North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,481 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The amendments for this bill are the first ones on todays Senate Calander.I believe they include the half day duck hunting and to allow the gov to adjust the HPC by 25%.Will be interesting to hear the debate.The Senate also has video along with audio.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
Not likely to be a lot of fireworks on 2048 today. Accepting the amendments will be a quickie proceedure thing, and then the bill will be immediately assigned to Appropriations. Floor vote likey Mon. or Tues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Did some of what the ND G&F proposed not make it into the bill? I though the HPC II version of the plan got rid of the wet, medium, and dry categories in favor of a smoother, linear coordination between wetlands and pressure. Not a big deal, but lots of things always hinge on details. Is that more of an implementation/policy issue rather a legislative issue? Was than an amendment that never made it into the bill?

As it is, it appears that there will be 3 different numbers, a pressure for each of the three categories. Is that correct? Should we not being discussing this as it will confuse someone?

M.

The governor shall determine total hunting pressure by categorizing each year of the preceding twenty-five years under dry, moderate, or wet wetland conditions and determining the average number of resident and nonresident hunters for those years under each category. The maximum number of nonresident waterfowl hunting licenses that may be issued is determined by applying the appropriate category average to the expected current season's condition....
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,481 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amendments were just heard.They were split into 2 parts...the 1/2 day for ducks and the 25% adjustment by the governor.The 1/2 day was voted down 42-1 The 25% adjustment was passed.It will now go to Appropriations Committee for a hearing on Monday at 9:00

Back to top
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
I view the senate as giving a lot of support to 2048.
Andrist was the lone opposition to 2048, and Every was the lonre support for 1/2 day hunting. Trainor & Erbele were MIA.

SB 2048: SEN. TOLLEFSON (Natural Resources Committee) MOVED that the amendments on SJ pages 377-378 be adopted and then be REREFERRED to the Appropriations Committee with DO PASS.

SEN. KRAUTER REQUESTED that the Senate divide the amendments to SB 2048, which request was granted.

DIVISION A: The part of the amendments that does not refer to "The governor shall prescribe that ducks may be hunted for a time period no longer than from one-half hour before sunrise to one p.m. central daylight time for the first fourteen days of the fall duck season."

DIVISION B: The part of the amendments thatdoes refer to "The governor shall prescribe that ducks may be hunted for a time period no longer than from one-half hour before sunrise to one p.m. central daylight time for the first fourteen days of the fall duck season."

SEN. KRAUTER REQUESTED a recorded roll call vote on Division A of the proposed amendments to SB 2048, which request was granted.

ROLL CALL
The question being on the adoption of Division A of the proposed amendments to SB 2048, the roll was called and there were 44 YEAS, 1 NAY, 0 EXCUSED, 2 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.

YEAS: Bercier; Bowman; Brown; Christenson; Christmann; Cook; Dever; Espegard; Every; Fairfield; Fischer; Flakoll; Freborg; Grindberg; Heitkamp; Holmberg; Kilzer; Klein; Krauter; Krebsbach; Kringstad; Lee, G.; Lee, J.; Lindaas; Lyson; Mathern; Mutch; Nelson; Nething; Nichols; O'Connell; Polovitz; Robinson; Schobinger; Seymour; Stenehjem; Syverson; Tallackson; Taylor; Thane; Tollefson; Trenbeath; Urlacher; Wardner
NAY: Andrist.
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Erbele; Traynor

Division A of the proposed amendments to SB 2048 was adopted.

SEN. HEITKAMP REQUESTED a recorded roll call vote on Division B of the proposed amendments to SB 2048, which request was granted.

ROLL CALL
The question being on the adoption of Division B of the proposed amendments to SB 2048, the roll was called and there were 1 YEA, 43 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 2 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.
YEA: Every
NAYS: Andrist; Bercier; Bowman; Brown; Christenson; Christmann; Cook; Dever; Espegard; Fairfield; Fischer; Flakoll; Freborg; Grindberg; Heitkamp; Holmberg; Kilzer; Klein; Krauter; Krebsbach; Kringstad; Lee, G.; Lee, J.; Lindaas; Lyson; Mathern; Mutch; Nelson; Nething; Nichols; O'Connell; Polovitz; Robinson; Schobinger; Seymour; Stenehjem; Syverson; Tallackson; Taylor; Thane; Tollefson; Trenbeath; Urlacher;
Wardner
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Erbele; Traynor

Division B of the proposed amendments to SB 2048 failed.

Therefore, the question being the adoption of the proposed amendments including Division A and excluding Division B, the proposed amendments to SB 2048 were adopted on a voice vote.
I don't see a lot of reason to suspect this thing is currently in a lot of trouble. Of course, the bill in in the Appropriations committee, and Andrist is in the Appropriations committee, so we'll have to watch what mischief follows.

M.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
MRN, not taking any shots here, but we need to be VERY careful. The one rule that must be applied to all legislative matters is assume nothing. Don't assume a bill at one stage will resemble its final product. Don't assume that a committee recommendation will hold on the floor. Don't assume that a bill passed or defeated one day won't get life the next because one side or the other finds enough folks to change their votes. Don't assume that a bill that sails through one house will not meet heavy resistance in the other. 2048 is still very much in the balance in the Senate. Only the contact by each of us to our Senators will get this thing passed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Dan,
I agree with what you say. However, my attempt is to demonstrate that pronouncements of its death are either wishful thinking or feeble attempts to quash the motivation of 2048 supporters. 2048 is very much alive but still needs every one's attention.

M.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
I've lost track--does this bill (or any other that is still alive) state that the first seven days will only be open to residents? Can the governor decide that on his own, even if it doesn't get passed in a bill?

Thanks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
MRN, you're absolutely right. 2048 is neither won nor lost right now. If we work hard in the next couple days, I think we can get it.

Qwack, good question. Don't think 2048 addresses it, so I would guess it still remains the Governor's option.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,481 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
It isn't in any bill anywhere.I would guess we would only see this if the USFW allows an earlier opening like this past year.If we are in a drought situation with shorter seasons and lower limits,I would guess it won't happen.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
This one needs to get worked hard, now. Reported out of appropriations 9-4 DNP. When you contact your Senators, remind them that 1358 appears widely accepted and, if passed, will prevent any fiscal loss from 2048. 1-888-635-3447.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
bump-get on 2048 quick! Contact senators now!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
I'm sure Northwind will call me ignorant and immature for doing so but I just sent an e-mail to every senator (except the 3-4 who don't have e-mail addresses) and let them know that I will look to move my family to a small, rural town when I retire in 7 years. I told them that if nothing is done to preserve the waterfowl hunting in Nodak, I will likely decide to retire in Sodak. I've already received a couple responses from senators who say they agree and will vote for the bill. One of the senators from Minot called me a liar saying he didn't believe I would base my choice on where to live on access to hunting. He must golf instead of hunt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
We need all the support for this bill we can muster. I will repeat what I have said before that a lot of our hunting brethern do not have a clue what is going on in Bismarck. They do not have access to the internet and the papers in the state have focused on other issues and the Forum has been anything but brutal to our cause. Pick up the phone call your freinds get them involved ask for there support. I found out first had how out of touch a lot of good people are and if we wait for them to find out the barn will be burn't and the cattle run off. so don't limit your calls only to senators call your freinds too make sure that eveyone you hunt with or you know hunts is aware of this issue. Today is the day that will hopefully give all of us hope that our children will have a place to take their kids and have a wonderfull day in a duck blind or decoying geese on a frosty Oct morning, without paying a guide a hefty fee.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top