# Letter to Legislators on 2041 PLEASE ACT NOW!!!!



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The vote is TODAY you need to contact Your Representatives NOW!

call toll free at 888-635-3447 (Legislator Message Center). Give your name, address, your legislators to whom the message is directed, the bill number and your position on that bill.

Dear Area Representatives,

Now nearing the end of the session, only a few outdoors bills remain in play. None of them has a bigger impact or critical consequences for ND sportspersons than 2041. This bill initiated from the interim process, but has had an interesting path and has evolved greatly during the session. The State of North Dakota has long held the position (which it is my understanding is consistent with Federal law in all respects), that it has concurrent jurisdiction with the various tribes as to hunting/fishing activities relating to non-tribal members on the various reservations located in North Dakota. As introduced, most felt the intent and purpose of the bill was to clarify that the State did not have control, management or enforcement powers over tribal members hunting only on tribal lands within a reservation. In its current form, however, this bill would abdicate all State management, control and enforcement over game as to all persons when operating on tribal lands pursuant to a tribal license, and as such, will have significant adverse consequences for North Dakota sportspersons:

1. Under current law, the State has concurrent game management functions - non-tribal members hunting on Indian lands are subject to a tribe's special and any additional licensing requirements, but also must be properly licensed and are subject to the State's game regulations. Substantial State license revenues will be lost through this bill.

2. If the State loses concurrent game management powers, important and carefully considered State game management tools such as season start dates, season length, and daily and possession limits are lost. Across all of the reservations within the State, Indian lands and non-Indian lands are greatly intermingled and game moves readily among both types of land. With the tribes free to set their management parameters any way they chose, the State loses control not only as to hunting activities with respect to the majority of all hunters within the State (i.e., all non-tribal members) when hunting this ground, but more importantly as to the game within the State. The State dedicates huge amounts of time and resources managing certain very sensitive species in the State, and this bill would make those functions very difficult if not impossible in certain instances.

3. Many of the State's most-unique and sought after species (mule deer, white tail bucks, elk, moose, antelope, spring turkeys, etc.) are only available to hunters through a lottery process, and virtually all of these species licenses are issued solely to lottery winners. In other words, demand for these species already greatly outstrips the currently available State resources. In most of these lotteries, ND residents are heavily favored over non-residents or non-residents are not eligible to participate. Under the current bill, the tribes would be free to sell as many licenses to whomever they choose for any number of animals to be hunted whenever they see fit. In some States where this type of management is practiced, hunting for limited species has become extremely cost-prohibitive. In the Southwest US, for example, elk tags purchased through tribes can cost upwards of $7,500-$10,000, and of course this type of format renders any state's resources unavailable to anyone other than the wealthiest. If this bill passes and tribal license prices can be set at whatever the market will bear, how much will it cost to hunt the State's elk, moose, mule deer or antelope resources on Indian lands?

4. Relatedly, just because this bill would allow tribes to sell exclusive licenses to game (as opposed to concurrent licenses with the State as is now the case), doesn't mean there is any more game to hunt - the number of available animals remains the same. So, without question, licenses sold by the tribes will affect the number of licenses the State can issue, as the tribal license harvest must be taken into account when license numbers for the sensitive species are set. Under this bill, there is no limit or even minimal parameters as to the number of licenses the tribes can issue. Further, with no limitations as to season lengths or start dates, the State may be forced to substantially scale back or eliminate licenses for certain species in certain areas. So, not only will this bill result in big-dollar, pay-hunt lockout for the State's citizens, some very difficult to obtain licenses will be even harder or impossible to obtain for ND sportspersons, unless they're willing to shell out thousands of dollars.

5. Finally, you must not only consider the effect with respect to Indian lands today, but also as to proposed Indian lands. As many of you are probably aware, the COE is proposing to transfer to the Three Affiliated Tribes all land within that reservation boundary adjacent to Lake Sakakawea and below elevation 1854. This land, approximately 36,000 acres, is a very important resource for the State and supports a great deal of hunting opportunities for many species. The effect of this bill will be very harsh to the many who use this ground.

