# HB-1130-License Increase for Habitat



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

HB 1130 - Introduced by Rep's Porter, Damschen, Hofstad; Sen's Burckhard, Carlisle, Lyson. Would increase the fee of a resident small game hunting license from $6 to $10, a nonresident small game hunting license from $85 to $94, resident big game hunting license from $20 to $25, a youth big game hunting license from $10 to $11, nonresident big game hunting license from $200 to $220, resident furbearer license from $7 to $10, resident wild turkey license from $8 to $10, nonresident waterfowl hunting license from $85 to $94, nonresident furbearer and nongame hunting license from $25 to $28, resident combination license from $32 to $38, nonresident swan license from $25 to $28, and a resident application fee for moose, elk and sheep from $3 to $5. In addition, the general game and habitat license would increase from $10 to $17, and $8 (instead of $5) of each general game and habitat license sold would be placed in the Game and Fish Department's private land habitat and access improvement fund. Referred to Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this bill will be supported by sportsmen. It is over due. Expenses go up and revenue for NDGF is dropping.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I saw this one coming when the deer numbers tanked. We need to insist on raising N R bow tags as well. This bill deserves some support IMO.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bob Kellam said:


> I saw this one coming when the deer numbers tanked. We need to insist on raising N R bow tags as well. This bill deserves some support IMO.


This bill does address NR deer bow tag doesn't it?They would go from $200 to $220.A gun or bow tag costs the same for a NR.


----------



## Ima870man (Oct 29, 2003)

Ok, I will go along with the increase fees for US residents, but I would like to see the non-resident fees go up a lot more compared to what WE have to deal with as residents. Then the state visitor and convention department can take credit for those revenues too -- geez! But in reality, those non-resident license fees need to go up more than what is suggested in this bill. Ok, just getting started on viewing whats out there.

Ima870man
Jeff


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think Montana is $550 for a deer tag alone. Cheaper if you get it with an elk license. I think we need to look at Minnesota, South Dakota, and Montana then set our license to reflect an comparative price. I don't want to overcharge anyone, but I don't want North Dakota to be the bargain basement either.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

If you favor this bill to raise license fees make your thoughts known to the committee now as the hearing is this week. Get it done.

HB-1130

Email addresses for the House Natural Resource Committee. You can submitt testimony to the whole committee.

Chairman Todd Porter, Vice Chairman Chuck Damschen

[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; gfrose[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; 
[email protected]


----------



## Dave Owens (Nov 11, 2002)

20% increase is out of line with the average sportsmans wage increase. 3% wage increase per year x 2 ( since last session ) is 6%. How come everything related to goverment collecting money is always out of line with those who send in the money. I do believe the G & F do a good job with the dollars they collect but 20% is too much. Licenses should pace closer to inflation.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Some license fees (e.g. the deer license) hasn't increased in price since 1983. the 20% increase divided by 30 is 0.66% per year. What else do you buy that hasn't gone up in price since 1983 and further, I bet anyone that was working in 1983 and is still working is making 20% more than you were in 1983. For most of the licenses or stamps, the increase is 10% and it has been quite some time since they were raised also. Compared to other states, we are way below cost. So do the math.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The license is the cheapest part of hunting. Half the guys that complain will spend more in the bar one night. I find the guys that call themselves hunters sure often have some strange priorities. Think about what you spend on other things for the hunt, how long it's been since the deer license has gone up and what a fair price should be. I spend more on groceries for the first two days. Gas I spend twice as much just getting to where I start hunting. One box of good shells will run $30 (premium $50) and some people don't think the game and fish should get $25 to manage our deer herd?

I have a relative who hunts with guides in Wyoming and British Columbia, but he complains about the price of a North Dakota deer license. Go figure.


----------



## gator_getter (Sep 7, 2008)

I dont buy the argument that license fees need to be increased because they havent gone up for so long.

Doesnt the Game and Fish Dept get funds from the State of ND also? Im sure they will be asking for an increase there as well.

This bill has a NO vote from me.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

It is understandable that 20% seems like a big increase all at once. But a license increase hasn't been added every session, unlike the the increased cost for every other aspect of hunting. We can't expect NDGF to carry a bigger load on a smaller budget or an outdated budget.

