House Bill 1151- Prohibiting baiting bans

[db-2]

WCT:
I was looking at the 2022 membership and is why i ask for an update. db

 

[Allen]

It's not the same old "lockout" crowd this time, trust me, it's bigger... Will land be locked out because of this. Absolutely it will.

Seems to me there's always a group of people who will use anything they can to hurt the Average Joe enthusiast. Maybe the solution is to just not take any side on anything at all, since it seems to induce butthurt no matter what.

I wonder if there's anything out there that highlights the demographics of baiters and non-baiters? It would seem to me that landowners with thousands of acres of land wouldn't need to bait since they have free reign over such a large area and presumably a large chunk of the wildlife. Is it the smaller landowners, like sub-40 acres, that are really strongly in favor of legally being able to hunt over bait? The 40-640 acre owners, or those with greater than 640 acres?

 

[Allen]

Another thing that is kind of an interesting point that's been brought up, I've attended quite a few Advisory Board meetings over the years. One thing is for sure, the members of the public that show up often leave without getting much in the way of a feel good moment where their "advice" seems well received. Perhaps the NDGF could at least rename the meetings to Outreach Events to kind of remove the expectation that an individual's questions or comments actually hold much sway with how the G&F operates? Just spitballing here on this...

 

[wct12]

Seems to me there's always a group of people who will use anything they can to hurt the Average Joe enthusiast. Maybe the solution is to just not take any side on anything at all, since it seems to induce butthurt no matter what.

I wonder if there's anything out there that highlights the demographics of baiters and non-baiters? It would seem to me that landowners with thousands of acres of land wouldn't need to bait since they have free reign over such a large area and presumably a large chunk of the wildlife. Is it the smaller landowners, like sub-40 acres, that are really strongly in favor of legally being able to hunt over bait? The 40-640 acre owners, or those with greater than 640 acres?

North Dakota game and fish doesn't even survey well enough on archery harvest surveys so I doubt that Info is available.

I hunt more then the average Joe.. by quite a bit. And it's almost all done on private land we don't own (waterfowl hunting). But I also hunt other states where everything is completely posted no matter what and am still able to get ahold of landowners and have had quite a few pleasant conversations to get access and just talk in general.

Archery hunting in our neck of the woods isn't easy.. we are lucky enough we've created good habitat and that has created good opportunities, but there is a road every mile, it's almost completely flat and more habitat is being removed then will ever be restored again. I'm not sure if landowner size is as much a thing as geography and location is.

 

[bravo]

Another thing that is kind of an interesting point that's been brought up, I've attended quite a few Advisory Board meetings over the years. One thing is for sure, the members of the public that show up often leave without getting much in the way of a feel good moment where their "advice" seems well received. Perhaps the NDGF could at least rename the meetings to Outreach Events to kind of remove the expectation that an individual's questions or comments actually hold much sway with how the G&F operates? Just spitballing here on this...

The advisory board meetings are more of an information dump with some Q&A. They are not a place where you can get regulations changed based off of a complaint like some seem to think. I've heard some boneheaded things while attending; one fella wanted dove hunting banned because of religious reasons, one guy in NE Ramsey county saw a pheasant on his land for the first time ever and was convinced the game and fish were responsible for the spread, and he was going to shoot every one he saw no matter the season so they didn't become established and hurt his crops. Everyone has an opinion on the deer population being too high or too low. Some people just lack that basic amount of humility to think that they may not actually know everything, and since their opinion isn't acknowledged, they take it as disrespect. The fella who wanted pheasants eradicated was laughed out of the room a little more than a decade or so ago, not so sure that would happen today.


I have a feeling these spring meetings will be very cordial and gentlemanly.

 

[wct12]

The advisory board meetings are more of an information dump with some Q&A. They are not a place where you can get regulations changed based off of a complaint like some seem to think. I've heard some boneheaded things while attending; one fella wanted dove hunting banned because of religious reasons, one guy in NE Ramsey county saw a pheasant on his land for the first time ever and was convinced the game and fish were responsible for the spread, and he was going to shoot every one he saw no matter the season so they didn't become established and hurt his crops. Everyone has an opinion on the deer population being too high or too low. Some people just lack that basic amount of humility to think that they may not actually know everything, and since their opinion isn't acknowledged, they take it as disrespect. The fella who wanted pheasants eradicated was laughed out of the room a little more than a decade or so ago, not so sure that would happen today.


I have a feeling these spring meetings will be very cordial and gentlemanly.

Just noticed this.. but I get it's not a place to change regulations. It's supposed to be a place of open input between landowners/sportsmen and the game and fish department.

A couple months ago on here or hunt talk I said that moose populations are down (this is due to putting more miles on a pickup looking for wildlife then I want to admit) and sure enough.. our unit counts come out, and apps open up and guess what.. pops are down.

I've definitely heard some head scratchers at advisory board meetings, but there's also been some good things brought up like running an invasive species check points on incoming boats like what Montana does and it wasn't even really discussed on 1 point.

I think the advisory board meetings will be very civil. But I do think there will be some hard questions asked of the game and fish and people will be looking for answers (on 1151 type stuff and other topics). Hopefully the game and fish realizes that this bill was more than just baiting for some people.. like them not even being open to much discussion at their advisory board meetings like there is supposed to be as it is the one place people have the ability to sit and converse with them.

 

[db-2]

A little over a month ago i did visit with game and fish. They said they were doing an aerial count on the north and would send me their count. Have not heard. Is that count done and is it public? db

 

[wct12]

A little over a month ago i did visit with game and fish. They said they were doing an aerial count on the north and would send me their count. Have not heard. Is that count done and is it public? db

Not sure if the count is public yet.. just looking at the number tags from year to year given out. I have heard from a pretty good source that they are down for certain in our specific unit though.

 

[wct12]

A little over a month ago i did visit with game and fish. They said they were doing an aerial count on the north and would send me their count. Have not heard. Is that count done and is it public? db

In our unit from years 21 to 22 bull tags dropped over 50%, and cow tags dropped by 20.

Was thinking of the number of moose I helped people harvest last year and it was 8% of all moose tags given in our unit. Kind of wild to think about even you stop and look at license numbers given out.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

Just noticed this.. but I get it's not a place to change regulations. It's supposed to be a place of open input between landowners/sportsmen and the game and fish department.

A couple months ago on here or hunt talk I said that moose populations are down (this is due to putting more miles on a pickup looking for wildlife then I want to admit) and sure enough.. our unit counts come out, and apps open up and guess what.. pops are down.

I've definitely heard some head scratchers at advisory board meetings, but there's also been some good things brought up like running an invasive species check points on incoming boats like what Montana does and it wasn't even really discussed on 1 point.

I think the advisory board meetings will be very civil. But I do think there will be some hard questions asked of the game and fish and people will be looking for answers (on 1151 type stuff and other topics). Hopefully the game and fish realizes that this bill was more than just baiting for some people.. like them not even being open to much discussion at their advisory board meetings like there is supposed to be as it is the one place people have the ability to sit and converse with them.

Unless they believe they’re even more invincible coming out of that vote and double down on closing units to baiting. It wouldn’t shock me.