Post by: bigtex on January 30, 2015, 08:52:51 PM
An applicant for a bait station permit must already hold:
(i) A valid big game hunting license issued under RCW 77.32.450 that includes black bear as a species option;
(ii)Any necessary transport tag required under this title; and
(iii) A special hunting season permit that allows the holder to hunt for black bear in a spring damage control hunt authorized by the department.
(c) A bait station permit may be purchased only from the department's Olympia office. The fee for a bait station permit is ten dollars.
(d) A separate bait station permit is required for each individual bait station.
(e) The bait station permit number must be attached to each bait station so that the bait station permit number is visible.
(f)A bait station permit is valid fifteen days before the opening day of the spring damage control hunt and expires five days after the end of the spring damage control hunt.
(g)A bait station authorized under this section must:
(i) Be established no earlier than fifteen days before the opening day of the associated spring damage control hunt;
(ii) Not include any device, barrel, box, or other container holding bait attached to a tree, excluding a standing dead tree, fallen tree, or stump, in a way that damages or may cause damage to the tree during mounting, use, or removal of the device, barrel, box, or other container;
(iii) Be secured so as to be easily removable at the close of the spring damage control hunt or the conclusion of the hunt if a black bear is taken; and
(iv) Be a single metal or plastic barrel not larger than fifty-five gallons, a wooden box, or made from natural materials found on the site.
(h) A bait station authorized under this section must be removed and the area returned as close to its natural condition as possible by removing all bait containers, nonconsumed bait, and any material used to conceal the hunter's observation location at the conclusion of the hunt if a black bear is taken or no later than five days after the close of the spring damage control hunt, whichever is earlier.
(i) Bait may include additives such as honey, molasses, jam, jelly, or a similar substance and those additives may be placed in and around the bait station. Additionally, any bait used to attract black bear must:
(i) Consist of natural or commercially processed meats, vegetables, fruits, or grains;
(ii) Not contain any metal, plastic, paper, styrofoam, glass, or any other substance that may harm or injure an animal feeding from the bait station;
(iii) Be free of any commercial wrapper before being placed in the bait container or the area around the bait container; and
(iv)Not include any cooking oil or grease.
(j)A bait station must be located:
(i) No closer than fifty yards from any natural body of water or natural running stream, creek, or river;
(ii)At least one hundred yards from any public or private traveled road, regardless of surface or use, and any established hiking, horseback riding, bicycle, or other off-road vehicle use trail; and
(iii) No closer than five hundred yards from any private residence or commercial structure.
(k) A bait station illegally placed on private property may be removed by the property owner and the director may revoke the holder's bait station permit.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1838.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1838.pdf)
Post by: Bob33 on January 30, 2015, 09:00:39 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on January 30, 2015, 09:04:31 PM
Post by: duckmen1 on January 30, 2015, 09:07:25 PM
but I also think they need to open up a few more spring bear areas.
Post by: NW-GSP on January 30, 2015, 09:08:20 PM
Post by: pd on January 30, 2015, 09:12:19 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 30, 2015, 09:19:25 PM
Importantly, there is only one sponsor on this bill, and the committee chairman (Chr. Blake) did not sign his name. This is not a good sign. Chances are very low that he will even call this bill for a hearing.:yeah:
I was thinking the same. The more sponsors the better chance of a hearing, and even better chance it passes.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on January 30, 2015, 10:16:47 PM
Im going to email my legislators asap!
Post by: hub on January 30, 2015, 11:31:57 PM
Post by: M_ray on January 31, 2015, 12:24:05 AM
Post by: PolarBear on January 31, 2015, 12:28:44 AM
I am in favor. There are too many black bears.RACIST!!! :chuckle:
Post by: MtnMuley on January 31, 2015, 05:40:57 AM
Post by: JBar on January 31, 2015, 06:07:13 AM
Post by: 3dvapor on January 31, 2015, 07:06:11 AM
Post by: addicted2hunting on January 31, 2015, 07:15:28 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 31, 2015, 11:21:38 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 31, 2015, 11:30:49 AM
Post by: suga on January 31, 2015, 11:31:16 AM
I agree with the need for this, and commend balcktail sniper for worki g his tail off!X2
Im going to email my legislators asap!
