What's new
Forums
Members
Resources
Whopper Club
Politics
Pics
Videos
Fishing Reports
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Members
Resources
Whopper Club
Politics
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General
General Discussion
SB 2315 / Lockout
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="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. 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.</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?
Post reply
Recent Posts
OFFICIAL 2026 Deer Gun Lottery
Latest: Bed Wetter
44 minutes ago
Chorizo
Latest: Davy Crockett
Today at 5:14 AM
World Cup 2026
Latest: Rowdie
Today at 12:02 AM
What are you listening to these days?
Latest: svnmag
Yesterday at 11:52 PM
Zebra Mussels Discovered in Twin Lakes
Latest: MSA
Yesterday at 11:10 PM
Z
Oahe 26
Latest: zoops
Yesterday at 9:17 PM
Lawnmower starting issue
Latest: Maddog
Yesterday at 4:30 PM
RR
Red River 6-18-26
Latest: CatDaddy
Thursday at 10:46 PM
The End of New Rounds?...(yt)
Latest: svnmag
Thursday at 9:11 PM
Gasoline pump prices
Latest: Zogman
Thursday at 5:56 PM
Long sleeve hot weather shirts
Latest: MSA
Thursday at 3:02 PM
Looking for a German Shepard
Latest: Lycanthrope
Thursday at 1:56 PM
Galena, KS
Latest: Obi-Wan
Thursday at 12:47 PM
Not just pheasants in Pembina
Latest: luvcatchingbass
Thursday at 10:03 AM
Garden!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Latest: tikkalover
Wednesday at 1:09 PM
Ozempic Face
Latest: lunkerslayer
Wednesday at 12:26 PM
O
Tour Level Gold - Sak
Latest: OL Deadeye
Wednesday at 8:03 AM
O
Early Fawns
Latest: OL Deadeye
Wednesday at 7:58 AM
Food porn
Latest: svnmag
Tuesday at 10:34 PM
I Like Fun Facts
Latest: svnmag
Tuesday at 9:08 PM
Boat Title or Registration???
Latest: Allen
Tuesday at 2:09 PM
Friends of NDA
Forums
General
General Discussion
SB 2315 / Lockout
Top
Bottom