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.
Still not seeing that big a problem.
