Keep Politics Out Of Wildlife Management!

[Justin Spencer]

-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.

We have a bow season, a modern gun season (which is the one that is primarily used for deer management, and in which handguns are permitted) we then have a muzzleloader season, and then some have an antlerless season in which handguns are also permitted. So give me a break arguing about this being about increasing participation, do you honestly believe that there are people that don't deer hunt because they can't use a handgun during muzzleloader season.

Give Me A Break!

There are plenty of things to shoot with your handguns year round if you really think they are that effective for hunting.

[Tim Smith]

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.

Ok. Pressing past the nonsense...

...the summary at least looks useful.

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.

The last part is where the substance of the disagreement lies. Changing bosses will most certainly change the nature of the MDC. The bolded statement above can't really be reconciled with reality.

Go to the Illinois NRA link and look at what the NRA deems unworthy of conservation funding and the kinds of influences to which the MDC would have to answer. Hunter surveys not useful? Really?? The punchline of that joke is that the NRA wanted to build a shooting range with that money instead. Too bad for any private shooting range operators, too bad for the IDNR who wanted to know what kinds of hunting regulations will be well received and what management rules will be effective, too bad for Illinois who has to answer to this senselessness when it comes to conservation.

This is not an isolated attack on the MDC. It's a widespread attempt to undermine environmental science at the state level in many states.

[jeb]

We have a bow season, a modern gun season (which is the one that is primarily used for deer management, and in which handguns are permitted) we then have a muzzleloader season, and then some have an antlerless season in which handguns are also permitted. So give me a break arguing about this being about increasing participation, do you honestly believe that there are people that don't deer hunt because they can't use a handgun during muzzleloader season.

I never said I believed it or not. The point is the NRA seems to believe it. I have no evidence one way or the other as to if it's true or not.

[jeb]

Ok. Pressing past the nonsense...

Nonsense for sure. Wow.

The last part is where the substance of the disagreement lies. Changing bosses will most certainly change the nature of the MDC.

Okay, then prove your statement. At this point in the discussion, this claim is based soley on emotion, IMO. I see zero facts or evidence to back up these claims. The system of a game management department working hand in hand with legislature seems to work very well in most other states. Why can't it work in Missouri?

This is not an isolated attack on the MDC. It's a widespread attempt to undermine environmental science at the state level in many states.

Well, the NRA seems to be saying they have science on their side of this, too. So, again, I guess one would have to look at the science and scientists behind each side in each case to try and get to the bottom of it all.

[Tim Smith]

Okay, then prove your statement. At this point in the discussion, this claim is based soley on emotion, IMO. I see zero facts or evidence to back up these claims. The system of a game management department working hand in hand with legislature seems to work very well in most other states. Why can't it work in Missouri?[/quote]

Well it's good to see we're making progress. Now you're working from the position that the agenda of the NRA is to muscle in on this role.

Now you can circle back and address all the comments in this thread that have already explained why this is a problem rather than saying that's not what's going on.

And to further address your question, why don't you point out a similar state that has a SUPERIOR conservation department that works in this manner. It shouldn't be hard to find the goofball stuff they've had to put up with because of the influence of their system once we start to dig for specifics. I've cited one I have evidence is in play in Illinois already...political influence over stocking sites. That's a horrible situation for a DNR to face.

....and if you want to start picking apart the sweeping range of issues in play in Missouri and other states you can address the issues that have already been raised in this thread, i.e. the lead shot issue and the attack on use of Pittman Roberts funds for research (for the sake of a target range). We can post citations as we go along if that seems necessary, but the issue seems clear cut and previous posts by Al and others have pointed out the pitfalls of the NRA "science" (actually they have no scientific basis to support their position but they like to paste that word on themselves). So its your turn to provide a counter argument to what's on the floor, or agree or bring up another similar issue (there are many).

Hopefully we're past the jive and shuffle stage here and this can all be fairly cut and dried.

And I will spot you a freebie by saying that I do agree with you that there should be ways the MDC should have limits placed on them and I would appreciate a more thorough discussion of where those checks and balances currently exist.

