# An Email From NDGF



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The post below is from Randy Kriel, NDGF. I have immense respect of the NDGF employees, and Mr Kriel in particular. I was asked by him to post this letter and will do so. I am putting it in Hot Topics. It is his reply to a email from Gabe Thompson, the former gst, who is no longer here. I am not an intermediary for Mr. Thompson. Perhaps he would be best served to have his questions posed and answered in a different locality.

From: Kreil, Randy L. 
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 8:36 AM
To: -Info-Game & Fish Dept.
Subject: RE: Nodak thread "pulse"

Gabe - we are not in "agreement" with the use of the word "plundering", that is too simplistic of a response to a complex issue. In addition it is our opinion that the language used by many people on web sites are intentionally provocative and argumentative and that is something we neither do or condone. It does little to help solve problems or provide information when the conversation veers off the high road. We believe the Game and Fish Department should, in certain circumstances and at a reasonable level, contribute to efforts that have benefits to both the livestock industry and wildlife. The problem we have is the amount of game and fish funding being dedicated to these efforts at a time when state funds are plentiful and game and fish funds are rapidly declining.

The USDA Wildlife Services budget was all state general fund dollars until the early 1990s when the Legislature allocated $80,000 of game and fish funds to USDA WS for coyote control measures. At this time the funding was a cost share matched by landowners, as I recall. Also at that time the state's general fund was very low and the game and fish reserve fund was fairly healthy. Over the years as the state's general fund struggled to meet the needs of the state, the amount of game and fish money allocated to USDA WS grew to nearly $800,000 and the cost share requirement went away. Today, the state's general fund is very healthy and the game and fish fund is much lower. The game and fish fund is lower due to many factors including consistent biennial appropriations of over one million dollars to USDA WS, the BOAH, and state parks. In addition, the game and fish department has allocated an additional 30,000-40,000 dollars per biennium to USDA WS to assist with Canada goose depredation issues, in fact it was $52,000 last biennium and will probably go up again this biennium. We believe that the amount we are being asked to contribute has grown to a point that it once again needs to be discussed.

Board of Animal Health (BOAH) funding has also grown over the years to the $200,000 level for the same reasons USDA WS funding went up - a low state general fund and a fairly healthy game and fish fund. Again, times have changes and we have a complete 180 on the situation which simple fairness would dictate a change in how this funding is provided. We believe that $200,000 is too high for the services we receive or that we would consider a fair share. (HOWEVER - last biennium there was an odd circumstance at the end of the legislative session where the Ag Dept appropriation bill was finalized and the legislature DID allocate $200,000 of general fund money to the BOAH through our department's appropriation bill because it had not been finalized. This was a positive for sportsmen but it was the first time in many biennniums that it occurred. Unfortunately this change and use of general fund money for the BOAH did not carry over to this legislative budget as of yet.) Keep in mind that in addition to the $200,000 we are legislatively required to allocate to BOAH all the costs we incur dealing with escaped farmed wildlife (at the request of the BOAH) is covered by the game and fish department using hunter's dollars. Now in some cases this might only be a day or two of time and travel tracking down and locating or dispatching these escaped animals. However, in some cases, such as the Orlin Mertz big game farm issue the cost was very high. Fence and facility inspections, the tracking down and killing of wild deer within the enclosure due to problems with fencing, processing the wild animals, and donating the meat to food pantries was all paid for by the department over and above the BOAH allocation. The same can be said for: feral swine removal projects which there have been at least two if not three in the past five years, rabies monitoring, extra TB and CWD testing of deer and elk in areas where there are livestock health concerns such as: northeast North Dakota when the TB outbreak in northwest Minnesota was in full swing and several years after and when the TB scare near Amidon occurred. In some bienniums these costs may rival what we are mandated to provide to the BOAH. So the answer to your question the game and fish department is committed to working with the agriculture industry to deal with animal health issues when they have the potential to impact both domestic livestock and wildlife. In fact, during the TB situation at Amidon all the cattle that were slaughtered and tested were done at one of our district offices because the Ag Department did not have access to a suitable facility. We believe that all these examples demonstrate our commitment to working with the livestock industry.

Lastly the issue of state parks supplemental funding: again when the state general fund was low turning to game and fish reserve funds to supplement certain park operations or for the big ticket reconstruction of the road (twice)to Graham's Island State Park may have been justified to a point because fishermen do use that state park. However, parks are used by a broad segment of the general public and not just hunters and anglers that is why the state parks department is funded through the general fund. Now that the funding balances are reversed it only make sense to use general fund money for state park operations and road construction to those state parks.

