Wildlife Conservation: A Dichotomy

The polarizing and often vitriolic perspectives of hunters vs non-hunters

— Title graphic created by Marcia Mueller —

As a young teenager having just moved from the idyllic Shakespearean town of Stratford, Ontario to, let’s just say, the more gritty city of Surrey, British Columbia (BC), I found myself struggling to adapt and felt very much alone. It was the early 1980’s and I remember watching The Nature of Things on CBC and really looking up to the host of the show, David Suzuki. Of course, I never told anyone that because, after all, I was an awkward teenager trying to fit in to my new surroundings and Suzuki, if I am being honest, was not exactly the coolest person to have as your hero. But he was, however, unapologetic and steadfast in his stance on protecting the environment and its inhabitants. He consistently referred to science-based studies to bolster his arguments and often had scientists appear as guests on his show. His agenda was simple - educate the public and raise awareness of the challenges facing nature and wildlife. In my young mind, he personified what it meant to be a true conservationist/environmentalist, having no hidden agenda - just a dogged determination to protect the natural world.

Fast forward to today where the term ‘conservation’ has been strategically appropriated by the hunting industry. In reality though, hunting is to wildlife conservation as Robert Kennedy Jr. is to science. Neither one has anything to do with the other. The hunting community has largely anointed themselves as the preeminent conservationists often claiming they contribute more to conservation efforts worldwide than any other group - more on that later. However, wildlife conservation is generally defined as the protection of wildlife species and their habitats so to be clear, the act of hunting and killing wildlife is the very antithesis of conservation. There was a time when hunters were bound by no regulations, no limits, and no oversight which led to significant population declines and near extinctions in numerous species. Because hunters had no ability to self-regulate, hunting regulations were established to protect wildlife from the hunters themselves.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard members of the hunting community refer to themselves as conservationists as if the two are inseparable. Yet we rarely hear those claims from groups that don’t kill animals. Photographers aren’t collectively claiming to be conservationists, despite the fact that many are. Biologists, as a whole, have not adopted that monicker either. The same can be said for hikers, bikers, bird watchers and any other group that enjoys the outdoors without exploiting and killing wildlife.

Why is it then, that hunters feel compelled to brand themselves as conservationists? The answer is simple - With the exception of trappers, hunters are the only organized group that kill the animals they claim to be protecting. Calling themselves conservationists creates a more palatable veneer in the eyes of the public and provides cover for their primary purpose which is hunting and killing wildlife.

The concept of conservation in the minds of hunters and guide/outfitters is to create a set of conditions that allows for the ungulates they hunt to thrive by keeping predator populations artificially low. Real conservation does not discriminate based on species. The goal is for all wildlife to thrive while maintaining balanced ecosystems.

This article will explore how the term ‘conservation’ has been appropriated by the hunting industry to further its own agenda, and through an aggressive propaganda campaign, been able to influence wildlife conservation policy and management in North America. It will also reveal a concerted effort to discredit those who oppose current regulations and hunting practices while revealing the disconnect between how hunting organizations portray their members and what actually takes place in the field.

Quid Pro Quo Conservation

By and large, conservation strategies and regulations originate from an antiquated and exclusive (not in a good way) framework known as The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM). It was developed by Valerius Geist, John Organ, and Shane Mahoney, all scientists with strong affiliations to the hunting community, to position hunting as the key aspect in shaping conservation policies to the exclusion of all other interests. So the question, when the three of them were drafting NAM, is: Were they scientists who just happened to be hunters, or hunters using their credentials as scientists, to position hunting as the best conservation strategy?

Having been widely adopted as the primary conservation model in North America, it created an interdependence on hunting that continues to influence conservation policies today. However, it reads more like a standards-of-practice manual for hunters than anything remotely related to a comprehensive conservation strategy and it is likely one of the most striking examples of a collective conflict of interest.

NAM professes to be the blueprint to effectively ‘conserve’ wildlife populations and maintain ecosystems through well-managed hunting activities. It also claims to nurture a mindset that fosters wildlife and habitat stewardship among hunters. This doctrine further purports to regulate hunting in a manner that follows an ‘ethical’ and ‘regulatory’ set of seven tenets that promotes conservation by creating what it calls “a constituency for wildlife.” It has been heralded by numerous hunting groups as proof positive that they are conservation focused and best suited to shape wildlife conservation policy. But are they?

7 tenets of NAM - 1) wildlife is a public trust, 2) markets for game are eliminated, 3) allocation of wildlife is by law, 4) killing wildlife is for legitimate purposes only, 5) wildlife is an international resource, 6) science is the proper tool for management, 7) and is democratic.

In a 2020 paper entitled, A philosophical Critique of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, Kirk Robinson takes a detailed look into NAM and whether it lives up to its billing as the leading wildlife conservation model. He also shrugs off the hunting industry’s claim that they are the largest contributors to conservation, as he states, “I shall not address here the grossly overblown view that wildlife management through hunting accounts for virtually all wildlife conservation in North America - a view that has been exploded by numerous critics.” What he does delve into though, are three specific tenets of the seven guiding principles of NAM.

The first tenet states, “wildlife is a public trust resource.” Robinson explains how there are competing interests among the public with some seeing wildlife as a resource to be exploited while others view wild animals in terms of their intrinsic value as sentient beings while a whole host of others fall somewhere in-between. Robinson rightly points out that this tenet prioritizes only one of these competing interests:

(Tenet) #1 . . . identifies wildlife as a resource, as if, like minerals, wild animals are to be used for the benefit of human beings but possess little or no independent value. This way of valuing wildlife, which I shall refer to as resourcism, is the heart and soul of NAM. It underlies the idea that hunting is an essential tool, perhaps the only really necessary one besides habitat protection, for promoting wildlife.

Tenet #4 states that, “Wildlife may be killed only for a legitimate purpose.” So what constitutes a legitimate purpose? In North America and around the world, many governments recognize trophy hunting as legitimate and legal, in large part as a result of NAM. Cougars, bears, wolves, coyotes, lynx, bobcat, foxes, and ungulates can all be killed for the purpose of mounting a head on a wall. Wolves and coyotes are also considered pests or vermin and can be hunted and killed without limit in British Columbia (BC), Alberta and numerous states in the US. In fact, the BC government has funded and endorsed an annual wolf cull since 2015 with the goal of protecting the few remaining woodland caribou that have seen massive population declines mainly due to habitat destruction from industry. And sadly, this brutal approach to conservation has resulted in some population rebound which only spurs on the BC government to allow the slaughter of wolves to continue in perpetuity, rather than actually address the real problem of habitat loss.

Tenet #4 also deliberately ignores the premise that wild animals have agency and a desire to exist. As Robinson explains:

These rationales suggest that animals have no interests of their own - no legitimate ones anyway - and are properly considered a resource for satisfying human wants, however frivolous. This is completely at variance with what a growing body of science informs us about animal minds, as well as with how people think of their pets.

Robinson goes on to say that this tenet places a hierarchy on species and lacks consistency regarding what methods of hunting are deemed legitimate for one species while not for others. “For example, if killing bears over bait is deemed ethical and therefore a legitimate killing of wildlife,” writes Robinson, “what is it about bear baiting that makes it ethical whereas baiting deer and elk with salt blocks is not?” Robinson also details how this method of hunting violates the principle of fair chase, one of the main go-to arguments for hunters to justify their hunting pursuits:

Never mind that bear baiting would clearly seem to violate the hunter ‘ethic’ of fair chase and that it results in the killing of a sentient being - something that cries out for moral justification. On the resourcist view of wildlife, ethical considerations governing exploitation of wildlife, such as they are, are grounded in arbitrary preferences, not in ethics.

Moving on to Tenet#6, which states that, “Science is the proper tool for discharging wildlife policy.” On the face of it, that really does seem reasonable. However, as Robinson metaphorically describes, “. . . you can’t discharge a policy that hasn’t been formulated any more than you can fire a gun that isn’t loaded.” While science can and should inform wildlife policy, the policy itself will have originated from a particular set of values, and in the case of NAM, it is the utilitarian value of wildlife that shapes policy. Basically, it serves to maximize a sustainable harvest of desired ungulate species while keeping predator species intentionally low, as Robinson illustrates:

Manage wildlife so as to ensure a maximum sustained yield of preferred species while taking care not to drive other species to extinction. This is what the NAM is all about. It isn’t hard to see that its primary purpose is to serve the hunting culture, which happens to consist mainly of older, white men. Conservation from this perspective is for the sake of hunting opportunity.

One of NAM’s tenets Robinson does not include in his critique is tenet# 2, which calls for “the elimination of markets for wildlife.” While the fur trapping trade is the obvious violator of this tenet, I would also argue that the guide/outfitter industry also runs afoul with tenet #2. These businesses are cashing in on wildlife as trophies at very high price tags, predominantly marketing to wealthy white men willing to part with their money to be guided to their kills. This is the commercialization of hunting and it is very profitable. The image below shows the range of prices from the BC Guide Outfitters website.

When it comes to guided sheep hunts, the above prices may seem like a bargain. The price for a guided Stone Sheep hunt in British Columbia (BC) advertised in the Huntin’ Fool, an online hunting publication based in Utah, starts at $89,250.00 US. This most certainly qualifies as a market for wildlife and flies in the face of NAM’s second tenet.

Geist, who died in 2021, was one of the main authors of NAM and has been hailed by the hunting community as a legend in the field of wildlife biology and conservation. He was also a very strong proponent of ‘managing’ predator species, especially wolves as he wrote in an article that appeared in Country Squire Magazine, entitled, Wolves: When Ignorance is Bliss, “Wolves mustn’t be coddled if we hope to balance them with modern ecosystems - and to avoid becoming prey.” Upon reading this article, I was struck by the obvious intent to instil fear and foster disdain towards wolves by wildly overblowing their potential to attack humans and commit livestock and pet depredation. Of course, his accounts were all anecdotal and lacked scientific data, which is odd considering his background as a scientist.

