Thanks, and I appreciate the clarification. I agree that most of us associate Ducks Unlimited with hunting. If there is a time when I have some property to restore, I would definitely employ DU on a non-hunting swath of land, knowing this particular fact.

But let me ask you this: How can we get more non-hunting fees levied on non-hunters — for non-hunting habitat restoration? It’s difficult for a non-hunter to support DU, knowing that at least some of my contributions will go toward hunting pursuits. For those of us who don’t particularly relish this outcome, it’s a Catch-22.

I know that I and other photographers, not to mention birders and wildlife observers, would be happy to pay for restorations on which hunting was not permitted. I feel the balance is tipped toward hunting by virtue of the funds Fish and Game, for instance, collects from hunters and must use in the context of hunting.

If the same taxes/fees were put on camera equipment, scopes and so forth, I’d venture to say that public funding of lands would exceed those monies collected from hunters. And if those of us who don’t particularly care for hunting could ensure funding of habitat restoration on sanctuaries that were genuinely sanctuaries for these birds, there would be people who did contribute.

The inherent problem with this comment is that for someone like me who doesn’t particularly relish the violence of gunfire as perpetrated on animals and on public land — and witnessing the various killed and injured waterfowl on these lands (for me, that’s many, many incidents over many years) — I find the idea of hunting and peaceful wildlife activities to be incompatible.

I’m a wildlife photographer and spend all of my free time in the wetlands and in wildlife habitat. I’m always shooting with a super-long lens so as to be unobtrusive as possible, to observe animals in their more natural behaviors. I’m immersed in their life cycles year round as a respectful observer.

When hunting seasons roll around, I find it nearly impossible to reconcile the simultaneous destruction of the birds and animals I’ve come to appreciate and know quite well. It’s a personal thing, but I’m just illustrating how the goal of shared lands is often at cross purposes. I can’t even take a walk along many wetland trails around San Francisco Bay without being reminded of the carnage occurring nearby on those same birds, by virtue of the resonating shots.

So, for the better part of fall and winter, I’m relegated to lands where the animals aren’t hunted. Or have to be careful about where I go and on what days. The most beautiful and pristine areas to view ducks, as one example, are damned near impossible to bear with some of the hunting activities I’ve had to witness. They’re not all as neat and tidy and respectable as many would like to believe. And areas like Gray Lodge and Cosumnes are so inundated with hunters, it’s almost impossible to be around the animals, they are so skittish from nearby gunfire.

You mention kayakers as well. I was walking last winter up at Cosumnes Preserve. Although there is generally no hunting there, I didn’t realize how close the hunting areas were across the river. I passed a blind with some rambunctious young duck hunters, threatening kayakers who were legally sharing the waterways. And they were taking potshots in a way that did not constitute anything close to what I would deem ethical in terms of the waterfowl. (This was a legitimate incident and the kayakers did register a frantic complaint if you want to check the authenticity of my story.)

A photographer friend I know along the Central Coast who photographs primarily from his kayak, has had incidents there with waterfowl hunters objecting to his presence on the water — even though he has perfect right to be where he is. A friend of mine who leads birding groups had to leave a public land area because of the aggressive stance of some hunters. And, need it be mentioned, that we’re not the ones carrying guns.

So, I can see how you might view these pursuits as compatible, but in real world applications, they often are not. Regretfully so, for those of us who find ourselves closed out of areas like Grizzly Island, where only hunters can go.

From a personal level, however, it isn’t so cut and dry, and we hunters could be trying to explain how we preserve one minute only to kill the next for years to come.

I still liked the post, though, and thought it was very well put together. And Falconry really intrigues me, but I’ll keep my questions to myself for now:)

You brought this up in a conversation once recently and you’ve gotten me thinking about it a lot. (And I saw it again today in the NYT’s review of a book about Roosevelt – “And he delves into the philosophical contradictions inherent in a man whose Darwinian thinking led him both to revere and kill the same creatures” – as if Roosevelt’s somehow an odd duck).

It’s one of those fundamental issues that non-hunters find hard to reconcile – loving and killing the same animals – and that hunters find hard to articulate to non-hunters’ satisfaction.

I keep trying, mostly out there in little comment threads here and there on the internet. When I find an answer that really resonates, I’ll be sure to let you know… Mostly, though, I just get uneasy responses.