# Three bills up for vote tomorrow, call today!!!



## nodak4life (Feb 19, 2007)

Please contact the Senate Natural Committee members and your local Representatives TODAY and urge them for a DO NOT PASS on all three of these bills.

Here are the e-mail addresses of the Senate Natural Resources Committee members.

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

They are voting on 1/27 at 9am (TOMORRROW) on the following bills.

SB 2224 - (Senators Klein, Bowman, Heckaman; Representatives Brandenburg, DeKrey) - Establishes a bounty of $100 for each coyote until 2,000 coyotes are taken. Funding comes from the wildlife services line item in the Game and Fish appropriation bill. SNRC to hear 1/27, 9 a.m.

SB 2225 - (Senators Klein, Erbele, Uglem; Representatives Brandenburg, DeKrey, Weisz) - Provides for a $500 nonresident combination small game and waterfowl license that is valid for the entire season, except for the first week. SNRC to hear 1/27, 9 a.m.

SB 2235 - (Senators Klein, Andrist, Uglem; Representatives Brandenburg, DeKrey, Weisz) - Establishes a nonresident waterfowl license valid for three four-day periods. Currently the nonresident waterfowl license is valid for 14 consecutive days or two seven-day periods. SNRC to hear 1/27, 9 a.m.

If you dont want to email, you can still contact your representatives and do your part. It's simple just call the legislative hotline (1-888-635-3447). It takes less than 5 minutes. Simply tell them you want to contact your senator/representative about a bill. Give them your name/address if you don't know who your representatives are. They can find it easily. Just tell them how you want them to vote and why (if you want). Please DO YOUR PART to ensure these bills recieve a DO NOT PASS recommendation.


----------



## nodak4life (Feb 19, 2007)

TTT


----------



## Billyhcc (Jan 9, 2009)

Just sent email
Increased NR's = increased hunting pressure = if you want to hunt here-live here then


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Thanks guys for the above post.

Important bills tomorrow and in the future so if you aren't on the etree, sign up now: http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/cgi-bin/et ... st&l=etree

It is secure, you won't go on some list, you won't be sold anything, you will just be informed of relevant ND outdoor legislation. Such a deal that Chris gives all of us. :beer:


----------



## nodak4life (Feb 19, 2007)

Please make a call or send an email. Your voice needs to be heard and 9am tomorrow is coming real quick.


----------



## mulefarm (Dec 7, 2009)

Hope all three pass.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

apparently the e-tree is only for a chosen few??


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Hunter_58346 said:


> apparently the e-tree is only for a chosen few??


Did you sign up?I don't think it goes only to the chosen few.Some legislators get it,G/O can get it.Try signing up if you haven't.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Jusr tried,,,here is what I get,,,,,

You Are Unable to Subscribe
It seems that your not allowed to subscribe to Nodak Outdoors Etree for some reason or another. This list may be closed to particular participants


----------



## gator_getter (Sep 7, 2008)

Hunter_58346 said:


> Jusr tried,,,here is what I get,,,,,
> 
> You Are Unable to Subscribe
> It seems that your not allowed to subscribe to Nodak Outdoors Etree for some reason or another. This list may be closed to particular participants


I got the same


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Your'e right.....I can't register either.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Someone must've changed a setting?

I'll have to look into this.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The etree link posted with the stickey is the one we dug out of the archives:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/cgi-bin/et ... st&l=etree

Should work?


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Nope


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Same here....get a message that says "You are unable to subscribe."


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This link now works.....won't be sure until the next e-tree message is sent out.


----------



## nodak4life (Feb 19, 2007)

Has anyone heard what the SNRC recommended for these three yesterday?
Nothing updated on the NDGF website yet.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Still nothing


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Mine works now....got the message a little while ago.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

This has moved.

