The authors argue that hunting is often portrayed in overly simplistic terms: either as an essential conservation tool or as an unethical and obsolete practice. Science does not support either extreme. The impacts of recreational hunting depend on context, regulation, and management, and must be evaluated using robust scientific evidence rather than beliefs or emotions.

When guided by data and adaptive management, hunting can contribute to wildlife management and conservation. When ideology supplants evidence, polarisation intensifies, and meaningful solutions become increasingly difficult to achieve. The role of scientists is not to take sides, but to provide independent, transparent knowledge to inform decisions.

Our WE&H group supports this work and its core message: debates on hunting and wildlife management must be grounded in science. Strengthening scientific literacy, improving communication, and promoting respectful dialogue are essential steps toward sustainable and socially accepted conservation policies.

More at: https://rdcu.be/eX1Nk