ozark trout fisher Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/article_2685cdc5-33a0-5e11-af76-254ce493ce42.html Senate Bill 300 passed unanimously, a bill which would threaten to take away the authority of the Missouri Conservation Commission to manage wildlife, putting that authority instead into the hands of politicians. I have often been critical of the MDC, but in many ways they have saved this state from ecological ruin, and we wouldn't have much to fish or hunt for if they hadn't been the primary wildlife management force in our state. This bill must not pass in the house of representatives. By all means read more and learn as much as you can about this. Then write your representative, and tell them why you think politics should not be involved in wildlife management.
Outside Bend Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 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. <{{{><
flytyer57 Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I always knew the NRA was up to no good. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
jeb Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Help me understand why the NRA would care about a court challenge to the MDC. That "guest commentary" opinion piece linked to above (not a news article) did not link to the NRA letters or explain the motive, so I'm curious. I'm NOT saying the guy is wrong, just would like to have more info. John B 08 Skeeter SL210, 225F Yamaha
hank franklin Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 This bill is really pretty obnoxious. Jeb, what the bill says is handguns are allowed during muzzleloader season, regardless what the Conservation Commission says. The key is the "regardless what the Conservation Commission says" bit. So, if this becomes law, the NRA would say to the Conservation Commission, here you go, amend the Wildlife Code. And the Conservation Commission will say no, we are in charge of the Wildlife Code, not the Legislature. This will then end up in the courts, which presumably would decide who has the authority to set the Wildlife Code. The NRA apparently would rather the Legislature have the authority and not the Commission. In this regard then yes, I think the NRA has an anti-sportsmen position. If the NRA merely wants handguns allowed during muzzleloader season, then they have the right to lobby the Conservation Commission for that switch just like any other group. The Smallmouth Bass Alliance has lobbied the Commission for changes in the smallmouth bass regs. The SMA has not gone to the Legislature, at least not that I'm aware of. The Legislature doesn't have the authority. This is a thumbnail sketch and I admit I have not researched exhaustively.
Tim Smith Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 This bill is really pretty obnoxious. Jeb, what the bill says is handguns are allowed during muzzleloader season, regardless what the Conservation Commission says. The key is the "regardless what the Conservation Commission says" bit. So, if this becomes law, the NRA would say to the Conservation Commission, here you go, amend the Wildlife Code. And the Conservation Commission will say no, we are in charge of the Wildlife Code, not the Legislature. This will then end up in the courts, which presumably would decide who has the authority to set the Wildlife Code. The NRA apparently would rather the Legislature have the authority and not the Commission. In this regard then yes, I think the NRA has an anti-sportsmen position. If the NRA merely wants handguns allowed during muzzleloader season, then they have the right to lobby the Conservation Commission for that switch just like any other group. The Smallmouth Bass Alliance has lobbied the Commission for changes in the smallmouth bass regs. The SMA has not gone to the Legislature, at least not that I'm aware of. The Legislature doesn't have the authority. This is a thumbnail sketch and I admit I have not researched exhaustively. The NRA has been hiding in the skirts of the sporting community for decades. Unless you feel strongly that you need an Uzi that you bought the same day to shoot a deer, their extremist core agenda over the last 20 years does nothing to advance fishing opportunities. Now they want your conservation department to run on the whims of politics. It's like pushing a brand new high tech vehicle off the cliff so you can ride a clown car instead.
hank franklin Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 My question to the group is is it a good idea to allow handguns during muzzeloader season? I really don't know. I've only rifle-hunted so I kind of have my doubts, but at the same time I imagine with some minimum caliber limits etc. it might be OK. I don't really know.
flytyer57 Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 My question to the group is is it a good idea to allow handguns during muzzeloader season? I really don't know. I've only rifle-hunted so I kind of have my doubts, but at the same time I imagine with some minimum caliber limits etc. it might be OK. I don't really know. The question would be; How many muzzel loading hanguns will be effective at killing deer? There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
awhuber Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 The question would be; How many muzzel loading hanguns will be effective at killing deer? The bill is to allow centerfire handguns.
flytyer57 Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 The bill is to allow centerfire handguns. Don't they allow centerfire handguns during regular gun season? If it's a muzzel loading season, they should keep it at that. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now