Hat Tip to reader “James” for this link.

This is a story that should NEVER be found in America.

A family from Missouri decides to rescue a couple of rabbits in order to use as a tool to teach their son about responsibility etc.; a tried and true American implement of child rearing. Abiding by all the laws that regulate rabbit rearing and selling in Missouri, the family, in time, begins selling their offspring to friends and neighbors. The rabbits are so well cared for, pet stores, theme parks, etc. all wanted to get their hands on some of these rabbits.

All is working extremely well until……you guessed it. The Federal Government, i.e. the U.S. Department of Agriculture sticks their noses into the issue, even though the Missouri family was not required to be licensed and inspected by the USDA.

Now, the family has to pay a fine of over $90,000 because of some vague and obscure law that says it is illegal to sell more than $500 worth of rabbits in one year. The family sold $4,600 worth of rabbits and profited $200. If the family fails to pay the fine by the deadline, additional charges, penalties and fines will add up to $4 million.

Only in America? Sad! Really, really sad.

Here is an update as of October 29th as this case moves to Washington, D.C.

Tom Remington

The elk made an overnight ride in a semi-driven livestock trailer and arrived near Winona, Mo., on May 5. The elk had been captured in Kentucky and held for a 90-day quarantine to ensure good health. They’re now in a holding pen on the Missouri Department of Conservation’s Peck Ranch Conservation Area in southeast Missouri. The elk will be released into the wild sometime in May following final health tests.

The Missouri Department of Conservation’s news release is posted at:

http://mdc.mo.gov/newsroom/elk-return-missouri-after-150-year-absence

See video of elk arriving in Missouri:

Missouri joins Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin and North Carolina’s Great Smoky Mountains National Park in restoring a native species missing for more than a century.

Virginia has committed to yet another elk restoration project in the near future.

“We’ve been proud to be a major partner in all of these efforts with financial and technical assistance, and we’re especially proud that a herd we helped start in Kentucky 14 years ago is now providing seed stock for restoring a herd in Missouri,” said Blake Henning, vice president of lands and conservation for RMEF.

In 2000, RMEF invested over $61,000 to help fund Missouri’s initial elk restoration study. A restoration plan was approved in October. RMEF gave $40,000 to help build a trapping and handling facility used to bring elk from Kentucky to Missouri. RMEF also pledged $300,000 to the State of Missouri to ensure the elk not only arrive, but thrive.

“We are very grateful to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation for its long-standing support of elk restoration in Missouri,” said Missouri Department of Conservation Director Bob Ziehmer. “Once we were ready to move forward, RMEF wasted no time putting resources behind the effort.”

Henning said, “RMEF is in this for the long haul. There is no higher calling in conservation than restoring a native game species to sustainable, huntable, balanced populations. Missourians have held to that dream and worked tirelessly for more than a decade to bring elk back. It goes to show what is possible when you dream big and never give up. To everyone who worked so hard for so long to make this possible, I offer a heartfelt ‘thank you.’ And to the elk I say ‘welcome home.’”

Missouri’s long-term plans call for hunting as a tool to manage the size of the elk herd. When hunting commences will depend on how quickly the herd grows, but officials say it could begin as soon as 2015.

The state’s elk restoration zone is a 346-square-mile area spanning parts of Shannon, Carter and Reynolds counties. The area was selected because of suitable habitat, extensive public lands, low road density, minimal agricultural activity and landowner support.

Both states recently approved elk restoration plans and RMEF pledged $300,000 each.

“We’re proud to step forward and put money ‘on the ground’ for these projects. No doubt, our great volunteers, members and supporters will continue to raise additional funds for both states,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Restoring elk back into Missouri and Virginia is going to be a tremendous legacy in conservation.”

In Missouri, RMEF invested over $61,000 to help fund an initial elk restoration study in 2000. A restoration plan was finally approved in October. The restoration zone is a 346-square-mile area spanning parts of Shannon, Carter and Reynolds counties. The area was selected because of suitable habitat, extensive public lands, low road density, minimal agricultural activity and landowner support. Up to 150 elk will be relocated to Missouri from Kentucky, an undertaking expected to begin within a few weeks.

“We are very grateful to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation for its long-standing support of elk restoration in Missouri,” said Missouri Department of Conservation Director Bob Ziehmer. “Now that we are ready to move forward, RMEF has wasted no time putting resources behind the effort.”

In Virginia, RMEF invested more than $28,000 for an initial elk restoration feasibility study in 1996. RMEF volunteers were thrilled when the board of directors of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in August voted unanimously to relocate elk into Buchanan County, with an elk management area to include Dickenson and Wise counties. Plans call for relocating 75 elk from Kentucky to Buchanan County beginning as early as 2012. Biologists are hoping for a sustainable elk population that will offer wildlife recreational opportunities such as elk viewing in the short term and a limited hunting season within four or five years.

