Keep Politics Out Of Wildlife Management!

[flytyer57]

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

And when the NRA wants handguns during bow season, the MDC should just go ahead and alow that too?

[flytyer57]

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!".

Like Bush pretty much did with the energy companies.

[hank franklin]

Thank you Al for the basic Conservation Commission history.

Jeb and I probably agree on many more things politically than we disagree. What I can't understand is why he doesn't get that this law is a direct challenge to the Conservation Commission? Clearly it is. You can debate if this is a good thing or bad but you can't debate that it's a challenge.

The MDC bends already to the political winds. What does the 4-point rule have to do resource science? It doesn't. It's really quite arbitrary and is simply designed to grow bigger trophy bucks. A lot of hunters want that and they've successfully appealed through the system, so fair enough. I personally think it's ludicrous to require a hunter to determine if there's four points on side of a rack in order to shoot, but those are the rules. I passed on a buck this year cause I was unsure. Didn't have another chance either.

My point is political winds are already influencing the system. To give the Legislature full or even partial authority would open the sporting world to all sorts of silly and stupid whims. As Al says, you might need to get out of the state to understand how good Missouri really has it. I have friends in Ohio who can't wait to hunt deer here. It's not that way because of the Legislature; I would argue it's that way because Missourians way back in the day had the good sense to cut the Legislature out.

The pro-sportsman position clearly in my opinion is to keep it that way.

[jeb]

Like Bush pretty much did with the energy companies.

Can you be more specific about what Bush did "with energy companies"?

[jeb]

Thank you Al for the basic Conservation Commission history.

Jeb and I probably agree on many more things politically than we disagree. What I can't understand is why he doesn't get that this law is a direct challenge to the Conservation Commission? Clearly it is. You can debate if this is a good thing or bad but you can't debate that it's a challenge.

It could be. I don't mean to say it's not. My only point/question is what I asked in my first post here. And nobody has presented anything thus far to backup the assertion that, basically, the NRA is out to eliminate the MDC. Again, the evidence could be there, for all I know. I would just like someone to show it to us.

[flytyer57]

Can you be more specific about what Bush did "with energy companies"?

What short memories we have. You can read a lot about it here.

[Outside Bend]

And nobody has presented anything thus far to backup the assertion that, basically, the NRA is out to eliminate the MDC. Again, the evidence could be there, for all I know. I would just like someone to show it to us.

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.

[Tim Smith]

It could be. I don't mean to say it's not. My only point/question is what I asked in my first post here. And nobody has presented anything thus far to backup the assertion that, basically, the NRA is out to eliminate the MDC. Again, the evidence could be there, for all I know. I would just like someone to show it to us.

No one said "eliminate". "Undermine" would be a better word. "Politicize". "Circumvent". "Hamstring".

I'll pick up the land "takings" issue with you another time, Jeb, but that's a different topic I think. I fully confess I don't trust or think much of Wayne LaPierre's version of the NRA. But as others have said that's beside the point.

Let science do its job.

[Fly_Guy]

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

Just wanted to add that this is the fanciest reply I have ever seen on OAF forum.

The legislation should be in the business of making laws that allow us the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of property (and generally the fewer the better), not pretending to be conservation biologists.

Good civil discussion guys!

[Al Agnew]

Jeb, I WILL take up the so-called land grab issue just a bit. The lands that Clinton and Obama designated as "roadless" or whatever are ALREADY OUR PUBLIC LANDS. How is that a "land grab"? Those lands do not and did not belong to private individuals, energy companies, mining companies, timber companies, or ATV enthusiasts. And given that something like 5% of our public lands (less than that outside of Alaska, I believe) are designated wilderness and nobody is advocating making all public lands wilderness, your diatribe against the elitists that want to lock up all public lands away from people who can't hike into them is kinda ridiculous.

And, by the way, "illegal" isn't exactly right, either, since the courts have upheld a President's right to designate such lands. So let's see...it isn't illegal, it isn't a land grab, and it isn't locking up all or even a large percentage of public lands. Which brings me back to the phrase "elitist", which is another loaded word. I'll bet if you did a survey of people that agree with protecting more roadless and relatively unspoiled public land as wilderness, you will find a pretty normal cross-section of the total population. There are probably a few people in the group that could be considered "elitist" whatever that means, but mostly a whole lot of just plain folks who believe that the few areas left that can qualify as wilderness should remain roadless and non-motorized, since so MUCH of our public lands are neither.