commission to supervise the NDGF

[bravo]

Utah is feeding pelleted feed. They should put some humic acid in it. It's cheap, it's natural and only 30 # per ton.

What does this have to do with this bill?

 

[TFX 186]

I think it's just another underlying statement that there is a lot of people in ND who aren't happy with the G&F and how they have handled issues. I think everyone is waking up to the fact they really answer to no one and do WTF they want. These bills and these studies are messages sent to get your shit together and start being accountable because the people of ND are on to you Dr Fouchi.
Fish On!

 

[bravo]

As far as the Utah thing, life isn't so black and white, there's some gray area. You can weigh the options of letting up to a certain percentage of the herd starve to death, or try to save what you can and deal with the disease consequences. Also, this is classic deflection to get the public emotionally invested. Completely unrelated to this bill.

This is a knee-jerk reaction to the bait ban fiasco. They smelled blood in the water with the amount of support that bill saw. The study will be self-imposed and not transparent, and of course will find that they need to oversee the G&F. The committee will be made up of farm bureau affiliated politicians who will favor their own interests over your average outdoorsman's. "Lets not over think it", right, just allow it to happen and everything will be fine. We have more and better fishing than ever, our bird and big game hunting is pretty stellar, but this magic committee can do better?

Waste of time, waste of taxpayer money.

 

[eyexer]

Anybody know about the proposed legislation regarding fishing tournaments. My son was asking me and I had no idea

 

[eyexer]

I think it's just another underlying statement that there is a lot of people in ND who aren't happy with the G&F and how they have handled issues. I think everyone is waking up to the fact they really answer to no one and do WTF they want. These bills and these studies are messages sent to get your shit together and start being accountable because the people of ND are on to you Dr Fouchi.
Fish On!

Just the fact they did nothing to stop the no trespass bill spoke volumes. They’re finding is 100% license sales. And they knew damn well license sales would go down with this law. And that’s exactly what happened. And they did nothing but shit on sportsmen again

 

[Fritz the Cat]

What does this have to do with this bill?

Not that long ago the NDGF used to feed. There is a coal mined out area that was turned into a wildlife production area. A huge forest of evergreen trees provide wind protection. Small dams provide cattail sloughs and there is tall grass not grazed. There is a nice high old mine access road right into the middle of it.

In 2008 there was 4 foot of snow. I walked in there and the Game and Fish metal 200 bushel feeder was empty, and the straw bales looked like they were ten years old. Feeding is now taboo. Deer cannot survive on pinecones and cattail fuzz. It's a beautiful thermal habitat. Not one deer in there.

Instead, the deer moved into the river bottom three miles away and are standing on top of farmer jones silage pile. In 2008, the current Public Service Commissioner had 27 deer on his bale stack.

When in the hell did all this mindset change to absolutely no feeding?

 

[bravo]

Didn't really answer my question but ok.

 

[fireone]

Remember that electronic posting started out as an interim study too. How did that work out?

 

[Zogman]

Remember that electronic posting started out as an interim study too. How did that work out?

Out of 5 older gents I know all said stick it! 2 went to Montana paid big bucks and each got an Elk and Mule Deer. One trophy Mulie and one Elk. Freezer is full and they even share.

It should cut down on the competition for the draws in the future.

 

[Pigsticker]

I don't know you personally so I have no idea what the legitimacy of this statement is, but the group who sent me this bill and wants us to support it said that your dad wrote the bill. Is that true? And if so, you would know the intentions much more than the rest of us.

I am 100% against having anyone in the ag sector in charge of governing management of wildlife. It sure does feel like that whole slippery slope thing people have been talking about is coming to fruition.

Hey Aaron,

Yes, my dad contacted his senator (Kannianen) and initiated the background to this bill. After visiting with an attorney at the capitol, they realized that a commission would have lots of hurdles to overcome to work in tandem with our century code, so instead of trying to ram a roughshod bill through, which would most likely fail due to many unanswered questions, they decided to propose it as a study to research the benefits and if it could be done at all.

