I was appalled and offended by the comments of Ms. Miller’s letter entitled “Ethical hunting.”

Hunters were the first conservationists dating back to President Theodore Roosevelt. But not for hunters and anglers, our wildlife picture across the continent and world would be an entirely different matter.

Hunters take zero tax dollars. In fact through Pittman-Robertson monies, self-imposed taxes on all hunting-related gear, guns and stuff, hunters fund conservation efforts across the country. Approximately 80 percent of the Arizona Game & Fish budget comes from P-R money and hunters’ license fees.

But not for hunting, Ms. Miller would likely have no wildlife to “cherish,” unless she goes to the Phoenix Zoo! Who does she want to save the environment from anyway?

Through the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, she has an opportunity to view, see, and “cherish” wildlife…she should thank a hunter!

Wildlife refuges were established to set aside places for wildlife, but many have historically been open to regulated hunting. Roosevelt set aside the first refuge in 1903.

The managed harvest of a small percentage of bucks, or fowl, has no impact on the population of any species pursued by hunters. Loss of habitat is the greatest threat to our wildlife, as I explained once to a woman in Chino Valley, who lamented hunters pursuing pronghorn. I advised her that her house and subdivision on the grasslands in Chino would permanently eliminate the pronghorn in her part of the world. The selected harvest of a few bucks would have no such impact.

The vast majority of hunters are ethical sportsmen and women. Those that aren’t, are few, and likely not hunters at all, but poachers, game thieves and the like.

Did you know that hunting’s $38.3 billion economic impact in 2011 was more than Google’s annual revenue? Hunting has a huge impact on the American economy.