In truth, wolf attacks on humans are extremely rare which comports with the findings of a recent study by Linnel et al. entitled, Are Wolves Dangerous to Humans?, and summarized in The International Wolf Center online publication. “According to the latest research, which studied worldwide data from 2002 to 2020, the risks associated with wolf attacks are above zero, but far too low to calculate.” It’s also worth noting that wolf culls have the opposite effect on depredation reduction as Exposed Wildlife Conservancy reports, “Research shows that removing wolves from stable packs can actually increase livestock depredation, as fragmented groups turn to easier targets. Studies in Alberta and BC have documented that lethal control programs often fail to reduce conflicts in the long term.⁠”

Geist’s article paints a picture of wolves as prolific livestock killers, stalkers of humans, and the major contributor to plummeting ungulate populations. He makes the argument that because of habitat destruction and fragmentation due to logging and other industrial incursion, the landscape has been altered into what he calls ‘modern ecosystems,’ where even more human intervention in the form of predator management is essential. In essence, Geist is saying that humans have degraded the habitat of ungulates to such a degree that they no longer can avoid predation as readily as they once did. And while avoiding the more difficult challenge of habitat restoration, he points to continuous predator management as the proper solution:

The absolutely precious lesson from our North American experience with wolves in the 20th century is that at low wolf-to-prey ratios, wolves grow into very large, shy specimens that shun humans while greatly enriching our landscape and quality of life. Control will be seen as essential to maintain wolves and robust big-game populations and minimize intrusions by wolves into human settlements.

Hmm, I suppose that is one way to frame it, but could it also be that if wolves are culled to the point of unnaturally “low wolf-to-prey ratios,” it is less a case of wolves becoming shy and more likely that due to their scarcity, encounters become much less frequent? Hunters have long blamed wolves and other predators for ungulate declines, which is likely why so many hunters appear gleeful when posing with predators they have killed. So it is not without irony that wolves have a target on their backs because of a human-caused problem while trophy hunters can claim to be practicing conservation while killing them.

Hunters proudly posing with their "trophies"

Bearing in mind that Geist co-authored NAM, it is not surprising that it reads more like a standards-of-practice manual for hunters that puts the greatest emphasis on maintaining higher ungulate populations to the detriment of predators. Not only does this put predators in the crosshairs, but it also completely ignores non-hunting groups with equal interests in nature and wildlife conservation. This lack of inclusivity was recognized in a paper written by Serfass et al. and published by Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management (CWBM) entitled, North American Model of Wildlife Conservation: Empowerment and Exclusivity Hinder Advances in Wildlife Conservation:

. . . (NAM) as currently promoted is an overly narrow construct, used both to explain North American wildlife conservation developed historically, and as a prescriptive framework for applying a hunting-focused form of wildlife conservation. We argue both constructs are problematic in that the complexities of traditional and historical roots of wildlife conservation are portrayed inadequately and selectively to overemphasize hunters’ contributions.

NAM’s philosophy suggests that hunting and conservation are one and the same. But the seven tenets of NAM point to it as being a management strategy for hunters rather than a model for conservation. It focuses solely on sustainable harvests ignoring any other intrinsic value wildlife may hold for non-hunters or as sentient beings as vital participants in maintaining balanced ecosystems. Serfass et al. went on to conclude that:

Depicting support and dedication to wildlife conservation as primarily within the domain of hunting establishes hunters as unique, preferred class of conservationists, serving to accentuate NAM’s exclusivity (e.g., One can only become a conservationist by becoming a hunter?), factual completeness (e.g., Are all hunters conservationists?), attribution (Have non-hunters not contributed to conservation?), and empowerment (e.g., Do hunters deserve preferential consideration in how wildlife is managed because they “pay for conservation?”). Preferential treatment serves to inhibit the development of a more inclusive and holistic form of wildlife governance by fostering “tribal” polarization between hunting and non-hunting wildlife stakeholders.

This exclusivity model is particularly dismissive of conservation contributions from non-hunting organization and contends that hunters, through licensing and gun sales are the main contributors to conservation funding efforts. As Serfass et al. writes, “Non-hunting-derived contributions that directly or indirectly support wildlife conservation are seldom or incompletely depicted in portrayals of NAM, serving to elevate the roles of hunters as conservationists and, through omission, undervaluing contributions made by non-hunters.” Serfass et al. goes on to list a number of these organizations which include: Defenders of Wildlife; National Audubon Society; The Nature Conservancy; and The Wilderness Society. And you can add dozens more to this list just within Western Canada: Exposed Wildlife Conservancy, Grizzly Bear Foundation, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, The Fur-Bearers, David Suzuki Foundation, Pacific Wild, Alberta Wilderness Association, CPAWS, Wildsight, and more.

The paper also contends that NAM is more a marketing strategy than a model for so-called conservation as it promotes hunting as the only effective way to fund and achieve meaningful conservation goals and poses the question, “Is the intent (of NAM) to promote a legitimate discussion about wildlife conservation or an effort to expand and generate acceptance for hunting as a conservation strategy?” That may appear to be a somewhat nuanced argument because in order for it to become widely adopted, NAM and hunting as the main component, would have to be promoted in some fashion. However, Serfass et al. explain that because there is little daylight between the goals of NAM and those of the hunting industry, ethical concerns arise insofar as promoting one serves to promote the other:

We do not object to promoting hunting, but are concerned if the underlying purpose of NAM is an unstated effort to serve that promotional effort. In particular, we have ethical concerns related to public servants - either directly or indirectly engaging in the promotion of a concept to a naive public, especially if the primary purpose is masked by accompanying, selective portrayals of benefits provided by hunters and hunting to wildlife conservation.

This covert marketing strategy by NAM has enabled numerous hunting organizations to promote themselves as conservationists paving the way for a massive propaganda campaign to win over public sentiment, which I explore in the next section.

