House Bill 1151- Prohibiting baiting bans

[db-2]

bravo:

Yes for me it was partly due to game and fish attitude. I have tried to talk to them and when i am done i feel the ridicule from them about my thoughts.
I get the feeling from them they have all the answers and i know nothing.

It started in 95 when i call game and fish if i could bait. He came back and said yes but use the words stupid and dumb and then laugh as he stated the deer would come and eat all the corn and i would never see a deer. Same way when i discuss numbers of elk. They said i had no knowledge on that even if i did live up here.
For me they get what they have coming.

But more importantly, i feel i am doing more good than harm by my food plots, planting habitat and providing corn on the ground. I feel they are trying to shove their ways done on us which i do not believe. Their science is not proof and then i react.

Maybe if they would listen would be a step in what i want. db

 

[wct12]

But what is it you are looking for? I'm genuinely asking. Many admitted that it was never about baiting. All I see is that landowners are fed up with the game and fish, your rights are being violated, you wanted a compromise but now its too late. What is it that you want?

Would I have loved to hunt over that same bait pile my camera takes pictures over before archery season starts again? Absolutely

But this was about more then that. For me this was about one 1 way to reign in a
Government agency that is unaccountable to the people of this state.

The same phd holders that they want us to trust because they went to school a couple more years than me stand a podium and say that a bait pile that congregates deer outside of winter months is alot different then a food plot funded by the game and fish that congregates the exact same deer a bait pile does to a small area outside of winter months also is much better. That's not about science at that point.

I want some accountability for the same agency that hosted public meetings, but wouldn't let the public ask questions in an open forum because someone in the crowd might have a decent idea that's scientifically backed that they don't have actual data and statistics to dispute.

I want the same agency that let a deer population explode to more then double what they claim is sustainable, even though landowners and sportsmen from around the state in the years prior said the population was growing.. all fell on deaf ears because they do population counts and know what's best. (CWD was discovered in nodak the next year)

I want the agency that my tag and tax dollars help operate to at least listen with open ears at the advisory board meetings and have an open and honest discussion. (Not just CWD.. I asked about moose populations and was told they don't have an actual plan, they just go by what landowners can seem to tolerate, but then don't listen when those landowners say the population is too high because crops are being damaged, moose/vehicle collisions are up, etc..)

They say it's not ethics but the online portion of their Hunter safety says baiting falls into a gray area of ethics. I want them, if they are going to claim science and data, to actually have that science and data.. not possibilities, maybes, or this might work even though it hasn't in other states. Why not try to be proactive instead of reactive. Spend some of that federal money on university or private studies to find something that could actually stop/slow CWD down whether it be genetics, iron, humic acid, or something not thought about yet instead of using it to do the exact same things that haven't worked elsewhere.

I want that agency to be open to listening at advisory meetings, not come in with a set agenda and to "inform" but to actually listen, because sometimes landowners and sportsmen who are amongst the wildlife every day know just as much about them as the people with some fancy letters behind their name.

That's what I actually want in a very long winded answer.

 

[wct12]

Hopefully this was a wake up call for everyone. G&F better manage based on sound statistics, and especially leave “ethics” out of it when it comes to legal take. And those seeking to sneak one past sportsmen by forming an alliance, only to have it come to light that it was the same “LOCKOUT” crowd pushing the same old BS have lost support. Best quote I saw shared from the CWD Facebook page was “how quickly we went from passing this bill to keep the kids involved to locking them out.”

Speaking of the kids.. I've tossed around the idea of mentioning to some legislators the idea of doing the same thing montana does where youth under 18 are guaranteed to draw an antlered deer tag (Montana does resident and nonresident if I understand it correctly) but nodak could do resident for now and maybe exclude the badlands?.. Keep kids invested every year instead of getting their first tag and having the possibility to not draw any tag again for a few years.

Thoughts?

 

[Coldfront]

Who voted no from minot?

 

[Devildogg]

Speaking of the kids.. I've tossed around the idea of mentioning to some legislators the idea of doing the same thing montana does where youth under 18 are guaranteed to draw an antlered deer tag (Montana does resident and nonresident if I understand it correctly) but nodak could do resident for now and maybe exclude the badlands?.. Keep kids invested every year instead of getting their first tag and having the possibility to not draw any tag again for a few years.

Thoughts?

