# HB 1131 Good Bye Deer Hunting



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Voting in elections has consequences.

HB 1131 http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-201 ... 0208190538

The bill is disguised as a youth bill. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: Click the link and read below the first page. Some sponser has a buddy, relative, or politcal favor due. *It is no wonder that North Dakota gets a Grade F for politcal corruption*.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Our legislature has no respect for it's resident sportsmen.


----------



## H2OfowlND (Feb 10, 2003)

The influence of money, outfitters, and doing favors for their out of state buddies. We need some new blood in the legislature and ones that actually care about the future of ND.

H2O


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I wonder if 5% of the hunters know what's happening to them? Many don't want to hear about politics all the while the resource is being take from them. For example while we have once in a lifetime elk opportunity I know people out west who have shot six big bulls right here in North Dakota. Some families have taken a dozen. I'm not even sure they have to hunt their own land, but it's time to look into all of those things. Why do they get depredation permits then always shoot bulls.

Someone tell me if this is true. I have heard that wealthy people will lease a section in the badlands then sublease it back to the owner, or purchase it outright and lease to the owner, but it makes them eligible for a gratis mule-deer and elk. This bill is just creating more loopholes for money at the expense of all sportsmen. We have an aristocracy mentality in our legislature.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick Monson wrote,


```
Click the link and read below the first page. Some sponser has a buddy, relative, or politcal favor due. It is no wonder that North Dakota gets a Grade F for politcal corruption
```
Dick, I trust you have this report card handy with that F rating. Could you post it please?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Google is your friend, took all of 30 seconds.



> The report found that, on the whole, state governments are doing a poor job of fighting corruption. (See the full rankings below.) Besides New Jersey, only four other states scored a B- or higher. Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and Virginia received F's. No state got an A.
> 
> Read more: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/ ... aspx#page1#ixzz2KR548DNb


Here: http://www.businessinsider.com/ranking- ... ion-2012-3

Huntin1


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Yep, it has been pulished multiple times by the AP in ND newpapers.

Other than the youth eligability in HB1131, there are 2 major changes in gratis regulations.

The first is that 160 acre requirement is canned; now it is any quarter, regardless of size.

The second is that while resident gratis applicants must be actively engaged in farming-ranching, non-residents do not have that requirement. More than one way to get a buck tag. :eyeroll:



> Upon payment of the fee requirement for a nonresident big game license, and
> filing a signed application describing that land, a person who is a nonresident is
> eligible to hunt deer.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

huntin1 said:


> Google is your friend, took all of 30 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Huntin1 see if you agree with me on this. I think ol shaug knew the answer before he asked Dick. This was a two prong strategy, and didn't involve learning anything at all. The first prong was to throw question on Dick's statement. The second is to get people to not read any of this with credibility. The reason is shaug isn't interested in wildlife, habitat, environment, or anything related to them. He is interested in agriculture and agriculture is going to always be his priority. See he wants people to think Dick doesn't know what he is talking about. Much like Pelosi saying they have to pass health care to see what's in it. Shaug wants this passed before we know what's in it. More for agriculture and less for hunters. Where does the North Dakota Farm Bureau stand on this. That would be helpful to know because if your an outdoorsman you can rest assured what is good for you is opposite of what Farm Bureau wants.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

You are likely correct Plainsman, he very possibly did know the answer to his own question.

So shaug, a pointed question for you. Where does the ND Farm Bureau stand on this piece of legislation?

Huntin1


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

I don't understand that F rating. Our state does a hellava job. Just last summer the Secretary of State did its job when it nabbed those NDSU football players trying to pass off ill gotten petition signatures on that oil revenue rip off amendment.

By the way. Dick Monson went to the Capitol to oppose HB 1278. But when he heard that it was going to be amended from $30 million to $100 million he instead changed his mind and did a 180. He then was for it.

Not sure how many of you are aware, but that amendment for $100 million didn't survive in committee. Deader than a mackerol.

As far as 1131 is concerned, I don't believe FB has an opinion. It's a pretty small issue.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick Monson said,



> Yep, it has been pulished multiple times by the AP in ND newpapers.
> 
> Other than the youth eligability in HB1131, there are 2 major changes in gratis regulations.
> 
> The first is that 160 acre requirement is canned; now it is any quarter, regardless of size.


I must be missing something here. A quarter of land equals 160 acres. What changed?



> The second is that while resident gratis applicants must be actively engaged in farming-ranching, non-residents do not have that requirement. More than one way to get a buck tag.





> Upon payment of the fee requirement for a nonresident big game license, and
> filing a signed application describing that land, a person who is a nonresident is
> eligible to hunt deer.


[/quote]

Dick part two, if I am understanding your gripe it's that a non-resident landowner who doesn't farm but instead rents it out can now apply for a tag by filling out and describing their land and after paying the fee requirement for a non-resident is eligible to hunt big game.

What is overstruck or to be deleted is this langauge:



> If the license is issued to a corporation, limited liability company,
> limited liability partnership, limited partnership, or partnershipan


The possiblity that individuals belonging to these orgs live out of state is very real. Already non-residents.


----------



## wurgs (Mar 3, 2008)

Not all sections are 640 hence not all quarters 160 acres.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

wurgs said:


> Not all sections are 640 hence not all quarters 160 acres.


Then this new language could be to Dick's benefit. The old language said, 160 acres. That doesn't mean continuios or connected. This language says quarter meaning one solid block.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The part of this bill that stinks is the non-res part of it.Those tags will count as part of the 1% available to non-res in each unit.There are already units in the badlands where all non-res tags go to non-res landowners.It will eventually get to the point where a non-res can't hunt deer in ND unless they are a landowner.Is that what we really want? :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Every time a bill comes up related to things like this the sportsmen loose. What they will want next is landowner tags like they have in Montana. The problem is they would want them all. For those who complain about a small raise in license fees wait until you have to buy one from a landowner. Then look at $500. Sportsmen better wake up and smell the roses. We all like to fish and hunt, but it's about time to give up a day of ice fishing or whatever it takes and contact your legislators. Your either part of the solution or part of the problem.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Let's put them side by side and compare.

The old language:

3. An individual who is a resident, corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership, or partnership that has executed a lease for at least one hundred sixty acres [64.75 hectares] of land, and that actively farms or ranches that land or an individual, corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership, or partnership that holds title to at least one hundred sixty acres [64.75 hectares] of land, is eligible to apply for a license to hunt deer without charge, or if that entity is a nonresident upon payment of the fee requirement for a nonresident big game license, upon filing a signed application describing that land. If the license is issued to a corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership, or partnershipan organization, only one license may be issued and the license must be issued in the name of an individual shareholder, member, or partner. The land must be within a unit open for the hunting of deer. The license must include a legal description of the eligible land described in the completed application and may be used to hunt deer only upon that land.

The new language:

3. A person who is a resident, and who has executed a lease for at least an entire quarter section of land, regardless of size, and that actively farms or ranches that land or that a person who is a resident and holds title to at least an entire quarter section of land, regardless of size, is eligible to apply for a license to hunt deer without charge. Upon payment of the fee requirement for a nonresident big game license, and filing a signed application describing that land, a person who is a nonresident is eligible to hunt deer. If the license is issued no more than one license may be issued and the license must be issued in the name of
an individual who is a beneficiary of a trust or estate, a shareholder of a corporation or company, orthe holder of a life estate, a partner of a partnership, or a member of an association, enterprise, venture, or other entity. The land must be within a unit open for the hunting of deer.

To me it looks as if someone thought this language needed to be cleaned up a little.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

In the past there have been multiple attempts to lower the eligability bar for gratis requirements. They have failed. This bill is another attempt to bleed off more licenses from the general drawing.

HB1131 needs to die


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick, in the begining of this thread you said this Bill is disguised as a youth Bill.

Are you insinuating that the primary sponsor of this Bill, a certain Rep. Hofstad is attempting something disengenuious?

I fail to see the youth thingy problem or the quarter verses 160 acres problem. Where's the "beef"?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I too have to agree with Shaug on this one...

Where is the beef or the problem with this bill??

I can see a NR who are not land owners being upset about this bill because like Ken stated:


> The part of this bill that stinks is the non-res part of it.*Those tags will count as part of the 1% available to non-res in each unit.There are already units in the badlands where all non-res tags go to non-res landowners.*It will eventually get to the point where a non-res can't hunt deer in ND unless they are a landowner.Is that what we really want? :eyeroll:


But again....how does this hurt a R hunter? It is now you need to own a quarter of land....not 160. And like brought up by someone saying not all sections are 640 acres. So a R landowner could own 155 and still be considered a quarter of land if the section is only 620 acres.....am I not correct on this or am I misunderstanding?

