I thought everyone might want to read a very well written and well thought out article on N\R issue.
Speaks volumes.
Econ
Forum editorial: An end run on hunting provisions?
The Forum - 07/08/2003
Restricting nonresident hunters by establishing a zoning scheme was rejected by the 2003 Legislature. Yet, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department seems to be advancing a zone framework that would impose caps within zones, specifically two zones in the central part of the state. The proposed zone language is being considered for inclusion in the proclamation for the 2003 hunting seasons.
The department should be careful as it proceeds with advisory meetings on this subject. Already the department has stumbled.
First, the sessions are scheduled only in five larger cities -- Fargo, Bismarck, Grand Forks, Minot and Jamestown -- coincidentally, the locations where opposition to nonresident hunters was loudest and organized during the 2003 legislative session. Also coincidentally (we hope) no advisory meetings are scheduled in the small towns most affected by the influx of nonresident hunters and their money, the towns that would be hurt by nonresident restrictions in the two proposed zones. Among the towns left off the meeting schedule are Harvey, Carrington, Edgeley, Woodworth, Washburn, Ellendale, Wing, Pettibone, Gackle, Steele and Napoleon -- the places where nonresident hunters are welcomed enthusiastically.
The usual result of scheduling Game and Fish meetings in the larger population centers is that urban attendees tend to dominate the discussion by virtue of numbers, not by soundness of arguments. Conversely, the opinions of landowners, small-town business people and even family-owned outdoor outfitters tend to get overwhelmed by the practiced and polished representatives of city-based hunters.
Not that advocates for nonresident hunters can't hold their ground in the debate. They surely can, as was demonstrated in the 2003 Legislature. It's just that in advisory meeting settings, the deck is stacked against rural people by the ability of resident urban hunters to turn out in large numbers, especially when the meetings are held in the cities.
Maybe the meeting schedule is by design. Maybe Game and Fish has determined legislative intent can be sidelined if the advisory meetings tilt in favor of the zones. In other words, maybe the voices of the stewards of the resource -- landowners, small-town business people and other rural residents -- can be muffled in city meetings dominated by urban resident hunters.
That would be a mistake. Rural interests understand the importance of welcoming out-of-staters to spend money in small towns. They made their arguments to the Legislature and prevailed. The schedule of urban advisory board meetings to discuss a proposal that could not pass legislative muster, appears to be an attempt at an end run around legislative intent.
Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper's Editorial Board
Speaks volumes.
Econ
Forum editorial: An end run on hunting provisions?
The Forum - 07/08/2003
Restricting nonresident hunters by establishing a zoning scheme was rejected by the 2003 Legislature. Yet, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department seems to be advancing a zone framework that would impose caps within zones, specifically two zones in the central part of the state. The proposed zone language is being considered for inclusion in the proclamation for the 2003 hunting seasons.
The department should be careful as it proceeds with advisory meetings on this subject. Already the department has stumbled.
First, the sessions are scheduled only in five larger cities -- Fargo, Bismarck, Grand Forks, Minot and Jamestown -- coincidentally, the locations where opposition to nonresident hunters was loudest and organized during the 2003 legislative session. Also coincidentally (we hope) no advisory meetings are scheduled in the small towns most affected by the influx of nonresident hunters and their money, the towns that would be hurt by nonresident restrictions in the two proposed zones. Among the towns left off the meeting schedule are Harvey, Carrington, Edgeley, Woodworth, Washburn, Ellendale, Wing, Pettibone, Gackle, Steele and Napoleon -- the places where nonresident hunters are welcomed enthusiastically.
The usual result of scheduling Game and Fish meetings in the larger population centers is that urban attendees tend to dominate the discussion by virtue of numbers, not by soundness of arguments. Conversely, the opinions of landowners, small-town business people and even family-owned outdoor outfitters tend to get overwhelmed by the practiced and polished representatives of city-based hunters.
Not that advocates for nonresident hunters can't hold their ground in the debate. They surely can, as was demonstrated in the 2003 Legislature. It's just that in advisory meeting settings, the deck is stacked against rural people by the ability of resident urban hunters to turn out in large numbers, especially when the meetings are held in the cities.
Maybe the meeting schedule is by design. Maybe Game and Fish has determined legislative intent can be sidelined if the advisory meetings tilt in favor of the zones. In other words, maybe the voices of the stewards of the resource -- landowners, small-town business people and other rural residents -- can be muffled in city meetings dominated by urban resident hunters.
That would be a mistake. Rural interests understand the importance of welcoming out-of-staters to spend money in small towns. They made their arguments to the Legislature and prevailed. The schedule of urban advisory board meetings to discuss a proposal that could not pass legislative muster, appears to be an attempt at an end run around legislative intent.
Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper's Editorial Board
