FWIW, licensed hunters are the biggest contributors to wildlife preservation than any other group, via the licensing fees. Basically, our choice is to either fund an effective wildlife management program in our state, or deal with decimated wildlife populations and/or diseased and starving animals. It's worth a dedicated hunter's time and ten bucks to get involved in our respective state's WMP's, because otherwise, it can easily get corrupted by whimsical ignorant local politicians, pressure from high-profile goofball groups like PETA, Federal overreach and/or dominated by local rich landowners. Generally speaking, what's good for the landowners that lease to licensed hunters is good for everyone involved, but that is unfortunately not true for every statute. For instance, some laws can be clearly identified as an attempt to make hunting an exclusive, discriminatory "rich man's sport"; most common in many states are minimum acreage requirements to qualify for certain types of exclusive permits. This is the sort of thing that more hunter scrutiny can mitigate.