The page you are looking for has moved. Perhaps you can find what you are looking for by searching the site archives by page, month, or category:

*This is what I get*


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

2235 do pass 4-2-1


----------



## kingcanada (Sep 19, 2009)

Why would you mind if us N/R's get 3 four day periods for waterfowl? It just means that I get 2 fewer days to hunt for the ridiculous price the license commands. Isn't that what some of you want?
If you you want to hunt here, live here? I guess I could say the same thing about people coming here to see Yellowstone park, but I am not going to sink to that level. It is petty and infantile.
As far as the $500 permit is concerned, it verifies my thinking on the whole N/R subject:"wealthy visitors only,please." I recently had a "discussion" here with another member who stated that it is not the legislature's job to make sure that their licenses were affordable to the common man. Isn't it strange that this nation is less than 250 years old and we are already reverting back to the european values that sent us across the Atlantic in the first place? Think about it. We are not supposed to say "Merry Christmas" or pray in public. It is becoming more common for hunting and other outdoor privileges to be reserved for the more affluent citizens. What about justice for all? Ever look at what an attorney charges for his "talents"? Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
$100 bounty for coyotes!? Dang, that is an awful lot of money for a coyote bounty. Does anyone honestly believe that removing 2000 coyotes will really make a difference in the deer numbers? In Wyoming there were several times that many shot from the air by gov't predator control agents. Result? Golden eagles took their place and killed just as many fawns.
I think that way too much panic surrounds these 3 bills. The waterfowl restriction actually should make the anti N/R's happy. And how many $500 permits will actually be purchased? The coyote bill actually is a waste of money (maybe the $500 waterfowl license will pay for it! :rollin: ), but at least it gives you something to cash in on as a reward for tolerating the ND winter.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't think most people realize that the coyote bill will cost the GNF $200,000 out of their budget. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I don't think most people realized the coyote bounty would have been less than %10 of what the G&F take in on an average annually from deer tag sales ( over $2 million dollars) . These deer tags sales are over and above the $64 million appropriated for the next bienium. Also, if lowering coyote numbers raise the amout of tags given out over 100,000 by only 10% , the program paid for itself. Even if we beleive Randy Kriels SWAG of 80,000 coyotes being shot in ND/year, we still have a growing population. Apparently then what is out there is not working to control them. This would have merely been another tool to deal with it. I guess we will just have to let Mother Nature deal with it, it seems to be a common theme in wildlife management these days. With all the deer people are saying are dying from this winter, the coyotes should come thru in pretty good shape, So how much pressure will more coyotes put on the remaining deer herd fawns this summer? Oh well I would imagine we will have threads complaining about coyote dens with 20 fawn carcasses laying by them nest summer. Then more threads complaining there are not enough deer. And then more threads complaining why doesn't the G&F do something.

As I said the $100/ coyote was not the way to go $10 or $20/ coyote would have been far more effective) . But stop and think that for less than 10% of revenues from deer tag sales what kind of good will could have been bought with the ranching industry which widely supported this bill. And before anyone goes off on this comment being a threat or some elitist ideology that smacks of the aristocratic landlord mentality we moved from Europe to escape, it is simply an observation of an old adage "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar".


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

North Dakota Game and Fish submitted testimony on 2224:

SB 2224
Senate Natural Resources Committee
January 27, 2011

The North Dakota Game and Fish Department stands in opposition to SB 2224. This bill was presumably submitted due to the belief that the coyote population in the state is the cause of recent declines in deer numbers. In addition, the fact that USDA Wildlife Services may be unable to provide services for coyote depredation on livestock beginning March, 2011 due to a funding shortfall may also be a factor. However, I will confine my remarks to the effectiveness of coyote bounties.

The discussion of bounties typically arises when discussing livestock depredation or lower numbers of game animals, in this instance deer. There's no doubt that some deer are taken by coyotes, but it's not the primary causative factor of lower deer numbers in North Dakota. The facts are that over the past five years the Department has actively managed for a lower number of deer in many parts of the state. The public felt that there were too many deer in areas and that the number of deer needed to be reduced. An illustration of this is that over the past five years, deer hunters in North Dakota have harvested approximately 300,000 antlerless deer. Conservatively speaking, if half of those had a single fawn over that same time frame, approximately 450,000 deer have been taken off the landscape. In addition we're in the third consecutive hard winter in the state, which undoubtedly causes lower reproduction and winter mortality.

Now, back to the discussion of bounties. It's been shown time and time again that bounties don't reduce predator populations. In order to be effective, the annual surplus of the targeted predator must be harvested over a large geographic area and for an extended period of time. Experts have stated that between 50% and 75% of the population must be removed every year for a long period of time before any effect would be realized.

