MDC income

[Crippled Caddis]

<I will agree in that a former director (Jerry somebody) got into bed with the timber industry and tried to sell or lease a large amount of forest for clear cutting. Thankfully it didn't happen. And strange enough, he stepped down and retired only to be hired on by a large lumber company doing biz in Missouri.>

Geez! Imagine that.

While this refers to the state of the incestuous relationships between industry and state bureaucrats it is an excellent condensation of exactly how the U. S. Forestry Service functions. The forestry service may even lead the way among bureaucracies for direct kickbacks from industry to 'civil servants'. It's kept as quiet as possible of course but a bit of research will turn up info that will turn up your blood-pressure.

Personally I'd like to know whose pockets were lined for the sale of entire islands of timber in the Kodiak chain off of Alaska to Asian interests. But I've stopped researching such things out of concern for my cardio-vascular health. CC

[brownieman]

Here is a site everyone should look at.

Take back the MDC

GREAT read gf...hope others take a look...

IMO...noted the comments from...well..anonymous empoyee's...that's good, lol.

Does Al or anyone else know or have seen walleye, bass, any species besides trout that are raised to a catchable size?, if so, please tell me. Several yrs. back I can remember the effotts to re-estabish walleye to the St. Francis River of which they were native.

IMO effotts like that are great if the fish stocked were good healthy fish...the suvival rate of 1 to 2 inch fish probably is slim. If the result of a program of this nature is successful that's great, if not, hopefully a good effort was made

I for one give credit for good things done...but on the other hand if someone doesn't try to "See Through the Smoke Screen", just once in a while...well...we deserve what we get.

[gonefishin]

So you are stating that little or no land has been added since 1976?

No. I am saying there hasn't been 100 million dollars worth added every year. Where is the money going? Hunting, fishing, research on animals and fish and the maintenance and upkeep of these items are all funded by license sales. These items cost only 14% of their total annual income so where does the rest of the money go? Yes, there have been some new additions of land but have they been added to the tune of more than 100 million dollars per year? Also how much of that land has been donated? I have seen a few reports of donated land in MDC magazine. Seems that at least one of the tracts of land donated was quiet large.

Well, should we start paving trails all over the CA's? What is it you want?

I don't think it would hurt the MDC a bit to spend a few bucks and put in a little bit of access for the handicapped and elderly. A few fishing docks and a few areas they can access to watch birds and such. They don't need to do a lot but a little bit I am sure would be appreciated. Currently the only handicapped program I know of the MDC has is a special hunt for wheel chair bound hunters.

Can you show me where one democrat has called for a total ban on firearms? I believe the only mention of any firearms ban is for assult rifles? Do you of anyone using one of those for hunting? Every heard of the Brady Bill? What political affiliation got that going and passed?

I don't want to argue politics. but, perhaps I didn't use the best choice of wording in that statement. I meant it is a widely held belief that most democrats want a total ban on firearms. I am sure I could look up a lot of info but, I don't really want to take the time to do so, I do know there were attempts to ban so called assault rifles and hand guns. There was an attempt to try to change the meaning of the second amendment to mean a supported government military is the only organization that is constitutionally allowed to own firearms. And there was an attempt to name all firearms designed for military use as illegal which, of course outlaws all firearms. It is generally believed that the democratic party supported these attempts. That is why I said if the MDC made donations to the rep party this is probably why.

Brady Bill? You mean the one fought for by over a decade by Sarah Brady signed into law in 1993 by Bill Clinton. I don't get your point.

I didn't read it that way. I don't see that the MDC is supporting the lumber industry. I may be reading it wrong and if I am please point it out.

I didn't say lumber industry I said forest industry. I think it was AL mentioned that the MDC had to keep several constituents happy one of these being the forest and timber industry.

[Danoinark]

Anybody wanna talk about shufflin'

[gonefishin]

Anybody wanna talk about shufflin'

Dano Sure lets talk about shufflin.

[Chief Grey Bear]

No. I am saying there hasn't been 100 million dollars worth added every year. Where is the money going?

I don't know where you are getting that they have to buy $100 million worth of land every year. How much land would they own from 1976 to now?

I don't think it would hurt the MDC a bit to spend a few bucks and put in a little bit of access for the handicapped and elderly. A few fishing docks and a few areas they can access to watch birds and such. They don't need to do a lot but a little bit I am sure would be appreciated. Currently the only handicapped program I know of the MDC has is a special hunt for wheel chair bound hunters.

I

They do have these access'. And they have a lot of them. I won't say that they have them at every area, but they do have large amount of them.

I don't want to argue politics. but, perhaps I didn't use the best choice of wording in that statement. I meant it is a widely held belief that most democrats want a total ban on firearms. I am sure I could look up a lot of info but, I don't really want to take the time to do so, I do know there were attempts to ban so called assault rifles and hand guns. There was an attempt to try to change the meaning of the second amendment to mean a supported government military is the only organization that is constitutionally allowed to own firearms. And there was an attempt to name all firearms designed for military use as illegal which, of course outlaws all firearms. It is generally believed that the democratic party supported these attempts. That is why I said if the MDC made donations to the rep party this is probably why.

Brady Bill? You mean the one fought for by over a decade by Sarah Brady signed into law in 1993 by Bill Clinton. I don't get your point.

So all you have to go on is rumors? I think that has been the main fuel in this whole thread. I'm just as a proud, gun toting American as anyone, but I also don't believe everything I read in the NRA mag.

Brady Bill? You mean the one fought for by over a decade by Sarah Brady signed into law in 1993 by Bill Clinton. I don't get your point.

You got the point just fine. I don't buy into you non biased political affiliation though.

[gonefishin]

I reckon you can buy into whatever you want. You are the one who tried to turn this into a political argument, into a dem vs rep argument.

I am not anti MDC but, I do want to know what they are doing. When they started living off the tax role they become a public trust and are therefore open to scrutiny. So far instead of answers all I have been able to get is smoke screens or people wanting to make it a political argument.

I just don't see what is happening with the money. They make everything to do with fishing and hunting stand on its two feet. License fees have to cover all the costs and be profitable. What is the 1/8% used for? Everyone says land purchases. Ok it is for land purchases. They have been taking in an excess of 100 Mil per year with the 1/8% sales tax so where is all the land they have purchased and where are all the access points. It seems to me that with the kind of money they are taking in they should own half the state by now, or at least every MDC conservation area should have improvements like food plots for the wildlife, clean toilets and drinking water available.

Point is I am not against MDC but that doesn't mean I can't find fault with the system. The most current report is 4 years old don't you find that as taking just a tad to much time to publish their statement?

[Crippled Caddis]

Chief Greybear wrote:

<So all you have to go on is rumors? I think that has been the main fuel in this whole thread. I'm just as a proud, gun toting American as anyone, but I also don't believe everything I read in the NRA mag.>

Extracted from the 2000 National Democratic Party Platform:

<Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts - with stronger laws and stronger enforcement. That's why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.----Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children. We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America. We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.>

Extracted from the Republican National Party Platform of 2000

<We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and we affirm the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. Because self-defense is a basic human right, we will promote training in their safe usage, especially in federal programs for women and the elderly. A Republican administration will vigorously enforce current gun laws---especially by prosecuting dangerous offenders identified as felons>

I believe even a slight effort at research will reveal that the parties in general abide by their platform statements as evidenced by the hisorical record. CC

[Chief Grey Bear]

Chief Greybear wrote:

<So all you have to go on is rumors? I think that has been the main fuel in this whole thread. I'm just as a proud, gun toting American as anyone, but I also don't believe everything I read in the NRA mag.>

Extracted from the 2000 National Democratic Party Platform:

<Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts - with stronger laws and stronger enforcement. That's why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.----Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children. We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America. We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.>

Extracted from the Republican National Party Platform of 2000

<We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and we affirm the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. Because self-defense is a basic human right, we will promote training in their safe usage, especially in federal programs for women and the elderly. A Republican administration will vigorously enforce current gun laws---especially by prosecuting dangerous offenders identified as felons>

I believe even a slight effort at research will reveal that the parties in general abide by their platform statements as evidenced by the hisorical record. CC

So where did it say that the dems are trying to take your guns? I actually like what both of them have to say. But gun control is not the meat of this conversation.

That is what it has been turned into, but I think we need to get the original topic. That being the MDC.

Just to be fair I will state that I am not happy with EVERYTHING they do or in some cases don't do.

As we all may or may not know, we have a Prairie Chicken problem. They are in a serious decline. In western Missouri the MDC has in my opinion, numerous CA's that have enough total prairie acreage to support the bird. But they are not managing the CA's in a proper way to encourage prairie chicken populations.

For instance Shawnee Trail CA in Barton county. It is almost 4000 acres of what could be suitable habit for the declining bird. But they will not manage for that. There is also Talbot CA. Another of around 4000 acres that if manged correctly could support the bird. But it seems they would rather let farmers farm it and just leave a little around the edges for wildlife food.

But as you will read time from time, they say they don't know why the decline. Yet as I have read their mag over the years and even talked with their research scientist, they do know enough to start in slowing or even maybe stopping the decline. But they are now talking about getting birds from other states to release here. Why import birds if you are not, in my opinion, trying to stop the decline of the birds you have.

Maybe we should all rent a bus and drive up there and have a talk with them. Hillbilly style!

[brownieman]

You mean were gonna have a real old fashion "Town Hall Meeting"?? lol.....bus?

Gas is high...I'll pitch in...might need a pretty big bus...say Tan Tar A..or...open for suggestions, lol