|The Green Hunter(Courtesy:nacexpo.net)|
But apparently, it isn't. Mac said in his blog:
"Hunters and their organizations like to champion themselves as conservationists who love nature and the outdoors because fees and taxes on guns and hunting licenses go toward government conservation and wildlife agencies."But that's just the partial story. The complete and real one, in Mac's words are:
"these organizations' primary goals are not to maintain biodiversity or advocate in the best interests of parks and animals, but rather to ensure game populations for the benefit of hunters...The money contributed by hunters doesn't help the environment, it simply gives hunting groups more bargaining power to dictate wildlife policy. ."How can the hunters then only be blamed for violating the environmental and wildlife code, if the stakeholders of conservation are themselves championing the hunters' cause by ensuring game populations for their benefit? Neither, the hunters nor such conservationalists have the right to call themselves "environmentalists". They are both helping each other to destroy the forests, in the name of protecting it!
Yes, through selling of the guns, money is coming in. But the money is being utilised to commercialize "destructive" forest activities like hunting. That makes forest popular and touristic attractions for the wrong reasons. Would that be an "environmentalist" intention?
|The common people can be environmentalists. Where then is the need to depend on revenue from guns?(courtesy:artaban.7.wordpress)|
Forests might be promoted. But there's a difference between promoting them ecologically and commercially. Those who do the former(ecological), play an active role in safeguarding the interests of the forest creatures and plants and preserve them for the future generations. They are the environmentalists. The others simply aren't.