# email tree supporting 1311?



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

I got the email tree notice today It urged supporting bill 1311 which gives half of all deer licenses over the 90,000 to nonresidents. This is a major step backwards. The notice said that the good thing was that the proceeds would go to private lands acquisition. Private land programs are okay, but you are wrong if you think they are the answer to our problems, it is just a band aid on larger sore. Right now after the first lottery nonresidents can apply on an equal playing field with residents for the 2nd and 3rd season licenses. The catch is in the 2nd and 3rd seasons there are only antlerless tags left. If you do regulate this to does only, the law does not do anything different than what is currently happening with the exception of funneling the money into private land funds. If you let them get the foot in the door even if they change it to antlerless only which I doubt would happen, next session they whittle away for more and more and more. The only reason we don't have a bigger deer guiding problem is that our current system is as good as it gets with 1% of the license going to nonresidents, with the exception of the 2nd and 3rd doe tags. It is hard enough for a resident to draw a buck tag, I have went 2 years without myself. If you think the guides and outfitters are going to want more nonresident antlerless tags, think again there isn't a market for it. I would imagine the whole idea is to get extra buck tags out for the guides.

I will not support this bill,


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Muzzy and I have agreed to disagree on this one. In order for us to succeed this session we need to promote compromise. If the opposition successfully defends status qou, we lose. If we want compromise, we better willing to give it.

Some of the sponsers of this bill have been less than sportsperson friendly in the past. Might not be a bad idea to show them we're willing yield in reasonable ways. So long as none of the excess are antlered, I'm cool with 1311.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

It seems fair Dan but are the commercial interests willing to compromise? I guess I would like to see them extend an olive branch. I think I agree with muzzy its another foot in the door.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

I personally do not think that you can compromise with that group, why do you think this bill is on the docket the first place. The outfitters do not want antlerles tags. This bill and the gratis bill are a sneaky way of trying to get more tags for a greedy few. I would dread to see the deer hunting go the way of the upland hunting.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

The current system is fair to non-residents. Our agreeing to this bill with the amendment for doe only does what the system already allows for--doe permits. Non-residents can get doe permits following the second lottery, same as residents, and it is a fair system. This is a bad bill to do any type of compromising. I think we have compromised enough when it comes to pheasants/waterfowl, deer hunting means way too much to 80,000 ND residents.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

OK Senator Erbele has a hunting operation on his ranch and his son in law does the guiding. So it smells. And he is also one of the sponser of the Gratis give away bill or should I say The Gratis sold to the highest bidder bill. Adokken


----------