The Propaganda Machine

Hunting organizations, particularly guide/outfitters and trophy hunters, have somehow managed to curate an image that presents themselves as championing wildlife and habitat protection. Never mind that the vast majority of hunters are conservative leaning and therefore support industries that are anything but environmentally friendly. So how have these organizations been able to sway a great many people into believing they are conservationists when their main purpose is to hunt and kill big-game ungulates as well as numerous predator species? The answer to that question is simple; the hunting industry has spent vast amounts of money on a carefully crafted campaign shedding their old image as ruthless hunters to that of nature’s philanthropists.

Let’s start with the names of some of these organizations. Very few are named for what they actually do; instead, they have come up with titles that signal wildlife stewardship and conservation. The British Columbia Wildlife Federation (BCWF), The Wild Sheep Foundation, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, The Foundation For Wildlife Management (F4WM) and The Safari Club Foundation are just a few of the names that come to mind. Do any of the above suggest that trophy hunting is their main purpose? For those not in the know, it would appear these are organizations dedicated to protecting wildlife and habitats which is completely by design. Yet, they all support and promote trophy hunting.

Take the BCWF for instance. The very first sentence that appears on their website is as follows, “We are British Columbia’s leading conservation organization, made up of volunteers who aim to protect, enhance and promote the wise use of our environment for the benefit of present and future generations.” That certainly seems like a worthy endeavour, but when one looks a little deeper into the website, it reveals an agenda that mainly promotes hunting activities while claiming to represent everyone’s interests in BC’s Wildlife. And professing to be BC’s leading conservation organization seems dubious, unless there was some sort of poll taken that I am unaware of.

What really gives them away is their all-out support of NAM. Specifically, they assert:

Hunters have been among the strongest advocates for wildlife. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is the world’s most successful system of policies and laws to safeguard fish and wildlife and their habitats through sound science and active management. We have watched a multitude of species brought back from the brink of extinction using this model. In just over 100 years, we have watched North American elk go from 40,000 to more than one million. We have watched whitetail deer skyrocket from 500,000 to over 30 million.

Just to recap, NAM looks at wildlife in terms of its utility for human purposes, with the primary purpose being hunting. It ignores the idea that these animals, as individuals, have agency and a desire to go on living. You may have noticed that the BCWF neglected to list any predator species in their conservation argument, and that is consistent among all of these organizations as they want to keep predator populations as low as possible in order for the big-game ungulate species to thrive.

Also worthy of dishonourable mention among these foundations is the F4WM whose sole purpose is to encourage the killing of wolves in Montana and will pay bounties to hunters and trappers for their kills. They are a constant source of misinformation, demonizing wolves as prolific elk killers and perpetrators of livestock depredation.

So what’s in a name, or more precisely, what is not?

Not so long ago, I happened upon a Facebook ad promoting an organization called, Who Cares BC. It is a website that appears to promote wildlife conservation and environmental stewardship. My first thought was, “Well, I care,” and decided this is something I need to support. However, upon scrolling further down the homepage, I learned that the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia (GOABC) was behind this movement. The first few sentences reveal what they are really about:

Outdated management practices are leading to a loss of diversity in our forests. Guides and outfitters who work in the back country are seeing depleted wildlife populations, loss of habitats and safe crossings, and a disrupted ratio of predators to prey. It doesn’t have to be this way.

“Disrupted ratio of predators to prey” is code for ‘let’s kill more predators so that there are more ungulates for us to hunt and kill.’ Yet, they won’t come right out and say that. Instead, they hide their intentions in a thinly veiled guise of conservationist dogma.

In a September 29, 2025 article in the Medium entitled, Rebranding Hunting: When Predator Control is Disguised as ‘Caring,’ the author, Gosia Bryja PhD, writes extensively about the Who Cares BC campaign and how it’s intentionally, but insidiously designed to mislead, as she writes:

Have you noticed how the most effective marketing campaigns don’t feel like marketing at all? They feel like movements. They wrap themselves in values so universal, so inherently good, that questioning them feels almost cruel. Increasingly, this is the strategy adopted by hunting organizations: wrapping their agendas in the language of stewardship and care to normalize hunting and killing as natural and necessary. The Who Cares BC campaign is one striking example of this approach. It is organized by a self-described “group of individuals who live and work primarily in rural British Columbia and care deeply about wildlife and the habitat it requires to survive.”

It is a gaslighting strategy not unlike the massive misinformation campaign perpetrated by media outlets like FOX News and Breitbart News in the United States (US). And by framing it in the way that they do, those who dare call them out on their deceptions, are branded as anti-conservationists. It is a brilliant way to sway public opinion in their favour and has proven effective at diverting attention from their actual agenda. As Bryja explains:

On the surface, the campaign is about caring for wildlife and protecting ecosystems. In reality, it reveals how environmental discourse can be hijacked by industry and hunting interests. It is a rhetorical sleight of hand by means of which genuine concern for nature is appropriated, packaged, and sold back to the public as something else entirely.

And so far it has been largely successful, with hunting and trapping associations widely adopting this strategy, but as Bryja deftly points out, it’s the details that matter. For instance, rather than using the term ‘hunting,’ which conjures of images of violence towards wildlife, GOABC uses the softer phrase ‘pro-sustainable use,’ which garners thoughts of stewardship and peaceful co-existence rather than those of dead animals with bullet holes in them.

