Source: https://www.missouriwhitetails.com/threads/anyone-else-seen-this-new-bill.1172/
Timestamp: 2018-03-21 14:31:21
Document Index: 401747166

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 252', '§ 252', '§ 252', '§ 252', '§ 252', '§ 252']

Anyone else seen this new bill? | Missouri Whitetails - Your Missouri Hunting Resource
Anyone else seen this new bill?
Discussion in 'Whitetails General' started by Hoytshooter, Mar 6, 2006.
Missouri Bill Helps Protect Stateâ€™s Whitetails- (02/24)
Legislation before the Missouri senate will increase penalties against poachers who abuse the stateâ€™s wildlife resources.
Senate Bill 665, introduced by Sen. Kevin Engler, R-Farmington, would fine poachers of whitetail bucks and make them pay restitution to private property owners for damages. The bill was amended on Feb. 15 to allow for the development of a process by which a convicted poacher would also pay restitution to the state based on the deerâ€™s Boone & Crockett score, a figure that could be as high as $7,500. The amendmentâ€™s language was originally presented to the legislature as SB 757 by Sen. Dan Clemens, R-Marshfield.
The Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri Bowhunting Council, Whitetails Unlimited and private landowners are among those who favor SB 665. Representatives from each group testified before the Senate Agriculture, Conservation, Parks and Natural Resources Committee, which approved the bill by a vote of 9 to 0. It now goes to the Senate floor for a vote.
Sportsmen support wildlife conservation programs and state regulations, which protect the resources and have led to abundant populations of whitetail and many other wildlife species. These hunters, anglers and trappers annually fund wildlife conservation programs to the tune of $2.63 billion, nationally. In Missouri, more than 400 whitetail poaching incidents have been documented in the past five years, and sportsmen want the state legislature to help stop the abuse of the resource they protect.
The Senate Agriculture, Conservation, Parks and Natural Resources Committee voted in favor of SB 757 on Feb. 15. The Missouri Bowhunting Council lobbied the committee in support of the bill.
Take Action! Missouri sportsmen are urged to contact their state senators to support SB 665. Ask your senator to vote in favor of the bill to protect the wildlife resources in Missouri. To contact a Missouri senator, call (573) 751-3659 or use the Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org.
Sounds Like a start but why focus only on Bucks? why not all deer? And why make the fine based on th B&C score thats more like a speeding ticket.
Chase635, Mar 6, 2006
travis13269 New Member
Here is an article I wrote on a similar bill back when I was in law school - I assume that it did not pass then since the new one seems very similar.
This proposed Act would repeal Mo. Rev. Stat. Â§ 252.043 (2003), and in lieu thereof enact two new sections, Â§Â§ 252.038 and 252.043. These new provisions would add additional penalties on top of the already existing class A misdemeanor charge designated in Â§ 252.040.
Section one of Â§ 252.038 would require anyone who takes, kills, possesses, or disposes of a deer in violation of legal methods to pay restitution to the State of Missouri. The amount of the restitution begins at $1,500 and climbs to a maximum fine of $7,500 depending on the certified Boone and Crockett score of each antlered deer. The Boone and Crockett score is a measuring system used to determine the number of inches of antler a deer possesses. The $1,500 fine requires that the antlered deer have one hundred twenty-five (125) points (inches of antler). The $7,500 fine is triggered when the antlered deer has at least one hundred seventy (170) inches of antler. This is justified by the fact that antlers of this size are worth more and provide people with more incentive to take illegally and sell on the open market.
Section two provides that the money collected from this section shall be deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the conservation commission. Sections three and four make it clear that this money is restitution to the citizens of Missouri, and is not any type of penalty, forfeiture, or fine, and that up to 25 percent of this money may be used to fund anti-poaching activities. Section five exempts from the above a resident landowner who violates any of the aforementioned sections, but does not remove any part of the deer from his property.
The relevant new language of Â§ 252.043 deals with failure to show up at the hearing and failure to pay fines imposed by Â§ 252.040. It says that the court shall notify the conservation commission of the failure to show and/or non-payment, and that as a result of such disobedience the commission may suspend, revoke, or deny that person's privilege to pursue, take, kill, possess, or dispose of wildlife.
As of the end of the First Regular Session of the 92nd General Assembly, this bill had been voted "Do Pass" by the House Committee on Conservation and Natural Resources.
travis13269, Mar 6, 2006
Not sure of all the details, but I know that Montana has a similar penalty system. The illegal taking of trophy animals requires the poacher to pay restitution... I think trophy deer penalties can reach as much as $8000 there.
I say bring it on, the more severe the better. If you don't wanna pay the fine, don't poach!:soapbox:
this is just my opinion but i would say the majority of poaching occurs to bucks
and if some one does and i know it happens poaches a doe more than liky they are doing it for food
and although its still wrong i frankly have a hard time being mad at that person but the guy out there spotlighing looking for antelrs that makes me mad.
Took the words out of my mouth HFF. I think the only problem with the B&C standard for determining the amount is that the reasons for poaching seem to differ in different parts of the state. North of the river I think there is a ton of antler poaching going on but I have been told that the majority of the poaching in the southern parts of the state are those that you mention to feed the family. I just wonder how it would work.
i would say there the problem of anter poaching state wide but yes especially in the north.