|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 3, 2016 9:48:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 3, 2016 9:59:12 GMT -5
They make it sound like Indiana is gonna tack on an additional rifle only season...in my opinion this is NOT NEEDED at all. If going to allow just make them GTG for firearm season and move on.
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Mar 3, 2016 10:43:23 GMT -5
House conferees have been assigned but not the Senate. Guessing it will be early to middle of next week before they meet...officially.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 3, 2016 11:19:04 GMT -5
I've read on conference committees and understand that it is comprised of two Representatives and two Senators, and that they hash it out and both chambers vote.
But, how exactly does it work? Does the House present what changes they want to their two committee members, then the two Senate members approach the full Senate with those changes to see how they are accepted? I guess what I mean is, do they go back and forth until they know that both sides will pass the final bill, or do they just do the best compromise they can and hope both chambers pass it via vote?
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 3, 2016 11:25:05 GMT -5
House conferees have been assigned but not the Senate. Guessing it will be early to middle of next week before they meet...officially. Any chance that Crider could represent the Senate? My guess would be Slim and none...and Slim left town last week.. biggrin2 They wouldn't want someone in the conference that actually knew what he was doing..
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 3, 2016 11:43:52 GMT -5
Crider voted against the bill, so I doubt he'd be much of a negotiator.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Mar 3, 2016 11:46:24 GMT -5
My Senator told me Its a Mess and EVERYONE knows it ..If it can't be fixed?? In committee it's done .
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 3, 2016 11:57:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 3, 2016 12:18:31 GMT -5
My Senator told me Its a Mess and EVERYONE knows it ..If it can't be fixed?? In committee it's done . I'd say that changing "state owned land" to "private land" and leaving everything else in the bill would be the simplest fix. I'd like to see it changed back to full state in addition to above, if it wouldn't kill the bill. It would appear that most of the hunter opposition was from northern Indiana, so making it southern Indiana only should make hunters in favor a pretty large majority.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 3, 2016 12:37:07 GMT -5
My Senator told me Its a Mess and EVERYONE knows it ..If it can't be fixed?? In committee it's done . I'd say that changing "state owned land" to "private land" and leaving everything else in the bill would be the simplest fix. I'd like to see it changed back to full state in addition to above, if it wouldn't kill the bill. It would appear that most of the hunter opposition was from northern Indiana, so making it southern Indiana only should make hunters in favor a pretty large majority. I have heard the same as you M4...however do you have a link or anything that DNR or state actually said they felt more opposition from the Northern hunters? Again I've always heard this as well but never have seen anything more than hearsay.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 3, 2016 12:41:55 GMT -5
I'd say that changing "state owned land" to "private land" and leaving everything else in the bill would be the simplest fix. I'd like to see it changed back to full state in addition to above, if it wouldn't kill the bill. It would appear that most of the hunter opposition was from northern Indiana, so making it southern Indiana only should make hunters in favor a pretty large majority. I have heard the same as you M4...however do you have a link or anything that DNR or state actually said they felt more opposition from the Northern hunters? Again I've always heard this as well but never have seen anything more than hearsay. I'm just basing it off of comments I read regarding the DNR proposal, as well as Facebook pages like Indiana Whitetail Management and Bucks Of Indiana, etc. where people stated the northern Indiana was too flat for HPR's. No actual hard count on my part.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 3, 2016 12:44:57 GMT -5
The only Senate amendment to fail was the one trying to change it back to statewide. That in and of itself is pretty telling.
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Mar 3, 2016 12:59:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HuntMeister on Mar 3, 2016 15:43:18 GMT -5
Most of the politicians listed for this committee have either authored, co-authored or sponsored this bill. Assuming that means they were in favor of this bill, does that help the possibility of it passing vs having members that did not author or sponsor this bill?
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 3, 2016 17:03:44 GMT -5
I would hope that it would help, as they would likely be the most familiar with the bill and its original intentions.
I would love to see my senator (Brent Steele) be a conferee, and perhaps he will since he is the Senate sponsor. He's a pitbull, veteran assemblyman, with a combined 21 years in both the House and Senate. His father Ruel was also a state Senator.
EDIT: I see that he was chosen as an advisor. Better than nothing at all. Lol!
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 3, 2016 17:09:28 GMT -5
Everyone involved with the committee was a yes vote except for Senator Mrvan.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 3, 2016 18:16:46 GMT -5
Everyone involved with the committee was a yes vote except for Senator Mrvan. In an effort to be fair that surprises me...seems they'd attempt to split it more between the yays and nays. Has anyone heard a time frame we will actually hear about their recommendation back?
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 3, 2016 18:17:40 GMT -5
I thought I saw March 4 (tomorrow) listed as the conference committee's start. The session ends for the year on March 14, I believe, so it'll have to be before then.
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Mar 3, 2016 20:36:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HuntMeister on Mar 4, 2016 7:07:17 GMT -5
Thanks Jack! Will this link have the video feed on it like the previous hearing sessions did?
|
|