Chief Grey Bear Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Well he served on the committee for CWD and from what I gathered came to roughly the same conclusion that MDC did which is the first reported cases began in captive deer farms and prior to was not found in free range deer. He opposes the bill to reclassify deer from wildlife to live stock which would have removed deer from MDC's jurisdiction and placed them with the department of agriculture which he said also did not want the bill to pass. On bill 955 he said he was going to attend a hearing on it but what be voting against it. He says he does not support any bill that limits river access or reclassify the definition of the high water mark. When I ask him what was behind most of these attacks he basically mentioned that there's a group of reps that really have it out for MDC but he wouldn't elude to if he knew why(though right after that he went right back to the deer farms, maybe that was my hint?) I ask him about the Supreme Court ruling on the high water which sadly he was not familiar with but said he would look into prior to attending this hearing. Unfortunately I didn't get much more then what a lot of people already knew or have speculated. I ask him if limiting river access was just a precursor to some bigger plans for these rivers down the road but he didn't know. This is my first time ever contacting my district rep for any reason so I'm still new to the game as far as asking the right questions but I hope that did help some. Excellent!! Thank you for asking those questions and thank you for posting!!! Phil Lilley and Smallieguy87 2 Chief Grey Bear Living is dangerous to your health Owner Ozark Fishing Expeditions Co-Owner, Chief Executive Product Development Team Jerm Werm Executive Pro Staff Team Agnew Executive Pro Staff Paul Dallas Productions Executive Pro Staff Team Heddon, River Division Chief Primary Consultant Missouri Smallmouth Alliance Executive Vice President Ronnie Moore Outdoors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallieguy87 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Excellent!! Thank you for asking those questions and thank you for posting!!! It's no problem chief! I told him I maybe trying to get back in touch with him soon once the hearing is over and a bit more of smoke clears. I have to say he was a really nice guy and I feel he genuinely tried to answer my questions and address my concerns as best as he could. Looking at his webpage he actually does a lot to help MDC (Not trying to sound like I'm endorsing someone's re election or anything like that) he's on the committee for agriculture, and the appropriations committees for agriculture, conservation, and natural resources Etc. If I get anymore info from him in the coming days or weeks I'll be sure to keep people posted. Chief Grey Bear 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeD Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Has anyone talked to Rep. Ross? Smallieguy87 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallieguy87 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Has anyone talked to Rep. Ross? I was wondering the same. I'm curious how he would respond to someone from his district who really opposes this bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoonDog Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I've been wondering, too. There's a lot of folks in this guy's district who like floating and fishing, there's a lot of folks in his district making money through tourism, there's a lot of servicemen at Ft. Leonard Wood (in this guy's district) who like spending time on streams and would see many of those opportunities curtailed. There's lots of ways to make this legislation look awfully bad, and you'd think this bill would be toxic to Rep. Ross' political career, but there it is. It's one thing for me to tell my legislator I think this legislation is boneheaded, but it seems like the only way we're going to tank legislation like this is making the folks in these legislator's districts aware of what they're up to. I'm really surprised I've seen no news coverage of HB 955 either in print or on radio, and I've fired off a couple emails to papers in Representative Ross' district to see if they'd be interested in looking into the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Grey Bear Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Here is one response I have received so far. Britt, I attended a 3 hour hearing on HB 955 Monday evening. There were camp owners and outfitters from all over the state there to hear the bill. Rep Ross has no intention of changing any statute regarding public use of our streams and rivers. His bill deals with clarifying statutes regarding ownership of land adjoining the waterways. There are conflicting rules and laws dating back to statehood that are in dire need of clarification. Before his bill advances, there will be several amendments added to remove and clarify language that might be confusing. To address the MDC proposals, the Capitol liaisons for the department caused an undue amount of grief for several Senators and Reps last year during the debate over captive deer. At one point in a Senate hearing the Director told a room full of Senators they couldn't touch their funding because it was protected by the Constitution. Human nature being what it is, there will be some payback. This has just about run it's course and things are getting back to normal. I'll keep you posted on the movement of 955, but don't be concerned about losing stream privileges, if anything, this bill will help increase them. Bill Smallieguy87 and bs1827 2 Chief Grey Bear Living is dangerous to your health Owner Ozark Fishing Expeditions Co-Owner, Chief Executive Product Development Team Jerm Werm Executive Pro Staff Team Agnew Executive Pro Staff Paul Dallas Productions Executive Pro Staff Team Heddon, River Division Chief Primary Consultant Missouri Smallmouth Alliance Executive Vice President Ronnie Moore Outdoors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishinwrench Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I'll keep you posted on the movement of 955, but don't be concerned about losing stream privileges, if anything, this bill will help increase them. Bill Really ? Well then, I'm suddenly all for it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalliebigs Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Thanks for the update and your persistence Britt...we need more people in these politicians ears. His response is a little troubling to me though and seems typical of the blow off ...your not smart enough deal, that all politicians do all the time to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallieguy87 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Thanks chief and Britt for the updates. I put some word out through social media and already have several people sharing the info. I include ways to contact Rep Ross should anyone live in his district or if anyone felt so inclined to speak with him. The response did seem like a bit of a blow off to me as well but here's hoping that it was sincere. Smalliebigs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Muddler4 Posted March 11, 2015 Members Share Posted March 11, 2015 Rep Ross has no intention of changing any statute regarding public use of our streams and rivers. His bill deals with clarifying statutes regarding ownership of land adjoining the waterways. There are conflicting rules and laws dating back to statehood that are in dire need of clarification. Before his bill advances, there will be several amendments added to remove and clarify language that might be confusing. I can't say I buy the "intentions" part but it doesn't matter. This bill will redraw the boundaries simple as that and then be used to deny access, intent or not. Sounds more like someone is trying to make people complacent while they push it through. This thing is hardly the poster child of clarity so I'm not buying that this resolves current laws being in "dire need of clarification" either. If land owners want to own to the "ribbon" or for that matter the low water mark what would be their intentions for that stream bed? Smells pretty bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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