to care for it.
CBS News needs to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants tress
Thank you for sharing..
Hunters preserve more natural land and wildlife than 1000 tree hugging hippies could ever imagine
By killing 😂
could you expand on that?
@@mikebryant8507 As silly as it sounds....yes.
Maintaining a relatively "even" population, prevents the wild "swings" in population.
I'll use deer as an example. When numbers are high, they eat a LOT (predator numbers also increase)...and they basically eat themselves out of house and home. They are also more susceptible to illness/disease and starvation. Their numbers plummet, along with predator numbers.
One of the areas I used to hunt had a huge population...I saw deer every time out in the woods and I could be selective about which deer I harvested. Well, they got a "bug" and hundreds died off, going to waste. I did continue hunting that area, but didn't harvest any deer from there again, because I rarely ever even saw a deer. Ten years later, the numbers are coming back, but not like they were.
@@eatpigsnot When you rely on animals for food you gain a respect for that animal and it's environment. Virtually ever hunter I know appreciates nature much more than city people believe. The few stereotypical idiot hunters tend to overshadow the people with a deep appreciation of the forest. And they are the ones who put the money into circulation for conservation efforts. So realistically hunters do way more for the wildlife.
@@mikebryant8507 by being interested in a sustainable population of wild game to hunt.
This was a great video. I spend at least $400 every hunting season to MAYBE put a deer in the freezer. I don't have access to public hunting areas because the ones near me in Virginia have been taken over by anti-hunters to (say they) like to ride horses and mountain bikes. They still need to have rigidly managed hunts or the deer population would explode, cause vehicle accidents and spread diseases that typically occur in overpopulated herds.
I hunt where there are hikers and such.
Sorta related, BHA advocates for hunting and fishing, but also for a reduction in things like off-road vehicle access which are destructive and loud.
Deer populations. We also need to advocate for less sprawl and an increase in predator populations.
"...some believe the Federal Government should foot more of the bill" lol. The Federal Government is $30.4 trillion in DEBT! The US is the most indebted country on Earth. And we're fast approaching the time when we're going to find out why that matters. Buckle-up!
The debt is beside the point. We also need a military. We also need universal healthcare (badly). We need to significantly fund conservation. We need a lot of things. How we get there is a separate discussion.
@@t0dd000 How is the debt; "beside the point"?? The US currently spends over two trillion $$$ more each year than it can raise in taxation. The US is broke! The Government currently has to spend almost half a trillion per annum just on debt servicing costs. If interest rates go up to fight inflation, those debt servicing costs could easily consume over two-thirds of the Government's entire revenue! If that happens Government expenditure on social services will have to be cut to the bone! That means existing welfare payments will be cut! The only alternative is to 'monetize' the debt payments (print the cash) which will crash the dollar and impoverish the entire country. Welcome to your future!
Alot