Good write up BP!

Lay it on 'em!

Thanks Swampy, as usual, I'm too wordy and it won't fit in the two minute allotment. Got to whittle it down. Nigh on to impossible to cover the subject as I would like in that two minutes.

Very good BP

Good on you B.P.

I'm not saying this next thing to be a smart ... Either, I mean it.

Most of the people that are going to hear ya already know its a hairbrained idea, but are doing it for votes. Be sure to mention how you will be voting in the future if they keep going down this path. Remind them that democrats are bleeding voters in a big way because of these kind of issues that don't make any common sense.

You have a very good write-up if that's what they really cared about (facts), but it doesn't appear that way anymore. votes are what gets attention, unfortunately.

Either way, good luck.

Well done, peeler.

Carl,
Some pointers on testifying,
Often, they will cut your allotted time at the last minute if there a lot of people signed up to testify. For that reason, I write my testimonies in one-minute tranches. Best to try and cover one point per minute. It is very befuddling to have to cut your presentation at the last minute. Worse is to try and talk fast through your testimony to get through it. Best to talk slow and deliberate. If you can, talk to them rather than read your statement. I have taken to memorizing a few points and then talking off the cuff utilizing those points. Best is to team with several others, each using their time to make a point. The group can make a better story than one person.
I would ditch the history and talk sustainability, proper management and maybe why some areas will never have a lot of beaver.

Good advice. I like the history of the issue and bring it up to point out the relevance to our current situation. Each of us that spoke for our side had a little different message. For the most part the proponents (who outnumbered us 5-1) had the same key talking points.

Carl do you know when they are deciding on this? was that today?

wws

Not today. In fact I have am meeting set up with one of the senators before the vote.

When is the vote? Nice of them to allow nonresidents to write in on it. But I very much doubt my writing was read by anyone. At most they are tabulating for or against letters, I figure.

The out-of-state comments were brought up by one of the antis. Seemed to be miffed by it. I would normally agree that local issues should be addressed by locals. But make no mistake, this is a national campaign with Oregon being a test state thought to be vulnerable because of our recent history of wildfire problems. (Which of course, beaver would solve if only we didn't trap them all out).

So it IS appropriate for your comments.

What I'm a bit sad about is since we were so outnumbered and testimony was capped at 2 minutes we got about 20 minutes of testimony to an hour plus for the do-gooders

I don't think their national campaign is going to amount to much, rest of the country isn't bat crap crazy as Oregon/California/Washington. Might get some traction along the east coast where the other half of the liberal idiot's ruining this country live, that be about it.

The main sponsor of the bill is a California transplant. So there you go.

To be more specific, yesterday was the hearing with the Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire. They have to schedule a work session before the 9th and that will likely be within the next two weeks. It's at the end of the work session that a vote will be either to send it to the floor or to Ways and Means.
We have two Republican Senators on the committee and three Dems. One of the Dems is my own district Senator who I will meet with tomorrow via phone call.

Beaverpeeler, how did the meeting with your Senator go? Being you are a constituent of him / her I am hopeful you were given due consideration. Your viewpoint should carry considerable weight insomuch as the fact that you are a stakeholder in their district and will be directly impacted by the proposed.legislation.

Well.......we had a nice conversation. We talked for about 20 minutes. I told him of my concerns and how important beaver trapping is for me personally. He assured me that since the data shows that only 4% of the beaver harvest comes from public land in Oregon I should be OK. I pointed out that even if we accept that there are great benefits possible from beaver dam building this law would make zero difference since beaver can not be made to build dams where there isn't proper habitat for them. Also, since the 1994 ban on hound hunting of cougars the predator levels are up so high that beavers just don't have a chance on most public land.

The sponsors of HB 3932 are making trappers out to be the reason there are not more beaver in critical areas. It has nothing to do with us. All this I told him.
A work session was held on the 8th but our side successfully held off a vote for later so that an amendment can be attached. More on that later.

He told me that the bill will be moving forward. I already had guessed that I wouldn't be able to sway him. He has an A+ rating for voting for the environment. I'm still trying to convince him that beaver trapping is actually good for the population as a whole and fits in line with voting for the environment.

I will be sending him a couple of emails before the next work session hoping to hammer down the reasons why this would be poor legislation.

(Thanks for asking about it).

The ODFW certainly has not done their part here. I'm hearing that there was likely pressure from the Governor's office to stay out of the fray. If they would have supplied the committees with the data that backs what we're saying we might not be where we are now. It is one thing to be neutral on legislation, but their job is to collect and report data. We've been collecting enhanced beaver data since 2007 and it all backs the fact that trapping is NOT a limiting factor to beaver presence and population levels anywhere in the state.

[quote=beaverpeeler]The ODFW certainly has not done their part here. I'm hearing that there was likely pressure from the Governor's office to stay out of the fray.

You're not asserting that there was some sort of special interest democratic corruption in our governor's office, are you Carl? Lol

ODFW has a mandate to be politically neutral. I get that, but since they are the agency tasked with beaver management and have been collecting all the data it is their responsibility to share that data with the committees so that they may make informed decisions. They have not been there for us and I believe (without any direct evidence) that the reason is likely due to pressure from the Governor's office.

At the last minute (after considerable pressure from our side) ODFW's deputy director showed up for the senate committee hearing on the 5th but didn't have much to say. A far cry from the kind of support we needed.

One of the Republican senators on the 5 member senate committee on Natural Resources and Wildfires asked for and received an extension for the work session held on the 8th so that an amendment can be presented for consideration.
There is lots of things going on in the background that I will share at a later date. This fight ain't over!!!!!