05-24-2010, 06:14 PM
The problem is the governor doesn't make laws. Even if Caroon was voted in this election, it will take the legislature amending the law first before the Governor can even have any influence on it.
Do I think that the House especially, and most likely either branch of the legislature will take on that task any time in the near future? No, I do not. Not unless the courts come in and tell them what they did was unconstitutional.
As for anglers/hunters and landowners sitting down and pounding out a compromise, that is what HB 80 was. There was multiple meetings with all involved from the beginning. The law was tweaked SIGNIFICANTLY from it's first draft was released in September based upon feedback from both sides. I was in a couple of those meetings. I saw what went on, and was given status updates by people who were in the meetings I was not in myself. HB 80 was absolutely a compromise on behalf of the anglers as we continued to give up things that the landowners asked for all the while the landowners would give nothing. Even after all the refusal to bend on their part, all except 1 provision was completely agreed to by the Farm Bureau (they wanted wet boot not ordinary high water mark), until McFiction told them he'd be drafting a separate bill (HB 141) and the landowners walked away from the table right before the legislative session started. So what I'm saying is that I see the landowners coming to the table for a "compromise" is probably even less likely than the legislature taking this up again next year.
That is....unless the court tell them that HB 141 was unconstitutional and we revert back to Conatser governing our waterways. Then they will be screaming for us to come back to the table....and at that point, I'd say it's a little too late for them to assert anything.
[signature]
Do I think that the House especially, and most likely either branch of the legislature will take on that task any time in the near future? No, I do not. Not unless the courts come in and tell them what they did was unconstitutional.
As for anglers/hunters and landowners sitting down and pounding out a compromise, that is what HB 80 was. There was multiple meetings with all involved from the beginning. The law was tweaked SIGNIFICANTLY from it's first draft was released in September based upon feedback from both sides. I was in a couple of those meetings. I saw what went on, and was given status updates by people who were in the meetings I was not in myself. HB 80 was absolutely a compromise on behalf of the anglers as we continued to give up things that the landowners asked for all the while the landowners would give nothing. Even after all the refusal to bend on their part, all except 1 provision was completely agreed to by the Farm Bureau (they wanted wet boot not ordinary high water mark), until McFiction told them he'd be drafting a separate bill (HB 141) and the landowners walked away from the table right before the legislative session started. So what I'm saying is that I see the landowners coming to the table for a "compromise" is probably even less likely than the legislature taking this up again next year.
That is....unless the court tell them that HB 141 was unconstitutional and we revert back to Conatser governing our waterways. Then they will be screaming for us to come back to the table....and at that point, I'd say it's a little too late for them to assert anything.
[signature]