2 things I find funny here IS.
I'll try to answer you.
1. the dells duk tour place mentions nothing About these laws, Nor dose it seem I heard tell of them being part of this fight ?
The Wisconsin Duck tours are allowed to operate under a specific Wisconsin state statute:
(20) The vehicle is an amphibious motor vehicle capable of carrying 10 or more passengers when used for sight-seeing purposes, registered as a boat with the department of natural resources and operated upon a highway for a distance not to exceed 2 miles. http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gatewa ... &jd=341.10
Amendment 3 to SB-392 was introduced by Sen. Luther Olsen in order to allow them Duck tour companies to travel further than 2 miles, for advertising purposes (per my conversation with Sen. Olsen's office staff).
From memory, I believe that at least one owner of a Duck tour company did
testify at the DOT's July 29, 2009 public hearing over Trans-123. People choose to participate, or not, as they see fit. While the Duck tour owners may not be vocal in their support of SB-392, to my knowledge, none of them are opposing it either.
2. Funny how this no bill allowing 3 rugs r of which bring the W2 Duks gets passed for signing a month before there season starts ?
Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Is this a question?
Who is greasing who's palms ? ! ?
If any greasing
has occurred or is occurring, I am unaware of it. The only grease on my hands came from my Pinzgauer. If you know something, please bring it up. Otherwise, don't insinuate things. Slinging mud is unproductive.
If you supported AB-592/SB-404 (the parade bill), you ought to be thrilled with the current situation. If you have questions about SB-392 (Erpenbach's bill) or want to support it, let me know. If you think things got all screwed up and want to learn from mistakes which were made, then let's do that for the future's sake. But even there, insinuating that something sinister or illegal has gone on just isn't true, at least to my knowledge.
I thought 392 was for ALL HMVs and then cut back to the Pinzs and then the DUKW and M715 guys found a way to get "added" to the bill but for some as-yet unknown reason, the rest of the HMVs were not included in it....
I can't speak for the manner in which 404 ended up totally cutting regular users out. Jeff Rowsam assured me, early on, that guys like me, who used our trucks for ag purposes, etc., would be included. At some date, our concerns got dropped and 404 became a parade-only bill.
392 got narrowed to only include a specific truck, Pinzgauers, during a meeting with Sen. Holperin, due to the promised opposition to the bill by DOT as well as due to what he viewed as "last minute" interest by Jeff. Sen. Holperin promised to "ram it down DOT's throat". The other vehicles got added later, due to specific requests from various Senators and Assembly Reps. I found widespread support for such less-restricted operation among the legislators, contrary to what Jeff seems to have encountered. In fact, 392 passed both the legislative houses by "voice votes", which means that there was sufficient bipartisan support that an actual vote count was considered unnecessary.
The best thing that can come out of this is for everyone else to learn.