There are very good and important reasons for the State and the tribes to work out more comprehensive cooperative game management policies, where the tribes have a greater role and say. But, this bill, in its current form, is nothing short of a train wreck and sell-out for ND and especially its sportspersons. It seems this bill has been much more about politics than sound and reasoned lawmaking. We can do much better on this difficult but doable issue, such as a cooperative compact approach. I strongly urge you to cast a NO vote on this bill.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Please guys, get this done. This is VERY important to all of us!!!!


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Mine sent!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Sent


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

There has got to be more than 4 guys this is important to!!! Post up after you send your e-mails or make your pone calls. Please get er dun!!!!


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

Done!!!!


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

got 'er dun!


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Contacted my reps, they all emailed back that they are not in support!!! Will vote no!


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

done, a no vote from my guys as well...


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Done early this morning.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Laid over for 2 Legislative Days will be up again on Tuesday we need to get to work on this!!!!!

Plaease contact your legislators by phone or email you can bet the other side is going to!!!!!!

Bob


----------



## lake 17 (Sep 25, 2004)

Any idea why it was laid over? Are they planning on changing the wording a little? Did it go back to committee?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Delays are delays. It is not unusual for a bill to be laid over. could be a lot of reasons from a pending long floor debate to more time to look into aspects of the bill to just being Friday late in the day.

Looking at the roll call status today late in the day there were 13 members absent, could possibly be a reason although they still had a quorum.

Later
Bob


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Same response as Lv2Hnt. Bismarck guys, we need to start sending some quality people to the legislature!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Sent yesterday. Bob and crew, you guys are doing a bang up job getting info out on these bills. Hats off.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

BigDaddy said:


> Same response as Lv2Hnt. Bismarck guys, we need to start sending some quality people to the legislature!


Man do we ever!! These 3 are not standing for the residents, rather for the commercial side. :eyeroll:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

If you ever wanted to get involved in North Dakota hunting issues this is the time to do it. this bill needs to be amended or voted down. the reasons are listed above in my initial post on this thread. we need to work the phones as they will be doing it also.

Remember this bill died once before and it was brought back because there was significant pressure from people to get the legislators to take another look. the recent 2:00 AM bar closing legislation was another example.

I hve listed the site link for all of the legislators with their contact information. click on the name and the info will come up Please make the call to as many as you can.

http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/59-2 ... -name.html

Thank You
Get-er-done Guys!!!!!!


----------



## Lil Sand Bay (Feb 2, 2005)

.Bob:

I obviously don't have a dog in this legislative fight; but being from far Northern Wisconsin I am very familiar with State/Tribal Fish and Game concurrent legal issues.
I wish you would have posted a copy of the 2041 language, as I'm a little confused.

You mentioned that game doesn't recognize political boundries, and I understand that there exists checkerboarded jurisdictions within North Dakota reservations, (some State, mostly Tribal lands).

"Across all of the reservations within the State, Indian lands and non-Indian lands are greatly intermingled and game moves readily among both types of land."

Obviously a sharptail which flies across invisible political boundries into Montana, Minnesota, S. Dak or Manitoba cannot be considered a North Dakota's recource. Given checkerboarded land issues, what about a game animal which wanders from tribal land onto state lands? Does it work the other way around; or is it a state bird temporarly residing on the reservation?

"Under current law, the State has concurrent game management functions - non-tribal members hunting on Indian lands are subject to a tribe's special and any additional licensing requirements, but also must be properly licensed and are subject to the State's game regulations. Substantial State license revenues will be lost through this bill."

Apparently the Tribes already have the right to restrict and regulate non member hunting on their lands. If they decide that a pheasant license will cost a non member $5000.00, or restrict the taking of a specific species on their lands, that can happen now, without the impact of this legislation.

Obviously Tribal lands have game resourses worth pursuit, otherwise this all would be a moot point. Outside of the costs for state enforcement, however, I suspect none of those state license revenues find their way to the Tribes for the most important issue of wildlife management on their lands.

You mentioned the SW Tribes...I presume you are writing about the White Mountain Apache. Yeh, they charge big time for their Elk tags, certainly more then of us on this site could afford. The difference is they hold most of their reservation intact with very little non member ownership of the land within their exterior boundries. As a result they decided a long time ago to manage their Elk resources and invested millions into their plans for trophy hunting for non members. In that respect they aren't any different from the Texas box blind/bait station deer hunting we all have to endure on satellite TV; since that state has virtually no public hunting land either!

In closing let me say that I am a life long waterfowler and at an age, and health that I will never be able to hunt in North Dakota; I'm content just knowing that North Dakota is there! As a former lobbyist in St.Paul I am also aware of what constitutes bad legislation, and if this one is... kill it! Just don't make the mistake of letting it polarize sportsmen from tribes in North Dakota.

My interest is in having you knowing that tribes and sportsmen share the very same concerns around natural resources. and have, up here, formed strong alliances around mutual interests and concerns. 
The downside is Northern Wisconsin twenty years later is still paying an emotionally devestating price, splitting life long friends for what is now, and always was a non sportsman issue. No one needs that!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Lil Sand
Here is a link to the bill

http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/59-2 ... AR0400.pdf

Thank you for the reply I am willing it work with and compromise on any issue. this one has become so complex that it has developed a life of its own. I can not speak for the State of North Dakota and the whys and wherefores of this issue, however, there has been many compromise attempts so far on this bill and all have been rejected by the tribal authorities, they want us to take their word that they will not significantly go outside the guidelines of the ND game and fish Proclamations where all land that is not tribal trust land should be governed. they do not feel it should be written and issued into ND law. 50 years ago that may have been within the realm of possibility and considered binding. Today sadly enough it is not an accepted and binding form of agreement.

The Tribal Authorities of North Dakota should be able to issue their own licenses, and create their own laws on tribal trust land. the rest has to be joint jurisdiction simply because they do not own it. just because land is within the external boundaries does not mean they own it. they could and should have a say in the management and jurisdiction of the land but not total control as if the land were tribal trust lands.

I hate the fact that sportsmen are divided on any outdoor issue. we are all members of the university of the outdoors and should respect each others views and opinions and do what is best for Mother Earth and her wildlife, rather than ourselves. my signature below says how it should be, he was a wise man beyond his era.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

Sorry guys, but ND needs to pass this bill because if they ever tried to enforce the current law, they would lose in court, just like SDGF did over 10 years ago.

It doesn't matter if we like it or not, but NDGF cannot make anyone have a ND liscense on Tribal land! The Tribes are all ready sellling non- res. liscense's, setting their own seasons, and limits. Sorry but the ND legislature does not have the power to control these Tribal lands. Teh lesgislature realized this, and has come up with this bill.

Standing Rock has a st. line passing right through it. It has to have different laws because the SD and ND laws differ. As it is now a non-res. is anyone who lives off the reservation. NY City or Bismark, ...same category to SRT. So don't be mad at you rep. because he may end up saviing the NDGF a bunch of $$ not fighing a lawsuit or fighting a court decision.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

rowdie...I realize what you are saying and respect your views. However, can't you see where it gets complicated when numerous acres inside reservation boundaries are not Indian lands? If all of the land inside the tribal boundaries were Indian lands, it would not be an issue. However, that is not the case. This is where it gets complicated. The tribes do not have the right to regulate fish and wildlife resources on non-tribal lands.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

Sorry frosty, but federal courts have ruled that tribes do have the authority to regulate Game and fish on tribal lands. Tribes have always had the rights, but have only issued liscences for about 20 years. Trust me guys, SD and I believe some other states have fought this fight ahnd they have lost.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> The tribes do not have the right to regulate fish and wildlife resources on non-tribal lands.


Non Tribal being the operative phrase here!!!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here is the AG's opinion from 1998. It has some pertinant info.

http://www.ag.state.nd.us/Opinions/1998 ... hild01.pdf


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

I'm sorry frosty, I did'n see the non-tribal part. Yes you are right the tribe cannot regulate non-tribal land. This land is "deeded" and people pay state property tax on it, so the state has the authority on it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

rowdie....that's the point of 2041....the tribes want jurisdiction over non-tribal land within the tribal boundaries.2041 would give them that.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

The way I interpreted it was that the state would no longer require you to have ND hunting/fishing Lic.if you were on tribal lands. If you were on deeded lands within the rez the state still has the jusisdiction. Since property tax is paid to ND by non-members living on the rez, the state would still have the authority on those lands. If its not written like this, it should be.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Rowdie yes and Ken no on the current form/effect of 2041 - it only covers _*Indian lands *_(tribal, trust or alloted lands) within the reservation. But remember, it would apply to all species (including all current lottery species) on Indian lands, and it abdicates all state jurisdiction on all the critters that are hunted on those lands.

Rowdie, I think your conclusions about a state's current authority to regulate *non-tribal members *on *Indian lands *goes too far. Under the Mescalero decision, it's very possible a court would find that a tribe and ND hold *concurrent *jurisdiction over *non-members *on *Indian lands *within all or many of the Reservations within ND. The facts and circumstances in ND (e.g. % of non-Indian lands within the reservation, geographical boundaries, etc.) are quite a bit different from those applied under the test established by the USSC in Mescalero. In other words, it's very possible ND can, as it does now, require that a non-tribal member be licensed through the State for any and all species hunted on Indian lands. Whether a tribe wishes to require concurrent licenses for non-tribal members for that species on Indian lands is up to it, and if so, presumably the strictest of the melded regulations (season dates, limits, shooting hours, etc.) would apply to all non-members.

2041 carries the potential for pretty dramatic shifts in the status quo, especially for lottery species. I know folks have different thoughts and stances on the scope of sovern immunity, but 2041 would have the same effect as to Indian lands as if o/g had the ability to sell licenses to whoever, for whenever, for whatever and in any number on all o/g-contolled ground. There's got to be a better way to cooperatively manage game than that.

If you haven't made your calls on this bill, please do so now.


----------



## strand (Sep 29, 2004)

Just called!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Thansk Dan.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

There is information making the rounds that North Dakota will be sued if SB 2041 is amended and not passed as written. I have heard the expression more than once that the bill if passed is better than getting sued.

Are we passing legislation now because of fear? This is really a bunch of bull poop!!!!!

Maybe I have this all wrong but shouldn't legislation be passed on sound policy and merit with regard to the benefit of the state instead of threats and intimidation.

This bill is a power play because the tribal authorities wants to be a sovereign entity.
by definition this means "above or superior to all others" "supreme in power, rank or authority" "independent of all others"

Fine let them be sovereign, but why do we have to give up control of state land in order for this to happen. How many times does the tribe need to be paid for the land that was flooded with the creation of lake Sakakawea, I think the last payment was in the neighborhood of 149 million dollars and there were two large payments prior to that 5.1 mill and 7.5 mill. in 1940's era dollars. 
Is the tribe Independent of all others, sovereign? do they depend on the United States Government for anything? Does the tribal authority depend on the State of North Dakota for anything? does some of the money they are paid by the government come from taxes paid by all of us? If the tribal authority wants to be sovereign are they going to forgo any further payments from the United States Government and be totally self sufficient. I hope so because that is what the word that has so freely been thrown around means.

Later
Bob


----------



## tbercier (Mar 4, 2005)

bob, after reading your initial post, it appears to me that you are using scare tactics to get more sportsmen to see your side of this issue. i sat in on the senate sub-committee meeting last thursday in bismarck and after listening to the various testimony that was provided by all who were present, i do not understand how so many people can disagree with this bill as it sits. nobody it trying to up the price of hunting so that sportsman cannot afford to hunt here. it is absolutley ludicrus. i too have called my rep's and they have assured me that this bill has their support. so i guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. you make it sound as if they tribes are going to open the doors and shoot and kill every living thing on tribal lands and then turn around and charge thousands of dollars to do it. crazy!!!!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Travis
I am not trying to scare anyone. I posted the topic and some of the possibilities that have been discussed with Legislators and Tribal Members. I am not going from legislator to legislator or to meetings and telling people that the state will be sued if this bill fails. I have 0 control over anyone here. I express my opinion based on information I receive from many sources. You may say it is crazy but it has happened in the past in other states, $20,000 trophy Elk hunts in Arizona. And by the way I agree with that practice because they OWN the entire Reservation. You may say it will never happen but there is nothing in this bill to stop it if the tribe wants to do it.

