# The Best of Session- ND 2009



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

The best legislative supporters of ND resident outdoorsmen and women. Scorecard 2009

Senate

Highest Score
*Larry Robinson- Valley City. Democrat. District 24.

Second highest score
Tim Mattern- Fargo. Democrat. District 11

Tied for third best
Tom Fiebiger- Fargo. Democrat. District 45
JoNell Bakke- Grand Forks. Democrat . District 43

House

Highest Score-tie
*Lyle Hanson- Jamestown. Democrat. District 12
*Joe Kroeber- Jamestowm. Democrat. District 12

Second highest score

Lois Delmore- Grand Forks. Democrat. District 43

Tied for thrid
Ralph Metcalf- Valley City. Democrat. District 24
Lee Myxter- Fargo.Republician. District 27


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Couldn't help but notice in your list the "best" came from the following adrresses Valley City, Fargo, Fargo, Grand Forks,Jamestown, Jamestown, Grand Forks, Valley City, Fargo. 
While your "worst" had addresses of Lehr,Fesseden, Regent, Crosby, Wyndmere, Mott, Hursdfield, and Selfridge. 
So what is your "therory" for the apparent urban/rural difference????? At least share the basis for the ranking.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Drakekiller
> Supporting Member
> 
> Joined: 02 Apr 2002
> ...


That is a pretty fair list. Keep in mind that Krauter, Kerzman, and I believe Froelich are on record as not wanting any public land west of the missouri river.

No partisan business and the list is backed up by fact. Pretty fair list all and all I would say. Dotzenrod from Wyndmere surprises me but at the same time it doesn't.

gst-

this isn't a rural-urban thing this a resident-non resident list. The people on the list are bad for all North Dakotans who do not have access to thousands of acres of land to hunt. The laws that the worst list supports could have a very negative effect on people all over the entire state, and that is why it is garnering the attention of ND Outdoors magazine. If you are a plant worker in Bismarck who lives in say Washburn they could very easily be effected in a negative manner, even though they live in the rural part of the state.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I don't know about the others in the list above but Robinson and Metcalf listen to the natural resource managers about natural resource issues instead of blackmail from the money pit. And I would bet the other grade A's do too. Refreshing! 
:beer:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

What is the criteria for determining the lists? It must just be a coincidence that people on each list are 100% from large and small communities? Perhaps they actually are trying to represent the wishes of the people from their districts? I'm not saying each and everyone of these legislators are top notch, just commenting on a noticable difference of addresses and wondering what was the basis for, and who determined the lists? Dick can you provide information if any of your pro list accepted any forms of contributions from any sportsman orgs.or members ??


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Gabe, I can tell you that the Barnes County Wildlife does not make political donations. Nor NDWF. Strictly prohibited by law and also by club rules in the case of BCWF. I would think other non-profits are the same.

We do visit with our legislators often just like other groups do and they make their own decisions.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK, I'm not really following your claim this is a resident/nonresident list, as all legislators are required to be residents as I'm sure you know. If one assumes that each of these legislators are merely following the wishes of their constituents, which if they continue to be elected, they must be, then one would have to assume that in the eyes of who ever made this list based off the addresses of the people on the list, there is a clear difference in how people in these differing addresses are thinking. And accordingly by the tittles best and worst, it appears the author of this list feels the way one group is thinking is best for ND. So to deny a rural/urban difference in this list and mentality of the person making it doesn't seem accurate. I'm simply asking for someones therory in why there is such a noticable difference.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Gabe, your question above is easy to answer. Some of those on the F list sell wildlife for their own profit. They don't give a rip about the rest of the state on wildlife-conservation issues. Some others have close associations with the same group. Add in that the outfitters have a strong well organized membership that is very active legislatively, and you have the grade F list.

Fortunately, their efforts made little headway because ND sportsmen got active this session.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The list was to show ND voters who voted in favor of ND sportsmen/women. Some rural legislators may have a different line of thought but the ones that made the list are thinking with their wallets, as illustrated above.

Everyone also knows that there are a handfull of urban legislators that think with their wallets on other issues. One of them is in my district.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Is the whole list on here somewhere?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick,

It's always those darn commercializers, money pit or some other name calling you can think of. Everybodies situation is different when it comes to farming and land ownership. Let's take yours for example.

In your mind, you don't think anyone should sell access to wildlife. But Dick Monson takes subsidies for CRP and rents his land out for plots. While you don't think others should lease out, guide or whatever, you in turn are doing exactly that. You take money in exchange for access.

So what does it cost the taxpayers to subsidize Dick Monsons' wildlife mecca? Just a cool $237,999.

You read that right. K and D Farms $237,999

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php ... al&page=16

Me, I have to get back out and spray some weeds. Back pack sprayer with three and half gallon tank. Feels like ten gallon. Have 40 acres with creek flowing through it. No grazing no mowing. Nothing, just for wildlife. Can't use conventional equipment because of rugged ground and trees. The weeds are not giving up and neither I'm I. Going on ten years. Whenever Ron Gilmore says DU buys a piece of ground, restores it and then sells it in three years, I laugh out loud. Nobody restores a wetland in three years. Weeds love wetlands. They would have to do a scorched earth policy and burn it with fire and chemical for three years.

Oh, and that A and F list. Means little. Wasn't it Sen. Tim Mathern who ran for governor and garnered only 20% of the vote? Let me borrow one of Dicks terms. "Refreshing"


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

If a list such as this is to be given any credibility, the author should include the criteria for making the determination.

TK, Your statement "The list was to show ND voters who voted in favor of ND sportsmen/women." is interesting. Does this mean any of the people that keep electing these small town, rural legislators "that may have a different line of thought" because they approve of what they are doing aren't considered "ND sportsmen/women" simply because they don't fit into your veiwpoint of whats good for ND?

The comment about a politician thinking with their wallets, are you saying none of the "A" list have ever gotten monies from individual "sportsmen" or orgs. representing them in any form to support their veiwpoint on an issue? Do any of the "A" list belong to these "ND sportsman" orgs? Are they "selling" their positions on these issues to get votes to get relected? Do these "sportsmen" groups as Dick says "have a strong organized membership that is actively organized" and as such you have the grade "A" list simply by whoom they support? Do the "sportsmen" use websites such as this to organize and "pressure" these legislators to vote a certain way? Of course they do. So this is alright when it supports your veiw, but when it happens otherwise it is suddenly wrong?

