SB 2225

[KEN W]

This bill passed the Senate today....24-23.

If it becomes law it would allow NR to pay $500 for a statewide,season long waterfowl and upland license.$300 would got to PLOTS.

[harvey lee]

Boy, what a deal.

Maybe Mn should raise the nr fishing fees to $500.00.

[cbrooks]

yeah I don't understand that bill. You would have alot less people hunting. Maybe thats the point. I'm glad Minnesota doesn't raise there NR fees like that. What a joke

[LMITOUT]

Used to be able to hunt pheasant statewide and season long for ~$100 as a NR. I guess I'll stick with my two, 7-day license.

I just don't see what the purpose of this option would be? I could buy five of the regular licenses for the same price and unless you took a month off you'd never use all of it. Even three regular licences would be more than plenty for most I would think? How many people would actually buy this? I understand that it would give you the freedom to come and go when you want without specifying the time slots as you do with the regular license, but geez.

[cbrooks]

What is it now. 100 dollars seems like alot.

[LMITOUT]

It's around $100 for a 14 day upland license.

[cbrooks]

I guess maybe most NR don't need anymore of a season than what is offered. I do know this bill is robbery.

I think Montana came out with new NR license fee. I think for a elk its around a thousand for a lottery, so it double. Everybody from North Dakota was complaining about that but when these bills come out there like well thats tough. Its funny when the shoe is on the other foot. I do think North Dakota will become more flexible on the NR season. As far as this bill is concern I will be sending email on this. I haven't done so yet.

[GatorGetter]

Non residents still could buy the small game or waterfowl license seperately. This is just an option to buy a combo license for season long for 500 bucks.

[KEN W]

Correct.....you guys aren't reading this right.This is just another choice you could make.From what I am hearing,Res oppose this bigtime.It would lead to more NR buying houses in small towns and leasing up of land.

[gotum]

I don't like this bill because it gives a full season waterfowl license to non residents the birds in alot of areas get enough pressure and are pushed out fast enough.

[Augusta]

Correct.....you guys aren't reading this right.This is just another choice you could make.From what I am hearing,Res oppose this bigtime.It would lead to more NR buying houses in small towns and leasing up of land.

Ken, do the resident hunters have any organization that they operate to monitor what is going on in the legislature? I had a heated discussion at a BB game last nite from a NR who purchased 160 acres of land with a home near Devils Lake. He also intends to lease as many acres as he can in the Devils Lake area. He wants this bill passed so he can start an outfitter business in the Devils Lake area for the "upper class" as he puts it.

[KEN W]

[Note from admin: Your post has been edited. Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.] After yesterday's vote to pass this bill ...24-23.Some senators who voted yes got bigtime pressure from state hunters and asked it to be reconsidered.It was.

Re-called back SB 2225

Voted down and dead

No....29

Yes....17

[Augusta]

Thanks for the info Ken.

[gotum]

After yesterday's vote to pass this bill ...24-23.Some senators who voted yes got bigtime pressure from state hunters and asked it to be reconsidered.It was.

Re-called back SB 2225

Voted down and dead

No....29

Yes....17

Yay good to hear

[harvey lee]

I wish Mn would vote down nr fisherman so our fish population does not decrease.

[KEN W]

1 big difference if you want to compare fishing to hunting.

Fishing waters here and in MN are open to the public.Hunting land is mostly private.Therefor numbers of hunters have to be a lot more limited than fishing numbers.

[harvey lee]

I would still limit the licenses and raise the fee's. Seems every state I go to the fee's are getting out of control so I guess one might say it is payback time.

I do not hunt on anyone else's land in ND, I hunt on our land and a few spots in the grasslands.

[candiru]

By law NR's licenses are limited to 1% of each zone/species/sex. Even for residents it may take 3-5 years to draw a buck tag in some zones. Even longer for badland Mulie tags. This year there could be more people that want to hunt in some zones than tags that are available. If more NR tags are allowed there will be an increase in land purchasing/leasing and guides. That will not sit well with ND's close to 100,000 resident deer hunters. A politician that supports raising the 1% cap is putting their job on the line.

[Augusta]

I would still limit the licenses and raise the fee's. Seems every state I go to the fee's are getting out of control so I guess one might say it is payback time.

I do not hunt on anyone else's land in ND, I hunt on our land and a few spots in the grasslands.

I wonder what you would be saying if the ND people were coming here and trying to buy the lake that you fish on for their private use. Or better yet, I wonder what you would say if they leased the lake that you fish on and now charged you $150/day/pole to fish.......I just wonder how welcome the ND people would be.......

[harvey lee]

I am not talking about buying land in ND, just buying a license. Or, even being able to purchase a license. We are not comparing apples to apples.

ND can cure any issue with outfitters as they could also say that only a percentage of the outfitter license's would be available for NR just like the licenses.

