Governor
Read and referred to committee on Labor and Agriculture.
Senator Burke, with unanimous consent, asked all the appointments be taken up en masse.
Baumbach, Jerry,
of Sun Prairie, as a member of the Public Defender Board, to serve for the interim term ending May 1, 2002.
Read.
Berkos
, daniel m.,
of Mauston, as a member of the Public Defender Board, to serve for the term ending May 1, 2002.
Read.
Harris
, Roberta A.,
of Milwaukee, as a member of the Public Defender Board, to serve for the interim term ending May 1, 2000 and for the full term ending May 1, 2003.
Read.
Hertel
, Harry R.,
of Eau Claire, as a member of the Public Defender Board, to serve for the term ending May 1, 2003.
Read.
The question was: Confirmation?
The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: ayes, 31; noes, 0; absent or not voting, 2; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Baumgart, Breske, Burke, Chvala, Cowles, Darling, Decker, Ellis, Erpenbach, Farrow, S. Fitzgerald, George, Grobschmidt, Hansen, Harsdorf, Huelsman, Jauch, A. Lasee, Lazich, M. Meyer, Moore, Panzer, Plache, Risser, Robson, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Shibilski, Welch, Wirch and Zien - 31.
Noes - None.
Absent or not voting - Senators Moen and Schultz - 2.
Confirmed.
Relating to utilization reviews.
Submitted by Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Report received from Agency, March 1, 2001.
Referred to committee on Health, Utilities, Veterans and Military Affairs, March 6, 2001
.
Relating to a rules committee.
Submitted by Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Report received from Agency, February 28, 2001.
Referred to committee on Environmental Resources, March 6, 2001
.
__________________
The committee on Universities, Housing, and Government Operations reports and recommends:
Relating to home inspector examination and continuing education requirements.
No action taken.
Mark Meyer
Chairperson
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Revisor of Statutes Bureau
March 1, 2001
To the Honorable, the Senate:
The following rules have been published:
The following rule was omitted from previous report:
Sincerely,
GARY L. POULSON
Deputy Revisor
__________________
By John A. Scocos, chief clerk.
Mr. President:
I am directed to inform you that the Assembly has adopted and asks concurrence in:
Assembly Joint Resolution 39
Assembly Joint Resolution 43
__________________
Assembly Joint Resolution 39
Relating to: the life and community service of Leo Frigo.
By Representatives Montgomery, Gard, Albers, Bies, Gunderson, Jeskewitz, Krawczyk, Kreuser, Ladwig, Lippert, Meyerhofer, Miller, Owens, Petrowski, Plouff, Rhoades, Ryba, Townsend, Vrakas and Wade; cosponsored by Senators Cowles, Hansen, Plache and Darling.
Read and referred to committee on Senate Organization.
Assembly Joint Resolution 43
Relating to: the life and public service of Blair L. Testin.
By Representatives Vrakas, Black, Ladwig, Plale, Albers, Berceau, Bock, Boyle, Coggs, Freese, Gronemus, Gunderson, Hahn, Huber, Jensen, Jeskewitz, Krawczyk, Lassa, J. Lehman, Lippert, Loeffelholz, D. Meyer, Miller, Montgomery, Musser, Olsen, Ott, Owens, Plouff, Ryba, Schneider, Shilling, Townsend, Travis, Turner, Wade and Wood; cosponsored by Senators Wirch, Grobschmidt, Risser, Ellis, Burke, Breske, Cowles, Darling, Decker, Erpenbach, Farrow, Huelsman, Lazich, Moen, Plache and Roessler.
Read and referred to committee on Senate Organization.
__________________
Senate Joint Resolution 2
Relating to: the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game (first consideration).
Read a second time.
__________________
12:20 P.M.
Senator George in the Chair.
Senate amendment 1 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Joint Resolution 2 offered by Senator Risser.
Senator Shibilski moved rejection of Senate amendment 1 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Joint Resolution 2.
The question was: Rejection of Senate amendment 1 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Joint Resolution 2?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 29; noes, 2; absent or not voting, 2; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Baumgart, Breske, Burke, Chvala, Cowles, Darling, Decker, Ellis, Erpenbach, Farrow, S. Fitzgerald, Grobschmidt, Hansen, Harsdorf, Huelsman, Jauch, A. Lasee, Lazich, M. Meyer, Moore, Panzer, Plache, Robson, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Shibilski, Welch, Wirch and Zien - 29.
Noes - Senators George and Risser - 2.
Absent or not voting - Senators Moen and Schultz - 2.
Rejected.
Senator Baumgart, with unanimous consent, would like the staff comments from the Joint Legislative Council spread upon the journal.
They are as follows:
Introduction
S107
This memorandum is in response to your request for my analysis of the potential effect of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 to 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 2, on the ability of the state to continue its regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping and taking game. The Joint Resolution, as amended, proposes to create Wis. Const. art. I, s. 26, as follows: "The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game which shall be managed by law for public good."
You have observed that the constitutional amendment, if adopted, could be used as the basis for a legal challenge to the constitutionality of existing or future statutes or administrative rules that regulate fish and game. Your concern is the extent to which challenges to fish and game regulations could potentially succeed. You have asked whether I believe that only occasional regulations that are substantially more restrictive than those in place today are likely to be found unconstitutional, or whether I believe that there is a potential for successful challenge to many of the fish and game regulations currently in place.
I cannot give a definitive, black-and-white answer to your question, because the constitutional language is brief, and does not spell out the specific legal consequences of that language. Judicial interpretation may eventually supply the answer to your question, but the outcome of court cases is difficult to predict.
However, courts frequently resort to a variety of methods to interpret constitutional provisions, and a review of those methods can suggest the outcome of a challenge to hunting or fishing regulations based on the proposed right. I have reviewed a number of these methods of interpretation, and concluded that a successful challenge to hunting and fishing regulations would most likely relate to future regulations that are much more restrictive than those currently in place. I believe it is much less likely that the regulations in place today could be successfully challenged, and I have summarized my conclusion in this memorandum. My conclusion also appears to be consistent with the intent of the supporters of the constitutional amendment—I am unaware of any arguments in legislative debate on the constitutional amendment that it should be the vehicle for overturning any current fish and game regulations.
Throughout this memorandum, for convenience, I will refer to "hunt and fish" as a description of all activities that are subject to the proposed constitutional right. The substitute amendment has been recommended by the Senate Committee on Environmental Resources and is scheduled for debate in the Senate on March 6, 2001. This is the first consideration of the Joint Resolution.
For further information, you may wish to review my Wisconsin Legislative Council Information Memorandum 00-7, Laws on Hunting, Fishing and Trapping (December 28, 2000).
Current Regulation of Fish and Game
This section of the memorandum briefly describes the current law on hunting and fishing regulation. In particular, this discussion shows the great deference that courts currently give to state hunting and fishing regulation. This discussion is included in the memorandum because it is these legal principles that are potentially subject to change as a result of adopting the Joint Resolution.
The legal title to all wild animals is vested in the state by s.
29.011, Stats.:
