House Conservation and Natural Resources Committee
Event Log
Aaron Jeffreys — Introduced himself as Deputy Director for the Missouri Department of Conservation and began testimony.
Aaron Jeffries — Deputy Director for the Missouri Department of Conservation; began testimony in support of the legislation and referenced prior background work.
Jeffers — The speaker joked that Jeffers might not call him a good friend because of how the bill was filed.
Lisa Panette, Armour Vine — States support for the bill and says she will be brief.
Tyler Schwartz, Conservation Federation of Missouri — Testifies in opposition, warning that removing landowner verification could enable false claims of ownership.
Aaron Jeffries, Missouri Department of Conservation — Provides informational testimony on permit volumes, free landowner permits, and the history of acreage requirements.
Jeff Farnan — Addressed as Mr. Chair while managing the committee discussion.
Jeff Farnan — The speaker thanks the Chair for allowing questions; the chair is addressed directly.
Aaron Jeffries — Uses his own farm as an example to explain why permit verification is needed and notes the cost of a deer hunting permit.
Bruce Sassmann — Responded present as vice chair.
Michael Burton — Responded present.
Michael Burton — Michael Burton questioned whether House Bill 2549 could raise constitutional issues, particularly around the legislature directing the Missouri Department of Conservation and balancing landowner property rights with broader public and neighbor impacts. He emphasized that wildlife and natural resources affect surrounding landowners, argued that no one owns the entire state, and supported the idea that a permitting process is needed to balance competing interests in deer and conservation management.
Jeff Farnan — Called the roll as chair.
Jeff Farnan — Addressed as chair by the next witness.
Mitch Boggs — Responded present.
Mitch Boggs — The chair asked whether Representative Boggs was present and ready.
Mitch Boggs — Identified as the sponsor of House Bill 2549.
Mitch Boggs — Referenced as the sponsor of HB 2549.
Mitch Boggs — The speaker identified Boggs as the representative for the bill.
Mitch Boggs — Was used as an example in the discussion of whether someone could claim a brother's land to get a permit.
Mitch Boggs — Was referenced again as an example in the permit-enforcement question.
Mitch Boggs — Was referenced in the example of a brother obtaining a permit for someone else to hunt.
Mitch Boggs — Was described as the person who would be getting a permit for someone else to come hunt.
Mitch Boggs — The landowner permit was discussed in the context of where it can be used.
Mitch Boggs — Was used as the example name in the discussion of verifying whether someone is on the correct land.
Mitch Boggs — Was cited as the person Jordan agrees with on the bill.
Mitch Boggs — Was addressed in the discussion about deer management and permitting.
Mitch Boggs — The speaker references Representative Boggs as having discussed the online verification system.
Steve Jordan — Responded present.
Steve Jordan — Said he agrees with Mr. Boggs and does not think he should have to ask MDC to deer hunt his own ground.
Doyle Justus — Responded present.
Doyle Justus — Was addressed as the representative bringing the bill forward.
Bill Lucas — Responded present.
Bill Lucas — Bill Lucas discussed the hunting-permit bill from the perspective of a landowner, saying he supports the idea but is confused by the requirement to register land with MDC when land is already registered with the county. He questioned how the permit system would be enforced, whether someone could claim a relative’s land to obtain a permit, and how MDC would verify ownership. He suggested the registration requirement might help clean up the process and reduce reliance on game wardens, noted that game wardens currently issue citations, and said he was asking because the process had changed since years earlier. He concluded by emphasizing that, as a landowner with 16 acres, he supports the bill but still does not understand why MDC registration is needed.
Adrian Plank — Responded present.
Adrian Plank — Representative Adrian Plank begins an inquiry about the permitting process, asking what a permit costs and how those costs are broken down, noting that even free permits still involve production expenses.
Brenda Shields — Responded present.
Brenda Shields — Bridget Walsh Moore asks follow-up questions about the program, seeking clarification on its purpose and why it became defunct or unnecessary, including a request for more detail on why it has gone defunct.
Tim Taylor — Responded present.
Tim Taylor — Representative Tim Taylor is identified as the sponsor of HB 2267, then introduces the bill as a cleanup measure and explains its purpose. He clarifies that he would not call the old program defunct, but says its original forestry-management function has effectively been absorbed by other efforts, especially USDA/EQIP programs. In response to questions, he notes EQIP has existed for a long time, has been part of his work for decades, and that the federal program now handles the issue so a separate state program is unnecessary.
Tim Taylor — Jeffries joked that he was 'back clean up' for Representative Taylor.
Tim Taylor — Representative Tim Taylor is called on to ask questions and then responds, saying his main disagreement is with the word 'registration.'
Tim Taylor — The speaker references Representative Taylor's earlier comments about the verification system.
Bridget Walsh Moore — Bridget Walsh Moore was present for roll call and then asked a question about the state's role in the paint recycling program, which was answered in the same exchange.
Bridget Walsh Moore — Asked whether the state should keep the statute in mind in case the federal government changes agricultural policy.
Bridget Walsh Moore — Asked how the permit process works under the proposed rule.
Bridget Walsh Moore — Referenced in connection with her earlier concerns about land registration.
Colin Wellenkamp — Responded present; transcript rendered as "Wellencamp."
Colin Wellenkamp — Representative Colin Wellenkamp was recognized to inquire and then asked whether the bill should remain as a safety mechanism if federal EQIP funding is reduced.
Colin Wellenkamp — Colin Wellenkamp is praised and thanked during the discussion, and later his earlier questions are referenced again, showing a continuous exchange centered on his comments and the follow-up discussion around them.