Bonasababy
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2024
- Messages
- 1,147
I believe these bills don't have a chance but you never know when a bill is tabled for potential later action, in MN's broken legislature they sometimes get added back in and voted on in the dead of night in the final hours of the session with no public awareness or testimony.
HF 40--This revokes the requirement to require double fencing so CWD infected deer inside captive deer fences can't touch noses with wild deer outside the fence, and prevents the state from killing or seizing any deer inside such fences if the "farmer" is caught violating rules. MN DNR says 10 deer farms still have not complied with new rules enacted when democrates shoved them through a few years ago to finally start to control the captive deer herd problem, which has been linked to most of MN's wild deer CWD problems.
Primary author is John Burkel, Badger. Dawn Gillman, St. Paul also signed on as an author. Both republicans.
SF 956--This bill favors poachers or lawbreakers of all kinds by greatly restricting the ability of Conservsation officers to enter lands to cite, fine, seize guns or angling gear and more where game or fish laws are being broken. The proponents claim it's a constitutional violation they are trying to correct-- but these authorities have been in place and survived constitutional challenges over the years. Conservation officers testimony has made it clear this would completely gut their ability to enforce game and fish laws.
It appears to me the real goal of this legislation is the same as the house file--to limit the ability of officials to regulate or punish deer farms.
Steve Porter, a very vocal anti government deer farmer has been pushing this. The main author--Republican Senator Steve Green from Fosston--is a close ally of Porters. As is another Bill author, Republican Senator Nathan Wesenberg from Little Falls.
Steve Green is also the author of another bill--Senate File 980--that would revoke the authority of conservation officers unless they work under the direction of the local sheriff.
I don't expect these to go anywhere but folks might note who is pushing them. Those names continually come up in desires to protect violators and gut game and fish laws and protections, acquistions of public land for hunting and fishing, and more.
HF 40--This revokes the requirement to require double fencing so CWD infected deer inside captive deer fences can't touch noses with wild deer outside the fence, and prevents the state from killing or seizing any deer inside such fences if the "farmer" is caught violating rules. MN DNR says 10 deer farms still have not complied with new rules enacted when democrates shoved them through a few years ago to finally start to control the captive deer herd problem, which has been linked to most of MN's wild deer CWD problems.
Primary author is John Burkel, Badger. Dawn Gillman, St. Paul also signed on as an author. Both republicans.
SF 956--This bill favors poachers or lawbreakers of all kinds by greatly restricting the ability of Conservsation officers to enter lands to cite, fine, seize guns or angling gear and more where game or fish laws are being broken. The proponents claim it's a constitutional violation they are trying to correct-- but these authorities have been in place and survived constitutional challenges over the years. Conservation officers testimony has made it clear this would completely gut their ability to enforce game and fish laws.
It appears to me the real goal of this legislation is the same as the house file--to limit the ability of officials to regulate or punish deer farms.
Steve Porter, a very vocal anti government deer farmer has been pushing this. The main author--Republican Senator Steve Green from Fosston--is a close ally of Porters. As is another Bill author, Republican Senator Nathan Wesenberg from Little Falls.
Steve Green is also the author of another bill--Senate File 980--that would revoke the authority of conservation officers unless they work under the direction of the local sheriff.
I don't expect these to go anywhere but folks might note who is pushing them. Those names continually come up in desires to protect violators and gut game and fish laws and protections, acquistions of public land for hunting and fishing, and more.
