Wisconsin Conservation Congress at risk by SB168

2/25/16 @ 7:33 PM
ORIGINAL POST
trouter
trouter
USER since 7/3/01
I have huge concerns that if this legislation passes it is the end of the Spring Hearing. This legislation will add addition review processes for any administrative rule. Since Act 21 was enacted if someone wanted to introduce a change to the muskrat season the process would be like this. Introduce a resolution at a Spring Hearing in their County. If it passes it goes the next step. Review by WCC Study committee and if it passed that is will be a WCC Advisory Question. If it passes……. It goes to the DNR and may be brought back the following year as a rule change question. If it passes……. It now goes to the NRB ( Natural Resources Board). If it passes…. It goes to the Governor for a scoping statement…. Now it has to go to the standing committees of both the Senate and the Assembly. If they except it……. It now is be for JCRAR ( Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rule). If they except it….. It goes back the NRB. If they pass it the second time ……. It goes one last time to the Governor for review. This current process takes about 3-4 years. AB251/SB 168 would add addition public hearing and review of all administrative rule adding even more time to get a simple muskrat season rule change passed. It is ridiculous to believe simple fish and game rules need any more public input or review after the current process What I am asking you to do is call your Senator and request an Amendment be added to SB 168 to exempt fish, game and conservation rules from this legislation because they have little economic impact and have already gone through an extensive review process. If we can’t get an amendment ask that they don’t support SB 168.
Post Your Comment
Displaying 1 to 9 of 9 Posts
3/4/16 @ 9:38 PM
John.Rennpferd
John.Rennpferd
USER since 6/3/10
Is this DOA since the legislature is out of session now basically until 2017? The last thing I see is that it is available for scheduling, but was not scheduled; doesn't that mean that it has to go through the whole process again to get to the floor?

Post Your Comment
2/28/16 @ 9:51 PM
BeerTownFyreman
BeerTownFyreman
USER since 6/15/01
I meant from the Congress or the hearings.

Post Your Comment
2/28/16 @ 9:17 PM
Working Retrievers
Working Retrievers
USER since 5/12/03
I don't have time to write a book but the destruction of our deer herd with CWD as an excuse. The elimination of EAB are a couple quick ones.

Post Your Comment
2/28/16 @ 3:40 PM
Tim_T
Tim_T
USER since 6/17/11
The only 'uneducated' folks I know of making more and more wildlife related decisions are those in the Legislature. They have determined we don't need that pesky science anymore, among other things. It is completely out of hand and backwards to any known way that I have heard of to manage natural resources.

Tim

Post Your Comment
2/28/16 @ 2:17 PM
BeerTownFyreman
BeerTownFyreman
USER since 6/15/01
Perhaps you can share for us a few examples of the decisions that were made were detrimental to the management of our natural resources, and the "uneducated" nature of those involved places our natural resources at risk.

Post Your Comment
2/28/16 @ 9:51 AM
Working Retrievers
Working Retrievers
USER since 5/12/03
And we have seen how well the "professionals" have done with wildlife and land management Or lack there of Ditto b

Post Your Comment
2/27/16 @ 3:41 PM
ditto
ditto
USER since 12/6/10
The Spring Hearings are a joke and should be done away with anyway. We hire professionals to manage the wildlife and make the laws, we don't need a bunch of uneducated people at the hearings making these decisions.

Post Your Comment
2/27/16 @ 2:18 PM
Tim_T
Tim_T
USER since 6/17/11
Thanks for the heads-up. They pretty much eviscerated the Spring Hearings with that obscene Act 21 already, now it looks like they're going to the jugular. Angry Puke Puke Puke Puke Puke

Tim

Post Your Comment