RECREATION OR CONSERVATION…OR PERHAPS BOTH?

Ideologues at one end of the spectrum claim that hunting is a critical conservation tool. Ideologues at the other end dismiss hunting as a recreational bloodsport. The truth — as is so often the case — lies somewhere in between.

Deer can have real ecological impacts in parts of Australia. But they are not universally destructive, nor is recreational hunting universally ineffective. What is lacking in the current discourse is honesty about motivation, clarity about outcomes, and respect across ideological lines.

The reality is that while deer hunting can have conservation benefits, these are generally incidental, not intentional — and that exaggerated claims on both sides of the debate are doing more harm than good.

Deer Impacts: Real, but Variable

Wild deer — including sambar, fallow, red, rusa and chital — are now widespread in south-eastern Australia. In high-density deer can have negative environmental impacts such as:

– Trampling and over-browsing native vegetation and groundcover

– Damaging wetlands and riparian zones, degrading water quality and damaging habitat for amphibians and invertebrates

These impacts are location and density dependent. In many areas, deer densities remain low, and their environmental impact is benign, minimal or tolerable. Emerging research suggests that there are even areas in Australia where the presence of wild deer may even be beneficial, replacing the functions of relatively recently extinct megafauna.

Some landholder’s welcome deer as a recreational or meat resource, or as a mechanism to realise a relatively passive supplementary income scheme through hunting tourism.

Overgeneralising deer as uniformly destructive obscures opportunities for targeted, pragmatic responses and undermines credibility when collaborative management is needed most.

The Economic and Social Value of Hunting

For many Australians, particularly in rural Victoria, deer hunting is a cultural institution. According to the Victorian Government’s 2020 report, Economic Contribution of Recreational Hunting, deer hunting:

– Supports over 1,100 jobs

– Generates $142 million annually

– Is a major contributor to regional economies

– Provides benefits such as physical activity, mental health, family connection, and outdoor skills development

These are not trivial benefits — and they must be weighed alongside negative impacts.

Hunting fosters connection to nature and can instil a strong land ethic, even if conservation isn’t the core motivation of most deer hunters.

What Motivates Hunters?

Page 17 of the 2020 Economic report provides the data: Spoiler - conservation is not the primary motivation for most hunters.

– 75% hunt to be outdoors/in nature

– 71% describe it as a hobby or interest

– 66% value time with family and friends

– 56% hunt for meat

– Only 23% selected protecting the environment

All of these motivations are valid. But when people arguing for recreational hunting present us primarily as frontline conservationists, the mismatch between rhetoric and reality becomes obvious — and that risks public trust.

The problem with overclaiming

In recent years, some hunters and political operatives have leaned into a narrative that positions hunters as indispensable environmental stewards. While there are certainly examples of genuine conservation hunting, portraying all recreational hunting as ecologically beneficial is misleading.

Why it matters:

– Selective harvests do little to reduce populations

– Many hunters avoid areas with low deer density — the very places needing the most help

– Long-term data on recreational hunting rarely shows population suppression without additional controls

By the same token, groups with an ideological bent against deer and hunting overstating ecological impacts erodes their credibility and opens them up to justified criticism (or at least it ought to).

Conservation must be measurable, not rhetorical.

The Invasive Species Council: Standing up for science or peddling stigma?

While some in the hunting community exaggerate their positive impact, the Invasive Species Council (ISC) and aligned activist groups risk pushing the pendulum too far in the other direction — often casting hunters as villains and deer as nothing more than invasive pests.

The ISC styles itself as an authoritative voice in elevating awareness about invasive species and biosecurity. But its approach to deer has at times been ideologically rigid, reducing the issue to a binary: deer + hunters = bad, eradication= good (disregarding the reality that eradication is rarely a feasible goal).

This framing alienates stakeholders who could be allies — including:

– Farmers and landholders who want deer management without complete eradication

– Hunters open to contributing to conservation if respected and engaged

– Regional communities that benefit economically from hunting tourism

By demonising both the animal and the people who interact with it, the Invasive Species Council fans the flames of a culture war instead of building practical coalitions focused on reducing ecological harm where it’s actually occurring.

A better path: Pragmatism over polarisation

Australia doesn’t need to choose between celebrating hunting culture and acknowledging ecological damage. Both can coexist if policy is built on outcomes, not identity.

One powerful example comes from across the Tasman. The Fiordland Wapiti Foundation in New Zealand is a hunter-led organisation that manages introduced wapiti (elk) in a National Park. The Foundation works closely with government and conservation bodies, funds helicopter culling of non-target species, supports biodiversity surveys, and removes invasive plants, all while maintaining a world-class hunting experience. It is conservation hunting by design, not accident.

Closer to home, ADA’s Deer Management Initiative and Deer Management Program provides a strong domestic example. Through formal agreements with land managers such as Parks Victoria, ADA volunteers are deployed for strategic culling and control operations in sensitive ecological areas. These programs are results-focused, safety-driven, and monitored, proving that recreational hunters, when structured and supported, can deliver genuine environmental benefits.

In addition, proposed initiatives like the ‘Hunters for the Hungry’ program offer a promising win-win-win: providing wild-harvested venison to food relief charities, supporting ethical meat use, and promoting conservation-minded harvesting. It is a triple bottom line model — environmental, economic, and social and it represents the kind of thinking that should inform deer management policy.

Policy Recommendations

To make hunting a more effective conservation tool — and reduce conflict — governments and stakeholders should:

– Fund and expand structured conservation hunting partnerships

– Incentivise female deer harvests and harvest reporting

– Develop data platforms for hunters to log activity and sightings

– Encourage collaboration, not culture war — treat hunters as potential contributors, not adversaries

Conclusion: Responsibility without rhetoric

Deer hunting in Australia is not primarily driven by conservation — but that doesn’t mean it has no place in conservation policy.

Hunting brings economic, social, and cultural value. It can help reduce deer numbers and impacts when well-managed. But we must resist the temptation to turn deer hunting into a myth — whether it’s the myth of the hunter-hero saving biodiversity, or the myth of the reckless killer laying waste to ecosystems.

Real progress requires a shared understanding:

– That deer can cause serious ecological damage in some places

– That not all deer populations or land uses are equal

– That hunters can be part of the solution when supported, trained, and respected

– That outcomes — not ideology — should guide management

Conservation must be measured by what works, not by who claims to care more. And that’s a standard we should all be willing to meet.

Overgeneralising deer as uniformly destructive obscures opportunities for targeted, pragmatic responses.