Keep Politics Out Of Wildlife Management!

[Al Agnew]

Yep, I got all that, thanks

Here's the leap I have yet to get any understanding of. Why would the NRA want that? What evidence is there that their aim is shift all of that power back to the legislature? The answers may be out there, but thus far, and no offense, I have not seen anything but opinions and conspiracy theories. Is there a link to this NRA leter that supposedly reveals their real motives?

That is a good question, but peripheral to the main point, which is that the law as written WOULD most certainly result in a court challenge, and if the courts decided it was okay, would just as certainly shift all that power back to the legislature. You can speculate as to motives all you want, but results are what counts.

Could be that the NRA is being played by handgun enthusiasts who framed this as an abrogation of their rights. Or could be the NRA is so much in bed with the conservative block of the state legislature, which in recent years has looked upon MDC's independent status as a burr under their saddle, that they are doing this with their eyes wide open.

I am heartily sick of the state legislature. Anybody see the bill one of the houses just passed with a veto proof majority (which needs members of both parties to get that much of a majority, by the way) that bans landowners from being able to sue a CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) which moves into the area and causes so much pollution and odors that the landowners who were already there lose much of the value of their property? (who wants to buy a farm next to a CAFO?) The bill basically says that neither county officials nor landowners can do ANYTHING about CAFOs.

[Tim Smith]

Yep, I got all that, thanks

Here's the leap I have yet to get any understanding of. Why would the NRA want that? What evidence is there that their aim is shift all of that power back to the legislature? The answers may be out there, but thus far, and no offense, I have not seen anything but opinions and conspiracy theories. Is there a link to this NRA leter that supposedly reveals their real motives?

Because they are against scientific conservation of natural resources....

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/the_anti_conservation_mission_of_the_nra/C41/L41/

....and they want control of Pittman Robertson tax funds through their stooge senators.

http://illinoispolicy.org/uploads/files/PRAct10-28_1.pdf

[hank franklin]

To answer your question Jeb, I don't know what the NRA's real motives are. All I know is they are backing a law which does an end-run around the Conservation Commission's authority. Why they are doing that, I don't know, but that's what they are doing.

I was and am anti-elk by the way, if that means anything, and I am sympathetic to the idea of reimbursing landowners who suffer elk damage. So I understand some of the Legislature's periodic gripes with MDC. But a Legislative take-over would be terrible and should be opposed by all sportsmen.

[Tim Smith]

I am heartily sick of the state legislature. Anybody see the bill one of the houses just passed with a veto proof majority (which needs members of both parties to get that much of a majority, by the way) that bans landowners from being able to sue a CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) which moves into the area and causes so much pollution and odors that the landowners who were already there lose much of the value of their property? (who wants to buy a farm next to a CAFO?) The bill basically says that neither county officials nor landowners can do ANYTHING about CAFOs.

Stooge. Senators.

[jeb]

That is a good question, but peripheral to the main point, which is that the law as written WOULD most certainly result in a court challenge, and if the courts decided it was okay, would just as certainly shift all that power back to the legislature. You can speculate as to motives all you want, but results are what counts.

I don't see the connection. It could be that the MDC would just adopt the rule/law and life would go on. Or it could be it will become a hybrid where the legislature would just have more input into the current system. Even if there was a court case and it was won by the state, I don't see where that automatically means total control is wrested from the MDC.

I think there are a lot of folks wanting to make the NRA look bad, for various reasons. And they are not always perfect or right. But in this case, I'm just not seeing anything thus far to indicate anything nefarious on their part.

[hank franklin]

It could be that the MDC would just adopt the rule/law and life would go on. I think there are a lot of folks wanting to make the NRA look bad, for various reasons. And they are not always perfect or right. But in this case, I'm just not seeing anything thus far to indicate anything nefarious on their part.

If handguns during muzzleloader season is OK, then yeah, MDC should just adopt the rule and go on.

I'm not trying to make NRA look bad. The simple fact is they are backing a bill which is a direct challenge to the Conservation Commission's authority. Why? Do they not like the MDC?

[jeb]

Because they are against scientific conservation of natural resources....