Are some people just that hard up against NR that when anything that states NR in the bill and saying it needs to be killed???


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Chuck, not at all.

This bill is bad legislation. It covers 3 issues in 1 bill.

Clarifies youth requirements.

Addresses gratis for ND owned LLPs, Corps., etc.

Changes the acreage requirement for gratis.

You don't and shouldn't include 3 different issues in one bill.

A handfull of ND landowners have wanted a lower acreage requirement for gratis for years. So ND is going to change the law for a tiny minority while the vast bulk of ND deer hunters are once again chopped liver while they wait and wait to be drawn. A quarter? Really. Now what is a quarter? 80 acres? 40 acres? How about we give a gratis license to everyone that has a front yard?

That just sucks. And I am a farmer.

Just once I'd like to see someone with a spine in the legislature stand up and say "96% of the citizens here are not farmers, and we should support their needs". Wouldn't that be refreshing?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick wrote,



> Now what is a quarter? 80 acres? 40 acres?


As Bill Clinton used to say:

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick wrote,



> Now what is a quarter? 80 acres? 40 acres? How about we give a gratis license to everyone that has a front yard?


Seriously Dick???????? You can't be serious.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

shaug said:


> Dick wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He is very serious....can you positively say it won't end up there! Can you see the way it is going...is going this way!


> The second is that while resident gratis applicants must be actively engaged in farming-ranching, non-residents do not have that requirement.


I can see why you would like this. More opportunity for NR and less opportunity for RESIDENTS!

Horrible idea unless you live in another state! Which makes sense for these guys supporting it!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

With any wildlife bill you have to ask yourself, "Where is the public benefit?" If there is no benefit to the public-at-large then it is a NO brainer. This is such a bill.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The second is that while resident gratis applicants must be actively engaged in farming-ranching, non-residents do not have that requirement.
> 
> I can see why you would like this. More opportunity for NR and less opportunity for RESIDENTS!
> 
> Horrible idea unless you live in another state! Which makes sense for these guys supporting it!


Mav.... You are missing this point. It only hurts NR hunters who don't own land. Because the % of NR tags for certain area's will or could be taken by all gratis tags.

Dick Mentioned.....it is against the PUBLIC which is NR and R hunters. It helps land owners bot R and NR.....with LLP's, Corps, etc getting or being able to get tags. this is not a bill that helps all NR hunters. So it depends how you feel about gratis tags in general. Should they be easier for land owners to get them??


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick Monson said:


> With any wildlife bill you have to ask yourself, "Where is the public benefit?" If there is no benefit to the public-at-large then it is a NO brainer. This is such a bill.


So far what we have is someone thought some old language needed to be cleaned up a bid. It's a zero sum game.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the part that bothers me is this. If I buy a section of land I can't have a gratis licence if I am not actively farming it. A non resident can buy a quarter of land and get a gratis if the land is farmed or not. Why more requirements for a resident than a nonresident? To me it looks resident unfriendly. What happens if the percentage of non resident license is met with gratis tags? Did I miss where that is spelled out?


----------



## gator_getter (Sep 7, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> I think the part that bothers me is this. If I buy a section of land I can't have a gratis licence if I am not actively farming it. A non resident can buy a quarter of land and get a gratis if the land is farmed or not. Why more requirements for a resident than a nonresident? To me it looks resident unfriendly. What happens if the percentage of non resident license is met with gratis tags? Did I miss where that is spelled out?


The new language:

3. A person who is a resident, and who has executed a lease for at least an entire quarter section of land, regardless of size, and that actively farms or ranches that land *OR* that a person who is a resident and holds title to at least an entire quarter section of land, regardless of size, is eligible to apply for a license to hunt deer without charge

Guess we need a lawyer to interpret but as I read it a resident has to farm at least a quarter OR hold a title to at least a quarter, to be eligible for a gratis.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gator_getter does it look to you like it is less restrictive to non residents? If that is so non residents who own land could take so many gratis license that non residents that don't own land could not get a license.

I don't know, but I'm one of those "if it ain't broke don't fix it" sort of guys. Politicians on the other hand always have to screw with things.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Life is hard. It is twice as hard if you 're stupid.

-John Wayne


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> > The second is that while resident gratis applicants must be actively engaged in farming-ranching, non-residents do not have that requirement.
> >
> > I can see why you would like this. More opportunity for NR and less opportunity for RESIDENTS!
> >
> ...


