PreacherTony

Does anyony know the outcome????

Second Regular Session
Sixty-sixth General Assembly
STATE OF COLORADO
INTRODUCED
LLS NO. 08-0462.01 Jery Payne HOUSE BILL 08-1096
House Committees Senate Committees
Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources
A BILL FOR AN ACT
101 CONCERNING A PROHIBITION ON THE INTENTIONAL CONFINEMENT OF
102 ANIMALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HUNTING.
Bill Summary
(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does not necessarily reflect any amendments that may be subsequently
adopted.)
Prohibits a person from offering another person the opportunity to hunt, wound, or take any mammal that is intentionally confined, tied, staked, caged, or otherwise restrained from engaging in normal movement.
Allows exceptions for slaughtering a mammal for purposes of meat, leather, or fur production or humanely euthanizing a mammal for
health, safety, or scientific purposes. Establishes penalties.

1 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
2 SECTION 1. Article 6 of title 33, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
4 33-6-132. Hunting confined animals - prohibition - exceptions
5 - penalties. (1) IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO OFFER ANOTHER PERSON THE OPPORTUNITY TO HUNT, WOUND, OR TAKE ANY MAMMALTHAT IS:
8 (a) INTENTIONALLY CONFINED IN AN ENCLOSURE, REGARDLESS OFTHE SIZE OF THE ENCLOSURE; OR
10 (b) INTENTIONALLY TIED, STAKED, CAGED, OR OTHERWISE 11 RESTRAINED FROM ENGAGING IN NORMAL MOVEMENT.
12 (2) NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, APERSON MAY:
14 (a) TAKE A MAMMAL AT A SLAUGHTERING ESTABLISHMENT FORPURPOSES OF MEAT, LEATHER, OR FUR PRODUCTION; OR
16 (b) HUMANELY EUTHANIZE A MAMMAL FOR HEALTH, SAFETY, ORSCIENTIFIC PURPOSES.
18 (3) ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTIONa) WITH RESPECT TO BIG GAME OR ENDANGERED SPECIES, ISGUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BEPUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS NOR
22 MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS. UPON SUCH CONVICTION,THE COMMISSION MAY SUSPEND ANY OR ALL WILDLIFE LICENSE PRIVILEGESOF THE PERSON FOR A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR TO LIFE.
25 (b) WITH RESPECT TO ALL OTHER MAMMALS, IS GUILTY OF AMISDEMEANOR AND, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BYA FINE OF NOT LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS NOR MORE THAN ONETHOUSAND DOLLARS, AND AN ASSESSMENT OF TWENTY HUNTING LICENSE3 SUSPENSION POINTS.
4 SECTION 2. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediatepreservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

Cougar Mag

Maybe I'm not reading that right but if I am.....I am all for it.

txjourneyman

I would love to see it, alas , here in Tx. it will never happen.

MeanV2

Interesting!

Dan

Gundeck

I don't like it. I donot and would not hunt deer on a game ranch, but I think there is a huge difference between fencing in an acre and shooting a deer and having a thousand acres fenced. In NY, the state would be in violation of this law. There is an old Army depot here (Seneca Army Depot) and the state holds a lottery for priviledges to hunt the 10,000+ fenced acres each year. It is home of the largest herd of white deer in the US (Google "seneca white deer"). Funny how the buddies of those running the lottery always seem to get selected. New laws won't change garbage like this.

PreacherTony

So you would ban high fence hunting???

I ask this not as one that has hunted that way, nor would I want to, but I will fight for those that want to hunt that way .....

Am I reading this wrong???

nvshooter

I do not support high fence hunting.............but this just allows anti-hunters to get onestepcloser to taking away hunting from everyone, fenced or free range.

Germ

Be careful what you wish for guys

Charlie P

Don't think it will pass the way it's written.

I totally agree with this

Prohibits a person from offering another person the opportunity to hunt, wound, or take any mammal that is intentionally confined, tied, staked, caged, or otherwise restrained from engaging in normal movement.

but not this

INTENTIONALLY CONFINED IN AN ENCLOSURE, REGARDLESS OFTHE SIZE OF THE ENCLOSURE; OR

well intentioned law but I don't like the way it's written.

PreacherTony

EXACTLY what I was thinkin', Gary []