# SB2048 (HPC) amended for morning duck hunting too



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

SB 2048 - (Introduced by legislative council's judiciary B committee) - Would amend the North Dakota Century Code to allow for the number of nonresident waterfowl hunting licenses to be determined based on total hunting pressure. *SNRC amended to allow the governor a 25 percent variation from the concept; and duck hunting would only be allowed in the morning for the first two weeks. Reported back 4-3 do-pass.*


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

we ALL need to contact our senators on this one now... 4-3 do pass insn't overwhelming support


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Hold your horses on this one for now. Think there was further comm. action on this bill today, and we're waiting to find out what happened. There are a few possibilities and potentially different approaches. We'll get word out as soon as we've gotten our arms around the current status. Undoubtedly, we'll need Senator contact on this bill next week and Representative contact on 1307 (Nelson Plan - that came out of HNRC today too, although I haven't seen the final version), but let's hold off for now until we know for sure what the final versions are and therefore what we should be asking our Senators and Reps to do.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

That would mean that only non-res. could hunt ducks until noon?But residents could hunt ducks in the afternoon?This is the same thing in Manitoba goose hunting.Non-Canadians can only hunt geese in the morning and res. can hunt all day.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Dan,

My text is copied directly off the NDG&F web site. Not official.

The amendments on this bill should be officially updated this evening on the Senate Records (unless they will wait until Monday - weekend started already ?). Updates entered in the evening.

Ken,

Who knows ? Maybe this is the way the opp is attempting to kill the bill or atleast lower support.

Anyone know a senator that can update the new text.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

G&F does a real good job updating their site, but as PH noted, their status reports are summaries only and raise questions like the one posed by Ken. For most bills, the summaries are pretty straightforward and complete. On the waterfowl bills, given the amendments and continued work they're receiving, we need to see the actual bill language before I'd be comfortable forming an opinion or approach. That will not likely be avialable until early next week, but if I can get the actual text or a reliable detailed summary, I'll pass it along before the official legislative website is updated next week. If anyone else gets very reliable info over the weekend, please post.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

If that is what it says,I am not in favor of that.I have a feeling it was added to get more no votes.I also think the 25% is to high.If the HPC said 30,000 licenses were available,the gov. could add 7500 more.Kind of defeats the purpose of the HPC idea.Knowing our Gov. he sure as heck wouldn't ask for 7500 less.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I dont know Ken..... Who does the morning only hunt hurt more???? Not that that is the goal, but if you think about it, that provides a more gradual hunting pressure to begin with, and probably some NR would hold off until after the first two weeks. THe down side is High School Kids I suppose, but then NR could not hunt pheasants in the afternoon that first week either. Have thought about it quite a bit today, and for the typical resident, not traveling 200 miles from home to hunt, I think this is actually a really good idea, especially if it is the only way to get some sort of cap passed. Tom :lol:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Tom, I think the morning hunt hurts everyone, but especially the youth hunters and the hunting families. Kids are busy these days, and you take what time with them you can get. Why should hunting families have to choose between soocer/football/volleyball/gymanastics and hunting on Saturdays, and between church and hunting on Sundays. And as you mentioned, what about the rural/college kids, and some of us adults for that matter, who try to sneak out after work/school for an afternoon shoot - might be the only chance all week.

Yes, it may also hold some birds in the state, but at too great a cost. Great for the bars and retail, bad for hunters, especially youth hunters and hunting families. This amendment stinks and I think has motives far different than simply keeping the birds around.

