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
Mandan Data center pushback
Latest: guywhofishes
14 minutes ago
Beef prices going up????
Latest: Duckslayer100
Today at 8:35 AM
new reel for all around use?
Latest: shorthairsrus
Today at 8:31 AM
RR
Red River 8-20-26
Latest: Captainbrad
Today at 7:05 AM
The Ears
Latest: Eatsleeptrap
Today at 6:25 AM
Your dream squirrel rifle?
Latest: Jiffy
Yesterday at 10:30 PM
Surgeon Info/Gunshot Wounds YT
Latest: svnmag
Yesterday at 8:57 PM
C
Mandan Slasher!!!
Latest: camper
Yesterday at 8:21 PM
S
Environmental Easements
Latest: SDhunter
Yesterday at 5:22 PM
N
ND suppressor laws update?
Latest: ndbwhunter
Yesterday at 5:08 PM
Depredation ELK tags for Landowners
Latest: Duckslayer100
Yesterday at 11:33 AM
8
NFL News (Vikings)
Latest: 870XPRS
Yesterday at 10:53 AM
M
Clint/Burt
Latest: measure-it
Yesterday at 10:48 AM
M
FLOCK Cameras...Thoughts
Latest: measure-it
Yesterday at 10:47 AM
O
Stupid
Latest: ORCUS DEMENS
Tuesday at 5:58 PM
D
Early Goose
Latest: DareDevilDave
Tuesday at 3:55 PM
drought... cough cough
Latest: Kurtr
Tuesday at 3:09 PM
Algoma, Wisc. anyone?
Latest: Maddog
Tuesday at 9:32 AM
S
Pronghorn
Latest: SerchforPerch
Tuesday at 8:49 AM
O
Sak
East of Sanish
Latest: OL Deadeye
Tuesday at 7:46 AM
O
Sak
Van Hook is still going strong
Latest: OL Deadeye
Tuesday at 6:32 AM
Friends of NDA
Forums
General
General Discussion
SB 2315 / Lockout
Top
Bottom