Over the last 20 years, an average of 7,000 coyote's pelts are sold each year to North Dakota fur buyers. We know that an additional 2,000 coyotes harvested in North Dakota each year are sold at international auctions. So we know at least 9,000 coyotes are harvested and sold in North Dakota each year on average. In addition, USDA Wildlife Services removes on average an additional 2,300 coyotes when working on livestock complaint areas. Our data from fur harvester questionnaires indicates that the total number of coyotes harvested annually ranges from 25,000 to 40,000. Coyotes that would have been killed anyway would likely be those paid for by the bounty in this bill.

In summary, any bounty on coyotes would be ineffective in controlling coyote populations and would reduce funding to the financially troubled USDA Wildlife Services program which provides coyote control to individual livestock producers. As such, we are opposed to SB 2224.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would add why in the world should ND sportsmen be forced to pay bounty on coyotes that would certainly be harvested in other states? What next, ear tags for coyotes?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, as soley a grain producer, I can understand where you do not have a very good handle on the issue of a growing coyote population with the states ranching community. In your testimony it appears the G&F ahve now backed off the total numbers of coyotes shot/ year in ND down substantially from the 80,000 estimate earlier given. Considering the discrepancies in some "facts" given out by the G&F regarding numbers of wildlife here in ND, how can we simply rest assured bounties do not work just becasue they say so??? In an article on this site Doug Lier claims bounties were responsible for wiping out wolves here in the plains, but in the very same statement claims bounties do not work. After hearing the basis of the "new" management goal numbers for the states deer herd, I for some reason have less faith in the G&F's ability to accurately estimate, manage or control the numbers of ANY wildlife here in the state. This simply would have been used as another tool to attempt to address what is undeniably a growing coyote population here in the state. Their comments regarding the Wildlife Services lack of funding if this bill were to be passed in an effecteive amended manner were nothing more than scare tactics. There will be legislation introduced to continue to fund wildlife services here in the state regardless wether this bounty bill passed. And consider the cost associated with the WS program for the end result of what the G&F states as total coyotes killed by this program. 2300 coyotes. I can guarantee you had a bounty been implemented a number far more substantial than this 2300 coyotes would have been killed here in ND. But hey that's all a moot point at this stage, no one stopped and looked at a bigger picture.


----------



## jcnelsn1 (Oct 28, 2008)

kingcanada said:


> Why would you mind if us N/R's get 3 four day periods for waterfowl? It just means that I get 2 fewer days to hunt for the ridiculous price the license commands. Isn't that what some of you want?
> If you you want to hunt here, live here? I guess I could say the same thing about people coming here to see Yellowstone park, but I am not going to sink to that level. It is petty and infantile.


You are missing the basis for most people's opposition to the N/R hunting bills. The point of most of us is that we do not have a problem with N/R coming here to hunt, but there should be limits. The argument is not if you want to hunt here, live here. It is if you want to have the same privileges to hunt here as a resident, live here.

What is unreasonable about limiting N/R hunters as far as the length of their license? Does WY give any special preferences to resident hunters? Never bothered to look, but I imagine you get a lot of preference as far as big game hunting goes.

The change to 3 four day periods on its face appears to reduce the number of days available, but its effect will be to increase the number of days people have to hunt here, especially for people coming from neighboring states and it will increase the pressure on weekends, the only days most residents are able to hunt. If you can come for 2 7 day periods, that would cover 2 weekends. Many people would come from WI, MN, IA, etc. and hunt maybe 2 3 or 4 days weekends during a season (meaning they only used 6 or 8 out of 14 days). With this change now they would be able to come for 3 3 or 4 day weekends (meaning they get 9 or 12 days instead of 6 or 8). The duck season in many parts of the state is for all practical purposes the month of October. With this change a N/R could hunt almost every weekend of the duck season.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Some of you evidently haven't read the bill.The NR doesn't lose 2 days of hunting.He just gets more options.The bill says....3 four day periods OR 14 days that can be divided into 2 seven day periods.You would have a choice.

$85 is a ridiculous price for a license?????I don't think so.If you hunt 7 days....that's a WHOPPING $12 a day.And if the new bill becomes law your 12 days would be a whole $7 a day...a case of beer costs a lot more. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## kingcanada (Sep 19, 2009)

jcnelsn1 said:


> kingcanada said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you mind if us N/R's get 3 four day periods for waterfowl? It just means that I get 2 fewer days to hunt for the ridiculous price the license commands. Isn't that what some of you want?
> > If you you want to hunt here, live here? I guess I could say the same thing about people coming here to see Yellowstone park, but I am not going to sink to that level. It is petty and infantile.


