What does that have to do with what I am proposing? Yeah....I get it. I am making a statement that I wish ND had an option to purchase a preference point and stay out of the lottery. If leadership at GNF chooses to explore that idea, yes it must go to the legislature. Its besides the point. I never said it would be implemented over night.
.
Because of statements like "We need to send our gnf department to a seminar in wyoming on how to get shit done" suggest that you think the NDGF write the laws, they don't.
Personally, I don't think the NDGF gives a crap about how tags are handed out other than the mere fact they have to answer the phone. Every system has it's good and bad points (no pun intended). The bottom line is demand exceeds supply, that's why NR elk tags are so damn expensive elsewhere. I'm not saying changes can't be made, but unless rule changes coincide with greater game numbers and tag availability, I really doubt people would be happy no matter the rules.
Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on ya, I just see/hear lots of people blaming NDGF for laws that they typically have little say over. Do they get asked for input by the legislature when legislation is being considered? Often yes, but not always. And as a general rule, it's considered quite "rude" and out of their lane to be going to the legislature and lobbying for social issues in the hunting world. That last part I totally agree with as it's the first step towards having a state agency that gets a little too big for its britches. FWIW, fed agencies tend to have to play by the same rules, answer questions when asked by the elected politicians, but keep quiet on the social aspect of proposed legislation.