The simple fact of the matter is there is a rural/urban split on the veiwpoints on many of these issues, and lists such as these only highlite this. And publishing them only widens the gap. Not really a positive step for working on or improving the rural/urban, landowner/hunter relationships everyone talks about.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I would guess it is fair to say that the list was compiled by the ND E-Tree group that organizes and sends out e-tree notices on issues that affect ND sportsmen. These are the grades as they see them.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

The Legislative score card is done and Chris will be posting it on the home page soon when he gets a chance, a couple of typeos to fix. If you go to Nodak home page and click on Legislative score card it explains how it is put togeither. Outdoor bills are given points. More important the vote the higher the points. The House was graded on 27 votes and the Senate 22. Votes with highest pts. were HB 1216, HB1246, SB 2264, and SB 2351. If you want to know who supports residents sportsman and who does not you will find out. You have to be real bad to get a low grade and real good to get a good score. One or two bad votes will not put you in one camp or another. Look up your district. It is my opinion whats the worst or best. You might have a total differant view.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Gst-bad politics and greedy self motivated politicians is not a rural/urban issue it is an issue for all of us. Drakekiller laid it out above. Examples of this are WSI at the state level and the derivatives mess at the federal level. We were all told they were good at the time by the people who supported (profited) from them and they failed miserably. This is a good list because it shows who the greedy ones are.

You are also the kettle calling the pot black. Since you have joined this site you have had an ax to grind with sportsmen's groups, sometimes imo you are right but not all the time. What you percieve as rural/urban differences applies only to your opinion and most of the time your location, as has been said before the opinions from the ag community differ greatly.

As far as contacting our reps goes, that is the way it is. Maybe you or DG should post ag legislation that needs support and see what happens. You might be surprised. When I hunt and fish in other states I have to play by their rules and their fees, etc. I have no say and I shouldn't, if I don't like I don't have to go there but when it is in my state I am going to try to get my voice heard.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

So have any legislators on the "A" list ever been involved with any bad, self motivated greedy politics??? I'm sure there are many who would believe they have for one reason or another. What Drakekiller laid out was a list based on opinion from one group or individual, hardly an unbiased, statewide, inclusive poll of all "sportsmen".

The only axe I have to grind with the "sportsmen" orgs is when they begin to dictate who are "sportsmen" and what is "good" for ND based off their individual beliefs, and then push an agenda to force their veiws onto everyone else, which seems fairly common with some on this site. The simple fact is there are thousands of sportsmen that live in these more rural legislators districts and continue to elect them and have a different set of veiwpoints than the"A" list legislators and their supporters, but their veiws are repeatedly slammed by many on this site, this list simply being another example. I'm merely pointing out what little good this does to further these "relationships" that are so popular to talk about fostering. Maybe I'm just not aware of it, but I can't remember seeing any ag groups publishing lists slamming urban legislators for their differing positions on wildlife issues that affect rural people and communities, claiming they are "bad" for ND.

As to a rural/urban split being only my opinion or in my area? This list seems to show that apparently the author as well as everyone that believes it's accuracy feels there is this split in veiw points between urban and rural much more than what I've ever suggested.

You wanted ag issues posted to see the response, heres a national one for you the Clean Water Act is the largest grab of control over private lands in recent history. It will take control of virtually every puddle,slough,stock pond, creek, ect.. away from the state, county or individual and place it under federal control. Contact your legislators and urge them to vote no when it comes to a vote.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

TK33,

Tell me something. Which of these organizations was started by sportsmen?

http://www.teaming.com/about/

American Fisheries Society 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
Association of Zoos and Aquariums 
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 
Izaak Walton League of America 
National Audubon Society 
National Wild Turkey Federation 
National Wildlife Federation 
The Nature Conservancy 
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 
The Wildlife Society 
Wildlife Conservation Society 
Wildlife Management Institute

These 501(c)3's are prohibited by law from partisan politics.
This list is pushing the envelope.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I disagree, both parties were commended and both were ripped. Still saying its a fair list under the pretext.

I am not sure about the club list. I do know there are a few on the list and not on the list that are doing all sportsman and women no favors at all.

I still see a double standard on the land access issue. Ag groups cannot expect support from North Dakotans and not support them back. The same goes for sportsmen's clubs. This is where mediation is needed. If you don't want me hunting your land because you think I'm a jerk that is fine but don't turn your back on all residents.

We still have it pretty good here in ND and we need to keep it that way. There is going to be more controversy coming up with flood mitigation, hopefully cooler heads prevail. :beer:


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

TK33,

You are not sure about the club list? Were you referring to this?

American Fisheries Society 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
Association of Zoos and Aquariums 
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 
Izaak Walton League of America 
National Audubon Society 
National Wild Turkey Federation 
National Wildlife Federation 
The Nature Conservancy 
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 
The Wildlife Society 
Wildlife Conservation Society 
Wildlife Management Institute


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Dwight, just curious, which envelope is that you say is being pushed?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Clicked on the 2005 legislative review to see the criteria for making the lists. Now if the lists were titled "the best or worst legislators according to a small percentage of the states sportsmen that are on Nodak Outdoors legislative Etree because of our opinion of how their political standings are veiwed by us, a small group of sportsman" I probably wouldn't have even commented on this. But when a relatively small number of "sportsmen" that are part of a possibly biased group claim to represent and speak for all sportsmen of ND, based on a select set of bills slanted for one purpose, the claim that these rural based legislators are "bad" for ND is hardly conclusive or statisically accurate. And like I said does nothing to suggest to the sportsmen, businessmen, or farmers and ranchers from these legislators districts that support them that this group of "sportsmen" that are making this distinction care anything about their veiws or concerns.

My districts reps. have 3 Cs, 1D, and 2F's and most sportsmen and farmers and ranchers from our district support their positions on these bills. I guess according to this list, that would make us and others in these districts "bad" for ND as well???


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

WHere does it say that this list is representative of most North Dakotans?? I must have nissed that part. I would think that most thinking men/women could figure out that any list that is printed up on Nodak outdoors is representative of the opinion of Nodak outdoors. Why is that so hard to grasp? If you want, start your own web site and or send a letter to the editor of your favorite hometown rag and rate all the state government people you want to!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Quote "The best legislative supporters of ND resident outdoorsmen and women." The lead off statement fails to differentiate between those on Nodak outdoors and the rest of the majority of "outdoorsmen and women" opinion but yet includes them all in it's assumption. Quote,"The list was to show ND voters who voted in favor of ND sportsmen/women." Apparently these lists are being used in the ND outdoors magazine also. So it seems as though by leaving out the fact that only a small group of "sportsmens" opinions were used,they are being used to convince others outside the NoDak Outdoors website (ND voters) that all ND outdoorsmen/women are of this same opinion, which many are not.