That said, we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We'll take a hard look at the final 2048 language, probably grumble and groan for a few hours, take some aspirin and then fight like hell to get it passed. Not much choice if we're looking for a permanent solution.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I have to agree with tsodak, I don't think hunting only in the morning would have a drastic effect on many at all. I know many farm kids and families and the local kids have other things going on in the afternoons just as our city kids have. BB, Football, etc. I'd have to bet that most of the ducks shot in the state are shot before noon anyway. I'd say let the ducks rest and feed in the afternoon......how many people here, including myself, have complained of all the pressure and how fast it moves the ducks out of the state. Just my opinion...remember we've been talking about compromise and this would hinder very few hunters.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I do not believe that anyone would think hunting hours for ducks should be A.M. only. Dan is right this will make more land off limits in south central North Dakota. Our upland birds are not plentiful and the increased pressure on this resource will close many accres of land because hunters will not have a choice to pursue waterfowl. These area's will look like plot land in SW part of the state pounded flat. The landowners are not overprotective of waterfowl as most see them as pests to some extent, but grouse, partridge, and pheasant fall under a different light. I called 20 landowner Friday night and this morning asking that they contact reps and sen. to remove this. The majority said they would post this fall to keep the upland birds from being over hunted.

Once again our elected officals are not in touch with landowners and hunters. We are putting a one size fits all aproach to these issues and that is wrong. This punishes rural famlies the most. I can site at least 10 famlies in SC ND that the kids get off the bus do chores grab the shotgun and dog or waders and walk out to a slough and hunt ducks. They do not have the luxary of hunting in the morning. The solution to pressure is limiting hunters not hunting hours. 
Would this restrict the ablity to hunt geese full days as we do now. Would a compromise suchas that be more of a benift. I see this as another roadblock to keep our young people involved and excited about becoming sportmen and women. I currently take my daughters out after school twice a week early in the season, We do not have upland huntingwithout drivingmore than 2 hours oneway. They would be punished for being young and dependant on someone for the amount of time they have in the field.

This will encourage more leasing by guides and outfitters as they will have to have even more of the prime land to satisfity the paying customer, and will lock out more freelance hunters. 
Simple math 5 hours to get a limit of ducks or 10 hours to do the same. Paying client wants his moneys worth in ducks, guide leases better hunting area.
Freelance hunter same hours less access do to leasing increased pressure on public area's. This will hurt everyone but the guides and those with the deep pockets to lease up waterfowl hunting area's.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Am I not geting this ??? Is this am only stuff, for just Non Residents ??? or it it being added (proposed) for everyone ???


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

MY READING AND UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT APPLIES ACROSS THE BOARD, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG. I HAVE A CALL INTO SOME OF THE COMMITTE MEMBERS FOR BETTER CLARIFICATION BUT NO REPONSE AS OF NOW.

I HOPE THIS IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE AMOUNT OF PRESSURE APPLIED TO THE NONRESIDENT ISSUES, I HOPE WE HAVE THE ENTHUSIASM TO FIGHT FOR LIMITS ON GUIDES AND OUTFITTERS AS WELL.

RON


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree with HWM.You would be limiting us that work or the kids that go to school.If there is too much pressure then limit the number of hunters,not the shooting hours.Why should I have to give up a lot of hunts.If you want to limit the hours then shooting hours can open at noon and go till sunset.So we are all on equal footing,which is what SD does with pheasants.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Looked at the legislative update - nothing official yet.

If it *really* is written for both residents and NR, then I would argue that this may be spin on the bill to slow resident sportsmen's support.

Some may argue if the increased hunting pressure is forcing ducks out of the state early, than lets do the same thing we did with geese.

Really a negative towards ND youth if this is the case. We often take our kids (all ND resident kids - mine can not hunt yet) and go jump shooting after our morning goose hunt. Or one of us will take the kids duck hunting over decoys in the evening while a couple of us scout for the next morning's goose field.

Or what about that front that passes in the afternoon, low clouds, drizzle, and mallards hitting the barley field hard. Now off limits in the early season ?

MN has a 4pm closure for duck hunting the first 9 days (or so) of the season. They have put this into effect to protect resident breeding ducks. I guess they have substantiated the 4pm closure has protected resident hen mallards via band return studies.

Do not believe that it keeps ducks in the state of MN. Does not keep ducks around longer. Does not shortstop early migrating ducks in MN.

