MT HB0379 update.

[Tom]

This is the bill in MT to make it legal for elk farmers to pass their liscense on to others. More has been added in the last few days.

2/6/03 an amendment passed 53 to 45 to allow selling animals to be shot for a fee by the liscense holders on a county by county basis with the county commissioner's court deciding if they would do it in that county.

Most of the counties in MT were originally against I-143 in the general vote a few years ago. See the plot of county by county votes for I-143 (vertical axis) and for Gore (horizontal axis) below.

Also, on 2/6/03 an amendment failed to pass that would put it upto a general MT state vote again.

2/8/03 it was refereed to Agricultural Comm. again, before the 3rd reading. The 3rd reading is where it would actually pass that house of the legislature. Right?

Here's the plot of the original MT state vote county by county. Its shows most counties voters did not want I-143. Only the bigger counties got it passed at 51% back then.

 

[Lostagain]

That sure kicks things back down to more local control and takes the heat off of the leg's. Some folks will sure be upset some more.

 

[280]

just think if game farms become shooter operations Tom will finally be able to kill a bull elk

 

[Tom]

Come on 280, say something better than that! What does the Missoulan say, post that?

 

[BuzzH]

I wouldnt bet on Tom being able to kill an elk even if it passes.....

He'd need some supplies if he decided on the MT hunt...like a deer feeder electronic call, a feed bucket, some corn, a pair of them shooting sticks, a 338/378 because them elk are tough, even if you can hand-feed them, a pair of pliers to remove the ear-tag, etc. etc. etc.

 

[danr55]

They run out of argument and resort to childish slurs. What is this, grade school? Even you, 280, should be better than that.

 

[BuzzH]

Looks like danr has no sense of humor, what a punk.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I guess I'm not the smartest guy...I just don't get that graph. Why does it matter how many counties wanted I-143 and how many didn't? And where does Gore come into this? I thought all that matters is that a majority of the people voted for it, and that is why it passed. Which counties were for and against it is totally meaningless (in my opinion.)

 

[BuzzH]

Washington Hunter, its supposed to show that the democrats in MT passed 143, which is a total joke. The state is a heavy republican controlled state, which means lots and lots of republicans voted for 143.

Somehow Tom has to try to prove that democrats and the "big" Montana cities, only one or two of which are near 100,000ish people, supported 143. Its really a mute and totally meaningless graph.

It may as well compare the number of people who voted for 143 with whether they wear boxers or briefs...meaningless data.

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Looks like danr has no sense of humor, what a punk. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As usual, some one that is supposed to be educated, and doesn't ever seem to be able to get away from the sixth grade school yard long enough to make a decent post

 

[danr55]

Buzz, You are correct. The graph is mute. It has never made a sound. In fact, it is incapable of making a sound. As for being moot or meaningless, not hardly.

What that graph shows is the correlation between the counties that voted democratic and the counties that supported I 143. It is crystal clear and irrefutable. The numbers are not projections and there is no speculation.

What about the graph seems unclear? It shows that a minority of the counties voted pro I143 and a minority of the counties voted Pro Gore. If you change that to popular vote, it indicates that the majority of the people who voted, live in a few small concentrated areas and they are the ones who carried Gore and I143. The point being, the majority of the voters from the rural areas voted against Al Gore and against I143. That's what the graph shows.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-12-2003 08:16: Message edited by: danr55 ]</font>

 

[280]

Tom and DANNY will finally get their Montana elk the,,,the evil Democrats will finally be defeated, game farms will florish and all is well,,,,,,,,,,,give me a break,,,,,nanny nanny, liar liar pants on fire, my dad is bigger then your dad and danr and Tom love game farms

 

[Tom]

Danr understands the graph well, he described it well.

I guess the MT legislature added that county by county amendment to support I-143 or not, because there were so many counties whose voters voted against I-143. Those countys' commissioners court can do as they and their voters wish for that county, if HB0379 becomes law. Those counties, the minority but larger population counties, that voted for I-143 can have their commissioner's court keep the ban active in their county. If HB0379 actually would pass and become law. I hope they improve the management of those places, if it does pass, it doesn't seem like there are any amendments about that. It just seems like those counties that were against I143 want to go back to the way they were, no other changes, yet.

This bill is really applying the same principle, the voters win, like the I-143 supporters did, just its at a county level. Plus, if you read the bill, its trying to help MT.

 

[danr55]

I guess that's about what you can expect from a kid who's mother named him after specific gravity of balsa wood.

 

[280]

"Danr understands the graph well, he described it well."

all i can say is "birds of a feather,,,,,,,"

look you guys have hunted and will continue to hunt game farms if you can sleep at night and are happy with what you have done then great, but don`t expect Montana to turn into the pucked up place texas is, and don`t EVEN consider game farm killing real hunting, its a joke and its sad that guys like you make a market and need for elk to be killed on game farms.

 

[Michaelr]

I guess going out and HUNTING elk in the wild is just to much for some guys

So to be able to brag that they got a WHOPPER to all their friends they will do anything to meet that goal.
We don't need farms for hunting, get out in the wild and kill a REAL elk!!

 

[MULE]

How come Tom catches so much hell for game farm hunting and the huntalk members who did the same thing never get their balls busted???

 

[Michaelr]

What is tom???
An ugly step child

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-12-2003 12:34: Message edited by: michaelr ]</font>

 

[MULE]

280 quote: and don`t EVEN consider game farm killing real hunting
*****************************************************************************

Really? Why don't you go express your feelings in the 2002 texas hunt forum this board has?

Mike,

Tom seems to be a good guy who just happened to get on the wrong side of the hunting "GODS" who inhabit hunttalk

 

[280]

LOL, mule you must be new around these parts, this dead horse has been beat for a couple of years