All I am saying is that for a NR to purchase a gun license for deer is almost impossible at times. I have never complained about the fee and when I started deer hunting there is was $60.00 and it's now $215.00. I just want to be able to get a license more than once every 3-4 years.

It will not be lo0ng and if the other licenses go up, the deer licenses will follow.

Yes, there are some states that have increased their licenses so much that I quit hunting there.

Another question I have is that why does one have to pay so much for a nr license to hunt Federal land within that state? Seems we all pay taxes for that Federal land and I would think since all helped pay for it that all could enjoy every aspect of it.

All these hunting restrictions and price increase's will make hunting a sport only for the wealthy and in some states, like Montana, that is already happening. Many states have already raised the deer and elk licenses up so much that one cannot affords to even go anymore and that sure seems to be the way for the future of hunting as a NR.

In regards to your statement about nr hunting and fishing, I do believe that ND has limits on when one can hunt pheasants throughout the season now. I also believe that yes there is a big issue with a few outfitters leasing up alot of land for others to hunt and pay a fee. No, I do not agree with that at all but it goes right along with everything else.

Soon only the wealthy will hunt as they will not have land to hunt on and the fee's will simply cost to much and that's if one can even get a license.

[mainbutter]

I wonder what you would be saying if the ND people were coming here and trying to buy the lake that you fish on for their private use. Or better yet, I wonder what you would say if they leased the lake that you fish on and now charged you $150/day/pole to fish.......I just wonder how welcome the ND people would be.......

I'd say "You live in ND so that means you probably can't afford to buy lake-front property! "

If MN law allowed Minnesotans to privately own and lease lakes and charge people to fish it, I'd want it to allow any US citizen (NDers included) to lease lakes and charge people to fish it. Luckily that is not the case.

I have no problem with NDers coming over here and purchasing large amounts of private land and charging people to hunt on it.

I have no problem with NDers purchasing lake-front property in MN and using it as their weekend getaway.

[Scoot]

All these hunting restrictions and price increase's will make hunting a sport only for the wealthy and in some states, like Montana, that is already happening. Many states have already raised the deer and elk licenses up so much that one cannot affords to even go anymore and that sure seems to be the way for the future of hunting as a NR.

This is the worste part of the whole deal, IMO. Money and greed seem to be driving the whole thing and there's not a whole lot that it seems we can do about it. If you wanna play, you have to pay. And paying these days, means a heck of a lot of money.

[harvey lee]

By law NR's licenses are limited to 1% of each zone/species/sex. Even for residents it may take 3-5 years to draw a buck tag in some zones. Even longer for badland Mulie tags. This year there could be more people that want to hunt in some zones than tags that are available. If more NR tags are allowed there will be an increase in land purchasing/leasing and guides. That will not sit well with ND's close to 100,000 resident deer hunters. A politician that supports raising the 1% cap is putting their job on the line.

I know that in 2G1, a resident can get a buck tag every year. My father never missed a tag in 23 years and a good friend of mine and his kids get buck tags every season and have for thye past 10 years right along with many muzzleloader tags. For a NR, it is 3-4 times longer. These were all resident guides and outfitters as I did not see a nr on the list. This was 3 years ago and yes, there could be a couple now for deer.

I also believe that out of that 1% half do go to outfitters. I tried to purchase one of those tags from a few outfitters but for $550-$700, I passed. That seems to be a bit much I would think.

As far as thwe guides and outfitters go, I will do some research and see what the percentage is of nr outfitters and guides as I believe that number is very small for deer. Even if they did get the guide or outfitters license, those licenses are also restricted to a very small percentage for deer tags.

As far as nr ND citizens owning lake shore land in Minnesota, one might take a look over in the DL area, there are many ND residents who own lakeshore property on many lakes now. I have no issues with this at all as everyone should be able to enjoy the outdoors in there area that they live.

I guess my question may be, how would those cabin owner like it if Mn said only a small percentage could have a fishing license?

[harvey lee]

I totally agree Scoot but, it does not have to be that way unless the residents of each state ask for it. Then it spirals right out of control as it is now.

[KEN W]

Not quite right Harvey.G/O get a total of 100 tags.No G/O can get more than 5 and they must go through a draw if there are more than 100 apps. by G/O.

The 1% that go to NR will never change.Because farmers hunt deer.Not many hunt upland or waterfowl.100,000 Res hunters would shout down any increase in the %.

I guess you made the decision to move out of ND.That's your choice.I made the decision to move here for less salary,but great hunting.And as in most states Res get preference over NR.

Do you own any of the land here that you hunt?If so,you get preference over other NR even though the price of the tag is still $200.I think this is wrong and should be changed.In some of the units,especially the badlands for mule deer,NR landowners get ALL the tags.So other NR are applying for tags they cannot get.That is not right.Either NR landowners should get free doe tags or go through the regular draw like everyone else.That would keep more land being bought up by NR.