Nowhere in the quote (let alone context, if you wish to do additional inquiry on your own) does it say "hunters only"; it touches on the point that they are often first to resists, not the only ones.

If you re-read the excerpt, the author author isn't trying to ARGUE against hunting in terms of negating the re-introduction of wolves; he is simply pointing out the fallacy of people saying that they must hunt to control over-saturated populations(which human expansion and environmental acquisition has helped inflate), yet refusing to allow an ecological solution that could solve it....simply because some actually prefer the "sport" of hunting, and actually care nothing about population control.

It's important to also note that re-introducing a natural predator into an ecosystem is BEYOND A DOUBT more sustaining and important than not doing so, while continuing to hunt something with a gun. I urge you to do your own research on how just one animal (even a micro-organism) can have a ripple-effect through an entire ecosystem, not just on one predator or prey, or in one stream or with one plant.

As butthurt as it may make someone, Scully is deep into the political sphere (has been involved with the Republican party for decades) and behind-the-scenes legislation and ongoings regarding all areas of animal population control. His articles, stats, and "empty quotes" are, sadly to you, pretty steadfast. Bearing witness to these is what caused him to speak about them in the first place.

Also, most people I know who hunt hunt bucks, not does. This often results in an abnormal amount of does becoming pregnant and over-populating areas that are already increasingly getting smaller(due to continued urban sprawl) in areas.