Organizations that are Actually Pro-Hunting
An Environmental Article from


Anthony Marr, Founder, H.O.P.E. - Heal Our Planet Earth
February 2008

Tons of animal-loving anti-hunting donors' hard-earned money and heart-given donations are pumped into pro-hunting and downright hunting organizations with names like the Aududon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, theNature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, to name just a few.

Fellow animal advocates and activists:

When I was a campaigner of Western Canada Wilderness Committee fighting the British Columbia Wildlife Federation on the bear hunting issue, many people were puzzled as to why two groups "on the same side" were fighting one another (see my top blogs in and the Anti-Trophy-Hunting section of HOPE-CARE). The matter was actually quite simple. I referred to the BC Wildlife Federation as the BC Hunters' Club. Clear enough?

The same is happening in the United States. Tons of animal-loving anti-hunting donors' hard-earned money and heart-given donations are pumped into pro-hunting and downright hunting organizations with names like the Aududon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, theNature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, to name just a few. (At least the Safari Club International, the quintessential big-game hunters' club, of which both Presidents Bush, and VP Cheney on down, are members, is more honest with its self-indicting nomenclature.) Not only are vast financial resources injected into these imposter groups from the innocent animal-loving public, but the AR and AW movements are deprived of these same resources in the process, so the damage done to the AR/AW movement is doubled.

Tips to keep in mind when deciding on which organization(s) to support:

To help us understand the situation, let me start from the quintessential hunter himself, who often holds high positions in these hunt clubs and imposter groups, as well as government.

  1. His most primal motivation is to kill animals for entertainment and, to perpetuate their "culture" and "tradition", to teach their offspring, as young as 3, to kill for fun.

  2. He prides himself of being the "true wildlife conservationist", when his true motive, even if he ends up conserving some species, is to have more of that species to hunt next year, not to preserve nature for its own sakes to perpetuity as lived by real wildlife preservationists.

  3. He "harvests" the most magnificent specimen of any given species, fully knowing, yet disregarding, that this would diminish the quality of that species over time. All he cares about is to have the biggest trophy in his rec-room, perhaps as a compensation for his personal shortcomings which he would certainly not hang on the wall.

  4. He regards the natural predators, such as cougar, bear and wolf, as competitors for deer, elk and moose, and seeks to exterminate them by any means necessary, including involving these pseudo-conservation groups and imposter groups in the process. They of course enjoy killing all animals, including, perhaps especially, the predators.

  5. He wants as many deer (being the main prey by far, plus elk and moose and others) to hunt as possible. Eradicating the predator species is one means to this end. They also artificially feed deer in the wild (in the form of feed plots), for the express purpose of cultivating as large a deer population for hunting purposes as possible.

  6. He and his political and industrial cronies then complain bitterly and loudly to the public that there is a deer overpopulation problem from coast to coast, and that deer must be and need be hunted in large numbers, and urban and suburban deer culled by bow hunters (among others like sharpshooters and captive bolters), to "protect the public" from deer-vehicle accidents (DVAs) across the land, and horticultural damage in residents' gardens.

  7. He makes it sound as if he is doing the public a favor, but the truth of the matter is that first, he is the origin of the deer population problem, and second, the direct cause of DVAs. Call any major insurance company and it will tell you that the largest number of DVA claims occur during the deer hunting season, with a sharp spike on the opening day of the season. Deer are usually prudent and cautious while approaching any open space, such as a glade or a roadway. But on the opening day, they dash across the road to escape from the hunters in the woods.

  8. Whereas there exists a broad range of non-lethal and humane strategies, tactics, methods and technologies, including several proven categories of immunocontraception techniques (and the new concept of the Deer Auto-Conveyor - DAC - see - deer section), which in combination can easily replace and displace the lethal methods. For this very reason, immunocontraception is by-and-large not permitted by the hunter-dominated governments in the vast majority of states.

  9. The reason for the governments making pro-hunting policy as a rule is that most of the wildlife-oriented decision-makers in government are themselves hunters and their cronies. This is an artificial situation, dictated by laws and rules and regulations created by hunters, for hunters. Things cannot be more glaring than in such examples as the NJ Fish and Game Council filling itself with hunters by means of the archaic Title 13 which requires that at least 7 of the 11 voting members must be hunters. States like PA and others have similar rules.

  10. The hunters, hunter groups, imposter groups and the hunting industry are immensely rich and powerful (partly due to the misdirected donations from the deceived public) that most politicians, from the president on down, have become their puppets.

All in all, the prevailing situation in most states is that less than 6 or 7 percent of their populations hunt, but hunters and pro-hunters have the inside track in most if not all political decisions where wildlife management is concerned. The small minority calls the shots. In this context, American democracy is a joke.

To all potential donors: Please protect your well earned dollars by first making a phone call to the organizations you intend to donate to:

  1. What is your position on hunting?

  2. What is your overhead? An overhead of 30% means that 30% of your donation will go to administration (including in some cases very high salaries) and real estate acquisition and maintenance, etc., and only 70 cents out of a dollar actually go to the animals. In general, a donation made to a strong grassroots group will go much farther in producing real results on the ground level than to a giant national organization.

Anthony Marr, Founder
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)

Return to Environmental Articles