Trouble is, that signature lumps two different viewpoints into the same group. Homo sap doesn't work that way.
I think that depends on what part of the world you're in. (And maybe some personal perspective.)
In the United States, you could argue that the most prominent restoration activists are anti-hunting. But, much of the funding and manpower comes from hunters and the agencies that manage hunting.
In much of Africa (Namibia and some of its neighbors, especially), the most prominent conservationists are the very PHs or ranchers that nearly exterminated the species. In Namibia, one of the largest ranches in the country was turned into conservation land by the owner, when he realized his family's previous 40+ years of over-grazing and "culling" of wildlife was having a significant, negative effect on the ecosystem. After settling the "war" he got himself into with the local tribes that were losing all their wildlife, the government talked him into being a mediator for meetings with tribes and ranchers considering conservation status for their land. (Can't remember his name right now, and my google-fu is failing. I'll post it if I remember.) He still runs some cattle on his ranch; but the future of the wildlife and tribesmen are his first priority.
Their efforts have been successful enough that most tribes have come around to the idea of protecting even the predators. Not only does it help balance the ecosystem; but if one of them becomes a threat (to the tribes or their livestock), they avoid killing it themselves. Instead, they "sell" it to a PH for a 'white hunter' to kill - benefiting the tribe financially and allowing them to avoid using as many resources from the land - and avoiding an outright slaughter.
Wolves in the U.S. are a different story. Most hunters and ranchers hate them. Antis want to save them. So, yea... It fits, in that case.