# HB 1224 in H-NRC this week



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

This is the bill that bans the use of powered watercraft for waterfowl. Is this thing still showing signs or life or is it DOA?

I hope to see a very strong do not pass both out of the e-mail tree and the house committee. Where might this thing be getting support?

M


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Just a guess, but did the same guy who wrote the bill offering a Spring Canada goose season write this one? :eyeroll:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Seems this bill was reworked and is now:



> SECTION 1. A new subsection to section 20.1-02-05 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
> 
> Carry out a program that targets waterfowl resting areas within the private lands initiative program which includes payments to private landowners for lease of waterfowl resting areas on private lands that during the term of the lease provides limited public access for the hunting of waterfowl.


http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2 ... I1224.html

Things are looking up.

M.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Be careful on this bill. Targeting funding for waterfowl "rest areas" may be a good idea, yet it could be a ploy to milk the fund for wet areas on private land, ie-the Devils Lake Basin-where hunting will not be allowed anyway, or the land off the rest area is leased in advance. Outfitters and their surrogates would love to spend NDGF money to benefit themselves.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

I see what you are saying Dick. I would hope it would be done in a reasonable way.

I would like to see what the ND G&F folks think of this. If this is a tool that they can use to manage the resources to the best of their ability, then I support giving them the tools they need (e.g., HPC II).

M.


----------



## nodaker (Jan 25, 2003)

This is off the waterfowl subject, but the same applys
The tools "can of worms" has been open awhile now guys.
It surely isn't a new concept as you can see by *replacing* a few 
key words in Dick's comment. (See the next paragraph)

Be careful on this bill. Targeting funding for PLOTS may be a good idea, yet it could be a ploy to milk the fund for areas on private land, ie-the Mott area-where hunting will not be allowed anyway, or the land off the PLOTS is leased in advance. Outfitters and their surrogates would love to spend NDGF money to benefit themselves

The non res freelancers really like it too.
Is there any action to allow only one non res license?
I hope the lobbyists dig in and help this out.


----------

