# MN Legislative News



## get the net (Oct 28, 2004)

Rep. D. McNamara, R-Hastings has introduced a companion bill to Sen. Pariseau, R-Farmington, that would place restricitons on NR fisherman.

1. The first 14 days of MN fishing would be closed for NR
2. NR would have to purchase an angling lilcense for $24.00 that is limited to 7 consecutive days
3. Any boats that is licensed in stte that limits MN residents would have to be licensed for use on in-land waters. License cost $100.00 for 7 consecutive days.

None of the above provisions would apply if NR is registered as a guest at a hotel, motel or resort in MN.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

That REEEEEEEKS of RETALIATION!

Oh, and HOW exactly is the MN DNR going to inspect me and my boat, the MN Supreme Court gave me almost more protection on a boat than when I'm in HOUSE. Go get a warrant. Suckers... 

And what SEASON are they referring to? Panfish? Open all year? Walleye/Pike? Ok fine late may is good with me. Bass? Hmmm, gonna have to wait until June that's alright, Muskie...lets see, then July. Whoa..that's a whole lot of "season" I might miss...better straighten out the wording there sponsors.

I can't wait to hear the vocal minority of Minnesota fishing guides and outfitters start throwing a fit and lobbying their butts off against this. What's more, I don't know how MN, with its pocketbook problems already, can survive by cutting tourist dollars that come from fishing? Oh that's right THEIR RESIDENTS ALSO FISH... but for some reason, I don't think the numbers quite correlate with our hunting scenario in ND.

This legislation is so overbroad, destructive and retaliatory, it would not surprise me to see it withdrawn, or soundly defeated. Of course, this is Minnesota, home of the "drain and pave" mentality, and the "what's best for us now, screw the future" ideology, I guess I could also see it passing too! Hahaha. Now you're damned if you DO and if you DON'T!!!

Edit: GET ME A LINK...I GOTTA READ THIS BILL...THIS SOUNDS JUST SO POORLY DESIGNED (Read: HILARIOUS!! ) TO BE TRUE!!!

Let the pi$$ing match begin!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/ ... ssion=ls84


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

njsimonson,

She is just trying to preserve or shall we say protect 
Minnesota resident's heritage and resources. Sound
familar?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Just what we need another resident vs nonresident thread

Do we really need to go there again?

Later


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Uh-huh....then why is this sentence in there...

"to a person who is domiciled in a state or province that prohibits Minnesota residents from taking game fish or small game during a part of the season that is open to residents of that state...."


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

That's fine with me.. If Minnesota passes these laws it is fine with me. I will not try to tell other states how to run their business. Minnesota should do what Minnesota needs to do.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Yup, sure does sound familiar...it sounds a lot like the same crying that came from Hatch's baby cradle when he filed his lawsuit.

But I ask you this PDSC...who stands to lose from this, North Dakota Anglers??? I think not. Do you think the money that MN takes in from non-residents fishing is even remotely the same as what ND takes in from non-residents hunting, even just in terms of licensing?

(EditONE QUARTER MILLION NON RESIDENT LICENSES EVERY YEAR ARE SOLD IN MN...THAT'S OH, SAY *12 MILLION BUCKS* give or take...compared to what...30,000 that are sold for upland in ND??? Yeah...real logical step by the good legislators down in St. Paul. Have fun picking at that festering sore of a budget problem with this decrease in revenue boys and girls.

Further, do you think this will impact tourism and tax dollars in MN? They're shooting themselves in the foot! Unlike the paltry percentage of overall money spent by nonresidents hunting in ND during the upland/waterfowl season, I'd be willing to wager that 10 times that is spent by nonresident anglers in MN. The "guide and resort" clause in there isn't going to prevent a significant loss of that elevated level of tourism dollars that accompany out of state anglers either.

You know what, I hope this bill DOES PASS!!! I don't need to go to Minnesota to catch fish, I've got walleyes, bass, pike and panfish all across this state. But please don't get me wrong, if the bill does pass, sure I may miss bass opener and flyrodding some panfish in Detroit Lakes, but I think I can find enough to do around here. Oh yeah, and hunting for pheasants, grouse, ducks, geese, deer, etc. How are the populations of birds doing in MN...oh that's right...they have NOWHERE TO LIVE!!!

I think it comes down to this...Minnesota needs out of state anglers MORE THAN North Dakota needs out of state hunters. This bill is ignorant, over broad, too complex, and retaliatory...great precepts for state laws to be built on.

