Philosophical dissertations and subdued conversations around the campfire have dealt with hunting and how it should be practiced. There are many passionate advocates of hunting and nowadays at least as many passionate and sometimes hateful adversaries. The topics span a broad spectrum from economic and scientific considerations to religious, cultural and life-style aspects. These discussions are often burdened with emotions and intolerance.

Humanity’s common objective of biodiversity conservation should actually dictate that hunters and non-hunters of today’s global society enter into a civilized dialogue, and show tolerance and understanding for each other. Only a broadest-based conservation alliance will be biodiversity’s and ultimately humanity’s salvation. Dialogue and compromise are essential! Although I would dearly like to include all sectors of society in this dialogue, it seems to be very difficult to engage into a democratic debate with certain minuscule sectors. These vociferous minorities are intolerantly bent to impose their views on society. Emotional and sensational news from this sector are unfortunately given high exposure in the media. Sensational news score better than dry scientific facts. It is unfortunate that the public uncritically consumes such news – and that the hunters, as a seriously affected party, react with too little, too late.

"Why do you hunt?" – This is usually the standard opening question in a conversation between a hunter and a non-hunter. This simple question hides some pitfalls. It is indeed a rare occasion that the hunter replies with, "because it’s fun!" or "because I enjoy it!" Mountaineers or offroaders would be permitted to give that answer, in many cases even anglers would get by. Hunters certainly not - since one tacit agreement exists - hunting is neither fun nor play!

Why do you hunt? Why do you hunt? You hunt!? … These are just some examples, where the non-hunter’s emphasis will prescribe the course of the conversation. And the conversation could culminate – after the hunter’s response – … "and that is why you kill animals?!"

Of course the conversation could go into different directions – the hunter’s tales about journeys to unfamiliar lands and experiences with people and nature far from the well-trodden paths of "normal" ecotourism could raise interest. Most likely, however, the hunter will be looked at as a representative of an unfathomable minority; in our urban environment, as an exotic specimen who kindles in the best case a lack of understanding or in the worst case open aversion.