2006 House Bill 5912 (Require DNR keep hunting land open )

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Matthew Gillard (D) on March 28, 2006, to require the Department of Natural Resources to keep land under its control open to hunting unless it determines that the land should be closed because of public safety, fish or wildlife management, or homeland security concerns; require it to manage land under its control to support and promote hunting opportunities; and require it to manage the land to prevent any net decrease in the acreage open to hunting. Annual reports would be required on any land opened or closed to hunting during the previous year.
- Referred to the House Conservation, Forestry, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on March 28, 2006.

Most Recent Comments

1) let's put a [by Anonymous Citizen on November 21, 2007]
question on your insurance form that you have to answer before you get coverage.

the question is,

DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE HUNTING.

if you OPPOSE it, the insurance company doesn't have to pay for deer strikes.

Reply

Line

2) Hunting Barbaric? Consider This [by Anonymous Citizen on November 21, 2007]
To those of you who think hunting is barbaric. Consider this, go to a slaughter house and watch how they prepare the hamburgers or fried chicken so many of you enjoy. Then after you have seen that and compared it to hunting “population control” then lets hear your outlook on this. I’m sure you will think twice about that as your out for a drive biting into your Burger King burger and all of the sudden “BAM” a deer crashes through your windshield.
Reply

Line

3) Good Policy Idea But Is There Real Need For A Law? [by Anonymous Citizen on April 5, 2006]
HB 5192 expresses a great policy idea. Nonetheless, it seems like legislative meddling -- micro-managing -- and ought to be aproached with great skepticism. Unless there is real need for it, based on documented and very clear trends in administrative decision-making, this bill should be rejected. We just don’t need a new law to address every concern that pops up.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation