Missouri Conservationist Insults Hunters And Trappers

[J Fry]

You all do understand the term in the title of the publication, right? It can't all be just about hunting and trapping, which in most cases unless I am shooting, leads to killing of the animal. There has to be an overwhelming need for conservation as well, without conservation you would be walking with a gun, or setting a trap in a stream, not hunting.

I have not really seen this publication become "Anti-Hunting" by any means. Granted, it has a lot more non-hunting stories, but that doesn't mean it is "anti-hunting." If it was anti-hunting, they wouldn't have articles about youth hunts in nearly every issue. They wouldn't focus on bringing quail in Missouri back to "huntable" populations in more than a mere few areas.

Also, the "lunatic" is either a tax payer in Missouri who is gets The Conservationist for the mere cost of being a tax payer or she is a paid subscriber. Either way, she has a right to her opinion as do you and I.

Finally, on the conversion of fisherman to "Catch & Release", you do realize that this is probably one of the most essential portions of keeping our lakes and streams at fishable population levels, aside from stocking which is another can of worms. Catch and release fishing has saved wild trout across the nation and has allowed many other sportfish to flourish where others can enjoy them later. It's called conservation and from my experience is, in a lot of cases, poorly practiced by outdoorsman in this state. For instance, I've watched baitfisherman on the Norfork, the White, and Taneycomo gut hook fish because they were too busy dicking around to realize they had a hit, cut the line, and send the fish "swimming" away only to die shortly afterward. Why, because they didn't want that fish to be their limit. Or watching a guy move a covey of about 14 birds on public land and take his 8 bird limit out of that covey. Most biologists will tell you that the covey will not exist next seaon because of natural predation.

I think the conservationist in its anti-hunting articles are trying to show people that hunting, fishing, and trapping not only affects those animals, but other animals. And that there is more to do at MDC lands than hunt and fish. And that conservation goes a long way to maintaining and rebuilding populations. And that we as hunters and fisherman and citizens of Missouri have a duty to protect the precious amount of land that is left in this state. Take the Prairie Chickens article this month. What an awesome bird. I hunt Greaters in KS several times a year, they are incredibly sporting. It is hard to believe that Missouri's population was once very big and is now almost gone. It is awesome that MDC has land set up to see one of the coolest dances in nature. That is another part of MDC's job, to show us some of the cool parts of nature. To let us know that what we are doing, as people, is destroying these bird's habitat and decimating their populations.

But hey, I am the guy who'll yell at someone for kicking at Taneycomo -- which I will now pronounce TAAAANEYcomo.

I would have to agree with you, Kat. I don't believe the Conservationist is anti-hunting or anti-fishing. Yes, they have the occasional blunders, like the whole river otter thing...but there wouldn't be a magazine like the Conservationist if it weren't for hunters and fishers. At least not free to MO taxpayers. People also have to understand that MDC is full of a variety of biologists, researchers, wildlife techs, etc,...coming from all walks of life. Liberals and Conservatives. I can't say that the magazine is anti-hunting or ant-fishing at all. MDC needs to make money, so they heavily rely on hunters and fishers to buy permits to keep MDC one of the best wildlife agencies in the U.S. Everyone with a wildlife degree wants to work for MDC, because a person can actually live off a salary from MDC. Other state agencies pay considerably less for the same jobs. I am a hunter, fisherman and a trapper. I personally look forward to the mag every month. Just my 2 cents.

[Trav]

It's the "good", in all its meanings, I am worried most about.

"Good" is a relative term. "Earning" what you got is the best feeling in the world. Dont sweat the details. There are alot of us that are just efficient and accept that "Good" is whats in our heart.

[WebFreeman]

There is an article about a mother and sons turkey hunting in the same issue. A hunt put on by the conservation dept. which provided the guns, ammo, and a trained guide as well as training for the kids. How is that anti-hunting?

[Al Agnew]

Seems to me that some people just look for a chance to jump all over MDC.

I read the letter in the mag, and was somewhat peeved at the woman's attitude. I was not peeved at the magazine for printing it. Nor was I peeved that they didn't jump down her throat (although I probably would have had I been the editor).

Not that MDC is blameless and perfect. They've made mistakes, and I believe they've done some things purposely that they shouldn't have done at times. And, since they get all those funds from the 1/8th cent sales tax that everybody pays, they have a broader constituency than hunters, anglers, and trappers. But one thing they haven't done is turn anti-hunting and anti-trapping.

[creek wader]

I'm not one to jump on the MDC. I'm sure it has it's faults, but compared to most other state's conservation dept.'s, I believe the MDC is the best that I've seen. Also, I've never viewed it's magazine as anti hunting, trapping or fishing. I think it covers a very wide varity of outdoor activities. Something for everyone. I also, look forward to my issue every month. I am originally from out of state. But, I thoroughly enjoy this state and it's outdoors and in my opinion, I believe the MDC is doing a good job for all of us who enjoy the outdoors. It provides a huge amount of CA's, covering the whole state and I make use of many of them. They also, provide a wealth of info on a wide varity of outdoor activities. Once again, I believe the lady is entitled to her opinion, whether it may differ from my views or that of others. However, I still would defend hunting, fishing, and trapping, if I'm ever confronted by someone making such harsh statements as she did.

[jdmidwest]

The term Conservation is the wise use of the Existing Resources and the managing of them for the future. The MDC goes a little further than just fish and animals, they manage forests, soil, streams, and all of the resources of the state of Missouri. The Conservationist magazine trys to address all aspects of their job.

The letter to the editor was probably printed to show that there are some in this state that would like to do away with the killing of animals for sport and food. These groups go by names like PETA, Humane Society, Brady, and others. Everyone should be aware that there are people out there that are trying hard everyday to affect the outdoor sportsman's way of life. The MDC has a vital role in managing those nuts too, hopefully to extinction. Their views negatively affect us all, as this letter did. But the letter did point out something about the way non hunters percieve us, be a little more discrete about the transport of downed game. Have a little more respect for the animal that gave its life for our food and not tie it on the hood with blood running everywhere. Don't give the kooks extra ammo.

The MDC is on a big drive now to get kids away from the video games and TV and out in the field. The future of hunting and fishing is probably more interested in the latest Wii game than nailing a few squirrels or panfish for supper. Alot of the publication is devoted to the younger future.

The magazine is a great publication, great photos and stories, with lots of good info. Best of all its free, you can even download it or read it online to help save paper.

[Tightline]

I wonder what the response would have been if the womans letter wasn't about the killing and trapping of animals but about catching,killing and eating fish?

[Trav]

Tightline,

Haha

If you ask Taxi, he would say there are alot of Ladys like her, complaining and crying about killing and eating fish right here on this forumn.

[jscheetz]

Last time I checked when you shoot an animal and take it home and stuff it or eat it - it is dead, You have "killed" it. Why do you have a problem calling it that? Trying to hide behind the word "harvest" as a more PC version of it like some do just seems to me to be skating - like calling a housewife a "domestic engineer". Just gets silly at some point.

It's all perception - some think the mag is against hunting - I could use less hunting articles. But I realize that it takes us all to keep the wilderness that we all love functioning in this crazy world we live in - so - I cut you a little slack - you cut me a little slack - and maybe we can figure out a way to work together to save what we have left.

You call that lady a "lunatic" - but in my eyes it is more "lunacy" to kill 5 browns over 6 pounds each on one fishing trip and post the pics here on the board as one of our own sportsman members did recently. So once again it's all perception.

JS

[Chief Grey Bear]

You all do understand the term in the title of the publication, right? It can't all be just about hunting and trapping, which in most cases unless I am shooting, leads to killing of the animal. There has to be an overwhelming need for conservation as well, without conservation you would be walking with a gun, or setting a trap in a stream, not hunting.

I have not really seen this publication become "Anti-Hunting" by any means. Granted, it has a lot more non-hunting stories, but that doesn't mean it is "anti-hunting." If it was anti-hunting, they wouldn't have articles about youth hunts in nearly every issue. They wouldn't focus on bringing quail in Missouri back to "huntable" populations in more than a mere few areas.

Also, the "lunatic" is either a tax payer in Missouri who is gets The Conservationist for the mere cost of being a tax payer or she is a paid subscriber. Either way, she has a right to her opinion as do you and I.

Finally, on the conversion of fisherman to "Catch & Release", you do realize that this is probably one of the most essential portions of keeping our lakes and streams at fishable population levels, aside from stocking which is another can of worms. Catch and release fishing has saved wild trout across the nation and has allowed many other sportfish to flourish where others can enjoy them later. It's called conservation and from my experience is, in a lot of cases, poorly practiced by outdoorsman in this state. For instance, I've watched baitfisherman on the Norfork, the White, and Taneycomo gut hook fish because they were too busy dicking around to realize they had a hit, cut the line, and send the fish "swimming" away only to die shortly afterward. Why, because they didn't want that fish to be their limit. Or watching a guy move a covey of about 14 birds on public land and take his 8 bird limit out of that covey. Most biologists will tell you that the covey will not exist next seaon because of natural predation.

I think the conservationist in its anti-hunting articles are trying to show people that hunting, fishing, and trapping not only affects those animals, but other animals. And that there is more to do at MDC lands than hunt and fish. And that conservation goes a long way to maintaining and rebuilding populations. And that we as hunters and fisherman and citizens of Missouri have a duty to protect the precious amount of land that is left in this state. Take the Prairie Chickens article this month. What an awesome bird. I hunt Greaters in KS several times a year, they are incredibly sporting. It is hard to believe that Missouri's population was once very big and is now almost gone. It is awesome that MDC has land set up to see one of the coolest dances in nature. That is another part of MDC's job, to show us some of the cool parts of nature. To let us know that what we are doing, as people, is destroying these bird's habitat and decimating their populations.

But hey, I am the guy who'll yell at someone for kicking at Taneycomo -- which I will now pronounce TAAAANEYcomo.

Finally some common sense. Cheers.