McNamara's Typo Fixed (traded for "magic awning"?)

Post date: Mar 23, 2012 9:36:18 PM

How long does it take our Minnesota Legislature to fix a typo? A really long time. And after receiving a really large number of messages from citizens asking "how hard could it be?"

The news from last night's 3/22/2012 Minnesota House Environment & Natural Resources Committee Meeting is that the Committee has now fixed its typo (described in the blog entry McNamara's typo). It might have taken a little longer in the House than the Senate (described in the blog entry Carlson's typo) because the House was a little more comfy with its lack of stakeholder input.

In this video from the 3/22/2012 Committee meeting, while the focus is put squarely on fixing the typo, a couple of other changes (including the "magic awning") are thrown in to further weaken its protections for dogs. Oddly, none of the changes are put in writing, and only one (the correction of the trap-size typo) is mentioned in the presentation of the oral amendment.

Now that the typo has been fixed in the House version, we'll soon know what the Authors of these bills have in mind for the future of Minnesota's "great tradition of trapping."

Update, 3/27/2012: 2012 MN trapping legislation: fake.

Speaking of Minnesota's "great tradition of trapping," it didn't include these body-gripping traps until the late 1950s. Yet, today's expert testimony from the trapping lobby is that trapping was just too hard before the late 1950s; that trappers nowadays shouldn't be expected to do things the old way. That was a lot of work, keeping ice out of leg-hold traps, walking the trap lines every day, killing what you've caught only after they've seen what it is, being responsible to the neighbors, and so on, and so forth. Apparently, Minnesota's "great tradition of trapping" can be used by the trapping lobby to justify modern trapping, but not as an example of ethical conduct.

It took a really long time to fix this typo. These Legislators couldn't really be trying to use up all of their available time with nonsense like this, rather than responding to our simple request, could they? We're asking for good, dog-safe legislation in response to our petitions. Look at the nonsense we're getting, instead.