Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

  • Announcements

    • Rick

      Members Only Fluid Forum View   08/08/2017

      Fluid forum view allows members only to get right to the meat of this community; the topics. You can toggle between your preferred forum view just below to the left on the main forum entrance. You will see three icons. Try them out and see what you prefer.   Fluid view allows you, if you are a signed up member, to see the newest topic posts in either all forums (select none or all) or in just your favorite forums (select the ones you want to see when you come to Fishing Minnesota). It keeps and in real time with respect to Topic posts and lets YOU SELECT YOUR FAVORITE FORUMS. It can make things fun and easy. This is especially true for less experienced visitors raised on social media. If you, as a members want more specific topics, you can even select a single forum to view. Let us take a look at fluid view in action. We will then break it down and explain how it works in more detail.   The video shows the topic list and the forum filter box. As you can see, it is easy to change the topic list by changing the selected forums. This view replaces the traditional list of categories and forums.   Of course, members only can change the view to better suit your way of browsing.   You will notice a “grid” option. We have moved the grid forum theme setting into the main forum settings. This makes it an option for members only to choose. This screenshot also shows the removal of the forum breadcrumb in fluid view mode. Fluid view remembers your last forum selection so you don’t lose your place when you go back to the listing. The benefit of this feature is easy to see. It removes a potential barrier of entry for members only. It puts the spotlight on topics themselves, and not the hierarchical forum structure. You as a member will enjoy viewing many forums at once and switching between them without leaving the page. We hope that fluid view, the new functionality is an asset that you enjoy .
  • RECEIVE THE GIFTS MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU HERE...THEN...CREATE SOMETHING TO ENCHANT OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE

    You know what we all love...

    When you enchant people, you fill them with delight and yourself in return. Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
KEN W

SB 2231

Recommended Posts

SB 2231 - Introduced by Sen's Laffen, Burckhard, Murphy; Rep's Kreun, Porter, Ruby. Would increase the price of a resident small game license from $6 to $15, nonresident small game hunting license from $85 to $100, resident big game hunting license from $20 to $30, youth big game hunting license from $10 to $11, nonresident big game hunting license from $200 to $250, nonresident bow hunting license from $200 to $220, resident furbearer license from $7 to $15, resident fishing license from $10 to $16, resident age 65 and older or permanently disabled fishing license from $3 to $5, nonresident fishing license from $35 to $45, resident husband and wife fishing license from $14 to $22, resident wild turkey license from $8 to $12, motorboat under 16 feet in length and all canoes from $12 to $18, motorboats from 16 feet to less than 20 feet in length from $24 to $36, motorboats at least 20 feet in lenth from $33 to $45, resident paddlefish tag from $3 to $10, nonresident paddlefish tag from $7 to $25, nonresident waterfowl hunting license from $85 to $100, nonresident husband and wife fishing license from $45 to $60, nonresident three-day fishing license from $15 to $20, nonresident furbearer and nongame license from $25 to $30, combination license from $32 to $40, resident swan license from $5 to $15, nonresident swan license from $25 to $30, crane license from $5 to $10, nonresident 10-day fishing license from $25 to $30, habitat restoration stamp required for the general game license from $10 to $17 and $8 (instead of $5) of each habitat stamp sold would be placed in the Game and Fish Department's private land habitat and access improvement fund, and a resident application fee for moose, elk and sheep from $3 to $5. In addition, would eliminate the nonresident seven-day fishing license for $20. Referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 bills in our legislature.....looks like there will be an increase in fees for all of us.Just a matter of how much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it will cost a considerable amount more to rifle and bow hunt in ND. $250 plus the other items and it will run close to $270 for a rifle and $240 for an archery NR tag.

OUCH.

I guess that will be what it is, at least one can still hunt even though the rifle tags are getting very hard to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct Harvey.....Big Game tag plus habitat stamp that everyone buys.But you only buy that once a year no matter how many licenses you buy.

I know there will be protests by residents about these 2 bills.Especially from families with kids that hunt.But you can pretty much bet that NR fees will go up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wish the G&F would implement a $15-20 stamp for PLOTS. Something that would be required to purchase if you were hunting PLOTS land. Might help fund the program, and maybe even increase hunter opportunity in North Dakota. I know I'd fork over the dough if that was the case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct Harvey.....Big Game tag plus habitat stamp that everyone buys.But you only buy that once a year no matter how many licenses you buy.

I know there will be protests by residents about these 2 bills.Especially from families with kids that hunt.But you can pretty much bet that NR fees will go up.

I remember years ago when I purchased my NR deer tag for I believe $65. Just like everything else, prices are going up. No doubt they could kill the Res increase but the NR tags will go up for sure.