Chuck...If you think it only hurts the NR...YOU ARE TRUELY missing the point... I can't buy land (resident who lives in this state)and do with it as I please and get a gratis tag....You can (Non-Resident to our state)!!!! Which will provide less access (NR buying land for this purpose) and more competition for land driving up prices just for hunting purposes! That's how I see it!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your right Maverick. Also, only the non residents who are wealthy can buy a quarter of land and get a gratis. If it comes from the allotted license then the common Joe non resident doesn't have a chance. It's like our legislature is saying if you don't have money to spend here stay home. Then too, the Game and Fish is getting no license fees. A gratis to a resident is a lot different than a gratis to a non resident. Anytime the playing field is not level the politicians are catering to a special interest.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Mav and Plainsman....are you missing what Gator wrote....


> The new language:
> 
> 3. A person who is a resident, and who has executed a lease for at least an entire quarter section of land, regardless of size, and that actively farms or ranches that land OR that a person who is a resident and holds title to at least an entire quarter section of land, regardless of size, is eligible to apply for a license to hunt deer without charge
> 
> ...


Read the above and don't look at it with the R vs NR or us against them.......

This is my take on it: 
A resident who farms or has a lease on a 1/4 section and farms that land can apply for a gratis.....OR a resident that holds title to at least a 1/4 section can apply with out a charge. So anyone who owns a 1/4 or leases a 1/4 (but has to farm that lease) can apply. Not restrictive at all. Opens the door if you ask me for people to double dip....ie title holder and the leasee (Farmer).

Example....John owns (holds title) 160 acres but leases it to Fred who farms it. Well to me it seems that both can apply for a gratis. Unless I am missing something here.

Then what I find bad is what Plainsman is eluding too.... IF there is only 10 tags for a certain area allotted to NR hunters. 10 land owners can snatch them up or a portion of them with out letting the common JOE a shot at it. Unfriendly to the Common NR Hunter.

The only way this is a friendly NR bill is to land owners. Which this is also very friendly to R land owners and R Farmers who lease farm land.

Now you have to look at this bill as a Friendly land owners bill. Then take if how you will. Do I think land owners should get some benefits.....yep. I mean farmers feed the animals all year long. Some even create habitat....others destroy it.

I know in many states if you get a gratis tag you have to allow access. Does that need to be added in to this bill.....I don't know.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Example....John owns (holds title) 160 acres but leases it to Fred who farms it. Well to me it seems that both can apply for a gratis. Unless I am missing something here.


One or the other, but not both.

I wish that holds title to was a little more clear. Does that mean I can buy a quarter of land and put it all into habitat and still get a gratis license for it. I know a couple of teachers who had land like that, but in the past were told they could not have a gratis because they were not actively farming it. Maybe someone can clarify that for me. Has that changed?


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> Mav and Plainsman....are you missing what Gator wrote....
> 
> 
> > The new language:
> ...


How can you say it's not restrictive when as resident...IT HAS TO BE FARMED TO GET A GRATIS, but if that same piece of land is owned by a NR it doesn't to get a gratis? This seems like a benefit (even over the resident land owners) for owning land in ND as NR!That is a restriction not apportioned to NR. You seem to miss something there. This bill is all about Resident vs NR!Your point is moot about trying not to look at it that way! That is what this bill is about. 
Plainsman's example is a good one really! It takes away from your OPPORTUNITY and MINE! If you don't think wealth NR will be buying up more land so they have the assurance of a gratis tag you are a step behind when it comes to this bill! It will bring more competition for land. Land values will go up...both of us will lose access and opportunity...well I hate to say I told you so in a couple of years, but if this goes through... I will say it!
Your wishfull thinking is good...but just that!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

computer problems..sorry for this..


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

edited...look above


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Maverick.....READ THE UNDERLINE PART.



> 3. A person who is a resident, and who has executed a lease for at least an entire quarter section of land, regardless of size, and that actively farms or ranches that land *OR* that a person who is a resident and holds title to at least an entire quarter section of land, regardless of size, is eligible to apply for a license to hunt deer without charge


It doesn't say that a R has to farm it. It says....THEY HOLD TITLE or THEY FARM IT. You as a R can purchase land and not farm it and get to apply for a gratis. You just need to be the title holder....which is the owner of the land. See you don't have to farm it. You just need to own it. Also the person who is farming it...ie the RENTOR or LEASOR so they can apply.