Post by: blackdog on February 02, 2015, 11:55:41 AM
Post by: Jingles on February 02, 2015, 04:56:25 PM
If going to open it up for one open it up for all...............
Post by: duckmen1 on February 03, 2015, 05:43:24 PM
Post by: Humptulips on February 05, 2015, 12:07:04 PM
I would think this would be a pretty good argument for opening baiting up to the General Public in the Spring.
Post by: starbailey on February 05, 2015, 12:48:45 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 05, 2015, 12:51:14 PM
I wonder how this will jive with the grizzly bear recovery thingGreat question. In Wyoming, baiting is not allowed in grizzly bear areas but is allowed in the remainder of the state. By agreement between WGFD and USFWS. I expect - if this passes - it would be similarly amended.
Post by: D-Rock425 on February 05, 2015, 12:55:43 PM
I voted no for the reason why limit it to spring hunting?i dont think baiting will ever be open for general season ever again.
If going to open it up for one open it up for all...............
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on February 05, 2015, 02:51:38 PM
As many able to stop in, it sucks it is during the day, but it is when it is, that would be willing and able to show support would be great.
Hope to see some of you there, and if you haven't already, contact your local area lawmakers and ask for theirvsupport. We are close, let's see if we can finish it off!
Thanks all, Dennis ""Blacktail Sniper."
Post by: blmathis12 on February 05, 2015, 03:59:51 PM
Post by: Machias on February 06, 2015, 05:18:19 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 06, 2015, 06:20:28 AM
HB 1838 - DIGEST
Authorizes the department of fish and wildlife to issue a bait station permit that allows the holder to use a black bear bait station during a spring damage control hunt in order to assist the owner or tenant of real property to protect livestock, domestic animals, private property, or public safety.
Post by: bowbuild on February 06, 2015, 05:54:59 PM
Post by: Machias on February 08, 2015, 07:04:10 AM
They will consider this, yet not change the ability to mole trap that causes destruction to private property......stupid, plain stupid! :bash:
I hope they never do, unless they allow everyone to use body gripping traps.
Post by: Roosevelt on February 08, 2015, 08:30:47 AM
You do know you can get a permit to bait bears on a damage control permit? You just can't keep the bear.
I would think this would be a pretty good argument for opening baiting up to the General Public in the Spring.
It's been a couple of years, but unless they've changed, timber companies can apply for baiting permits and give them to anyone who is a master hunter. If the master hunter harvests a bear he or she can do with it what they please. Actually, it clearly states on the permit that something must be done with it. It gives the option to donate it etc. The hide does not need to be sealed either and you can't sell it.
Post by: Roosevelt on February 08, 2015, 08:40:01 AM
I think the fact that it has already been legal in a limited way is a good sign that the bill has a chance. I'd love to see it pass.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on February 08, 2015, 10:18:42 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 09, 2015, 04:12:08 PM
The fiscal note (how much does this bill cost) was released today by the Office of Financial Management (OFM).
Under the bill WDFW MAY not must, will, shall, etc issue the bear bait permits.
According to the fiscal note issued by OFM, WDFW will NOT issue bait permits. However, if the "may" is turned into another word (basically forcing the hand of WDFW) then obviously permits will have to be issued.
"Section 2(1) allows the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to issue bait station permits and to assess a fee
of $10 per permit.
With the bill’s permissive language, WDFW would not implement the bait station permits. If, however, the bill
specified narrower situations in which black bear baiting were allowed by permit, WDFW would implement the
program. In that case, WDFW estimates that 55 permits would be issued each year, resulting in cash receipts of
$605: $550 for the permit and $55 for the transaction fee. Costs would be approximately $22,000 in the first
year, and $11,000 each year thereafter."
https://fortress.wa.gov/binaryDisplay.aspx?package=39287
Post by: Machias on February 09, 2015, 06:11:26 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 09, 2015, 06:32:20 PM
There you have Government at it's finest. $33,000 to issue 110 permits. Only the government could come up with a figure like that.Your a little off.