This is a great idea!! No nonresident kids though. Keep this for our kids I know a lot of kids that received their youth tags and never get drawn until they are in their 20’s

 

[wct12]

Who voted no from minot?

On the senate side.. Burckhard and kresbach.. it seemed from conversations I heard about Burckhard was misinformed on the bill and that could have been the reason for his no vote, but not positive.

 

[wct12]

This is a great idea!! No nonresident kids though. Keep this for our kids I know a lot of kids that received their youth tags and never get drawn until they are in their 20’s

Keeps the kids interested anyways! It needs some refining to get it correct, but I thought it was a good idea. contrary to what people might think/say about me and me using kids as means to get what I want on a baiting bill.. I love nothing more to get youth involved in the outdoors, this shows by the number of youth my group takes out waterfowl hunting with us every fall and by the interest I've taken in helping kids I know harvest their first deer whether it be archery or a rifle.

 

[Coldfront]

Found it, remember your senators who voted nay!

 

[bravo]

Trust me i think they have done some boneheaded things that I didn't agree with, but to go about it by creating law is where we will have to agree to disagree. Set that precedent, and next you'll have a social media group gain traction to ban trapping, ban swan hunting, etc. The fire that was lit under those who backed the bill would have been better served to organize a something with the G&F director, Dr. Bahnson, and the outreach guys to discuss issues. I know that's what an advisory meeting should be, but this should have been specific to CWD. An olive branch involving the state, ag groups, outdoors groups, I don't know, just a starting point. A lot of the issues you pointed out are kind of damned if you do damned if you don't. The food plots provide habitat to more than deer, and under current regs you are still allowed to do so yourself. Yeah it still congregates deer, but its also an open door for you to "bait". Plus as we all know our landscape is harsh, i think we all would accept the risk of more deer alive is better than some deer with CWD. Also, population explosions happen. Ecology 101, populations ebb and flow year by year, 1 year of perfect growing conditions can result in a boom. 1 bad winter with a wet spring and you are back to square 1. Maybe they were aware the population was trending up and were already implementing solutions. What was your solution? I maintain that the whole reason we are able to even argue about game populations is because of the work our G&F has done for decades. Not many of us were around for the lean years where seeing a deer track was a big deal.

I will say this and I don't mean it to be contentious. You do not speak for all landowners. I know plenty who were at best neutral on this bill. The movement that started on facebook and the lockout crowd are beginning to shoot themselves on the foot so to speak. Locking out the average joe (who may have even supported this bill), and making it about landowner rights will eat away your support. I'm not sure what landowner rights are being violated. Because we own land, we do not have free reign to apply our own regs, bag limits, seasons or what have you. Putting in the time and resources to help game is awesome, but it doesn't make the game yours either. Owning land means we follow laws from the feds down to township sometimes. Speaking with legislators, the feedback was pretty close to 50-50 on this bill, sometimes being on the losing side sucks but I don't believe it was a case of voices not being heard. I don't like that a wedge continues to be further driven between two sides of sportsmen.

 

[bravo]

Speaking of the kids.. I've tossed around the idea of mentioning to some legislators the idea of doing the same thing montana does where youth under 18 are guaranteed to draw an antlered deer tag (Montana does resident and nonresident if I understand it correctly) but nodak could do resident for now and maybe exclude the badlands?.. Keep kids invested every year instead of getting their first tag and having the possibility to not draw any tag again for a few years.

Thoughts?

For sure has potential. I've never been a huge fan of our current youth season, though I know it has some value.

 

[wct12]

Trust me i think they have done some boneheaded things that I didn't agree with, but to go about it by creating law is where we will have to agree to disagree. Set that precedent, and next you'll have a social media group gain traction to ban trapping, ban swan hunting, etc. The fire that was lit under those who backed the bill would have been better served to organize a something with the G&F director, Dr. Bahnson, and the outreach guys to discuss issues. I know that's what an advisory meeting should be, but this should have been specific to CWD. An olive branch involving the state, ag groups, outdoors groups, I don't know, just a starting point. A lot of the issues you pointed out are kind of damned if you do damned if you don't. The food plots provide habitat to more than deer, and under current regs you are still allowed to do so yourself. Yeah it still congregates deer, but its also an open door for you to "bait". Plus as we all know our landscape is harsh, i think we all would accept the risk of more deer alive is better than some deer with CWD. Also, population explosions happen. Ecology 101, populations ebb and flow year by year, 1 year of perfect growing conditions can result in a boom. 1 bad winter with a wet spring and you are back to square 1. Maybe they were aware the population was trending up and were already implementing solutions. What was your solution? I maintain that the whole reason we are able to even argue about game populations is because of the work our G&F has done for decades. Not many of us were around for the lean years where seeing a deer track was a big deal.