Guess I could change my address to ND, but then I would have top pay NR fee's for Mn. No win.

I guess I have to look at it this way, the proposed increase is not near as bad as some NR fee's for other states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NR's go up much further i'm gonna get priced out of duck hunting. It might be worth it if you got to hunt the entire season, but for a few days of the season not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

North Dakota does not really care about the NR hunters.

I asked the Governer of ND years back and I believe he once was the Director of the Game & Fish at a hunt where he attended once a few years ago why they did not offer more license to the NR's, he told me, we cannot as the residents do not want anymore NR's coming to ND and hunting. They want to keep all the licenses for Residents.

I found that a bit unusual.

It was John Hoeven.

I do not believe they will price me out of deer hunting in ND as a NR unless they go beyond $325 or so, at that point, I will stay home. That should take at least another 15 years to get there at the rate they have increased in the past few decades. I will be done hunting by then anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything costs more than it did 20-25 years ago,including running the programs for the GNF.Why shouldn't license fees go up also?I'm sure they are looking at costs in other states also.Even at the proposed increases,they are still lower than in neighboring states with this kind of quality FREELANCED hunting opportunities.

If some have to stay home.....well I guess priorities have to be set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seems to me that ND does not want any outstate hunters. I guess that is thier choice.

I know the store owners like it when we stop in for food, gas or at any other store in the area.

I wonder if they realize how much revenue the business's would lose when the NR hunters do not come any more? I know it would probably not be alot as ND has never catered to the NR in the last 15 years at least.

ND is not bad yet but many of the other states have gone out of range for the average workin man. That's sad. But I guess priorities have to be set.

If I stop hunting in ND due to the fact that they raised the fees so high it is not worth the extra funds, then I guess I will have to say no to all the Residents who ask to hunt also. Priorities have to be set I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some have to stay home.....well I guess priorities have to be set.

I could agree with that if it were based on preserving quality, but its not. When I duck hunt there I can go out and not even see another hunter. It seems to be nothing short of gouging. I wonder if that attitude would be the same if Minnesota were to limit NR's to 14 days of fishing per year and jacked the cost of a license up to $200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Ken states

"If some have to stay home.....well I guess priorities have to be set."

That's the attitude I am talking about. Just like Gov Hoeven told me, the residents do not want the NR hunters here in the state.

Very sad when some sportsmen have to be this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could agree with that if it were based on preserving quality, but its not. When I duck hunt there I can go out and not even see another hunter. It seems to be nothing short of gouging. I wonder if that attitude would be the same if Minnesota were to limit NR's to 14 days of fishing per year and jacked the cost of a license up to $200.

OK......I hear this all the time so lets analize that for a minute.The fishing license in Minn is for 365 days.The waterfowl season here is basically 60 days.Some years less than that.You want to limit the Minn license to 14 days?Using the same ratio that is 6 times less or more depending on how you look at it.To be the same ratio.....we should limit our NR license to 1/6 th of yours.....that means to be the same your NR license here should be for 2 days.

Now that would be ridiculous wouldn't it???Just like comparing fishing licenses to hunting license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not against having NR hunters here.I grew up in Waconia and at ST Cloud State.My relatives come here to hunt with me.But jeez.....our license fees haven't gone up in like 20-25 years.

We will most likely see less small game hunters when the CRP is basically gone.Especially if we enter a drought cycle.We started that last summer.Little snow so far this winter.Our GNF needs the money.

These are modest increases for both resident and non-res.I will have to pay an increase also.When I leave the state to HUNT.....not fish,I pay just as much as you would here.Heck this is a bargain.....look at what Montana did....$500 for a deer license.

I was looking at going there,but I DECIDED that was to much.NR will have to make the same decision here.If you can't come up with the money.....hunt at home.....just like I tried to do.Didn't get a license to hunt deer here for the first time in 50 years.It is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are modest increases for both resident and non-res.I will have to pay an increase also. When I leave the state to HUNT.....not fish,I pay just as much as you would here.Heck this is a bargain.....look at what Montana did....$500 for a deer license.

Modest though it may be, gouging is gouging no matter what state is doing it. When you hunt does the state tell you to pick a couple of days during the season to hunt then charge you full price for the entire season? "Heck this is a bargain" Keep telling yourself that. I'm originally from MN, moved to WI 2 years ago. I hunt and fish in MN, WI and ND and still consider myself a Minnesotan. You have better hunting in some cases than MN, cant compare to MN for fishing with a few exceptions. I cant imagine the screaming that would come from ND if Minnesota gouged ND fisherman the way ND gouges MN hunters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK......I hear this all the time so lets analize that for a minute.The fishing license in Minn is for 365 days.The waterfowl season here is basically 60 days.Some years less than that.You want to limit the Minn license to 14 days?Using the same ratio that is 6 times less or more depending on how you look at it.To be the same ratio.....we should limit our NR license to 1/6 th of yours.....that means to be the same your NR license here should be for 2 days.

