|
Well, good news bad news out of the MDC today. Bad news - They’re laying off 106 people over the next 9 months. The good news is- I got drawn for a bear tag, so if anyone knows of some bear locations in the south west part of the state, I’m all ears. 
|
|
https://mdc.mo.gov/contact-engage/public-commenting-opportunities Links on that site will become available on July 16. You can reuse this to make a comment: I oppose this proposal. The people who intentionally damage ranges, leave trash behind, and ignore safety rules are not going to suddenly become responsible because they are required to buy a permit. This proposal mainly impacts the law-abiding people who already follow the rules. What makes even less sense is tying range access to hunter education and a small game permit. Many shooters are not hunters. They have no interest in hunting and may never use any of the hunting-related information taught in the course. Requiring someone to take training that is unrelated to their intended activity is unnecessary and burdensome. This is like requiring parents to complete a safety course and purchase a permit before their children can use a public playground because some people vandalized playground equipment. Nobody would accept that solution because it punishes everyone for the actions of a few bad actors. Public shooting ranges are public facilities. I should not have to take a course, obtain a permit, or register with the government simply to use a public range safely and responsibly. If I want to take my wife, family members, or friends shooting, they should not be required to complete hunter education and purchase permits just to spend an afternoon shooting paper targets. The people causing the damage are already ignoring the rules. Adding another permit requirement only affects those who are willing to comply in the first place. If MDC wants to address vandalism and unsafe behavior, it should focus on enforcing existing rules against those responsible. Requiring permits, registration, and unrelated training is not a solution. It is simply another barrier for responsible citizens who want to use a public facility. |
|
The component of MDC that runs the shooting ranges is trash. Has always been trash. I hate MDC because of this. Sure, they probably do good work in other aspects but I don’t care. I’ve seen enough over the years. That entire department needs “restructuring” from the top down. |
|
Originally Posted By ak4784: The component of MDC that runs the shooting ranges is trash. Has always been trash. I hate MDC because of this. Sure, they probably do good work in other aspects but I don’t care. I’ve seen enough over the years. That entire department needs “restructuring” from the top down. The leadership of MDC is chosen by the governor isn't it? Do we have contact with reps who can pressure to governor to make changes at MDC? |
|
Originally Posted By Little_Bo_Peep:The leadership of MDC is chosen by the governor isn't it? Do we have contact with reps who can pressure to governor to make changes at MDC? |
|
Originally Posted By Little_Bo_Peep: The leadership of MDC is chosen by the governor isn't it? Do we have contact with reps who can pressure to governor to make changes at MDC? The MDC is a golden calf. Its never going to be fixed. We never should have approved the conservation tax. |
|
Originally Posted By armantoo: https://mdc.mo.gov/contact-engage/public-commenting-opportunities Links on that site will become available on July 16. You can reuse this to make a comment: I oppose this proposal. The people who intentionally damage ranges, leave trash behind, and ignore safety rules are not going to suddenly become responsible because they are required to buy a permit. This proposal mainly impacts the law-abiding people who already follow the rules. What makes even less sense is tying range access to hunter education and a small game permit. Many shooters are not hunters. They have no interest in hunting and may never use any of the hunting-related information taught in the course. Requiring someone to take training that is unrelated to their intended activity is unnecessary and burdensome. This is like requiring parents to complete a safety course and purchase a permit before their children can use a public playground because some people vandalized playground equipment. Nobody would accept that solution because it punishes everyone for the actions of a few bad actors. Public shooting ranges are public facilities. I should not have to take a course, obtain a permit, or register with the government simply to use a public range safely and responsibly. If I want to take my wife, family members, or friends shooting, they should not be required to complete hunter education and purchase permits just to spend an afternoon shooting paper targets. The people causing the damage are already ignoring the rules. Adding another permit requirement only affects those who are willing to comply in the first place. If MDC wants to address vandalism and unsafe behavior, it should focus on enforcing existing rules against those responsible. Requiring permits, registration, and unrelated training is not a solution. It is simply another barrier for responsible citizens who want to use a public facility. Originally Posted By JJKrzos: Well said armantoo What isn't said is that it's the Missouri Department of Conservation, not the Missouri Department of Encouraging Folks to Leisureshoot on Public Properties. Only reason the ranges exist is due to a reluctant acknowledgement that a good portion of funding comes from permits in the first place, and they'd better provide some sight-in locations to concentrate the yokel trash behaviors in order to avoid spreading the abuse in more trafficked and visible areas. MDC heads don't care about providing a place for us to test out a new AR or racegun or to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. That's the LAST item on their priority list. If this works as a barrier and decreases use of the ranges because you don't by a permit, it will have been a success in their eyes. If we submit and pay for the permit just to shoot for fun, then it's done what is expected. We should have a Missouri Department of Civilian Marksmanship or something similar. And there should be dedicated public spaces for training and testing gear. But there's a wide gulf between what should be and what is. |
"Zeal without prudence is like a ship adrift."