$22,000 for the first year
$11,000 for every year after that
Post by: Machias on February 09, 2015, 06:36:57 PM
Post by: stevemiller on February 09, 2015, 09:36:11 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 09, 2015, 09:57:30 PM
they must have sat down with a calculator and decided they could make some more off us hunters.I would be willing to bet that with this popping up and the deer baiting issue again coming up we will end up having a limited deer baiting law (for now)then a permit to buy later to bait deer just like bear.Many states that do allow bear baiting do have a bear baiting permit. Such as Idaho..
Post by: quadrafire on February 09, 2015, 10:35:05 PM
There you have Government at it's finest. $33,000 to issue 110 permits. Only the government could come up with a figure like that.Your a little off.
$22,000 for the first year
$11,000 for every year after that
What would the cost be from? That many $$ per year to issue 55 permits. Am I missing something here??
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on February 10, 2015, 07:39:44 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 10, 2015, 10:41:14 AM
-North Skagit
-Monroe
-Copalis
-Kapowsin
The reasoning is the bill only allows for spring damage hunts to be eligible for the baiting permit. Under the proposed big game hunting laws, those 4 areas are the only damage hunts.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on February 13, 2015, 08:04:57 AM
Feb 17 Scheduled for executive session in the House Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources at 10:00 AM. (Subject to change)
My understanding is at that time, the committee has three options for action:
Pass it and move it forward,
Kill it and it is done,
Do nothing and it dies on its own.
Here is a link to the bill's tracking page showing what has happened/is happening. There is also a link to comment on it. It isn't dead yet, so the more we support it, the more chance it has.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1838&year=2015#videos (http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1838&year=2015#videos)
Post by: fastdam on February 13, 2015, 09:29:50 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 13, 2015, 09:43:04 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 13, 2015, 09:50:34 AM
I vote yes, although i would rather see it expanded to all spring hunts (and fall to for that matter) i have to ask, why does this bill prohibit the use of oil and grease?
My guess would be the of mess it makes leaving a long term site where bears will congregate past the season. Also could be water quality issues as well. :dunno:
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on February 13, 2015, 10:15:35 AM
I vote yes, although i would rather see it expanded to all spring hunts (and fall to for that matter) i have to ask, why does this bill prohibit the use of oil and grease?
My guess would be the of mess it makes leaving a long term site where bears will congregate past the season. Also could be water quality issues as well. :dunno:
:yeah:
And trying to get it through to all seasons would have never gotten it off the ground, that was clear from the hearing on Feb 10th...
Post by: fastdam on February 13, 2015, 01:02:59 PM
Post by: h20hunter on February 13, 2015, 01:07:41 PM
It appears that the bill is moving forward some, next step:
Feb 17 Scheduled for executive session in the House Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources at 10:00 AM. (Subject to change)
My understanding is at that time, the committee has three options for action:
Pass it and move it forward,
Kill it and it is done,
Do nothing and it dies on its own.
Here is a link to the bill's tracking page showing what has happened/is happening. There is also a link to comment on it. It isn't dead yet, so the more we support it, the more chance it has.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1838&year=2015#videos (http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1838&year=2015#videos)
Excellent link. I went on, filled it out, and voiced my support.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on February 15, 2015, 07:55:48 AM
It appears that the bill is moving forward some, next step:
Feb 17 Scheduled for executive session in the House Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources at 10:00 AM. (Subject to change)
My understanding is at that time, the committee has three options for action:
Pass it and move it forward,
Kill it and it is done,
Do nothing and it dies on its own.
Here is a link to the bill's tracking page showing what has happened/is happening. There is also a link to comment on it. It isn't dead yet, so the more we support it, the more chance it has.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1838&year=2015#videos (http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1838&year=2015#videos)
Excellent link. I went on, filled it out, and voiced my support.
