North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
With the defeat of SB2048 this bill only pours salt on the wound of ND waterfowlers trying to initiate change.

SB 2242 - (Introduced by Sen's Heitkamp, Espegard, Fischer; Rep's Amerman, Gulleson, Nelson) - Would allow nonresidents to hunt during the early September Canada goose season without counting against their 14 day regular season period. Passed senate 45-0. HNRC amended while hunting only in Sargent and Richland counties. Passed house 94-0.

Do not understand why they want to concentrate NR hunters into Sargent and Richland Counties. Will be interesting to see what comes out of the committee.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
The Senate version applied statewide. The House version was limited to the area generating the vast amount of the depredation complaints. The House version also has a 4 year sunset. If other depredation efforts are successful or the population decreases because of dry conditions or otherwise, the reason for this bill will go away, and without affirmative action by the legislature so will the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,326 Posts
OK, so the bill is only good for four years?

What happens after 4 years when the outfitter industry decides they don't want to lose the money from their new source of revenue...early season guided goose and dove combo hunts?

Don't think it won't happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
I know many MN hunters that will jump at the chance to hunt the early ND canadian season. They are MN residents but have a VERY hard time finding land to hunt during the MN early goose season due to outfitters and heavy posting.........sounds like a number of areas in ND. Sure glad we don't generally hunt in those two counties.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
Matt, it's easy to be cynical with the events of the last week. Would you rather have had the Senate version - wide open statewide and no sunset? Combo sharpie and honker hunts? September goose hunters were not only fighting the usual suspects on this bill, but also some that are normally allies. It was hours of conversations with folks expressing the very concerns raised by you and FH that led to the House version.

With why, how and when this bill arose, believe it or not, limiting this bill to the House version was one of the greatest successes of the session. Except, of course, for those of us that hunt the SE.

Fighting the extension of a law is an easier proposition than trying to repeal it. If I was a MN resident, I wouldn't be signing any five year leases for waterfowl in the SE on the basis of this bill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,326 Posts
I'm sorry Dan, I didn't understand how the bill had been changed from the Senate to the House when I made my post. Now that I've actually looked at it, I couldn't agree more with you. It was indeed a win.

I'm hate to be cynical but it's just hard to be positive when you step back and look at how many important battles have been lost this session. There really hasn't been that much gain, so to speak...and a lot of farmers have been ticked off in the process. Only making things worse.

When it comes down to it though, at least we tried. Even though we may have lost the major battle at least we put up a fight. IMO it was a lot better to put forth a good fight and lose than to simply let things go the way they are and not do anything about it. Dan, we all owe you a lot of grattitude for how hard you've worked and the countless hours you've spent fighting the good fight.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
When the session is completely over, we'll do a wrap-up. At the end of the day, I think we'll be surprised to find that it was a good session. 2048 hurts, and it's failure will keep it from becoming a great session. Most ND sportspersons would have hoped that 1358 and 1050 (both appear to be in good shape for passage) could have gone further, but they both are substantial advances over today, and can be leveraged further later. 1223 I think will be found to be very much enjoyed by ND sportspersons. Add to that the number of very bad bills that were defeated, and it starts looking a little better. Feels incomplete without 2048, but still a good session.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
OK I have been largely quiet on this site out of respect to many (via private messages) who thought I might be "hurting" the effort. Now I am back (occassionally).

Opening the September goose season to NRs without it counting to the 14day NR time limit is a very poor idea. It will lead to increased guiding and leasing in that smaller county region of ND. Of course they do not need to sign leases now. August is a great time to start doing that. Why not fight to just stop this idea.

Dan - who is to say that the number of counties will not be expanded when it reaches the S/H committee ?

HB1050 is a good idea. Long overdue. Will this limit anything ??

HB1358 pulls a little more money in for the state of ND. Raises the rates for all freelance hunters and fisherpersons. All neighboring states and provinces will of course follow if they are not near the top of the heap. DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deter guiding, leasing, and land gobbling in SW ND.

What really has been done to control the number of NR hunters entering ND each fall - numbers in 2003 will likely be equal if not higher?

What really has been done to impede the land leasing by guides?

What really has been done to impede commerciallization of wildlife in ND?

What really has been done to protect the freelance hunting style (Res or NR) in North Dakota?