|
Originally Posted By armantoo: https://mdc.mo.gov/contact-engage/public-commenting-opportunities Links on that site will become available on July 16. You can reuse this to make a comment: Thanks for the heads up! I’m not so sure MDC cares about our opinions, but I’ll leave mine. |
|
Originally Posted By Weekend_Hillbilly: Thanks for the heads up! I’m not so sure MDC cares about our opinions, but I’ll leave mine. You never know, if a big enough of a stink is raised they may just drop it. I remember years ago, like 2006ish, MDC changed the free land owner deer permit from requiring (I think) 5 acres to (again I think not sure) to 40 acres then the public raised a stink about it and they changed it to 20 acres. I am not sure exactly what it changed to back in 2006ish as I owned no land .Also, the public raised a stink about the CWD targeted culling and as a result they didn't do it this year in the winter-I am not sure if they will be doing it again next year. I do know they are planning on doing the CWD sampling again this year, but they are scaling it back (part due to public comment and part I think due to the fatigue from the requirement on MDC personnel to give up their opening weekend of deer season to work all weekend collecting samples). I know I absolutely hated having to work opening weekend and missing out on time hunting/camping with my son and daughter. The new model is switching from sampling most of the counties in Missouri every year to sampling each county once every four years. |
|
Originally Posted By thorshammerblow: You never know, if a big enough of a stink is raised they may just drop it. I remember years ago, like 2006ish, MDC changed the free land owner deer permit from requiring (I think) 5 acres to (again I think not sure) to 40 acres then the public raised a stink about it and they changed it to 20 acres. I am not sure exactly what it changed to back in 2006ish as I owned no land .Also, the public raised a stink about the CWD targeted culling and as a result they didn't do it this year in the winter-I am not sure if they will be doing it again next year. I do know they are planning on doing the CWD sampling again this year, but they are scaling it back (part due to public comment and part I think due to the fatigue from the requirement on MDC personnel to give up their opening weekend of deer season to work all weekend collecting samples). I know I absolutely hated having to work opening weekend and missing out on time hunting/camping with my son and daughter. The new model is switching from sampling most of the counties in Missouri every year to sampling each county once every four years. Good to know they’re listening, thanks |
|
Bumping this to the top with a recap of what we are able to comment upon beginning tomorrow. I thought there were three separate issues, but wanted to check ChatGPT to be sure. From my memory of a previous MDC email, this looks about right: Beginning tomorrow (July 16), the Missouri Department of Conservation will open three public comment periods, all running July 16 through August 14, 2026. Residents can provide input on: A proposed camping permit for conservation areas Would replace free camping with a permit system on MDC-managed conservation areas that allow camping. The proposed permit would cost $5 per day, valid for up to five days and up to 10 people. A proposed Nonresident Public Land Deer Hunting Permit Would require nonresident deer hunters to purchase an additional permit to hunt deer on Missouri public lands. The proposed permit fee is $165 per season and would apply only to public lands, not private property. A proposed permit requirement for unstaffed firearms shooting ranges Would require most users of MDC's unstaffed shooting ranges to possess a qualifying permit (such as a small game hunting permit). Proposed exemptions include youth under 16, adults 65 and older, and certain individuals with disabilities. Staffed ranges would not be affected. |
"Some of the greatest dads I've ever seen weren't so much perfect as they were willing to work hard to overcome their failings. Does that make sense?"
Yes. Yes it does.
Yes. Yes it does.
|
Originally Posted By PursuitSS: Pigeon Hill (St. Joseph) started down a dark road at least 30 years ago. Richard Bohanan (MO Conservation Agent) HATED any firearm that wasn’t walnut & blued steel. EVERYTIME we would take our REGISTERED Machine Guns to the range we would notify Buchanan County Comm Center that we would be firing automatic weapons at Pigeon Hill, Bohanan would show up and DEMAND our paperwork even though he had seen it numerous times before. It got so bad that a friend of mine made wallet sized laminated copies and only carried them! Bohanan stated “I’m getting automatic weapons BANNED on MODCC ranges! Well, then they changed the rules to where you had to get a permit, then they changed it to where you had to apply in person so many days in advance. Finally they BANNED Machine Guns ENTIRELY! So we were forced to purchase an abandoned Rock Quarry and turn it into a range where ANYTHING as long as it was LEGAL is O.K.! In hindsight it was a blessing in disguise. Those of you who have seen our range and Pigeon Hill know we have a much better Range! SCREW MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION!!!!!! Originally Posted By M-231: I've seen agents at the lines more that once. One memorable time was when guys were shooting at a .22 target on the ground at Pigeon Hill, it about halfway out to the berm. The agent showed up and started writing tickets because the bullets were skipping off the ground and heading up out of the range, and hitting that house that was up by the main road. I suspect that was the main reason for shutting down Pigeon Hill, but I don't see why they had to lock up the trap range too. With the rifle/pistol range closed, people would have shot them on the trap range if they hadn't closed that too. Tragedy of the commons..... |
|
I have to ask. Which proposal are we suppose to comment on? Looking at the website, there are 6-7 different proposals that contain language stating that a small game permit will be required to use unstaffed ranges. |
DAV lifetime member
NRA Patriot Life Benefactor
NRA Patriot Life Benefactor
|
Originally Posted By chumpmiester: I have to ask. Which proposal are we suppose to comment on? Looking at the website, there are 6-7 different proposals that contain language stating that a small game permit will be required to use unstaffed ranges. I commented on the top one. I believe the others are modifications to various exempted licenses (like free senior small game permits) if they were to proceed. |
|
Bump. I commented: https://mdc.mo.gov/about-regulations/wildlife-code-missouri/proposed-regulation-changes I oppose this proposal. The people who intentionally damage ranges, leave trash behind, and ignore safety rules are not going to suddenly become responsible because they are required to buy a permit. This proposal mainly impacts the law-abiding people who already follow the rules. What makes even less sense is tying range access to hunter education and a small game permit. Many shooters are not hunters. They have no interest in hunting and may never use any of the hunting-related information taught in the course. Requiring someone to take training that is unrelated to their intended activity is unnecessary and burdensome. This is like requiring parents to complete a safety course and purchase a permit before their children can use a public playground because some people vandalized playground equipment. Nobody would accept that solution because it punishes everyone for the actions of a few bad actors. Public shooting ranges are public facilities. I should not have to take a course, obtain a permit, or register with the government simply to use a public range safely and responsibly. If I want to take my wife, family members, or friends shooting, they should not be required to complete hunter education and purchase permits just to spend an afternoon shooting paper targets. The people causing the damage are already ignoring the rules. Adding another permit requirement only affects those who are willing to comply in the first place. If MDC wants to address vandalism and unsafe behavior, it should focus on enforcing existing rules against those responsible. Requiring permits, registration, and unrelated training is not a solution. It is simply another barrier for responsible citizens who want to use a public facility. |
|
Adding in my comment as well. I respectfully oppose the proposed amendments to 3 CSR 10-11.150 requiring completion of a hunter education course and possession of a small game hunting permit to use Missouri's unstaffed public shooting ranges. While I appreciate the Missouri Department of Conservation's efforts to address vandalism, property destruction, and unsafe behavior at public shooting ranges, I do not believe the proposed solution effectively addresses those problems. Instead, it places new burdens on responsible citizens while creating barriers to access for a public resource. The stated purpose of the rule is to reduce damage and misuse of conservation shooting ranges. However, requiring a hunter education course and a small game hunting permit does not directly address vandalism or intentional destruction of public property. Individuals who intentionally damage facilities are unlikely to be deterred by these additional requirements, while law-abiding recreational shooters will bear the costs and inconvenience. Additionally, this proposal ties access to a public shooting range to participation in an unrelated activity. Many Missourians use conservation shooting ranges for recreational target shooting, firearms training, competitive shooting, or self-defense practice. These individuals may have no interest in hunting and should not be required to complete a course designed primarily around hunting ethics and regulations or purchase a hunting permit simply to access a public shooting facility. This proposal also raises concerns regarding the Missouri Constitution's Hancock Amendment. By requiring citizens to purchase a permit and complete additional requirements before using a previously available public facility, the rule effectively creates a new financial burden for exercising access to that facility. I encourage the Department to carefully consider whether this proposal is consistent with the intent and requirements of the Hancock Amendment and whether legislative action, rather than administrative rulemaking, would be more appropriate if additional fees are deemed necessary. Missouri has experienced declining participation in hunting over many years. While hunter education serves an important role in preparing new hunters, requiring the course for individuals who have no intention of hunting risks creating unnecessary barriers to recreational shooting rather than encouraging participation in conservation activities. Public shooting ranges serve a broader audience than hunters alone and should remain accessible to all responsible firearm owners. I encourage the Department to consider alternatives that more directly address the underlying problem of vandalism and unsafe behavior without imposing new requirements on every user. Examples include: Increasing the use of trail or game cameras at unstaffed ranges to identify individuals responsible for vandalism and property damage. Increasing the frequency of visits by conservation agents or park personnel to unstaffed ranges, particularly during periods of heavy use. Expanding visible enforcement efforts and pursuing restitution from individuals identified as damaging public property. Improving signage regarding range rules, penalties for vandalism, and methods for reporting unsafe or destructive behavior. Considering volunteer range stewardship or "adopt-a-range" programs that encourage local shooting clubs and community organizations to assist with monitoring and maintenance. These approaches focus enforcement on the individuals causing the problem rather than creating additional requirements for every responsible citizen who wishes to use these public facilities. I support the Missouri Department of Conservation's goal of maintaining safe, clean, and well-maintained shooting ranges. However, I respectfully request that the Department reject the proposed requirements for hunter education certification and a small game permit and instead pursue targeted enforcement and monitoring measures that directly address vandalism while preserving reasonable public access to Missouri's shooting ranges. Thank you for considering my comments. |
Joined:
Aug 2026
Posts:
12
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By onthebreeze: Crazy background, I had no idea. The ironic part is that your FA shooting had less chance of skipping out the range than 99% of the weekend crowd....... That is the reason for shutting it down. Frankly, I only went on a weekend one time, and that was enough. I would go weeknights, and always carried my rifle down with me to hang targets. With the rifle/pistol range closed, people would have shot them on the trap range if they hadn't closed that too. Tragedy of the commons..... Experiances at Pigeon Hill were a large part of the reason I got motivated to buy some rural land. The last few visits I had to pack up and leave due to behaviour of people there. Only so much you can keep your head on a swivel and still focus on what you are doing. Last visit was a father and son that repeatedly laid their loaded firearm sideways on the 50yd 'table' and when I asked them to please keep their weapon pointed downrange the dad had a fit about me correcting his kid. I packed up and never returned. That was just the last straw for the place. It's a shame, but I think modern culture just doesn't permit many people to take any correction. "Fuck you" is the default for everything and it ruins a lot of shared life. Think those saying this won't change anything are right. I'm not sure what part of hunting licenses will make people less trashy on uncontrolled ranges. |
|
This!!! Just wish we could have voted to take MDC money away a few weeks ago. And before you start whining telling me how good MDC is, just don't and save your breath, you won't change my mind one bit! Originally Posted By PursuitSS: Pigeon Hill (St. Joseph) started down a dark road at least 30 years ago. Richard Bohanan (MO Conservation Agent) HATED any firearm that wasn’t walnut & blued steel. EVERYTIME we would take our REGISTERED Machine Guns to the range we would notify Buchanan County Comm Center that we would be firing automatic weapons at Pigeon Hill, Bohanan would show up and DEMAND our paperwork even though he had seen it numerous times before. It got so bad that a friend of mine made wallet sized laminated copies and only carried them! Bohanan stated “I’m getting automatic weapons BANNED on MODCC ranges! Well, then they changed the rules to where you had to get a permit, then they changed it to where you had to apply in person so many days in advance. Finally they BANNED Machine Guns ENTIRELY! So we were forced to purchase an abandoned Rock Quarry and turn it into a range where ANYTHING as long as it was LEGAL is O.K.! In hindsight it was a blessing in disguise. Those of you who have seen our range and Pigeon Hill know we have a much better Range! SCREW MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION!!!!!! |
|
I'm pretty sure that unless a game warden is camping on Pigeon Hill, I'd be the only guy there following the policy, lol. I doubt I'd go back even if it reopened. Pigeon Hill was a flashing billboard of gun safety retardation. Parma Woods is a far nicer place to conform zeros and chronograph handloads, and the range Nazis are very nice and polite. I really miss the unstaffed shotgun range in Platte county. I need a place to pattern and attempt to break clays with ridiculous tacticool shotguns. I never observed unsafe gun handling there.