This bill is opening up for people who don't farm the land able to get a gratis....BOTH R AND NR. It is the same for both....not an advantage for the NR. Because a R can own the land and not farm it and able to apply for a gratis.

Plainsman:

They way I am reading it both can apply. Like someone else stated it is how do you define the word "or". If somewhere else it states only one gratis per 1/4 section of land own/rented may apply. Then it is one not both. If that is not stated.....people could possibly double dip is how i am reading it.


----------



## gator_getter (Sep 7, 2008)

I know resident neighbors last season who owned 160 acres but did not actively farm the land were awarded gratis tags. One guy had 158 acres and had to prove that the 2 acres missing from the quarter were considered under an easement. NDGF watched carefully last year who was qualified to get a gratis and I believe they will continue to do so.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

A couple things about this bill that I think are being missed here.

The new wording says....a person who is a nonresident is eligible to hunt deer.....It doesn't say they are gauranteed a tag.There still can only be 1% of the buck tags in a unit that can go to a non-res.When I asked the GNF at an advisory meeting about the mule deer tags available in the units about this.....they said if there are more non-res landowners that the 1% allowed.....they would go into a kind of lottery to see who gets them.

Right now almost all the non-res mule deer tags in the units starting with 4 go to non-res landowners.So there are a lot of non-res who are applying for tags and have zero chance of getting one ,and they don't know it.The GNF does not tell them that.With the cut of some 90,000 tags this past year,I wouldn't be surprised non-res tags in some of the whitetail units are close to going to non-res landowners.Plus the 100 non-res tags for whitetails in the state that go to G/O are also subtracted from the 1%.

Also right now these non-res landowner tags aren't free.They get the tag,but still have to pay the non-res license fee.

A few years ago.....there was a push in the legislature to allow former residents who were born here to be allowed to be a resident.It went down.This bill further limits those people from coming back home to hunt deer.

Plus,like I said above.....is this really the way we want to treat the general public about trying to come here to hunt deer?Make it manditory to own land in order to hunt deer if you live out-of-state???I think these landowners should be given a doe tag free.If they want a buck tag.....they should enter the lottery like the rest of us.

When I asked Randy Kreil about this again in Nov,he said it won't change.....most likely the next thing will be to raise the 1%.

I don't know that this bill will hurt res deer hunters if passed as is.I don't know enough about how this is enforced by our GNF.Or if this basically just cleans up the language.BUT IT DOES HURT ORDINARY NON-RES WHO DON'T OWN LAND.I also don't see anything bad about the youth part of it.

Should changes like this all be done in the same bill?No.....this way legislators who would like to vote for the youth part will also have to vote for the other parts.Each part should stand on its own merits.This bill,as Dick states should go down for no other reason than that.So it sure looks to me like some non-res landowners have legislator buddies who are trying to get them a tag by piggy-backing on changing the youth requirements.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I don't know that this bill will hurt res deer hunters if passed as is.I don't know enough about how this is enforced by our GNF.Or if this basically just cleans up the language.BUT IT DOES HURT ORDINARY NON-RES WHO DON'T OWN LAND.I also don't see anything bad about the youth part of it.


Thank you ken. That is the same way I am reading it as well. I see it opening the door for more R hunter to apply for gratis tags. The land owners who are not farming.

Now onto if you think the three parts are good or bad. Youth oppurtunity is always a sticky situation. Will it get more people into the sport or not? I am always for giving it a try.

Land owners and gratis tags.....NR land owners like Ken explained will get first shot at tags and could screw the average joe NR in not getting a tag. Is that good or bad? With the other language it opens the door for other R land owners and renters be eligible for the tags. Is this good or bad? does this language need to be cleaned up so people can't double dip.

In my opinion regardless of Residency...... land owners and/or renters (farmers) should get some benefits for owning/renting (farming) that amount of land. They are the ones paying taxes on it. They are the ones farming it. They are the ones feeding the wild life. They are the ones paying income tax on it (collecting rent or making a living). They should get some benefits. It shouldn't be a free for all. But they should get something IMO.

Edit/Note..... I don't own any land.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> They are the ones paying income tax on it.


That's questionable.

I did see they said for residents "title to". In the past I think they said had to be actively farmed. I think title to is better actually because some guy who buys 160 acres for hunting sometimes has more habitat than the farmer with 5000 acres.

