Hjb57 And Sjr42 - Amendment To The State Constitution! (Title Edited)

[Chief Grey Bear]

This is getting real! We are passed the "This won't ever happen" stage. I just received this email from a contact in the DU organization. I know over the years, I have been posting about this, and though there has been some concern, most here turn the other way. If you think the MDC is poorly managed now, you sit back and let this pass, it will be one of the biggest mistakes we as a generation have made in regards to conservation in this state. Regardless of what you think of me personally, I urge each and everyone of you to contact my letter or by phone your local representative. Below is the email I just received. I have been keeping abreast of this for the last month or so but I have not said much here. Now is the time to act my friends!





This issue is getting serious. SJR42 passed the committee and is expected to go to the senate floor in the next 2-3 weeks. A house version has been introduced.

Attached is a couple of sample letters; one by The Missouri Chapter of the Wildlife Society and the other by the MO. Chapter of the American Forestry Society. DU provided a statement at the Feb. 4th Senate hearing that took place at the capital.

Anyone who disagrees with a rule or regulation put forth by MDC could bring it up for review. I could see how daily bag limits, length limits for fish, deer regulations, etc. could all be challenged by the legislature. For waterfowl regulations, we didnt know what the Feds would allow until August, so it was always tight to develop season recommendations and get them to the Commission in time for the seasons to be set announced and published. I have no idea what would happen if someone decided in September that they didnt like the waterfowl regulations. It would be a real mess.

[fishinwrench]

[Chief Grey Bear]

I didn't think you guys would care but thought I would keep you up to date on how close you to loosing what you have.

Nice to know though it is just a joke to you.

[Feathers and Fins]

I'll bite why would DU care about judicial appointments as that's the only thing I could find related to sjr42.

[Chief Grey Bear]

There is nothing to bite on.

For over 75 years science-based resource management has provided the outstanding outdoor opportunities in this state. If you want that in the hands of legislatures, that is where we are headed. I will take science over political control any day.

[Bird Watcher]

Example:

EHD outbreak reduces number of whitetail deer. Biologists suggest that bag limits and seasons should be reduced until population rebounds. Insurance Lobby influences Legislators to increase number of permits instead of reduce. Lobbyists win, Biologists are ignored and deer are all but exterminated.

This exact scenario has already played out in Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc.

[jdmidwest]

If you honestly believe that the MDC has not been swayed in the last 75 years by politics, you are living in fairy land.

[Terrierman]

No attachments showing for me.

[jdmidwest]

Yep, it is a promulgation. But I see no reference to MDC

http://legiscan.com/MO/text/SJR42/id/914881

[Feathers and Fins]

Thanks JD

Using a brain ( granted difficult for politicians) but reading that I see no place where it would be of concern.

(1) An absence of statutory authority for the proposed rule;

21 (2) The proposed rule is in conflict with state law;

22 (3) The proposed rule is so arbitrary and capricious as to create

23 such substantial inequity as to be unreasonably burdensome on persons

24 affected;

25 (4) Such proposed rule is likely to substantially endanger the

26 public health, safety or welfare;

27 (5) The rule is excessive because it exceeds the purpose, or is

28 more restrictive than is necessary to carry out the purpose, of the

29 statute granting rulemaking authority; or

30 (6) A substantial change in circumstance has occurred since

31 enactment of the law upon which the proposed rule is based as to result

32 in a conflict between the purpose of the law and the proposed rule, or

33 as to create a substantial danger to public health and welfare.

#1. MDC is the authority as provided by law as is USFWS no grounds there

#2. Hunting seasons are well established and legal so no grounds there

#3 Seasons apply to all so no conflicts and no grounds.

#4. No damage to public so no grounds

#5. Season are set by the USFW for the entire flyway and not overly excessive or restrictive so no grounds

#6. Refer to #4.

I don't see this as a concern Not even sure why DU would get involved in this, Perhaps they need a press release as to why they feel it will affect duck hunting. But more so How about what does MDC say about how it will affect all pursuit of wildlife.