“We are excited about the elk restoration project in Virginia and the opportunity to partner with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation – an organization recognized as a leader in wildlife habitat conservation in the country,” said Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Director Bob Duncan. “RMEF’s support of our agency and our elk restoration project, not only monetarily but through the many RMEF members and chapters throughout Virginia, has been overwhelming. The benefits of such a partnership are long term and beneficial to not only the restoration of elk in southwest Virginia but to other wildlife species and programs in the area.”

Kentucky’s elk herd, which is the largest herd east of the Rocky Mountains, was restored with financial and technical support from RMEF in the 1990s. That herd now numbers more than 10,000 animals, is a major tourism draw, offers ever-increasing hunting opportunities and is now serving as a source herd for restoration efforts in other states.

Though they long ago inhabited the state, they disappeared in the late 1800s due to habitat loss and unregulated hunting. Today, they’re listed as a protected species in Missouri.

Jim Beers, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist and Special Agent, took issue with this article and the information contained in it. Here is his response.

Subject: 19 Nov. Article on Wolf Shot in Carroll County

I just received a copy of your 19 November article concerning the 104 lb. (wolf?, coyote?, dog? -actually they are all the same species) shot in Carroll County.

First of all, the current law situation regarding wolves that makes the shooter liable for serious punishment (felony, fine, imprisonment, loss of voting rights, loss of gun rights if it is judged a wolf based on DNA examination in a laboratory) of an animal legally taken (if declared a coyote) is not only absurd but an insult to all Americans, the Constitution, and our American way of life.

Second, you have unwittingly, I assume, spread one of the lies prevalent in the shameful efforts by bureaucrats and activists to establish wolves throughout the Lower 48 states. Wolf populations did NOT “decline greatly by the mid-1930′s due to unregulated hunting and habitat loss”: wolves declined and disappeared because of persistent determination for over 200 years by rural Americans using every means possible to rid the nation of wolves and their impacts on humans from death, maiming, and livestock losses to losses of big game herds and rural “domestic tranquility”. Wolves did and can, as proven every day, live in any climate and human societal arrangement so the “loss of habitat” canard is a prevarication of the highest order.

I know whereof I speak, I am a retired US Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife biologist and Special Agent.

Jim Beers

Tom Remington

In 2004, there were 8,648 reported accidents with vehicles involving deer in Missouri. Simple math tells us that this would cost sportsmen $2,162,000 annually.

Fiscal year 2007, collected revenue(pdf) to the Department of Conservation was $171,676,521. $31 million of that came from license buyers. To pay for this added expense would call for either cuts, increases or a combination of both. Will this once again fall on the backs of Missouri’s outdoor sportsmen? Either way wildlife conservation will suffer and in fact this move could actually end up exacerbating the problem.

Let’s suppose for a minute if we can. If there were 8,648 REPORTED deer/vehicle accidents in 2004, how many are there today? And the bigger question would be how many would now get reported (wink, wink) knowing they could claim $250 for saying they got hit by a deer. Read what the text of the bill says.

252.042. The department of conservation shall pay the owner of any motor vehicle the first two hundred fifty dollars for repair of damages to any motor vehicle that collides with a deer that is not otherwise covered by insurance. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any damage caused to a motor vehicle that involved avoiding a deer where there is no contact with a deer. The owner shall prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that such damage was caused by a collision with a deer and that at the time of the collision the motor vehicle was legally operated.

So, the owner of the vehicle has to show “clear and convincing evidence”. Interesting! Will they have to bring the remains to the Department of Conservation? Or how about bring them to Mr. Quinn’s house and let him decide. Maybe we could have victims cut off four feet? We could require them to carry a hack saw around with them. Oh, but wait, what if they hit the deer causing damage and the deer runs away, living to get hit again? There better be hair on the grill. If you don’t have any deer hair to make it look convincing, I’ll be you can get your hands on some quite easily.

Another interesting note is that no compensation will be paid to anyone who wrecks their car trying to avoid hitting the deer. So if you see one, make sure you take careful aim. $250 “bucks” (sorry, I couldn’t help myself this time) would be quick and easy beer money wouldn’t it. Say you hit a deer and you got blood, guts and hair on the grill. Then get some body shop guy say it’s going to cost, oh, let’s round it off to about $250, collect the money, say sayonara to the body shop guy (or maybe slip him an easy $50), and head on over to the beer store.

The point to all this is the ridiculousness of the whole thing. How can this at all be regulated? Oh, geez! I hadn’t thought that would could place restrictions and requirements on the deer. But what’s even bigger is the domino effect of abuse and lawsuits that will follow.

