Long allied, the environmental and animal-right movement have finally converged on a grand scheme (complete with “reasonable”-sounding language) to continue regulate humans’ interaction with nature, and to completely remove hunters from the landscape.

It’s called “rewilding,” and it has been around for decades, but has recently enjoyed national, even global, traction.

The main idea is that humans can take a hands-off approach to nature, if we just restore the natural balance – that being reintroducing and protecting predators, stopping as much use (sustainable or not) of natural resources as possible and “letting nature take its course.”

The reintroduction and increased regulation of predators – often including the outright abolishment of seasons in entire states – is meant to remove hunters from the forests, marshes and mountains of this country. The theory pushed by animal extremists is that with restored predator populations, ungulate herds will be controlled and maintained at an appropriate level so there is no need for hunters.

Those not familiar with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model might not understand that it’s hunters, anglers, shooters, and boaters who pay for the vast majority of conservation in this country – which the rewilding theory will eventually bankrupt. But it doesn’t a biologist or hunter to understand that once ungulate herds like elk, whitetail and mule deer herds experience population decimations, that inflated and uncontrolled predator populations will still need to eat – which puts livestock, pets and even humans at more risk.

When you see articles and discussions around reintroducing predators, increasing regulations and protections, or ending hunting seasons altogether, what you’re getting is a snapshot of a much larger plan for wildlife management, and one that doesn’t include hunters, trappers, and anglers.