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

[awhuber]

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your point of view but feel you have probably been misinformed about the content of HJR 57 - which would place the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules in our state constitution and set up very limited circumstances for legislative review of administrative rules where there is one of the following: 1. An absence of statutory authority for a rule; 2. A rule that is in conflict with state law; 3. A rule that is so arbitrary and capricious as to create such substantial inequity as to be unreasonably burdensome on persons affected; 4. A rule that is likely to substantially endanger the public health, safety, or welfare; 5. A rule that is excessive because it exceeds the purpose, or is more restrictive than is necessary to carry out the purpose, of the statute granting rulemaking authority, or 6. A substantial change in circumstance has occurred since enactment of the law upon which the proposed rule is based as to result in a conflict between the purpose of the law and the proposed rule, or as to create a substantial danger to public health and welfare. This legislative review is subject to two additional checks. First, a decision by JCAR to invalidate a rule must be approved by 3/5ths of both chambers of the General Assembly. Second, the decision is subject to judicial review - with a de novo standard of review for the first 3 reasons, and a rational basis review standard for reasons 4 through 6. To my knowledge, there isn't a single rule of the Dep't of Conservation that would be in danger of being set-aside as a result of this statute. Contrary to emails you may have received, there's nothing in this provision which would prevent Conservation from regulating hunting seasons. Sincerely, Jay Barnes Got this from the sponsor

[Phil Lilley]

What about future management of any type? Fund allocations?

[Monte Ray]

Unfornately, this is the first I've heard of this and I've only taken the last few minutes to do some brief reading. I've been fishing for 35+ years and my life experience tells me that MDC does a better job than many of the states around us. I will gladly support MDC as well as keeping rules and regulations out of the hands of politicians.

What are some key points/statements I should make when contacting my representative? - i.e. - do we oppose all parts of the bill(s) or just certain elements? Again, I haven't taken the time yet to read through everything thoroughly.

[Walcrabass]

Everyone,

I definitely do not want Legislature to control the Department of Conservation. However, I DO WANT the Department of Conservation to publicly publish where the money goes....and to tell why it is necessary for them or other departments to charge exorbitant fees for out of state people to hunt and fish. ESPECIALLY WHERE PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS ARE CONCERNED THAT WERE FORMED BY FEDERAL MONEY OR ARE MAINTAINED OR WATCHED OVER BY FEDERAL MONEY!!!! I WOULD ALSO LIKE FOR SALARIES TO BE PUBLISHED IN A SIMPLE TO READ FORM THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE DIGGING THROUGH A PILE OF PAPERWORK!!!! I think we deserve to know who is getting how much and why the practice has been instituted to gouge people that live in another state for use of Federally formed waters and maintained lands. It just plain isn't right !!!!!

Walcrabass

[ness]

39 users, 13 members and 26 guests are viewing as I type. I don't remember anything like that kind of number before. There's your publicity, Chief!

[awhuber]

Everyone,

I definitely do not want Legislature to control the Department of Conservation. However, I DO WANT the Department of Conservation to publicly publish where the money goes....and to tell why it is necessary for them or other departments to charge exorbitant fees for out of state people to hunt and fish. ESPECIALLY WHERE PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS ARE CONCERNED THAT WERE FORMED BY FEDERAL MONEY OR ARE MAINTAINED OR WATCHED OVER BY FEDERAL MONEY!!!! I WOULD ALSO LIKE FOR SALARIES TO BE PUBLISHED IN A SIMPLE TO READ FORM THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE DIGGING THROUGH A PILE OF PAPERWORK!!!! I think we deserve to know who is getting how much and why the practice has been instituted to gouge people that live in another state for use of Federally formed waters and maintained lands. It just plain isn't right !!!!!

Walcrabass

MDC salaries, like any other state employee can be found at the MOSOS site under blue book.

http://sos.mo.gov/bluebook/2013-2014/

[Kathy E.]

Missouri is the envy of every other state when it comes to the way our Department of Conservation is funded and managed. Any and all proposals, amendments, etc., are just the legislature's sneaky way of trying to slip one past the people of Missouri in order to steal the conservation sales tax funding. Plus, there is another resolution that they are trying to pass that would increase the number of commissioners to 8, which would allow for all sorts of squabbling as to how conservation dollars are allocated. So far, the sales tax revenues seem to have been allocated in a reasonably fair fashion. In my mind, if it ain't broke -- and the Conservation Department by no means is broke -- then why fix it?

Also, transferring control of captive whitetail deer to the Ag Dept. is a bad idea on so many different levels it simply defies imagination. Right now, testing is VOLUNTARY! Do you know what that means? The game farmers don't have to test if they don't want to. They have a saying in the captive cervid industry -- that is the same up in wolf country -- that is, SSS -- shoot, shovel and shut up. As long as deer farmers have that attitude, and make no mistake some of them have that attitude (note that I say 'some' and not 'all), then the testing should be mandatory AND overseen by the department of Conservation.

These animals might be behind fences but by no means should they be considered domestic animals, such as cows, pigs, etc. For one reason, you can never domesticate a buck deer. It will always be wild, and during the rut it will ALWAYS be one of the most dangerous animals anywhere. More deer kill humans each year than any other animal in North America. Plus, WHY should captive cervid operations -- which number only about 300 in the state -- conduct their business in a way that could very possibly jeopardize EVERY WILD DEER in our state? There are 550,000 free range hunters and only a piddling number of 'shooters' who visit these game ranches to shoot penned deer. Why should OUR deer be condemned to die a horrible death because those game farmers who are in it only for a profit choose NOT TO ABIDE BY THE RULES? And if you think they abide by the rules then, why, pray tell, do we have CWD in Missouri?

Keep the MDC as is -- out of the hands of legislators -- AND do NOT transfer control of wild cervids -- elk, whitetails, mule deer -- to the Ag Department. That is, if you enjoy hunting truly wild deer that are not diseased AND if you would like to see your children and grandchildren enjoy the same things that you have for however long that you have been hunting.

[Hays]

I am a lawyer and fully agree with those who see this proposed amendment as a direct threat to the independence of the MDC, an independent Missouri agency that has long been a model for conservation agencies in other states. And the threat isn't limited to the MDC, as Al Agnew points out above. There are already provisions in Missouri law that allow anyone effected by an agency regulation to appeal to the agency for relief and, if necessary, take the agency to court. The proposed amendment effectively gives this power to the legislature. And though the proposed amendment does provide for judicial review, it also provides that the court must uphold the decision of the legislature if the decision has "any rational basis." That is the lowest legal standard there is. This amendment seeks to shift the balance of power in Missouri government to the legislature and away from the executive and judicial branches - something only a constitutional amendment can do. I'm not crazy about a lot of things state legislatures have been doing, in Missouri and elsewhere, and oppose any wholesale change in the checks and balances of government such as this amendment proposes.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Don't you just love Jay Barns spin. What a snake! You can really see the motives and directions now.

Good to see the support to fight this.

[minnowhooker]

It won't stop even if this get's voted down, until the money spigot is turned off this in another form will just return.