Poaching Story

[fishinwrench]

22 minutes ago, MOPanfisher said:

Well any agency whose funding is based upon approval by voters every 10 years or so had better be aware of them and play to them to some extent.  There are many people in urban areas who greatly benefit from MDC funding, even if it is only through educational efforts and keeping urban kids aware of of the benefits of having places where folks can go and enjoy nature.  As for nature in the cities, fishing, bird watching, and other non consumptive activities are quite popular.  Besides if none of those folks came out to the lakes and such the economic effect would be bad.

Points taken.  But MDC's job is to tend to the welfare of birds.....not to teach your kids that birds exist.  (That's your job). The library and the internet are loaded with free bird information, so we don't need to pay MDC to teach people about birds.   Agree?

They took that job on themselves in an attempt to move money around and have a way of justifying it.   Nobody ever requested that from them.

[MoCarp]

29 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

You might LIVE in STL or KC....but you don't experience nature there.    

guess anywhere you can make the best of it....

 

 

[fishinwrench]

https://youtu.be/cwKWiZAuHoQ

[slothman]

22 hours ago, MoCarp said:

so what would you spend the Millions on and what would you cut?

 

 

This is a pretty old article, but it kinda addresses some of my feelings. 

 

http://www.kansascity.com/news/article295015/Cash-flow-never-stops-for-Missouri-Conservation-Department.html

[MoCarp]

38 minutes ago, slothman said:

This is a pretty old article, but it kinda addresses some of my feelings. 

 

http://www.kansascity.com/news/article295015/Cash-flow-never-stops-for-Missouri-Conservation-Department.html

interesting read perhaps that why the new Gov wrote the new order.....

[Haris122]

On 10/30/2017 at 9:05 PM, slothman said:

This is a pretty old article, but it kinda addresses some of my feelings. 

 

http://www.kansascity.com/news/article295015/Cash-flow-never-stops-for-Missouri-Conservation-Department.html

I can see some points to it. They don't spend all of their money in the wisest sense. But that being said, some of the stuff the article complained about was plain old stupid. The fact that they bought more land that they then turned into Conservation Areas, or that they made more fishing lakes and such than they initially said they would (said when at that too?). Where's the problem in either of that? The food expenses, and BS "training" I can see, but that?

[MoCarp]

26 minutes ago, Haris122 said:

I can see some points to it. They don't spend all of their money in the wisest sense. But that being said, some of the stuff the article complained about was plain old stupid. The fact that they bought more land that they then turned into Conservation Areas, or that they made more fishing lakes and such than they initially said they would (said when at that too?). Where's the problem in either of that? The food expenses, and BS "training" I can see, but that?

I think they were complaining we were building lakes while drug addicts and their families went hungry 

[Haris122]

Quote

I think they were complaining we were building lakes while drug addicts and their families went hungry

Not to make people's plight seem unimportant, but wouldn't that open up the door to all kinds of use of MDC money for other things. Next, thing you know, any poor management of just about every other area of government funding, would result in someone asking to take another piece of the MDC budget too. As it is, their budget is probably a drop in the bucket compared to that of the government department entrusted, and funded, to deal with such things.

I feel like my biggest beef with MDC's attitude is actually that they sometimes seem to prioritize the use of these resources by people, over the good of the resource itself. And I'm not even talking about Deer and Smallmouth, but stuff like non-game fish, or even coyotes. As it is, it's almost a free-for-all for species like that. Granted there's not that many people that do both, but they rely on there just not being enough people that pursue those species, to be what keeps their numbers from plummeting. If even a third or quarter of the number of people hunting deer, would go out and a good chunk of them shoot the maximum number of coyotes that their regulations allow, they'd probably wipe them out as a species inside the state within a short amount of time, all while following regulations. That kind of stuff. I like to go deer hunting and fishing, and all that, but at the end of the day, a species isn't just worth as much as what use I get out of it, as long as they're not overabundant so the rest of ecosystem seriously suffers, there's a value to them regardless of whether I find joy in going out hunting or fishing for them.

[SpoonDog]

On 10/30/2017 at 1:53 AM, fishinwrench said:

How's that for a start? Prolly saved us about 60 million right there, and you never even felt it. 

Only if you don't fish for walleye, you don't fish for paddlefish, you have no interest in elk, if you dont read the magazine,  and if you don't stroke out in the back end of a conservation area where the only guy around is in a little Jeep Liberty- and he can't get to you.

It's real easy to say MDC should cut the programs we don't like to pay for the programs we do like.  I think it's deeply, profoundly stupid that MDC spends ANY amount of money on quail- when every Dick and John in the county plants corn and soybeans from one fencerow to the next, when they spray said field with enough Roundup to make certain there's nothing alive for quail to eat, slapping a bumper sticker and heading to the Quail Forever meeting to lament the bird's plight and share how, in the olden days, they used to go  out every day of the season and shoot a limit, or pert near.  I don't know how many times I've heard a line to that effect, spoken sincerely, as though it's never dawned on them the relationship between killing every quail you see and then having none left.  It's the only thing anyone's ever said that made me understand why passenger pigeons and Carolina parakeets are no longer around. 

There's probably some dude up near Kirksville who loves catfish and crappie but has never seen a live smallmouth, never fished for smallmouth, no interest in smallmouth, thinks spending any money on smallmouth is stupid and a waste of money.  It doesn't matter, because it isn't an a la' carte menu.  I pay taxes for schools I'll never attend and for roads I'll never drive on, it's part of basic citizenship.  There's nothing unreasonable about paying conservation sales taxes, even if it means funding projects you receive no direct benefit from. 

If you've driven many roads in the state I know you know they're not outstanding.  Education's middle of the road.  Missouri isn't at the top of most lists when it comes to government services...under no circumstances should we be looking to most of them as a model of government efficiency or constituent services.  The author of the article isn't discriminating between cost and value.  Other state agencies are good because they're cheap- even it means someone can't access healthcare.  MDC's bad because they're expensive- they purchased 50 properties for me to hunt and fish on, when they said they'd only buy five.  It's that convoluted, bean counter-y logic that's got us among the worst roads in the country, mediocre education, etc. 

You get what you pay for.  The priorities don't change with less money, you just have less money.  Eliminating that much of MDC's budget doesn't reshuffle the priorities, it means the low priorities get cut.  And MDC can very easily do less for smallmouth management in the state.  Even if management biologists wanted to redo a study or revisit regs, they couldn't- Missouri's smallmouth anglers would have taken that option off the table.  The next big political fight and MDC's not going to rock the legislator's boat when it comes to gravel mining or stream access, leaving anglers to struggle with a legislature heavily influenced by ag and private property rights.

It's easy to get mad, to stomp your feet, to cut off your nose to spite your face.  But it may have unintended consequences.

[fishinwrench]

50 minutes ago, SpoonDog said:

Only if you don't fish for walleye, you don't fish for paddlefish, you have no interest in elk, if you dont read the magazine,  and if you don't stroke out in the back end of a conservation area where the only guy around is in a little Jeep Liberty- and he can't get to you.

Fishing for walleye at LO is a waste of time even though they've poured millions into making it worthwhile.  It's way past time to give it up and put that money and effort elsewhere.  

The Spoonbill program......I ain't even going there.  If you don't see the insanity in that then you're ate up.

If anyone in Mo. has an genuine interest in elk then they go West to satisfy that itch.  Nobody here gives two hoots about those collared, pen raised cows and 5x5's they are raising here.  

You can read the magazine online.  It is Sophomore level writing at best.  Not even worth the effort to print.

My daughter has a Jeep Liberty.  With good tires they'll go anywhere that a 3/4 ton Chevy will go.....And if you get it stuck two guys can darn near pick it up and get it some traction.  Put a winch on it if you suck at off-road driving...still way less expensive to buy and to operate than a fully loaded Silverado, and considerably friendlier to the environment.. if you care about things like that.  Hopefully we aren't paying for EMT training for Conservation agents. If we are then that could be cut too.  There's another 8 Mill.