« Many disabilities invisible | Main | Why we kicked our Chiefs habit »

September 24, 2008

Not all conservatives tote guns

The old adage “don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story” applies to most liberal and most conservative commentaries. It is sometimes amusing but most times insulting to my intelligence that we, the common folk, are not capable of separating facts from fiction.

Take the commentary by Garrison Keillor (9/20, Local, “Where a liberal stares and the moose survive”). I get the impression that Keillor thinks all conservatives are just a bunch of good old boys and gals — gun-toting buffoons — out in the woods shooting anything that moves or anything that might appear to be a danger.

Most liberals believe human interference in the last 15 to 20 years has caused the decline of certain species while, in fact, conservation-minded folks have helped sustain these species through various wildlife habitat improvement programs. Most conservatives respect and value our wildlife resources.

I have been involved with conservation my entire career, and I am avid hunter and fisherman. But nothing could be further from the truth when being labeled a gun-toting wildlife-abuser.

So, Mr. Keillor should do some research about what most of us conservatives believe in before spouting his liberal bias.

George Taylor
Gallatin, Mo.



Look at it as a challenge. It takes a great deal more skill to hit something with a bullet than to take its picture. What's the old saying, "the more things change, the more they stay the same"? Name calling and insults remain the common, all pervading trait.


ProfPub promised us he was leaving to write a book.


I'll make one attempt to speak to you as if you were an adult possessing both a brain and a pair.

If you go out with the intent of a kill and come back without success, and you don't feel foolish or cheated because of the camaraderie, the exercise, the appreciation of your surroundings and the thrill of the hunt, then you go out because you like to kill things. Everything you mention including the thrill of the hunt is available to you without killing something, as any avid nature photographer or birdwatcher can tell you.

Unless you are killing something protected by law, are you morally inferior to a photographer or birdwatcher? Of course not. But why candy-coat it? You, and Mr. Taylor, like to kill things. You don't weep over Bambi or Perri, and you don't go out for the camaraderie, etc. and only reluctantly take out the wildlife because you couldn't get the other rewards unless you do.

Once again, if Mr. Taylor objects to being characterized as someone who likes to kill things to express his love of nature, desire to conserve, preserve habitat and so on, and that Garrison Keillor doesn't get that, Tango Foxtrot Bravo.


ME you are an idiot and know absolutely nothging about hunting. In fact, I feel a little sorry for you. Of coures a clean kill of your game is a part of the hunt, but only a part of it. I have hunted all my life, and I would like to tell you I have been successful every time, but that simply is not the case. Some of my fondest memories are of hunts where no game was harvested. It is the companionship with fellow hunters, the enviornment where you hunt, and the challenge of it that makes it worthwhile. Do I "like to kill", not hardly I cannot see myself executing steers day in and day out. That is liking "to kill".

As I said you have no clue, and you do nothing to conserve our natural resources. If you do not know of what you speak, it is best to keep silent.


..."widdle your step-ins'......

Nominated for Line Of The Year


If you like to kill things, man up and say, "I like to kill things." If saying that makes you widdle your step-ins, don't try to dress it up in tea-party euphemisms: "I contribute to wildlife management." "I help in the cause of conservation." "I want to introduce my children to a great American tradition." "I love to wander free in the beauties of nature."

Professionals, who in this field can be bought pretty cheaply, are perfectly capable of carefully managing wildlife stocks. For the rest, you can do it all with a Hasselblad HDII. If you choose to use a weapon instead of a camera, OK, you like to kill things. Are you ashamed of that? Are you squeamish about admitting it? Why? Be a man and say the words out loud. I personally have no problem with killing vermin, and in some cases torturing them gratuitously as well. Why is Mr. Taylor in a snit because Mr. Keillor says he doesn't get it?


Mr. Taylor a very well stated letter right on target.

ME you sound like a typical uninformed leftist who has no clue regarding conservation and wildlife management. The average hunter does more for these causes in a year than you will do in a lifetime.

Your kind never contribute to any cause that will preserve wildlife habitat, and provide good game management for the benefit of all Americans.


My, how sensitive. Mr. Keillor wrote a typically gentle piece wherein at two points he expresses his preference for looking at the wonders God has wrought, not killing them. You're an avid hunter and fisherman? Good. However, by definition that means you'd rather kill the living creatures you claim to admire than take their pictures. Calling these dead things "our wildlife resources" implies that you have ownership and stewardship over them. Somebody points out the arrogance and absurdity of your position and your feelings get hurt? TFB.

Incidentally, to all actual hunters out there, please understand I'm not weeping over Bambi. Bambi can go to hell. Deer are lovely, graceful, and vermin. I support a bounty on the filthy beasts, not bag limits.



Your first mistake was taking three minutes of your life and wasting it on Keillor.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright