Missouri Deer Collision Bill Will Cost Sportsmen
April 7, 2008 (Missouri)

A bill recently introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives will end up costing the sportsmen of the state and could set a negative precedent on who is responsible for any kinds of damage caused by wildlife.

House Bill 2498 requires the Missouri Department of Conservation to pay to the owner of a motor vehicle the first $250 of any damage caused to a vehicle that collides with a deer.

Outdoorsmen must rally against the bill, as wildlife is the responsibility of all people of the state. Money to cover the damages of deer/vehicle collisions should not be taken from the funds provided to the Missouri Department of Conservation by the licensing fees of sportsmen. Those fees must continue to be used for scientific conservation of the wildlife of the state.

As written, HB 2498 states that vehicle owners must provide “clear and convincing evidence†that the damage was caused by a collision with a deer and that the owner was legally operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. The provisions of the bill say there must have been contact with a deer and do not cover damaged caused to a vehicle due to avoiding a deer.

The bill was introduced on Friday, March 28 by Representative John Quinn (R-Chillicothe) and was co-sponsored by Representatives David Pearce (R-Warrensburg), Therese Sander (R-Moberly), Steve Hunter (R-Joplin) and Brian Munzlinger (R-Williamstown).

Missouri sportsmen should contact their state representatives and ask them to oppose HB 2498. To contact your representative, call (573) 751-3659 or use the Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org.

This is exactly what I am talking about on another thread. This is where "public property" is colliding with people's rights and priveleges. If the state rulles totaly in favor of the wildlife and the public then the drivers would actually have to reimburse the state. If they rull totally in favor of driving being a "right" of the citizens then the public is obligated to pay for damages to people's vehicles.

Regaurdless, I think you will see the state rule in favor of the public here and show that driving is a privelege and not a right and that a deer in the road is an "assumed risk" . Kind of like being hit by a baseball down the third base line.

I was just beginning to think that all the "Stupid Ideas" had been used up. I was wrong. Stupidity is alive and well and living in Missouri and thriving, I'm sad to say, in the Republican party.

Most game departments are funded largely by hunters, so this means that hunters are going to be funding any fender bender that someone can stick some deer hair on.

Alan

Well somebody has to pay for the freebies under socialism.

If it does pass it should be required for the owner to have a written accident report from a LEO investigating the incident. Sportsmen always seem to foot the bill for a lot things.

Rad

What's really sad for me about this is...I'm from Warrensburg MO, and I actually VOTED for one of the jerks (Dasvid Pearce) who co-sponsored this bill in the last election. I hope he's happy, 'cause he just lost a vote for next election...IF I had known he was going to co-sponsor sometning like this, I would've voted against him to begin with.
Some people truly don't have the sense God gave a horse!!
Jeremy

I have lived in the epicenter of MIssouri deer hunting my entire life. I believe I have hit exactly 0 deer with a car. I also know people who have hit 10-15 with a car, but lets face it a lot of people don't watch what the hell they're doing. Almost daily I will be following a car and see deer heading down to the road while the cars ahead of me just speed by in oblivion. I am always looking for game, so I tend to spot them first, of course accidents still happen, and some can pop out where there is no time to avoid them, but these are the exceptions.

The big insurance companies are really pushing for an out from deer vehickle collisions! We would have an Elk herd on the Peck Ranch in Southeast Missouri right now if Farm Bureau hadn't raised so much of a stink about the possibility of someone hitting one with a car.
I agree with jstevens, I have driven all my life and never had trouble missing a deer crossing a road.

Hawkeye47

One thing of note here:

The MO DNR is NOT completely funded by sportsmen's dollars. A couple decades back , the legislature enacted a statute whereby a portion of the state sales tax goes to the DNR. You guys from MO can correct me here, but I believe it was 1/10 of 1 percent. Back then, it was supposed to go to improving the state parks system. Not sure how it is today, however. -TONY

Tony

You are absolutely right, .1% sales tax goes to the Missouri Dept. of Conservation. A bunch of the money has been used to buy up land, as they have more money than they can legitimately spend.

jstevens,
From the tone of your response I take it that you are against land acquisition by your Game Department.

When I attended college in Ft Collins, CO, the best pheasant and duck hunting around was on the many Wildlife Management Units in that area. These WMU's varied from a few acres to several sections of land that the Colorado Fish & Game Department had acquired and managed for game, including allowing hunting.

Now I live in the fastest growing county in Montana where every acre of private land is being eyed by land developers so they can destroy that piece of farmland or wildlife habitat for their own personal profit. Orange paint (Montana's cheap "NO TRESSPASSING" signs) appear on fence posts that once enclosed productive ranch, timber, or farm land that were also open to hunting.

At least land owned by state game departments and the Federal Government, like the Forest Service or BLM, will remain open to wildlife and hunting and will NOT have houses or condos growing on them.

buffybr

Not at all, they had to do something with the money, they simply could not spend it all. The farm I grew up on was next door to 6000 acres of state land- the Seat Wildlife Area. I was just stating a fact, and yes it makes a good place for people without landowner connections to be able to hunt. When is said legitimately spend, it probably sounded that way, I should have said more than they can legitimately spend otherwise. I didn't mean it with any negativity, I used to shoot deer constantly on the NW corner of our place that were run off from pressure on the public ground. On opening morning, you could kill a deer every thirty minutes sitting on the dam of a little pond next to the fenceline.

Way back when while I was still in college this bill of the 1/10th tax came along. I figured then that in the long run it wasn't a good idea. I was assured by the then Commissioner that hunters wouldn't be sold down the river, even though the money collected from hunters would wind up being a small perecentage of their revenues.

I am still not convinced. As I watch the "Missouri Outdoors" program on TV it is about cooking, the swarming of "agents" behind every tree, and bunny hugger stories. All it will take is a change in the board to sent the Dept. over to anti-hunter and anti-hunting.

And the bill in the MO house? I suspect that the car insurance companies are contributing heavily to their re-election campaigns.

I might add that Kansas is worse. The head of the Fish and Game Dept. is anti-gun!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Skinner.:
... to pay to the owner of a motor vehicle the first $250 of any damage caused to a vehicle that collides with a deer.

Unless the bill requires that the vehicle be fixed, don't they see that a redneck will see this as a legal bounty on deer?

"I need more money, let's go hit a deer and get that free $250 they just made available."

After all, a small dent in a old truck will cost more than $250 to fix. And I doubt that it will ever go to the shop.

Buying up of agriculural properties by any government in most cases is horrible. It drives up prices on available properties while at the same time adding to the strain of property taxes by leftover owners. This in turn will lead to higher taxes and higher prices on ag. goods on all people. This is not worth some good public pheasant hunting.