I got It done
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2015, 05:28:54 PM
The committee did pass a substitute of this bill. HOWEVER, it came with significant changes. Under the bill only landowners can obtain a baiting permit to avoid bear damage to crops and livestock. The language that allowed spring bear hunters the ability to obtain a bait permit has been eliminated!
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 17, 2015, 05:49:05 PM
TERRIBLE NEWS:bash:
The committee did pass a substitute of this bill. HOWEVER, it came with significant changes. Under the bill only landowners can obtain a baiting permit to avoid bear damage to crops and livestock. The language that allowed spring bear hunters the ability to obtain a bait permit has been eliminated!
Post by: pd on February 17, 2015, 06:23:28 PM
BigTex knows the game in Olympia--what has happened here is not at all unusual. (It is also not unusual to overturn this in the other house's committee, or on the floor, or in the budget committees. However, it takes a dedicated bill sponsor.)
You all need to take a long term view on this bill. First, the timber companies got permission to bait. Now, with this bill, landowners of all stripes get permits to bait (if there is damage to livestock or crops). Eventually, logic prevails, and the common hunter gets permission to bait. You need to keep pushing and find a sponsor. Politics is like making sausage, as you all know.
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2015, 06:33:17 PM
BigTex, thanks for keeping us up to date on this.I think you are right. While we all wanted to see the original bill pass, something is better then nothing. Maybe this year it opens it up for landowners to bait where there is damage. In 5 years another bill is passed that opens up the spring hunt to bait. 5 years later some or all of the fall units.
BigTex knows the game in Olympia--what has happened here is not at all unusual. (It is also not unusual to overturn this in the other house's committee, or on the floor, or in the budget committees. However, it takes a dedicated bill sponsor.)
You all need to take a long term view on this bill. First, the timber companies got permission to bait. Now, with this bill, landowners of all stripes get permits to bait (if there is damage to livestock or crops). Eventually, logic prevails, and the common hunter gets permission to bait. You need to keep pushing and find a sponsor. Politics is like making sausage, as you all know.
I think everyone wanted that grand slam or at least a home run with this bill, and we may end up with a single.
Post by: NW-GSP on February 17, 2015, 06:39:08 PM
Post by: RadSav on February 17, 2015, 06:54:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2015, 07:31:23 PM
Do the changes open the door for a timber company to lease a baiting permit for spring tag hunters on their land? Would this allow a timber company to buy a permit and then sell a locational pass to a spring bear holder?No.
So this would include landowners like timber companies right?Correct.
Basically the only individuals who could bait under this bill now are the owners of the land. The owner cannot then permit other's to bait. So realistically it would apply to timber companies, however the only one in the company who could bait would be the actual owner of the company.
Post by: trophyhunt on February 17, 2015, 07:37:03 PM
So, could I bait on my 1 1/4 acre? I have wildlife all around my house and it's not in a firearm restricted area, just curious if I could bait on my property? Of course to save my small trees from being eaten. ThanksDo the changes open the door for a timber company to lease a baiting permit for spring tag hunters on their land? Would this allow a timber company to buy a permit and then sell a locational pass to a spring bear holder?No.So this would include landowners like timber companies right?Correct.
Basically the only individuals who could bait under this bill now are the owners of the land. The owner cannot then permit other's to bait. So realistically it would apply to timber companies, however the only one in the company who could bait would be the actual owner of the company.
Post by: carpsniperg2 on February 17, 2015, 07:43:56 PM
With this change is it still only open for landowners to bait in the spring or did it open it up for spring and fall? General and permit?
If a guy has a orchard and the bears are tearing things up could one get a permit?
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2015, 07:54:43 PM
Bigtex,It has nothing to do with hunting seasons, but rather simply damage being caused. Basically if I had bear damage I could call WDFW and they could issue be a kill permit and allow me to bait.
With this change is it still only open for landowners to bait in the spring or did it open it up for spring and fall? General and permit?
If a guy has a orchard and the bears are tearing things up could one get a permit?
