I think the NR issues can be tricky sometimes. I participate in NR hunting in other states every year. I have every year for at least the last 10 years. I am grateful for those opportunities.
With gratis tags, they’re a tough issue. I can understand and sympathize with both sides of those discussions. But I think the situational dynamics dictate the need for them, and I think they can be a good way for LOs to stay connected to wildlife, which I think is a good thing. At the end of the day, as part owner in ND wildlife, I’m happy to support some(emphasis) benefits to resident landowners. I think some things go too far sometimes, and it becomes unfair or a corruption of the North American model, that’s for sure. I mean, we used to have 30 million Bison running around the prairie. Robust elk, big horn sheep, and pronghorn populations way before landowners were here. I think that is an important distinction. But nonetheless, in the current environment finding that balance is worth it and necessary. We should keep coming to the table to discuss those things in good faith, checking selfishness at the door as much as possible.
But for me, and I need to chew on this some more, but I don’t like the idea of NR landowners getting free access to ND hunting. The public trust doctrine dictates that wildlife are owned by the residents of that state. A non-resident is, of course, not a resident then. So, is simply buying a chunk of land now make you some sort of exception, and eligible to receive a benefit that not even a resident gets?
