This project examines the history of The Fund for Animals and its campaigns against hunting-based conservation practices. Founded in 1967 by satirist Cleveland Amory, the organization frequently clashed with environmental groups that supported hunting as a tool for ecological management. By analyzing archival records, I explore how debates between animal welfare activists and environmentalists unfolded over the ethics of hunting in conservation.

I became interested in this project while reading about the distinction between environmentalism and animal welfare. In 1980, the philosopher J. Baird Callicott argued that environmentalism and animal welfare were fundamentally opposed ethical systems: environmentalists prioritize the well-being of ecological communities, while animal welfare advocates prioritize individual animals. I wanted to explore whether these philosophical debates were reflected in the actual practices of environmental and animal organizations. To investigate this, I examined The Fund for Animals and Humane Society of the United States records at North Carolina State University.

The relationship between environmental and animal welfare organizations was more fluid than I expected. Sometimes they cooperated, as on anti-whaling campaigns; other times they were bitter rivals, as on deer and squirrel hunting. The sharpest conflict centered on sustainable use programs in the 1990s, particularly those involving elephant hunting in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Wildlife Fund and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature argued that regulated elephant hunting could fund local conservation efforts and community development projects. The Humane Society and the Fund for Animals countered that elephant hunting was morally indefensible and would inevitably lead to overhunting. For a decade the two sides debated these questions in congressional hearings, international conventions, and conservation journals.

This project highlights how animal welfare organizations challenged the scientific assumptions underlying conservation and sustainability. Their critiques prompted conservationists to reconsider methods for managing animal populations and question the ability of science to predict both ethical and ecological outcomes of animal culling. By examining these historical debates, the project offers insight into contemporary discussions on the ethics of ecology, sustainability, and modern conservation practices.