What Is the Bigger Threat to Hunting: Urban Sprawl or Politics

Despite many of the wrongful accusations against hunters, typically about animal cruelty, most are considered conservationists. Through licensing, population control, and even inherent beliefs, hunters support national and global conservation efforts. However, it is getting more challenging to participate in the practice because of politics and urban sprawl.

Politicians and the Guise of Animal Welfare or Rights

It is no surprise that politicians will hitch their opinions and beliefs to the most popular agenda or the issue most likely to get them elected. In more liberal-leaning areas, the politics do not favor the hunter. Many liberal-leaning individuals believe hunting is an animal welfare or rights issue and consider the act of hunting immoral.

Fortunately, while politics can occasionally get in the way of hunting or make the activity more challenging, there are politicians on both sides of the argument. Having a balanced political spectrum is not something you see much of anymore, but there seems to be equal representation when it comes to hunting.

While every person is entitled to their opinions, it is necessary to point out that hunting is conservation. Without hunters, prey would overpopulate, causing ecological problems. There are not enough apex predators to control the population independently, meaning humans must step in and help. However, regardless of how sound the argument in support of hunting, you will always have those who argue against it.

Urban Sprawl and the Overpopulation of the Human Species

Urban sprawl is likely the greatest threat to hunting. As the human population continues to grow, cities expand, eliminating natural habitats. Forests, wetlands, marshes, and so much more are being destroyed acre by acre. 

Species are more threatened by human population and advancement than hunters. As the country continues to put pressure on infrastructure expansion and ignore the needs of the natural environment, wildlife will continue to struggle, and it is not at the hands of hunters.

Essentially, urbanization will reduce hunting in a region, but it is not for the betterment of wildlife. Instead, increased housing is reducing and eliminating essential habitats, forcing wildlife to migrate or perish.

Conservation and the Need for Change

Hunting is not the enemy to conservation. The human need to expand is more abusive to wildlife in hindsight. The drive for family and housing is ultimately the cause of animal displacement. 

When speaking of animal welfare and rights, it is unjust to blame hunters for neglect or abuse. A hunter is essential to wildlife management and control. They give back to the environment they cultivate. How do non-hunters, those living in ever-expanding cities, work to protect the environment? Hunters, survivalists, and preppers are more likely to live off the land and in harmony with nature than most who attack hunting as an archaic process.

Urban sprawl and politics interfere more with nature than a hunter ever could. The worst part is, the intention of the politician or city planner is typically power or profit; a hunter only wants to participate in the tradition. Where do you land in the debate against hunting? Do you believe it is an act of conservation or malice? Also, what do you think is the more significant threat to the activity: urban sprawl or politics? Leave a comment, and keep the conversation going. Your input provides insight into future topics.