Keep Politics Out Of Wildlife Management!

[jeb]

It's not logical to believe a lobbying group would lobby legislators to create legislation which furthers their agenda?

Tell us, exactly, how that furthers "their agenda". And make sure you present something more than opinion to back that up, please. Until then, it's conspiracy theory. Actually, worse than that, IMO. The link you posted clearly states that is not their aim (I noticed nobody quoted that part of the article. Hmmm.) To wit:

Like with countless other proposed laws each year throughout the country, the NRA supports this bill because it expands hunter opportunity and choice. It does this while maintaining the spirit associated with this lesser weapons season. Expanded opportunity and choice help to improve critical hunter recruitment and retention efforts.

So it sounds like they are just trying to expand opportunities to get more hunters into the sport. THAT sounds like an "agenda" or motive the NRA would have. So unless someone can come up with a smoking gun or evidence to the contrary, that is what we need to go with. Not aspersions and conspiracies.

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.

That is possible, I guess. I agree with their reading of the law in their response. It's obvious the MDC can't pass laws, only enforce them and pass rules. So the legislature is free to pass new laws which the MDC must enforce. But that doesn't mean this might not be some kind of precdent setting deal. I don't know why it would be, unless the MDC really wants to pick a fight over it. Seems the logical, and likely, outcome would be just that they'd enforce the new law and life would go on just like before.

[jeb]

No one takes information at face value in science, Jeb.

Yet you say "Let science do its job.". And then you say we should not take it face value. Ummmmm, okay.

That's the point of science. You test things and retest things and hone your understanding and reject hypotheses that don't stand up to scrutiny until you gradually arrive at the truth.

I agree, that's the way it should work. At least when money and politics don't get in the way.

Nothing I've said here redeems your position in the slightest.

My position does not need any redemption. But I think it's obvious that what you've stated backs up my assertion that science is for sale these days. Carrying "scars" from not selling out, etc.

If you decide you want to stand with the NRA against the MDC as an objective source of information and a worthy administrator of public resources that's your call.

I don't want to stand with anyone. I was merely trying to get to the truth. Something I'd think a scientist would be interested in. Seems the truth is that NRA has no nefarious motive, unless someone has something more than conjecture and innuendo to disprove their claims.

[Tim Smith]

Yet you say "Let science do its job.". And then you say we should not take it face value. Ummmmm, okay.

I agree, that's the way it should work. At least when money and politics don't get in the way.

My position does not need any redemption. But I think it's obvious that what you've stated backs up my assertion that science is for sale these days. Carrying "scars" from not selling out, etc.

I don't want to stand with anyone. I was merely trying to get to the truth. Something I'd think a scientist would be interested in. Seems the truth is that NRA has no nefarious motive, unless someone has something more than conjecture and innuendo to disprove their claims.

These points are too easy for you to be missing, Jeb.

Yes, let science do it's job. Part of that job is being skeptical. There's no contradiction there unless you're desperate to create one.

The scars I have are from breaking my butt to get good data in the field. Most field scientists have them. We get them because we love what we do. You're twisting my words to suit your agenda and I don't respect that.

The links have been made here to the NRA (a lobbying group) intentionally undermining the MDC (a science-based conservation organization). You're systematically ignoring that and repeating the same question over and over. That may pass for debate with the NRA base, but not in an actual discussion.

You have no content to respond to at this point that amounts to more than spin. Fess up and flesh out your attack on MDC and maybe you'll have something to say.

[Tim Smith]

At some point, the Legislature will likely need to exercise its constitutional power pursuant to Article IV, Section 40 to intervene on behalf of science, hunters and gun owners. In order to do this, this myth that the Conservation Commission is the sole authority with regard to hunting and wildlife policy must be debunked once and for all. Through its advocacy of the enhanced hunter opportunity offered in SB 300, the NRA is taking a stand to uphold the plain language of the Missouri Constitution. Contrary to the claims of the critics, this is an honorable endeavor.

From the NRA site. They're clearly gunning for the MDC.

[Fly_Guy]

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)

Seems a little cowardly to me. It only seems fair to the deer to finish it off as soon as possible. If that means it gets a shot at you, that's a chance a real man takes.

The Piler becomes the Pilee

[Al Agnew]

So much to comment on...

Jeb, I can't believe you read the whole NRA piece and JUST picked up on the opening paragraph. They could not have more clearly stated, just a little farther down, why they really want the legislature to pass this law, and it's to "debunk the myth" that the Conservation Commission is the sole authority on fish and wildlife management, as Tim's quote states. And the main reason is not to allow handguns in the muzzleloading season, but to have the legislature pass other laws, especially laws pertaining to the use of non-lead shot. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a conspiracy theorist to see that this handgun issue, one that really only a relative handful of hunters care about in the least, is just the "test case" to get the legislature's foot in the door. Geez, just read what the NRA says and use your head.

As for whether or not the wording of the constitutional amendment really means what the NRA says it does is highly questionable. One word in it, "laws", has been jumped upon by the NRA as meaning that since the legislature passes laws, the Commission must abide by them. But in the sentence right before that one, it gives the Commission the sole authority to manage wildlife among other things. That might seem a little contradictory. But I believe a fair and impartial court would do what the U.S. Supreme Court does in interpreting inconclusive wording in the U.S. Constitution, and that is go back and study the INTENT of the people framing the amendment. If you study the history as I talked about in a previous post, it is VERY clear that the people who worked to get the amendment on the ballot did so expressly to remove the legislature from the picture. And that has been the way the amendment has been interpreted for the last 60 plus years.