By the Department of Conservation being forced to pay for damages incurred by deer, is saying that is the Department’s fault that there are deer and in particular the sponsor of this bill probably is one of those guys who thinks that hunters cause everything – too many deer, not enough deer, sick deer, healthy deer, Lyme disease, global warming, George Bush’s stuttering problem and that Al Gore gained 600 pounds riding around on icebergs looking for endangered polar bears.

If sportsmen are to blame, at least to some degree, for deer accidents, who else can the lawyers blame and the courts agree with? Let’s start with the landowner where the accident happened. I’m sure evidence can be found that might have caused a deer to cross the road where it did, when it did. Maybe it’s a fence or a tree blew over in a recent global warming enhanced thunderstorm that the landowner had yet to clean up.

Maybe the Department of Transportation didn’t have their “deer crossing” sign in the right place. We have all heard about the idiots who complain that the deer don’t cross in the crossing zones. That has to be the fault of the DOT by not putting the sign in the right place.

The manufacturer of the vehicle has to now assume a certain amount of responsibility too. Couldn’t something have been done in the design of the vehicle to make it more “deer proof”?

Let’s not forget the family Griswolds’ who moved to the suburbs to “get away from it all” and decided it’s really fun to feed the deer. They have to be blamed. Maybe each neighborhood should be required to pay into a fund specifically for deer related accidents. After all, that deer probably wouldn’t have gotten hit if the Griswolds hadn’t of built their house there.

What’s nuts about this is that a percentage, how much I don’t know, of these accidents happen in areas where hunters aren’t allowed to hunt to reduce the numbers. If the number of deer wasn’t so high, there wouldn’t be some many accidents. If I’m going to be blamed for deer/vehicle accidents and have to pay for them, then I want to have some say in how many deer there are in the woods to run over.

Is this all just ridiculous? Of course it is. Is there no sense and sensibility left in this country? Give me a break!

Maybe it’s all good for the Motherland, comrades!

Tom Remington

Remember back to the days of Little League baseball? Having spent many of my earlier years coaching, organizing the local leagues and even a stint as county Little League baseball commissioner, dealing with the kids was a cake walk. The same could not be said for the parents. Sometimes I think the authorities at each state’s fish and game department wake up some mornings and think to themselves, “Ah, Geez! I got to go to work today and listen to another unhappy deer hunter who knows more about how to put all this information together and come up with a deer hunting season that keeps everyone happy – including the deer.”

Figuring out who gets to hunt, for how long, of which sex, by which instrument and dates to pull it all off is a monumental task. Never fear, the game commission has all the help they need.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m a hunter too and I have offered up a suggestion or two of my own that I thought would make things better. The fish and game departments are far from perfect and in some cases I think they are completely corrupt in some aspects. We as hunters need to keep these people on their toes, after all they are working for us.

So when was the last time a group of hunters actually reached consensus on issues dealing with hunting? Many times satisfaction follows success rates. In other words if I hunt this year and bag a trophy buck, what have I got to complain about? On the same token if this is the fifth year in a row that I have not even seen a buck in the woods, don’t I have plenty to complain about?

But it goes beyond anything so simple. To begin with, for whatever the reasons, and there would be no consensus on this topic either, hunters as a whole have a pretty low opinion of their fish and game departments. In an article I was reading this morning in the Joplin Globe (Missouri) the writer revealed sentiments I have heard more than I care to.

It seems the Missouri Department of Conservation is considering “revamping” the deer hunting season. As part of the process, public meetings are going to take place. Here’s what the writer had to say about this process.

I have a suspicion that what changes will be made are already being planned and that the “public meetings” are being done to win support from hunters for their willingness to listen.

That’s a great attitude. Did this come as the result of past history when it comes to such events or is this just an angry dissatisfied deer hunter sharing frustrations?

Read also what the writer says about what he believes to be the priorities of his own fish and game department.

I have watched the Missouri Department of Conservation become a real bureaucracy over the years. I have seen a great deal of mis-spending and downright corruption, and a trend toward making as much money as possible and putting less and less of it back into true game and fish management.

One thing I know will come of this attempt to revamp the deer season. Nothing will be put in place which does not provide the possibility of the same or greater number of deer tags being sold, and more revenue for the department.

This guy isn’t alone in his thoughts about fish and game. I hear this same lament everyday from both hunters and non-hunters. They believe the only objective of fish and game is to make money – more than they need to manage game animals. I know of very few hunters who think our license fees are being spent wisely. (It’s that Little League parent mentality.)

It is a shame that so many hunters feel this way toward their fish and game departments. It certainly contributes to an atmosphere conducive to disagreement.

But the writer goes on to offer suggestions he thinks will make the deer hunting in Missouri better. I so doing, we begin to see another growing problem that in some states is festering to a point where we are near gang warfare over it – special interests.

