SB2248

[KEN W]

This bill would allow non-res waterfowl hunters to buy another 7 day period for $125.It was voted on yesterday and lost on a tie vote.Looks like it might come back again today.

Contact these Senators to thank them for their NAY vote and to hold their NAY vote on 2248 today:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected];

Contact these Senators to change their YEA vote to a NAY vote on 2248:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

[walleye18]

Is this dead?

[KEN W]

This bill was defeated on a tie vote in the Senate.....23-23

[Scoot]

Thanks for the update, Ken.

[Handsonthepole]

Don't get all crazy on me when I ask this but why would you want that bill to fail? Just wondering.

[KEN W]

Don't get all crazy on me when I ask this but why would you want that bill to fail? Just wondering.

Basically there are enough non-resident waterfowl hunters coming here.The greatest percentage are from Minn.Nothing against Minn.To allow them another license would basically limit opportunities for

residents.Especially weekends when most residents are able to hunt.

[Scoot]

Basically there are enough non-resident waterfowl hunters coming here.The greatest percentage are from Minn.Nothing against Minn.To allow them another license would basically limit opportunities for residents.Especially weekends when most residents are able to hunt.

I'm all for bringing in NRs and NR money, but I totally agree with Ken (first time ever, right Ken? LOL ). There's a limit to the number of NRs who can be brought in to the state. It would generate more income for the state, but the cost to residents would be too great (IMO and apparently the opinion of the state).

[harvey lee]

I wonder if Mn should limit the number of fishing licenses for North Dakota residents if the lakes in Mn get too busy? It sure could limit my opportunities.

[KEN W]

Actually it makes no difference to me if they do extend the season or not.I don't hunt waterfowl in ND.One week in Sask gives me all I can possibly eat.I spend my free time hunting roosters with my GWP.

[Handsonthepole]

Harvey. I was thinking the same thing regarding the fishing in MN. Also, we have a lot of NR deer hunters in Wisconsin and there is room for all. Can't imagine the uproar if we started lmiting that!

[Scoot]

Tom, I definitely see your point. I've been out looking for goose fields and seeing tons of out of state plates that make it tough to find a spot. However, I've been out on lakes in MN and been one of those non-residents who was taking up a spot on the water. I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too...

Related to your point, too, I'm not for anything that furthers the little peeing match that seems to happen a lot between MN and ND. For hunting, though, I wonder at what point the number of non-residents needs to be limited to. For fishing things seem to be unlimited (as far as number of licenses available). For hunting, it seems to be more limited though. I'm not sure what the answer is- I don't think my original point was unreasonable, but I agree with what you're saying too. I guess in the end my opinion on the matter doesn't matter a whole lot- it's just my opinion. However, the more I think about it, the more I'm not sure what to think about it.

[harvey lee]

I don't have a bone to pick with any other person that hunts or fishs.

The problem I have is that some states seem to want to limit who can come and when and how much money they will charge them.

I realize we all have to pay to hunt and fish and even with the smaller increase in the non res deer fee's for ND, it looks like just a smaller increase but it will not be long and we will have turned all the hunting in this country into only a rich man's sport.

Not trying to single out any state but it seems that North Dakota want's only the resident hunter to enjoy the outdoor's in ND. In the 26 years I have crossed the border to hunt there, every time a new law in made, it seems to restrict the non res opportunity's. I agree that is thier right or option but do they think what it would be if thier border states did the same back to them?

I do not hunt waterfowl any longer so this law has little to zero effect on me except for the fact that sooner or later, they will be telling me I can only shoot a 3pt buck as we have to keep the larger deer for the residents.

That's why I say, restrict all of them who cross the border to Mn. That's not what any of us want but it seems some in ND could care less.

I am sure when you are out looking for fields to hunt that there are many nr hunters. Are there alot of NR hunters west another 100 miles? Only reason I ask is I am sure within 100 miles of the MN/ND border there are a ton of Mn hunters.

[harvey lee]

Actually it makes no difference to me if they do extend the season or not.I don't hunt waterfowl in ND.One week in Sask gives me all I can possibly eat.I spend my free time hunting roosters with my GWP.

I sure hope for your sake Ken that Sask does not look at hunting for NR's like North Dakota does or you may be restricted to 2 teal for your annual limit.

Thats the issue we have here, some say it does not make any difference to them at all since they do not hunt there or it does not effect them.

Well, sooner or later a state or law will change that will effect you and then I wonder how much you will like the change?

