Kc Star Article On Mdc

[rFisherk]

Here's a link to an article in the Kansas City Star about the current legislative attacks on the Missouri Department of Conservation.
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/outdoors/article9527909.html

[ruthead]

Am I missing something here? Surprised to see no replies to this topic.

Lots of angles and things to consider on this but sure hate to see legislators get involved.

[rFisherk]

I'm a bit surprised too. These bills, if passed, would dramatically and drastically effect everyone involved in or concerned about the Missouri Outdoors. Among many other things, hatcheries would close and private and public fish stocking would stop. There go your trout and your catfish. Even the State Trout Parks rely upon MDC hatcheries.

[fishinwrench]

I don't perceive a lack of "caring". It has just already been hashed out in other threads.

[Phil Lilley]

I think ppl are waiting to see if this is a REAL threat to MDC. Legislators submit bills all the time that are not acted on. I'm sure there's a point in the process that we should raise our heads and take action. I'm sure in the meantime, a letter to our representatives would not hurt.

I think we have to be careful of the "cry wolf syndrome". I'm not saying this is one but if the general public hears the cry for action too many times when it's not needed, when the real time comes to take action, no one does anything.

To speak to the situation, I don't see any reason to repeal MDC's funding. Their reasons are (from the article):

1. "Better" accountability.

2. MDC hasn't done a good job lately.

3. Wasted money.

4. Overstepped.

5. Purchased too much land.

6. Haven't purchased enough land.

7. Are arrogant and don't listen to the people.

8. Public meetings for show only - don't have any intentions to change direction.

9. Not enough representation. Only 4 commissioners and they aren't accessible to the people.

Most of these are personal opinions by a few people. You hear their voices because they are upset and want change. Some want change for personal reasons/ personal gain, i.e. land use.

The majority of Missouri residents don't have any problems with MDC -- but to be fair, most don't have any dealings with MDC.

What you don't hear is what we hear about our federal gov't -

1. Over taxation.

2. Corruption.

3. Inflated salaries.

4. Criminal misuse of funds.

5. Any kind of "gate" that would cause the non-sportsman in Missouri to sit up and take note.

If all this causes MDC to tighten up their policies and be more open to suggestions from the public and from legislators, I'm all for it. But MDC should not dig in their heals and play the personal tit for tat game and make this personal in any way, even if the other side is doing just that.

[Brian Sloss]

Take he time to contact your local office if you don't think they are helpful and I think you will find a more responsive operation than many people will believe. I deal with the West Plains office because they handle my home water, the 11 Pt. They have allowed me to go on multiple fish samples and have been very open about projects they are working on. They have been open to listening to my and others ideas, even if they did not always take them and run with it, but they always had a sensible reason forit and would explain their reasons. It is a good department that Mo should be proud of. Not perfect, but they do a lot of good and should be left alone to continue.

[Haris122]

If anything I feel they are sometimes a bit too lenient on the regulations end as far as how many fish or animals one can take, but I'd much rather they not be dragged into some political bs. Only other thing I didn't like is that they renovated Jay Henges shooting range and nowawadays they're not allowing ammo that reacts with magnets, which I feel isn't based off of science. They say it damages their range, but everything I've read suggests that's a myth. Steel core ammo on the other hand they would have something on, but not a lead bullet with a bi-metal jacket that has mild steel in it. As far as I'm aware, that's the only regulation they've made that I've got really annoyed by, because they basically renovated Jay Henges, just so I either pay 3 times the price for ammo or not have a convenient and good priced shooting range to use. All right, I'm done with my rant now.

[rFisherk]

Phil, I have been covering conservation issues for about 40 years. In all that time, I've never seen a more serious, determined and unified legislative threat to conservation as we know it, and I'm offended that you would suggest I am crying wolf.

Since the Conservation Tax was passed in 1976, there have been periodic attempts to gain control of that money. These were single pieces of legislation that few people, including myself, never expected would come to a vote, and I never even mentioned most of them in my columns and articles.

This is very different. There currently are 12 pieces of legislation aimed at the Missouri Department of Conservation (a 13th was withdrawn), and I'm told by a Jefferson City insider that more are to come, though I can't personally imagine what other angle they could use. This is not just about getting control of those tax dollar, as has been in the past--it is about damaging the MDC any way possible, regardless of how it effects the sporting populace. Some of the most threatening bills will, indeed, come to a vote, because the author of these bills, Muntzinger, also is the chairman of the committee that decides whether or not to place them before the general assembly for a vote.

The type of complacency you demonstrate is exactly what these legislators are counting on.

When exactly is the "point in the process that we should raise our heads and take action?" After one or more of them passes?

You actually have a lot more to lose in this matter than I. If any of the three bills directly effecting MDC funding passes (and all three are likely to come up for a vote), one of the things the Department says it will have to cut is rearing and stocking of trout. For some years now, I've been devoted to stream smallmouth fishing, which is one of the few things that won't be impacted by such cuts. Lilly's Landing, on the other hand, could go out of business before sanity is restored.

Instead of "crying wolf," you may well be simply crying and wishing you would have joined a unified effort to curtail these effort BEFORE they do any damage, and you will be wishing you had rallied the many people you influence to the same cause.

I'm 66 years old. I'm retired. I no longer write a syndicated newspaper column, and I no longer care to catch put-and-take trout--but my son does, and my grandchildren may wish to enjoy many of the opportunities that now exist under the current MDC programs.

I am, in fact, crying wolf before he huffs and puffs and blows your house down.

[ness]

What is Muntzinger's position within the legislature that enables him to decide what goes to a vote? Seems like that would be the president of the senate or the house. Then it needs to come to a vote, pass, then get to a vote and pass on the other house. Then it's got to get signed into law by the governor. Not trying to minimize the potential impact of the bills, but trying to gauge the probability of it happening.

[rFisherk]

Here's the initial process,, Ness

A bill is introduced and read

It is read for a second time and referred to the proper committee

Committee holds a hearing

Committee Chair report committee recommendation

So, Munzlinger can't actually decide, however, he has written the bills that are being referred to his own committee.

And he, as the chairman, influences the outcome of the committee decision.

It's a gross conflict of interest.