If our personal hunting budget was the same as 20 years ago, how far would that go now? For most ND sportsmen the increased cost from HB-1130 won't even be 1 tank of gas.

On the flip side there is no advantage to us to break NDGF's budget. They are the only state department that stands up for us.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

http://gf.nd.gov/gnf/publications/magaz ... ov2010.pdf


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I asked NDGF about their funding. This is the reply:

In the proposed budget for the upcoming biennium there are no pass through funds coming through the department. Funding for usda wildlife services, the board of animal health, and state parks are all sportsman's dollars. Not one cent of general funds are received or passed through by the department in the budget as currently written. Sportsman would subsidize these programs and they total just over 1.1 million dollars.

Plain old robbery of NDGF funding from sportsman dollars. The USDA wildlife services, the board of animal health, and state parks share should all be funded from the General Fund, not by NDGF.

The hearing is 01/18, 09:00 AM


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

From the literature indsport supplied:


> At the same time, no state general fund tax dollars
> help to fund the Game and Fish Department.


A few years ago when the Game and Fish had surplus I think the legislature made them return it to the general fund. There are those in line always looking to parasitize the Game and Fish. Some people will get all upset again, but the North Dakota Farm Bureau thought the Game and Fish should contribute to road repair since hunters damage roads. They wanted Game and Fish money to go to townships. It's not like townships don't get state support, and it's not like hunters don't pay state taxes.

While North Dakota has a surplus our state emplyees get shafted more than most or maybe any other state. Nope I have never worked for the state. Everyone in North Dakota has a good work ethic including our state emplyees. I find that especially so with the State Game and Fish. These guys realy deserve our support. We ***** about poachers, but are not willing to support the Game and Fish. They could sure use a couple of more wardens out west.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

BUMP

The hearing is this Friday. Get your contact message in now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email addresses for the House Natural Resource Committee. You can submitt testimony to the whole committee.

Chairman Todd Porter, Vice Chairman Chuck Damschen

[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; 
[email protected]


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

http://www.nd.gov/fiscal/docs/budget/ex ... 013-15.pdf

Game and Fish Department

A key initiative of the department has been the expansion of public hunting access

on private land. The Governor's budget continues the focus on this initiative and

recommends a $12.8 million appropriation for the department's land habitat and

deer depredation line item, which includes $8.1 million for rental and lease

payments to landowners.

The Game and Fish Department provides grants to support various agencies and

programs. The Governor's budget recommendation includes the following:

• Grants to support the federal Wildlife Services agency are continued at

$768,800.

• Grants to support the Garrison Dam Fish Hatchery are increased from $520,000

to $914,000.

• Grants to support the Department of Agriculture's Board of Animal Health are

continued at $200,000.

• Grants to support boat ramp operation and maintenance at state parks are

continued at $122,000.

Dick Monson, help me understand this. $12.8 million dollars of hunters license fees first goes to the General Fund and then is budgeted back to the Game and Fish????

Is the ND Game and Fish currently deficit spending?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Is the ND Game and Fish currently deficit spending?


NO. I think the reason it goes to the general fund first is because our politicians want to give every ahole out there a chance to plunder the Game and Fish funds. When it's licenses and not taxes it should go directly to the Game and Fish. They should not have to go begging for the money we the people give to them.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Again, this a direct quote from NDGF, concerning "pass through funds". It was a response to my email sent to the Department.



> In the proposed budget for the upcoming biennium there are no pass through funds coming through the department. Funding for usda wildlife services, the board of animal health, and state parks are all sportsman's dollars. Not one cent of general funds are received or passed through by the department in the budget as currently written. Sportsman would subsidize these programs and they total just over 1.1 million dollars.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Did the $12.8 million dollars mentioned in the Governors budget come from hunters license fees? I mean the Game and Fish budget is something like $35 million per year. At twenty dollars per deer and eighteen for small game and fifteen for fishing that equals a butt load of licenses sold. $35 million divided by twenty bucks equals = approxiamately

One million seven hundred fitfy thousand licenses sold at resident prices.

Of course I am not taking into account non-residents. And there is some money from Pitt-Robertson. I am not disputing the numbers but it would be interesting to see how much money comes into the Game and Fish from the sales of licenses.

The people of North Dakota make the laws and the G/F are hired to enforce those laws. In all the rule making at the Capitol the lawmakers often ask the G/F to come in and testify about legislation. For info and direction. I have actually been present when the issue of the $768,000 from G/F to wildlife services and the $200 thousand dollars to the Deptment of Ag came up. Officials from the G/F said they are OK with that and just leave it alone.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> I have actually been present when the issue of the $768,000 from G/F to wildlife services and the $200 thousand dollars to the Deptment of Ag came up. Officials from the G/F said they are OK with that and just leave it alone.


That is not a choice the NDGF Department is allowed to make. It is dictated by law. All three expenditures listed above are involuntetry and a raid on hunter license money. But we all know the legislature likes to micro manage NDGF monies. Now NDGF is dipping into the reserve fund to run the department. That cannot last, it is an emergency procedure only. If the increase in fees does not happen services to North Dakotans will be cut.

HB-1130 goes to committee hearing Friday morning at 9 AM. Sportsmen need to get their contacts to the House Natural Resources in now.

Email addresses for the House Natural Resource Committee. You can submitt testimony to the whole committee.

Chairman Todd Porter, Vice Chairman Chuck Damschen

[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; 
[email protected]


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick Monson said:


> Again, this a direct quote from NDGF, concerning "pass through funds". It was a response to my email sent to the Department.
> 
> 
> 
> > In the proposed budget for the upcoming biennium there are no pass through funds coming through the department. Funding for usda wildlife services, the board of animal health, and state parks are all sportsman's dollars. Not one cent of general funds are received or passed through by the department in the budget as currently written. Sportsman would subsidize these programs and they total just over 1.1 million dollars.


I am going to need to see the email and who at the G/F sent it. It would give the whole issue a little more credibility. Not that I don't trust you Dick. (wink wink)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am going to need to see the email and who at the G/F sent it.


I smell a backstab in progress. That has to be a nerve wracking job at the Game and Fish when they have guys trying to destroy them for telling the truth. :eyeroll:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> I smell a backstab in progress. That has to be a nerve wracking job at the Game and Fish when they have guys trying to destroy them for telling the truth.


People at the Game and Fish work for the people of ND. From time to time that are asked to testify before the legislature. It is a formal setting but they don't have to be nervous.

Now Bruce, say a ridiculous thing in a committee hearing like you just said above and things will get nervous and tense in a hurry. I don't believe employees at G/F want your help.

Dick Monson said he has an email from an employee at G/F with a direct quote on it. If that person at G/F sent it from a state owned computer than it is public info. Just print it.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

The 12.8 million is requested by the governor are in addition to department budget which comes from license fees and federal funds (PR). It was not requested by the department (read http://www.nd.gov/fiscal/docs/budget/ex ... 013-15.pdf). The department license fees always go back to the department, not the general fund. The department never deficit spends and in fact, by law, is required to keep a 15 million dollar reserve fund. The grants to wildlife services (all goes to agriculture as pest control predator control etc), garrison fish hatchery (cost share for raising fish to plant), animal health (to support disease testing and analysis for both ag and wildlife) and boat ramp cost share with parks and rec. These are regular recurring grants, not something new. Anyone who contacts G&F can get the same information if they want to do a little work.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:48 AM
> To: Dick Monson
> Subject: thread on NODAK
> 
> Dick - I read the thread on NODAK. Go ahead and tell people who sent you the information. There is no problem doing so. And you can also mention before I responded I ran it by the Director to make double sure about the facts. Please share it and put people's minds at rest. RK


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does that taste? If anyone doesn't believe Randy Kreil you can email NDGF yourself. [email protected] Then you don't have to wonder.

Now back to the real discussion. Some members of the House Natural Resources Committee are responding positively to sportsmen's suggestions to increase the fees charged by NDGF. You guys can make a difference. The hearing is Friday morning so get your contacts in *NOW*

Contact: House Natural Resources Committee

[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]

And/or call: leaving a message with the legislative telephone message center at 1-888-NDLEGIS (635-3447) .


