Hunter Group pushes for change

Discussion in 'Missouri Outdoor News' started by Gamegetter, Jun 5, 2017.

  1. Gamegetter

    Gamegetter Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2004
    [​IMG]
    COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — An advocacy group has submitted language for initiative petitions that seek a statewide vote to impose significant changes on the captive-deer industry in Missouri.

    Missouri Hunters for Fair Chase submitted four versions of a petition in March to the Missouri secretary of state, which has since been cut to two versions.

    The petitions' language pushes to close the state's borders to captive deer from other states, the Columbia Missourian (http://bit.ly/2rsPR2j ) reported.

    The hunting group's website said it aims to protect the native deer population and limit the killing of confined big game, such as elk, deer, moose, mountain goats and javelin.

    According to conservation group Boone and Crockett Club, "fair chase" is defined on its website as the "ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.
    ADVERTISING





    "Fair chase is a big component of this, but really it's about protecting the healthy deer herd in Missouri for all citizens," Fair Chase secretary Steve Jones said.

    Jones thinks the group's petition could also provide a solution to the chronic wasting disease that's infecting deer's neurological system.

    "The only way to fix this problem is to have the people of Missouri speak," he said.

    The group hopes to select a petition soon and be ready to collect signatures in June. If it can collect the required signatures, which is at least 8 percent of voters who participated in the 2016 vote for governor, the proposal will be placed on a statewide ballot in 2018.
     
  2. Sully

    Sully Bait Plotter Extraordinar

    Aug 28, 2007
    Truman lake , MO
    They can hurry up and get that bill passed and maybe we can get them working on getting our second archery back !
     

  3. wiser1

    wiser1 Trash Picker

    Apr 15, 2013
    Jefferson county
    :rof2: :rof2: :rof2:

    Wonder what their solution is ,,,, :rof2:
     
  4. henry

    henry Fan Boy aka Mr Twisty and

    I hope they get it on the ballot.
     
  5. wingman

    wingman Well-Known Member

    530
    May 30, 2012
    Who cares. It is a step in the right direction.
     
  6. rat

    rat Legbone

    Dec 13, 2005
    Ive met those folks... good people, I wish them luck.
     
  7. trapperBR549

    trapperBR549 Well-Known Member

    May 17, 2007
    mo
    You can still kill 2 archery bucks.

    As far as the changes go, they are a few years too late. The horse is out of the barn so to speak. :mad:
     
  8. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    Isnt MDC against this? All hunter groups should be as this will become an anti tactic if allowed to make any rules about hunting thru this process
     
  9. callaojoe

    callaojoe Máistir an pointe hocht.

    Jan 21, 2004
    N/C Missouri
    It's sort of like when you call someone fat, and then try to take it back... That never works.

    I want my 2 archery buck tags, and 1 rifle buck tag per year. :D

    Afterall, isn't the goal to kill all the mature bucks to help slow the spread of cwd...... :D
     
  10. Gamegetter

    Gamegetter Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2004
    I have not heard if MDC is for, against or has "No official opinion/comment" on the Hunter Group actions or intended outcomes.

    Not a perfect solution to a difficult problem, but when fighting a dangerous critter that has caused much damage, it is probably best to take care of the dangerous critter before trying to dress and bandage the wounds.
     
  11. Wooddust

    Wooddust Well-Known Member

    Jul 26, 2003
    If setting hunting rules becomes a populist ballot issue we can kiss what we have now goodby
     
  12. henry

    henry Fan Boy aka Mr Twisty and

    According to the people with the deer behind the fences its not hunting because its livestock. Except it is hunting when they want it to be because that's what they sell it as when they want it to be. They don't want to be regulated by the people who set the hunting regs , so hopefully they have to face the ballot box. I think if it makes it to the ballot they will find out the MDC would have been much more penned deer hunting friendly than many voters will be.
     
  13. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    First off, it would never said pass on the ballot. Second, if it did, it wouldnt be enforced. Third, its always been hunting, just not of wild deer. No different than the pheasant hunt put on by mds... its hunting, just not of wild birds.
     
  14. killmode

    killmode Deplorable member

    The Conservation Commission has sole authority on hunting regs in Missouri per the state constitution. This proposal would decisively add constitutional authority over the captive wildlife/livestock canned hunt issue that has been argued back and forth. It would take a constitutional amendment along the lines of elimination of the commission to ever allow regulations now set by the commission to be decided in the ballot box. That would be highly unlikely imo and you can bet animal rights groups have looked at Missouri and decided there are easier states to pick on. I made a few calls today and am waiting to hear back on a few key players. I don't believe the Conservation Dept can support or oppose such an issue. They could probably only give information as to how they think it would affect Missouri wildlife. I'm guessing the Coservation Federation will be behind this. If they are, several other groups will follow.
     
  15. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    If thats what they are trying to do it will take a constitutional amendement to get it done. The people on that side have been wrong at every turn so far. But again, it wont make a ballot, let alone win. I dont see them getting 225k signatures.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2017
  16. wiser1

    wiser1 Trash Picker

    Apr 15, 2013
    Jefferson county
    It wont make the ballot .......If MDC cant get regs reversed /or in their favor ,,,I cant see this group achieving their goal .....
    Kind of like ,,,Hey lets get business's revoked of their liquor license because alcohol kills,the drunks and innocent people ...SMH
    Problem is ,its here ,,,its already here , wether its from pens or natural in the wild ....Still dont know if the southern part of the state has it or not .........and why jeff county has it and.franklin co... Is there proof it came from pens ? Is anyone investigating this ?
    Steve Jones and sons is assuming this and wanting to take someones lively hood based on partial hearsay
     
  17. henry

    henry Fan Boy aka Mr Twisty and

    I don't debate matters of substance with science deniers.
     
  18. henry

    henry Fan Boy aka Mr Twisty and

    Support for this passed at convention ,,so the cfm I believe does support it.
     
  19. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    Good, because if you start debating yourself youll never stop.

    Just let the people that understand the science and the law take this one and sit back and concentrate on staying between the lines. :thumbup:
     
  20. henry

    henry Fan Boy aka Mr Twisty and

    If they get the signatures they need it could make the ballot.

    Kinda like hey lets create a department of conservation .

    The fact that many pens have it and its been moved from pen to pen isn't hearsay. Stopping movement will reduce movement of the disease. Its worked for the usda on many animal diseases.

    The biggest obstacle they have is acquiring the amount and distribution of petition signatures they need.