The non resident who does not own land is the person I see getting hurt. The reason landowners are for this someone mentioned. There will be a push to raise the number of non residents. The whole thing is going to happen incrementally this is just the first step. The entire aim is more "paying" non residents at the expense of residents and unlucky non residents. It's just a move for landowners to make more money of a public resource. Don't believe it? Watch what happens in the next legislative session. 
Find out where the ag community stands on this and that will reveal the intent. Shaug, does the North Dakota Farm Bureau have an official position? What's your position? I think I know, or you would not be harassing Dick. Money, money, money. A few shots of your Black Label should secure a few legislators.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Lets read this all together..



> A person who is a resident, and who has executed a lease for at least an entire quarter section of land, regardless of size, and that actively farms or ranches that land OR that a person who is a resident and holds title to at least an entire quarter section of land, regardless of size, is eligible to apply for a license to hunt deer without charge.


As this bills sits, the wording is terrible as it leaves alot of room for interpretation! Let's break it down into phrases....Doesn't it say that a quarter section is the qualification....


> entire quarter section of land,


 How about this little phrase...


> regardless of size,


... then goes into...


> is eligible to apply for a license to hunt deer without charge


......what does that all sum up to? 
A BAD PIECE OF LEGISLATION!
Contradictions all over this bill! So is the quarter section requirement only for Residents or NR? Why is the phrase "regardless of size" added?



> The whole thing is going to happen incrementally this is just the first step. The entire aim is more "paying" non residents at the expense of residents and unlucky non residents.


BINGO!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I would be calling about this bill even if I was non resident. We already see a special interest guy on here poking at Dick Monson for bringing this up. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have two good litmus tests on this thread. If Dick is for it I can about take it for granted that it's good for sportsmen. If Shaug is for it I can about take it for granted it's good for landowners, and most often at the expense of sportsmen.

Many complain about the use of the word plunder, but if it takes from someone for your benefit it fits. The strangle hold is tightening so if your a sportsmen you better start watching these people or take up knitting. We are in a downhill slide in this state and just steps from another Texas.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ok I am not happy with the change in NR issue, but to be blunt and honest I see a real need to fix the issue regarding a 1/4 section. Couple people I know this past year where denied a gratis tag on land they have owned for years and hunt it for rifle and muzzle loader. This single quarter of land came up based on the description as being 157.8 acres for the one gentleman. He has not applied for a general tag since he inherited this land from his uncle in the 80s. This was the reason for the change as with the reduction in deer tags they anticipated that they would have an increase in gratis application with how the law works. Denied in the lottery still get a gratis tag. What they found is this issue and the G&F do not have the ability to overlook it. All that is needed is for it to be a continuous piece of ground that is 1/4 of the section it is in. That way it can be a 1/4 mile by mile or half by half etc...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ahhhhh I hate it when I hit a wrong key and everything disappears. This is going to be shorter.

Ron, if a guy has 40 acres of good habitat I would be more inclined to see him have a gratis than a guy with 5000 acres of dirt in the fall. The size doesn't bother me that much. As a matter of fact I would not like to see the land area requirement raised. I have a couple of friends with about 400 acres with 100 pastured and 300 idle. Great habitat too.

Maybe the guys who say there are to many things in a single bill are right.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Not arguing that at all but ahead bill Canberra fixed my poinwwas that this is a part that needs fixing


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Not arguing that at all but ahead bill Canberra fixed my poinwwas that this is a part that needs fixing


  I had two points. One was that I agree with you, and further would find it acceptable to reduce the area requirement. Second was that the guys who say to many things are in this bill are correct.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

In the January 2013 issue of North Dakota Outdoors, the ND G/F reported 2011 Licenses and Permits Issued.

Deer Gun Hunting (Gratis) .............nonresident .............261

This Bill by design does little more than better define some language. The impact.......a zero sum game.

Every legislative session it starts. The waving of the flag, the blowing of the fife, the beating of the drums. Sportsmen, muster out and follow us........

#@)*& SKID *&$^+# partnered with The Humane Society of the United States &%#*)+$ CRASH ^%#@)* WRECK *&^$#

That's OK, we'll pass. A better option would be to join a real sportsmens org like the United Sportsmen of North Dakota.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I think the change from 160 acres to quarter has some merit. Look at a plat map. There are a lot of "short" quarters (missing 1-10 acre)s. These are often a result of geographic "corrections". I don't think these landowners should be penalized for something no one had any control over. This doesn't affect me but I have relatives with "short" quarters. Now a situation, because of the way the property was sold, where one owner owns 170 acres and the next owns 150 , I would not consider a short quarter situation.

Instead of a gratis license give property owners 1 extra priority point in the draw and let them hunt the whole unit.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> That's OK, we'll pass. A better option would be to join a real sportsmens org like the United Sportsmen of North Dakota.


I have belonged since they started. Why do you want this bill so much? What's the deal?

Edit: dakotashooter, sometimes those small parcels have more good habitat than some guys who farms 5000 acres. If they have 40 acres of native habitat that deer winter on let them have a license. I also think it's crazy that they have to be actively farming it. I would say if they are actively farming they should have more than 160 acres and if they have 40 acres for wildlife and don't farm it give them a license. Why not encourage conservation?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The 1/4 section issue.....and regardless of size.

This is my take on it and why I think the "regardless of size" was put in.

Lets say land owner John doesn't deer hunt but owns a 1/4 section (160 acres) with 145 acres tillable and 15 in fence rows, ponds, tree lines, etc. He rents his tillable to Farmer Fred who does deer hunt. But the lease for that would state he is only renting or leasing 145 acres. So now with the new wording it would allow Fred to apply for a gratis.

Or Like Dick stated (which I never even thought of as a senario): A person owns an 80 in the SW 1/4 of section XYZ and another 80 in the SE 1/4 of section XYZ and they adjoin.....So that is a total of 160 acres in section XYZ.

Or like in a previous post on here by gator getter....



> I know resident neighbors last season who owned 160 acres but did not actively farm the land were awarded gratis tags. One guy had 158 acres and had to prove that the 2 acres missing from the quarter were considered under an easement. NDGF watched carefully last year who was qualified to get a gratis and I believe they will continue to do so.


Those are the reasons why I think that the "regardless of size" was put in. But does the language need to be cleared up... YEP.

But people saying this is a unfriendly bill towards Residents and in favor of NR....need to read it better. This bill is in favor of LAND OWNERS and YOUTH.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Shaug.....this new bill hurts the average out of state sportsman.Why should an out of state landowner with deep pockets be given more priveleges than one who doesn't own land?And all your waving of the flag, the blowing of the fife, the beating of the drums won't change that.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The subcommitte is working with the Department to clean up the language in 1131. Possible committee vote on the amendments and bill on Thursday.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Thanks Dick, and like so many issues the focus should be on the final. Again I will wait until then to see exactly what this bill will do. In regards to size of parcel for gratis, I think the 1/4 section rule is a good minimum even if you have someone that has 40 acres of good habitat that stands alone. It will discourage the piece meal property that so many other states face.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> I have belonged since they started.


If you are a member of The United Sportsmen of North Dakota than you will be there Feb. 22nd. Right

and



> Why do you want this bill so much? What's the deal?


This thread is titled HB 1131 Good Bye Deer Hunting and implied that this Bil is disguised as a youth hunting Bill.

It is not that.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

From the NDGF website:

_HB 1131 - Introduced by Rep's Hofstad, Schmidt, Vigesaa; Sen's Carlisle, Lyson, Schaible. Would allow an individual who turns age 14 in the same year as the respective big game hunting season to apply for a license, an individual who turns age 12 in the same year as the youth deer season to receive an antleress white-tailed deer license for the youth deer season, and an individual who turns age 12 in the same year as the antelope season to apply for a license. In addition, this bill would clarify the language of big game gratis license eligibility. House Energy and Natural Resources Committee heard 1/24, no action taken._

One short sentence at the end of the explanation from NDGF concerning the bulk of the bill which is gratis.

Gratis is a separate issue from youth hunting. NDGF has bowed to gratis pressure too often IMO. What are the rest of ND deer hunters, chopped liver? Apparently so. Gratis holders can already hunt in other units and also on land that relatives holding gratis licenses have. This bill will service a handful of special interests. It is really going to raise hell with non-resident licenses out west. Bad legislation.

Gratis has gone way beyond it's original intent. Not to mention this bill will cut funding to NDGF apx $6000 when ND sportsmen are willing to pony up more in license fees.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This thread is titled HB 1131 Good Bye Deer Hunting and implied that this Bil is disguised as a youth hunting Bill.
> 
> It is not that.


Then you would have no problem making this two bills right? One to clarify the youth season, and the other to sort out the gratis license.