There...I'm off my soapbox.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

njsimonson,

Were in my last post did "I" state that I supported
such a bill? The money would still come from 
NR fishermen/women. First, not all states would
be effected by the bill and 2nd most probably 
don't fish for more than 7 days. The ones that
it would upset is the border hoppers and the lake
home owners from the state of ND/SD.

The bill will never pass, enforcement nightmare!

Though, I do get a kick out of the $100 boat license
for 7 days!


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

:lol: *GO FOR IT MINNESOTA!!!* :beer: I only go there to meet a college buddy for a winter trip to Lake Of The Woods once a year. I guess he will just have to come out here to a REAL FISHING SPOT like Lake Sakakawea or Devils Lake where the walleyes are larger than 12". :withstupid:


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Where in my last post did *I* say that *you* supported the bill? 

Truly, it is an enforcement nightmare. I figured (or at worst, hoped) you were playing devils advocate. Based on the quote that Ken put up, one can't possibly argue that this bill is centered completely on "protecting the resource" or heritage, or experience. It is retaliatory, through and through.

I did do a little more research and NR fishing licensing to ND residents by MN is surprisingly lower than I thought. Similar to the number of hunting licenses for non-residents in ND.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

KEN W said:


> "to a person who is domiciled in a state or province that prohibits Minnesota residents from taking game fish or small game during a part of the season that is open to residents of that state...."


Hmmm, would that be something similar to Moose, prairie chicken and a spearing season that is open only to residents? 

This bill is retarded. If MN is going to do something like this they should just make the first two weeks resident only, period. Cut the retaliatory BS and give the residents some preference if that's how you feel. It would make a lot more sense and be a hell of a lot easier to enforce. Is there any surrounding state that doesn't have a season of any type that gives preferential treatment to residents?

The funny thing is that if you took a person from state "Y" (which happens to have the exact same regulations as MN) they'd fall under these restrictions since "their" state has seasons restricted for residents only. Isn't that a little hypocritcal? Again, if MN is going to do something get out of the grey area ("if you're state does this to our state" crap :crybaby: ) and just nut up and make the first two weeks resident only.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I hope this passes, then MN will have nothing to say about our Non-resident laws.

Cmon boys call your legislaters and vote for a Do Pass.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Minnesota's Prarie Chicken Season is for Res. only, isn't it?


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

it is! THEM SORRY SOB. ?I think I should file a lawsuit! :beer: :******:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

I wonder if Tony Dean may be available!  NR lobbyist for hire! :eyeroll:

Man am I going to miss those Mn fishin' trips!! :beer: Where do I send money to help get this passed.


----------



## Drew W (Jul 7, 2004)

the reason this is being pushed is to get back at the non-res. phesant laws in ND. ND restricted MN now MN is restricting ND.


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

no kiddin


----------



## smalls (Sep 9, 2003)

It's your resource, manage it the way you see fit. Hopefully you do a better job with your fishery management than you did with your waterfowl management.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

Is this a mirror image of the thread on this topic last winter with the whole rock throwing contest? :eyeroll: Gettin' old, and who gives a hoot anyway?


----------



## NDMALLARD (Mar 9, 2002)

I can fish right next to you in my boat, water is public. You wanna use a guide to fish in minnesota or North Dakota, no problem, I can still fish next to you or on the same body of water. Water is open to everyone. Wanna use a guide to hunt, I can't hunt by you, the land is leased, in fact I can never hunt that land unless I pay the guide for access. They (MN) are comparing apples to oranges. This is coming fron a guy who was born and raised in Kandiyohi County (MN) and had access to LOTS of private land and still moved to ND along with my good job and my wifes better job to pay taxes here, just because I like to hunt birds. By the way grew up on Diamond Lake, dad still lives there, ain't fished it once since I moved seven years ago. I save all my vacation to chase birds in the best bird hunting state in the U.S. Your welcome to make a sacrifice and move here, homes are pretty cheap in most small towns. Your most likely going to make less money, but that is what life is, choices baby. You gotta play by the home teams rules.


----------



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

Appears MN wants to play "hard ball". I'm not sure this is really targeted at the transient nonresident fishermen, but rather to solicit pressure from the North Dakota lake home owners on our legislature to drop the hunting restrictions. Don't know just how many retired ND lake home/cabin owners this would affect, but could be quite a few. Actually, this is really unfair since many of those retired people do not really have "a dog in this fight", having long since also retired from hunting. But they are right in the midst of the crossfire. Guess I have a certain amount of empathy for them. I would be surprised if this bill makes it. I hope not!!!!


