News release from Missouri Parks Association

Columbia, Missouri, November 28, 2007 — Conservation leaders in Missouri regard the vaunted $180 million settlement between state officials and Ameren for the Taum Sauk Reservoir disaster as a complete sellout to Ameren. It does nothing to protect Church Mountain, the most critically threatened resource in the Taum Sauk Region, the largest and most biodiverse complex of state-owned wildlands in Missouri.

“We are bitterly disappointed by this settlement,” said Terry Whaley, President of the Missouri Parks Association, “because we and virtually the entire spectrum of conservation organizations in Missouri have repeatedly said to public officials that securing Ameren’s land on Church Mountain for the people of Missouri far outweighs in importance any other possible land or monetary settlement.”

Organizations joining with the Missouri Parks Association in efforts to protect Church Mountain and secure it for the state include the Conservation Federation of Missouri, the Nature Conservancy of Missouri, Audubon Missouri, the Open Space Council for the St. Louis Region, Ozark Chapter Sierra Club, the Missouri Coalition for the Environment and many smaller groups.

Governor Blunt, DNR Director Doyle Childers, and Attorney General Nixon all indicated at various times during the past year that Ameren’s property on Church Mountain was part of the settlement negotiations, along with a Katy Trail extension to Kansas City. They apparently caved in because of Ameren’s refusal to give up Church Mountain, on which the utility has long planned to construct a second and much larger reservoir, and probably also because of the exorbitant price tag on other elements of the settlement. Of the $180 million settlement total, the negotiators agreed to a value of $33 million for the extension of the Katy Trail into Kansas City, for example, allowing Ameren a $15 million credit for the recreational value plus a payment of $18 million for construction of a new co-linear trail, an exorbitant cost made necessary by Ameren’s refusal to give up its right-of-way on the Rock Island Line.

In the settlement, Ameren is giving the state only a 20-year right of first refusal in the event Ameren decides to sell its property on Church Mountain to a third party, but it is reserving to itself “and any affiliated entity” the right to develop or “otherwise utilize” the property—likely for a second pumped storage hydroelectric plant.

The negotiators for the state reportedly accepted Ameren’s price-tag of more than $60 million for its approximately 1300 acres on Church Mountain, then gave up their efforts to acquire it. Yet Ameren acquired most of this acreage around 1960 when the going rate for such land was about $5 per acre, and even at the going rate of about $1000 per acre for wild land in the Ozarks today the value would be only about $1.3 million. The exorbitant price tag likely reflects the value to Ameren of a second pumped storage plant on the mountain. Ameren’s entire cost for the $180 million settlement and for the rebuilding of the Taum Sauk Reservoir will apparently be covered by insurance, while Missourians’ interest in the protection of the natural resources of the Taum Sauk region is being sold out.

“In the wake of the reservoir disaster,” said MPA’s Terry Whaley, “it is simply unthinkable that these lands so critical to the complex of state-owned wildlands and natural areas in the immediate vicinity would remain vulnerable to industrial development.”

Add to Technorati Favorites

One of the most heated topics in Missouri – Quality Deer Management vs Traditional Deer Management

I thought I would pass this along in hopes that River Hill Traveler would help educate the public instead of telling the public what to think or what ever you think might help Missourians make an educated decision.

This is the last year of the experimental antler restriction and the MDC will evaluate the results and present these to Missourians at public meetings and on the web to get input on where MDC should go with it.

Thru the grapevine I am hearing talk about changes that were coming down the pipe for 2009 deer seasons.

It is doubtful that Antler Restriction will go state wide. This is in doubtful because some areas of Southeast Missouri are against it. (Example – http://www.riverhillstraveler.com/march-06-antler-point-restriction.php) You will have to scroll down to it.

Quote from the River Hills Traveler “One reason there is so much opposition to the idea is that most folks in this area think the deer population could stand to grow a little more, not shrink.”

Again opinion not fact, The deer population in Missouri stands at an all time high. Look at Wayne county Firearms season history, this year alone it was in the top 8 counties out of 118 in harvest. The last I checked Texas and Oregon County are in the Ozarks and are in the top 3 of harvest. How many deer do you want?

Did your article ever show that in the states with Antler Restriction that the harvest of deer actually went up all but the first year.

Wayne County Firearms Harvest 1996 = 1,706
Wayne County Firearms Harvest 1998 = 1,562
Wayne County Firearms Harvest 2000 = 1,634
Wayne County Firearms Harvest 2001 = 1,761
Wayne County Firearms Harvest 2003 = 1,537
Wayne County Firearms Harvest 2004 = 2,527
Wayne County Firearms Harvest 2005 = 2,117 (With 876 Bucks, 324 Button Bucks “1,200 Total Bucks” and 917 does)
Wayne County Firearms Harvest 2006 = 2,655 (With 1,341 Bucks, 369 Button Bucks “1,710 Total Bucks” and 945 does)
Wayne County Firearms Harvest 2007 = 3,103 (With 1,507, Bucks, 437 Button Bucks “1,944 Total Bucks” and 1,159 does)

Quote from the River Hills Traveler “A lot of hunters voluntarily limit their harvest to bucks even through deer of either sex may be taken.”