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/the_anti_conservation_mission_of_the_nra/C41/L41/

That may be the way you see it, but I see it quite differently. I think they are against unlawful land grabs, and they are against the elitest attitude that all lands should be locked up from the public except those able bodied enough to be able to hike 100's of miles to access it. There are state and federal congressional processes for locking up so called wilderness areas. Presidents should not be able to circumvent that process with "roadless" (Clinton) or "wild lands" (Obama) edicts anymore than another president should be able to say "Okay, all federal lands are now open to strip mining and drilling. Go get 'em boys!". You can't have it both ways.

[Tim Smith]

So you agree, Jeb, that the bill is an attack on the MDC?

I think there are a lot of folks wanting to make the NRA look bad, for various reasons. And they are not always perfect or right. But in this case, I'm just not seeing anything thus far to indicate anything nefarious on their part.

As for the NRA, 30 years ago I would have had no problem with them, but the days they did anything meaningful for hunters have pretty much come to an end.

There's nothing nefarious about having a political position, but the outcome of those positions have ramifications.

Giving the legislature authority to micromanage things like methods of deer take opens the door to just about everything. You don't want that door open. If MDC ducks a fight this time, they'll find themselves in a worse position down the road at some point.

I think they are against unlawful land grabs,

Everyone is against unlawful landgrabs, the NRA has no special virtue here.

It also has no special virtue on how to manage natural resources, and neither does the legislature. The professionals who study those things their entire lives DO have special virtue on those matters and they should be able to handle the day to day issues.

Do you want your state senator on the phone to the MDC deciding what gets stocked and where it gets stocked and when? Happens all the time in Illinois. I can tell you it's not an especially savory road to take.

and they are against the elitest attitude

Conserving natural resources is elitest?

..that all lands should be locked up from the public except those able bodied enough to be able to hike 100's of miles to access it.

Again, I don't know if this level of decision falls under the perview of the MDC. This may be a tangent. The bigger point is that where the MDC is given authority, let it exercise that authority without the clown show hanging over their shoulder.

No one is trying to lock up "all" lands. But if you want SOME land to remain wilderness (and I realize many people don't) SOME lands need a higher level of protection. There aren't many places like this in the world any more. If those little scraps of land aren't set aside they'll be lost entirely.

There are state and federal congressional processes for locking up so called wilderness areas. Presidents should not be able to circumvent that process with "roadless" (Clinton) or "wild lands" (Obama) edicts anymore than another president should be able to say "Okay, all federal lands are now open to strip mining and drilling. Go get 'em boys!".

The MDC has nothing to do with presidential federal land acquisitions. The link evaluated federal congressional votes for that process, not presidential edicts and the point was that the NRA set itself against the biology that showed that was the right thing to do. If you want to talk about presidents locking up areas for conservation, Bush set aside the largest marine reserve in the world just before he left office...and more power to him.

These aren't blue/red decisions. This is what you do to conserve natural resources...

You can't have it both ways.

Actually, you must have it both ways. You need natural lands, and you need developed land. and you need some that's in between. And if you want to keep natural lands intact you need a NATURALIST setting day to day policy, not the legislature.

[Al Agnew]

I don't see the connection. It could be that the MDC would just adopt the rule/law and life would go on. Or it could be it will become a hybrid where the legislature would just have more input into the current system. Even if there was a court case and it was won by the state, I don't see where that automatically means total control is wrested from the MDC.

I think there are a lot of folks wanting to make the NRA look bad, for various reasons. And they are not always perfect or right. But in this case, I'm just not seeing anything thus far to indicate anything nefarious on their part.

Some people don't understand that in many if not most states, the state legislature both controls the purse strings and has final say on ANY regulations the state fish and game department puts out. As a practical matter, the legislature in these states allows the department to institute regulations without second-guessing them, but if the regs are in any way controversial, the legislature can override them. You have to go back to the history of the conservation in MO to understand this issue fully. By the 1930s, conservation in MO was at a low ebb. The legislature was directing the single conservation commissioner, and the laws and regulations were outmoded. Patronage was rampant within the department as legislators helped out their cronies. Much of the very limited resources was being spent on bounties and stocking programs. Deer and turkey were practically extinct in the state.

