• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Reply to thread

I find all this very interesting, but mostly beside the point. This began as a lively discussion of private property rights and GF&P abuses of those rights. SH, I would still like to have you tell me what is wrong with this scenario that I'll repost from Craig Shaver for you. Shaver presented a solution that could have saved the governor a lot of future political headaches:


If I were Secretary of GF&P or Governor


If I were Secretary of GF&P or Governor I would have embraced the proposed legislation limiting the Open Fields Doctrine.  Here is why:

A group called the west river issues working group met several times over the last year.  There was diversity of opinions in the group, but one thing topped the list of concerns, the lack of communication between the GF&P Dept. and landowners.


After viewing legislative committee hearings it appeared that the primary concern of the GF&P Dept. opposing the Open Fields bill was compliance checking of bag limits and licenses.  There is nothing to prevent game officer from seeking prior permission to enter private land for those purposes.  Current GPS and mapping technology already in place in many counties, soon in all, make landowner identification as easy as pushing a button.  The scenario could have unfolded like this:


1. The bill limiting the Open Fields Doctrine passed.


2. The Governor signs it.


3. A million, possibly two million, acres are reopened to hunting.


4. GF&P management using the Open Fields statute as a motivator establishes competition among districts and individual game officers to see who can obtain the highest percentage of landowner prior permissions for compliance checking.


5. GF&P dept. discovers that addressing predator and pest control, game depredation and limiting game numbers at responsible levels garner them the highest prior permission levels.


6. The communication problem topping the list of working group concerns has evaporated.


7. Socialists who claimed property rights and game management weren't compatible are proven wrong.


Statesmen in leadership positions accept new ideas and information and change their minds accordingly.  Politicians in positions of power entrench, dispute new ideas and continue to expand their power.


When a Governor interferes with the legislative process to side with the power and convenience of a bureaucratic agency and sides against producer property rights it is time for a change in executive branch leadership.


Craig Shaver


What city in Missouri has a big arch?
Back
Top