I will say this and I don't mean it to be contentious. You do not speak for all landowners. I know plenty who were at best neutral on this bill. The movement that started on facebook and the lockout crowd are beginning to shoot themselves on the foot so to speak. Locking out the average joe (who may have even supported this bill), and making it about landowner rights will eat away your support. I'm not sure what landowner rights are being violated. Because we own land, we do not have free reign to apply our own regs, bag limits, seasons or what have you. Putting in the time and resources to help game is awesome, but it doesn't make the game yours either. Owning land means we follow laws from the feds down to township sometimes. Speaking with legislators, the feedback was pretty close to 50-50 on this bill, sometimes being on the losing side sucks but I don't believe it was a case of voices not being heard. I don't like that a wedge continues to be further driven between two sides of sportsmen.

Those meetings have been attempted and essentially turned back into a their way or the highway and trust the science unfortunately (senator Thomas references this in his initial testimony). this way was the only way left available due to the game and fishes unwillingness to even come to the table open minded about this topic.

Food plots provide habitat (we use them and know the benefits) but they also congregate deer (the same 20 deer at my bait pile in July were also in my food plot in July-now) so it still congregates them unnaturally.

Our solution was to proactively increase tag numbers to get ahead of it, not to be reactive to deer counts and then have to bump them up off of that. It seems in my opinion that the game and fish hands down is more reactive then proactive on many things and this puts them behind the 8 ball.

I never tried to turn this into a private property rights movement. My testimony never alludes to it and I have told many people the government has lots of control over private property whether it be how close I can spray xtendimax to borders or build a fence to a property line or if I can bait a deer or shoot none or 20.

I know I don't speak for many landowners, heck.. I just try to speak for myself.. but I've had quite a few reach out about how to epost land the last 36 hours that have never posted ground besides maybe the quarter their yard sits on if your olive branch possibility isn't extended by the game and fish. As I stated earlier, access is a double edged sword. Im a very avid sportsman (probably more so then most since I have a fantastic job that allows me waterfowl hunt multiple days during the week, show up late and leave early during deer season, and take multiple week long trips a year) who doesn't want to see opportunity taken away, but at the same time I understand why it will be done if it's done. Is it the right solution? Probably not, and can widen the landowner/sportsmen gap.. But it can certainly send a message in a state where 93% of land is Privately owned.

As far as the sportsmen/sportsmen wedge.. I have no thoughts ethically on people that don't want to use bait or that. If you want to run pinch points, food plots, spot and stalk in the badlands.. good on ya! I wish I didn't like waterfowl hunting enough where I was spending tons of days down in the badlands chasing mule deer with my bow, but Waterfowling is my passion so I pursue that the hardest. Besides the odd joke and jab at jump shooters, I try not to care what any other sportsmen is doing in their chase of game as long as it's fair chase. If you want to use trail cams and lighted knocks or electronic range finding bow sights, cool and good on ya. If you want use a recurve and home made arrows or rifle with turrets to adjust for range.. or public land vs private land.. go for it! I'm not going to belittle my fellow sportsmen because I don't hunt the same way that you hunt.. and I didn't hear much of that out of The people in support of this bill at least.

 

[wct12]

Did I do something against community standards?

 

[db-2]

Can someone tell me who is on the 2023 senate resource committee that voted all 6 in favor? db

 

[Pigsticker]

Hopefully this was a wake up call for everyone. G&F better manage based on sound statistics, and especially leave “ethics” out of it when it comes to legal take. And those seeking to sneak one past sportsmen by forming an alliance, only to have it come to light that it was the same “LOCKOUT” crowd pushing the same old BS have lost support. Best quote I saw shared from the CWD Facebook page was “how quickly we went from passing this bill to keep the kids involved to locking them out.”

