What has become of conservation?

Hey guys. What has become of conservation and wildlife management? A lot of my outdoor classes are left leaning, and conservation seems to be more anti hunting, trapping, logging, etc. We as trappers and hunters know that the outdoors need to be managed. People are being taught that the key to healthy ecosystems is to do absolutely nothing. Conservation used to be defined by managing the outdoors, and now it seems to be by leaving the outdoors alone. If it was up to a lot of the so called experts, there would be no hunting, fishing, trapping, logging, etc. I see a lot of important people in our dnr and other outdoor related programs that seem to have no clue what the real outdoors are like. I know that a lot of it is due to liberals, but how long has this been going on? How did we get from where we were, to where we are now?

Petaphiles have invaded conservation, the pet trade and agriculture.

Keith

Back in the 60's and 70's a lot of the public school teachers used to hunt, fish and a few even trapped. I remember talking hunting with quite a few teachers and even had a high school teacher come out to my pick up truck to handle my Wingmaster shotgun. Today we would both be going to jail! Indoctrination from the left leaning media and our public schools could be an answer to your question. Not 100% though as there are other factors too.

Chris

Postmodernism confusion of language. Used to be these types were called preservationists.

You let a bunch of whackos take it over. lol

x2

Some might call me over-religious, but I believe every failing in society can be traced to the abandonment of faith. The direction of the world, society, families etc comes down to humanism vs deism (and the different deisms, but that's another topic.) Everyone worships something. Those who claim to worship nothing end up worshiping either themselves, humanity, a worldly higher power such as government, or something they deify like nature. Nature worshippers in the West are no different than the ones in Africa, they just use fancier words. Its simple animism.

The Bible says humans were created to rule, steward and dominate the earth (have dominion). To a Biblical mind, even though nature may look big and powerful and awe-inspiring, we know what we have both a right and a mandate to rule it.
When an atheist rejects the word of God, they also reject the divine authority given to men by God. Funny how humanism ends up making humans out to be weaker instead of greater. When you don't believe in divine rights or authority, you simply make everything out to be greater if it appears greater. Atheists typically believe men should serve nature, the government and society because those things appear greater. It was specifically because of their faith that our founding fathers and great conservationists believed the opposite: that we have a divine right to rule ourselves, our government, society and nature.

So that explains the theological roots. Now in the political realm, it's all part of the nefarious tactic of undermining human confidence, identity and rights. Telling people to feel guilty for disturbing nature is no different than telling them to feel guilty for being white, or having money. If you can make people feel guilty and undermine their identity, you can tell them what to do and lead them like sheep. That's just a part of the political strategy of earth worship. The other part is reducing self-reliance and economic independence.

The liberals have taken over higher education in most cases. Guess where most of the anti's were educated and by who. The biologist and such were taught left leaning thought processes. A lot of today's youth have no experience with nature or the outdoors except Disney and the media mostly Social media. When they grow up and seek employment in conservation that's what you get. We are pretty lucky in Mississippi as our commission is appointed and and sportsmen and women still have a strong voice here.

umm,khaki's

^^^^
This is it exactly. While we can say the left has fully infiltrated western culture and classical education it is at it's roots an ancient battle from the beginning of time when the lie "ye shall be like gods" was first uttered.

Y’all must have different state biologists than I do. Most of the ones in my state that deal with Fish & Wildlife hunt and fish, some even trap. I’m good friends with a few and they seem to be decent.

I hope y’all get some better people.

#huntersareconservationists

In Ohio, you cant confuse the ODNR with the Division of Wildlife. Wildlife is basically a red headed stepchild to ODNR. Two different cultures.

Oh ok, makes sense. It’s the same here with different cultures between most of DNREC and F&W

We have the DNREC= department of natural resources and environmental control.

Fish & Wildlife is a section within that department.

Same thing here, Division of Wildlife is part of ODNR. But its semi-independent agency as its finances comes from the sportsman and PR funds. Most of the DoW employees have some background in hunting/fishing.

Ave, The term CONSERVATION has been High-jacked by a lot hugger groups and substituted for the word PRESERVATION. I've talked to every one who is associated with this in the "teaching" media that I can ( Bob Noonan, Jim Spencer, Local paper, school groups etc etc. ) and tell them we as a group are not on the right page when one of these hugger groups uses that word in their "preservationist presentations". When testifying in front of a committee and its our turn I recommend people use the definition of "Wise Use" for the term Conservation even if you have to back-up and refute the other side's Name. Get the same page up. When you can get that across to the decision makers, the public, (or the news paper-TV folks) you have a good basis for the terms Sustainability, Management, Monetary Value etc. etc.. Usually your opponent will balk and not acknowledge the big difference. There are 3 facets of Wildlife Interaction with humans that society must deal with... The Biological side, the Economical side, and the Emotional side (anyone at the Minn Trappers Convention in '84 heard me harp on this when I gave my speal way back then). The groups on TV, news paper, and radio that are protectionist based only want folks to believe in the Emotional side and (again) High-jacked the term Conservation due to it sounding more applicable to their agenda in today's society. Part of it falls on us, the consumptive users of a resource, not to demand the definition of the word whenever we square off in a conversation is showing our weakness. My thoughts are always examining the definitions that our side can bring to the table for an equitable discussion and then let the facts come out.............................. off my horse........................ the mike.

I've been sayin this for awhile now. The conservation agents and especially the higher ups that make management decisions are not hunters, fisherman or trappers. They just college educated pawns. They learned about it in a classroom but have no experience off the pavement. It really is something that should concern all outdoorsman.
A couple years ago I had a Quail Forever biologist come to my place and we took a tour so i could show him some habitat work i had done and get his professional advice. During the course of the conversation he says " I'd like to hunt quail someday" Guy is a QF biologist and tells people how and what to do and has never even hunted a quail... it just aint right.
If you dont know, the director of the USFWS is an african american woman. I'd bet my farm she has never been hunting and couldnt tell the difference between coilspring and a conibear. These people should have knowledge and hands on experience to be in these positions. Bottom line is fellas we're losing the long game....

I am perplexed by some of the posts and can see it as regional as Delewarerob sees things like me when it comes to biologists etc.
Make fun of Canada all you want but I’m a teacher who runs a trapping club and has butchered an entire deer in class for Practical arts.
I’ve since switched schools to where both deer and beaver have been skinned on stage in front of a full auditorium.

Worked for the US Forest service in the panhandle of Idaho in the mid 80's. There was about a 50/50 mix in the regional office between new age treehuggers (don't cut anything) and old school slash and burners (clear cut everything). I felt like i was in the middle (conservationist?). By the mid 90's that office was probably 90% tree huggers. Wolves took over, elk population dropped, mills closed. Lots of east coast women were hired as foresters

It drives me crazy reading stories about almost anything having to do with wildlife and when they say "conservation groups are worried..." I dread scrolling down to find its something like Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, or PETA. Its never NTA, Rocky Mountain Elk, Sportsman's Alliance, etc.

Conservation is still conservation in my mind, what has taken place over time is environmentalism has gained a lot of traction. One is now use conservation is wise use. There are still very practical colleges that have good under grad and master degree programs in wildlife management such as UW Stevens Point, SD state and many others. There is still a lot of course work in population dynamics and habit studies etc. Also if you are in a wildlife program take a few forestry courses or land use or Ag courses to broaden ones base on conservation practices that are green and productive. The fact that a lot of habitat is being lost probably drives the environmental movement a lot. Conservation will help establish the best uses with what we have now and how to best utilize the resource in the future. We don't have enough time or money to restore our landscape to the pre-settlement time, so we need to focus on managing the best we can with what we have and what we are willing to invest resources in. I am so very glad I had professors who were all grad students of Aldo Leopold and they instilled the conservation message in me. I also took geography, geology, soils, forestry and many ag courses to round out a natural resource degree. What a lot of environmentalists don't realize or like to admit is that manage a resource, say land and doing the BMPs for that land will optimize the biomass of that land area be it flora or fauna and that is something we need to address as we add a couple hundred million citizens to the world every year.

Bryce

We have trappers on here that talk of not trapping because of prices...where’s the conservation in that?

Conservation in Indiana consists of hardly any regulations or bag limits, especially when it comes to fish. They leave everything wide open and hope to sell as many licenses as possible, regardless if everything is hunted and fished out. It’s a pathetic program they have going. The biologist are in charge, that’s where you get your leftism. They learned it in college!

Many colleges are turning out students influenced by ultra liberal professors. I have always considered myself a Conservationist, but never a Preservationist. I believe in wise use and controlled logging. In my state I see these preservationists trying to lock up more and more land, but refuse to manage it properly.Consequently, here in the Adirondacks we have an over mature forest that has become detrimental to a lot of species of wildlife. Even storm downed trees can not be salvaged because of the preservationist attitude. Many of our wildlife biologists are more interested in playing the political game and pursuing higher degrees on the government dime.Now they think in terms of "trophies" rather than harvesting renewable resources when they are at their best.
It is a very disturbing trend.

Less trappers & hunter. Way more tree huggers. Our educators are not longer hunters. More wine drinkers and less beer drinkers LOL.

Conservation does not require man killing stuff. Management does. Sometimes management requires man not to kill stuff. The do not manage wildlife concept probably started with the National Park Service. Just let nature run wild. Generally this leads to wild swings in wildlife populations. If you try to manage wildlife through selective harvest, in theory man can keep populations of desired animals below carrying capacity, but well above extirpation levels. In farming regions it is almost our responsibility to manage wildlife since we have radically changed the carrying capacity of the former natural environment. In more natural environments with natural predator prey relationships, the man harvest has to be more delicately managed. These systems tend not to be as productive as the farming environments or areas where natural predators have been extirpated.

I couldn't agree more

X2.