Sure lets analyze it. When I buy a license, I get the pleasure of paying a couple of hundred buck for it. What do i get in return? I get limited to where and when I can hunt. Limits not placed on the resident. That in effect limits the license i paid a couple of hundred buck for to a 2 or 3 day license. 60 day season, sure it is, for the resident maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a resident.....Why should I have to pick places and days?We aren't gouging you.Doesn't Minn or Wisc charge NR more than residents?

As far as 60 days....that will take you to Dec.We are usually ice fishing by then.You say you hunt only 2-3 days out of 60.....well I don't fish in Minn 365 days either.Even though I suppose I could.

I love NR bringing out the old fishing vs hunting comparison.

So go ahead and get your state to limit my fishing license if that makes you feel better.

When I leave the state to hunt or fish for that matter.I pay more than Res.You know there are a lot of res. hunters who would rather see no non-res at all.I'm not that way.

Once again these are reasonable increases compared to other states.Get used to it.It isn't going away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see this as gouging whatsoever. It would be gouging if they were raising NR licenses, but leaving residents alone.

And you can hunt for more than two weeks. Just buy another license. Simple.

Heck, I could care less if Minnesota limited their fishing licenses. I wish they would! Places like Mille Lacs, Ottertail, Leach, Vermillion wouldn't be getting the tar beaten out of them week-in and week-out. Take a bit of pressure off.

But that will never happen. Know why? One word: Deficit. The MN DNR needs that money bad, and the last thing they'll ever do would be to threaten the chance of getting more people to buy licenses.

Quote:
I cant imagine the screaming that would come from ND if Minnesota gouged ND fisherman the way ND gouges MN hunters.

You must never have fished Devils Lake or the Missouri... If you had, you'd never make a blanket statement like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you can hunt for more than two weeks. Just buy another license. Simple.

Wow you dont even know your own regs. "Nonresidents may purchase only one waterfowl license per year" Page 2 of the ND 2012 waterfowl guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow you dont even know your own regs. "Nonresidents may purchase only one waterfowl license per year" Page 2 of the ND 2012 waterfowl guide.

Woops, my bad. I'm thinking upland. Well, two weeks is still a heckuva long time to get your fill of ducks, what with the possession limit only being twice the daily. Two trips, four full limits, 24 ducks in the freezer. 48 breasts and legs. That's a lot of meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow you dont even know your own regs.

Geez skee, give the guy a break- do you know every single rule and reg in the state of WI? In particular, do you know every single rule as it applies to non-residents? I'm going to go out on a limb and say the odds are pretty good you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not against having NR hunters here.I grew up in Waconia and at ST Cloud State.My relatives come here to hunt with me.But jeez.....our license fees haven't gone up in like 20-25 years.

I believe you are wrong on that, I do not rememebr exactly the dollar amount but I am about 99% sure it has gone up for NR deer hunters in the past 25 years. I cannot remember exactly what I paid back then, so, I e-mailed the Game & Fish to see what the fee's were back then and when they increased.

I do see this bill passed your House 12-0 and was sent to the Senate for a hearing on 2-1-2013. I would guess this bill will pass without a hitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez skee, give the guy a break- do you know every single rule and reg in the state of WI? In particular, do you know every single rule as it applies to non-residents? I'm going to go out on a limb and say the odds are pretty good you don't.

You are correct, but I do make the effort to at least check the regs prior to posting something as factual or making glib comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvey I Believe you have 2 bills mixed up.This is Senate bill 2231.Senate committees do not have 12 members on them.6 I think is the right number.

SB 2231 - Introduced by Sen's Laffen, Burckhard, Murphy; Rep's Kreun, Porter, Ruby. Would increase the price of a resident small game license from $6 to $15, nonresident small game hunting license from $85 to $100, resident big game hunting license from $20 to $30, youth big game hunting license from $10 to $11, nonresident big game hunting license from $200 to $250, nonresident bow hunting license from $200 to $220, resident furbearer license from $7 to $15, resident fishing license from $10 to $16, resident age 65 and older or permanently disabled fishing license from $3 to $5, nonresident fishing license from $35 to $45, resident husband and wife fishing license from $14 to $22, resident wild turkey license from $8 to $12, motorboat under 16 feet in length and all canoes from $12 to $18, motorboats from 16 feet to less than 20 feet in length from $24 to $36, motorboats at least 20 feet in lenth from $33 to $45, resident paddlefish tag from $3 to $10, nonresident paddlefish tag from $7 to $25, nonresident waterfowl hunting license from $85 to $100, nonresident husband and wife fishing license from $45 to $60, nonresident three-day fishing license from $15 to $20, nonresident furbearer and nongame license from $25 to $30, combination license from $32 to $40, resident swan license from $5 to $15, nonresident swan license from $25 to $30, crane license from $5 to $10, nonresident 10-day fishing license from $25 to $30, habitat restoration stamp required for the general game license from $10 to $17 and $8 (instead of $5) of each habitat stamp sold would be placed in the Game and Fish Department's private land habitat and access improvement fund, and a resident application fee for moose, elk and sheep from $3 to $5. In addition, would eliminate the nonresident seven-day fishing license for $20. Referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee.

