1307 Fails!!!!!
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
But wait a minute
If you listened carefully to the debate on 1307, you heard the very real
possibility of many voting no because it had restrictions on non residents.
It could very well be 2048 in any form will be in trouble when it hits the
house floor. Back to square one - 30,000 non res per season divided
into zones and they can come whenever they want. The guides
laughing all the way to the bank.
If you listened carefully to the debate on 1307, you heard the very real
possibility of many voting no because it had restrictions on non residents.
It could very well be 2048 in any form will be in trouble when it hits the
house floor. Back to square one - 30,000 non res per season divided
into zones and they can come whenever they want. The guides
laughing all the way to the bank.
Many vs. some vs. a few. Only time will tell for sure.
This vote was just an early skermish. This vote simply took a cannon off the opponent's hill-top. Simply returns us to the point before this bill was introduced to Jud B. Big battles are still ahead. Of course it's not the end by a long shot.
Heck, listening, I was fully expecting to be disappointed. However, it does indicate that sportsmen are being heard. That's a good sign.
M.
This vote was just an early skermish. This vote simply took a cannon off the opponent's hill-top. Simply returns us to the point before this bill was introduced to Jud B. Big battles are still ahead. Of course it's not the end by a long shot.
Heck, listening, I was fully expecting to be disappointed. However, it does indicate that sportsmen are being heard. That's a good sign.
M.
Joined
·
4,642 Posts
How did the vote break down on 1307?----Remember HPC came out of Judiciary B with 15 yes-2 no, it was supported by NDGF and the advisory board and even though Senator Traynor spiked it with amendments, it can still be modified. This news is worth a cold brewski right now!!!!!
When we sat through the testimony on 1307 in HNRC there was not one outfitter that testified for it. Everyone of them wanted it amended to their favor.
When we sat through the testimony on 1307 in HNRC there was not one outfitter that testified for it. Everyone of them wanted it amended to their favor.
Dick,
You'll have to watch the journal for the vote:
http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2 ... urnal.html
M.
You'll have to watch the journal for the vote:
http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2 ... urnal.html
M.
Joined
·
1,507 Posts
Agree with much of the postings above. We didn't have much of a choice but to go after this bill now, because we had received no indication from the 1307 backers of any attempt, now or later, at a reasonable blend. Would have been better for the entire process, however, if we could have seen a workable blend at the end and this bill could have been around until the end.
And, the real difficult work on the waterfowl issue has just begun. We need to stay open minded to bringing some of the features of 1307 into the final resolution, as that will make for a more widely-accepted resolution. Nodaker is right, when we look at the roll, there will be several/many NAY'S on this bill that are most likely NAY'S for 2048 too. And for 2048 to pass the house, we'll need to have some/many of the YEA'S on 1307 also vote for 2048.
We should all feel happy that our voices were heard, and that our participation matters. But, 2048 and we sportspersons are now under the microscope, and we'll all need to be very diligent but reasonable and courteous as the process unfolds. We're justified in a little celebration, but no gloating.
Vote was 39-54
And, the real difficult work on the waterfowl issue has just begun. We need to stay open minded to bringing some of the features of 1307 into the final resolution, as that will make for a more widely-accepted resolution. Nodaker is right, when we look at the roll, there will be several/many NAY'S on this bill that are most likely NAY'S for 2048 too. And for 2048 to pass the house, we'll need to have some/many of the YEA'S on 1307 also vote for 2048.
We should all feel happy that our voices were heard, and that our participation matters. But, 2048 and we sportspersons are now under the microscope, and we'll all need to be very diligent but reasonable and courteous as the process unfolds. We're justified in a little celebration, but no gloating.
Vote was 39-54
Joined
·
846 Posts
This was a bad bill. While many felt this bill needed to pass on principal, bad legislation should not move forward just for good feelings.
The 10 day increment seasons would be difficult to plan for many NRs. The start of the second and third season would have been a weekday. Really good for working freelance hunters?
10,000 per time period too high to make any real difference from last year.
The unlimited late season licenses would have allowed many people to hunt ND in Nov and Dec along the big MO. A few do now, but this area is becoming relatively crowded with residents. Adding unlimited NRs after the 30th day - not good.
Also SE ND often holds good numbers of birds into November, unlimited NRs there too. sarcasm::: Wait a minute as MN neighbor - this bill would have opened up great opportunity to hunt ND all November long - unless mother nature hits hard - that point no one hunting anyway.
HPC is the right idea -- not this one.
The 10 day increment seasons would be difficult to plan for many NRs. The start of the second and third season would have been a weekday. Really good for working freelance hunters?
10,000 per time period too high to make any real difference from last year.
The unlimited late season licenses would have allowed many people to hunt ND in Nov and Dec along the big MO. A few do now, but this area is becoming relatively crowded with residents. Adding unlimited NRs after the 30th day - not good.
Also SE ND often holds good numbers of birds into November, unlimited NRs there too. sarcasm::: Wait a minute as MN neighbor - this bill would have opened up great opportunity to hunt ND all November long - unless mother nature hits hard - that point no one hunting anyway.
HPC is the right idea -- not this one.
Joined
·
74 Posts
Way to go ND House,
The ND House voted for what the majority of the taxpayers of ND wanted, NO LIMITS. The early surveys showed the majority of ND taxpayers did not want to vote to increase their own personal taxes at the expense of the limited amount of resident hunters. We are all a minority when it comes to the majority of tax payers in ND. Hunters and others are a minority when it comes to the real tax payers in ND. The ND House of Reps. said it best when they rejeted limits on ND incomes and hunters.
Is any one on this sight, including myself, interested in raising our own taxes for the state? If so, state your cause, because all I can inrerpret from this forum, is that a bunch of minority taxpayers are only interested in preserving a selfish point that we do not have enough free access. This whole arguement is mute if everyone on this sight and at least 50% of the voters are willing to pay more taxes. The legislature is seeing through all arguments, both guides and feeelancers, that we all want something for nothing. This is especially true when you look at the House approving extended hours for the bars because of a fiscal note of almost a million dollars in additional revenue due to opening the bars an additional hour.
Lets get to reality, ND cannot afford to limit any possible income to our state, both residents and non residents.
The ND House voted for what the majority of the taxpayers of ND wanted, NO LIMITS. The early surveys showed the majority of ND taxpayers did not want to vote to increase their own personal taxes at the expense of the limited amount of resident hunters. We are all a minority when it comes to the majority of tax payers in ND. Hunters and others are a minority when it comes to the real tax payers in ND. The ND House of Reps. said it best when they rejeted limits on ND incomes and hunters.
Is any one on this sight, including myself, interested in raising our own taxes for the state? If so, state your cause, because all I can inrerpret from this forum, is that a bunch of minority taxpayers are only interested in preserving a selfish point that we do not have enough free access. This whole arguement is mute if everyone on this sight and at least 50% of the voters are willing to pay more taxes. The legislature is seeing through all arguments, both guides and feeelancers, that we all want something for nothing. This is especially true when you look at the House approving extended hours for the bars because of a fiscal note of almost a million dollars in additional revenue due to opening the bars an additional hour.
Lets get to reality, ND cannot afford to limit any possible income to our state, both residents and non residents.
The reality is MONEY wins every time, unless there is a value as expressed in this Bismarck Tribune Letter to the Editor.
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles ... s/ltr1.txt
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles ... s/ltr1.txt
Joined
·
497 Posts
I'm sorry Econ, you are going to have to explain to me how a vote for 2048 will raise your taxes. Are you saying this from the point of limiting developement will cause budget shortfalls? I think that is a major stretch, and shows exactly why this should not happen. What happens if all the pheasants die off in 2005??? Will it be a great thing for rural ND??? Would it be better if the resident hunters quit hunting before then or leave? I think your argument is a joke, I hope it was meant that way.
Joined
·
10,261 Posts
As a bar owner in Devils Lake, tell me Econ how this has anything to do with this situation? You're drooling at a vote to open the bars an extra hour? So what happens from 1 to 2 a.m.? People get even more drunker, making it even more dangerous for people on the road (is there even taxis in Devils Lake?). But this is a good thing right? Because you can make a few extra bucks at the expense of another?
So is there not limits on Liquor licenses in Devils Lake?
Joined
·
76 Posts
From what I hear, support for 2048 isn't there either. Any chance 1307 could be brought back as a compromise when 2048 is voted down?
Joined
·
74 Posts
Chris,
I am sorry you did not get my analogy. I was simply stating the voters of ND do not want any increase in any uncontroled taxes. The approval of the later opening of the bars was purely a fiscal one. Supposedly, the state will get almost an additional million sales tax dollars from this terrible piece of legislation. This type of legislation is easy for them to vote for as everyone can control the payment of such a tax. I'm sure Fargo and Grand Forks are the ones actually drooling over this one!!!!!!!!!!!!
I asked each of my reps to vote no on this poor legislation. We will not be open any later because of it. It is not fair to those who have to work and for the other reasons you so nicely stated.
The fact is, ND voters cannot afford anymore taxes and if we limit any type of current revenue ( NR hunters ) we will have to raise taxes on the state and local level. 1307 would have been a good compromise in my eyes, but the House did not agree.
To answer your other two questions, yes we do have 2 taxi services in DL and both do a very good job. And, no, there are no limits on the number of liquor licenses that we have at the bar.
Also, bars do not make a buck at the expense of others as you state. Everyone has a choice to go to a bar or not. It is a free choice, not one legislated to them. ( provided of course they are 21 or older )
I am sorry you did not get my analogy. I was simply stating the voters of ND do not want any increase in any uncontroled taxes. The approval of the later opening of the bars was purely a fiscal one. Supposedly, the state will get almost an additional million sales tax dollars from this terrible piece of legislation. This type of legislation is easy for them to vote for as everyone can control the payment of such a tax. I'm sure Fargo and Grand Forks are the ones actually drooling over this one!!!!!!!!!!!!
I asked each of my reps to vote no on this poor legislation. We will not be open any later because of it. It is not fair to those who have to work and for the other reasons you so nicely stated.
The fact is, ND voters cannot afford anymore taxes and if we limit any type of current revenue ( NR hunters ) we will have to raise taxes on the state and local level. 1307 would have been a good compromise in my eyes, but the House did not agree.
To answer your other two questions, yes we do have 2 taxi services in DL and both do a very good job. And, no, there are no limits on the number of liquor licenses that we have at the bar.
Also, bars do not make a buck at the expense of others as you state. Everyone has a choice to go to a bar or not. It is a free choice, not one legislated to them. ( provided of course they are 21 or older )
Joined
·
76 Posts
jbaincfl,
When it's all said and done, I think the cap will be the same as last year - 30,000.
econ101,
Which bar do you own?
When it's all said and done, I think the cap will be the same as last year - 30,000.
econ101,
Which bar do you own?
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