TFX 186 has partially hit the nail on the head. It is not the only concern, but our Game and Fish has proven time and again that they don't listen to the sportsmen, ranchers, farmers, or other users of the land who observe trends or issues that exist in our wildlife world. When we had several winters in a row (2008-2011) that decimated our herds, they were told repeatedly by many many observant people that the deer herd had been severely decimated. This information was brought forth by many after the winter of 2010. They refused to listen because these reports did not come from their own agency and therefore were not considered a valid source of information. They then continued to issue a ridiculously high number of licenses (to the tune of something like 120,000 which was one of the highest on record) that same year to further damage an already decimated deer herd. Finally, after a year of backlash, the agency decreased the tags significantly after another bad winter of 2011, but that was based on their findings...not from sportsmen's accounts (sarcasm).

One year later at an advisory board meeting, I brought this up to Terry and asked him in front of everyone that if it was about funding from licenses then why not just increase the cost of licenses, afterall, it had only been almost thirty years since an increase in license cost. He scoffed at me and said that the department was proud that they haven't increased their license costs for deer and that they had no intentions of doing so. That very same summer, when deer license applications came out, the fee was increased to $30. Either he wasn't aware as the director of a plan to increase licenses, or he straight up lied. Either way, not a good look for him.

The Game and Fish conveniently banned baiting in unit (3A3), first wanting to grab the whole unit but decided to only take the north half after receiving lots of push back prior to the proclamation being issued. I argued with a biologist over that one because 3A3 is an enormous unit and they hadn't even found a single case of CWD in or or even in close proximity to the unit. The next year, same results...no CWD positives found within the unit, but they decided to take the whole unit because it accomplishes their goal of eliminating the tool of baiting from the landscape to help steer them towards AFWA compliance. No reason, nothing had changed, they just wanted to do it, so they did it...and nobody could do anything about it.

They continue to plant food plots and place interceptive feeding bales even though they proclaim that artificial congregation promotes the spread of disease. They still do this despite their attempt a few years back that endorsed a statewide ban of FEEDING (not just baiting) wildlife, but yet want to retain the ability and engage in the practice of interceptive feeding themselves.

It's also the crisis that has been occurring in the badlands and the gross mismanagement of our mule deer herd and the departments unwillingness to listen to sportsmen who know that place better than the biologists sitting in their office in Bismarck, performing their occasional data sampling from the region. Countless sportsmen have expressed concern that there is a real problem in the badlands, and the Game and Fish refuses to listen or address the issue. This has been going on for over a decade and it is only getting worse, year by year. Maybe just now, they are actually going to do something about it as we have seen a bow lottery segment pop up in our profiles on the NDGF personal profile page, but it only took nearly a decade of sportsmen and ranchers harping on them to (maybe) address the issue and get something done.

But once again, it won't be because the sportsmen had concern, it'll be because they felt that there was too much pressure, and it now needs to be regulated. Failure to account for bowhunters (as well as bowhunters loss) and the impacts of lions as well as coyotes towards the management program of the mule deer species is 100% negligent and we deserve better, the deer deserve better, especially when it comes to that resource. Don't even get me started on the departments claim of coyote impacts on the depredation of deer in western ND. They would have you believe that very little deer mortality comes from coyote predation, (especially during fawn recruitment), however, I have found ponch contents after ponch contents from coyote kills while lion hunting in the winter. I have witnessed multiple times a coyote's tactic along the shores of Sakakawea by pushing prey into frigid waters, waiting for the deer to tire and stiffen and then not have a fighting chance when it has to swim back into shore from being too cold and tired of swimming in the freezing temps. This isn't a one-off, I have observed it several times. Coyotes are a significant mortality factor even towards healthy deer.

So, to answer your question Aaron, we ultimately were sick of being rejected and tired of the arrogance that the department displays when it came to legitimate concerns from sportsmen and other vested parties. To be honest, Terry was a hard headed dictator and nobody was going to tell him anything from my interactions with him. I hope Jeb will do better, and he does seem to have a more interest in hearing what people have to say, but at the end of the day, its still a one man show down at the Game and Fish office and every decision is ultimately up to that one man and his opinion.

We thought that maybe, instead of having someone in the department who did not listen and was unaccountable to anyone (except to the governor), a board of commissioners from a variety of backgrounds, not just AGRICULTURE, would be a benefit for the sportsmen in this state. At least this way, we would have some way to say: "hey, these are our concerns, please bring them to the table" and at least a few people might listen and can have the discussion and come to a solution or compromise, as opposed to one individual essentially saying "nope, don't care what your concern is, its my way or the highway".

