Here we go....

[Rut2much]

https://www.kxnet.com/news/local-ne...nglers-may-soon-have-to-pay-more-in-fees/amp/

 

[Kurtr]

i think our combo is 75 so still cheaper than us

 

[johnr]

I think our combo is 75 so still cheaper than us

We don't have that big SD cash like you fella's do. There has to be reasons to live in ND

 

[Rowdie]

Pissed me off when I seen it on TV

 

[Kurtr]

We don't have that big SD cash like you fella's do. There has to be reasons to live in ND

Haha you mean like oil fields or something

70 k boat
40 k camper
70k pick up
35 dollar fishing license

 

[johnr]

Haha you mean like oil fields or something

Gold mines more so.

 

[lunkerslayer]

I read the whole thing and it didn't say how much no res have to pay for a fishing license

 

[Slappy]

This resurfaced one thing that stuck out while reading the NDGF history post from yesterday which is that maybe they should return to the 1924 resident/non-resident license fees ratio. Would suck for friends and family that visit but totally worth it if it saves me even one encounter with a blue plater.

For the record I support the fee increase because I want more fish stocking, boat ramps, habitat and all the other great things NDGF does. We just need to root out the brocksuckers spending our license fees on cervid covid.

 

[shorthairsrus]

We do need to stay on par with kurts state. Jump the non res to 80 (30 buck more) eliminate the non res married license

 

[lunkerslayer]

This resurfaced one thing that stuck out while reading the NDGF history post from yesterday which is that maybe they should return to the 1924 resident/non-resident license fees ratio. Would suck for friends and family that visit but totally worth it if it saves me even one encounter with a blue plater.

For the record I support the fee increase because I want more fish stocking, boat ramps, habitat and all the other great things NDGF does. We just need to root out the brocksuckers spending our license fees on cervid covid.

That 461 and some changes compared to todays dollar, non resident should be paying atleast 150 a year.

 

[Jiffy]

This resurfaced one thing that stuck out while reading the NDGF history post from yesterday which is that maybe they should return to the 1924 resident/non-resident license fees ratio. Would suck for friends and family that visit but totally worth it if it saves me even one encounter with a blue plater.

For the record I support the fee increase because I want more fish stocking, boat ramps, habitat and all the other great things NDGF does. We just need to root out the brocksuckers spending our license fees on cervid covid.

25 bucks back then was a good chunk of change. I think we need to reflect this percentage in today’s world. I’m all for it!

 

[Bed Wetter]

I bet you suckers file income taxes too.

 

[MarbleEyez]

I'm all for increasing the price of licenses to reflect current pricing of our surrounding neighbors. It should be a minimum of $500 for a non-resident deer tag. A non-resident season long fishing license should be $100 (currently $53) and the 10day small game should be at $150 (currently $100) and bump the non-resident waterfowl tags to $200 (currently $153).

The general deer tag for a non-resident in the state of MT is $744, SD is $375 for a non-resident deer tag. SD non-resident "small game" tag ranges from $50/day for a shooting preserve to $150 for a 10 day non-shooting preserve license.

Our license cost needs to reflect what todays current prices are as a whole. The resident license cost could be raised a little in my opinion. $30 for a resident deer tag could be adjusted to $50. A box of federal factory ammo for a 300 Win Mag is $55+, 10 years ago it was $25.

 

[risingsun]

non resident fishing in mn is 51.00 yearly, south dakota 67.00 yearly. Not comparing much to our neighbors if we go to 100.00

 

[Rowdie]

This is FKN STUPID!!

 

[Jiffy]

non resident fishing in mn is 51.00 yearly, south dakota 67.00 yearly. Not comparing much to our neighbors if we go to 100.00

 

[1lessdog]

I'm all for increasing the price of licenses to reflect current pricing of our surrounding neighbors. It should be a minimum of $500 for a non-resident deer tag. A non-resident season long fishing license should be $100 (currently $53) and the 10day small game should be at $150 (currently $100) and bump the non-resident waterfowl tags to $200 (currently $153).

The general deer tag for a non-resident in the state of MT is $744, SD is $375 for a non-resident deer tag. SD non-resident "small game" tag ranges from $50/day for a shooting preserve to $150 for a 10 day non-shooting preserve license.

Our license cost needs to reflect what todays current prices are as a whole. The resident license cost could be raised a little in my opinion. $30 for a resident deer tag could be adjusted to $50. A box of federal factory ammo for a 300 Win Mag is $55+, 10 years ago it was $25.

N.D.G.F. could raise the nonresident fees by 50% and just as many nonresident would come hunt and fish. It's not the cost of the license it the available land they can hunt and do hunt. I don't know the last time I seen residents vehicle parked at a WPA hunting area. But see lots of nonresident parked and hunting them. Resident were spoiled by not having E posting. In MN and WI has always been posted. And they have no problem knocking on doors and asking permission.

 

[Jiffy]

I have no idea why people are fighting that in ND. It’s basically already here. Just pass it and kill all this BS e-posting. Which was their whole plan to begin with. Congratulations!! You did it!! Happy?

 

[MarbleEyez]

N.D.G.F. could raise the nonresident fees by 50% and just as many nonresident would come hunt and fish. It's not the cost of the license it the available land they can hunt and do hunt. I don't know the last time I seen residents vehicle parked at a WPA hunting area. But see lots of nonresident parked and hunting them. Resident were spoiled by not having E posting. In MN and WI has always been posted. And they have no problem knocking on doors and asking permission.

Exactly. The state could increase the non-resident license costs and they could fund their own "CRP" type of funding program and piggy back off of the USDA CRP program and it would make things much more enticing to get land back enrolled. But that would take a couple major things. First one being a government employee going above and beyond, and also trying to create something that is going to have a few "obstacles" to jump.

The CRP program needs to come back in order to rebound the wildlife numbers. Plain and simple. In order to do that the price per acre for the program needs to be realistic to todays prices. No one is going to put acres into a CRP contract that pays $24/ac if they can rent it out and get $60/ac.

 

[bravo]

I have no idea why people are fighting that in ND. It’s basically already here. Just pass it and kill all this BS e-posting. Which was their whole plan to begin with. Congratulations!! You did it!! Happy?

Of course not, there will always be something else.

Exactly. The state could increase the non-resident license costs and they could fund their own "CRP" type of funding program and piggy back off of the USDA CRP program and it would make things much more enticing to get land back enrolled. But that would take a couple major things. First one being a government employee going above and beyond, and also trying to create something that is going to have a few "obstacles" to jump.

NDGF couldn’t just decided to do this. This would take ND legislators, mostly retired farmers or farmer adjacent, to enact the fee increase. The plots program already has CRP incentives, as well as native and tame grass plantings and wetland reserve incentives. What habitat really needs is willing landowners. Tough task when that’s how they make their living but that’s where we’re at. Marginal land has become profitable.