Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wct12" data-source="post: 368815" data-attributes="member: 8117">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.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA