Email
Print
FeedConservation organizations, hunters should work hand-in-hand
Hunters sometimes look down their noses at some conservation organizations, particularly those that don’t seem to be perfectly aligned with their interests.
National Rifle Association, Ducks Unlimited, Quality Deer Management Association – to name just a few – are organizations that more or less make their missions plain in their titles. It’s not always as evident with groups such as The Nature Conservancy, Little Traverse Conservancy, The Wilderness Society and others.
The Nature Conservancy, in particular, has a long history of being hunter-friendly. It holds more than 20,000 acres in Michigan, most of which is open to hunting.
This year, the group announced a two-year agreement with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to restore habitat and protect threatened species in the Petersburg State Game Area in Monroe County. It’s allowing the DNR to use some of the $869,000 that TNC received for habitat work from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. According to DNR Wildlife Division head Russ Mason, the state wouldn’t be able to do the work without the agreement with The Nature Conservancy. The habitat work will benefit game and non-game species.
The Little Traverse Conservancy and other small conservation groups support hunters, too. LTC has a great deal of land the Eastern Upper Peninsula and Northern Lower Peninsula that is open to hunting. In most cases, hunters need only secure permission from the organization through its website to gain access to its land holdings.
Organizations such as these and others deserve a second look and hunter support. You can read more about The Nature Conservancy and its work with hunters at its website, nature.org, including a great story in its archives on why wolves should be hunted, written by Matt Miller, the director of communication for TNC in Idaho.
Always find it interesting when writers take the side of money versus actual truth. You listed the QDMA as an organization that we should work with. Why? This organization is only out for the dollar and not for hunters and what they think. QDMA will even lie to you and say they use sound biological data to support there cause. This is one of the biggest lies. They do not look at that or they would not have pushed antler restrictions in Northeast Michigan. As deer get older, they are more likely to contract TB and yet deer get older by letting antler restrictions in place. So the only responsible explanation is, QDMA has lined the pockets of the DNR and the NRC. Have to, since they give no money back to hunters. What is also interesting, an organization with less than 0.5% of the hunters in Michigan being members, can persuade the DNR and NRC to make rules that fit their agenda. So let the bucks grow and kill all the does, that reproduce deer, and then you have an anti-hunting/insurance company agenda perfectly defined. This also makes me wonder why people are not seeing deer like they use too. No irresponsible organization like the QDMA is going to influence my decision making in the field, no matter how much money they give away.
Thank you for your comment. I was not suggesting that QDMA is an organization that hunters should work with, I was just listing it as an example of an organization that is more well known among hunters than The Nature Conservancy is.
For the record, I am not a member of QDMA nor The Nature Conservancy. tp