That is the problem and with proven by the harvest numbers, just in your county alone. What does this mean to the deer population and you? Well let’s take a look in areas that have been study, that has been TRADITIONAL DEER MANAGEMENT over the years.
DOES = 85% of the deer population
BUCKS 2 ∏ years old or less = 10% of the deer population.
BUCKS 2 ∏ years old to 4 ∏ years old = 5% of the deer population.
BUCKS 4 ∏ years old and up = 1% of the deer population.
Remember it takes around 3 ∏ years old before a Buck is even consider a mature whitetail. Also when a buck reaches 3 ∏ years of age with the correct nutrition the buck has reached 80% potential of its antler growth compared to a 1 ∏ year old only has 10% of its antler growth. If a buck reaches 4 ∏ years of age it has reached 90% of its potential antler growth. The traditional deer population is considered un-natural since does have been protected.
Quote from the River Hills Traveler “Generally, hunters would prefer to take an eight point deer over a four or six pointer.”
Then why are you showing only one side of the story. When a shift is made and does are no longer protected then the quality of the entire herd benefits but the bucks end up with the biggest benefit, because they get older.
Study’s that have what is called QUALITY DEER MANAGEMENT the population changes for the better.
DOES = 50% of the deer population
BUCKS 2 ∏ years old or less = 12.5 % of the deer population
BUCKS 2 ∏ years old to 4 ∏ years old = 25% of the deer population
BUCKS 4 ∏ years old and up = 12.5 % of the deer population

If you look at the numbers you have a 1 to 1 ratio between bucks and does and you can then see a visible rut and now have a more natural deer population.
Quote from the River Hills Traveler “Here, on the other hand, hunters either can’t see deer at considerable distances or find themselves too close at hand to have time for examining deer with optics. It is much more difficult to count points here.”

I believe you don’t give your reader’s much credit. I realize people think I am a redneck, but I can count up to four, I do own a optics and if the Bucks get that close to hunters in the Ozarks, then why do you need optics to count.

Quote from the River Hills Traveler “Does here tend to mature later than up north, producing fewer fawns over a life time. Taking an Ozark doe, therefore, has more impact on the deer population than it does up north.”

If this was a biological fact then I guess all the states like TEXAS and in the south would have fewer deer. Comments like this are opinion not fact. All Whitetail Does from Canada to Florida have to the chance to breed 2 to 3 times and doe fawns are able to breed within their first year.

Quote from the River Hills Traveler ”In the Ozarks, the other side of the coin is that in some areas, hunting pressure is so low that an antler restriction probably wouldn’t have the impact on the doe population that you might fear. (On the other hand it would have little impact on bucks, either.)”

I tell my kids if you don’t ever try, how will you know. Quality Deer Management is not about Big Antler Deer that is just a by product, it is about having a balanced age structure of mature bucks to does. How much research is out there, that you are basing you opinions on? I believe in common sense, well common sense is going to tell you that shooting the majority of 1 ∏ year old to 2 ∏ year olds you won’t have many 3 ∏ to 4 ∏ year olds. Will you. In Wayne County with 62% of the harvest are bucks and out of them 28% of them Button Bucks.

Does anyone know how many buck with LESS than 4 points one side was taken in the Ozarks. NO, and we will never know, because we are not in the study.
AS SOON AS WE PICKED UP A BOW OR GUN AND SET LAWS WE CHANGED NATURE AND STARTED MANAGING THE DEER HEARD. WE HAVE FOREVER CHANGED IT AND IN KNOW WAY NO MATTER WHAT WE DO CAN WE GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING WHEN IT WAS UNDER NATURALLY SELECTION.
In my humble opinion we owe it to the what ever the game to try to get it back to what nature intended. Since the wolf, cougar, bear no longer are the main predators we skew the deer herd to the most unnatural state in modern times as the main and responsible predator in controlling the natural section. Traditional deer management does not do this again in my opinion.
Here in a couple of weeks there will be a big effort from the MDC to get information out to the public.
As a writer it is our job to show people how to make a informed decision not to make the decision for them. With deer meetings across Missouri coming soon I hope that you might consider putting in the Newspaper a series of articles of information from states that have had it for years and compare that to Missouri

Here is the other side of the fence, that are not opinions but true data and FACT based on history, in which a typical hunter may never see. UNLESS WE SHOW THEM WHERE TO LOOK, then they can make up their own mind.

Arkansas – Has had antler restriction for years. – http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Sports/198342/

Pennsylvania – The Deer Hunting Capital of the world has so much data on their website – http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=465&q=151329

Michigan – Has a four year study – http://www.qdma.com/articles/details.asp?id=40

Texas – Part of the stated has just started it. – http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/game_management/deer/antler_restrictions/

New York – Is now getting ready to start. – http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/27663.html

Mississippi – Antler Restriction – http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/sept04/2.html

Georgia – Is where it all started. – http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=262&txtPage=4

Louisiana- Antler Restriction – http://www.wlf.state.la.us/pdfs/hunting/programs/dmapnewlettev6i1.pdf

Allen Morris

Add to Technorati Favorites