When faced with the ecological horrors of animal agriculture, some look to hunting as an escape—as the environmentally friendly way to put meat on the table. This chapter explores the environmental effects of hunting, exposing a handful of myths that help to make this sport appear to be environmentally friendly, animal friendly, socially acceptable—even morally exemplary. As noted, this book is written specifically for those who have a choice as to what they eat. This book is not a criticism of those who truly have few dietary options (for example, due to affordability or lack of availability). . . .For millennia men dreamed of acquiring absolute mastery over nature, of converting the cosmos into one immense hunting ground. . . . . . .—HORKHEIMER AND ADORNO 2 4 8 . . . In the United States, wildlife conservation was established by hunters for hunters because of hunters. In the late 19th century, Theodore Roosevelt complained that commercial hunters had decimated wildlife—that a comparatively small population of “market” hunters profited while the nation was stripped of hunter-target species (S. Fox 123). To address these concerns, he founded the Boone and Crockett Club (BCC) in 1897, with the following mission: “[T] o promote the conservation and management of wildlife, especially big game, and its habitat, to preserve and encourage hunting and to maintain the highest ethical standards of fair chase and sportsmanship in North America” (“About the B & C Club”). “Conservation” is a utilitarian, human-centered term promoting the protection of wildlife and wilderness for human use. Accordingly, the BCC promoted laws protecting “every citizen’s freedom to hunt and fish,” and established wildlife as “owned by the people and managed in trust for the people by government agencies” (“About the B & C Club”). As a result of the BCC, the U.S. government was placed in charge of managing wildlife on behalf of hunters.
Wildlife conservation and management in China: achievements, challenges and perspectives