The only benefit to ND sportsman that I have seen is the first seven days of pheasant season will be res only on state land. Now if what many on this site say is true - this really only gives them two "quiet" days since they only hunt the weekends.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
I would not worry about MN residents coming over to ND for the early honker hunt. Believe it or not it's the one thing we have lots of. The September season can be excellent and access to fairly easy in MN. I personally know no one that would come from MN to ND to hunt honkers. I would be more worry about the regular season, hope that ND at least has a 30,000 license cap for NR's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
I haven't replied to any non-resident's comments on this board for months, and I will not be sucked in to any long-winded arguments, but I simply have to dispel this one bit of misinformation.

The ten-day non-resident upland license has ALREADY DONE SOMETHING POSITIVE to deter "land-gobbling" in SW North Dakota!!!! I know of one non-resident from Utah who was searching for land to buy, and suspended his search when he found out HB 1358 was in the works. His quote was, "If it is going to cost me $850 to hunt for the whole season, I don't want to buy land there."

I also know of one non-resident who bought property here {(previously) in order to hunt the entire fall} who is flat SEETHING at the passage of the bill. HB 1358 EFFECTIVELY RAISES HIS TAXES SUBSTANTIALLY!!!!!!! (license fees paid to the state are essentially taxes, are they not?)

It also seems pretty self-evident that since so many of the commercial interests are against shorter non-resident license periods, those commercial interests MUST be convinced that shorter license periods will have some effect.

Sorry to raise my voice, but I simply replied in caps to previous comments in caps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
MResner ==> Hear say at best.

$850 is still less than 3 or 4 days at the Cannonball Co.

Complain yes - pull out we will see.

What would be the cost for those big time NR landowners to fly their private planes into Mott, Bismarck, et.. each week or two ?

Guides stance on 10 day license was at best mixed. Some are on record for saying most of their clients are there for one, maybe two 4 day hunts.

Do you have any documented evidense on the guides stance against the 10 day license. Again - if you are paying $1000 to hunt - what is another $85.

Keep an eye out for that property and tell us who buys it. Then we will know if the increase in license fees actually made a difference.

Then I will sit down and have a nice plate of crow for dinner.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
PH, I'll get a little defensive, address your nay-saying and take my own opportunity to do a little "call a horse a horse" too, all at the same time.

I get a little weary of your posts that purport to be definitive conclusions about the current state of hunting and hunting politics, as if you're somehow plugged into all that's going on because you hunted here as a resident 20 plus years ago, still have relatives here, hunt in ND each fall, largely in one area, for 10-12 days and occasionally check the G&F website for legislative updates and draw your conclusions based upon them, all while living 250 miles from ND.

Guess what, this ain't the 70's, and many of the comparisons don't hold. The hunter mix is vastly different, creating far different dynamics. The exposure ND has received on TV, the internet and in publications is unprecedented. While the majority of nonresidents probably remain MN and WI freelancers, a significant number are now coming from all four corners, a trend unlikely to reverse since even in drought, parts of ND will offer better duck hunting than the best of the best in those states. And the size and number of guiding operations is dramatically increased. The amount of posting may be similar, but the type of posting and the effects of the posting are quite different. Simply put, we're in a new paradigm, and it's apples/oranges to the 70's and early 80's to which you so often refer.

Guess what else, there's a ton of stuff that goes on behind the scenes for which you can't make sweeping conclusions simply by jumping on the G&F website from time to time. Do your homework, educate yourself or be careful what you lay out here as fact or definitive conclusion.

As to 2242, we were absolutely stuck with some version of it. NDG&F was behind it so as to keep SE landowners from culling with rifles. NDWF and USND also supported the bill. We on this site were the only group of the actives who saw the eventual and inevitable leasing and G/O expansion associated with this bill, largely because many have hunted the September season in MN. As such, 2242 was going to happen - all we could hope to do was massage it. Because we personally worked with comm. members and authors, we did the best form of damage control on this bill as was feasible. 2242 went from statewide to the two counties generating the largest number of landowner depredation complaints. The sunset wasn't our idea, but becuase of our work and concern over the bill, it was included and is a great idea that will allow for an open and full review of this bill in 4 years, rather than only being able to react to it after the bill first comes to life, gets a strong SNRC recommendation and passes unanimously on the senate floor, all in less than 24 hours. Like I said, welcome to the ND legislature. 2242 has been concurred to by the SNRC and therefore is on the 12th order in the Senate. There will be no conf. comm. and the Senate passage on the 12th order is merely a formality. 2242 will come into law under the House version.