|
|
Originally Posted By Little_Bo_Peep: FYI - Missouri Conservation Commission members are set to vote on this change 9/11. I reached out to my state senator and rep to press on their leadership to vote no. Our reps cannot vote directly, but they can apply pressure. The commission meets on 9/10 and 9/11. The 9/10 meeting is closed, however anyone can attend the meeting in person on 9/11. I am not sure if they let anyone talk in the meeting-I have worked for MDC for 20 years and have never attended one so I don't know. They usually have it at the headquarters in Jeff City, but sometimes they do it somewhere else. The last one in July was in Bethany, MO-they usually wait until the last minute to announce it. I can keep an eye on calendars and see if it is somewhere else. Edit to add-If you want to speak at the meeting you have to submit a written request to the director at least four calendar days ahead of time. Also the agenda comes out about a week before the meeting-so sometime next week. |
|
Well, I don't know if anyone else is watching the commission meeting-they kicked the can down the road about a vote requiring a small game permit to use the unstaffed ranges. They said based on the public commentary the regulations committee wanted to evaluate it more before making a recommendation. They will talk about it in the October commission meeting. They said there were 1300 comments about the 13 different proposed changes, but only the camping and shooting range issue is being further evaluated. I would guess that they got a good bit of comments about those two items. |
|
Originally Posted By thorshammerblow: Well, I don't know if anyone else is watching the commission meeting-they kicked the can down the road about a vote requiring a small game permit to use the unstaffed ranges. They said based on the public commentary the regulations committee wanted to evaluate it more before making a recommendation. They will talk about it in the October commission meeting. They said there were 1300 comments about the 13 different proposed changes, but only the camping and shooting range issue is being further evaluated. I would guess that they got a good bit of comments about those two items. Thanks for keeping us updated. |
|
Originally Posted By thorshammerblow: Well, I don't know if anyone else is watching the commission meeting-they kicked the can down the road about a vote requiring a small game permit to use the unstaffed ranges. They said based on the public commentary the regulations committee wanted to evaluate it more before making a recommendation. They will talk about it in the October commission meeting. They said there were 1300 comments about the 13 different proposed changes, but only the camping and shooting range issue is being further evaluated. I would guess that they got a good bit of comments about those two items. I may just yet get to shoot at Pleasant Hope when it reopens.  We'll have to keep an eye out for these coming up again. |
|
Originally Posted By thorshammerblow: Well, I don't know if anyone else is watching the commission meeting-they kicked the can down the road about a vote requiring a small game permit to use the unstaffed ranges. They said based on the public commentary the regulations committee wanted to evaluate it more before making a recommendation. They will talk about it in the October commission meeting. They said there were 1300 comments about the 13 different proposed changes, but only the camping and shooting range issue is being further evaluated. I would guess that they got a good bit of comments about those two items. Considering that most of the comments I have seen and heard was in favor of not needing permits since it will solve absolutely nothing, I don’t see why they need to kick the can for another time. Permits are a waste of time and to try and restrict public ranges to a small paying group is ridiculous. They need to move on and worry about other shit |
|
Originally Posted By DriftingArmed: Considering that most of the comments I have seen and heard was in favor of not needing permits since it will solve absolutely nothing, I don’t see why they need to kick the can for another time. Permits are a waste of time and to try and restrict public ranges to a small paying group is ridiculous. They need to move on and worry about other shit I understand your point. Usually the commission just rubber stamps what ever is proposed by the regulations committee. For the regulations committee to pull back is practically unheard of (I can't remember when it ever happened, but I don't really pay too much attention to it). Did you comment? |