Introduced Bill

[Bobb-o]

anyone hear of the bill that just got introduced into the Minnesota senate?

(e) A license issued under section 97A.474, subdivision 2, or 97A.475, subdivision 7, to a person who is domiciled in a
state or province that prohibits Minnesota residents from taking
game fish or small game during a part of the season that is open
to residents of that state is not valid for taking game fish
during the first 14 days of the season prescribed under section
97C.395, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (1).
Sec. 2. [EFFECTIVE DATE.]
Section 1 is effective the day following final enactment.

basically says that North Dakotans cannot fish or hunt here for the first 14 days of any hunting or fishing season as long as they have the law that does not allow nonresidents to hunt for the first couple of weeks.

------------------
Diplomacy - The art of saying "nice doggie" while you find a rock.

[BDR]

This is not the answer!!!! I hate the way we've been treated by N+S Dakota, but a return action like this seem childish. Can't these Governors get together and work something out? There has to be a better way. I don't have the answers but the ones truely hurt by this will be resorts and communities.

Brian

[Ole1855]

It's what is better known as reciprocity, if we can't hunt/fish in their state for the first 14 days, reciprocity would mean they can't hunt/fish in our state for the first 14 days. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Ole

[This message has been edited by Ole1855 (edited 02-07-2004).]

[Guest]

I've been reading this forum for months but never registered until now. I like the way this site is run and from what I've read everyone on here is a good sport.

I live in Fargo but I was born and raised in Minnesota. If this bill gains any support I'd be surprised, but I don't blame anyone for introducing it.

Here on the West side of the Red our state officials say that the reason for this restriction on non-residents is to control the number of hunters in the field, in other words, they felt we had too many. I'd prefer they control that some other way, maybe with higher license fees. I have purchased a non-resident angling license in Minnesota since 1988, and a family license since I met my wife in 1991.

South Dakota has limited non-residents to a ten day pheasant season for years, and now they have a different opener for residents. The border war between Minnesota and Ontario is well documented. How did we let our politicians get us into this??

I know people in Devil's Lake who don't mind seeing Minnesota license plates in October and I know several resorts and marine dealers in DL, Walker and Alexandria who don't mind taking my Mastercard #.

Truth is, any legislation to control outdoor activity for any reason other than to manage the resource's health is not ethical. There's plenty of room over here for Minnesotans to hunt and there's plenty of room on Minnesota lakes in mid May.

Congrats on your forum guys, it's a class act, and I'm glad I finally registered.

[Redlantern]

I don't think higher license fees are the answer. That would cut down on the numbers alright, but at whose expense? Hunting shouldn't be just for the rich, it's for every economic class. Would a lottery system be more fair if the true reason behind this 14 day waiting period is really to manage the amount of people in the field?
Also, is it the Governor's of our states that control this or the legislaters?

------------------
Erik

[Guest]

You're probably right Red, if fees got high enough. Some states will sell you as many non resident licenses you want, but they are only good for a few days. It encourages folks from out of town to take a trip or two, but not spend every weekend there. At least that's the theory.

I wonder what would happen if they just let us be? I'd guess that the use some lakes get would be enough that we'd spread out on our own.

[Guest]

"Truth is, any legislation to control outdoor activity for any reason other than to manage the resource's health is not ethical."

Amen, Preach it!

That should be the most important and only consideration. On the fishing side we have so many reg's that are there that really do nothing to enhance the resource quality, but they do a great job of restricting fishermen from enjoying the resource as much as they could.

Only one line in the summer and ice fishing on designated trout lakes, pathetic. Shore fisherman and trollers only being allowed one line per person should be considered a violation of human rights because there is no compelling government or civic interest at stake when Species Limits govern and protect the resource.

[Guest]

There's plenty of good regs too though, closed seasons and limits, but I think slot limits are the future, getting off the subject now...

[Guest]

Basspastor, do you fish in both states? Just curious.

[2dalake]

I re-registered to a better spelling on my username...

This is part of an article from the Jan 18th Fargo Forum, by Outdoors and Sports columnist Mike McFeely:

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources fish and wildlife chief John Guenther joked about having to wipe the blood off his face before talking with the media last week following a meeting with North Dakota Game and Fish Department director Dean Hildebrand.

Guenther said he and Hildebrand discussed North Dakota’s nonresident hunting regulations, implemented by the 2003 Legislature and unpopular among many Minnesotans, mostly to share
information.
Guenther said he has already been asked by some Minnesota legislators how the state should respond to North Dakota’s nonresident regulations.
Guenther said he now better understands the Game and Fish position on the topic, which is that it is trying to manage as best it can numbers of hunters vying for limited resources in limited spaces.
“We have comparable situations in Minnesota that have those types of problems,” Guenther said. “We shared those experiences and concerns.
“Dean and I agree our goal is to manage the resource and focus on managing the ! resource. We both, however, are driven by legislators who are driven by citizens. It is sometimes difficult for us to control what happens. We can only advise and point out things that are best for hunting, the citizens and the species. There are going to be varying opinions on those things,” Guenther said.
He added: “We don’t want to promote disputes among residents of the two states. That’s neither constructive nor our purpose.”

-end article-

So if you were wondering if it's the governors or the legislators driving this, there's the opinion of our top resource management officials. The article covers other subjects of the meeting, like PLOTS and so on.

[Guest]

I say let it pass, and possibly ND Residents will lobby their law makers to change their rules.

------------------
en kala
(I fish)

[fishface5]

First off, let me apologize to the Bass Pastor for what I'm about to say, but come on, somebody's got to! Bass Pastor only fishes the "pre-season".

[walleyehawk]

Fishface

In his mind it is not the law but the loopholes that count. If anyone wants to know what we are talking about, go to the Annandale forum and read the posts. Not poaching to fish for bass prior to season if you catch them "accidently". Sportsman of the Year??? NOT.

As far as this legislation, I think it is a shot across the bow to let the Dakota's know this matters to Minnesotans and you can't have it both ways. Keep us out of your state but we welcome you with open arms. I wish the states would resolve these issues without resorting to childish games. Besides, they started it

[2dalake]

As a Nodak I agree, and that's why I posted the Forum article, and why I suggested there needs to be another solution to keeping the concentration of hunters down, but what? I know higher license fees wouldn't be popular, I wouldn't want to pay them either, but somebody post a solution.

My parents live on a lake near Alexandria, and I don't want to have to tell my kids they can't fish for bass at Grandpa and Grandmas until mid June.