It does keep youth and working class people from hunting in the afternoon early in the season.


----------



## northwind (Feb 8, 2003)

I just recently discovered this site and have been trying to read past posts to get a feel for what is the general direction and consensus.

I think the bill says that the early closure is for everyone, which would make the most sense. If you are trying to let the resource rest why wouldn't everyone want them to rest. The residents get them for the first week by themselves and then it's a level playing field for everyone. If it goes into effect my friends and I would not come until the third week or later.


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

It sounds like they are testing our cohesivenss...SO the residents want to protect the resource...well here's a way to do it, early closing. We'll see if they real want this or are the greedy hunters we a protrayed to be... :eyeroll:

Another option wopuld be pile so much stuff on it, so it wont pass, or get voted on(I suspect they really do not want to touch the issue as its seen as no win).


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

The guides have always hated the afternoon SOB hunting & most do not do it.

What are all those NR's going to do all afternoon ??? Drink & scout ???

If this passes I will quit hunting ND & spend 2 full weeks in Canada. & fish ND & bow hunt in the fall.

I have always enjoyed evening duck hunting - as most go out in the am & get their limits.

I am so disgusted with how ND is managing (actually NOT) managing all this :******:

All this political BS - asking unknowledgeable Legislators to do this & don't do that - is insane :eyeroll:

Who ever asks for these amendments should be exposed & made to show creditable reason thru a committee of true professionals (for a yes or no) consideration before it can influence a bill. (The current committees are biased & lost) This is the saddest thing I have ever seen. As it can & will affect the future of waterfowling.

It is abuse of government powers.

Most hunters will not know, what is going on until it's too Late. & once some of this Crap passes it will be harder than ever to change.

How has this come to be ??? (letting the commercial sides of all this) influence so many things ??? :******: I still say our G&FD should be the ones deciding these things. Can't a Bill be written or referal vote be prepared to void all the Legislature is doing & give real power & control back to the G&FD ??? :******: :******: :******:


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

My 2 cents: As stated above, most of the hardcore duck hunters go out in the morning and get their limits. I would imagine that very few ducks (percentage-wise) are shot in the afternoon. The majority of those who hunt in the PM are probably high school kids and locals that sneak out for an hour or two after work. I would doubt that they add much to the pressure that causes the ducks to leave the state. If this passes, just one more reason to retire in Sodak!


----------



## Decoyer (Mar 2, 2002)

This is just a thought, but maybe they are trying to stop people from double dipping in limits. I know that a FEW people from other states like to shoot a limit in the morning, "eat them for lunch", then go shoot another limit in the evening.


----------



## Austin Bachmeier (Feb 27, 2002)

Thats absolute crap!! 80% (about 64-66) of the ducks I shot last year were on evening hunts. I get out of school at 1:30 next year, and if this passes I'm screwed. :eyeroll:


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

I think that is a great idea, wont have near as many ducks leave the state the fist two weekes of the season due to so much presure from people hunting them from sun up to sun down, also it will totally eliminate the people that go out shoot a limit in the morning and a limit at night. Im all for it!!! The good duck hunting isnt good until the first week in Nov anyway.


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

I dont duck hunt anymore myself, (kind of miss it actually)
and I'm not being a smart a$$, just curious, so heres my question.

whats wrong with hunting on weekends?
thats about the only time most of us that work and go to school have time for anyway.
,


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

GB3,
Ditto. To add to it a little as well, if I were a non-resident and I was visiting ND to hunt ducks I'd wait until the 3rd week. The duck hunting's better then anyway and the pheasant hunting only gets better as more of the crops are harvested. The pressure exerted by resident as well as NR hunters has dramitically changed how long ducks stay in certain areas in recent years, especially in the last 2-3 years. I'd still maintain the idea that most kids in school won't be affected much and most other hunters can harvest their two day limit of ducks hunting 3-4 mornings of any given week.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

These two amendments were not attached to 2048 to give hunters better opportunity or more choices. Outfitters put these amendments in to weaken support for 2048, to divide us. If 2048 passes the senate, there is still an excellant chance it can be amended benificaly before the final version hits the governors desk.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Guys, We won't see the final language on 2048 for a day or two, but there is confusion about the final amendment language relating to the scope of the half-day. Chairman Fischer says it's unclear how long the half-day lasts, and the committee clerk is reviewing the tapes. His best guess as of this time is that the half-day apllies to everyone and is season long.

For the reasons state above, I think the half-day does more harm than good. In just 25 years, we've gone from 65,000 to 35,000 in-state waterfowlers. We must do all reasonable and possible to encourage and promote youth hunter recruitment. The half-day amendment works against youth and hunting families.

Work is being done to introduce a Senate floor amendment to eliminate the half-day feature from 2048. I'm going to encourage my Senator to support the floor amendment to take the half-day feature out of 2048, but regardless of whether that amendment succeeds or fails, to support passage of 2048.

The session is a long process, and there's time and different ways to work on various bill features, but only if the bill survives to be worked on. I don't like either of the amendments, but expected something like the 25% adjustment would be added just because of the realities of where we're at today with nonresident numbers. it's not the resident hunter's fault that nonresident numbers have been allowed to spiral out of control, but it's just a big leap for legislators to make the right, big step backwards.

We all need to work hard this week to support this bill. Both the 25% and the half-day will get reviewed and worked on in the House. God forbid this bill picks up a bunch more warts in the House, and if it does, we may have no choice but to change our support later. But for now, we need to keep the vehicle for a permenant, reasonable solution alive, and work like hell to get 2048 passed on the Senate floor this week.

Please contact your Senator and strongly urge passage of 2048. I sense some split on this, but for the sake of youth hunting and hunting families, I also ask you to tell your Senators to support a floor amendment to eliminate the half-day hunting.


----------



## GOOSEPIG (Dec 17, 2002)

I HAVE NOT POSTED ON THIS YET BUT NOW I HAVE TO. ALL I KEEP HEARING IS THIS BIG PROBLEM WITH PRESSURE AND WHEN THEY COME UP WITH A WAY TO GIVE THE BIRDS A REST FROM THIS SO CALLED PRESSURE PROBLEM MOST OF YOU ARE AGINST IT!!! :******: :******: WHAT I CAN GET OUT OF THIS IS THAT THERE IS NOT A PRESSURE PROBLEM BUT MORE A PROBLEM OF YOU NOT HAVING ACCESS.LETS TELL THE TRUTH HERE PRESSURE IS NOT THE REAL PROBLEM BUT THE FACT THAT NR's ARE DOING THEIR HOMEWORK AND GETTING PERMISSION AND THAT ****** OFF THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T GET THE BEST SPOTS. :eyeroll: SOUNDS TO ME TO BE A PERSONAL PROBLEM.IF THIS TRULY IS A PRESSURE PROBLEM AND THE BIRDS ARE BEING PUSHED OUT BY THIS THAN WHY NOT BE IN FAVOR OF LETTING THEM REST HALF A DAY THAT WAY YOU WILL HAVE A QUALITY HUNT,AFTERALL AT THE TESTIMONY MOST ALL OF YOU GAVE WAS THAT YOU WANTED A BETTER QUALITY HUNT.YOU CAN'T ARGUE THAT IT WILL WORK TO KEEP THE BIRDS HERE LONGER WE HAVE BEEN DOING IT WITH THE GEESE FOREVER. 8) IT JUST APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE UNDERLYING REASONS FOR WANTING TO LIMIT NR's OTHER THAN THIS PERCIEVED PRESSURE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SELL.APPEARS THAT YOU NEED BETTER SELLING TACTICS. PROVE TO ME I'M WRONG. JUST MY THOUGHTS.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Hey I occasionally get beat up on this site for what I say and a few of you tired of my warnings - but I did say that politics this session would be full of spin doctors and deals. With that said:

Dan I agree - 1) do not know what the bill really says yet 
2) some form of HPC is needed

The skeptical part of me says that this half day BS was all planned to take the wind out of the sails for HPC. Maybe someone is trying to force the HB(10:10:10) as most favored by eliminating the competition.

Dan - can you find out who entered this amendment to the bill ? Who second the motion ?

Someone ask them why ?

*Good intentions* or just a spin doctor ?

PH


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Man, no offense, but posting in only capitals is annoying!!! I see your point.... What if the Nelson plan was passed with this half day in place for NR only all season?????? Or do something like they do with geese that there would be afternoon hunting Wednesday and Saturday afternoons until November 1, then open it up. I have to say, it seems to me that if it really is an issue of to much pressure moving the birds, this is hard to argue with. My thought is that this removes MUCH more weekday pressure than anything else proposed, and hurts the average NR MUCH more than the average resident weekend hunter. Sure, we all have specific examples of otherwise, but if it really is just the first two weeks, it seems a small price to pay to me. Just my .02$,


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

I never get into heated debates, but goosepig didn't I see your suburban out guiding for S.S.?It's hard to take shots from someone who has over 100000 leased acres to hunt(we all don't have the luxury of 100K acres, must be a "PERSONAL PROBLEM").Please correct me if I'm wrong.Just curious though.Why does everyone want to play the role of biologist and add measures that the Game&Fish doesn't recommend?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I do believe that we have to much sustained hunting pressure that is pushing birds out of the area. However we have to make a decision of standing behind the rules that have came forward or losing the war. I did not beleive we should have a cap on nonresidents but Dan B. and others made me think how the hunting has changed in that area the last three years alone.The area I hunt it is hunting pressure as there is ample water and area's to hunt, but that is changing due to leasing.

I think we may be at a crossroads with these issues to the point of deciding is it hunting pressure or access. I have been a proponet of consentrating on the practical limititaion of guides and outfitters but it was easier to go after the nonresident as they did not have elected voice. We are fighting a well organized and very influental group in the tourism, and outfitters.

I would hope that people will sit back and think things out before they take shoots at GP or anyone else with a disenting view point on nonresidents, and be honest is it the access or is it the pressure. That should help in making a clear decision on HPC an limited shooting hours.

I still support nonres. limits and posted earlier why I do not like the shooting hour schedule. I could live with it if it meant that we would have ducks into Nov. without them being piled up on big water or moved into SD.

RON


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Hey lets have every other day SOB hunting Too ??? That should give them more chance to settle in too :roll: I wonder how many will pay to Hunt SOB's everyother day ???

Hey GoosePig - what are your motives in all this ??? Who's or what is your best interest in all this ???

The sad part is you want a free for all - & you are using the Legislature & BS Bills & amendments to try & get your way. Don't come on here spreading more lies & twisted sensationalism - to scare & buffalo rural ND any more than you already have.

& obviously your side has a few Legislators that will push your agendas ???

I guess it's just politics :******: But I hope North Dakotans wise up to the fact many of you - do not have the best interest of the majority (which is Freelance Residents & Non-Resident Hunters in mind )

Admidt it !!! you really could care less about Ducks - Right ??? Cause it hard for you to control & profit off of them. :******: :******: :******:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I wish we could make one pass over theses issues with a magic wand and solve all the problems. Fact is, the state of hunting today is broke and heading towards the Texas model, fast. This didn't happen for one reason or because of one factor. The approach of many leading up to this session has been to find some strightforward, targeted approaches on a bunch of fronts, recognizing that no single approach will work pratically or politically.

GP, if we were taking a one answer approach, the single most effective thing that could be done to allow more nonresidents and improve hunting generally would be to eliminate the guide and outfitting industry. The model of less peolple using more land to insure the types of hunts that justify the amount of money being paid, means that a huge amount of the very best land is being used by a relatively few. This pushes res and nonres alike onto the remaining ground, and actually hurts rural ND because of a lack of general traffic.

