fishinwrench Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Oh, and I find it kinda hard to imagine that "deer farmers" carry that much weight in Mo. Legislation circles. I know a few, and they ain't nuthin special to anybody upstairs I don't think. LOL
rFisherk Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 From an MDC press release this morning: "The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) reports that two new cases of chronic wasting disease (CWD) have recently been found in north-central Missouri. One was found in an adult buck harvested by a hunter in Macon County and the other in an adult doe harvested by a hunter in Adair County. These two new cases bring the total of Missouri free-ranging deer that have tested positive for CWD to five for this hunting season and 15 overall. The total cases of CWD in Missouri captive and free-ranging deer now stands at 26. CWD was first discovered in Missouri in 2010 at a private hunting preserve in Linn County. All cases of CWD in Missouri have been limited to Macon, Linn, and Adair counties, which are part of MDC’s six-county CWD Containment Zone. Additional counties included in the zone are Chariton, Randolph, and Sullivan." One of the bills that Munzlinger proposes (SB178) would reclassify captive deer as livestock. If you are unfamiliar with the ramifications of such a move, check it out at confedmo.org
fishinwrench Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Captive deer SHOULD BE classified as livestock, shouldn't they ? If not, then what are they ? Pets? When did it become legal to keep captive "wildlife" (other than at a zoo) in the first place ?
ness Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Crazy bills get introduced all the time. The legislature doesn't end up voting on every one of them, and a lot of them never even get considered. It's just a gut feeling on my part, but I'd bet these bills never even make it to a vote -- especially the constitutional amendments. These type of bills feel like politicians trying to get a little face time, catering to certain constituents and giving them something to hoot about the next time they're running for office.. John
rFisherk Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 This is the same bill, MFU, that was voted into law earlier this year, but it was vetoed by the Governor. The deer in question are raised in a high fence area. They come from breeder stock that produce huge racks and they are fed to produce huge, usually non-typical, racks. They're not exactly pets, but they are sort of semi-domesticated. People pay many thousands of dollars to go out and shoot them, most of the time while they are coming to the feeding dispenser. Some even pick the one they want to shoot from pictures before they even come to the facility. Then they pay to have it mounted so they can brag about being great hunters. Beyond the ethical question, the real problem is that penned deer are known to be the primary source of Chronic Wasting Disease, which is similar in many ways to AIDS in humans. Currently, the MDC has control over such facilities, dictating precautionary measures and banning the importation of deer from other state--which is the primary way it has spread between so many states already. These game farms have become big business, and they have lobbied heavily to have control switched from the MDC to the Ag Department to lessen or remove all these regulations. If this is allowed to happen, it could decimate the deer population of the entire state, which I suppose would be a windfall to the game farm operations, because that would be about the only place left to slaughter a big deer--and slaughter is the right word.
rFisherk Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Crazy bills get introduced all the time. The legislature doesn't end up voting on every one of them, and a lot of them never even get considered. It's just a gut feeling on my part, but I'd bet these bills never even make it to a vote -- especially the constitutional amendments.You are far from alone in your thinking, Ness. This is why they probably are going to win some of this. I confess I've been somewhat apathetic about such legislation in the past, but this is different. If conservation minded sportsmen don't get involved in the political process this time, we could lose big time. That's why I'm going to all this effort to bring it to your attention.The measure to reclassify deer already passed once, was vetoed by the Governor and narrowly failed the override by one vote. Muntzinger not only authored some of these bills, he's the head of the committee that decides to bring it to a vote. So there will be a vote.
Flysmallie Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 The deer in question are raised in a high fence area. They come from breeder stock that produce huge racks and they are fed to produce huge, usually non-typical, racks. They're not exactly pets, but they are sort of semi-domesticated. People pay many thousands of dollars to go out and shoot them, most of the time while they are coming to the feeding dispenser. Some even pick the one they want to shoot from pictures before they even come to the facility. Then they pay to have it mounted so they can brag about being great hunters. Sounds a bit like a trout park. Â Â
Al Agnew Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Yeah, and I'll repeat...these are all rural legislators pushing these things, and the original Design for Conservation that got us the 1/8th cent sales tax DID NOT PASS in all but a couple of the rural counties, and those places that voted against it back then are these guys' districts. It was a large urban and suburban vote that passed it. Has the urban population gotten less interested in conservation issues? I don't know, but it's scary. We on here, who are all avid anglers and hunters and, I would bet, a little more informed on conservation issues than the average person in Macon County or Shannon County or St. Louis County, know what MDC has accomplished since the Design for Conservation was passed, but there are an awful lot of people who don't know and don't care and who knows how they would vote unless we are very successful in getting our point of view across.
Norm M Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 a repost of a reply I made last year on a similar topic . I believe it is worth repeating. Fight this, in Illinois I would love to have the plan Missouri currently has. The Illinois DNR is always hamstrung because the legislature controls the purse strings. If you want to see what happens then , come on up and check things out, you will be appalled at how little public land we have, how little is ever added, the decline of wildlife and fishery related programs, the lack of staff, the lack of equipment for that staff to do their jobs and the dearth programs for non hunters and fishermen . I have seen first hand what the lack of maintenance has done to the natural areas in the state of Illinois. You want to see stuff not work for months on end for lack of a part costing a couple bucks, I have . Fight the miserable sob's what a long strange trip it's been , put a dip in your hip, a glide in your stride and come on to the mother ship , the learning never ends
rFisherk Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Thanks, Al, for your intelligent insights. I think you, too, realize this constitutes the most serious threat to conservation we've seen. And this is just the beginning. An inside source told me a couple of days ago that those who wish to topple the MDC are really going to step it up next year, though I find it hard to imagine a stronger effort than already being mounted. And Norm, I'm very familiar with how handicapped Illinois and Kentucky are by their respective legislatures. Most of us don't realize how good we have it in Missouri. "You don't know what you've got--until you lose it." Here's what we could lose if just the measures Redmon proposes pass (taken from information gathered by the Conservation Federation of Missouri): Closure of Department shooting ranges. Closure of Department Nature Centers Elimination of partnerships with rural fire departments Closure of fish hatcheries. Elimination of public and private fish stockings Closure of Department maintained boat accesses. Significant reduction in habitat work on conservation areas. Significant reduction in resource enforcement by conservation agents. Most fish and wildlife research projects and monitoring will end. Significant reduction in efforts to control invasive species. Limited support for the Share the Harvest Program
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now