We all have our preferred methods and means in which we take to the woods but is it getting a bit out of hand? It’s one thing to have differences in how we hunt, like still-hunting, driving, tree stand, ground blinds, using dogs, baiting, preserve hunting, quality deer management and the list goes on. We have all had discussions about these methods for decades and I don’t foresee it changing anytime soon. But now the battle lines are being drawn between groups and individuals out to get their way when it comes to the weapon of choice to hunt with.

Forgive me as I know I will miss some weapons but let’s take a look a minute. Once upon a time there was a deer hunting season where in reality you killed a deer during that time with whatever you could put together to accomplish such. Of course some of those weapons have been disqualified from the list of eligible weapons.

But then we needed to make things “fair” – there’s that four-letter word I so despise. So we set aside an archery season for those hunters because they needed undisturbed woods and deer that hadn’t been chased all over the countryside by rifle hunters. This, of course, increased their “opportunities” (another overused term). What’s good for the goose I guess is good for the gander and over time each weapon methodology began requesting special privileges once again to make things “fair” and increase “opportunities”.

Now we have in the archery class, longbows, compounds, crossbows, atlatl (a primitive weapon thrown by hand) and I’m sure I’ve missed one somewhere. Switching over to guns, we have rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders and the battle rages on about the unending list of kinds of muzzleloaders that are all different and each seeking their own hunting seasons. In some states we now have handgun deer hunting season and of course with that we have primitive handgun seasons.

I think it is wonderful that so many hunters are finding ways in which they can enhance their deer hunting experience. Let’s face it. In some states hunters have taken up different methods or choice of weapons for deer hunting in order to be able to take more deer and that is fine providing that the increased harvesting of those deer isn’t putting the deer herd in jeopardy.

The problems we face come when these individual disciplines begin demanding special privileges at the expense of others or by taking “opportunities” away from others. As I said, I’m all for hunters expanding their horizons. I’m not for them taking away my “opportunities” in order to un”fair”ly increase theirs.

Even the words “special interest” these days carry a negative connotation, usually because the demands being made by special interests are only in consideration of themselves even if it is at the expense of others. When this happens, once again we have contributed to the atmosphere of disagreements.

One of the biggest outcries I hear these days comes within the ranks of muzzleloaders. Some are demanding that certain kinds of muzzleloaders be banned for use during so-called “muzzleloader” deer hunting seasons. After all, there are primitive flintlock weapons, the not so primitive black powder that utilizes a firing cap instead of flint, inline muzzleloaders, etc., etc.

Arguments abound over whether optics should be allowed on “primitive” weapons, including bows.

With increased technology driven by demand from hunters for new gimmicks and gadgets, the disagreements will continue. Along with each new invention will more than likely come the increased demand for more “opportunities”. But at what expense?

When you combine the attitudes of more hunters with more special interests with those that perceive the fish and game departments as only caring about how much money they can make, it all sounds like there’s not much hope for a promising future. I think that if we can find a way to enjoy our new-found hunting method without demanding more attention by taking it away from others, it would go a long way to increase better relations between hunters. With that, more energy and effort can be put toward better game management from our fish and game.

Tom Remington

Yes the P/R Act was to improve hunting & wildlife habitat, NOT to WASTE in an attempt to control hunters & how they hunt! I believe this would be a direct violation of the Pitman Robertson Act as well as very unlawful.

More Government waste!

While I tend to agree with MadJack, I wasn’t aware that revenues generated through PR were used via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund programs for hunter safety and education. According to PR Act Title 16, Chapter 5B, section 669h, $8 million will be apportioned back to each state for certain hunter safety programs.

Of the revenues covered into the fund, $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year thereafter, shall be apportioned among the States in the manner specified in section 669c(c) 1 of this title by the Secretary of the Interior and used to make grants to the States to be used for–

(A) in the case of a State that has not used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) 1 of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title–
(i) the enhancement of hunter education programs, hunter and sporting firearm safety programs, and hunter development programs;
(ii) the enhancement of interstate coordination and development of hunter education and shooting range programs;
(iii) the enhancement of bow hunter and archery education, safety, and development programs; and
(iv) the enhancement of construction or development of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges, and the updating of safety features of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges; and

(B) in the case of a State that has used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) 1 of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title, any use authorized by this chapter (including hunter safety programs and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges).

An act that was originally designed for the protection of wildlife and habitat, it has been amended many times in order that these funds can be used for other programs not directly related to it original purpose. As I understand the Act, monies are apportioned back to each state for the specific purposes described concerning hunter safety and education programs. If that money has been used up, USFWS grants additional monies collected via PR for further hunter education and safety programs.

Tom Remington

Hunters took 214,494 deer, which is down from last year’s record season of 235,409. Congratulations to Missouri deer hunters for making this a record safe hunting season.

Tom Remington