"What is unreasonable about limiting N/R hunters as far as the length of their license? Does WY give any special preferences to resident hunters? Never bothered to look, but I imagine you get a lot of preference as far as big game hunting goes. "

In some ways, NR's get more priveleges on big game. A resident hunter gets a deer tag for a specific area, the nonresident gets a "block" of areas to chose from. The NR pays more, but actually gets more area to hunt. This is how it has been described to me by a friend who sell licenses over the counter at the sporting goods store. Wyoming does not limit NR small game hunters in any way that residents are not limited, you can hunt all season. There are also no dates set aside just for residents; big game, small game, or otherwise.
I still think that hunt here, live here is a bad idea. If people don't like NR's coming for a limited amount of time, just think about the pressure on the ducks if all those NR's moved to North Dakota! It would be like the arrival of the Mongol horde! I realize that this originated as a pi$$ing match between North Dakotans and Minnesotans (and still is), but the rest of us are getting caught up in it too. I look at Canada. The canadians don't seem to harbor this same level of resentment and they have even better hunting to protect. For that matter, it will soon be as expensive to hunt ND as Canada. Who is going to be whining about all those tourism dollars going north of the border instead? Who is then going to raise resident fees to make up for it? Your beloved Game and Fish dept., that's who.


----------



## kingcanada (Sep 19, 2009)

gst, if you think that predator control will raise the deer numbers (and tag numbers) then you have not thought about the realities of game populations. First, you can't stockpile wildlife. If that worked, then closing hunting seasons would have worked in the past. That was proven time and time again. Second, all habitat has a "carrying capacity" that determines how much of each type of wildlife it will hold before the excess dies off. Severe winters greatly reduce this capacity. You state the deer are taking a beating from the winter. It seems that there are too many deer for conditions. Removing coyotes won't change that. Having coyotes to finish off the sick deer only frees up more food for the ones that are still somewhat healthy. This means that those deer will go into the birthing season in better shape and there will be fewer miscarriages. Someone claiming that a bounty will raise deer tag numbers is "catching more flys with honey...".
You do not believe that we left England to escape an aristocratic rule. Well it is documented that the reasons I gave were the basis for the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. By documented, I mean documented by the men who wrote these documents. My argument is valid.


----------



## jcnelsn1 (Oct 28, 2008)

You have the right to your opinion, we have right to ours. I still believe that the premise of your argument is wrong. We are not saying only residents can hunt, we are just saying nonresidents can hunt for only 2 weeks. Big difference.

As far as what canada does, that is irrelevant. They are free to do what they want. If you and others choose to go there instead of here that is your right. I agree the hunting generally is superior there, but that is almost completely because of a lack of pressure. Pressure is what we want to limit here.

If you want to point to other states/countries for support, we can point to sd which heavily restricts nr waterfowl hunting.

Nonresident hunters have an economic impact, but I believe it is often overstated. Whether we have less nr revenue or not I would welcome a license increase if the proceeds would go to habitat.

In the end these bills will continue to be pushed by the commercial interests and we will continue to push for our interests and the issues will be solved democratically like they should be.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

NR going to Canada have a long way to go to catch up to ND.The past few years....ND has had more NR hunters than Alberta,Sask, and Man. combined.Still I would put ND duck hunting and upland game hunting against anything Canada has.Geese,however are another story.


----------



## kingcanada (Sep 19, 2009)

I would say that the only thing that would give ND an edge in the upland department is the pheasants. The edge is pretty big on that one. I actually spend very little time hunting ducks in ND, I have great hunting near home. If a person is willing to scout hard, ducks can be found in surprising numbers a good many places, not just ND. Snow geese are the real big deal. They don't just show up in big numbers anywhere.
More NR's than Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba combine huh? If those numbers are available, I wonder if the stats on where they are coming in from are available. I am guessing that a tremendous portion are coming from Minnesota. It would be interesting to see the state by state break down for waterfowl and again for upland game. I suppose if a person knew where the outfitters were sending the most correspondence, it would reveal the same...


----------