We cannot have a line drawn in the sand to enjoy the outdoors, I agree a NR will pay more but if all the states worked together, we would all be better off. But God know's that will never happen.

[Scoot]

We cannot have a line drawn in the sand to enjoy the outdoors, I agree a NR will pay more but if all the states worked together, we would all be better off. But God know's that will never happen.

Sadly, that seems to be so true. MN and ND seem to treat each other like a couple of adolescent brothers- they know they're stuck together, but they try to tick each other off as much as possible. It sure would be nice if they could do as Rodney King said and "just get along".

I wasn't trying to make a point about trying to restrict NRs in my first post- I was thinking as a R and trying to increase opportunities for Rs. But you are definitely right- thinking that way might open the door for some, but closes it for others, which isn't what I was shooting for at all.

[harvey lee]

This change does not affect me at all as I do not hunt waterfowl in ND.

But as each state restrists the NR hunter more and more, sooner or later it will hit every one of us who hunt in other states.

I guess that is the way of the future.

[UMC]

ND still has fairly lax regulations regarding nonresidents. 2 weeks of bird hunting away from home is quite a bit in a season that last about a month. SD has a lottery and very limited licenses. Montana big game licenses are hundreds of dollars. ND has good bird hunting and hopefully they don't sell it out. If MN wants to limit NR fishing, that is their right. Although the resort community would go nuts so it would never pass.

[harvey lee]

ND still has fairly lax regulations regarding nonresidents. 2 weeks of bird hunting away from home is quite a bit in a season that last about a month. SD has a lottery and very limited licenses. Montana big game licenses are hundreds of dollars. ND has good bird hunting and hopefully they don't sell it out. If MN wants to limit NR fishing, that is their right. Although the resort community would go nuts so it would never pass.

I agree ND is a bit more relaxed than other states but times are changing. ND has a lottery and very, very limited deer licenses for NR also. I cannot get a turkey license for my area also. Not one as I can only if there are any tags left and there never are, so very limited there also. North Dakota's NR deer license are hundreds of dollars also.

I have recieved 1 muzzlerloader deer licenstal licenses.

I could go on but I believe you may now understand. It would be good for noone. in my life in ND, thats pretty tough and I would not say relaxed at all.

I do recieve about 2-3 rifle deer tags per 10 years, I would say that is not relaxed either. You may need to check the regs to see what the regs are for NR hunters and not just imply they are so relaxed.

North Dakotas has numerous different regs for NR hunters for bird hunting also. NR hunters are not treated like residents at all. I would say 25 years ago you could have made the statement you have made not as I said times are changing and not in favor of the NR at all. To bad for all sportsmen in all the states.

What are these lax regs for NR hunters in North Dakota?

I agree the resort community would not like it but you can only limit people so much and they will push back. The only ones to lose in the end will be the sportsmen.

We all need to group together and tell our reps to be fair to the NR's sportmen in our areas.

All I am trying to say is that all these states need to get along together to benefit all the outdoors people. As each state makes more restrictions for NR sportsmen, all the others will also and then noone will like the end result.

I will try to explain so you may grasp the situation a bit better.

Let'say MN decides to raise the NR fishing fee's, tells you that you can only fish certain days and some you cannot. Then, to get a fishing license, you will have to go through a lottery for 1% of the total licenses available. My bet is, most lake home owners would not like this one bit at all along with many from the Fargo area.

I have to believe for all to enjoy the opportunities in each state, every state should try to work for the best for all. I know, that could never happen when we involve greed.

Nuf on this subject.

[UMC]

I understand the situation and the regulations plenty well. It is definitely a delicate balance of preserving quality hunting with not restricting it so much that it kills the sport in general.

In regards to regulations, I was talking bird hunting, I should have been more clear. Unlimited licenses available to NR and two weeks of bird hunting for around $100 is pretty relaxed IMO for possibly the best waterfowl hunting in the lower 48.

I understand your frustration about deer and turkeys, but how many western states could you get a license as often as you do in ND? When the population was higher 4-5 years ago I was an NR and I got a tag every year, so I'm not sure about the 2/3 times every 10 years unless you're talking for a buck. For turkeys, ND doesn't exactly have a huge population. The $220 cost for a deer tag isn't too far out of line - a MN tag is $165 and a bear tag is $230.

Comparing hunting and fishing is pretty tough, although I'm sure if I lived in lakes country I would get annoyed at all the NR fishing the local lakes. However, You can fish 50 feet from someone all day and still have a high quality experience. Not so with hunting.

