Dog Fish.
I am truly sorry about the mistake involving Blake.. I went back and added a correction into the post. I am still wondering, though, how you feel about the bill. You seem to be in touch quite a bit with hunting issues. I keep feeling like I am the only one that has any doubts about the wisdom of this bill based off the wording.
No worries on the Blake thing. Appreciate you correcting that.
The verbiage in the bill scares the hell out of me, primarily the use of the word "any" at the end of line 14. Effectively "any" rule or policy could be said to have an impact on tribal hunting activities, because maybe one less elk or deer may be not be able to harvested by the Tribes. That would be an impact on tribal hunting activities.
The Hirst decision I referred to above also deals with impacts. The unit of measure used define if there was a hydrological impact on streams, rivers or senior water rights is "one molecule". That may sound crazy, but if new home construction in all GMA counties can be brought to a halt because of the impact of one molecule of water, how hard is it to make the same argument based on one animal?
Sorry, don't necessarily trust the Tribes. Dip-netting the salmon ladders this past fall, harvesting over 70% of the coastal crab catch for the past 3-4 years, holding us hostage at NOF, the 2016 summer salmon season, not turning in sufficient catch data, and then this whole open meeting deal. Their actions stink as bad as the piles of egg stripped fish on the banks of the Skok. Clear enough?
Previous Topic
Index