I guess we will find out this afternoon.

Take Care.
Bob


----------



## tbercier (Mar 4, 2005)

bob,as for this information that you are recieving, have you contacted any of the tribes and asked them directly what their plans would include if this bill was to pass? i would dare gamble that you and a great many others out there havent done that. i connot speak on behalf of any tribes or organizations, this is solely my opinion. but i would lay a years salary that this will end up in court if it doesn't pass. after cases of this nature have been won in a dozen other states, i can't see how it wouldn't end up in court costing both sides a whole lot more than whats at stake now.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Travis 
I have received several email responses from Dawn Charging so yes I have been contacted by the other side of the issue, I always try to get both sides of the issue before making up my mind and forming an opinion.


----------



## tbercier (Mar 4, 2005)

THE AYES HAVE IT WOOHOO!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bill passed

SB 2041 FINAL PASSAGE 58 33 0 3

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


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Please post how the votes went down.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Please e mail or call Gov. Hoevens office and ask him to Veto this bad piece of legislation. I have done both and both of my reps in district 13 voted against this bill.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The House and Senate Journals will be posted later this evening.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Thanx Bob!


----------



## Lil Sand Bay (Feb 2, 2005)

Bob:

Thanks for a copy of the Legis.
Been away from the 'puter a couple days organizing for the upcoming steelhead season here, but must compliment all the posts I have seen as everyone contributed very thoughtful dialogs. The Bill doesn't give up state jurisdiction for non trust property within the reservations, nor should it. There might be some problems initially with licensing and identifing land ownership given the checkerboarded jurisdiction problems, but the county governments involved will probably make a significant gain in revenue from the sale of their plat books to sportsmen.
I must say I'm impressed with you guys in North Dakota, these issues have, in the past, the potential of ultimatelycontributing millions to lawyers and not a dime of that money to resource management.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

SECOND READING OF SENATE BILL
SB 2041: A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new subsection to section 20.1-01-02 and a
new section to chapter 20.1-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to hunting
on Indian land; and to amend and reenact sections 20.1-04-06 and 20.1-05-03 of the
North Dakota Century Code, relating to transportation of game and fish taken on Indian
lands.
ROLL CALL
The question being on the final passage of the bill, which has been read, and has committee
recommendation of DO PASS, the roll was called and there were 58 YEAS, 33 NAYS,
0 EXCUSED, 3 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.
YEAS: Amerman; Berg; Boe; Boucher; Brandenburg; Charging; Clark; Conrad; Damschen;
DeKrey; Devlin; Drovdal; Ekstrom; Froelich; Galvin; Glassheim; Grande; Gulleson;
Haas; Headland; Herbel; Hunskor; Johnson, D.; Johnson, N.; Kasper; Keiser; Kelsh, S.;
Kempenich; Kerzman; Kingsbury; Klemin; Kreidt; Kretschmar; Maragos; Martinson;
Meyer, S.; Monson; Nelson; Nicholas; Norland; Nottestad; Onstad; Owens; Potter;
Rennerfeldt; Schmidt; Skarphol; Solberg; Thoreson; Thorpe; Uglem; Vigesaa; Wald;
Wall; Williams; Wrangham; Zaiser; Speaker Klein

NAYS: Aarsvold; Bellew; Belter; Bernstein; Boehning; Carlisle; Carlson; Delmore; Delzer;
Dietrich; Dosch; Froseth; Hanson; Hawken; Kaldor; Kelsch, R.; Koppelman; Kroeber;
Meier, L.; Metcalf; Mueller; Pietsch; Pollert; Porter; Price; Ruby; Sandvig; Sitte; Svedjan;
Timm; Weiler; Weisz; Wieland
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Brusegaard; Horter; Iverson
Reengrossed SB 2041 passed and the title was agreed to.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Well....mine were 1 yes and 1 no....which is what they told me they would do.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Will I be able to hunt muly's on the reservations without drawing a tag from G&F?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You will probably be able to do that....but the license will probably be sold in a $2500 package.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

Last year the price for a non-resident deer tan on standing was $180, it might go over 200 this year. and you can hunt the SD portion of SRT also.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Just what we need, more resource whoring!!