Another example, HB 1538 relating to fishing tournaments is currently headed to committee...tomorrow, I think? Game and Fish demands 10% of all gross entry fees, (seems a bit steep) and sadly it keeps some big tournaments from coming here which would benefit many businesses and communities and ultimately promote North Dakota. Unfortunately, the GnF are unwilling to budge on this "administrative rule" (its not even a law) and now concerned sportsmen have had to take legislative action because 10% seems awfully excessive in most cases. But again, this is the departments unwillingness to work with sportsmen and find common ground and a solution to a known problem. There is literally no "voice of reason".

There are so many more issues where people have been blown off over valid concerns regarding our wildlife. These are just a few of the ones that I have noticed and have affected me or people I know the most. Many of the people who are concerned like us spend just as much time, if not more, actually living with the wildlife than many of those who work down at that main office. These are people who have deer, elk, predators and game birds living daily out their front window, watching their habits, behaviors, trends, lifestyles and life cycles. These people who live with the animals have valuable input, and so do sportsmen, but they have no validity in the eyes of the Game and Fish, outside of a simplified annual bow or rifle survey. And I get it, you can't listen to every Tom, Dick and Harry because there's always someone there to blow smoke up your arse, but when collectively as a group people are saying that there's a problem, and no one at the division listens...then maybe it's time to look at a change to try and make things better.

So that is how this study was born, since it was not going to get drafted into a bill this legislative session. It is the only solution we could come up with aside from making the director an elected position, and there were rumors that someone was bringing a bill to do just that, but I have not noticed such, and the deadline for bills to be introduced has passed, so that was either rumor, or the sponsor decided not to submit it; perhaps because this bill was in the works...I don't know, that is purely speculation. The good news with a commission is that you have representation from different vested interests across North Dakota, all which would ideally have wildlife and conservation in mind. No one said anything about stacking the board with Farm Bureau members, that is a member up above in the comments jumping to conclusions. Our hope is that it would be a balanced board with equal representation, but heavy with members from wildlife backgrounds. That aspect still has to be sorted out yet, because the study would have to be completed to see if this was even feasible and should move forward as a bill to create a commission in the next legislative session. All of those other details would then be ironed out once a commission was found to be feasible.

Man, what a long drawn out answer, but these are my most major concerns and how it came about to developing this bill based on our interactions and experiences with our Game and Fish office. I will say for any of you who are skeptical, this idea and input for this bill was not drafted by farmers, ranchers, corporate, greenies, or any other type of special groups . My dad is the biggest conservationist I know and owns land that he develops for wildlife every year for the past two decades or more. In fact, I would venture to say he has probably planted just as many if not more trees in the western part of the state in the last decade than any other land owner, and all in the name of promoting wildlife. I myself live in the city of Minot and am an appraiser by profession. Additional support and ideas for the idea of this commission came from an insurance agent, and another gentleman who is electrician, both of these guys live in small rural towns in western North Dakota. Our biggest common thread is that we are all avid sportsmen. The ideas has also come from listening to fellow sportsmen who have grown tired of not being heard and watching the quality of our herds erode and watching our abilities slowly being taken away without justification. Also, from public land users who tell me, "man, the badlands just aren't what they used to be", or "there is so many hunters in the badlands, that I saw more people than deer today". Ultimately, the sportsmen need a voice to represent them, and we felt that maybe the commission was a good way to achieve that.

As for the Advisory board, ha, well ya...I've never found anyone on that board to express an opposing opinion from what the Game and Fish tells them to have, and I haven't heard one of its members say nary a word at the advisory meetings or speak up on behalf of sportsmen concerns. Most of them are busy talking with GnF employees pre and post meeting and not engaging with the guests. Thats just my experience with the advisory board...seems more like a sounding board for the Game and Fish that contributes nothing to any of the issues at hand. In other words, not a true voice of the sportsmen or a very effective board for that matter.

