# petition opposing HB 187



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

I have just read and signed the online petition:

"Protect Our American Rights To Access Public Waterways In Pursuit Of Public Wildlife, Opposition for HB187"

hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
service, at:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/21809/


----------



## springbowhunt (Sep 15, 2008)

signed and forwarded to 20 people


----------



## Artoxx (Nov 12, 2008)

I signed it, but in order for an online petition to be valid and mean anything, it has to contain ALL the contact info. Name, address, Phone, etc. I don't think asking for just your email info is going to make this petition worth the PAPER it is_ written_ on. I know that I for one, have at least 3 valid email addresses that I could use to sign it if I were so inclined, which invalidates the petition right there.

That is why when you get a petition in your email that tells you to add your name to the bottom and forward it on, it is a complete waste of time. GOA and others who send petition emails always include a link to a page that asks for and requires all contact info in order to accept it, those types of online petitions are valid, this one is not, sorry to say.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

it was just on the news

http://www.kutv.com/mediacenter/local.a ... CatId=1841


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Artoxx, 
I believe that you must be a registered voter in order for you sig to count, and you must sign the name you are registered under. Not fact just what I heard. Under the FAQ at petitions online there is a question about validation. I didn't write the petition I just posted it here as a gesture of good will and concern for sportsmen.
How are petition signatures validated?

Unlike the various flaky email petitions that periodically wander around the Internet, with PetitionOnline there is exactly one authoritative master copy of your petition. Each signature and email address (always required, but optionally confidential) is logged for possible explicit or statistical validation. Duplicate signatures are automatically rejected, and each person who signs is automatically sent a confirming email message.

Validation is a somewhat separate issue from delivery. Delivery will only include the email addresses of petition signers who have made their address public ally available. (A petition could be set up so that public email addresses are required, but it would be likely to get far fewer signers.)

If deeper validation of a petition is really called for, PetitionOnline.com has the technical ability to perform a statistical validation by contacting a sampling of signers directly via the email addresses we have privately archived. This kind of more serious validation is not included in our free petition hosting offer, but can be arranged on a cost-contract basis (see below).

Ensuring identity without invading privacy is quite a challenge. We don't see that a perfect solution is currently available, given that there is not yet any widespread foolproof system for establishing online identity. An email address is not enough to establish identity by itself, but it is substantially more than just a name, and it provides a link back to a person for (the potential of) confirming identity.


----------



## Artoxx (Nov 12, 2008)

Okay.
I was just posting what I had read on some other site about what is actually required to create a valid petition, if that info was incorrect or incomplete, cool. As I said, I signed it, primarily with the hope that the info that I had was not accurate or was in some way able to be altered to make this one valid.
Works for me.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Right on. I have the same hopes as you and roughly 835 more signee's


----------



## Leaky (Sep 11, 2007)

I was #737 and my wife was #1208. Wondering how many is necessary to accompish what we want??? Is there a magic # that is required for submittal, etc. Does it matter that they are e-mail signers?


----------



## Jonny Utah (Jul 4, 2008)

1419.


----------



## tealmaster (Feb 22, 2008)

OH YEAH NUMBER 1432 8)


----------



## steven (Sep 8, 2007)

my number was 1486.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

over 1600


----------



## drakebob01 (Jun 25, 2008)

From what I heard, it just got defeated!!!


----------



## Jonny Utah (Jul 4, 2008)

Great news, I hope you are correct.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Jonny Utah said:


> Great news, I hope you are correct.


He is correct 41 to 34 against it.

It is good to see government work how it is supposed to isn't it.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

it great news.


----------



## Artoxx (Nov 12, 2008)

Here ya go, this is how important OUR opinions really are to those idjits. :|

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5752740

They did not kill the bill because of the outraged cry of sportsmen and fishermen, they killed it because...IT _*MIGHT*_ MEAN MORE WORK FOR THEM LATER!

_"They were afraid that the list would have to be continually updated."_

Oh well, at least their laziness worked in _OUR_ favor for once. :roll:

I am truly beginning to believe that politicians ARE worth the cost of the ammo.


----------

