# House Bill 1223



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This bill will be heard in the House on Jan. 23.It would mandate opening the pheasant season the Saturday after duck season opens.The first 7 days residents only could hunt GNF lands...PLOTS

Any thoughts on this one? 
If the duck season opens like it did this year,the pheasant season would have opened on Sept. 28.Even if the duck season opened on the 28th, the pheasant season would be just like the governor wanted this year...1 week earlier. 
This seems like an outfitter bill to get a 1 week earlier opening and placate residents by opening GNF land for res. only.I wouldn't be surprised if Cannonball proposed this!!! This is pheasantgate all over again.


----------



## ND Gander (Jul 9, 2002)

This bill came from Todd Porter. This guy is not pro guide by any shape or form. Ask him what is up.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Todd Porter is a good man with an A rating on wildlife issues, but this bill is not like him. I am am deadset against it. No way, no how, no where. Pheasantgate. Pheasantgate. Remember Pheasantgate.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

i'm also against this bill..


----------



## David S Proffitt (Sep 13, 2002)

Why?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

David-WHY??????????This bill is the exact thing we fought so hard last winter in Pheasantgate. A skunk by any other name is still a bad bill. It would make us farmers go nuts. It would be the exact thing that Cannonball wants. It would expand commercial hunting (there has to be a better name for that phrase) dramatically. It would shrink access. It would play right into the hands of the crazy politicians who flaunt outfitters in your face. I just got a letter from a farmer at Mott. His story about effects of (how about market hunting) would make a farmer cry.

Porter is a good man-I can only guess he traded this sucker for some other piece of legislation. But it has to die. Quickly.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

It really baffles my mind to see how short of a memory some people have. Where were these people 10 months ago? I think the people of ND explained loud and clear why they were not in favor of an early pheasant season. It is too bad we are wasting valuable time and energy on this dumb issue...again. We have so many extremely important outdoor issues that will play a critical role in the future of ND outdoors but yet we are talking about shooting pheasant chicks in early October. I hope I'm not the only one that is puzzled.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

I like the idea of an earlier opener. In fact, when I asked my two Springer Spaniels they liked it even more than me.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Here's another question. How many of the outfitters in the heavily hunted SW area of the state are going to allow access to their leases, at a reasonable cost for the average ND hunter, knowing full well that there are NR hunters waiting to pay big money the next week? Sorry, this is a bad bill. The resident sportsmen made it clear they are not in favor of opening the season early. I think 3 months is an adequate amount of time to harvest the amount of birds anyone needs. How about making the season longer and allowing resident only hunting from mid Dec through Jan. if the intent is to make the resource more available to residents. That'll never happen because the big $$$ NR's don't want to hunt in the cold. This bill needs to be defeated quickly.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I'm not so sure FH.The interesting part of this bill is the first 7 days would be res. only on the PLOTS acres.I would think res hunters would favor this part.After all,the first week of waterfowl was res. only.
As far as opening it a week earlier than now,that wasn't why res were opposed to it.It was because the governor did it as a favor to Cannonball and tried to sneak it past us without public input.An extra week might not be so bad,especially if it doesn't hurt the resource.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

If they made the first week resident only period I would definitely support this bill. The way it's written now is only going to make getting access a lot worse. It only encourages the buying and leasing of land by outfitters and NR's.

I would have no problem opening the season earlier, as long as that time is allocated for residents like the waterfowl opener. I think we should definitely look into this. Also, we can't forget that Pheasantgate was a joke for how the extra week was passed and why it was passed. If there is no harm towards the resource by opening the season a week earlier I'd be all for it.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

redlabel, cute answer. My labs felt the same way but do you really want advice from someone who licks themselves dry?


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

:lol: :rollin: I might have phrased that a little more specific :beer: :wink:


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Dick, I'm not sure about the licking themselves dry part, but I do know that I will take the advice of these two gals because of the way their noses work. I answered for them because Maggie doesn't know how to type but if you say the word pheasant she runs to the window and looks outside, or if you blow a duck call she starts scanning the skies looking for the ducks.

Anyway I hope this bill passes as it is stated. My take on the bill is Mr. Porter is trying to save the first week of hunting on PLOTS for the residents before someone else introduces a bill that just opens the season for everyone 1 week after the waterfowl opener. If so then I think Mr. Porter is trying to do us all a favor. Opening the season a week earlier does not hurt the resource, hunters shooting non-colored birds hurts the resource.

I was sure glad we took advantage of the early waterfowl season last year since it was shortened so much by the weather in October.

I think this year I will plan to hunt the early goose season and hit the ducks hard when they open. Then I think I will do like several on here are suggesting and go to Canada to hunt geese and then come back and hunt ducks or pheasants depending on the freeze up.

It should be an interesting year as I am discussing with the Game & Fish Department the possibility of signing up 480 acres of awfully good pheasant and grouse habitat for the PLOTS program.


----------



## catman (Dec 19, 2002)

It is to early. The way I understand it private land would be open to anybody. Would this not promote more leasing and buying of land by outfitters and non-res? If they are bound and determined to get more gun time add two weeks to the end of the season. This looks like Hoven has to pay those people back or else and porter is his wipping boy on this one. Can they not get it threw there head the sportsmen like it yhe way it is.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I believe catman is correct.The season would be open for everybody,but the GNF land would be residents only the first 7 days.With a limited number of wardens it would be difficult to enforce.
I'm not totally against a week earlier opening.An extra week of warm weather hunting would be OK.I was against the governors idea only because of the way he did it not the idea itself.


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

In my poll of people opposing the pheasant opener there was largely sentiment about the way that it was done. I think that Mr. Porter heard the same thing and is trying to start fresh with this issue and do it the right way. Now, we have a chance to write our legislators and let them know how we want them to vote on this.

My labs and I really have to agree with redlabel's springers and Ken W on this one.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

By the way as long as we are talking dogs...my GWP likes the idea too.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I am against 1223. I believe the NDWF opposes it also. The NDGF upland biologist spoke against it when the boys had that private meeting with Hoeven last year. All other states have later season than we do right now.

Farmers do not want the road traffic when they are moving combines with wide headers and also loaded trucks. Remember that soybeans, corn and sunflowers are still standing and harvest time is critical. We don't need to aggravate farmers, they are our allies. These standing crops are bird cover but not huntable habitat. Also the cattails are not frozen hard enough to walk in yet.

The early opener would play right into Cannonball. All the residents flush the birds off PLOTS right onto the fee hunting ground around it.

If this bill were targeted to residents, it would leave the opener as is, give the whole first week to residents only, and extend the season in January.
We need to spread out the number of hunters in time and space. HB 1223 
does the exact opposite.


----------



## Allen (Jan 22, 2003)

I personally see a gold lining in this cloud for the pay-for-hunt group. If we allow reidents only for the first week, guides and land leasing operations will not allow residents to hunt for free (who would expect them to). So now you have residents crowded onto the little public land that holds birds, shooting the crap out of them, and running them over to the nearest piece of posted/pay-for-hunt land where they won't get shot at. That is, they won't get shot until the next weekend when the guides will have every bird in the state on their land.

This is my belief, all game is property of the people of ND (actually, this is the law). So it should be illegal for private organizations to charge money to access a public good. I am all for farmers/landowners having full control over their property and if they do not want hunters on it, that's fine. But where do people get the audacity to charge me money to access public property?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Don't loose sight of a point in Ken's initial post: "....the week following the duck opener." This year that would have meant a September pheasant opener, two and not one, week ahead of the typical opener of recent years. Man, I like walking on grass instead of snow, but that's getting pretty early. I'm not a big fan of this bill, but would reluctantly swallow it if 1358 were amended so that nonresidents could only buy one license. Net effect: gives the SW some extra money, but creates a disincentive for nonres buying and leasing of land and takes away some pressure from the border hunters who make many trips and compete heavily with us for the nonfee ground.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Here is my opinion on this for what it is worth. I do not like this bill, first from the stand point that I personally believe the it would be a little to early. Like it or not, nonresidents also help support the public lands programs. My own feeling is either let them start the same time residents do and are able to access public lands, or if we want only residents to access public lands the first week, make the first week open only to residents such as the waterfowl season was this year. I would hate to sell someone a license and then tell them you can hunt here, but not here.