> Gratis holders can already hunt in other units and also on land that relatives holding gratis licenses have


It's been years since I paid much attention to the gratis. I know many of my relatives hunt with gratis license. However, if the above is correct it has gone to far already. Units are for management and even if a landowner has land in two units he should decide which one he is going to hunt in. Also, if he has poor habitat but a relative has good habitat he should be restricted to his own land. I always thought they were. I know there is something different for elk out in the badlands that is ridiculous. If they want depredation permits and it really is a problem they should be restricted to one elk kill in a lifetime. Let them give the any other depredation permits they think they need to someone else at no expense to the hunter. After all this is to help the rancher right?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains said,



> Then you would have no problem making this two bills right? One to clarify the youth season, and the other to sort out the gratis license.


If that is what you wish Bruce, then go for it. Simply draft a Bill, take it to your legislator. Someone brings a Bill to the attention of a Representative. That Rep takes the draft forward. A Statesman will take things forward if they believe it is a worthy cause and have thick skin because maybe 10% of the population may be against the Bill and that 10% may be some real buttholes and in the process that Statesman may get some stinky stuff on himself. A Politician can smell this out in advance and try to talk the drafters out of going forward or may try to get their constituent to pass it off to some other unsuspecting legislator. A Politician has aspirations of going higher in their politicle career and want to avoid stinky stuff.

The Sponsor or legislator of a Bill looks for other co-sponsors. They can relay to others who the original drafters of the Bill were but most times no one asks and the people think that Politicians come up with Bills soley on their own. The primary sponsor of a Bill is the very first Representative or Senator named on the Bill. In the case of HB 1131 that primary Sponsor is one Representative Curt Hofstad. His bio:

http://www.legis.nd.gov/biography/curt-hofstad

He is the primary Sponsor of only two Bills this year,

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-201 ... fstad.html

both having to do with Game and Fish. Check out the other:

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-201 ... 0210111948

How do you gentlemen feel about House Bill 1322? I have never met Rep. Curt Hofstad but he is begining to look more and more like a Statesman.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

HB 1131 - Introduced by Rep's Hofstad, Schmidt, Vigesaa; Sen's Carlisle, Lyson, Schaible. Would allow an individual who turns age 14 in the same year as the respective big game hunting season to apply for a license, an individual who turns age 12 in the same year as the youth deer season to receive an antleress white-tailed deer license for the youth deer season, and an individual who turns age 12 in the same year as the antelope season to apply for a license. In addition, this bill would clarify the language of big game gratis license eligibility. House Energy and Natural Resources Committee amended to reduce gratis license eligibility to 150 acres, recommended do-pass 10-2 as amended.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

SECOND READING OF HOUSE BILL
HB 1131: A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 20.1-03-11 of the North Dakota
Century Code, relating to big game and gratis licenses; and to declare an
emergency.
ROLL CALL
The question being on the final passage of the amended bill, which has been read, and has
committee recommendation of DO PASS, the roll was called and there were 85 YEAS,
6 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 3 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.

*YEAS: *Amerman; Anderson; Beadle; Becker; Bellew; Belter; Boe; Boehning; Boschee;
Brabandt; Brandenburg; Carlson; Damschen; Delzer; Dockter; Dosch; Drovdal;
Fehr; Frantsvog; Froseth; Glassheim; Grande; Gruchalla; Haak; Hanson; Hatlestad;
Hawken; Headland; Heilman; Heller; Hofstad; Hogan; Holman; Hunskor;
Johnson, D.; Johnson, N.; Karls; Kasper; Kelsh, J.; Kempenich; Kiefert; Klein;
Klemin; Koppelman, B.; Koppelman, K.; Kreidt; Kretschmar; Kreun; Laning; Larson;
Looysen; Louser; Maragos; Martinson; Meier; Monson; Mooney; Muscha; Nathe;
Nelson, J.; Nelson, M.; Onstad; Owens; Paur; Pollert; Porter; Rohr; Ruby; Rust;
Schmidt; Silbernagel; Skarphol; Steiner; Streyle; Sukut; Thoreson; Toman; Trottier;
Vigesaa; Wall; Weisz; Wieland; Williams; Zaiser; Speaker Devlin

*NAYS: *Delmore; Guggisberg; Kelsh, S.; Mock; Oversen; Strinden
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Keiser; Sanford; Schatz
Engrossed HB 1131 passed and the emergency clause was declared.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember this bill has an estimated negative impact on NDGF of $8500.00


----------

