In the hunting and anti-hunting communities I see the arguments about specific cases at times as mere false reasoning, when really the person just wants to happen what they want and how they want it. For anti-hunters, it's often the anthropomorphizing of animals, and the numbers they use to argue to not hunt a particular animal don't really matter, they would want the same conclusion regardless.
For hunters, I often hear 'management' of herds or predators, when oftentimes (not always, mind you) the real reason for the pro-hunting position is simply because the hunter wants to hunt it, or doesn't want something else hunting what he hunts.
So I am happy to hear this question couched in terms of a science-based look at raptors. I left another forum online because I read 'sss' as a response to another hunter's picture of a mountain lion.
I feel much more comfortable when I hear a hunter use 'management' of game to mean that he isn't going to hunt a particular animal this year, because he's seen 'em get hit too hard lately, when I see that his consideration of hunting includes not hunting when it is inappropriate in his place.
When I consider habitat loss, pollution, yayhoos and scalawag poachers in our midst, I would rather see us consider a native animal as having first consideration, even to the extent of fewer days hunting particular game, and even if it means eradication of non-native species we love to hunt (feral pigs, not javies, and turkeys in California come to mind). Thus, I oppose hunting hawks. Looking at coyote expansion in the last hundred years, I have no problem with hunting coyotes.