Also like Allen said, this would force nonresidents to go to fee hunting, unless they had some connections to a private landowner. I would imagine outfitters and fee hunters would love this bill as it certainly has the possiblility of funneling more nonresident hunters through their businesses both by having an earlier season, and then almost forcing them to go to such a business the first week. The majority of the people on this site over the last year have promoted the idea of the "freelance nonresident", this goes directly against that.


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

:beer: I am for a bill that would allow the first week of pheasant season resident only. I think it would promote a lot of residents to get back into pheasant hunting. This year was the worst I have ever seen as far as non-residents go. The early duck opener worked great!!! Just my two cents.


----------



## HuntnLab (Jan 24, 2003)

Yes I agree goose, the only thing I didn't like about the early duck opner was it was very very hard to identify brids, as they were far from being in full color, the hunting was great though and it was extremly nice to have res only for the first week! :beer: :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The word I'm hearing is that Porter will make an amendment to this bill that it cannot open earlier than the first Sat. in Oct.I agree with Dan who testified in favor of this bill.I will ask my rep to vote for it with that change and an amendment to the license bill saying they can only get 1 license.


----------



## todd porter (Jan 17, 2003)

Amendment is already on the way. It will state that pheasant season opens the saturday after duck hunting, but no earlier than the first of october.

Game and fish gave me the proposed dates of the season openers and as it appears now 2007 the season would open 1 day earlier than normal and in 2008 it would open 1 day earlier than the year before. The earliest it shows is October 6.

So, for 1 or 2 days we all get the plots land and public land for 7 days.

I'm just not seeing the down side of this bill.

I know some of you think I sold out to outfitters or I'm carrying Gov. Hoeven's water or I slipped and hit my head, but I'm telling you that for 1 or two days every 3 or 4 years I'll take an entire week without pressure on the public access lands from non-residents.

I'll also tell you that we are really pushing to add 3 million additional dollars to the plots program.

Everyone needs to thank Dan B. for taking time off work and coming out to the big house and presenting your views. He did a great job and was very well received by the committees.

Todd


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

Rep. Porter...
I recognzie your points but the one thing that truly concerns me is this. Last year at all of the pheasant meetings, we heard very clearly from landowners (non fee hunting landowners) that this was too early. We always hear the talk of "backlash" from the fee hunting operators (which 99% of the time is bogus because nobody can hunt on there land anyway unless you can pay) but aren't we truly at risk here of offending our allied landonwers? At the Dickinson and especially the Elgin pheasant advisory board meetings, that was the tone for not favoring the early season. I feel we need to remember what they said and don't throw it back in their face, afterall it wasn't even a year ago this happened. Am I off base with my thinking?


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

An additional thought, I think we as sportsmen have to be careful because one of the sportsmens arguments last year during the pheasant gate was just that, the landowner arguement. Now all of sudden just because there is something fairly decent in it for the sportsmen (no nonresidents on PLOTS) we are saying it's ok forgetting the landowner issue? THIS IS WHERE WE WILL GET PAINTED AS SELFISH AND SELF-SERVING.


----------



## todd porter (Jan 17, 2003)

Emotions were running high during the advisory board meetings. I never attended any of them so I don't know what the feed back was from either side.

I do know as a landowner that 1 or 2 extra days of pheasant hunting in the warm season is not a bad deal. The perception of hunting pheasants in september is gone, the amendment changes that.

Everyone that spoke liked the fact that residents only on public land was a good deal.

The most this bill will add is 1 or 2 days earlier than previous years without conflicting with other opening dates.

Todd


----------



## catman (Dec 19, 2002)

Rep Porter.

I still think this is still an outfitters bill to pay back some favors. Canonball company stated that if the opener would be one week eary it would bring in hundreds of thousnds of extra dollars. Why not leave it alone and add two weeks to the end of the season? These birds are to young for any early openier. I can not understand why the legislators can not listen to the game and fish Dept. Let them manage the resorces. I think all this MIcro-Managment you all are trying to do is wrong.


----------



## nodaker (Jan 25, 2003)

Rep Porter.