This is the one I think you are looking at.It is HB1130.House committees have 12 members.So the 12-0 vote you mentioned is the House Natural Resources Committee.It still has to be voted on by the whole House.The increases aren't as high in the House bill.I look for both to pass each chamber and then to be reconciled in conference committees.Plus the House bill has no fishing license increases.

HB 1130 - Introduced by Rep's Porter, Damschen, Hofstad; Sen's Burckhard, Carlisle, Lyson. Would increase the fee of a resident small game hunting license from $6 to $10, a nonresident small game hunting license from $85 to $94, resident big game hunting license from $20 to $25, a youth big game hunting license from $10 to $11, nonresident big game hunting license from $200 to $220, resident furbearer license from $7 to $10, resident wild turkey license from $8 to $10, nonresident waterfowl hunting license from $85 to $94, nonresident furbearer and nongame hunting license from $25 to $28, resident combination license from $32 to $38, nonresident swan license from $25 to $28, and a resident application fee for moose, elk and sheep from $3 to $5. In addition, the habitat restoration stamp required for the general game license would increase from $10 to $17, and $8 (instead of $5) of each habitat stamp sold would be placed in the Game and Fish Department's private land habitat and access improvement fund. House Energy and Natural Resources Committee heard 1/18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant imagine the screaming that would come from ND if Minnesota gouged ND fisherman the way ND gouges MN hunters.

I grew up in ND and don't know anyone who bothers traveling to MN just to fish. Why would they want to deal with the ridiculous regulations and substandard fishing when there is much better fishing right out their back door without the constant harassment?

Sure, you may get some of the folks on the far eastern edge of ND, but as far as the rest of the state is concerned I don't see much reason to head east into MN unless on a family vacation and you're looking for a resort style atmosphere which ND really doesn't have that much of.

If MN jacked up their fishing fees I don't think many would give a rip quite honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  



  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • Doesn't get any better than that. Pic says it all. Congrats  
    • Well not the most attractive option but when the kids are out playing in the sprinkler you could get a roll of nonslip pool matting to roll out then put in the garage during the fall-winter? 
    •   OK, then how about stripping the sealer if that is what makes it slippery.   After a few years it really isn't necessary, since the concrete is mostly cured by then (yeah it keeps curing for decades but most of it is done in a year or two).     I guess if you like the glossy look then maybe the sand in the sealer thing is worth a try.
    • Season ended just like I thought it would and happy Leipold held true to his word and moved on from Fletcher...he did some good things but overall did a poor job building a team that can compete at a high level unfortunately.  It will be interesting to see how the new GM handles this situation...getting rid of under-performers will not be easy and what in return? Going to be one of those down before heading back up deals. Coyle will be the first to go IMO, Granny can go as far as I'm concerned...gotta sign Zucker even though he was terrible in the playoffs, Nino is a question mark, Staal might need to go with the up year he had but long in the tooth and now would be the only time to get anything for him, Ennis (terrible player) will be bought out, Foligno (terrible) probably not tradeable with his contract...enjoy the ride Wild fans!
    • We packed four of us in the blind and had a blast!  Just about ready to give up and gave "one last call" only to have the birds blow up not 30 yards away from us.  One of the gobblers rubbed against the blind for two feet as he walked into the deeks- pretty dang cool!  Ryan made a perfect shot and dropped the bird in his tracks.  
    • Ryan.pdf The pdf shows up as a link for me.  Is that ok Borch?  
    • Twins are 33-91 against the Yankees since 2002! Its unbelievable how awful they play against them.    Stanton absolutely murdered that hanging curveball for a HR last night.
    • I was looking for reviews last night but only found a handful and they didn't really give me that much info. They seemed to be overall positive reviews but all were written after recently applying it so no info on longevity. 
    • Stamped concrete looks great, but not very functional and it requires maintenance too, like every couple of years or so.   ....and how do you get the non-peeled, non-flaked area cleaned?