06-26-2010, 05:59 PM
Stuck here at work[frown], a couple more comments.
RE "The public should pay, not just anglers. Kayakers, tubers, bird watchers, hunters, waders, swimmers, all have a right to access these waters. Why should then anglers have to foot the bill?"
I agree with you in principle, but how do you practically extract money from these other groups to fund a WIA program? Or for that matter, perpetual easement or outright purchase acquisitions? Considering that the general fund cannot properly pay for schoolteachers and roads, and has to fund several legal challenges to the legislature's and Herbert's frivolous legislation, I doubt that is a practical answer.
RE (from Fly Flicker) "[#ff0000]The problem is that they don't have to do anything! They have what they want. Even if a court challenge is entered onto the dockets now it would be 4-5 years before it is resolved. The faster route would be a sportsmens initiative or a bill that modifies HB141(which I can't see happening).
[/#ff0000]
[left][#ff0000][/#ff0000]
It is true they don't have to do anything and the the ball is in "our" court so to speak. But they are going through this "task farce" to at least put on a show that they are willing to consider multiple sides. Reports I have heard is that at least Stowell is interested in talking. Whether it can be used to our benefit or not, I don't know, but again, thanks for representing the other day.
I would also say that if we do win in court, (which I believe will happen) that we will need to eventually be able to come together with the other side in an HB80 type compromise. Perhaps the dialogue with this task force may be beneficial in that way.
[/left]
[#ff0000]
[/#ff0000]
[signature]
RE "The public should pay, not just anglers. Kayakers, tubers, bird watchers, hunters, waders, swimmers, all have a right to access these waters. Why should then anglers have to foot the bill?"
I agree with you in principle, but how do you practically extract money from these other groups to fund a WIA program? Or for that matter, perpetual easement or outright purchase acquisitions? Considering that the general fund cannot properly pay for schoolteachers and roads, and has to fund several legal challenges to the legislature's and Herbert's frivolous legislation, I doubt that is a practical answer.
RE (from Fly Flicker) "[#ff0000]The problem is that they don't have to do anything! They have what they want. Even if a court challenge is entered onto the dockets now it would be 4-5 years before it is resolved. The faster route would be a sportsmens initiative or a bill that modifies HB141(which I can't see happening).
[/#ff0000]
[left][#ff0000][/#ff0000]
It is true they don't have to do anything and the the ball is in "our" court so to speak. But they are going through this "task farce" to at least put on a show that they are willing to consider multiple sides. Reports I have heard is that at least Stowell is interested in talking. Whether it can be used to our benefit or not, I don't know, but again, thanks for representing the other day.
I would also say that if we do win in court, (which I believe will happen) that we will need to eventually be able to come together with the other side in an HB80 type compromise. Perhaps the dialogue with this task force may be beneficial in that way.
[/left]
[#ff0000]
[/#ff0000]
[signature]