Keep Politics Out Of Wildlife Management!

[Outside Bend]

Well, the NRA seems to be saying they have science on their side of this, too. So, again, I guess one would have to look at the science and scientists behind each side in each case to try and get to the bottom of it all.

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...

[hank franklin]

There's no question the NRA is challenging MDC, and there's no question that Legislative control of the MDC would be a bad thing. I'm not going to debate that.

What's interesting to me is why NRA is doing this? I would agree that if handguns during muzzleloader season is as innocuous as it sounds, then MDC oughta do it and wait for the next challenge. Fighting on these grounds would cost a lot of legal fees with an uncertain outcome.

Why is NRA doing this? Is it just lead shot? Maybe. Their strategy may be to make MDC squirm a bit on this one in hopes of staving off lead shot ban for a while.

Certainly I think NRA would salivate over a Nixon veto. Nixon though would never be so stupid IMO.

Does NRA truly want Missouri conservation management wrested away from MDC and put in the hands of the Legislature? If so, why? I really have no idea. I can't imagine how any reasonable conservation-minded person would find this to be a good thing.

Maybe it's about lead shot.

[eric1978]

Obviously complete BS here. I already stated I think they've been on the wrong side on things like cop killer bullets. It seems you are the one with the anti-NRA glasses on since you glazed over that in my replies.

Since your presence on this forum leads me to believe you're a sportsman, I can think of no other reason you would support the bill other than your fanatacism for the NRA. I haven't glazed over any of it...you just haven't given a reasonable argument, from the perspective of a conservation-minded sportsman, to justify the NRA's actions .

And yes, I am anti-NRA, and this issue is one of many reasons why.

[jeb]

All I ever wanted to in this thread was understand the facts as best I could. Clearly it is a very emotional issue for many and they are unable to look at it in an unbiased way. I understand that since they don't want to see anything happen that could upset the apple cart, as it were. I don't have a dog in this fight since I don't live in MO and am not an NRA spokesperson or anything close to that. Like I've said before, the NRA has occasionally done things I don't agree with. That was my reason for drilling in really, to see if this was another issue we were at odds on so I could re-evaluate my NRA support going forward or if it was just fear mongering.

I find no issue with what the NRA is doing here, personally. If this is already settled law as some here say, it should not worry anyone. If it's not, then it would've come up sooner or later anyway. I believe the ramifications of it being forced on the MDC are way overblown and based on emotion rather than fact, but that's not what I came here to discuss. I wanted to understand the issues behind each sides position, and I have a solid handle on it now.

I do truly hope that whatever the outcome is, the MDC still provides you MO guys with the quality work they are apparently known for.

[eric1978]

I believe the ramifications of it being forced on the MDC are way overblown and based on emotion rather than fact...

Nope, it's an emotional response to facts...

[ness]

Jeb,

Let me see if I understand you right. Is it something like this:

[Outside Bend]

I find no issue with what the NRA is doing here, personally. If this is already settled law as some here say, it should not worry anyone.

Row v. Wade is settled law, it doesn't mean people don't try to undermine it.

If it's not, then it would've come up sooner or later anyway.

And divert money from worthwhile conservation projects to litigation.

I believe the ramifications of it being forced on the MDC are way overblown and based on emotion rather than fact, but that's not what I came here to discuss.

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.

I do truly hope that whatever the outcome is, the MDC still provides you MO guys with the quality work they are apparently known for.

That's the whole point- legislative control of the MDC is inherintley at odds with the agency's mission.

[Tim Smith]

All I ever wanted to in this thread was understand ignore the facts as best I could. Clearly it is a very emotional issue for many and they are we NRA supporters are unable to look at it in an unbiased way. I understand that since they don't want to see anything happen that could upset the apple cart, as it were. I like to pretend I don't have a dog in this fight since I don't live in MO and am not an NRA spokesperson or anything close to that. Like I've said before, the NRA has occasionally done things I don't agree with. That was my reason for drilling in really, to see if this was another issue we were at odds on ignore the facts on the table, refuse to discuss them on a point by point basis and kind of flop around and pretend to occupy a rational middle ground without actually engaging so I could re-evaluate my put a fig leaf of feigned discourse on my NRA support going forward or if it was just and accuse others of fear mongering.

I find no issue with what the NRA is doing here, personally. If this is already settled law as some here say, it should not worry anyone. If it's not, then it would've come up sooner or later anyway. I believe the ramifications of it being forced on the MDC are way overblown and based on emotion rather than fact, but that's not what I came here to discuss. I wanted to understand ignore the issues behind each sides on the other side of the position, and I have a solid handle on it now posted a completely disingenuous farce.

Fixed that for ya.

[Quillback]

I wonder if JEB keep posting he'll continue to get responses, seems to have turned into a whoever gets the last word in wins discussion.

[mic]

I wonder if JEB keep posting he'll continue to get responses, seems to have turned into a whoever gets the last word in wins discussion.

Your right...I win.