Hunting to preserve life. It seems contradictory, doesn’t it? After all, the words “killing” and “conservation” in any dictionary would serve as antonyms to each other. Even if the typical person were to stray from the trodden path of ideas, it would still be challenging to consider the two concepts as synonymous. However, a farmer and hunting guide from Northern Utah (for the sake of this article, let’s call him James) that I interviewed has a different light to shed on the subject. James has been a hunting guide and outfitter for over 20 years and doesn’t hesitate to provide some helpful background information on the history of hunting and how it turned into what it is today.

Essentially, due to our history of environmentally detrimental behavior, the act of regulated, private hunting has become a necessary component of preserving future species and habitats. Back when Europe was colonizing America, Europeans ventured on a path of destruction as a means of business, whereas Native Americans hunted for survival.

Through the gradual introduction of new crops as a means of trade, a chain reaction was induced that established an entirely new set of problems in the Americas. Take, for example, the infamous fur trade that lasted between 1670 and 1870. While it was good business for the men who ran it, it nearly decimated beaver populations.

If we take a closer look at the fur trade and some recent activities undertaken in the United States, such as fracking and the mass-breeding of cows in the meat industry, we can quickly discern a purely human pattern. Theodore Roosevelt, president from 1901 to 1909, summed it up nicely when he said, “Our problem is that we think our resources to be inexhaustible.” Roosevelt was known as the “conservationist president,” as he set aside over 230 million acres of American land to be used as National Parks during his presidency.

“Our problem is that we think our resources to be inexhaustible.”

Theodore Roosevelt

As James speaks of Roosevelt, there’s a great deal of admiration in his voice. He highlights parts of Roosevelt’s character and actions that, though not widely known to the general public necessarily, vastly contribute to the hunting debate. Teddy himself was, in fact, “an avid hunter in his time” as James puts it. “But,” he clarifies, “his philosophy wasn’t to just go out and shoot, but to hunt for mature animals who have lived a good portion of their life spans.” Teddy promoted this doctrine through the “Boone and Crockett Club” in 1887 which has become an organization dedicated to “Fair Chase,” or, responsible, sustainable hunting. This particular method is a reflection of James’s business and how he runs it. Unfortunately, however, his operation and the personal dogmas make up a “minority” of hunters.

I ask him how he achieved this state of mind, and he says his opinions “have changed over the years.” His dad was a hunter from a low-income family who needed to hunt for survival, and the practice was passed down to him. While his dad favored big game hunting, however, James became intrigued by birds, a passion that led him around the world. Through his adventures, he observed how sport hunting is done in other places. He describes what it’s like in Mexico, where there’s minimal wildlife protection.

James assures me that there are laws in Mexico; they’re just not enforced. Rich Americans will travel there looking to hunt and have a good time, so Mexican hunting guides over hunt duck populations to ensure the happiness of these Americans so they can feed their families when they get home. For example, he illustrates the topic of Pacific Black Brant Geese in Obregon, Mexico. These birds will take a 2,000-mile journey from Cold Bay, Alaska to nest and raise their young. In the 1990s, especially, this created a heyday for hunters because the fresh water provided an abundance of waterfowl. The excess hunting, unfortunately, hurts their populations.

Along with Mexico, James discusses the Northeast coast of Newfoundland where they “use every part of the animal” because they are forced to kill to survive. While this prevents waste, one would be ignorant to assume it conserves species. These people also over hunt. Yes, they need the food to survive, but the people of Newfoundland are also notorious for seal clubbing. Here is an example of a situation that those opposed to hunting would have a reasonable argument over—as it is a demonstration of hunting without regulation.

“There are assholes: people with no personal connection to the animal they’re hunting, and people who make business calls right after a kill.”

For James, seeing all of these different things has drastically altered his point of view over the years. In his business, he sets a limit to the amount of game one can bring home according to state and federal laws. I ask what kinds of customers he typically guides; he mentions that “there are assholes: people with no personal connection to the animal they’re hunting, and people who make business calls right after a kill.” He discusses how he works for people in business who don’t even know that ducks fly. While there are those types, however, there also exists “ethical, spiritual hunters grateful for the opportunity to survive.” He details his operation for me: “If you injure an animal and it gets away, you’re done.” He then said, “When you’re a paid killer, you have to set your own rules.”

While the act of killing an animal is painful because it takes away life, it has become a necessity. He mentions the explosion of snow geese populations from the 1970s to the ’90s due to agricultural surplus throughout the Midwest. These geese nest in the Tundra, raise their young, and fly south to find food to care for them. With the excess in agriculture, such as corn and wheat, there was a higher survival rate of the goslings. The population of the geese eventually grew significantly, and, because they’re impeccably smart, they bred more and destroyed the Tundra, thus threatening other bird species.

We, as humans, cause the excess in the  number of geese, which ultimately affects other species negatively. We need to cooperate to control special populations while at the same time preventing their destruction. It’s all about balance, which we seem nearly incapable of achieving due to our ignorance toward “inexhaustible” resources, as Roosevelt said.

If there is a lesson to be learned or a new perspective to gain, it is “being responsible for our own actions,” as James puts it. He advises, “leave it better than you found it.” He believes that we should “take a little and give a lot.” If we utilize our planet resourcefully and give back to it, we will be awarded in the end with a home sustainable for all living creatures. We shouldn’t have to hunt to control a special excess that we cannot control. James insists that he “is not the judge” but maintains that “every human in this world takes something. It’a matter of what we give back to it.”

If there is a lesson to be learned or a new perspective to gain, it is “being responsible for our own actions,” as James puts it. He advises, “leave it better than you found it.”

He leaves me with a story from his day that started at 4 a.m. He was raking hay among large bailers and semi-trucks. As the sun rose to inflame the field in a brilliant orange, he saw a dark object some yards away. It was a baby antelope, maybe a day old. She, as James explains, was born four months too late for the breeding season. Her only chance of survival was to lay there and wait for her mom to return. James picked her up and put her in his truck, drove around for a little while, and fed her a baby bottle of goat’s milk under the shade of a tree by his house for a few hours to keep her safe. As his workday ended, he drove back to the field and put the antelope back where he found it, nourished and not dead from one of the trucks, bailers, or a predator. Once he put her back, the mom found the baby again. James says, in other words, that “man can have an influence.” It just has to be a good one.