If wildlife conservation and habitat protection really is the driving force of GOABC, then why not promote it under their own banner? Why create a new website and advertising campaign that is entirely separate from GOABC? Bryja contends that even the title ‘Who Cares BC’ was purposefully chosen and posed in the form of a question because they understand the only plausible answer for anyone reading it would be, “I do.” Framing the title in the form of a question that ensures the desired answer, provides cover and stifles opposition. “It is a verbal trap disguised as a simple question,” writes Bryja. “By asking ‘Who cares?’ and answering ‘BC,’ the campaign positions itself as the collective voice of all caring British Columbians. Disagree, and you risk being cast as someone who does not care about wildlife or the province’s natural habitats.”

What may be the most clever, yet concerning, aspect of Who Cares BC is how they have tethered themselves to other high-profile environmental issues and through this association, have fostered a sense of validation. Bryja calls out this covert strategy:

By placing hunting alongside clean air and water, the campaign makes it appear just as vital, just as natural, just as unquestionable. This is ethics-washing: a contested practice presented as morally neutral by embedding it among values no one would oppose. The effect is subtle but powerful. Hunting is no longer open to critical scrutiny.

Who Cares BC is also pushing the narrative that healthy habitats cannot be achieved without “protection from predators.” What they are not saying is that this protection comes by way of slaughtering predators, whether they be wolves, coyotes, bears, cougars and others. Yet, there is no mention of curtailing the predatory activities of hunters which account for thousands of ungulate deaths annually. Framing predator protection in the guise of conservation also provides cover for trophy hunters to target large predators without claiming to be trophy hunting. As Bryja explains:

Even the promise of “healthy ecosystems,” which sounds neutral and benign, is tied in the FAQ section to the lethal violence of predator control: “What wildlife needs is straightforward — healthy habitat and protection from predators.” It is an ecological contradiction. Predators are not separate from wildlife; they are wildlife with essential ecological roles. The campaign denies them these roles because predators’ abundant presence in the ecosystem renders prey species less abundant for hunters.”

GOABC is just one example of the many hunting organizations that wrap themselves in a cloak of conservation rhetoric. The intention to mislead is deliberate, and deliberately clandestine. It seems members of these associations have even convinced themselves they are conservationists and acting in the best interests of wildlife. The mental gymnastics required in order to come to that conclusion are impressive considering they eagerly kill the wildlife they profess to be conserving. Perhaps, it is as much an exercise of conscience cleansing as it is a strategy to influence public opinion. Yet even more impressive is how they have, in many instances, managed to flip the narrative portraying those opposed to the various forms of hunting as unhinged, uneducated and anti-conservationist.

If you don’t hunt, you don’t know

That about sums up how hunters view non-hunters. The hunting community is constantly working to position itself as the authority when it comes to shaping wildlife conservation policy while labelling those who disagree, as either misinformed or just plain ignorant. “Without hunting there would be no conservation, without conservation, there would be no wildlife.” This is a quote by Rob Keck, former Chief Executive Officer of the National Wild Turkey Foundation, a pro-hunting organization that claims to be conservationist. His words encapsulate how the hunting community uses verbal adhesive to bond conservation with hunting as if one cannot exist without the other. But again, the act of hunting and killing wildlife is incompatible with the concept of wildlife conservation.

Speaking out against this engrained hypocrisy, one risks drawing the eyre of the hunting community who often resort to down-and-dirty tactics designed to discredit or disparage. Many are just reactive, impulsive personal attacks from hunters, but there are those on the payroll of hunting associations, who make a concerted effort to target and discredit non-hunters who are unafraid to take a stand.

Mark Hall, Executive Director of Wild Origins Canada, an organization that lauds itself as conservation driven while promoting trophy hunting, is one such individual who seeks to discredit those who speak out against various hunting policies and practices. He does this in a pearl-clutching manner enabling him to avoid accountability for the assertions he puts forth. By presenting the hunting community as rational and thoughtful actors having to defend themselves against irrational, uninformed and potentially dangerous opposition, he is able to justify using anonymous sources due to potential, yet unverifiable, threats to their well being. The intention behind this strategy is two-fold; it avoids Hall having to back up his arguments and serves to further portray those opposed as unstable and prone to violence. However, Hall does not extend this courtesy to outspoken non-hunters as he seems to have no problem publicizing their names, despite them being at equal risk.

In a recent letter to the editor of the Rocky Mountain Outlook, entitled, ‘Cycle of Hate’ not part of Alberta’s hunting regulations, Hall writes:

We must be cautious not to conflate policy critique with personal vilification. The rise in hate-based rhetoric—whether directed at hunters, conservationists or policymakers—is part of a troubling global trend. As the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research’s “Cycle of Hate” research shows, fear and uncertainty can lead to scapegoating, and historical grievances may be weaponized to justify mistreatment. We’ve seen this play out in the Bow Valley and beyond, where individuals have faced threats and harassment related to ethical hunting and conservation.

This is one such example where Hall avoids providing evidence by claiming his sources face “threats and harassment related to ethical hunting and conservation.” Reading between the lines, that statement insidiously portrays hunters as having the moral high ground. To be clear, threats and harassment are not ever warranted from either side, but where is the evidence of those threats and whose standard is he referencing regarding what constitutes ethical hunting and conservation? Hall goes on to position himself as the voice of reason, writing:

We all care deeply about Alberta’s ecosystems and wildlife. But if we hope to preserve ecological integrity and foster meaningful dialogue, we must reject hate in all its forms. Conservation is not advanced through contempt—it requires collaboration, respect and a shared commitment to truth.

Here again, Hall is virtue signalling that he is a rational actor and a unifying voice in this often polarizing debate. However, when he speaks of a “shared commitment to truth,” it rings hollow as his past comments reveal a rather tepid commitment to veracity.

