The Struggle Not Over

[ness]

Well, shee-it. I find myself agreeing with Andy

Who'da thunk?

[drew03cmc]

It was bound to happen at some point in time.

[ness]

Ha! Great minds think alike!

[ozark trout fisher]

I disagree, because as the threats are pervasive so must the awareness/response. Can't pretend there isn't a new threat to conservation in the state just because the quantity is annoying.. A big part of the reason more of this stuff doesn't come to fruition is because there are conservation organizations (and citizens) actively fighting against it...all the time.

But I'm told that's just "flowery bs" like everything else I post here.

[drew03cmc]

The constant new threads telling us about another bill are the issue. It isn't a matter of not wanting the information, but rather, like the boy who cried wolf, it gets redundant and loses its gravitas.

[ozark trout fisher]

The constant new threads telling us about another bill are the issue. It isn't a matter of not wanting the information, but rather, like the boy who cried wolf, it gets redundant and loses its gravitas.

That seems like a fair point, and I know fatigue regarding this stuff is a real issue. But I have to ask what you are suggesting in lieu of that? I don't have a good answer.

I keep saying it, but it gets redundant for a reason: the bills keep coming, and in many cases, getting far enough to pose a threat. Should we freak out at every bill drafted? No. But like I said, it's often really hard to tell which will morph into a real threat and which will never get anywhere. It seems better to inform people (and thus take the risk of them ignoring it) than to stay silent. I want to emphasize that I'm not writing these things.

A story that occurs frequently does not become less of a story...it just becomes an annoying one.

Some people say the same about my posts:)

[drew03cmc]

The first posts in every thread regarding these bills is always, in one form or another, look what they're trying to f*** us out of now. It gets old and if you've noticed, the response to these threads have diminished as well. What is the solution? Who knows? Perhaps, one thread detailing the upcoming votes without attempting to sensationalize them would get more attention than the current methods.

[ozark trout fisher]

I would posit that the lack of positive response to this thread is mostly due to the fact that the legislative session is over with no major damage done. There isn't as much to talk about now. When there was a lot on the line, I think you'll find they got plenty of positive responses-and likely lead to a lot of letters getting written, and maybe, formed a tiny part of the reason why no major damage was done.

[Al Agnew]

I understand the point about crying wolf too often. But if you look back at the history of this legislative session, the bills didn't come all at once, nor did they die all at once. The first bills came to light, were reported here and elsewhere, got lots of response, then there were a couple of new rounds of bills that came up. I don't think it would be a good idea to wait until you were sure that all the potentially damaging bills had come up before reporting on them. The quicker and stronger the response is the better, in my opinion.

And I have to shake my head at the idea that there wasn't any danger because the bills didn't come up for a vote. I'd say that, if there hadn't been a strong response against them, they most definitely WOULD have come up for a vote. And there wouldn't have been a strong response against them unless they were brought to the attention of people like us. I really don't know what other thing you would have done...or not done.

The Missouri state legislature consists of a vocal and activist minority of anti-MDC and anti-DNR nutjobs, and another bunch of apathetic politicians that will usually go along with whatever somebody in their party wants, and together they add up to a majority. You probably can't change the nutjobs, but you can change the minds of the go-along to get-along pols. And that's why you have to put the pressure on them.

Some of these bills were clearly dangerous, others were so vaguely worded that they COULD be dangerous depending upon the interpretation. I think the reporting on them was reasonably accurate, and people could draw their own conclusions. Perhaps screaming about how dangerous they were went a little farther than it should, but for the most part, I think the reporting and discussion was a good thing.

[awhuber]

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/how-the-conservation-department-found-its-way/article_2eae8222-fd95-11e4-8607-fbe1ef6fadc4.html Lilley's Landing mentioned in this article.