Keep Politics Out Of Wildlife Management!

[jeb]

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

First line in the article. May not say eliminate, but that's certainly the way it sounds. Maybe take control of it would be more correct.

The National Rifle Association has thrown its full force behind a legislative effort to wrest control of Missouri's fish and game away from the Missouri Conservation Commission.

Let science do its job.

Well, I'd have to see the science to agree. And who the scientist are. Like it or not, science is for sale these days.

[jeb]

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.

That's not a logical arguement based on the facts we have at this point. It is merely a conspiracy theory. Show me some evidence that the NRA has any evil intent here. Not conjecture and aspersion, but something, anything, concrete. Like the letter mentioned in the linked article. I'll fall in line with you if there is some proof. The NRA does not always make the right decisions. Cop killer bullets is one example. But I'm not ready to throw them under the bus with no evidence, either.

And, by the way, "illegal" isn't exactly right, either, since the courts have upheld a President's right to designate such lands.

Some courts have held that some of the roadless designations are illegal. I imagine it will all end up at the supreme court someday. The Obama land grab has already been defunded, thanks to getting some balance back in the federal congress. So the fight is far from over on that one.

[jeb]

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

Don't see the problem. God forbid they try to make energy more affordable for all Americans, and see energy companies make money. I know the polictally correct path these days is to dinegrate any successful company, but I still think it's okay.

[hank franklin]

Like it or not, science is for sale these days.

Yes, it is, especially when the politicians, the lobbyists etc. are buying. This is a great argument for keeping MDC out of the hands of the Legislature. Example: Some of the southern MO sheriffs and politicians no doubt don't mind deer-dogging. If the Legislature had control and the deer doggers wanted some favors they might get them via the political system. Less enforcement, longer season etc. If they needed some "science" then that could undoubtedly be had.

The current system has a firewall against the Legislature. The NRA is backing a bill that challenges that. I'm not against the NRA per se, but I'm certainly against their position here.

[eric1978]

jeb, you're putting up a good fight, but I think it's a knee jerk position you're taking. If you remove your NRA-colored glasses, you could see this thing more clearly...obviously you're an unflinching supporter of the NRA and feel you have to back them no matter what. Their push to "hamstring," as Tim accurately put it, the MDC, is bad for conservation and bad for sportsmen...period. There's no way to spin it, although you get a 10 out of 10 for your effort.

Try to look at it more objectively and through a long-term perspective. If this was PETA lobbying for the same bill (not likely LOL), would you take the same position? I doubt it.

[Tim Smith]

Well, I'd have to see the science to agree. And who the scientist are. Like it or not, science is for sale these days.

Jeb, the scientists here are the MDC. You can see the results of their work every day. Make your decision on that basis.

As for science being "for sale", I can tell you as a scientist that is a highly offensive statement. I (like many other people in many other professions) have scars all over my body and a growing list of death threats from NOT selling out. Scientist do try not to starve, but most scientists I know make significant sacrifices to do their jobs with integrity...often over and against politics and narrow self interest. I and most environmental scientists I know never managed to care very much about money, but we do care about telling the truth based on data and objective analysis....

....no matter how much it makes you hate me.

Once I get a minute one of us should start the "takings" thread. That's a good topic and there is indeed some science to discuss there (along with some value judgments which are outside science but have a lot to do with how to move forward on those issues).

[Outside Bend]

That's not a logical arguement based on the facts we have at this point. It is merely a conspiracy theory. Show me some evidence that the NRA has any evil intent here. Not conjecture and aspersion, but something, anything, concrete. Like the letter mentioned in the linked article. I'll fall in line with you if there is some proof. The NRA does not always make the right decisions. Cop killer bullets is one example. But I'm not ready to throw them under the bus with no evidence, either.

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 recent criticisms of the NRA’s efforts are based on an unfortunate myth associated with the Missouri Constitution. This myth has been perpetuated for years by Department of Conservation officials and their allies in so-called conservation organizations in the state. They deceitfully or naively claim that Article IV, Section 40 of the Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating hunting-related laws. In fact, it explicitly recognizes the Legislature’s authority to do just this.

The pertinent language of Article IV, Section 40 reads:

The control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation of the bird, fish, game, forestry and all wildlife resources of the state, including hatcheries, sanctuaries, refuges, reservations and all other property owned, acquired or used for such purposes and the acquisition and establishment thereof, and the administration of all laws pertaining thereto, shall be vested in a conservation commission…. (Emphasis added.)

The critics of the NRA act as if “and the administration of all laws pertaining thereto” is not part of this Section (it is repeated two more times in this Section). However strongly these critics wish it away, this language really does mean something and what it means is that the Legislature may enact any laws it chooses with regard to all of the subjects mentioned previously in Section 40 (i.e. management of wildlife). The Conservation Commission is then assigned the duty of administering those laws. Of course, only the Legislature is empowered to enact laws while the Commission is empowered to adopt rules and regulations. This is a fact that only further clarifies what should be clear to anyone capable of reading.

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.

[Tim Smith]

I don't think Missouri sportsmen need the NRA pissing on their head and telling them it's raining.

Shower cap,anyone?

[Outside Bend]

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.

[bigredbirdfan]

Am I the only person that thinks that carrying handguns in muzzle season is a great idea?

To finish off a wounded deer you have to load up a muzzleloader .50 cal round designed to shot at distances greater than 100 yards and shot it point blank. All the while the suffering wounded deer is a danger to you.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

I didn't read the bill and I'm sure it's loaded with bad stuff but there is a segment of forum members who are just pro MDC under any circumstances, except when mountain lions get shot and elk get reintroduced and river otters.