[DJharms]

why not have NR of MN only be able to buy two or three 10 day fishing liscense this would keep the resorts happy and free up the lakes for residents.

[harvey lee]

"I understand your frustration about deer and turkeys, but how many western states could you get a license as often as you do in ND? When the population was higher 4-5 years ago I was an NR and I got a tag every year, so I'm not sure about the 2/3 times every 10 years unless you're talking for a buck. For turkeys, ND doesn't exactly have a huge population."

Yes, it takes that long to recieve a buck license. I realize one use to be able to acquire numerous doe tags but not the buck tags, they are very hard to recieve through the lottery. A buck license for ML is almost impossible, maybe 1 every 4-7 years depending on how many buck ML tags are available to nr hunters.

Years ago, approx 8-10 oso, the Game and Fish did not ven come close to selling all the deer license's in zone 2G1. That year, I asked the Game and Fish director why they did not offer more tags to the nr hunters when they had tags left. He explained to me that they did not care if all the tags went out as the residents of ND did not want the pressure of the nr hunters conflicting with the residents hunters. I would again say tat is pretty restrictive for a NR hunter. I would hate to see all states begin to restrict nr hunters like that for hunting or fishing.

In regards to turkeys, our area normally has a very high population of turkeys. Yes, it has been lower the last few years but even when it was higher and we could see 200 birds in one group, a nr could not get a tag, No chance at all at pulling a tom spring turkey license as they were all for residence hunters. So, yes, it is very restrictive.

I can deal with only the res hunters getting tags but to say ND is lax with the laws for Nr hunters is a stretch.

As far as getting licenses in other states, I can go to Wisc and get a tag without to much problem at all. I have a few friends who hunt South dakota and they get tags many times more for bucks than I do in ND. I have not hunted in Montana for a few years but when I did, I could go through a landowner and pull a buck tag almost every year and yes, the fee's were higher.

As I have stated before, I realize I am a nr hunter but it is not easy in ND to pull the buck tags at all except for archery tags which of course one can purchase over the counter.

I would guess both you and I simply have different viewpoints on NR and res hunters abillity to enjoy the outdoors.

[harvey lee]

why not have NR of MN only be able to buy two or three 10 day fishing liscense this would keep the resorts happy and free up the lakes for residents.

I would hate to see this happen also as I do not like to see anyone restricted when it comes to enjoying the great outdoors. There is plenty of room for all and we should make sure if at all possible to let all enjoy what there is in regards to the outdoors.

[DJharms]

all i know is that i live close to the ND border and during the summer just as many boats and trucks in the landings are ND as MN. I believe that all sportsman should be able to enjoy the outdoors when time allows them too without restrictions,if its a draw system that is fine but if you have a season then NR should be able to enjoy that whole season when they buy a liscense

[jentz]

What should happen is like the golden rule "Treat others as you wish others treat you"

Treat each bordering state as their rules treat a neighboring state.If one has better hunting and another has better fishing,They set restrictive rules,then treat their residents the same.Wisc would have a fee for license,ND another,SD anotherIowa,Even spread it to other states.Colo.Tx.Mont.etc .Thats fair for each state and everyone.

[TylerS]

I think it works fine just the way it is. I was a ND NR for many years before finally taking up residency. I shot plenty of ducks and geese in those two weeks I was allotted.

BTW, there's nothing stopping you from buying a SD license, too. Why not if you're making the trips already? Shoot ducks for a couple weeks in ND, then follow the migration south later in the season and hit up our neighbor to the south.

I guess I don't get it. SD has had more restrictive hunting licenses than we have for years, but you don't hear people complain about that.

The way I see it is, ND is protecting the pastime and a unique resource. There are very, very few states where you can have successful freelance waterfowl hunts. By keeping pressure low, it's helping to save landowner relations and the sport we love.

[BoxMN]

You actually have a good point Tyler, we all love our trips to NoDak, so much that we want to go there more... BUT... since we do love going there, they must be doing something right. While I still would like to hunt three weekends there, being able to hunt two works now, and if it keeps pressure lower, to keep the experience I now enjoy the same, so be it.

With that said, I would bet most out of state hunters only go there for one trip, due to the expense and time it takes, so honestly I don't it would matter that much.

But I enjoy my time in NoDak, and am happy for the trips I do get to enjoy, and time with friends there.