In 1935 the Conservation Federation of Missouri was formed to work to put conservation in the state on a modern, science-based footing. They ended up putting an initiative petition on the ballot in 1936 to form a non-political commission to "control, manage, restore, conserve, and regulate the bird, fish, game, forestry and all wildlife resources of the state, and to administer all laws pertaining thereto." The people voted it into law as a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT in 1936 by the largest majority ever for a constitutional amendment vote.

This tradition started back then of the legislature having no say in the department's management of wildlife resources has obviously worked very well, and it is cherished by those of us who know the history and also know how bad things sometimes work in states that don't have this system. This bill is a direct challenge to that tradition. In NO area of wildlife management does the legislature, at present, have any say. You might not agree with every regulation the department comes up with, but they always have a scientific basis, instead of being instituted because Joe Blow in the legislature and his buddies want to hunt with handguns. If this bill is allowed to stand, it sets a precedent, and that independence from legislative whim becomes a thing of the past. The fact of the NRA's involvement with this isn't really the most important issue, the issue is the bill itself. But the NRA is wrong on this.

[jeb]

So you agree, Jeb, that the bill is an attack on the MDC?

No, not at all. Not sure where you got that from what I said, but I don't know enough about it yet to understand if it's any kind of attack. Sounds to me more like the legislature wants to at least have some input into the process. That is already the system in most states, so it does not seem unreasonable to me.

As for the NRA, 30 years ago I would have had no problem with them, but the days they did anything meaningful for hunters have pretty much come to an end.

There's nothing nefarious about having a political position, but the outcome of those positions have ramifications.

Giving the legislature authority to micromanage things like methods of deer take opens the door to just about everything. You don't want that door open. If MDC ducks a fight this time, they'll find themselves in a worse position down the road at some point.

Maybe. Maybe not. But that's not my question. The question is why would the NRA care? Why would they be pushing to have the MDC disbanded, as the conspiracy theorist on this issue seem to hold? And where is the NRA letter which supposedly supports this line of thinking? Hey, it could be that letter is there and shows them as the devil incarnate. I'm just not willing to accept that notion based on opinions pieces written on the internet.

Everyone is against unlawful landgrabs, the NRA has no special virtue here.

Not everyone. Clinton and Obama are certainly for them, as proven by their actions.

It also has no special virtue on how to manage natural resources, and neither does the legislature. The professionals who study those things their entire lives DO have special virtue on those matters and they should be able to handle the day to day issues.

And I've seen no proof whatsoever, at least so far, that anyone is trying to stop that process.

Do you want your state senator on the phone to the MDC deciding what gets stocked and where it gets stocked and when? Happens all the time in Illinois.

Hmmm. I thought this was bill that was being considered by the MO Legislature and has be passed by majorities and then has to be signed into law by the governor. Are you saying that there is one senator calling the MDC demanding this? Or are you adding to the hype instead of stating the real issues?

Conserving natural resources is elitest?

Obvioiusly taken out of context, and putting words in my mouth. What I said was:

and they are against the elitest attitude that all lands should be locked up from the public except those able bodied enough to be able to hike 100's of miles to access it.

No one is trying to lock up "all" lands. But if you want SOME land to remain wilderness (and I realize many people don't) SOME lands need a higher level of protection. There aren't many places like this in the world any more. If those little scraps of land aren't set aside they'll be lost entirely.

That's fine. That's why there is a legal process setup to do that through the fed and state legislatures. I'm fine with that. But the Clinton and Obama illegal land grabs should not be allowed, again, anymore than a different president being able to lift true wildnerness protection.

The link evaluated federal congressional votes for that process, not presidential edicts

That is incorrect. The linked article discussed what the AHSA based its findings on voting records on and the first bullet was the illegal Clinton Roadless land grab. BTW, did you notice the AHSA's doesn't even have a web presence anymore?

and the point was that the NRA set itself against the biology that showed that was the right thing to do.

Could you be more specific? Not sure what "biology" you are referring to, of what "right thing" you are talking about.

These aren't blue/red decisions. This is what you do to conserve natural resources...

Are you saying it's okay to do things illegally, as long as it happens to be something you believe is right?

Actually, you must have it both ways. You need natural lands, and you need developed land. and you need some that's in between.

Out of context, and again putting words in my mouth. My point was, of course, that you if you don't demand that pols follow the law as long as they're doing something you approve you, you need to be ready for when a pol does something illegal that you don't like, too.