Same Problem Different State

General Sporting Dog Discussion

Moderator: Moderator Pack

Same Problem Different State

Postby AverageGuy » Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:20 pm

AverageGuy
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:05 am

Re: Same Problem Different State

Postby Spindog » Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:35 pm

I find it strange they excluded fishing.
Dan J.
Guinness Da Grazia Male Spinone RIP Buddy
Macello Da Grazia Male Spinone Brown & White RIP Chow
Hidalgo's Leonardo da Vinci Male Bracco Italiano Orange & White
.ǝɯıʇ ɐ ʇɐ pɹıq ǝuo uʍop ǝpısdn p1ɹoʍ bop pɹıq ǝɥʇ buıuɹnʇ .ǝuouıds uɐı1ɐʇı
User avatar
Spindog
Master Poster
Master Poster
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:58 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Same Problem Different State

Postby carramrod » Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:08 pm

Spindog wrote:I find it strange they excluded fishing.


Don't worry that will be a separate bill that way they don't have to many people opposed to one bill.
carramrod
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 1:17 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Same Problem Different State

Postby J D Patrick » Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:43 pm

the general way that is written you can't do anything with dog hunt tests where game is involved

the world, she be changing
J D Patrick
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:33 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Same Problem Different State

Postby woodboro » Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:06 pm

Wisc. is top heavy in Republican's that tree hug.

Doesn't matter if bill , goes through , our test system uses pets. :lol:
woodboro
Master Poster
Master Poster
 
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: Same Problem Different State

Postby JONOV » Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:10 am

Given that it’s been referred to the Sportsman’s Heritage committee, and seeing where those committee chairs are from, I’m going to guess that they laughed the Madison Moonbats out of their meeting and sent the bill to the circular file.
JONOV
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:14 pm

Re: Same Problem Different State

Postby JONOV » Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:10 am

Given that it’s been referred to the Sportsman’s Heritage committee, and seeing where those committee chairs are from, I’m going to guess that they laughed the Madison Moonbats out of their meeting and sent the bill to the circular file.
JONOV
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:14 pm

Re: Same Problem Different State

Postby orhunter » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:53 pm

JD: It doesn’t say that at all. It stipulates, “wild animals.” No mention of domestic (pen raised) birds which are private property.
SARCASM, one of the many free services I offer
orhunter
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 7812
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:29 am
Location: nw oregon

Re: Same Problem Different State

Postby AverageGuy » Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:50 pm

orhunter wrote:JD: It doesn’t say that at all. It stipulates, “wild animals.” No mention of domestic (pen raised) birds which are private property.


I don't know about that Harvey. I understand the distinction you are driving at but I have no comfort level that would be the judicial interpretation and application of such a law.

I know for certain the folks behind the bill will gladly apply such a prohibition to a bobwhite quail, chukars, pheasants and mallards (all are species of "wild" birds) used in dog trials if such a bill were to pass.

Whether it will pass in this form or any other I don't know. This type bill is making the rounds. A narrowed down version specific to coyotes contests is just about passed now in NM, already passed in CA and Vermont, circulating in some form in OR and WI presently.

We can never rest.
AverageGuy
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:05 am

Re: Same Problem Different State

Postby Kiger2 » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:11 pm

I went to the Coyote hearing this morning. Yes, as I reported earlier it is just about coyote contests now. Very little opposition showed up for the Bill. At this point I would be shocked if it didnt pass.

Not too late to submit public comment. The way I read it it would also preclude ODFW or counties from implementing a bounty system. No one mentioned that, I will be submitting comments.

Dr. Robert Weilgus testified by phone, he also testified at the cougar hearing. Hie theory is that removing , cougars ,wolves, coyotes, does not reduce problems but increases them. I found issues with his cougar study just listening to him. Apparently Im not he only one See the following story on his wolf data if interested.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors ... harm-good/

Most of the arguments against were based on emotion.
Kiger2
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:34 pm


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests