Outside Bend

Row v. Wade is settled law, it doesn't mean people don't try to undermine it. And divert money from worthwhile conservation projects to litigation. You're entitled to whatever opinion you'd like, but I think if you looked at the facts honestly and did a little research, you'd realize the examples provided aren't WAGs or doomsday scenarios, they're what is actually happening in states where their fish and game department is controlled by their state legislature. That's the whole point- legislative control of the MDC is inherintley at odds with the agency's mission.

I promise you that most state biologists I've talked with look favorably on MDC's current position as an independent agency. In Wyoming state fish and game biologists' have a hard time confronting the ranching industry on a number of issues- protection of gray wolves, protecting rangelands and riparian areas from overgrazing, addressing issues with irrigation and in-stream flow. Providing hunting and fishing access to sportsmen, and allowing anglers to even access the streams managed by the state. Many of these issues have to be tackled by NGO's such as Trout Unlimited. Leasing public lands to the oil and gas industry, and lax followup on environmental damage. Why? Because the state legislature holds the agency's purse strings, and legislators have placed the interests of the ranching and extraction industries above the state's natural resources. From a more practical perspecitve, it's also why states like Wyoming have such exorbitant license costs- $75 for a non-resident fishing license, $300+ for a deer tag, $500 for an elk tag...the agency has to look elsewhere for funding because the Legislature won't provide the funds needed to adequately manage the state's fish and game. And if it gives you the warm fuzzies, Pennsylvania's fish and game agency, administered by the state's legislature, is very nearly bankrupt, and is pressing the Legislature to adopt an excise tax on firearms, fishing tackle, and other hunting and fishing equipment (gee, what other state fish and game agencies have taken that route?). Meanwhile, their state legislature is working hard to try and allow gas fracking on public land, which will inevitably disrupt many of the state's landscapes and waterways. So there's just two examples of how effective state legislature control of state fish and game agencies is at managing the state's fish and game. I'm sure I can find more...

Even if we accept your assertion (that science is influenced by politics) at face value, why would that inherintly mean the Legislature is a better entity to manage our fish and game resources? - The Farm Bureau pushes legislation allowing in-stream gravel mining. Do you think an MDC run by the legislature would put up much of a fight? - Ameren, CAFOs, Ag nutrients, mining activities, et al cause a fish kill- do you think an MDC run by the legislature put up much of a fight? - The natural gas industry lobbies heavily for the ability to perform gas fracking on public lands, donating heavily to the campaigns of legislators on both sides of the aisle- do you think an MDC run by the legislature would put up much of a fight? - Urban legislators and the gun control lobby set up a public referendum on whether MDC should be hosting and funding hunting and shooting sports activities- given the puppy mill vote and the deep pockets of the anti-gun lobby, how do you think most residents would vote? That's the beauty of the current system- it allows MDC to do things which may be contentious or controversial. When you make them accountable to the legislature, you open up a huge new Pandora's box of possibilities- from slashing the budget and selling public land to defunding programs which bring our natural heritage to youth throughout the state. and while you may be right that some scientists can be bought and sold by special interests, we KNOW many politicians are. At best, your argument cuts both ways, just as readily demonstrates why legislatorial control of the MDC is a bad idea.

And no one's arguing that, or even that handguns shouldn't be allowed during muzzleloader season. What I'm saying is that it's a bad idea to put the legislature in charge of the state's fish and wildlife. Sorry Redbird, it's reality. It's not a dogpile or a personal attack- you're entitled to whatever opinion you'd like. But if you can't articulate or logically defend it, you can't expect it to carry the same weight as one which does have some evidence behind it. Really it's not even a matter of opinion- either the NRA is supporting SB 300 or they aren't- by their own admission, they are. The facts just aren't on your side.

You're deflecting. And if you believe the government does a poor job managing the VA and the Postal Service, why would you want to put the government in charge of managing the Missouri Department of Conservation? You're basically trying to say an apolitical, non-government agency would be better managed by the State, and that the State should therefore absorb that agency. In some circles that's now termed "socialism." Welcome to the fold, comrade

And the bill's sponsor- Brian Munzlinger, 18th District (Northeast MO). I had a hunch, so I looked it up- same guy who pushed the catfish noodling legislation a few years back. Everyone probably remembers that cluster- really a great case study of why having legislatures in charge of fish and game is a terrible idea if you like having fish to catch and critters to hunt. He's a member of the Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Corn Grower's Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Missouri Cattleman's Association among others- none of which are known for their advocacy of fish or wildlife. He's supported every legislative action favoring the Missouri Farm Bureau. Your guess is as good as mine why a pro-agriculture, pro-industry, pro-business legislator with no discernable interest in conservation or wildlife management, who has engaged in previous battles with MDC over jurisdiction, would be back at it... . I'm sure he's a nice guy, and a great legislator if that's where your interests lie- but looking at his bio and his track record, he's not out there to protect sportsmen's interests. Also, he only answers emails from Adair, Audrain, Clark,Knox, Lewis, Marion, Monroe, Pike, Putnam, Ralls, Schuyler, Scotland and Shelby counties. Democracy in action.

Maybe just a poll.

It's not logical to believe a lobbying group would lobby legislators to create legislation which furthers their agenda? It's not a conspiracy theory Jeb, it's what actually happens- if it didn't, lobbyists wouldn't exist. You may be right though, Jeb- this may not be a power grab, or have any more sinister roots than NRA just trying to allow people to put a cap in a deer's butt during muzzleloader season. But even if that's their only intent, they're still pushing legislation which, on the whole, would be bad for Missouri's fish and wildlife management. Their intent really doesn't matter, they're still in the wrong on this one. If you guys want to be really infuriated, you can read the NRA's side of the story here: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6681 . What I thought particularly interesting was this section: The writer thinks the italicized phrase indicates the legislature has a right to manage the fish and wildlife, completely ignoring the very next "shall be vested in a conservation commission," bit. How stupid do they think people are? If the NRA wanted to push for centerfire handguns during the muzzleloader season, they could easily do that. However, on their Legislative Action site (above), they're obviously still supporting a bill they KNOW will take power away from MDC and put it in the hands of the legislature, and in the process actively trying to deceive their own members and constituents, telling them the Missouri statute says something it plainly does not. I don't think Missouri sportsmen need the NRA pissing on their head and telling them it's raining.

MDC is a non-political government agency. The NRA is a lobbying group. The NRA has a better shot of furthering its agenda if MDC is controlled by the legislature (whom the NRA can then influence directly via campaign contributions, etc), than by a-political, appointed entities such as the Conservation Commission. It's that simple.

Not if the landowner's obstruction is interfering with anglers and recreationalists' right to use those streams, right?

I curse you for still having high-quality hackle. My dun supply's about spent, and I'll have to wait until the hackle-hair extension fad is buried for more. Nice ties, though. Montauk fish go nuts for sz. 22 cream midges.

I've been seeing a bunch of immature cicada nymphs in the backyard as I've been doing my spring planting, and lots of holes as I've been out turkey hunting, and I'm betting smallie fishing will be epic if the water ever comes down. I thought about the July deadline, but I've been jonesin' to tie some foam monstrosities since I likely won't make it out west this summer...and I'm not sure the fish will snub their noses if a big mock cicada plops down in front of them come mid-July

If there are laws which do that, and if those laws are in direct conflict of MDC's mission statement, then yes, those laws should be repealed. I don't pretend to know more about cars than my auto mechanic. I don't pretend to know more about medicine than my doctor. I don't pretend to know more about growing food than a farmer. I don't see why it makes sense for the legislature to presume they know more about managing fish and wildlife than fish and wildlife managers. It's not pragmatic, it's political.

In.

If you have the patience to tie a dozen Roy Christie style emergers, or a dozen woven body soft hackles, I'll certainly fish them I'm in- thinking either Slumpbusters or some big foam Cicada nastiness, since they're supposed to be coming out in droves this year.

The way I read it, the NRA wanted to allow "modern handguns" (which I assume would be centerfire handguns, no?) during the muzzleloader season. Personally I don't see much value in that. And if folks with "modern handguns" were interested in using them during the muzzleloader season, they could just as easily petition the Conservation Federation/ Conservation Commission for a change in regulations, just like the atlatl folks and all the rest have done.

I don't see how the NRA is doing sportsmen any favors with this maneuver, and don't see the value in their biting the hand that feeds them. I'll be writing my legislators.

For what it's worth, "Chocolate tide," made me grin

I bought a Cabela's rod once. The reel seat hardware fell off after a few trips- no one in Malaysia or wherever never bothered to actually gluing the parts together. I don't buy rods from Cabela's any more. I know lots of folks love the Cabela's and Bass Pro rods, ny more. but I was just so frustrated with that experience I don't trust either company to provide a decent, reliable product. I'd really recommend going Tim's route and picking up a TFO, or maybe look into the Greys rods- they're pretty low priced and I personally haven't had issues with either of them. If you're looking for a project, you could build your own custom rod on a TFO blank and probably not spend more than $150 or so, depending on the weight, action, and features you want.

Unquestioned power, hypernationality, international supremacy...genocide wasn't Hitler's only schtick.

Aside from above, all I'm trying to say is this: You can claim Cairo has no business being where it is. I'd claim the farmers on the Missouri side have no business being where they are, and have no more right to stay dry than the folks in Cairo. You can claim folks in Cairo should've known the town was prone to flood. I'd claim farmers should've known a levee designed to be blown in the event Cairo was in danger, should've known the levee may be blown if Cairo were in danger. You can claim our chief concern ought to be restoring the natural flood capacity and ecosystem function of the floodplain. I'd fully agree, and explain that you could build nearly 50 Cairo, Illinoises on the land which would be inundated by blowing the levee on the Missouri side. We'd derive far greater benefits repatriating 130,000 acres of floodplain on the Missouri side than we would letting the 2200 or so acres of Cairo, Illinois disappear.

I fully agree, but that's not reality. Maybe it's an arbitrary distinction, but I see places like Cairo, Ste. Genevieve, Alton, etc differently than places like the development going on in Chesterfield et al. No one built Cairo where it is because it was a cheap and easy place to build a shopping mall. No one built it there because it was a particularly nice place to live- floods, disease, and all the rest threatened the folks who lived there. People put a town at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio for the same reason they built towns up and down the major rivers- rivers were the primary travel corridors of the time. You can't fault someone for building a trading hub in a floodplain in 1830 any more than you can fault a guy for putting a truck stop on I-44 today- you have to put your business where the traffic is. It IS dumb that people haven't learned from the last flood, and it IS dumb that people keep making stupid choices, and it IS dumb that other folks are having to pay for those stupid choices. But I also believe the time to tell your neighbor to screw off isn't while his house is burning down, no matter how stupid he may be, or how ramshackle the dwelling. It's an argument for humanity.

And you can make the exact same argument about the farmers on the other side of the river- as I said earlier, it's a moot point. Why should Cairo get the shaft because both parties built their homes and businesses in equally bad places? If a question of design, the answer's easy. The Cairo levee was designed to hold back X feet of water. The Missouri levee was designed to be blown in the event the Cairo levee was in danger of failing. If the MO levee was designed to be blown, why not blow it?

I definitely agree that curbing development in floodplains, and relocated people where possible, is the ideal long-term solution. In the meantime, someone has to decide whether saving thousands of homes is worth inundating hundreds of thousands of acres, and eliminating some folks' livelihoods for some time. I wonder if some arrangement could be made- communities "protected" by levees pay farmers for floodwater storage?

Would you go along with a plan to flood and destroy your home and belongings in order to save the vacant lot across the street?