Rebuttal to the Rebuttal: Do Mark Hall’s criticisms bear up to scrutiny?, is the title of an article published last September in the Jasper Local, where author and wildlife biologist, Mark Bradley, pushes back on what Hall presents as facts regarding the use of hounds for black bear hunts. As part of his argument, Hall proclaims, “Ethics in hunting operate on three levels: legal norms; peer standards; and personal values. When all three align - as they do here - hunting with hounds is not only legal, but widely accepted in the hunting community and practiced with respect for wildlife.” Bradley’s response illustrates how Hall uses generalizations and makes statements as if they are universally accepted as he wrote:

Well… ethics are pretty subjective, and everyone sets their own bar. Legal norms? It’s now legal because the minister says it is. Peer standards? I guess this means that hunters approve of it? That could be, but what about everyone else? Personal values? Again, only those of hunters - and I suspect not even all hunters are in favour of this policy. In short, I don’t agree with Hall’s definition of ethical, which seems to be: ‘do hunters approve of it?’

I find the ‘legal norms’ argument particularly troubling considering that in some US states, it is legal to chase and run over wolves with snowmobiles, as is the use of neck snares to trap wolves in much of Canada despite it being intolerably cruel and contrary to the international regulatory body’s own trapping standards. These are a just two examples of legal norms being ethically and morally reprehensible. And even with ethics being subjective as Bradley suggests, it’s hard to imagine anyone making an ethical argument in favour of this brutality, subjective as it may be. However, I’m not at all certain they would be at odds with hunters’ “peer standards” and ‘“personal values” as many seem to revel in their hatred of wolves.

One of Hall’s more peculiar assertions suggests that biologists, despite their wildlife expertise, are less suited than hunters when it comes to understanding “hunting practices, bear behaviour under pursuit, or hound management.” Yet, in the same paragraph he goes on to contradict himself by suggesting, “Balanced advisory boards - comprising hunters, indigenous leaders, scientists and public representatives - are the best path forward.” On the one hand, Hall is minimizing biologists’ expertise, and on the other, he suggests that scientists (biologists are scientists) should be included as part of an advisory board. It is interesting to note that Hall also calls out photographers as lacking expertise, which can only be interpreted as an underhanded slight towards a particular photographer, who often voices his opposition to current predator management practices.

I have had a similar experience to Bradley’s when it comes to Hall’s propensity for making assertions without providing evidence. It is apparent to me that Hall’s mission is to promote hunting, in all its forms, as sound conservation strategy, by not just minimizing or outright dismissing any evidence to the contrary, but also to sully the reputations of those who disagree with him.

In an article I wrote and posted in my Substack newsletter back in June 2025 entitled, The Alberta Hunting Debate: Yes There is Truth, I went through each and every claim that Hall had made regarding the killing of a female cougar that resulted in two kittens becoming orphaned. Hall had written his own article that was meant to cast doubt on whether the cougar killed was actually the mother of the orphaned kittens in an attempt to shield the hunters from being held responsible as well as discredit photographer, John E. Marriott, who originally told the story. On numerous occasions, Hall presented statements as facts without providing corroborating evidence and would not name so-called experts citing safety concerns - his go-to reason for sidestepping accountability. Of the many claims made by Hall, one really stood out revealing his willingness to mislead, as he stated that no bounties were being paid to hunters for cougars killed in Alberta. Yet, on the Wild Sheep Foundation Alberta’s website is their “Cougar Program Requirements” page which provides details on how hunters will be paid for killing cougars with the dollar amount ranging from $1000.00 to $7000.00.

It is worth noting that Hall makes his living promoting trophy hunting by presenting it in a manner designed to make it more palatable to the public and garner more acceptance. Deliberately tying hunting to conservation is the strategy being employed by Hall and numerous others who represent hunting organizations. Presenting this softer image of hunting as an indispensable component of wildlife conservation and promoting hunters as wildlife stewards who care deeply for the wildlife they hunt and kill, is all part of a larger strategy for hunters to influence and shape hunting regulations in their favour.

There is no better example of how the hunting community can and has influenced hunting regulations and so-called conservation initiatives as is the case currently taking place in Alberta, Canada. The hunting lobby has not only influenced politicians in Alberta, they have actually installed one of their own who currently oversees wildlife, hunting and fishing. Todd Loewen, the former owner of Red Willow Outfitters (currently owned by his wife), is Minister of Forestry and Parks and his record to date as minister has been to roll back numerous wildlife protections to give hunters more opportunities to kill Alberta’s wildlife. And unsurprisingly, Hall is in lockstep supporting every new initiative, dismissing any opposition or concerns as emotional responses lacking credibility. Returning to Bradley’s article regarding the use of hounds to hunt black bears in Alberta, Hall defended Minister Loewen’s new regulations while minimizing Bradley’s argument stating that it “relies on emotional rhetoric, selective science, and mischaracterizations that deserve clarification.”

The “emotional rhetoric” argument is nothing new and frequently used by the hunting community to dismiss the concerns of non-hunters, as is suggesting that Bradley only refers to “selective science.” Yet, hunters often declare their love for hunting and talk about the excitement and adrenaline involved when they kill an animal. Love, excitement and adrenaline are all associated with emotions, but perhaps even more powerful is hate, which hunters readily express with regard to wolves and coyotes.

“Got ’em. . . I got ‘em; I got a wolf,” exclaims Randy Newberg, an American hunter, his voice trembling as he is overcome with joy and elation after having just shot and killed a wolf while deer hunting. Click on this link and play the video to bear witness to the intensity of his emotion right after the kill and decide whether this hunter’s emotions play any roll in his hunting pursuits.

As for selective science, it would be irresponsible for Bradley not to be selective when applying science and scientific data to back up his argument. If the science is sound and stands up to scrutiny, the notion of selectivity is irrelevant. If Hall has an issue with the science, then why not point out the so-called scientific inconsistencies rather than taking issue with the person citing the science?

Another strategy employed by the hunting community is to try to silence opposition. In a March 2018 op ed in Outdoor Canada Magazine, entitled, The Single Best Way to Thwart Anti-hunting Trolls on Social Media, TJ Schwanky (I know I could, but I won’t) wrote, “I understand it’s fun poking holes in their uninformed arguments, but they don’t care. All they seek is a platform to spout their rhetoric, and if we give it to them, it can easily blow up into a mainstream media story and possibly jeopardize the future of hunting.”

Referring to opposition as collectively uninformed and using loaded language such as ‘spouting rhetoric’ reveals Schwanky’s disdain towards those he labels as ‘anti’s.’ From his own soapbox, he promotes the idea of silencing dissenting voices by not engaging with them. In other words, he believes open dialogue with differing viewpoints is a bad idea when it comes to preserving their trophy-hunting way of life. And while Schwanky is openly hostile to those opposed to trophy hunting, he declared that hunters have been, and always will be, wildlife’s salvation:

As hunters, we should be proud of what we do. After all, the ongoing conservation of the planet’s wildlife depends on us. We shouldn’t hide on social media, but instead spend our time spreading the facts about hunting—not inadvertently boosting the voice of the anti’s.

Schwanky argues that it is actually “anti’s” that discriminate based on species, referring to the killing of a cougar by another prominent trophy hunter, declaring, “It was really no different from a hunter legally killing a whitetail—except that the hunting of large predators seems to evoke some pretty strong emotions in people, especially anti-hunters.” I would agree with Schwanky that there is no difference if they were both being hunted for the same reason. What Schwanky fails to comprehend is that it is trophy hunting that people object to, regardless of the species. And really, when you think about it, trophy hunting is about the most senseless and cruel activity imaginable. Adults, predominantly white men, entertaining themselves by looking for animals to kill so they can mount heads on a wall. . . Ridiculous.

So how does this benevolent portrayal of hunting and hunters acting in the best interests of wildlife translate into reality? The next section pokes holes in this notion as well as how hunters discriminate based on species.

Conservation Perversion & Species Discrimination

“Fawns have a tough first couple of weeks of life. They are the most vulnerable during these weeks. This hunter killed this coyote that was actively eating this fawn. Shoot a coyote, save a fawn.” This was the caption accompanying the photo below uploaded to Facebook from a pro-hunting website.

Catch phrases, such as “shoot a coyote, save a fawn” are commonly used by hunters to intentionally vilify and persecute predators while purposefully conflating predator killing with conservation. It is deliberately meant to evoke an emotional response to predators targeting new-born animals. Yet, this has always been nature’s way of maintaining balance. Newly-hatched turtles scurry out into the ocean where only a very small percentage survive the gauntlet of sharks and other predators waiting just off shore. Polar bears hunt seal pups; lions prey upon wildebeest calves; cougars target deer fawns, big horn lambs and mountain goat kids; and wolves prey upon elk calves and deer fawns. It is only humans that target the most robust animals as ‘trophies,’ leading to a whole array of negative consequences, not the least of which, is removing the strongest and most dominant animals from the gene pool.

What you won’t ever see posted by hunters though, are pictures of baby seals being clubbed to death or domestic calves being slaughtered for veal. Why? Because those acts of brutality are perpetrated by humans and undermines their argument. Let’s not forget, that hunting regulations in numerous jurisdictions have doe, fawn, elk cow and calf seasons. And hunters aren’t above killing wolf pups either having been legally empowered to do so by some US politicians, including Paul Fielder, a Republican representative in Montana, who stated when asked about wolf management, “When I spray the hornets’ nest, I don’t only spray the adults. I spray the larvae too.”

Disproportionately targeting predators is a perversion of the concept and meaning of wildlife conservation. Portraying predators as brutal killers that can wipe out entire ungulate herds while at the same time, characterizing hunters as altruistic conservationists acting in the best interests of wildlife, is just another component of the overall propaganda campaign to further their own goals of maximizing hunting opportunities.

Setting aside the obvious hypocrisy, does the manner in which hunting organizations describe their members - as conservation driven and having respect for all wildlife - comport with their actions in the field? The images below suggest otherwise. (WARNING - graphic images of dead and tortured wildlife)

As difficult as these images are to look at, it is necessary to include them to expose the cruel mindset of many hunters in order to provide some perspective when it comes to their claims of being conservation focused. It also reveals that for some hunters, it’s not enough to just kill them, they feel the need to inflict indignities upon slain predators, and in the case of the photo of the live wolf, torment it relentlessly before finally killing it.

Hunters will certainly dismiss the above photos as anomalies and maintain that most hunters are ethical with their hunting activities. But as Bradley mentioned in his article, ethics are subjective. There are literally thousands of pictures online revealing joyful hunters with their slain predators in submissive poses. Below are a few more so you can judge for yourself.