It's not really a surprise or hard to grasp.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

gst-

which bills are drawing the support from your area that failed? I am wondering if it is not because there is a lot of public land in your area.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

djleye,

(quote)WHere does it say that this list is representative of most North Dakotans?? I must have nissed that part. I would think that most thinking men/women could figure out that any list that is printed up on Nodak outdoors is representative of the opinion of Nodak outdoors. Why is that so hard to grasp? (quote)

(quote)I would guess it is fair to say that the list was compiled by the ND E-Tree group that organizes and sends out e-tree notices on issues that affect ND sportsmen. These are the grades as they see them (quote)

I have a question. Are the people, who compile the E-Tree, the same people making this A and F legislative report card. Look at this E-Tree:

Summary of Testimony in Support of Senate Bill 2351 
> 
> Prepared by North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society 
> 
> Senate Natural Resources Committee 
> 
> February 12, 2009 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senator Curt Olafson, Bill Sponsor: Livestock and wildlife health issues 
> are strongly supported by science. Opponents will bring up private 
> property rights and forcing outfitters out of business, which are not 
> valid concerns. Risk assessment; if bill supporters are wrong, the only 
> impact is that guides /outfitters have to learn to be successful like 
> guides and outfitters in neighboring states that all currently ban 
> baiting. If bill opponents are wrong, the risk of disease outbreak in 
> livestock and wildlife costing millions of dollars, and threatening 
> thousands of animals, goes unabated. 
> 
> Dr. Steve Schmidt, Michigan DNR: Bovine TB outbreak started in 1994. TB is 
> now naturalized in wild deer herd, maintained by high deer density and 
> animal concentrations at bait and feeding sites. Bacteria survives for at 
> least 12 weeks at 0 degrees. Michigan has spent over $ 100 million trying 
> to eradicate bovine TB from cattle and deer. $ 25 million annual loss in 
> lost cattle sales since Michigan lost TB-free status. 
> 
> Dr. Jesse Vollmer, ND Bd of Animal Health: Disease risks from Canada, 
> Minnesota, and Wyoming. Minnesota acted too slowly on their TB outbreak. 
> ND deer move up to 100 miles. BOAH will recommend "scorched earth" 
> eradication if TB occurs in wild deer in ND. 
> 
> Greg Link, ND Game and Fish Dept.: Tough regulations now could prevent 
> much more costly disease problems later. GFD has responsibility to 
> recommend management recommendations to protect State's wildlife. 
> Volumetric restrictions are impossible to control or enforce. Minnesota 
> has spent $ 75 million on TB control and monitoring since 2005. 
> 
> Woodie Barth, ND Farmers Union: Supports bill because of animal health 
> concerns. 
> 
> Julie Ellingson, ND Stockmen's Assoc.: Concerned about disease issue from 
> a cattleman's perspective. Prohibition on feeding and baiting is one more 
> tool to prevent livestock disease. 
> 
> 
> Jeff Furstenau, hunter from NE ND: described "baiting wars" and 
> competition in northeastern portion of state, areas that used to have deer 
> now don't because deer are concentrated at baiting sites. 
> 
> Seth Bauer, 14-yr bowhunter: After scouting and preparing for archery 
> season, deer were short-stopped from land he was hunting by bait piles on 
> neighbor's land. 
> 
> Kari Thorsteinson, hunter: Successful female hunter who does not need or 
> support baiting. 
> 
> Baiting is pulling deer off public lands she hunts and taking away her 
> hunting heritage. 
> 
> Rod Gilmore, Rocky Mountain Elk Fdtn.: supports enhancement of existing 
> regulations to protect wildlife and livestock health. 
> 
> Merlin Leitholt, ND Weed Control Assoc.: Supports SB 2351 to further halt 
> use of screenings for baiting and supplemental feeding, and resultant 
> spreading of weeds. 
> 
> Mike McEnroe, ND Chapter The Wildlife Society: Review of 320 scientific 
> papers supports conclusion that feeding and baiting have negative impacts 
> to wildlife and habitat, alteration of animal behavior. 5-gallon 
> volumetric compromise is not a solution; all the disease implication still 
> exist; is unenforceable from law enforcement standpoint. 
> 
> Roger Kaseman, ND Wildlife Federation: 16 affiliated clubs, 1300 members 
> support SB 2351. 
> 
> Lewis and Clark Wildlife Club, Bismarck: 55-member wildlife club supports 
> SB 2351 without a dissenting vote.

It was compiled by the wildlife society. Or in others words Mike McEnroe. Mike is a retired federal biologist with the USFWS. And now is a lobbyist for the wildlife society.

http://ndctws.org/board.html

Do you see Merlin Lietholt with the N.D. Weed Control Assoc. I know Merlin so I asked him how he got involved in all this. He said their only concern was to stop people like Pheasants Forever etc. from buying screenigs and throwing them around. He said Mike McEnroe called him. Mike wanted him to come to the G/F building in Bismarck the day before the hearing and read his testimony at a mock rehearsal. Merlin did not attend, he thought it was improper.

The wildlife society also puts on a luncheon for the legislators most legislative sessions. Do the ones who attend get an A? The ones who don't get an F? Does the Game and Fish have a report card? Does the federally funded wildlife society and their sister the north dakota wildlife federation have a report card? Can they legally do that?

There are two federal agents on this site as moderaters. What input do they have in deciding which legislators get an A or F.

Mike McEnroe never leads the charge from the front. He needs water boys and cannon fodder to carry forward his agenda. The legislators know it, and most everybody who is anybody knows it. It is very simple. When Dick Monson or someone from these little wildlife groups testify at the capitol the theme is the same. I am a sportsman, I represent sportsmen and sportsmens issues. They might say something thoughtful or they might say something outrageous. And then hand in written testimony. Go to the library and check out that written testimony. See what's in it. It's scripted information straight from the G/F, USGS, USFWS or some federal agency. Their issues.

This A and F list pushes the impropriety envelope.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK We really don't have that much public land in our area. A few WMAs, a handful of PLOTS, and a couple of NWRs that provide limited public hunting opportunities.

I'll share what I think from talking to many rural folks around the state what the differences maybe. For Dick and others of the same opinion, it's all about the money. And of course there are NRs that come to ND and hire guides. But for every NR that hires an outfitter, there are dozens that don't. These NRs have come to appreciate what many here in ND take for granted, because they don't have it where they come from. I'm not just talking hunting opportunities, but the kind of people they meet. These NRs often times have made friendships and long term relationships with the people in these rural communities, many have family ties here. No money is involved, maybe just some cheese from a local dairy back in Wis., or a couple of rounds bought in the local bar. These are the kind of guys that often times take the ranchers kid out duck hunting with them a couple of times, or send a card and a little token of friendship at the holidays. Often times they leave the motel owner a $100 tip when they leave because he told them to keep their muddy, wet dogs in the room instead of out in the cold pickup. No commercialization of wildlife, just tokens of appreciation. Many folks in these rural communities look forward to these NRs coming out each fall and the friendships they bring with them.

On the flip side many of these same rural residents deal with the opposite end of the spectrum each fall with SOME residents. Most farmers or ranchers have heard "these are our animals, my taxes pay your CRP and farm programs so I have a right to be out here, you never signed and dated the no hunting sign so it's not legal, I shot a deer and it ran on here so I don't need your permission to retreive it," People talking in the local bar about all the a$$hole farmers and ranchers posting all the land, but yet no one ever asks. If they do it's ususally "hey we just saw a huge buck run into your trees, can me and my 8 buddies go shoot it?"

Now before anyone goes off here, there are jacka$$ NRs, jacka$$ landowners, and many great respectful resident hunters and exceptions to everything. But when it's all said and done, these rural residents remember both the bad and the good. And when it comes to how they want their legislative representatives to vote, often times it is reflective of their experiences. Each legislative session, there are increasing numbers of bills presented by people and groups representing "all ND sportsmen" that are trying to legislate a "better hunting opportunity or experience". Most are through restriction and regulation that most often times affects these rural residents who most are sportsmen themselves, and most times don't believe there is a need for them. So often times you have differing veiwpoints.

There are probably more ND sportsmen with rural addresses such as in your "worst" list than there are ones with addresses from your "best" list. So when what is "best for ND sportsmen" is being considered, perhaps their veiws should be included as well. If they aren't what many here in ND take for granted may become as hard to find as what the NRs say it is where ever it is they are from. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

gst,
I am one of those "evil" resident hunters for Fargo that you love to rail about. What have I done for the local economy? Well, for starters, when our "youngsters" graduate from high school, we give them a $100.00 MO and a 12 ga.3-1/2" semi-automatic shotgun. We also attend their graduation ceremonies. We also try to bring a "complete" dinner when we come out hunting. We don't expect anything for "free" and our hosts don't expect us to come in with\out paying our way either. What is your problem with this scenario?

Jim


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

gst-

Can't disagree with most of your post. Pretty accurate.

I would say the percentage of bad hunters is about the same as bad landowners, about 1%. Just like everything else that 1% can make it miserable for everyone else.

As I said above residents should be a factor in new legislation. When you look at the bad list many on their are notorious for being in favor of commercialized hunting. Their viewpoints have been quoted in the media. The other thing that doesn't help is session after session failed legislation gets re-hashed and everytime the ones on the bad list get sneakier and more underhanded. The holding of G&F funds is a clear example of that. The SE part of the state has little open hunting compared to other areas, especially if you want to compare it per capita. This is why you see many on the good list from Fargo, Jamestown, Grand Forks, VC, etc.

Flood mitigation plans may provide more public land but it may irritate a lot of landowners too. At least on this issue everyone can just blame the gov't.  Before any attempts to increase commercialized hunting are made there needs to be legislation in place to regulate g/o's, get more land into public hunting (PLOTS), and some sort of quotas to insure populaiton control. The quotas should be handled by scientists not politicians. The other thing that might be essential is a further definition on the landowner's rights to prevent troubles over wildlife. I have read about this a few times, one landowner is mad at the other over the game. The funniest was the one who chased the deer off of his neighbor's land at night and ran them onto his own land.

It was nice to see DU working with ND wheat growers and NDSU and others on the winter cereals project.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK The failed legislation getting rehashed over and over and the sneaky underhanded deal cuts both ways. I guess it is politics. There was something you said earlier that I got thinking about. Quote" The people on the list are bad for all North Dakotans who do not have access to thousands of acres of land to hunt." Now I'll admit I don't spend much time in the SE corner of the state so it may very well be different there and if it is one could spend a fair bit of time debating the cause of the difference. But in the vast majority of the rest of the state anyone that is willing has "access to thousands of acres of land" if they want to put in minimal effort. So what you end up with is most people in these areas of the state where this isn't really an issue wondering why some people from the area represented by your "good" list have the opinion it is. Many of these people, some being the landowners controlling the land hunters want access to, don't understand or want the push that is often seen through the legislative process to further regulate or restrict in an attempt to change this, and so you see a difference in legislative veiwpoints. And when a list like this with the differences in addresses that suggest a pattern of the SE urban segments veiws of these issues being "good" for ND and the rest of the rural areas being "bad" for ND, how does anyone think this isn't going to widen the divide that apparently already exits?
jhegg, the only ""evil" resident hunters for Fargo" that I "love to rail about" are the ones that want to push certain agendas onto the rest of us in this state so they can have a better "hunting opportunity" regardless of how they may affect anyone else. As to the rest of your post, I'm not really following how it applies to this thread.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Wow, 78% of ND farms receive gov't farming subsidies.

Youre welcome, now can I hunt? :lol:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> gst: The failed legislation getting rehashed over and over and the sneaky underhanded deal cuts both ways


A little very recent history. I tally 5 bills (2009) by the commercializers of wildlife to expand their client base. How many do you tally by sportsmen to restrict that client base? Since it cuts both ways. 
If anyone is short of hunters just type your phone number on these seven spaces and you will have all the hunters you or anyone else wants to see. _ _ _-_ _ _ _ It's not hard to do if you really want those hunters.

Active Bills/2009
Passed
HB 1017 - (Appropriations Committee at the request of the Governor) - Appropriates $59,463,938 for the Game and Fish Department for the biennium beginning July 1, 2009, and ending June 30, 2011; allows a professional gun dog trainer to apply for a permit designating no more than 40-acres where training a gun dog is allowed at any time. Passed house 81-9. Passed senate 46-0. Signed by governor.

HB 1045 - (Legislative Council) - Continues the prohibition of severance of hunting rights from the surface estate. Passed house 69-21. Passed senate 45-1. Signed by governor.

HB 1110 - (Agriculture Committee) - Prohibits an individual from engaging, sponsoring, assisting or profiting from the release, hunting or trapping of feral swine; and allows a property owner or tenant the ability to shoot a feral swine if posing a risk to them or their property. Passed house 72-19. Passed senate 46-0. Signed by governor.

HB 1125 - (Natural Resources Committee at the request of the Agriculture Commissioner) - Clarifies the current law permitting federal Wildlife Services to control furbearers and big game in cooperation with North Dakota's Agriculture Commissioner and the Game and Fish Director. Passed house 88-0. Passed senate 44-0. Signed by governor.

HB 1167 - (Rep's Delzer, Nottestad, Weiler; Sen's Freborg, Fischer) - Allows 13 year olds to participate in the youth deer hunting season if they turn 14 on or before the opening day of the November deer gun season. Passed house 92-0. Passed senate 43-0. Signed by governor.

HB 1188 - (Rep's Porter, Damschen, DeKrey, Hanson; Sen's Hogue, Lyson) - Increases the penalty for some individuals with multiple Game and Fish offenses. Passed house 91-2. Passed senate 39-7. Signed by governor.

HB 1217 - (Rep's Kerzman, Froelich, Hanson, Porter; Sen's Krauter, Lyson, Wanzek) - Makes it illegal to hunt unharvested oilseed crops (sunflower, soybeans, safflower, rapeseed or canola, crambe and flax) without permission of the owner or tenant. Passed house 88-0. Passed senate 46-0. Signed by governor.

HB 1239 - (Rep's Hofstad, S. Meyer, Porter; Sen's Heckaman, Oehlke) - Clarifies that only the owner or tenant, or an individual authorized by the owner, may post land. Passed house 84-4. Passed senate 46-0. Signed by governor.

HB 1240 - (Rep's Hofstad, Hanson, Porter; Sen's Hogue, Oehlke) - Changes agricultural exemption from licensure for guides and outfitters. Passed house 91-3. Passed senate 46-0. Signed by governor.

HB 1567 - (Rep's Kasper, Griffin, Hofstad, Ruby, Schneider) - Clarifies that a guide or outfitter license is not required for a person who acts as a booking agent for an outfitter. A booking agent is defined as a person who receives only a fee for referring or marketing the services of a legal outfitter in this state. Passed house 87-4. Passed senate 46-0. Signed by governor.