That said, I don't suppose your boss would be in favor of that approach, and it is impractical to think there would be much legislative support for eliminating that industry, the investments made in it and what jobs are created by it. Realistically, the best that could be hoped for is to check the industry so the less-on-more model and its effects get no worse.

So, we make no bold progress on what is the closest thing to a magic bullet, and need to look at other ways of getting things back in line. Access as a justification to increase waterfowl hunter numbers only leads to premature outmigration and other bird survival habits that makes hunting worse. No other workable solution than losing some pressure and getting a permanent solution in place that adjusts for circumstances and helps take the politics out of this divicive issue. That's HPC. Remember HPC is a model based upon 25 years of data, and all such time and data included full day duck hunting.

GP, one of your strongest legislative allies (Every) has a couple of bills that encourage youth and young adult hunting, and the stated reason for those bills is to encourage general youth hunter recruitment and expose young people to ND that may someday decide to come back or create jobs in ND. I supported those bills for those reasons, and oppose the half-day hunting for the same reasons.

These aren't easy issues and they don't have easy answers. It is not inconsistant to say on one hand we've got too much pressure and then oppose something that is bad for hunting youth and hunting families. It's a cost/benefit analysis, and the cost of this one exceeds the benefits.

GP, I suppose a middle ground would be to make the half-day applicable to nonresidents only? That way you could sell some more afternoon pheasant hunts or fishing outings, bars/retail would get some more customers in the afternoon, pressure on the ducks would be lessened and ND youth and hunting families wouldn't be hurt. Win-win? Probably. but also not pratical given the current state of debate as this would only pour more gas on the fire. So the right approach is to pull the half-day for all.

The half-day feature came up quickly and was offered by Traynor. He and Every voted in favor of it, but I don't know who the other two supporters were. The half-day feature is what ultimatley caused Joel H. to vote against the bill in SNRC.

There was much game playing with the half-day feature and we've worked over the weekend to deal with it. This can be worked out, without damaging 2048, if we all work together on this one. I suggest a message to Senators to support a floor amendment to eliminate the half-day, but should the amendment fail, to nontheless support 2048.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Thanks Dan - well said - You are rational & used to these political ways (I'm Not)

I hope every Elementary - Middle school & Senior High School Student hears about this & writes or calls their Legislators & the Govenor. This stuff is going to affect you more than many of us.

How this can be presented as a compromise or way to teach us a lesson in politics is beyond me :******:

I have fond memories of having time after school, or Football practice, to go out on the edge of town & shoot a couple ducks.

Not to mention :roll: :******: Many young people have to go to church on Sunday mornings - But could hunt Sunday afternoons -

Plus all the sat. morning activities Youth have these days :******:

So this is how political compromise works ??? :******: A minority can do all they can, to make something that has worked for so long & been great - a BIG MESS & on the verge of irreconcilable changes :******:

Wake up everyone these folks are out to ruin Hunting as we have known it. Everyone Young & Old better get involved & let your opinions be heard.


----------



## GOOSEPIG (Dec 17, 2002)

Miller yes you are right on 1 thing that I did work for Sheldon last year but most of my hunting is done around home.So saying that I hunt on 100000+ leased acres is wrong.I would say that I have access to many more acres than that but they are not leased,see what i do is a very simple thing that most have a problem with it is called asking permission and building relationships with landowners.(NOT JUST USEING THEM!!)as many do.Fetch as for your quote "So this is how political compromise works??? :******: A minority can do all they can,to make something that has worked for so long & been great - a BIG MESS & on the verge of irreconciable changes :******:" You are right there are just a few who are screwing up a system that was just fine before they got greedy,and they are the ones who are pushing to restrict NR's.You yourself admit that it has worked this long and been great so why not leave it the way it was,before the special interest groups got involved?(SA,WF,etc) uke: And to answer your question I am standing up for all hunters RES & NR that are in this to help me keep my heritage alive and that is to have the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS you see there are those out there that just love to see us as sportsmen fight among one another.Just keep in mind that every sportsman that we push out is one less we will have on our side when the real issue isn't just having a place to hunt,but more of an issue of having the GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO DO SO. And yes I hunt ducks more than geese but if this is a pressure problem :roll: I would be all for half day Ducks.It will hurt my children but we still have the weekends and Hollidays to hunt. My wife would probably like me home more to do things around the house anyway.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