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

If none of you guys care what Minnesota does, then why do you watch for it so closely? And...why do you all flip out when this issue comes up?
I doubt it will pass for any number of reasons even though Id love to see it.

Im certain that it is not targeted at those who frequent the parts of the state far away from North Dakota. Those Nodakers tend to act like guests. It is more likely targeted at that part of Minnesota which many North Dakotans consider an extension of North Dakota (The lakes area 60 or so miles from Fargo) and that would throw a wrench into the plans of many folks. A handful of you guys wouldnt feel a thing but I think that enough people would to where maybe your government would start hearing some sqeakier wheels than your group.

Funny how you get NR hunting pressure in some concentrated areas in North Dakota and you fight like crazy to shut down the whole state to NRs. If Mn does likewise it doesnt make any sense to you.

Surely it would affect some retired Nodakers who have no dog in this fight... perhaps a necessary evil. But it would also affect many of the relatives of those retired folks who spend every weekend (sometimes weeks on end) fishing in Ottertail County all summer long when they aren't railing against NRs in Nodak. And besides, like you always say, if you want the same rights as a resident, become a resident. Unfair?
How about the relatives of North Dakotans who live in Minnesota now needing a Visa to get back and hunt North Dakota?

"The water belongs to everyone" That is priceless! Minnesotans are supposed to come to North Dakota, hat in hand as guests to hunt water (much of which was paid for by Federal tax dollars or Non Resident duck stamps) for birds that may have been born and raised in Canada but our inland water (and fish) belongs to everyone including you?
The law reads that all Mn water is considered public. I interpret that as meaning it belongs to all Minnesota residents. Any one with an out of state mailbox is should be considered a "guest".

Minnesota's chicken hunt? Yeah, that must be a real downer for you guys. You dont get to hunt the half a county that all 50 of them call home. Cripes, they only let a handful of residents hunt them.
If Minnesota's waterfowl were off limits to you altogether, you wouldn'nt mind because you have more ducks than we do anyway. You have more chickens too so why the comparison?

Spearing? Certianly, that (a sport where there is no catch and release option on a critter that lives and dies in one body of water) should be open equally to residents and non residents alike. Come on!
How many of you are actually chomping at the bit to come here and do that anyway?

Anyway...
Like I say, Id love to see this come to pass just to see how quick some of you would pull in your claws or have your vocal chords clipped by people who stand to lose more than you are willing to admit.


----------



## SHOOTINGGREENHEADS (Sep 16, 2003)

I smell BS. It looks like pretty official info to me. Why do guys get so worked up when people stir the pot? Especially when a guy is from the dreaded state of MN?


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> fight like crazy to shut down the whole state to NRs


Yea, that's what we want, the whole state to ourselves, no non-resident hunting at all!!!!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

I do hope that the boat tax goes thru, then we could tax all the waterfowl boats in the fall, we would make a mint!!!! :laugh:


----------



## Boy (Jan 24, 2005)

As a lifelong resident of ND, and a lifelong Twins/Vikings fan, I could give a crap less if MN wants to restrict NR. I hope you do it, and while your at it, I hope you put some money into building a duck/goose habitat, and a pheasant habitat. I have absolutly no desire to hunt or fish MN, however I do have a desire to do other things, like go tubing down the Ottertail, with beer bought in ND of course because you guys have that 3/2 crap, and attend baseball games and the ocassional vist to the big city down south where I can buy clothes tax free!

If none of what I said makes sense, I guess my point is that when you are a NR, you do what the state you are visiting says you can do. If you say NR can buy clothes tax free, we do it. If you say you don't want us to fish, so be it, we won't fish. If you say I can't tube, so be it, I didn't make it last year and the year before I made it once.

We tried to limit the number of NR that come here( and not just Minnesotans, but Wisconsinites, Ohioans, and Iowans alike). I think that is a state's right to manage how it sees fit, even if I hardly ever agree wtih what the ND legislature does.

It would be nice if this bill passes too because then Hatch and Peterson would feel like retards.

I am not a lawyer, but doesn't the constituion say something about "any right not specifically forbidden by the Federal Government is reserved for the State's?"


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

These threads accomplish nothing, but pour gasoline on a couple sparks from years past. It's pretty obvious that many here have drawn their line in the sand, and nothing will change it.

So let's let this one go. The law will never pass anyways and everyone knows it.


----------