Sounds like you're right on with the difference being a day or two won't make a difference to the landowners. As you can see the issue is still as or more emotional than it was last spring. The biologists are humans too and at times let their emotions run. Those that have done so forget the young birds are the ones that will have the most difficulty being added to the sustaining population because of our average weather conditions. This "end of the season" two, three, four, five weeks is ok with the exceptions of extreme weather and yarding of the birds which presents a larger access problem for the general public. I love to hunt the end of the season, but the real "end of the season" question is: How long should the pheasant hens take the pressure during this energy critical time.

Oh by the way I'm not a guide or related commerical business. I don't see much down side to your amended 1223.


----------



## todd porter (Jan 17, 2003)

HB 1223 needs a push from everyone to get a favorable vote in the senate.

The bill has been amended and states the season cannot open any earlier than October 1 and cannot conflict with the duck opener.

The reason this bill is important to me has nothing to do with outfitters. I haven't sold my soul. This bill sends the right message from the hunter to rural ND resident. We understand that your business will be impacted every 4 years and we are glad to help, and by the way thanks for allowing us to hunt all the plots lands for the first week without non resident pressure.

The key compromise to this issue is the resident only hunting on the plots land and other gov't land the first week of the season every year.

Remember we are plowing over 3 million of our money into the plots program in order to get the acreage over 1 million in the next few years.

This bill is the first bill to have resident hunter/rural business/landowner support. What a shame it would be to loose it.

Contact your senator and ask them to support HB 1223.

Thanks,

Todd


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Will do...thanks Rep. Porter.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

FROM THE ETREE:

ND Sportspersons:

1223 took a very unexpected turn today. After passing in the House 73-20, the SNRC gave it a 6-1 DNP today.

There are only two really bad reasons not to get behind this bill full force. One, the ghosts of pheasant-gate. Let them go - we made our point. Two, the lack of appreciation shown by some in the pheasant industry after our consistent support for this bill. Big deal, we don't use them as the measure of our character and actions.

This bill could be the poster-child of the theme we've tried to promote this session - compromise. Even though our strongest opponents don't seem willing to join us in that effort, our compromise approach has not gone unnoticed by legislators and is one of the reasons we've gotten to this point on many bills.

Under 1223, in one-half of all years, the season opens a week earlier than the traditional opener. This is good for pheasant-belt tourism.

In ALL YEARS, residents get the entire first week to exclusively hunt the PLOTS and other state-controlled ground. With 1358, there is going to be substantially increased PLOTS ground. While these parcels get hit hard and become much less productive as the season goes on, many of the PLOTS parcels in pheasant country are very productive early on. If the PLOTS parcels are going to get emptied of birds, why shouldn't we be the ones doing the emptying? This bill will allow many residents who have been unable to hunt the first week in prime areas of the state in recent years the chance to do so EVERY YEAR. As such, it creates new and meaningful quality hunting opportunities for resident hunters. This bill improves hunting opportunities from the status of today. As such, it is good for resident sportspersons.

Of the three SNRC members we spoke with, the primary reason for the DNP was because they're getting tired of legislating things they feel is the responsibility of the G&F and Governor. Maybe that's true, but the political realities are such that if the legislature doesn't get involved in these issues, they won't get dealt with in a manner anyone feels comfortable with.

If you're at all wavering on this one, then do it for Rep. Porter. He's part of a very small group of legislators that have been willing to work our bills. We've gotten support from many legislators, but work and support are two vastly different things. We need to work for those who work for us. Let's show him our thanks and have a strong follow-through on this request.

Here's what you need to do: Contact members of the SNRC and ask them to reconsider their committee recommendation - this is procedurally possible. Next, contact your Senator and ask him/her to vote YES on this bill. Let's get the phones rolling on this one: 1-888-635-3447. Do this NOW, as this bill is officially calendared and requires immediate action.


----------



## todd porter (Jan 17, 2003)

HB 1223 was taken back to Senate Natural Resources and discussed today. It was now voted out of committee 4-2 Do Pass.

This one should be voted on early next week.

Todd


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

Rep. Porter:

What amendments were added to the bill to get the committee to change their vote?


----------