1050 and 1358. Nothing in either prevents the buying/leasing of land or stops the growth of outfitters. It was pretty clear pretty early those two goals were not going to be possible this session. Rural landowners and rural main street have common interests, only to a point. While many would recognize that the "less people on more land" that results from both G/O and leasing/buying is bad for main street because it means less traffic in the communities than if the land was available to a larger number of "freelancers", it's good for landowners who may wish to supplement their income in a small way or generate more on sale than would be the case strictly for ag. use. And with a Republican-dominated legislature, anything that represents price control, even if it would be better for main street in the long run, is a tough sell.

But, both 1358 and 1050 represents a significant advance in their subjects, and in the case of 1358, something that was defeated just last session. 1358 won't deter most of the wealthy from buying/leasing, but it does separate the licenses so that we have a more accurate count of nonresident pheasant vs. waterfowl hunters (could be useful later), and will provide some relief from some of the border hunters who make many trips each fall and compete with residents for the shrinking amount of non-fee ground. 1358 creates no ammo for "retaliation". The price is comparable, but slightly lower, than both SD and MT, the most similar states.

Legislators have several versions of a saying "you can't eat the apple all in one bite" to explain the difficulty in making major, sweeping changes all in one session. Anyone who has closely followed ND politics over time realizes the "NO" mindset among politicians and the public - when in doubt about a bill or change, just say no. 1358 and 1050 are both major advances in their areas, advances that have not been possible in the past, and are great springboard for further action, and just getting the springboards is a major accomplishment in this state at this time. I don't believe either of these bills would have been possible without strong sportsperson involvement.

1223. MOST residents hunt pheasants one, maybe two or three weekends a year. Bravado aside, almost everyone prefers to hunt them in the mild weather. 1223 will allow residents very enjoyable hunting that did not exist before, for whom many will be their ONLY pheasant hunting of the year, and for others will represent one-half or one-third of all of their pheasant hunting. 1223, with the expansion of PLOTS through 1358, is a pretty neat deal and should not be downplayed in any manner.

Here's the bills we helped defeat, all of which were a big danger to freelancing: 1311 (any deer licenses in excess of 90K split one-half b/n res and nonres). 1311 could have implicated buck tags, and everyone knows what happens when more buck tags are available for sale at $5,000 for a five day hunt - everything gets locked up for everyone for every species). 1448 (nonresidents must designate their hunting area on their application, and there can be no caps). 1465 (establish a G&F commission type of management - would have further politicized these issues). 2230 (gratis tags could be "transfered" to others - same effects as 1311). The defeat of these bills was very important.

Sportspersons whould feel very proud of their efforts this session and should recognize the advances, while not as far as we'd like to go, that would not have been possible without wide involvement. To in any way, shape or form characterize the accomplishments of this session as trivial, ignores how little has been possible in the past and the degree of inertia we had to overcome to get the successes we did. What's more, we managed a level of sportsperson involvement never seen before and that can be further leveraged on.

PH, before making any more dramatic, definative statements, you better do a little more homework and get a little closer to the trenches. You're not nearly as plugged in or knowlegeable as you hope to convey through your posts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Congratulations Dan, I want to thank you for voicing a well thought out rebut to PH's (omnipotent) diatribes.

OK I have been largely quiet on this site out of respect to many (via private messages) who thought I might be "hurting" the effort. Now I am back (occassionally).
Can all site members reiniate the PM message effort :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Dan,

I spend many more days in ND from December - August (not hunting) than I do hunting in ND. Ever help a cattle drive, run fence, move grain?

I do not simply log into the G&F web site. I have learned to access all parts of the ND legislative branch. If I have questions I call or email the ND G&F and ask there interpretation of the bill as currently written.

In addition bud, I have friends and aquaintences inbedded in ND ag and ND politics. Will not say which way they voted.

You are wrong about the late 70s in ND. On the weekends in SE ND, competition was intense for good spots. Pass shooting off your spread was common ..... were you out there then ?

Bioman : I will make sure I recommend everyone continue hunting where you are and I am not. :D Still not seeing that big a problem.

PMs :eyeroll: ?? Nah I am back. I supported SB2248. Lot a good my letters did though. Its over on that front - I am back.