Anyway, I hope that this bill does pass so we can at least explore the idea if a board of commissioners would be a good idea. I will be the first to say, that if it does pass and a bill is drafted to create a commission, and for some reason it is stacked heavy as an AG board, or anything else that doesn't have the sportsmen's and wildlife's best interests in mind, well then I for sure will ask for amendments or won't support it if it isn't balanced. But we aren't anywhere close to that scenario at this point, after all, that is a long way down the road from now and this bill is just about initiating a study.

 

[Reprobait]

I trust the Game and Fish more than I trust the Legislature. They listen to the money, not to peon hunters and fishermen.

 

[guywhofishes]

I trust the Game and Fish more than I trust the Legislature. They listen to the money, not to peon hunters and fishermen.

Who is They?

 

[Reprobait]

The Legislature and politicians.

If this commission is formed the Ag groups will get a seat at the table. Throw in a couple of politicians with ties to the Farm Bureau and you can see where this goes.

I am not saying G&F is perfect, but I trust them more than I trust the entrenched politicians who never seem to really be challenged.

 

[rippenlips]

Anybody know about the proposed legislation regarding fishing tournaments. My son was asking me and I had no idea

Bill 1538 talks about fishing contests. Here is a list of other bills that pertain to outdoor legislation.

 

[sweeney]

Hey Aaron,

Yes, my dad contacted his senator (Kannianen) and initiated the background to this bill. After visiting with an attorney at the capitol, they realized that a commission would have lots of hurdles to overcome to work in tandem with our century code, so instead of trying to ram a roughshod bill through, which would most likely fail due to many unanswered questions, they decided to propose it as a study to research the benefits and if it could be done at all.

TFX 186 has partially hit the nail on the head. It is not the only concern, but our Game and Fish has proven time and again that they don't listen to the sportsmen, ranchers, farmers, or other users of the land who observe trends or issues that exist in our wildlife world. When we had several winters in a row (2008-2011) that decimated our herds, they were told repeatedly by many many observant people that the deer herd had been severely decimated. This information was brought forth by many after the winter of 2010. They refused to listen because these reports did not come from their own agency and therefore were not considered a valid source of information. They then continued to issue a ridiculously high number of licenses (to the tune of something like 120,000 which was one of the highest on record) that same year to further damage an already decimated deer herd. Finally, after a year of backlash, the agency decreased the tags significantly after another bad winter of 2011, but that was based on their findings...not from sportsmen's accounts (sarcasm).

One year later at an advisory board meeting, I brought this up to Terry and asked him in front of everyone that if it was about funding from licenses then why not just increase the cost of licenses, afterall, it had only been almost thirty years since an increase in license cost. He scoffed at me and said that the department was proud that they haven't increased their license costs for deer and that they had no intentions of doing so. That very same summer, when deer license applications came out, the fee was increased to $30. Either he wasn't aware as the director of a plan to increase licenses, or he straight up lied. Either way, not a good look for him.

The Game and Fish conveniently banned baiting in unit (3A3), first wanting to grab the whole unit but decided to only take the north half after receiving lots of push back prior to the proclamation being issued. I argued with a biologist over that one because 3A3 is an enormous unit and they hadn't even found a single case of CWD in or or even in close proximity to the unit. The next year, same results...no CWD positives found within the unit, but they decided to take the whole unit because it accomplishes their goal of eliminating the tool of baiting from the landscape to help steer them towards AFWA compliance. No reason, nothing had changed, they just wanted to do it, so they did it...and nobody could do anything about it.

They continue to plant food plots and place interceptive feeding bales even though they proclaim that artificial congregation promotes the spread of disease. They still do this despite their attempt a few years back that endorsed a statewide ban of FEEDING (not just baiting) wildlife, but yet want to retain the ability and engage in the practice of interceptive feeding themselves.

It's also the crisis that has been occurring in the badlands and the gross mismanagement of our mule deer herd and the departments unwillingness to listen to sportsmen who know that place better than the biologists sitting in their office in Bismarck, performing their occasional data sampling from the region. Countless sportsmen have expressed concern that there is a real problem in the badlands, and the Game and Fish refuses to listen or address the issue. This has been going on for over a decade and it is only getting worse, year by year. Maybe just now, they are actually going to do something about it as we have seen a bow lottery segment pop up in our profiles on the NDGF personal profile page, but it only took nearly a decade of sportsmen and ranchers harping on them to (maybe) address the issue and get something done.

