A dear friend of mine has fallen in with the Animal Rights crowd in Ireland (le sigh) and posted about what a triumph it was to kill off a hunt. I replied, congratulating them on introducing greater net suffering via their efforts.
Having been called a poor loser, my response is below...
Not about being a good loser or not. Don't particularly have a stake in euro issues aside from a general dismay at good wildlife management being trumped by good intentions + bad analysis. In general, if you can get wildlife management to pay for itself, you are not only ahead of the game...you're more likely to get better quality wildlife management.
Barring predators, any organism will breed itself beyond the capacity of a given range limited only by disease (which is often cross-species) and starvation. A further consideration is the impact of the now-burgeoning species on the human food chain (talk to a farmer whose fields have been "blessed" with a surplus of deer...or rabbits..or...) or in the instance of predators (fox, wolf, etc) on (depending on animal size) on small pets, farm animals, and some locales (predator size dependent) humans ranging from toddler to adult size.
I offer Australia, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Florida as particularly horrible examples of what eventuates when either invasive species are introduced to an ecosystem or predation (human or animal) is eliminated or severely reduced.
Hunting (or a ridden hunt, a different but related creature) provides, in those regions where non-sentient predators have been eliminated or reduced below environmentally significant levels, a means of controlling wild populations of a wide variety of creatures such that they do not destructively interact with humans (due to lack of range or food), or die of starvation/disease.
Again, not about winning/losing. In the end, abolishing hunting/hunts actually increases animal suffering, has distinctly negative agricultural impacts, and ensures larger populations of half-starved (breeding like animals, remember...) creatures more susceptible to disease and the carrying thereof.
Good intentions + Good effects are a dandy thing. Good intentions and spreading starvation, disease, and suffering...perhaps not so much.
And, just for the record, I'm not a hunter. Yet.