Its dead

biggill wrote:

Can anyone find any info on these bills? I’d like to write to my representative with some sort of bill identification so he knows what I’m talking about.

It is SF 2314 Section 162

Ok. It’s on the agenda for tomorrow.

https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/calendar.asp

Ha! It includes the 2 lines proposal. Section 58.

Any news on if this is being litigated today? Has a vote been made? I would love to here if we get our 2 lines.

Kevin Collins wrote:

Any news on if this is being litigated today? Has a vote been made? I would love to here if we get our 2 lines.

Sorry, but you can fish with one line if it means yielding to this other mess with the invasives.

NOW would be a great time to push for stand-alone bills to be worked thru our legislature. As in demand a vote of the people of Minnesota, not these yokels in St.Paul, to get stand-alone legislation enacted. I’m tired of seeing things hinged on some other agenda only to put the screws to many.

Kevin Collins wrote:

Any news on if this is being litigated today? Has a vote been made? I would love to here if we get our 2 lines.

They are discussing this right now. lots of amendments for other stuff so far.

Bill SF 2314 passed House….

It passed as amended. Not sure how it was amended.

Glad to see my rep voted against it.

biggill wrote:

It passed as amended. Not sure how it was amended.

Glad to see my rep voted against it.

Where did you see that? I’m looking at the bill online and it says passed in the House with a 73-60 vote, but it says that the vote was not found when I click on that.

Also, in the Senate, it says that the third reading was passed, but not the bill as a whole. Does that mean that the amendment can’t be removed since it was already passed in the third reading?

You’re definitely asking the wrong guy. I was watching the feed when they voted on it so I saw if my rep voted for or against.

I’m guessing all the info hasn’t been posted yet.

To clarify for us slower learners:

The 2 lines and this invasive stuff are all packed into the same bill which did PASS the House??

Trying to figure it also looked online says passed as amended but does not say what was and was not passed in the bill. Glad as the people we can find out so easily.

since the bills had different languages the senate had to concur for it to get to the desk of Tim walz. The senate did not concur so now it goes to committee. The committee will be 5 senators and 5 house reps. Once they reach agreement it has to be re approved by both the senate and house. Then off to Tim Walz.
https://www.senate.mn/publications/billlaw.pdf

^Is that usually “the start of the end”? Meaning, is it likely to be put off for another legislative session?

If the invasive inspection program is truly somehow packaged with the second line, I’d then prefer my representatives vote against it.

I believe that during these committee meetings, you can go and sign up to speak to the group during the hearings. Not much of a public speaker myself- is anyone else up for it?

Once it hits Walz we are cooked. Anything that includes a spending increase without having a way to pay for it gets rubber stamped.

buckybadger wrote:

^Is that usually “the start of the end”? Meaning, is it likely to be put off for another legislative session?

If the invasive inspection program is truly somehow packaged with the second line, I’d then prefer my representatives vote against it.

I really hope so. I’m not an expert by any means but hopefully its a ton of back and forth and time delays. They can also amend to have that section removed as well.

Dutchboy wrote:

Once it hits Walz we are cooked. Anything that includes a spending increase without having a way to pay for it gets rubber stamped.

Walz does have the opportunity to veto any line he wants so in theory could veto the section with this program in it and still sign the rest of the bill if it makes it to him. I’m not real hopeful though.

There is an article in the Star Tribune today about this on the back of the sports page.

So once again, can anyone clarify whether or not the 2-line regulation AND the Wright Co. invasives program are linked in the same bill?

Our government’s transparency resembles that of a brick wall.

Two lines
Wrong County
and
Cast nets are all in the same wad of political toilet paper.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Two lines
Wrong County
and
Cast nets are all in the same wad of political toilet paper.

political toilet paper…………..

i like it………….i may borrow that line from ya BK for negotiations!!!!!

So basically this is how they are going to squash the 2 lines proposal Brian?

“In a letter to the county, DNR Commissioner Sarah Strommen said the agency can’t justify expanding the program because of issues with inspector performance and data collection. She also said changing the program by adding the self-inspection process would make it difficult to evaluate its success.
Heidi Wolf, who supervises the DNR’s invasive species unit, said the department had received some complaints from boaters about the quality of inspections at the regional station. She said a DNR staff person went through the inspection process without identifying themselves as such and reported that the inspection would not have met DNR standards.”

Shocking!

Excuse me if I missed something here but the cannot expand the program-but can you fish Sylvia? (the original) Thanks

Pretty sure all lakes are open to access as you wish at least until July 1st. That’s the earliest this can be implemented if it passes.

Anyone hear where this wound up? Passed? Not Passed? Partially Passed?

https://www.senate.mn/schedule/unofficial_action.php?ls=91&bill_type=SF&bill_number=2314&ss_number=0&ss_year=2019

Biggill what is that link?

Bearcat89 wrote:

Biggill what is that link?

It’s a schedule for the bill. The committee is meeting today and tomorrow.

Beyond that, I’m gonna pleas ignorance. I don’t know how these things work.

These omnibus bills normally get put together in a conference committee in the very last hours of the session and are then passed without knowing what is really in them.