But once again, it won't be because the sportsmen had concern, it'll be because they felt that there was too much pressure, and it now needs to be regulated. Failure to account for bowhunters (as well as bowhunters loss) and the impacts of lions as well as coyotes towards the management program of the mule deer species is 100% negligent and we deserve better, the deer deserve better, especially when it comes to that resource. Don't even get me started on the departments claim of coyote impacts on the depredation of deer in western ND. They would have you believe that very little deer mortality comes from coyote predation, (especially during fawn recruitment), however, I have found ponch contents after ponch contents from coyote kills while lion hunting in the winter. I have witnessed multiple times a coyote's tactic along the shores of Sakakawea by pushing prey into frigid waters, waiting for the deer to tire and stiffen and then not have a fighting chance when it has to swim back into shore from being too cold and tired of swimming in the freezing temps. This isn't a one-off, I have observed it several times. Coyotes are a significant mortality factor even towards healthy deer.

So, to answer your question Aaron, we ultimately were sick of being rejected and tired of the arrogance that the department displays when it came to legitimate concerns from sportsmen and other vested parties. To be honest, Terry was a hard headed dictator and nobody was going to tell him anything from my interactions with him. I hope Jeb will do better, and he does seem to have a more interest in hearing what people have to say, but at the end of the day, its still a one man show down at the Game and Fish office and every decision is ultimately up to that one man and his opinion.

We thought that maybe, instead of having someone in the department who did not listen and was unaccountable to anyone (except to the governor), a board of commissioners from a variety of backgrounds, not just AGRICULTURE, would be a benefit for the sportsmen in this state. At least this way, we would have some way to say: "hey, these are our concerns, please bring them to the table" and at least a few people might listen and can have the discussion and come to a solution or compromise, as opposed to one individual essentially saying "nope, don't care what your concern is, its my way or the highway".

Another example, HB 1538 relating to fishing tournaments is currently headed to committee...tomorrow, I think? Game and Fish demands 10% of all gross entry fees, (seems a bit steep) and sadly it keeps some big tournaments from coming here which would benefit many businesses and communities and ultimately promote North Dakota. Unfortunately, the GnF are unwilling to budge on this "administrative rule" (its not even a law) and now concerned sportsmen have had to take legislative action because 10% seems awfully excessive in most cases. But again, this is the departments unwillingness to work with sportsmen and find common ground and a solution to a known problem. There is literally no "voice of reason".

There are so many more issues where people have been blown off over valid concerns regarding our wildlife. These are just a few of the ones that I have noticed and have affected me or people I know the most. Many of the people who are concerned like us spend just as much time, if not more, actually living with the wildlife than many of those who work down at that main office. These are people who have deer, elk, predators and game birds living daily out their front window, watching their habits, behaviors, trends, lifestyles and life cycles. These people who live with the animals have valuable input, and so do sportsmen, but they have no validity in the eyes of the Game and Fish, outside of a simplified annual bow or rifle survey. And I get it, you can't listen to every Tom, Dick and Harry because there's always someone there to blow smoke up your arse, but when collectively as a group people are saying that there's a problem, and no one at the division listens...then maybe it's time to look at a change to try and make things better.

So that is how this study was born, since it was not going to get drafted into a bill this legislative session. It is the only solution we could come up with aside from making the director an elected position, and there were rumors that someone was bringing a bill to do just that, but I have not noticed such, and the deadline for bills to be introduced has passed, so that was either rumor, or the sponsor decided not to submit it; perhaps because this bill was in the works...I don't know, that is purely speculation. The good news with a commission is that you have representation from different vested interests across North Dakota, all which would ideally have wildlife and conservation in mind. No one said anything about stacking the board with Farm Bureau members, that is a member up above in the comments jumping to conclusions. Our hope is that it would be a balanced board with equal representation, but heavy with members from wildlife backgrounds. That aspect still has to be sorted out yet, because the study would have to be completed to see if this was even feasible and should move forward as a bill to create a commission in the next legislative session. All of those other details would then be ironed out once a commission was found to be feasible.

Man, what a long drawn out answer, but these are my most major concerns and how it came about to developing this bill based on our interactions and experiences with our Game and Fish office. I will say for any of you who are skeptical, this idea and input for this bill was not drafted by farmers, ranchers, corporate, greenies, or any other type of special groups . My dad is the biggest conservationist I know and owns land that he develops for wildlife every year for the past two decades or more. In fact, I would venture to say he has probably planted just as many if not more trees in the western part of the state in the last decade than any other land owner, and all in the name of promoting wildlife. I myself live in the city of Minot and am an appraiser by profession. Additional support and ideas for the idea of this commission came from an insurance agent, and another gentleman who is electrician, both of these guys live in small rural towns in western North Dakota. Our biggest common thread is that we are all avid sportsmen. The ideas has also come from listening to fellow sportsmen who have grown tired of not being heard and watching the quality of our herds erode and watching our abilities slowly being taken away without justification. Also, from public land users who tell me, "man, the badlands just aren't what they used to be", or "there is so many hunters in the badlands, that I saw more people than deer today". Ultimately, the sportsmen need a voice to represent them, and we felt that maybe the commission was a good way to achieve that.

As for the Advisory board, ha, well ya...I've never found anyone on that board to express an opposing opinion from what the Game and Fish tells them to have, and I haven't heard one of its members say nary a word at the advisory meetings or speak up on behalf of sportsmen concerns. Most of them are busy talking with GnF employees pre and post meeting and not engaging with the guests. Thats just my experience with the advisory board...seems more like a sounding board for the Game and Fish that contributes nothing to any of the issues at hand. In other words, not a true voice of the sportsmen or a very effective board for that matter.

Anyway, I hope that this bill does pass so we can at least explore the idea if a board of commissioners would be a good idea. I will be the first to say, that if it does pass and a bill is drafted to create a commission, and for some reason it is stacked heavy as an AG board, or anything else that doesn't have the sportsmen's and wildlife's best interests in mind, well then I for sure will ask for amendments or won't support it if it isn't balanced. But we aren't anywhere close to that scenario at this point, after all, that is a long way down the road from now and this bill is just about initiating a study.

what he said except we need to address NR mule deer tags too and put them in units and jack the price up for any of the 4units.

 

[PrairieGhost]

This is the problem in Montana. Ranchers run the show and now because there is no corner hopping MILLIONS OF ACRES of public land are off limits to the public. Let the Farm Bureau get some control and they will create some kind of situation that puts sportsmen at the mercy of landowners. You want to hunt elk over the fence where I hunt in Montana it $6000. Give FB a seat at the table and the price to hunt on private land will be X amount of dollars, a pint of blood, and your first born.
Electronic posting sent the message we have no respect for sportsmen, just give us your money, your support, and shut up. The Game and Fish is showing us the results of the liberal college professors that educated them. For sure we need to have them listen to the public, but let's not jump from the frying pan into the fire. The future looks like crap either way. Neither way is good, but one is worse than the other. Liberal educated air heads or greed is the future.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

This is the problem in Montana. Ranchers run the show and now because there is no corner hopping MILLIONS OF ACRES of public land are off limits to the public. Let the Farm Bureau get some control and they will create some kind of situation that puts sportsmen at the mercy of landowners. You want to hunt elk over the fence where I hunt in Montana it $6000. Give FB a seat at the table and the price to hunt on private land will be X amount of dollars, a pint of blood, and your first born.
Electronic posting sent the message we have no respect for sportsmen, just give us your money, your support, and shut up. The Game and Fish is showing us the results of the liberal college professors that educated them. For sure we need to have them listen to the public, but let's not jump from the frying pan into the fire. The future looks like crap either way. Neither way is good, but one is worse than the other.

You federal guys never miss an opportunity.

 

[bravo]

You federal guys never miss an opportunity.

LOL. Pot, meet kettle.

A couple hot topics that could be solved with some outreach from the G&F and public, and guys here are willing to throw away everything - to a group who has only their interest in mind, not yours. Absolutely insane to me how shortsighted some can be. We have their attention on CWD and baiting. Same with archery numbers in the badlands. With all the different scenarios not everyone can be happy.

Read the NDFB bylaws and get back to me on how you think hunting and fishing will look if they have influence over the game and fish.

 

[CAH]

The commission needs to be landowners only. They are the ones taking care of the wildlife. No city slickers allowed.

 

[bravo]

Add a commission to oversee that commission and we're in business.