So pat your self on the back.

by the way:
SB 2363 - (Introduced by Sen's Erbele, Heitkamp, Thane; Rep's Froelich, Gulleson, Weisz) - Would amend the North Dakota Century Code to allow a nonresident to purchase a deer gun license after the second deer lottery at a license fee of $100 instead of $155. Passed senate 44-2. HNRC amended to decrease the fee to $50. Reported back 10-1 do-pass. Rereferred to appropriations.

good deal -- should not compete against most ND hunters still looking for a license.

Pushin buttons -- got em going good. :sniper:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
All right Mr. plugged-in button pusher, did you know we took the position SUPPORTING 2363 and that WE called for the reduction from $100 to $50. $100 wouldn't have accomplished what the bill was set out to do - put more doe tags in the hands of those more likely to fill them, and hopefully keep more deer off more bumpers. Most residents I spoke with didn't feel a need to kill 3 deer, and it seemed like a good bill to get behind. Oops, wrong again.

Pushing buttons is one thing - drawing uninformed conclusions as fact or crapping all over the efforts and successes of a bunch of people only makes you look like a donkey. And straight from the "for what it matters department", yipee, I'm a Republican too (at least most of the time).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Thanks Dan.

The one thing that I may have been ignoring is your exact stance on every single bill. I am not on THE mailing list. So I will claim ignorance again to your stance on every single bill. :lol:

I am sure you spent as much time in Bismarck on this bill as SB2048. :eyeroll: So again thank you. May be I will take my kids over to ND to shoot $50 does in about 4 - 10 years.

Note that nearly every bill you supported and WON (or chose to ignore and not fight - your call) increases or maintains NR opportunities for hunting in ND. Even the rate increases do not deter many - except those who came here on a shoestring budget ... freelancers. Again ... Thank You.

Based on the very LOW number of bad game and fish laws in ND, your efforts have probably made no real difference ... nearly all bad bills have certainly died an easy death just as in every previous odd year in ND. The prior no trespass bills included.

It is apparent that the average ND legislative member is concerned about ND hunting heritage and opps, but not at the expense of those clinging to making a living in rural ND - no matter if it is a long term thing or just following game population boom and bust patterns.

SB 2230 - Upon paying the fee requirement for a resident or nonresident deer license an individual who is eligible for a gratis license could have transferred the license to another individual. Failed senate 3-39.

HB 1448 - Would have required a nonresident to include on the application a legal description of the land on which the applicant intends to hunt, and would have prohibited the governor from limiting the number of nonresident hunting licenses for any open season. Failed house 3-90.
Yep those in Bismarck would have missed these two if not for your efforts.

Seems like your support should have made these bills move forward:
HB 1453 - Would have required a game and fish violator to successfully complete a hunter safety course. Failed house 0-93.
HB 1048 - Would have required a hunting guide or outfitter to pass a written exam pertaining to state and federal laws on hunting wild game. Failed house 42-50.

Donkey ... republican ... not sure you intended that name calling, mud slinging pun :D ... then again your are a lawyer. :splat: Spin Doctor = what professions ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Pickle hunter,
Long time, no here.
I enjoyed your time off.

Why would you write something contumelious like "your efforts have probably made no difference". If you were just trying to insult Dan, you insulted a whole lot of other great folks who did a whole hell of a lot more than you did to preserve what you deem your inalienable right to enjoy. A pox upon you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I can not believe it took this long professor. Thought maybe SU was on spring break or maybe you were in your one class today.

Donkey, moron, OK :eyeroll:

You guys are patting yourselfs on the back. I say your efforts made minor if any difference in the outcome ... Did you even educate the masses beyond those attracted to the pep talks on this site ??

Show me the mass of people that attend the regional meetings next month and try to still make a difference and I will eat crow.

Cayuga :: This guy hoodwinked you again and you never saw it coming. This is in Dan's and MRN's backdoor. Maybe you should have talked with him or better yet his boss to ensure an easier to get to location for something this important especially after the defeat of SB2048.

I supported SB2048 ==> with a limit of 30K not 22K. In part because of the localized complaints heard on this and other sites. Not because I have had any problem enjoying my ND hunts. Compasion not greed was my goal. Ultimately what was yours ?

How did ANY of these efforts stop the rapid esculation of the guides, outfitters leasing land and/or land gobblers buying land ?????

Troll - no I am not. Got you off your self promoting happy ***** and back to work. Thank you.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top