[jeb]

Well it's good to see we're making progress. Now you're working from the position that the agenda of the NRA is to muscle in on this role.

Not at all. They feel they've been forced into this position by the MDC. Their agenda is merely to get handguns allowed during ML season. The fact that they feel the need to address the "myth", as they call it, to get there is just noise to them, the way I see it. Since you based most of the rest of your thread on that flawed assumption, I won't address most of it.

And to further address your question, why don't you point out a similar state that has a SUPERIOR conservation department that works in this manner.

Superior? How are you going to quantify that? If I say MN's DNR system is superior, what REAL data are you going to use to refute that?

And I will spot you a freebie by saying that I do agree with you that there should be ways the MDC should have limits placed on them and I would appreciate a more thorough discussion of where those checks and balances currently exist.

That may well be the outcome of all of this. Only time will tell.

IMO, as I've already said, if MDC were smart and this law gets passed, they should just adopt it like it's their own idea and act like nothing happened.

[bigredbirdfan]

Jeramiah Nixon will veto this anyway and then be guilty of guy control when he runs again.

[awhuber]

Jeramiah Nixon will veto this anyway and then be guilty of guy control when he runs again.

hey I know gals that like to hunt with handguns, too...

[Tim Smith]

Not at all. They feel they've been forced into this position by the MDC. Their agenda is merely to get handguns allowed during ML season. The fact that they feel the need to address the "myth", as they call it, to get there is just noise to them, the way I see it. Since you based most of the rest of your thread on that flawed assumption, I won't address most of it.

No the NRA explicitly stated they have a wider agenda in their own literature. At this point your refusal to admit that falls below the line of integrity and there's no point in following this further.

You're dodging every substantive issue in the discussion. By first demanding "Show me facts!" Then insisting "Wait, wait! Let's not discuss facts!"

Superior? How are you going to quantify that? If I say MN's DNR system is superior, what REAL data are you going to use to refute that?

You're the one who brought up how good other DNRs are. Why did you ask this question about who's is better if you think you can't quantify which departments are better. You're doding your own question!

IMO, as I've already said, if MDC were smart and this law gets passed, they should just adopt it like it's their own idea and act like nothing happened.

....i.e. DNR should roll over and take it and abandon science (which you won't discuss).

I'm done here Jeb. No point in talking to walls.

[Al Agnew]

Geez, Jeb, how can you say their agenda is "merely" to get MDC to allow handguns during muzzleloading season and the myth debunking thing is just noise, when they so clearly state that their real concern is the debunking in order to fend off any more lead shot bans? They spent more ink in that press release or whatever it was talking about the lead shot stuff and debunking the myth than they did on the handguns issue.

Look, theoretically, MDC bases their seasons on what the game populations will bear. They usually have a pretty good handle on about how many participants they will have in a given deer hunting season, and about what percentage will kill a deer. So if you add a number of handgun hunters to the muzzleloaders, it's possible that MDC has made the determination that it would result in too many deer being killed. That's the "scientific" basis, if there is one, for not allowing handguns during muzzleloading season. And MDC would be in the position to make that evaluation, not the legislature.

We all know that there are a lot of deer over most of the state, and there probably aren't many handgun hunters, so it's also possible that this is more of a social issue...giving muzzleloaders a "special" season without having them compete with handgun hunters.

But that doesn't really matter. It's an issue where MDC has the expertise. Whether it's social or scientific, it's wildlife management through hunting seasons. The NRA's intervention is purely as a lobbying group, since I'm pretty sure they don't have the scientific expertise to evaluate the impacts of the issue on the resource. Maybe, just maybe, they know a little about the social aspects...how many handgun hunters there would be and how they will affect the hunting experience of muzzleloader enthusiasts.

I'm not a big fan of the NRA, but I have belonged in the past and even contributed a little artwork to them a few times. They have done a lot to further gun rights. But I'm wondering why they are addressing this issue, which really boils down to, in part, playing one gun group against another. The answer seems to be that it gets the camel's nose into the tent, because the NRA is either truly afraid, or trying to stir up their membership to be afraid, that MDC will institute a total lead shot ban "in the next few years".