With respect to why we might have any chance at all, I think we have two lines of attack. The first is the sound conservation model. I don't think we are necessarily "winning" with that argument, but we still have significant allies in the scientific community who see wildlife as a sustainable resource supported in large measure by hunter dollars. Those dollars are not likely to show up from any other source. Also, in large urban pockets like the Washington DC area, Joe citizen sees the impact of deer over population every day splattered across the highway (or his bumper and hence his insurance bill) and in the remnants of his hostas and tulips. There is surprisingly little outcry for poor bambi in this area, in spite of the ever "bluing" political environment.
In North America I suspect that the hunter as conservationist is most endangered by the march of urbanization, and the reintroduction of large predators (read the wolf) into our wilderness areas. One of the pillars of large herbivore management has been the need to prevent over population. We are discovering that wolf packs are pretty good at what they do across a broad swath of the northern mid-west and west. Fortunately I suppose, cattle and sheep taste pretty good to wolves as well, and the ranching community is starting to complain.
Regrettably, none of this helps us much with the citizen who defines his or her life by Facebook and the "twitterverse." And so our second line of attack must somehow target these people. This is one reason why I rejoice in shows like "Swamp People" and "Duck Dynasty". I can't watch them, and as a South Louisianan by birth, I am a little put off by the characterization of "my people", but as a way to make an urbanite comfortable with killing an animal, those shows probably do more good than the entire public relations efforts of every hunting organization combined. My cable company now carries three networks devoted to hunting and fishing. Four fifths of that programing is essentially "redneck TV." But this programing is viable or it wouldn't be there, and we had better figure out how to maintain common cause with the large numbers in our sport who define themselves by "the Bone Collector" and its ilk. Even there, African hunting can get blasted as Tony Makris discovered in the reaction to a recent elephant hunt, and the resulting dropping of his show.
In North America, we still have a reservoir of toleration because of the aspects of our culture we do not share with Europe. As our Norwegian friend notes above, hunting (and gun ownership) were both a means to put food on the table and to enjoy sport among the average citizen. The strong sense of "shoot it and personally use it" is seen as a cornerstone of ethical hunting by many in this country. It is also a reason why trophy hunters do not have the universal support by the broader hunting community, much less the non-hunting urbanite.
Right now I think we are just maintaining an narrow equilibrium with the antis. I am concerned that maintaining that equilibrium is going to be hard. To do so, we have to figure out how to even get to the vast ambivalent majority who will never read a reasoned defense of the sport. Our opponents operate in their world with ease.