GP wrote:
"And to answer your question I am standing up for all hunters RES & NR that are in this to help me keep my heritage alive and that is to have the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS"

I dont think anyone is advocating that RES or NR hunters not be able to bear arms.

This is about ND hunting heritage. This is about the stories that your parents and grandparents tell you about. Heritage isnt about sporting a gun to kill things, its about experiencing great times with loved ones and people that are close to you. Heritage doesnt mean going out and shooting your limit for a week straight, it means remembering ones who have passed on and how you enjoyed "time in the bush" or over a decoy spread or just simply learning to shoot for the first time, target practice on the south side of the farm, and the list goes on. This is heritage.


----------



## northwind (Feb 8, 2003)

If the intent of the bill is to reduce pressure and keep the resource around longer does it make sense to consider the possibilities.

It's only for two weeks not the whole season. It seems that so many on this site have the attitude that if you change something and they don't like it they will take their ball and go home. (ie. I'll do all my hunting in Canada, or I'll move from this state.)


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

What really irrks me is that Guides & Outfitters & Pay to hunt Non-Residents are a very small minority in all of this. But yet they are the ones proposing Legislation & changes that will adversely effect about 95% of the real Hunters in ND.

Why do we have to Compromise with such a small special interest group ??? Who has done nothing but take - & SPIN all this to put them in a favorable light with rural ND.

Come on Folks - Wake UP !!! - It is Freelance Hunters Both Resident & Non-Residents that you should be supporting.

This blaming the SA & WF & bigger cities Hunters for all these bad feelings, is a political ploy - carried over from last session. That gives this very small minority a real chance of winning (thru false information & fear of losing your rights) & turning you against the folks that came from the small towns & rural areas of ND. :eyeroll:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

You are very right Fetch.

The battle is preservation of a public resource vs. commercial exploitation by a select few. The former is working for the public good, the later is a special interest working for personal financial gain, at the expense of everyone else, now and in the future.

M.


----------



## David S Proffitt (Sep 13, 2002)

I am not going to get so worked up as some of you guys. I believe that the bills that so many are sweating over are going to be legally challenged anyway. As I understand it, unless a state can defend unequal access and taxing of nonresidents as a conservation tool, the interstate commerce issue is going to rule. I know many don't like it and wont even consider it but I believe this is were it is going and if you read else where you are starting to see state attorney generals addressing this real issue.

The impact I think will be that ALL of us, residence and nonresidence will be in the same boat. Caps will apply to everyone equally. Increase in fees will apply to everyone. Maybe then we can get focused on how to secure more quality habitat and improve access for everyone.

I am sorry, but the SPORT is a changing!


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

David, I don't share your views on the scope of the Arizona case. First of all, it has no precedential value in our state. Further, read as broadly as you suggest, long-standing game management practices in most states would be set on their ears, and that's a lot of inertia to overcome. Major judicial reverses of wide-spread and long-standing custom and practice don't come easy or often. The Arizona case is absolutely no reason for ND hunters to adopt an attitude of defeatism this session or to side-track the efforts now in progress. The "sport" (to many of us, it's much more than that) certainly is changing, but we have a large and powerful voice in how much it will change.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

David S Proffitt said:


> Caps will apply to everyone equally.


Sure hope I get drawn for a greenhead tag next year. :eyeroll:

My money is on Dan being right about this issue.


----------