I hope this answers your questions. If you need any further clarification just contact us. I will forward this to Dick Monson and ask him to share it on the website he works with. RK

Randy Kreil

Chief, Wildlife Division

North Dakota Game and Fish Department


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Kreil is a very patient and polite man isn't he? He doesn't want to use the word plunder because it incites people. My feeling is sportsmen need to be stirred to action. They say high fence is agriculture yet they come to the Game and Fish for money to dispose of escaped animals. Just one example. When Joe Doe purchases a deer license it should support the Game and Fish and ultimately the deer herd, not John Doe's private/personal carelessness.

Some issue are complex as Kreil indicates, and some are not. If it's clear the money should not be coming from the Game and Fish then it isn't complex. I went to some online dictionaries. In some cases plunder is accurate. I respect Kreil and he can use the terminology he sees fitting, but I'll stick with mine to describe some cases.



> Verb
> 
> plunder (third-person singular simple present plunders, present participle plundering, simple past and past participle plundered)
> 1.(transitive) To pillage, take or destroy all the goods of, by force (as in war); to raid, sack. The mercenaries plundered the small town.
> ...


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

I would suspect that a good percentage of the funding to Board of Animal Health goes to finance pheasant preserves, chukars and such. Currently the licensing of bird preserves and the money it generates goes to Game and Fish. What is the number? $300 bucks per year per preserve and then there is the selling of the leg bands??? Not sure what the figure is.

Question, if the BoAH is already doing all the inventory paper work, and the money to manage pheasant preserves comes instead from the General Treasury, ( that $200,000) would the BoAH then take over total responsiblity including the licensing and collection of the preserve money?

Here it is in a nutshell. The non-traditional livestock list is long. Snakes, ratites, squirrels, pea fowl, water fowl, fox, big cats, pot bellied pigs and the list goes on and on. It's all included in that $200,000. Years ago the G/F did the inventory report but reliquished it's paper duties to the BoAH. So what's it going to take to move the money from the General Fund to BoAH. A bill? Is it committee work at the Office of Management and Budget? I'm asking?

When all this occurs, meaning, when the funds are allocated from the General Fund to BoAH and not from Game and Fish, will the Game and Fish be totally divesting itself of responsibilty of all Non-traditional Livestock including Pheasant and Chukar Preserves?

I don't believe the G/F can pick and choose which NTL's it wants to select as keepers and which ones it wants to discard.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Why must things always be confusing? I think money should come from the correct people and go to the correct people. I don't know how others think, but when things get confusing someone wants it confusing. The only question is why? License money certainly should all be for the Game and Fish. Taxes from oil ------ well, does it hurt farmers or are some getting income from it? Does it hurt habitat? Does it hurt roads? Does it hurt wildlife? That money should offset the problems it causes. Roads should be a large part followed by habitat and wildlife. Then there is the strain on local things like schools. Yes, money should go there also. Should any go to places like Fargo? I think so, but to a lesser degree. Most of the state is being impacted.

My only point is lets stop trying to exploit every penny we can from anyone we can do it to. Quality of life means things other than just money. Well, at least to me it does.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Well said Plainsman. I agree that the only reason the wording in confusing is because the people that write it are in bed with the lawyers and they need more work.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains,

You sound a little irked.

It seems Mr. gst is having some dialog with Randy Kreil. Dialog is a good thing. It would seem Mr. gst talked to Randy about your "plunder" comment. I wonder if Mr.gst also told Rangy about your comments insinuating all Farm Bureau members are Posse Comitatis Gordan Kahl types? You might think that sportsmen need to be stirred to action time and again but that whopper was a little overboard.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

blhunter3 said:


> Well said Plainsman. I agree that the only reason the wording in confusing is because the people that write it are in bed with the lawyers and they need more work.


Bills and such are not written by lawyers. The first draft is put together by regular Joes who want their elected representative to introduce it. Sometimes things need a little clean up and clarification. Ask a lawyer then. But if you are sure and your legislator is in agreement then proceed.

And then again I have seen persons introduce stuff that isn't legal nor pretends to be. Gets killed immediately.

What is eventually passed is then written in concrete before it becomes law. And even then some wise guy will find a loop hole.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

shaug said:


> Plains,
> 
> You sound a little irked.
> 
> I wonder if Mr.gst also told Rangy about your comments insinuating all Farm Bureau members are Posse Comitatis Gordan Kahl types?


You mean they're not! :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug Mr. gst didn't have to tell him anything. We were just told he reads this. Yes, I'll tell the govenor, the legislature, and anyone else that I think the North Dakota Farm Bureau are radical. About as anti environmental as anyone gets. I think your on sites like this to keep money from Game and Fish and as much for agriculture as you can get. Your certainly not here as a fellow sportsman. It's evident that is the goal of a few. Isn't that why your against the 5% from oil revenue going to conservation? Against it because your not getting it? 
Remember all those radical groups you listed. Like the Wildlife Federation etc. Those are small towns around the country that make up those. You would think that sportsmen who contribute their money to the Game and Fish would have more say who gets that money. We pour into the top of the bag and others who have no right to it are cutting a hole in the bottom.


----------