Lets get one thing straight...the leaders of the effort and who run the CWD Disease page did not make, post or promote any sort of lockout language, even after the defeat on the senate floor. They might be some of the most tactful and well thought out people I have come across and for them, nothing is about or will be about retaliation.

That comment may have been made from a follower or two of the page, but that does not reflect the majority of those working for this effort. I'm sorry that is how you have come to understand that this is what this issue was about, but you are sorely mistaken.

 

[wct12]

Can someone tell me who is on the 2023 senate resource committee that voted all 6 in favor? db

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Dale Patten - Chairman
Jeffery J. Magrum - Vice Chairman
Todd Beard
Keith Boehm
Jordan L. Kannianen
Greg Kessel

 

[Nodak Angler]

Did I do something against community standards?

You did nothing wrong. Your cell phone IP, at that moment, probably matched one of the banned IP's. I think I found the matching IP and unbanned it. Let me know if it does it again.

 

[labhunter66]

It is what it is i guess.

But not sure how one group pass the bill overwhelmingly and a few weeks later another group says no.

How 6 on a committee say to pass and then two on that committee say no a few days later.
Got old, experience too much and find myself not trusting anymore.
Maybe wrong on my thoughts.
Was not for the MJ bill a few years ago but our leaders found a way to stall that one too and maybe they will find a way to stay in power. There is a lot of monies the leaders have control of so i will find it interesting to see how they will benefit.

Need summer to get the bike out, buddy, trip and go to a bar to look. First i need to contact a couple of our senators. db

Cannot see the names well but it does appear those in districts 42 and 44 need to call too.

If i am wrong i do apologies now.

Happens all the time. Same thing happened last year on the bill to allow night time coyote hunting year around.

 

[wct12]

Happens all the time. Same thing happened last year on the bill to allow night time coyote hunting year around.

All 6 on the committee voted in favor of the bill in the floor this year.

 

[espringers]

I may have missed it. But, what would be the correlation between the defeat of this bill and increased posting of land?

 

[wct12]

I may have missed it. But, what would be the correlation between the defeat of this bill and increased posting of land?

The correlation is the fact that people (in this case sportsmen, some who own land and have allowed recreation in the past, are fed up with the game and fish not being open to compromise until it passed the house with 80% and was going to pass the senate committee 6-0. People on the western half of the state (and apparently a few on the Eastern half) are fed up with the way government and government agencies have been run with little to no accountability. A perfect example is how a term limit bill passed with the margin it did or why so many incumbents in nodak didn't run/got voted out this last election cycle.

At this point, after the game and fish came to the table in the senate committee and stated they are willing to compromise but we're unwilling to with the sportsmen beforehand, shows that they thought they were "untouchable" on this baiting front, especially after they tried twice in previous years to no avail in the legislature and then back doored it into the proclamation, until this movement had this much traction (remember, this is without a lot of the urban areas having much of a hat in the ring because the baiting ban isn't in place on the Eastern half minus 1 unit south of grand forks).

The game and fish coming to the table to the senate committee, and the senate floor not following submitted testimony (I heard email numbers on both sides were strong), and then standing up and talking about "follow the science" that isn't really true facts just theories, "trust the experts" and "I don't think it's ethical imo" is exactly why this movement started and then circled back to the base movement that the game and fish has pushed from the beginning of the start of baiting restrictions.

In a state that is 93% privately owned, people are seeing the access portion as their term limits used to send a message. There's rumblings from politicians all the time about how term limits will affect policy makers in this state and landowners see it as hopefully there will be rumblings from sportsmen to the game and fish department at advisory board meetings and surveys sent in that access has become much much harder (at least in certain areas) for the fall of 23 and hope the message is perceived the same way that the term limits bill came across by them that everything has a consequence and their unwillingness to work with sportsmen on it until they were almost unable to work with it at all is a pill they will have swallow.

An access restriction isn't good for anyone in the long run. Most landowners enjoy hearing stories from people hunting their ground, or hunting with them and sportsmen like the opportunity to recreate on private ground. But lots of people (the second largest submitted testimony bill in this years session) seem to be nearing that tipping point of frustration with the game and fish's unwillingness to listen and back door things into a proclamation as there was that resulted in term limits for legislators. And as I said access is the avenue left to get the game and fish to listen.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 2 years someone introduced a bill making the director of the game and fish an elected instead of appointed position to be honest.