SB 2146 - (Transportation Committee at the request of the State Treasurer) - Changes the date of the state gas tax payment to the Game and Fish Department from July 1 to anytime in the month of July. Passed senate 41-0. Passed house 93-1. Signed by governor.

SB 2165 - (Sen's Krauter, Lyson; Rep's Damschen, DeKrey, Kerzman, Nottestad) - Allows individuals who are 16 years of age and older who have not taken the hunter education course to be issued an apprentice hunter validation to hunt small game and deer for one license year; allows youth ages 12 and 13 to receive a whitetail doe license valid for only the youth deer season; provides an online hunter education course for ages 16 and older. Passed senate 37-9. Passed house 78-14. Signed by governor.

SB 2309 - (Sen's Potter, Anderson, Heckaman; Rep's DeKrey, Kaldor, Wall) - Provides for a study of lands along the Sibley and Sully historic trails for purposes of historical education, heritage tourism and access for public hunting. Passed senate 42-4. Passed house 51-42. Signed by governor.

HCR 3007 - (Rep's Porter, Carlson, Damschen, Hanson; Sen's Stenehjem, Hogue) - A concurrent resolution urging Congress to amend federal law to implement the North Dakota Game and Fish Department's alternative that would use resident certified volunteer sharpshooters to take elk in Theodore Roosevelt National Park. House adopted. Senate adopted.

HCR 3021 - (Rep's Kempenich, Froelich; Sen's Erbele, Taylor) - A concurrent resolution urging the United States Fish and Wildlife Service not to list the black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. House adopted. Senate adopted.

Failed/Withdrawn
HB 1076 - (Representative DeKrey) - Would prohibit an individual from applying for a license to hunt big game, small game or furbearers who is barred by state or federal law from possessing a firearm. Failed house 6-86.

HB 1210 - (Rep's Hanson, Gruchalla, Mueller, Porter; Sen's Fischer, Freborg) - Would prohibit the use of state and federal funds to regulate any enclosed big game or farmed elk facilities. House Agriculture Committee amended to allow only the use of general fund money to regulate any enclosed nontraditional livestock facility. Failed house 11-78.

HB 1211 - (Rep's Hanson, Gruchalla, Mueller, Porter; Sen's Fischer, Freborg) - Would require the address or telephone number in addition to the name on all posting signs. Failed house 25-69.

HB 1216 - (Rep's Kerzman, DeKrey, Froelich; Senator Lyson) - Would change the nonresident small game license to three 5-day periods. Passed house 53-40. Passed senate 24-23. Reconsidered. Failed senate 20-27.

HB 1227 - (Rep's Headland, Damschen, Porter; Sen's Erbele, Hogue) - Would provide an online hunter education course for individuals ages 16 and older; changes the minimum age to participate in the youth deer hunting season from 14 to 12; establishes a provisional license that allows residents over age 18 who have not completed hunters safety to hunt for free during one season for which licenses are not issued by lottery. Passed house 74-20. SNRC amended to increase the minimum age to 18 for individuals eligible to take an online hunter education course, would keep the age requirement at 14 for youth to participate in the youth deer season, lowered the age requirement to receive a provisional license to age 16, and the provisional license would not be free. Passed senate 47-0 as amended. Failed house 1-92.

HB 1246 - (Rep's Amerman, J. Kelsh, Kempenich; Sen's Dotzenrod, Lyson) - Would change the structure of the nonresident small game license by making it valid for up to 14 days in periods of at least three consecutive days each. Failed house 28-65.

HB 1248 - (Rep's S. Meyer, DeKrey, Delmore, Hanson, Hofstad; Senator Hogue) - Would allow an individual fishing from shore to use up to four poles. Failed house 7-81.

HB 1260 - (Rep's S. Meyer, Damschen, DeKrey, Hanson) - Would make it illegal for a person to use a bow with an axle-to-axle length under 30 inches. Withdrawn from consideration.

HB 1379 - (Rep's Onstad, Hatlestad; Senator Warner) - Would appropriate $1.7 million out of the general fund in the state treasury to the Game and Fish Department for constucting a paved roadway and boat ramp near the marina at Arrowhead Point near New Town. Failed house 31-62.

HB 1470 - (Rep's Kilichowski, Koppelman, Kretschmar, Metcalf; Sen's Mathern, Nodland) - Would reduce the boating and hunting under the influence law from .10 to .08. Failed house 37-55.

HB 1499 - (Rep's Gruchalla, Griffin, Hanson, S. Kelsh, Schneider; Senator Fiebiger) - Would allow a professional gun dog trainer to obtain a permit designating a training area (not to exceed 40 acres) that would allow a professional to train a gun dog at any time within the designated area. Passed house 82-12. SNRC amended to extend the time period that prohibits training by eight days. Failed senate 1-46.

HB 1504 - (Rep's Heller, Kreidt; Senator Christmann) - Would allow a person with certain disabilities who is eligible for a gratis license to designate another hunter to shoot his or her deer. Failed house 8-83.

HB 1515 - (Rep's Onstad, Nathe, Porter, Weiler; Sen's Hogue, Warner) - Would appropriate $15 million from the state treasury to the Department of Transportation to pave access roadways to Lake Sakakawea. Passed house 48-45. Failed senate 11-35.

SB 2068 - (Senator Behm) - Would replace the social security number with a distinguishing number for a Game and Fish license applicant. SNRC amendments: would use either a social security number or alternate identification number; and provides an agency directive, appropriation and effective date. Failed senate 13-33.

SB 2189 - (Senator Hogue; Rep's DeKrey, Hofstad, Porter, Ruby) - Would require a resident to purchase a small game license at age 18 instead of 16, and eliminates license fees for residents under age 18. SNRC amended to increase the habitat restoration stamp fee from $10 to $13, and provide an effective date of April 1, 2010. Failed senate 9-37.

SB 2264 - (Sen's Klein, Erbele, Heckaman; Rep's Damschen, DeKrey, Weisz) - Would create a season-long nonresident small game license for $170, with $40 designated for the PLOTS program. Passed senate 26-19. Failed house 8-84.

SB 2351 - (Sen's Olafson, Triplett; Rep's Belter, Kaldor) - Would prohibit an individual from feeding big game and hunting big game over bait. Failed senate 19-27.

SB 2424 - (Sen's Fischer, Heckaman) - Would require the Game and Fish Department and State Water Commission to jointly provide funding for any water project feature built or required to control aquatic nuisance species. Failed senate 15-31.

SCR 4012 - (Sen's Anderson, Bowman; Rep's J. Kelsh, Wall) - A concurrent resolution urging Congress to require the U.S. Department of the Interior to make use of volunteers to take elk in Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Failed senate.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick the list and discription of it was the best or worst legislators for ND sportsmen. Not everyone only considers the bills that affect NRs and guides as the measureing stick for legislators. I'm not going to get into a discussion on the merits of the individual bills, probably spent to much time doing that this winter. The only point I'm trying to make here is this apparent difference in thinking between the folks with these different addresses (rural/SE urban) and ones claim that their opinions are whats "best" for all ND sportsmen is perhaps not as inclusive and accurate as they may think, and why that might be. And maybe give alittle insight to what some of these people from these "rural" addresses maybe thinking in regards to these lists. I still haven't seen anyone answer the question as to a theory why these lists split so noticably between the SE urban and rural representatives?

bbj Are you suggesting because of govt subsidies in ag, people have the "right" to hunt private property? I'm no fan of govt involvement in ag. However, the American consumer has the safest, most abundent, and cheapest food supply of any nation some say inpart because of the gov't involvement. Maybe so. If that is the case, your welcome. So if a city places a 1% increase on their sales tax to fund a dome or all seasons arena, and my dollars go towards that when ever I purchase goods in that city, should I get to go to events there for free?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick said,

Quote: 
If anyone is short of hunters just type your phone number on these seven spaces and you will have all the hunters you or anyone else wants to see. _ _ _-_ _ _ _ It's not hard to do if you really want those hunters.

Dick,
What a good idea. But it needs to be the other way around. Found this in the NRA American Hunter magazine.

OHIO TRIES A NEW APPROACH TO BOLSTER HUNTER ACCESS
The Ohio Department of Natural Resouces (ODNR) teamed up with the Ohio Farm Bureau to try a pilot program designed to help manage local deer herds and expand hunter access. The two agencies are exploring the possibility of developing a Web-based deer hunter-access program. THROUGH THE PROGRAM, LANDOWNERS COULD REVIEW A SEARCHABLE DATA BASE OF DEER HUNTERS AND SELECT HUNTERS THEY WANT ON THEIR LAND. A survey, which would be available at www.wildohio.com, would help determine deer hunters' interest in participating. To be involved in the program, hunters would have to complete an online profile that could include the number of years hunting experience, willingness to harvest does and their preferred type of hunting (archery, shotgun, muzzleloader).

Dick, In your online profile be sure to include how you are a proud member of the north dakota wildlife federation. That ought to make your phone ring off the wall.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

DG,

I am not saying that you or I or anyone for that matter need to like the report card, I am saying that it is made up by people that believe that is the way it is and any other organization is free to print their own report card. Certainly any report card will have its own bias based on who does it, correct???


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Here in ND, when it comes to a form of media representation of hunting , it is pretty much limited to this website and Fishing Buddy, and print media is North Dakota Outdoors and Dakota Country. So when something is written as being representative of ND sportsmen, in any of these forums or magazines, many people get the impression perhaps more sportsmen feel that way than actually do. Thats why one persons, or group of peoples "opinion" ends up having an affect on many. Sometimes negatively. As one of these people from outside this area that the "best" list came from, I, like many others, look at more than just one issue(NRs) when judging what is "best" from a legislative standpoint for ND.

djleye is right on when he says most groups of people have their own slant or agenda when publishing or presenting "opinions" on issues, it's human nature. Wether it is MSNBC news or Fox news, there is a clear slant to their presentations. On Nodak Outdoors, there is often times an apparent slant such as this list suggests, myself and some others are simply pointing out many other ND sportsmen don't agree, and that these "opinions" are not necessarily representative of all.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

djleye,

http://ndctws.org/newsletters/2007-2-mar.pdf

Legislative (Randy Renner)-Mike
McEnroe was hired as lobbyist. The
Board also approved Bill Pfeiffer to
volunteer on HB 1039. Mike is tracking
69 bills, including 40 on wildlife issues,
14 energy bills, and 15 on other
issues. Mike reviewed several current
pieces of legislation, including bills on
baiting, revising deer tag prices, gratis
tag allocation, offroad hunting, sovereign
land management, high fence
shooting, drilling in Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, reviewing the Flood
Control Act, and biomass energy production.
In all cases, the test of our
Chapter's involvement in legislation is
its impact on wildlife resources or the
Game and Fish Department's ability to
manage wildlife. Our preference is to
see authority with Game and Fish
rather than the legislature. We have
testified on 9 out of 69 bills. The Committee
meets at lunchtime on Fridays
during the legislative session, and it
gives direction to Mike on legislative
issues. There is also a conservation
lobbyist meeting at Game & Fish every
Tuesday. There is a need to examine
things we can do to better wildlife in
the state rather than always being on
the defensive. We held a legislative
social last Tuesday night (attended by
70-80 legislators) and are considering
a lobbyist workshop in fall 2008.

djleye, Everything we are debating is right there. The ndctws and ndwf are federal. The federal government has an 11 trillion dollar deficit. Our state has a 1 billion dollar surplus. Let's give our legislators an A. The ones who don't listen to Mike McEnroe should get an A+.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

gst said:


> bbj Are you suggesting because of govt subsidies in ag, people have the "right" to hunt private property? I'm no fan of govt involvement in ag. However, the American consumer has the safest, most abundent, and cheapest food supply of any nation some say inpart because of the gov't involvement. Maybe so. If that is the case, your welcome.


Just a joke.

I get sick and tired of holier than thou landowners who are fortunate enough to have inherited the farm holding it above the "everday joe". Just as I get sick and tired of the "sense of entitlement" non-landowners.

The non-landowners are getting something from the farmers, and the farmers are getting something from the rest of us. I think alot of people on both sides lose sight of that fact.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

bbj,

You are absolutely right. There should be a marriage between the two. But we have some ugly red headed step children in the room. Who benefits from all this division? When the money dries up from D.C. it will stop. Have you read battle brewing?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

bbj, I appologize if I jumped the gun on what you were thinking. I'm sure there probably are those landowners like you describe, but most farmers and ranchers, at least the ones I know, don't hold it over the "everyday joe" that just wants to come out and take their kids hunting or take time to actually get to know them. But when some "sportsmen" groups take certain positions in the name of all ND sportsmen, thats when the responses typically change how the farmer/rancher deals with everyone. So these positions some 
"sportsmen" take and agendas they push often times do end up affecting the "everyday joe" That's kinda the point I've tried to make on these sites wether it is about baiting , HF, NRs, haying CRP ect.. that the actions of a few end up affecting everyone, so maybe more "everyday joe" sportsmen need to say thanks but no thanks when these select few try to assume their "opinions" are what's best for all ND sportsmen.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

GST, When should the everyday landowners that are opposed to HF, Baiting, and so on say thanks but no thanks to their counterparts that support these things in the name of landowner rights. These topics are not as black and white as you lead to believe. There are plenty of sportsman that support baiting and HF and several landowners that do not support them as well. It sounds like those that don't think your way are wrong by default.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

gst-

I think we are back to where we were earlier, geographical differences. I have nothing to do with this report card by the way. I just read it and the names on it and it was fairly easy to draw conclusions. More so on the worst list.



> I still haven't seen anyone answer the question as to a theory why these lists split so noticably between the SE urban and rural representatives?


I tried to above. Land in the SE quarter of the state is way more posted than out your way, it has seemed like it happened over night too. By your way I mean the NE quarter. There are possibly more hunters in the SE, for sure more resident hunters. Add to that the fact that more land in the SE in crop production and some of it doesn't get off that early you have more resident hunters looking for a place to hunt and it ends up getting pretty crowded sometimes.

I agree that it takes only a minimal effort to get access sometimes but it isn't always that way. When beet and corn harvests are in full swing good luck trying to find a landowner. Plus I don't like bothering anyone when they are working. If one prepares early it is easier but as you know waterfowl are not exactly stagnant. 

This is the part where we have to work together, like bbj said. Hunters need to respect the landowners but landowners need to understand that there are issues that need to be addressed from the urban guys too. I still see it as more of a resident/nonresident issue or a geographical issue than an urban/rural issue. As I said earlier, when I hunt in MN or SD I have a shorter season and the residents have priority. I see no reason why ND should be any different. Another thing that bothered me is that the non-resident fees where going to be raised. The NR's that I hunt with were not going to come to ND if that had passed. We have lost guys from our group that goes deer hunting in MN because the price has gone from $60 in the mid 1990's to $160 now. I don't see where this type of legislation helps anyone except those with their own wallets in mind. There were some not on the good list from rural ND that I can think of but for whatever reason they are not on there. Judy Lee isn't on the good list either :lol:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK your kinda making my point for me.By the distinction of the addresses on this list, wether it is an urban/rural or like you said, it is a geographical region of the state that because of their particular situation is making an assumption for the rest of the state in which there is a much different circumstances. Most of the state of ND"s privately owned land remains open to public hunting. Although that is becoming less and less each year. And not because of G&O and people commercializing wildlife, but because of people becoming tired of groups of people/sportsmen from one area because of the issues they have there, wanting to push regulations onto people in other areas that this is not an issue in. So how does this benefit anyone? The people that are worried about NRs coming in and taking "their" hunting spots, can't go in them anyway because they ended up posted because the landowner got tired of being told their views are bad for ND sportsmen.

Swift, If these landowners feel strongly about how this may be negatively affecting what they do, I'm sure they speak out. They have had several chances on both issues. But the difference here is some that participate in these different activities or methods of hunting are doing so by choice and are not trying to force anyone else to follow the choices they make because of some belief of a higher "ethical" standard. 
In regards to these lists, people like Dick and the ones supporting the "best" list look at the issues these lists were based off, NRs, as negatives that are commercializing our states wildlife soley for money and greed. While many others that are represented by those on the "worst" list feel very different about the issue because of some of the points I brought up. So who's right and who's wrong??? Who represents ALL ND sportsmen in their veiws??? Probably neither. Yet who do you hear more often then not claiming to represent ND sportsmen?? The point I'm trying to make, is that when one group or segment starts to speak for everyone else without including everyones veiwpoints in in their conclusions of what is best for those people, some of these people are more than likely not going to appreciate it very much. And when this group happens to be those rural communities and individuals that were so apparent in this "worst" list, the consequences might not ultimately be the best for the less vocal sportsmen from the more urban areas represented on the "best" list and hunting in general. And so maybe because of this, the gap that even the G&F realizes exists widens a little more. So you tell me, is it really worth publishing these types of lists, or taking these types of positions even if it is only an opinion on this website or a couple of publications??


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Who is the one group or segment that is speaking for everyone? BCWF speaks for their members and only them. Since they have common thinking as many sportsman in the state BCWF has many bandwagon jumpers. This may seem as though BCWF has taken on the role of representative of all ND sportsman but that is not the case, anymore than its the case that you and DG speak for all landowners.

I think this report card is based on what is best for the masses of the state. In reading your posts over the past year or so you seem to have the common theme of the landowners being the aristocrats and the non-landowner sportsman being the paupers of the state. That mentality was left in Europe in the 1500's.

I lived in Kerzman and Froelichs districts for a couple years. They represent themselves and only themselves. That comes from a former constituent. That earns them an F on the report card.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift. I fully understand everyone is entitled to and has their own opinion. And since I have gotten on this site earlier this winter, there have been a number of individuals in their opinion, claiming baiting, HF, NRs, G&Os, haying CRP,ect... are "bad" for ND sportsmen. Do I think that these people "speak" for all sportsmen, or that myself and anyone else "speak" for all landowners? Of course not. But many of these same people have gone beyond opinion, and are attempting to push their beliefs on these and other issues onto all other sportsmen in some instances in the name of whats "best" for ND sportsmen, and it is simply my opinion, nothing more nothing less, based of what I hear in many rural forums, that this is as detrimental to some people's hunting opportunities as these people claim these issues are themselves.

If you can show me an example of your assumption of a "common theme" that landowners (farmers/ranchers) are somehow part of an elite aristocratic society in my posts, please do, and if it truly does represent this thinking, I will appologize for the statement. If we are having a history lesson, the mentality of the 1500s in Europe was that a handful of people (aristocrats)believed they knew what was "best" or "worst" for all, and they pushed their rules and beliefs and ethical standards onto everyone else!!! Sounds kinda familiar!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I agree with swift. Gst if that's your point it is a pretty narrow one.

We all remember hb 1216. That was going to pass. Once word got out there and people started reacting the tide quickly turned. That wasn't just a small group of people.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Swift quote,

(Qoute) In reading your posts over the past year or so you seem to have the common theme of the landowners being the aristocrats and the non-landowner sportsman being the paupers of the state. That mentality was left in Europe in the 1500's.

That sentence really doesn't belong here. Unless the purpose is to cause division.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK in regards to 1216, it was a group of people that because of a well org. effort on this site and other forums got this bill voted down. I would be willing to bet that many other less organized sportsmen that reside in the areas outside the SE section of this state didn't have a problem with what amounted to 1 day being added to a NRs allowance.

Maybe I'm slow here, but share what you believe is this narrow point. If you go back thru what I have posted on this site you will see that quite a few different times I've mentioned that fact that pushing these agendas and veiws that you say are a result of the situation of land access being a problem in the SE onto everyone else probably isn't going to help the access situation anywhere. 
That's simply an observation I'm making hearing different comments from around the state and watching more and more land being closed to public hunting each year. You even alluded to the fact that is seems to have happened more in the last few years or "over night" in the SE. Has anyone ever stopped to ask why. I'd guess not all this land is being leased or used to commercialize wildlife. So why is more of it being closed to the public? 
So back to a question I asked earlier, how do these lists improve the access or opportunities situation for all sportsmen.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

DG, GST and I have had many respectful debates through this board. And division is not my intent. I apologize if it came off as that.

The problem as I see it is there are two sides to each of these topics. Because a group of people legally intiate a measure for vote does not mean they are pushing their beliefs on everyone in the state. They are invoking the rights as citizens of a democratic republic. On the contrary the landowners that post property out of spite because someone doesn't think the same way they do are using their assets to punish other citizens. This is where the aristocratic idea came to me. The landowners absolutely have the right to post their property, no arguement here. But when the action is done with malice to silence those in disagreement with their views it becomes a weapon. It flies in the face of respect for those with opposing views. Arguements should be won and lost based on the merits of each side and not by holding the opposition hostage.

