Keep Politics Out Of Wildlife Management!

[Tim Smith]

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

For the 20th time, it's not about handguns and deer season. Crimeny. It's about going through proper channels.

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.

...an approach vastly preferable to intentionally crippling the biggest ally you'll ever have in natural resources.

[bigredbirdfan]

For the 20th time, it's not about handguns and deer season. Crimeny. It's about going through proper channels.

...an approach vastly preferable to intentionally crippling the biggest ally you'll ever have in natural resources.

You are good with insults like "Senator Stooges" and "For the 20th time" and you like to disect peoples posts.

Haven't met a government program you didn't like either it appears. What kind of nice compliments can you give the VA and the Postal Service?

[Outside Bend]

Haven't met a government program you didn't like either it appears. What kind of nice compliments can you give the VA and the Postal Service?

You're deflecting. And if you believe the government does a poor job managing the VA and the Postal Service, why would you want to put the government in charge of managing the Missouri Department of Conservation?

You're basically trying to say an apolitical, non-government agency would be better managed by the State, and that the State should therefore absorb that agency. In some circles that's now termed "socialism." Welcome to the fold, comrade

[Tim Smith]

You are good with insults like "Senator Stooges" and "For the 20th time" and you like to disect peoples posts.

Haven't met a government program you didn't like either it appears. What kind of nice compliments can you give the VA and the Postal Service?

If you think senators who voted set CAFOs above the law deserve a term other than "stooge" you are welcome to post it, and yes, we are fast approaching the 20th time this has been explained.

...and yes I absolutely dissect people's posts, because I want to understand what they're saying. You should try it some time.

For instance, when I dissect your post, I see that you've ducked the issue of going through propper channels and you're trying to smear me on political grounds. Any rhetoric handbook you check will tell you that almost always happens when someone can't defend their point on the merits of its logic. I don't care if you dispatch your gut shot deer (They're mostly gut shot, eh? That's a shame.) with a hand gun or dynamite or a coke bottle. It's a non-issue.

You dislike the MDC because it's a state agency? In my opinion that's about as senseless as hating FedEx because they're a private company. But you go ahead and paint me as a commie because I support them, it's the best you've got so fire away. Never mind I voted 8 years running for my Republican representative in Illinois because he had a pristine conservation record. Never mind I run my own business. Never mind I can out-Bible you in my sleep.

Smear away.

[bigredbirdfan]

I support the idea of using handguns to end suffering. Never said I support this bill.

Both of you two have voiced your objection to this issue like twenty times.

Any time an alternative opinion is voiced on here it's dogpile time. It's actually why I don't get on here much anymore. It's really ruined it for me except for some fishing reports from time to time.

[Tim Smith]

I support the idea of using handguns to end suffering. Never said I support this bill.

Both of you two have voiced your objection to this issue like twenty times.

Any time an alternative opinion is voiced on here it's dogpile time.

It would be refreshing to actually SEE an alternative opinion on this rather than the same thing repeated over and over.

Does this bill or does it not illegally circumvent the Missouri Constitution? That's the point on the floor. That's the counter-argument. Address it, or bring up a new point that has enough substance or civility to handle some critical feedback.

If "You're a commie" is the best you've got, no one's going to miss you much when you go.

[Outside Bend]

I support the idea of using handguns to end suffering. Never said I support this bill.

And no one's arguing that, or even that handguns shouldn't be allowed during muzzleloader season. What I'm saying is that it's a bad idea to put the legislature in charge of the state's fish and wildlife.

Any time an alternative opinion is voiced on here it's dogpile time. It's actually why I don't get on here much anymore. It's really ruined it for me except for some fishing reports from time to time.

Sorry Redbird, it's reality. It's not a dogpile or a personal attack- you're entitled to whatever opinion you'd like. But if you can't articulate or logically defend it, you can't expect it to carry the same weight as one which does have some evidence behind it. Really it's not even a matter of opinion- either the NRA is supporting SB 300 or they aren't- by their own admission, they are. The facts just aren't on your side.

[Mitch f]

In some circles that's now termed "socialism." Welcome to the fold, comrade

WOW

[Al Agnew]

I was pretty dismayed to read the NRA's "justification" for the part of the bill that gives the legislature the power to do this. Before I read that, I was kinda hoping that they were somewhat unaware of what the ultimate result of this law would be. But nope, they are obviously pushing this bill as a test of the constitutional authority of the Conservation Commission. From their website, this paragraph ticks me off even more than the one quoted above:

"Ending this myth once and for all has never been more important. Unfortunately for the state’s hunters and gun owners, the Conservation Commission has become more and more motivated by politics and emotion. There are many examples of this but the most dangerous is the implementation of widespread lead shot bans for hunting on state lands. There is absolutely no science showing population level effects on wildlife species resulting from the use of lead shot for hunting. Despite this, the Commission pushed ahead with these bans and many believe, based upon this history, that it could attempt to implement the first statewide ban on the use of traditional ammunition for hunting in the nation."

So this is not really about using handguns in the muzzleloader season, even for the NRA. Their supposed reason for it is to give hunters more "choice", but the real reason is specifically to challenge the Commission's authority.

I love that "population level effects" phrase. There is a vast amount of science showing that ducks and other birds that ingest lead shot get sick and die. But apparently the NRA is saying that not enough of them die to depress overall populations, and therefore nobody should have to use non-lead shot. What is being ignored is that if we went back to using lead shot in heavily used duck hunting areas, we would be adding more and more lead shot to what is already there from years past. The more shot that is lying on the bottom, the more gets ingested by ducks. The more that gets ingested, the more ducks die. The reason for the ban on lead shot in the first place is that we were STARTING to see problems with ducks dying for lead shot. If we go back to using lead shot, at some point, there will be enough shot lying around that enough ducks will be dying that it just MIGHT have "population level" effects. But no...let's go back to using lead shot until that happens...except then it will be pretty much too late.

Oh, and by the way, I also liked the phrase "there are many examples of (the conservation commission becoming more and more motivated by politics and emotion)" but they don't name any of them except the lead shot bans. I'd like to see their other examples if they have them.

[Justin Spencer]

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.

Pile on time.

First thing I do (and most other black powder hunters) is reload as the deer runs off in the smoke, if you wait properly for the deer to expire you have plenty of time to reload. Even with a 30-06 I wait 20-30 minutes if I don't physically see the deer die. Rarely have I been chased up a tree by a "suffering wounded deer", and if I do get treed I'm sure the reloaded .50 cal will take care of it just as easily as a handgun, if not I have no business black powder hunting in the first place. This would seem to be more of an issue for bow hunters, but I guess there is no National Archers Association.(NAA)