You're all correct...this alleged compromise has not been released (yet), but the proponents of SB 2315 had no issue hyping it up last week, despite having NO IDEA what's in it, beyond some napkin scribbles after Erbele came back hat-in-hand to the committee looking for any sort of win for his big money buddies. My fear is the electronic proposal touted by them will add a layer of complexity, confusion, will frustrate landowner efforts to effectively post their land, and cause further unintended trespass and ultimately, will not prevent poachers and trespassers from breaking the law, while hurting hunter access and the G&F's bottom line. But...I haven't seen the bill yet. Keep pushing NO on SB 2315.
I'd be more in favor of the alleged electronic "compromise" system if: 1) all land started out as unposted; 2) land could be electronically posted and unposted on a weekly basis (ie: post for deer gun season, but open for late-season pheasant); 3) it was easy to manage for the IT group it is assigned to 4) it didn't cost a ton of money that was put on sportsmen; 5) the GIS program was available in phone and chip format (with periodic updates) and, probably most importantly 6) we had two more years to figure it all out and get it right, instead of it being just slopped together in some out-of-public-sight hoghouse bill which I fully anticipate will happen. The latter is the biggest concern.
Rumor had it the vote count was Nay 30, Yay 17 or so with a couple up in the air on the original SB 2315, thanks in great part to the people here and elsewhere hammering legislators on the topic. Statements such as "I've received 10 emails for SB 2315 for every 1 for any other bill" were frequent from legislators and "most were opposed" was the sentiment. We'll keep that pressure up if the new version looks like garbage. Stay tuned...
