North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The following 10 folks first voted YEA on passage of 2048, but then the next day voted NAY to reconsider:

Boe; Boucher; Dosch; Johnson, D.; Kelsch, R.; Kerzman; Kretschmar; Meier; Nicholas; Price;

following 9 voted NAY on the bill, but YEA to reconsidering it

Bellew; Delzer; Ekstrom; Gulleson; Iverson; Schmidt; Thoreson; Warner; Speaker Wentz

(Wrangham voted NAY on passage, and was absent for reconsideration. Both Belter and Onstad, missing the passage vote, voted Yea to reconsider)

22 people actually moved their vote on the issue, but in the process preserved the status quo. Are we to believe that overnight more than 20% of the folks in the house changed their mind? Does collusion have one "l" or two?

SECOND READING OF SENATE BILL
SB 2048: A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 20.1-03 and a new subsection to section 20.1-03-12 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to resident waterfowl licenses; and to amend and reenact sections 20.1-03-07.1 and 20.1-08-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a limitation on the number of nonresident waterfowl hunters.
ROLL CALL
The question being on the final passage of the amended bill, which has been read, and has committee recommendation of DO PASS, the roll was called and there were 47 YEAS,
45 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 2 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.

YEAS: Aarsvold; Berg; Bernstein; Boe; Boehning; Boucher; Carlisle; Carlson; Clark; Delmore; Dosch; Eckre; Glassheim; Grande; Hanson; Hawken; Johnson, D.; Kasper; Kelsch, R.; Kelsh, S.; Kerzman; Koppelman; Kretschmar; Kroeber; Maragos; Meier; Metcalf;
Mueller; Nelson; Nicholas; Niemeier; Norland; Nottestad; Pietsch; Porter; Potter; Price; Solberg; Svedjan; Thorpe; Timm; Warnke; Weiler; Wieland; Williams; Winrich; Zaiser

NAYS: Amerman; Bellew; Brusegaard; DeKrey; Delzer; Devlin; Drovdal; Ekstrom; Froelich; Froseth; Galvin; Grosz; Gulleson; Haas; Headland; Herbel; Hunskor; Iverson; Johnson, N.; Keiser; Kempenich; Kingsbury; Klein, F.; Klein, M.; Klemin; Kreidt; Martinson; Monson; Pollert; Rennerfeldt; Ruby; Sandvig; Schmidt; Severson; Sitte; Skarphol; Thoreson; Tieman; Uglem; Wald; Warner; Weisz; Wikenheiser; Wrangham; Speaker Wentz
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Belter; Onstad
Engrossed SB 2048, as amended, lost.

MOTION
REP. THORESON MOVED that the House reconsider its action whereby SB 2048 failed to pass.
REQUEST REP. THORESON REQUESTED a recorded roll call vote on the motion to reconsider the action whereby SB 2048 failed to pass, which request was granted.
ROLL CALL The question being on the motion to reconsider the action whereby SB 2048 failed to pass, the roll was called and there were 47 YEAS, 46 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 1 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.

YEAS: Aarsvold; Bellew; Belter; Berg; Bernstein; Boehning; Carlisle; Carlson; Clark; Delmore; Delzer; Eckre; Ekstrom; Glassheim; Grande; Gulleson; Hanson; Hawken; Iverson; Kasper; Kelsh, S.; Koppelman; Kroeber; Maragos; Metcalf; Mueller; Nelson; Niemeier; Norland; Nottestad; Onstad; Pietsch; Porter; Potter; Schmidt; Svedjan; Thoreson; Thorpe; Timm; Warner; Warnke; Weiler; Wieland; Williams; Winrich; Zaiser;
Speaker Wentz

NAYS: Amerman; Boe; Boucher; Brusegaard; DeKey; Devlin; Dosch; Drovdal; Froelich; Froseth; Galvin; Grosz; Haas; Headland; Herbel; Hunskor; Johnson, D.; Johnson, N.; Keiser; Kelsch, R.; Kempenich; Kerzman; Kingsbury; Klein, F.; Klein, M.; Klemin; Kreidt; Kretschmar; Martinson; Meier; Monson; Nicholas; Pollert; Price; Rennerfeldt; Ruby; Sandvig; Severson; Sitte; Skarphol; Solberg; Tieman; Uglem; Wald; Weisz; Wikenheiser
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Wrangham
So the motion to reconsider the action whereby SB 2048 failed to pass, failed.
m.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
If this bill passes what would the limits be on NR Waterfowl Hunters? As far as any of you know what will it be for 2003? I have had nothing but a great experience when I come over to ND for either Waterfowling or fishing. ND has some of the nicest people around and I hope my tradition of waterfowl hunting in your state can continue. I love the way you can drive for miles and not see another hunter and have access to almost any land you want. I understand why you want to limit the number of NR Hunters and think they should just leave it at around 25,000 - 30,000 per year. This is a great forum! Thanks Jason
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,481 Posts
jb...the bill was voted down by 1 vote.
There won't be any caps unless the governor puts them in.
I don't think he will touch this issue with the proverbial...ten foot pole.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
Depends on who and how many people contact him and who he feels has a stronger voice at the voting booth. Back to a purely political decision :eyeroll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Didn't 19-22 people swapping votes surprise anyone else? Scratch the surface, and I'm sure there is something underneath.

M.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
I would suspect that since the legislature could not come up with a compromise and since the regs used last year where actually tolerated by all - governor will maintain status quo.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top