Ask hunters and they will tell you that they pay for conservation. Ask an anti-hunter and they will say that it's merely a tax we wouldn't need if we didn't hunt. Which is right? You be the judge.
This video is a great compilation of basic speaking points on both sides of the argument. Rarely can you find a debate that is civil when it comes to our rights as hunters. Perhaps this was so civil because it is outtakes, but it still gets the points across.
Emotion is not missing from the debate, but here, it is leveled. In real life, it is a controversy that is fraught with emotion and beliefs. Both sides accuse the other of deception and misrepresentation. Which one is right?
Whichever side you happen to lean towards, the basic truth remains. Hunters and other outdoorsmen do indeed pay for the majority of conservation. When we look at conservation from a scientific standpoint, it is without doubt. However, emotion will always muddy the waters no matter your stance.
For most outdoorsmen, the debate threatens a way of life. For most anti-hunting groups, the same debate threatens a belief system strongly held. An old saying always comes to mind when discussing these deeply dividing topics, "You catch more flies with honey".