Rod Froelich was puffing his chest out today in the Bismarck tribune over this one. Can anyone say vested interest in Standing Rock??


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Thanks Ken....I wonder if the tribe or the landowner sells the license?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

http://gameandfish.standingrock.org/hun ... esfees.asp

Standing Rock Hunting Licenses and Fees.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Thanks Bob... are these prices in addition to the ND G&F prices?

If that is the map on their website people will have to use it is going to be a mess.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

with the passage on SB 2041 You no longer need to buy a ND State Hunting License to hunt on Indian Land. And yes that is the map, I would buy a state license anyway as you will probably never be able to figure out where you are at and what land you are on. I think if you have a state license and a tribal one you should be covered as far as the mixed land though. If I am wrong someone please correct me.

Here is what 2041 says

"Indian land" means land within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of an Indian tribe or an Indian and land within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation owned in fee by an Indian tribe or an Indian.

*SECTION 2. A new section to chapter 20.1-03 of the North Dakota Century Code is*
created and enacted as follows:
General game license not required for hunting on Indian land. An individual hunting on Indian land pursuant to a tribal hunting license is not required to possess a state license to hunt on such land.

Later


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

whew.... Thanks Bob


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Despite opposition, Hoeven to sign tribal hunting bill
By RICHARD HINTON, Bismarck Tribune 
Despite calls for a veto, Gov. John Hoeven intends to sign a bill that will allow hunters on Indian land to possess only a tribal hunting license.

"We will work with the tribes to make it work," Don Canton, the governor's communications director, said Wednesday, a day after the House gave its nod to Senate Bill 2041.

A grass-roots sportsmen's campaign urging Hoeven to veto the measure had resulted in 24 e-mails or telephone calls to the governor's office by late afternoon.

The legislation allows non-Indians hunting on tribal land within a reservation to buy only a tribal license. Under current law, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department requires non-Indian hunters to buy a state license as well. The change also will allow non-Indian hunters to transport game off the reservation with only a tribal license. Indian hunters who hunt on tribal land only need a tribal hunting license.

The directors of two tribal fish and game departments don't foresee any changes in the way they manage land or game animals because of the new law.

"We will manage the resource for the good of the resource and make biologically sound decisions like we always have," said Todd Hall, director of the Three Affiliated Tribes Fish and Wildlife Department. "The only thing that will change is coming to the table with the state and developing a positive working relationship."

"Our season for nonmembers pretty much mirrors the state," said Jeff Kelly, director of the Standing Rock Game and Fish Department.

He said a small majority of nonmember licenses went to North Dakotans and the others went to hunters across the country.

Because of the checkerboard of tribal and private land, there will be some challenges for hunters, Paul Schadewald, chief of administrative services for NDGFD, predicted.

"Tribal land is not marked, and people will have to know where they are," he said.

But despite potential jurisdiction challenges, everything should be doable, Schadewald added.

Hall said no other bill was more scrutinized this session, and he was happy as a "tribal member and a North Dakotan" that it passed.

"It was a collaborative effort among the five tribes and the state (Game and Fish) department and the state Legislature to come up with a resolution," he said.

Kelly wasn't as concerned about the checkerboarding.

"The wardens all know the areas," he said. "If somebody violated the game code on fee land, we would contact the state. That's the way it's always been."

Kelly also said he would like to talk about joining the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact, which North Dakota belongs to. Among compact states, penalties for game violations in one member state carry back to the home state.

"We are willing to sit down and join this compact like any other state. We have data on all the hunters that come in," Kelly said. "If they are on their blacklist, we would honor that.

"It needs to be worked out department to department."

(Reach reporter Richard Hinton at 250-8256 or [email protected].)


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hunting the checkerboard lay out of the res will be like driving down a hiway that the speed limit changes every half mile. A person will put more time into knowing where you are than hunting so as not to break the rules.

One thing about it is the natives have been paying to hunt off the res all along as far as I know, gotta make wine not raisins out of these grapes!!!


----------