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2015, 07:56:11 PM
You would have to prove to WDFW there is damage being done. WDFW must still issue a baiting permit. It's similar to how WDFW currently issues landowner permits for cougars, you must prove there is an issue first.So, could I bait on my 1 1/4 acre? I have wildlife all around my house and it's not in a firearm restricted area, just curious if I could bait on my property? Of course to save my small trees from being eaten. ThanksDo the changes open the door for a timber company to lease a baiting permit for spring tag hunters on their land? Would this allow a timber company to buy a permit and then sell a locational pass to a spring bear holder?No.So this would include landowners like timber companies right?Correct.
Basically the only individuals who could bait under this bill now are the owners of the land. The owner cannot then permit other's to bait. So realistically it would apply to timber companies, however the only one in the company who could bait would be the actual owner of the company.
Post by: trophyhunt on February 17, 2015, 08:01:00 PM
Had to ask. But honestly, when we first moved in this area we had a blow up pool and one summer a bear bit our pool and popped it. I wonder if he was swimming around in it? Would have been damn funny to see, but we could never repair the holes. How did I know he bit it? Well I took one of my bear sculls outside and compared the bites, they lined up perfect with the canines and the smaller teeth.You would have to prove to WDFW there is damage being done. WDFW must still issue a baiting permit. It's similar to how WDFW currently issues landowner permits for cougars, you must prove there is an issue first.So, could I bait on my 1 1/4 acre? I have wildlife all around my house and it's not in a firearm restricted area, just curious if I could bait on my property? Of course to save my small trees from being eaten. ThanksDo the changes open the door for a timber company to lease a baiting permit for spring tag hunters on their land? Would this allow a timber company to buy a permit and then sell a locational pass to a spring bear holder?No.So this would include landowners like timber companies right?Correct.
Basically the only individuals who could bait under this bill now are the owners of the land. The owner cannot then permit other's to bait. So realistically it would apply to timber companies, however the only one in the company who could bait would be the actual owner of the company.
Post by: carpsniperg2 on February 17, 2015, 08:08:50 PM
Bigtex,It has nothing to do with hunting seasons, but rather simply damage being caused. Basically if I had bear damage I could call WDFW and they could issue be a kill permit and allow me to bait.
With this change is it still only open for landowners to bait in the spring or did it open it up for spring and fall? General and permit?
If a guy has a orchard and the bears are tearing things up could one get a permit?
I see. I know the original was for only spring.
Post by: RadSav on February 17, 2015, 08:09:18 PM
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on February 18, 2015, 04:31:36 AM
Post by: headshot5 on February 18, 2015, 06:10:51 AM
Quote
I think you are right. While we all wanted to see the original bill pass, something is better then nothing. Maybe this year it opens it up for landowners to bait where there is damage. In 5 years another bill is passed that opens up the spring hunt to bait. 5 years later some or all of the fall units.
I think everyone wanted that grand slam or at least a home run with this bill, and we may end up with a single
At least it is still a step in the right direction. I'm guessing that at some point it will move to proxy hunting. This is because not all landowners are hunters, or are able to hunt. At least it will help protect private property rights... (Allow landowner to protect his property against bear damage).
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2015, 07:39:00 AM
QuoteI think you are right. While we all wanted to see the original bill pass, something is better then nothing. Maybe this year it opens it up for landowners to bait where there is damage. In 5 years another bill is passed that opens up the spring hunt to bait. 5 years later some or all of the fall units.
I think everyone wanted that grand slam or at least a home run with this bill, and we may end up with a single
At least it is still a step in the right direction. I'm guessing that at some point it will move to proxy hunting. This is because not all landowners are hunters, or are able to hunt. At least it will help protect private property rights... (Allow landowner to protect his property against bear damage).
:yeah: Better than nothing and a step forward, baby steps can get us there eventually!