[Outside Bend]

Does anyone really think the scientist that said tobacco smoking was not harmful really, really believed that?

Even if we accept your assertion (that science is influenced by politics) at face value, why would that inherintly mean the Legislature is a better entity to manage our fish and game resources?

- The Farm Bureau pushes legislation allowing in-stream gravel mining. Do you think an MDC run by the legislature would put up much of a fight?

- Ameren, CAFOs, Ag nutrients, mining activities, et al cause a fish kill- do you think an MDC run by the legislature put up much of a fight?

- The natural gas industry lobbies heavily for the ability to perform gas fracking on public lands, donating heavily to the campaigns of legislators on both sides of the aisle- do you think an MDC run by the legislature would put up much of a fight?

- Urban legislators and the gun control lobby set up a public referendum on whether MDC should be hosting and funding hunting and shooting sports activities- given the puppy mill vote and the deep pockets of the anti-gun lobby, how do you think most residents would vote?

That's the beauty of the current system- it allows MDC to do things which may be contentious or controversial. When you make them accountable to the legislature, you open up a huge new Pandora's box of possibilities- from slashing the budget and selling public land to defunding programs which bring our natural heritage to youth throughout the state. and while you may be right that some scientists can be bought and sold by special interests, we KNOW many politicians are. At best, your argument cuts both ways, just as readily demonstrates why legislatorial control of the MDC is a bad idea.

[jeb]

The scars I have are from breaking my butt to get good data in the field. Most field scientists have them. We get them because we love what we do. You're twisting my words to suit your agenda and I don't respect that.

Wow, talk about spin! Here's what you said. You can scroll up and read it for yourself.

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.

No word twisting at all on MY part, obviously.

The links have been made here to the NRA (a lobbying group) intentionally undermining the MDC (a science-based conservation organization). You're systematically ignoring that and repeating the same question over and over. That may pass for debate with the NRA base, but not in an actual discussion.

You have no content to respond to at this point that amounts to more than spin. Fess up and flesh out your attack on MDC and maybe you'll have something to say.

Again, I have nothing against the MDC. Just trying to get to the truth. I'll summarize what I believe that to be at this point.

-NRA tried to get the MDC to allow handguns during muzzle loader season to increase participation and opportunity. Getting more folks using guns and hunting is an NRA thing, and this clearly makes the most sense for the motive to do that.

-MDC refused, so the NRA is taking it to the legislature to pass a law that the MDC would clearly then have to allow.

-MDC may decide to challenge that law in court.

-If they win, it may set a precedent that could protect what some seem think is their autonomy for years to come.

-If they lose, it means the legislature can excersise some authority over the MDC. It does not seem to mean any dire or wholesale changes to the MDC, though.

[jeb]

From the NRA site. They're clearly gunning for the MDC.

I don't see the smoking gun here, sorry. If it is a myth, it needs debunking. If not, the courts will side with the MDC. Seems like something that needs to be figured out sooner or later.

[jeb]

So much to comment on...

Jeb, I can't believe you read the whole NRA piece and JUST picked up on the opening paragraph. They could not have more clearly stated, just a little farther down, why they really want the legislature to pass this law, and it's to "debunk the myth" that the Conservation Commission is the sole authority on fish and wildlife management, as Tim's quote states. And the main reason is not to allow handguns in the muzzleloading season, but to have the legislature pass other laws, especially laws pertaining to the use of non-lead shot. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a conspiracy theorist to see that this handgun issue, one that really only a relative handful of hunters care about in the least, is just the "test case" to get the legislature's foot in the door. Geez, just read what the NRA says and use your head.

If that were the case, why did they try for 3 years to get the MDC to adopt it on their own first? You'd think they'd have taken it to the legislature first if their aim was simply to challenge the "myth".

As for whether or not the wording of the constitutional amendment really means what the NRA says it does is highly questionable. One word in it, "laws", has been jumped upon by the NRA as meaning that since the legislature passes laws, the Commission must abide by them. But in the sentence right before that one, it gives the Commission the sole authority to manage wildlife among other things. That might seem a little contradictory. But I believe a fair and impartial court would do what the U.S. Supreme Court does in interpreting inconclusive wording in the U.S. Constitution, and that is go back and study the INTENT of the people framing the amendment. If you study the history as I talked about in a previous post, it is VERY clear that the people who worked to get the amendment on the ballot did so expressly to remove the legislature from the picture. And that has been the way the amendment has been interpreted for the last 60 plus years.

Well, the NRA seems to think differently. Seems like something the MDC would like to have settled once and for all. According to the NRA link, the challenges to the law thus far have been in a different vein. Even if they go back and determine the intent to agree with the MDC, a supreme court still could find the original law unconstitutional, too.

To me, it doesn't seem right to have a state organization like that with no path for legilstaive input/control. I don't think we'd like if the police, for example, were able to make their own laws, choose which to enforce and which not to, resist input from the legislature, etc.

But at the same time, I respect that you guys are so happy with the job the MDC does for you. I think that's great, and I sure understand why you'd be resistant to any challenge to the status quo. I hope whatever the outcome is, that the MDC still delivers the same quality service and management they do now.