What's new
Forums
Members
Resources
Whopper Club
Politics
Pics
Videos
Fishing Reports
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Members
Resources
Whopper Club
Politics
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General
General Discussion
No Trespass Law
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Boondoggle" data-source="post: 246655" data-attributes="member: 6537"><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">I'm glad the fiscal note was brought up because I've been waiting to post. Thebill includes a fiscal note that estimates the cost of the proposeddatabase. The estimated cost to build and maintain a database of unknownparticipation appears reasonable to me. </span><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">Here are a few key things I gathered from the fiscal note:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">-$250K to build the database and mapping application.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">-$892 for 6 new FTE to administer landowner agreements and database/mapping application.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">-Add them up and it's $1.142M for 2019-2021 biennium</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">-$892K for the 2021-2023 biennium (without database construction)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">-Average those numbers and it's roughly $500K/year for the first 4 years.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">-The fiscal agreement estimates 3,166 posting agreements, equating to a cost of roughly $160/posting agreement.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">-Assuming 140K licenses and $500K/year budget, that equates to roughly a $3.50 license fee increase. There's no way the legislature will appropriate millions for a hunting database. If license numbers decrease in the future, expect license fees to fund the database would increase.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">*The proposed database grows government by 6 FTE at a time when state government is offering voluntary separation incentives to reduce its size. We don't even know what will be included in the database/mapping application. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">*An opt-in "no hunting" database would be ridiculously expensive and that's why it wasn't proposed. Signs are much cheaper.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">**The most important line of the fiscal note is on page 2, 3B. <u><span style="color: #ff0000">"This does not provide an authentication solution to verify the landowner, lessee, partnership (trust, life estate, LLC/LLP)."</span></u> I'm not an attorney, but that's a significant statement IMO. The State's database/mapping application could be in error. The State would be transferring the burden of verifying legal land ownership on to you and me. At least Plots lands are </span><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">verified by signs.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">The database proposal should be an easy defeat. It's too expensive and it doesn't include a land ownership authentication solution.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Boondoggle, post: 246655, member: 6537"] [FONT=Verdana]I'm glad the fiscal note was brought up because I've been waiting to post. Thebill includes a fiscal note that estimates the cost of the proposeddatabase. The estimated cost to build and maintain a database of unknownparticipation appears reasonable to me. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana] Here are a few key things I gathered from the fiscal note: -$250K to build the database and mapping application. -$892 for 6 new FTE to administer landowner agreements and database/mapping application. -Add them up and it's $1.142M for 2019-2021 biennium -$892K for the 2021-2023 biennium (without database construction) -Average those numbers and it's roughly $500K/year for the first 4 years. -The fiscal agreement estimates 3,166 posting agreements, equating to a cost of roughly $160/posting agreement. -Assuming 140K licenses and $500K/year budget, that equates to roughly a $3.50 license fee increase. There's no way the legislature will appropriate millions for a hunting database. If license numbers decrease in the future, expect license fees to fund the database would increase. *The proposed database grows government by 6 FTE at a time when state government is offering voluntary separation incentives to reduce its size. We don't even know what will be included in the database/mapping application. *An opt-in "no hunting" database would be ridiculously expensive and that's why it wasn't proposed. Signs are much cheaper. **The most important line of the fiscal note is on page 2, 3B. [U][COLOR=#ff0000]"This does not provide an authentication solution to verify the landowner, lessee, partnership (trust, life estate, LLC/LLP)."[/COLOR][/U] I'm not an attorney, but that's a significant statement IMO. The State's database/mapping application could be in error. The State would be transferring the burden of verifying legal land ownership on to you and me. At least Plots lands are [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]verified by signs. The database proposal should be an easy defeat. It's too expensive and it doesn't include a land ownership authentication solution. [/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Verification
What is the most common fish caught on this site?
Post reply
Recent Posts
.357 VS 10mm
Latest: luvcatchingbass
31 minutes ago
Garden!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Latest: Lycanthrope
57 minutes ago
S
Morel mushrooms
Latest: scrotcaster
Today at 1:12 PM
Preserving Spool Depth
Latest: Lycanthrope
Today at 9:51 AM
Craftsman 5000-Watt Generator
Latest: Mr.Mike
Today at 8:48 AM
Project ideas for a 13yo
Latest: Wirehair
Today at 8:41 AM
What are you listening to these days?
Latest: svnmag
Yesterday at 10:32 PM
Weather forecast & predictions
Latest: CatDaddy
Yesterday at 10:20 PM
2024 Bis-Man Reel & Rec Flyer
Latest: Honkerherms
Yesterday at 8:35 PM
F
Epic Fail ?
Latest: Fester
Yesterday at 10:53 AM
Applicators license
Latest: Allen
Yesterday at 1:27 AM
S
Giant muskie
Latest: snow2
Saturday at 8:30 PM
Costa Rica Bill fishing
Latest: guywhofishes
Saturday at 6:55 AM
Sak
Thursday 5*16*2024 East End
Latest: Rowdie
Friday at 6:29 PM
Vanguard 257 Weatherby Magnum
Latest: 1lessdog
Friday at 3:46 PM
7
Sak
Newtown 5/17
Latest: 701FishSlayer
Friday at 1:45 PM
Velocitor/Stinger/Interceptor
Latest: svnmag
Thursday at 8:34 PM
RR
Red River 5-16-24
Latest: Captainbrad
Thursday at 9:23 AM
Sak
Sak - New Town Area 5/4
Latest: grumster
Thursday at 9:03 AM
Northern Lights
Latest: Rowdie
Thursday at 7:53 AM
Friends of NDA
Forums
General
General Discussion
No Trespass Law
Top
Bottom