Reply to thread

Message

During the last legislature I like to think I was active in contacting legislature members by email concerning Bill 2315 and that I opposed it. I was surprised by the number of the responses I received, some that were for and some that were against, including responses from members from other districts than where I reside. I was disappointed with adding of the ‘electronic posting study’ to Bill 1021 in the eleventh hour prior to the vote. I was even more disappointed with some of the responses I received after the Bill 1021 passage, some claimed they were not aware the study had been added to the bill, and some claiming it was only to be a study and no system could really be developed because there was no appropriations for it. I questioned the latter at the time (without receiving further response as I recall) as creation of a system albeit for study purposes is described in the bill along with contracting with third party(s), and as I understood it Bill 1021 was an appropriations bill after all. There was no estimate of cost that I can see in Bill 1021 and I too would be interested in hearing how much has been spent so far and where it came from, along with future costs. I fear the monies already spent may be significant and will be used as another so-called rationale used by proponents for pushing this thing forward. As this map data is supposedly so readily available and easy to manage and these draft bills are purported not to be an anti-hunting bills I wonder why there is no mention of including such map data as all lands accessible to the public such as which road right of ways are gov’t owned and would open to hunting, possibly other lands which may not be readily known by the public and would be open to hunting (one type I have heard discussed is DOT mitigation lands as I recall), and other information that would be useful to hunter-landowner relations such as which section lines have actually been legally closed to travel by the township, etc.

<blockquote data-quote="NM 24" data-source="post: 306190" data-attributes="member: 1473"><p>During the last legislature I like to think I was active in contacting legislature members by email concerning Bill 2315 and that I opposed it.&nbsp; I was surprised by the number of the responses I received, some that were for and some that were against, including responses from members from other districts than where I reside.&nbsp; I was disappointed with adding of the ‘electronic posting study’ to Bill 1021 in the eleventh hour prior to the vote.&nbsp; I was even more disappointed with some of the responses I received after the Bill 1021 passage, some claimed they were not aware the study had been added to the bill, and some claiming it was only to be a study and no system could really be developed because there was no appropriations for it.&nbsp; I questioned the latter at the time (without receiving further response as I recall) as creation of a system albeit for study purposes is described in the bill along with contracting with third party(s), and as I understood it Bill 1021 was an appropriations bill after all.&nbsp; &nbsp; There was no estimate of cost that I can see in Bill 1021 and I too would be interested in hearing how much has been spent so far and where it came from, along with future costs.&nbsp;&nbsp; I fear the monies already spent may be significant and will be used as another so-called rationale used by proponents for pushing this thing forward.&nbsp; As this map data is supposedly so readily available and easy to manage and these draft bills are purported not to be an anti-hunting bills I wonder why there is no mention of including such map data as all lands accessible to the public such as which road right of ways are gov’t owned and would open to hunting, possibly other lands which may not be readily known by the public and would be open to hunting (one type I have heard discussed is DOT mitigation lands as I recall), and other information that would be useful to hunter-landowner relations such as which section lines have actually been legally closed to travel by the township, etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="NM 24, post: 306190, member: 1473"] During the last legislature I like to think I was active in contacting legislature members by email concerning Bill 2315 and that I opposed it. I was surprised by the number of the responses I received, some that were for and some that were against, including responses from members from other districts than where I reside. I was disappointed with adding of the ‘electronic posting study’ to Bill 1021 in the eleventh hour prior to the vote. I was even more disappointed with some of the responses I received after the Bill 1021 passage, some claimed they were not aware the study had been added to the bill, and some claiming it was only to be a study and no system could really be developed because there was no appropriations for it. I questioned the latter at the time (without receiving further response as I recall) as creation of a system albeit for study purposes is described in the bill along with contracting with third party(s), and as I understood it Bill 1021 was an appropriations bill after all. There was no estimate of cost that I can see in Bill 1021 and I too would be interested in hearing how much has been spent so far and where it came from, along with future costs. I fear the monies already spent may be significant and will be used as another so-called rationale used by proponents for pushing this thing forward. As this map data is supposedly so readily available and easy to manage and these draft bills are purported not to be an anti-hunting bills I wonder why there is no mention of including such map data as all lands accessible to the public such as which road right of ways are gov’t owned and would open to hunting, possibly other lands which may not be readily known by the public and would be open to hunting (one type I have heard discussed is DOT mitigation lands as I recall), and other information that would be useful to hunter-landowner relations such as which section lines have actually been legally closed to travel by the township, etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA