's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Lawmaker Wants Missouri to Pay for Deer-Car Wrecks(14 posts)

Lawmaker Wants Missouri to Pay for Deer-Car WrecksContinental
Mar 3, 2003 7:18 AM
State Rep. David Pearce (R-Warrensburg) is sponsoring a measure to make the Conservation Department pay the first $250 in damage to owners of cars that hit a deer. Pearce says it's the agency's fault that there are too many deer.
Pearce himself had a collision with a deer and his van sustained more than $2,000 damage.

Is this guy stupid, or what?
so, put a bounty on themDougSloan
Mar 3, 2003 7:22 AM
Unleash the hunters and this won't be problem. There are plenty of hunters in Missouri who are more than willing to take 'em out.

Deer can not only cause property damage, but injure and kill drivers, too.

Nonetheless, I don't understand the state paying for damage. It's sort of a "natural disaster," isn't it?

Excellent idea.eyebob
Mar 3, 2003 7:30 AM
Lock step with the fiscally conservative nature that Republicans like to trumpet? Why cap the payment at $250 out of curiosity? Seems like the fine people of Missouri should be made to foot the whole repair bill.

Mar 3, 2003 7:32 AM
I was being facetious about the bounty part. That seems to be hard to get across here.

Let the hunters at them. They will be glad to do it free of charge. They usually pay for that privilege.

I got it.eyebob
Mar 3, 2003 11:31 AM
I was, in turn, speaking tongue-in-cheek about the obvious farce that a Republican would introduce a bill to bilk the taxpayers of "their" money. That seemed hard to get accross here too.

Get it?


PS Can you give me a good "I just went for a 4 hour ride in 70 degree weather kind of story to get me through this blustery (sub zero with the wind chill) March day here in lovely (sarcarstic tone intended) New Hampshire!
bike storyDougSloan
Mar 3, 2003 11:42 AM
Saturday I did the "Blossom Ride," which celebrates the blossoming of fruit trees here. 65 miles through orchards and the foothills. It was a bit on the cold side, though, starting at 46 degrees and only 60 at the end. Had to wear arm and leg warmers the whole ride. Someone bought it (crashed) on a nasty descent, requiring a firetruck, ambulance, and sheriff's car to attend, apparently. Got a little sunburn on my nose. :-)

BTW, I doubt anyone will take the deer payment bill seriously. Every year, there are goofy things like that talked about. One year, a legislator wanted to ban sneezing in restaurants...

probably $250 deductible on his insurance--nmContinental
Mar 3, 2003 7:56 AM
If the state is forced to pay,sn69
Mar 3, 2003 9:49 AM
who gets the deer? Furthermore, if the driver who hit and killed the deer then takes the carcass to be butchered for venison or trophy, should he/she be cited for hunting without a license? What if it's out of season?

...All toungue-in-cheek of course, but I think that displays the farsical nature of the proposed legislation.

Indicentally, my freezer is currently full of venison my uncle clobbered with his truck in East Texas earlier this season. He hadn't managed to shoot anything all year, but that Ford Excursion made short work of bambi. Yum for me.
I think I need to put a Cow Catcher on my front end...Alpedhuez55
Mar 3, 2003 8:09 AM
and start taking out some Bambis ;) If I can take out 4 a week, that is $52,000 a year.

Or maybe extending the hunting limits, permits and season is a good idea. Sure I know some people are morally opposed to hunting. I am not a hunter myself, unless you count the 14 mice I caught in my house so far this winter ;). But it does thin out the heard which does need to be done sometimes.

Mike Y.
Introduce wolves and (more) coyotes to Missouri. nmBrooks
Mar 4, 2003 8:28 AM
ranchers might complain nmDougSloan
Mar 4, 2003 10:13 AM
Deers shouldn't be driving in the first place! -nmCaptain Morgan
Mar 3, 2003 9:02 AM
they at least should carry their own insurance nmDougSloan
Mar 3, 2003 9:05 AM
It's actually way wierder than that.Spoke Wrench
Mar 3, 2003 4:34 PM
Several years ago, the voters in Missouri approved a sales tax to be used only for water conservation and the Department of Conservation. The Department of Conservation already received hunting and fishing license proceeds which were also earmarked.

The result has been the Department of Conservation is the best funded branch of government in Missouri. Missouri can't afford to build new roads much less fix the ones they have. State funding for education is being slashed. The department of corrections is in trouble. Social services are underfunded. The Department of Conservation, however, is almost embarssed to have more money than they know how to spend, and it can't be spend on anything else.

It gets even better.

Here in Missouri we also have the "Hancock Amendment" to the state constitution. The Hancock Amendment limits how fast state taxes can be increased. One unintended result of the Hancock Amendment is that taxes can't be raised to be used for other uses because the Conservation Department sales tax is taking up Hancock space. So not only can't excess Conservation Department money be diverted to other uses, but the mere existence of that money prevents other departments from accessing other sources of needed funding. It's great!