This is your quote that supports my statement above...


> If you go back thru what I have posted on this site you will see that quite a few different times I've mentioned that fact that pushing these agendas and veiws that you say are a result of the situation of land access being a problem in the SE onto everyone else probably isn't going to help the access situation anywhere.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

swift said:


> DG, GST and I have had many respectful debates through this board. And division is not my intent. I apologize if it came off as that.
> 
> The problem as I see it is there are two sides to each of these topics. Because a group of people legally intiate a measure for vote does not mean they are pushing their beliefs on everyone in the state. They are invoking the rights as citizens of a democratic republic. On the contrary the landowners that post property out of spite because someone doesn't think the same way they do are using their assets to punish other citizens. This is where the aristocratic idea came to me. The landowners absolutely have the right to post their property, no arguement here. But when the action is done with malice to silence those in disagreement with their views it becomes a weapon. It flies in the face of respect for those with opposing views. Arguements should be won and lost based on the merits of each side and not by holding the opposition hostage.
> 
> ...


If you want more proof to back up the above statement, search for Gator Getter and his 2 wonderful posts. He came on to share with us that he was posting his land because a bill got defeated I beleive.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I think you are correct on a lot of your posts gst but I disagree with your idea that a few people in wildlife groups and this site are responsible for anything other than informing hunters. When this legislation was in the works I was working the bismarck, minot, and beulah areas and once non-ag people got wind of some of the legislation and who was behind it they were not happy and they acted. It is more than urban and rural.

As far as the posting in SE ND goes a lot of it is insurance and wanting to know who is out there and some of it is pay hunt and spite, not that much though. The end result last year was less hunters and less money coming in. And I know a few people have had run ins with bad hunters.

Gst your stance is no doubt going to be in the minority here but as swift, bbj, and I have pointed out it is a two way street and understanding from producers is important.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift, you are absolutely right in your statement "there are two sides to each of these topics" that's exactly what I was trying to get acoss when questioning these lists. I also agree with your statement "Arguements should be won and lost on the merits of each side and not by holding the opposition hostage." As I have said before there are jacka$$ landowners as well as jacka$$ sportsmen. So I'm sure their are some that post land out of malice as you suggest. just as there are those that because of personal ethical beliefs do attempt to push agendas onto others. Have you ever met Mr. Kaseman? But most farmers and ranchers that I know are not posting land out of "malice" but rather frustration. The baiting issue continues to be brought up again and again even though it has lost 3 times on merit. The changes in CRP haying restrictions that are brought about by wildlife group lawsuits and lobbying are just 2 examples of sportsmen groups or individuals pushing an agenda that leaves many frustrated. A rancher faced with liquidating his herd and financial hardships because of drought and the inability to hay his own CRP, does not appreciate these changing restrictions because someone is concerned about the hatch of the birds they want to hunt that fall. So after trying to compromise and work together and still being denied, frustration sets in and many look at useing closure of lands not as a weapon, but as a tool to bring awareness to the issue. When hunters come out in the fall and find previously open acres closed, many ask why and often hear a different perspective from the rancher than they might have from DU or Delta or PF. The other side of the topic.

In regards to the comments of commercializing wildlife. When DU or Delta or PF have the head guys from federal or remington come in on a guided, televised hunt and use these companies monies to further their programs no one on here has a problem with it because it accomplishes something they want, more birds to hunt or acres "conserved". When a rancher takes a piece of ground that has been in his family for generations and decides to start a G&O operation to increase the profitability of his ranch so the next generation may have the opportunity to continue ranching, something he wants, he is immediately villified by some on this site as being a greedy commercializer of wildlife.

Without taking into consideration that many times these opposing veiws are based out of necessity on behalf of the farmer or rancher and only being concerned how something affects ones recreational activity regardless of consequences to the person owning the land they want to hunt on is in many rural folks opinion something that "flies in the face of repect for those with opposing veiws"

The statement of mine you have quoted is a reflection on simple human nature. If you keep ticking someone of enough they soon want nothing to do with you. In some cases closing of access is a landowners method of doing this. No arsitocratic beliefs, just simple human nature. My intent on this site has been to simply offer up how many out here in these rural addresses look at some of these issues and the consequences because of how some go about pursueing them. The other side of the topic.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

All this report card mischief is suspect. The authors, who claim to represent sportsmen, wish to remain anonymous. Or are not identifying themselves. This A and F list lacks credability and transparency. What is the name of the panel, board or commitee. Were they elected or appointed.

On main street and or the capitol, when people serve on panels, boards, commitees as commisionars or on legislative councils, their name is out there before the public. Transparency begs honesty.

So why all the secrecy surrounding the authors? Maybe the truth is an inconvenient one.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

DG

Pretty easy for someone like you to come on here anonymous and throw stones. Some of us actually do something about what we hold dear to us like the great outdoors of ND. What do you want ND to become like states like Texas? Maybe you do. I do not. I for one want to keep hunting and fishing great here for our kids and maybe even our grand kids. That is what the etree and score card is fighting to save. It takes hundreds of volunteer hours and money to do all this work. A lot of sacrifices are made to do it. It is usually people that are making money on ND wildlife that tend to sound like you. What have you done? other than get on a web site and throw stones at people that are trying to make a difference. The people that do all this work, live here and love the ND outdoors and want to try to keep it great for all to enjoy. Chris will post the scorecard when changes get done on the site. Take it or leave it. If you agree with most of the opinions from etrees it will show who is for you or against you. 
Kevin Hayer


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

gst,



> So if a city places a 1% increase on their sales tax to fund a dome or all seasons arena, and my dollars go towards that when ever I purchase goods in that city, should I get to go to events there for free?


Good idea, I would like to go to events here for free also! Unfortunately, I have to pay property tax and still do not get to go to those events for "free".

Jim


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

I thought I would explain what it takes to put the score card togeither. A college grading program is used. All votes that an etree went out on a placed in the program. Roll call votes are looked up and entered into the program. This is a big job. In the house 2,538 votes and 1,269 in Senate.
Here is the break down on Grades. House- A=27,B=21,C=25,D=16,and f=5. Senate-A=7,B=8,C=9,D=6,F=17. In the past some Legislators have questioned their grade and we give them their voting record.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Well that explaination shoots my theory to hell. I thought it was compiled by fedral agents.....in ninja suits. They are everywhere! 

Have a good weekend guys!!!


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick,

You are so hilarious. No they don't wear black suits but what was that khaki outfit Lloyd Jones was wearing at the Jamestown public forum Mar. 6th -08? USFWS issue? It did seem like the federal boys were everywhere that night, pretending they were sportsmen, and mixing it up with the deer and elk growers. If a report card had been kept, how did they fare? For unethically violating federal laws (the Hatch Act) the USFWS gave Lloyd Jones an F.


----------