Dead predators on display proudly posted by their killers

And speaking of hunting ethics. . .

Conservation Conversation

So to wrap up then, does the hunting community deserve a voice in the conservation conversation? The short answer is yes they do, but the more important question is should their collective voice be amplified to the extent that it drowns out all other voices with equally valid concerns regarding conservation ideology and policy. Sadly, the hunting community continues to orchestrate an all-out effort to mute the voices of all those who stand in the way of some of the more questionable hunting practices. By referring to NAM as the gold standard for conservation, combining it with pro-hunting propaganda campaigns, while purposefully labelling all opposition as inexperienced, ignorant and overly emotional, they have created a trifecta of misinformation that has been very effective in the public domain.

If the hunting community wants to keep NAM as the guiding principles to inform hunting practice, then by all means do so, but let’s not continue to confuse it with a comprehensive conservation model when it is, at best, a standards-of-practice manual for hunters as described earlier. It is long overdue that a conservation model be developed that is inclusive of all interests in wildlife - one that is less about wildlife as a resource to be exploited, and more about individual species playing vital roles in maintaining ecological balance and healthy habitats. Conservation policy must also recognize wildlife as sentient beings with desires of their own and must not create a hierarchy of species based on their value as it relates to hunting or other harvesting practices.

Back in the 80’s or 90’s - I’m not exactly sure when - there was an anti-drug advertisement on television that went something like this, “I do coke, so I can work more hours, so I can make more money, so I can do coke.” It was repeated over and over again to reveal the flawed thinking that keeps people in active addiction. When applied to the hunters’ idea of conservation, it would go more like, “I kill predators, so there will be more ungulates, so I can kill more ungulates, so I kill more predators.” Sound conservation? - I think not.

There is little doubt the hunting community will label me as an anti-hunter because of this article, so I will conclude with a personal anecdote from long ago. It may come as a surprise that I actually grew up in a hunting family. My dad was an avid trophy hunter, and I was conditioned throughout my childhood that hunting and killing wildlife was normal. Desperately seeking his approval, I would often go hunting with him, and on my 18th birthday, he bought me a Browning 308 lever-action rifle. I somehow convinced myself that I would be okay with the idea of getting out in the wilderness and bagging my first deer.

That day came one very stormy morning in the mid 1980’s as my brother and me headed north from Campbell River, on Vancouver Island, to Menzies Mountain, about a 45-minute drive. It was still dark and quite cold as we made our way down the pot-holed logging road in my Chevy S10. Rain and sleet pelted the windshield reducing the visibility. The road was narrow and overgrown as branches brushed the sides and roof of my truck leaving alder leaves and conifer needles stuck to the metal and glass. The wipers were entirely ineffective at shedding the water making it difficult to see the road, let alone any animals that may have been nearby. As daylight slowly brightened our path, we were able to see further down the road. My brother volunteered to drive because this was my day to shoot my first deer.

The rain continued to pound the truck offering only short glimpses of clarity through the windshield with each pass of the wipers. As we rounded a corner, a startled deer darted further up the road, but then stopped. I quickly removed the scope covers from my rifle and crept quietly out of the truck. The deer stayed put. I raised the rifle and peered through the scope. “Damn it, it’s fogged up,” I said quietly to my brother. I quickly wiped the glass and took another look. Still fogged up but less so, I was able to make out that the deer had antlers. I was in business. I loaded the clip, put a bullet in the chamber, took off the safety and aimed. My nervousness made it difficult to hold the rifle steady, but when I figured I had the shot, I slowly squeezed the trigger and fired. The deer immediately ran off, but I was sure I hit him, so I gave pursuit. I found it a short distance away just off the road. I was just a few metres away and again took aim. Staring back at me as I peered through the scope was this terrified deer in obvious pain. I fired again and it slumped to the ground, dead.

My excitement instantly turned to regret but I kept up the facade, not wanting my brother to see my anguish. No one ever knew how distraught I was and I continued to go on hunting trips with my dad, my brother and my hunting friends, but I never shot another deer. To this day, over 40 years later, I can see that deer staring back at me like it happened yesterday. I wasn’t hunting for food; I was hunting to gain acceptance and to have a feeling of belonging. I wanted to impress my dad and my brother, but all I accomplished was to needlessly end the life of a young deer.

I eventually stopped going on hunting trips altogether and embraced my passion and love for wildlife, rather than trying to become something I was not. I was no longer willing to pretend that these animals could be reduced to mere trophies, instead of sentient beings just wanting to live. What I learned about becoming a hunter, is you have to compartmentalize and shut out that part of you that has empathy for other living creatures. I was unable to and remain forever grateful.

“Some hunters insist that they love the animals they pursue and kill. (Wolves are the most prominent exception, hated by many as the incarnation of evil.) Does the hunter’s alleged “love” for a cougar or bear he or she intends to kill justify the killing? No. Such claims are probably sincere, but they mask a deep confusion. More likely, the sentiment is admiration that is mistaken for love. In any case, it is patently obvious, upon reflection, that the alleged love of the quarry pursued by the trophy hunter is really self-love that is both inflated and masked through self-identification of the hunter with the defeated quarry. If the defeated quarry is loved, the love is secondary to and dependent upon the ego-gratification obtained by conquering and destroying it. And the greater the challenge (or the perceived challenge), the greater the conqueror is presumed to be.”
- Kirk Robinson -