04-13-2015, 01:54 AM
First and foremost. As I recall from some of the previous legislative battles, landowners did have some liability protection in the Conatser decision. I also would say that if the landowners had an unacceptable liability exposure, the anglers would likely support giving you the legal protection you need against such a scenario. I know I would support it. Sadly, liability issues are a reality of running any business. My small business is no different than yours with those worries presently.
As for the rest of what was posted, I could argue with multiple points you presented, but I'll pass on that right now and only say that many of the questions you pose could have been resolved by the legislation previously presented by a coalition of anglers and other parties (HB80). However, landowners, the Farm Bureau, and the legislature decided to go a different direction and ignore the Courts and proverbially shove the anglers heads in a turd with HB141.
Hopefully, now the landowners, the Farm Bureau, and the legislature will be ready to compromise and craft legislation that protects both you and us.
[signature]
As for the rest of what was posted, I could argue with multiple points you presented, but I'll pass on that right now and only say that many of the questions you pose could have been resolved by the legislation previously presented by a coalition of anglers and other parties (HB80). However, landowners, the Farm Bureau, and the legislature decided to go a different direction and ignore the Courts and proverbially shove the anglers heads in a turd with HB141.
Hopefully, now the landowners, the Farm Bureau, and the legislature will be ready to compromise and craft legislation that protects both you and us.
[signature]