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on February 18, 2015, 12:54:39 PM
Yeah! :bash: timber companies already use bait?!??? And hunters can already hunt over bait on private timber companies land. This would be under the spring permit and I'm not sure who issues the permit to bait. I don't get what changed. Maybe more permits for bait from wdfw to the timber company?:yeah:
:bash:
Weyerhauser has been feeding (bait) them for years !! then chasing them with hounds !! Part of what I was told by WDFW years ago was the "spring damage" depredation permits were reduced to force WH into cooperating with the program in the Lincoln unit, but they still practiced it in the Vail tree-farm. I see that we are losing Lincoln in the proposals, and reenforcing a rule already in RCW 77.15.245
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 77.12.240, *77.36.020, 77.36.030, or any other provisions of law, it is unlawful to take, hunt, or attract black bear with the aid of bait.
(a) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the killing of black bear with the aid of bait by employees or agents of county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety.
(b) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the establishment and operation of feeding stations for black bear in order to prevent damage to commercial timberland.
(c) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the director from issuing a permit or memorandum of understanding to a public agency, university, or scientific or educational institution for the use of bait to attract black bear for scientific purposes.
(d) As used in this subsection, "bait" means a substance placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting black bears to an area where one or more persons hunt or intend to hunt them.
Post by: fireweed on February 19, 2015, 08:33:28 AM
Do the changes open the door for a timber company to lease a baiting permit for spring tag hunters on their land? Would this allow a timber company to buy a permit and then sell a locational pass to a spring bear holder?
Exactly. Selling bears. Currently the companies bait to keep bears from eating trees. Its a big program with feeding stations and special "bear feed". Timber companies also can use hounds, bears donated to charity. I know the timber manager that suggested the spring damage permit program to start with to provide an opportunity for the regular hunter to harvest a bear when they were doing damage. (This was all before the land access permit trend). Now--in the most egregious example of biting-the-hand-that-feeds-you, these same companies are CHARGING hunters to get rid of the bears that are ruining their trees! With baiting, I can see them auctioning off bait station locations to certain hunters, all special rules to help BIG TIMBER with their tree-eating bears (while fleecing the hunters in the process).
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on February 19, 2015, 09:12:13 AM
Do the changes open the door for a timber company to lease a baiting permit for spring tag hunters on their land? Would this allow a timber company to buy a permit and then sell a locational pass to a spring bear holder?
Exactly. Selling bears. Currently the companies bait to keep bears from eating trees. Its a big program with feeding stations and special "bear feed". Timber companies also can use hounds, bears donated to charity. I know the timber manager that suggested the spring damage permit program to start with to provide an opportunity for the regular hunter to harvest a bear when they were doing damage. (This was all before the land access permit trend). Now--in the most egregious example of biting-the-hand-that-feeds-you, these same companies are CHARGING hunters to get rid of the bears that are ruining their trees! With baiting, I can see them auctioning off bait station locations to certain hunters, all special rules to help BIG TIMBER with their tree-eating bears (while fleecing the hunters in the process).
i dont know if that would happen, if they can only bait for depredation it would be just like they guys running dogs. they would have to turn over the bears to be donated.
Post by: sakoshooter on February 19, 2015, 08:02:00 PM
Post by: csaaphill on February 19, 2015, 09:04:18 PM
Post by: csaaphill on February 19, 2015, 09:11:57 PM
TERRIBLE NEWSreally then no then
The committee did pass a substitute of this bill. HOWEVER, it came with significant changes. Under the bill only landowners can obtain a baiting permit to avoid bear damage to crops and livestock. The language that allowed spring bear hunters the ability to obtain a bait permit has been eliminated!
Post by: csaaphill on February 19, 2015, 09:15:32 PM
Post by: blackdog on March 04, 2015, 11:54:01 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 04, 2015, 08:24:35 PM
Apparently Stephanie at DFW is working with HSUS to kill this bill. :bash:
How do you know of this? :dunno:
Post by: blackdog on March 04, 2015, 08:41:50 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 05, 2015, 06:40:03 PM
Apparently Stephanie at DFW is working with HSUS to kill this bill. :bash:
How do you know of this? :dunno:
Does it matter?
Yes, it does matter. If you are talking about Stephanie Simek (?), she was at the hearing and we spoke before. She expressed strong support, but also wanted some changes, which I am sure are a result of the current version.
So, to have made an apparent complete change of opinion, while not impossible, does urge an explanation on how you know this.