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick, you are missing a few parts to that email from Randy, permit me to fix it. Below is what it should look like.

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Kreil <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:48 AM
To: Dick Monson
Subject: thread on NODAK

Randy Kreil reads nodak? Interesting. Which psuedo name is his?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Randy Kreil reads nodak? Interesting. Which psuedo name is his?


It says read Shaug. You don't have to belong to read. I often get PM's from people who have been on for a year or two, sometimes longer but never posted. You will not see their name.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bump. Hearing in one hour.

Contact: House Natural Resources Committee

[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]

And/or call: leaving a message with the legislative telephone message center at 1-888-NDLEGIS (635-3447)


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Dick - please put the following on the NODAK thread from me: "At the department we read lots of things - on line and in newspapers, magazines and any others sources we can find in an effort to keep our finger on the pulse of hunters and anglers. We never use pseudo names! If we submit anything from the department (or even personally in my own case) we use our real names and stand behind what we say. A final point and my personal opinion - the use of pseudo names really detracts from the credibility of the comments or observations on web sites. People can say anything using a pseudo name and not be held accountable for its accuracy or intent. People willing to use their own name have much more credibility and their observations are more useful because they have the courage of their convictions to stand behind what they say. Randy Kreil" 

So there it is. Straight from the Department.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note the hearing on HB1130 seems to have gone well for the increase in fees. Reported that all testimony is in favor of 20% increase. We'll see how the vote goes. You guys rock.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

all testimony in favor? Excellent.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

I hope HB-1130 passes. We haven't had fee increases in years. I'm OK with that.

Dick wrote what Randy Kreil said,



> "At the department we read lots of things - on line and in newspapers, magazines and any others sources we can find in an effort to keep our finger on the pulse of hunters and anglers.


Indistinct pulse here.

AND



> A final point and my personal opinion - the use of pseudo names really detracts from the credibility of the comments or observations on web sites. People can say anything using a pseudo name and not be held accountable for its accuracy or intent.


Couldn't agree more. Too many pseudo-people yelling from behind the dumpster.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Fishing license fees were added to it.


----------



## Ima870man (Oct 29, 2003)

I have no problem with an increase in license fees, and I stated before 10% for residents and 20 to 30% for no residents -- probably use the 30% would be best. This is what I sent to all committee members via e-mail. I see this being a fair statement.

Ima870man
Jeff


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bill Passed.....75-17.....moves to the Senate


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

HB 1130: A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact sections 20.1-03-12, 20.1-03-12.1, and
20.1-03-12.2 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to hunting fees.
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 75 YEAS,
17 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 2 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.

*These folks deserve a thank you for a YEA vote!*
23rd DAY THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2013 375
*YEAS: Amerman; Anderson; Beadle; Belter; Boe; Boschee; Brabandt; Brandenburg;
Carlson; Damschen; Delmore; Dockter; Dosch; Drovdal; Fehr; Froseth; Glassheim;
Gruchalla; Guggisberg; Haak; Hanson; Hatlestad; Hawken; Headland; Heilman;
Heller; Hofstad; Hogan; Holman; Hunskor; Johnson, D.; Johnson, N.; Karls; Keiser;
Kelsh, J.; Kelsh, S.; Kiefert; Klein; Klemin; Koppelman, K.; Kreidt; Kretschmar;
Kreun; Laning; Larson; Looysen; Louser; Maragos; Martinson; Mock; Monson;
Mooney; Muscha; Nathe; Nelson, J.; Nelson, M.; Onstad; Oversen; Owens; Paur;
Pollert; Porter; Rust; Sanford; Schmidt; Silbernagel; Strinden; Sukut; Toman;
Vigesaa; Wall; Weisz; Wieland; Zaiser; Speaker Devlin*

NAYS: Becker; Bellew; Boehning; Delzer; Frantsvog; Grande; Kasper; Kempenich;
Koppelman, B.; Meier; Rohr; Ruby; Skarphol; Steiner; Streyle; Thoreson; Trottier
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Schatz; Williams


----------

