Edit: Apology if these are a little technical. Like most Wildlife Biologists, I am (or, was) an avid hunter. A little hard to separated the profession from the hobby sometimes!
I originally was planning on doing my Master's Thesis on the social organization of Wild Pigs (a la Reg Barret, PhD) but was convinced to do a study of "urban" (aka "Trash") bears instead. One of the most pervasive myths is that bears and pigs (and humans in some books!) are all related, other than being all mammals. This is because they (we) all have "bucodont molars (4 cusps) because we are omnivores.
Another. Domestic pigs and wild boars have different numbers of chromosomes. False! Both have 36. Some individuals may have 37 due to a very long chromosome breaking off and re-attaching together to form a "false" chromosome. This is what causes Down's Syndrome in humans.
A hit from a _______will knock you down (or will kill a ________ instantly every time) [Fill in the blanks]!
"Farmer's benefit the ecology": Most do not. A monoculture benefits some species but may be injurious to the overall system. There are definite exceptions. In the Natomas Basin in California (just north of Sacramento), the are flooded annually and was traditionally used for rice farming. The area was also habitat of a beautiful snake called the giant garter snake. All red and blue stripes. Urbanization and over-collecting had decreased its number to the Endangered level. Well, rice farming fits the snake's life cycle beautifully. So, a plan was developed that developers would buy a Conservation Easement to retain the land as rice fields: Farmer's grew their crops, developers could do limited development and the snake (and some protected frogs and fish) benefited. In the Bakersfield area, family farmers left a strip of "wild" habitat, allowing pheasant chicks to survive. They then could "sell" pheasant hunts each fall for extra income. More second and third generations moved to the city and farms were sold to big corporations who over-sprayed, starving the chicks.
Here's one of my favorites: "Killing predators improves hunting" FALSE in the vast majority of cases! Two biologists, Alfred Lotka (1910) and Vito Volterra (1929) developed equations to look at predator-prey relationships. Using the extensive records kept by the Hudson Bay Company, it was found that prey numbers control predator populations. Population explosions in snowshoe hares was followed by increased predator populations, subsequently followed by declines in both. Further research found that the cause of declines in the population of hares was because of a lack of vegetation. This lack was because the nutrients were locked up in rabbit droppings and it took about 5 years to decay and re-fertilize the soil!
Edited: Another: Wolves will kill and eat you". It has happened only one time (documented) and possibly a second. No actual proof, although many hunters and Native Americans will swear to it. In Europe and Asia, it was true at one time (and may persist somewhat) but that was because of the vast numbers of dead resulting from Catholic purges of other Christian sects, the Black Death and the Napoleonic and other wars. The wolves scavenged and developed a "taste" for human flesh.
This one's not so much a hunting tale but a "rural legend" from the far north: Lemmings overpopulate and commit suicide by leaping into the sea. Lemmings do overpopulate but starve. The Disney (Ole Walt was an avid hunter!) movie was staged with the film crew shooing the lemming into the sea with gunny sacks!
BTW: Bambi was a boy!!!! That will ruin the day for man a Valley Girl named Bambi!
