SB 2155

[Obi-Wan]

Well…

Guaranteed this douche's land was locked up tighter than a straight man's butt in prison before this bill was passed so the results will be the same as before - NO ACCESS

 

[Obi-Wan]

Why is that group so angry?

somebody must have touched their corn.

The guy on the right is their spokesman

 

[zoops]

Heaven forbid you not be able to shoot an antelope every year while the peasants maybe get a couple in their lifetime...

 

[Jiffy]

Well…

Yep…interesting isn’t it.

 

[deleted user]

I think I know who the woman is who runs that page. She’s a real peach.

 

[NDSportsman]

Either change the acreage requirement for gratis tags to 640 acres or eliminate them altogether.

 

[johnr]

ND lockout...hahaha
Watch a bunch of turds in a punch bowl

 

[wct12]

I commented on this thread earlier and said a lot of these same things but here they are again..

I do think something needed to change with Antelope licenses. Is this bill it? In my opinion no but I’m not sure what else could have been done without some discussion and thought, but it would’ve been nice for the department to have some discussions back and forth about it at things like advisory board meetings (I think advisory board meetings are pretty worthless in my honest opinion but this is where they bring that stuff up).

Now my reason for not being a huge fan of this bill.. (I said it earlier and Brock and I had some nice back and forth along with others) is a guy hopes that the ability to get gratis tags (maybe even fairly frequently in the case of antelope) helps keep access open in a state that’s 90+% private lands. (I also have never drawn an antelope tag in my life and can’t get a gratis so the skin in the game thing isn’t there for me like some in opposition.

Not sure how many guys have hunted the western half/specifically the south west corner of the state outside of the badlands but access was already tough.. I hope this bill doesn’t make it even tougher, those boys are some staunch private property rights advocates (as am I). Maybe the department having some sit downs with landowners and sportsmen and trying to come up with a solution instead of just supporting this bill would be viewed more positively than them just supporting this bill.

 

[wct12]

Also.. on the bashing on landowners (whether it’s ND Lockout or just land owner opposition to this bill) doesn’t do the sportsmen much good. Every year the wedge keeps getting hammered farther down in the relationship between private land owners and sportsmen, with the department not doing much to help, while we as sportsmen’s should be advocating and trying to mend that relationship (2 way street I know).

ND lockout as well as lot of people from the southwest corner of the state and “west river” (myself included) were in favor of 2315 and that’s where that slogan/page came from (I have no idea who owns it/runs it) so that shows those landowners thoughts on private property access. E posting came out of that as a compromise to try and make both sides of that bill happy.. more Antelope tags for sportsmen doesn’t do them much good if access gets even more restricted and public lands get even more crowded because of it.

Just my opinion as someone who hopes to draw an antelope tag someday and have somewhere to chase it, including private land access.

 

[Skeeter]

Another typical NDA land owner bashing thread. Nothing new to see here. Yawn.

 

[deleted user]

Not bashing all landowners. And how exactly does this infringe on landowner rights?

@wtc12, what was it didn’t like about this bill, and in your opinion what would have been the answer to the pronghorn situation? This wedge you speak of between landowners and sportsmen, is it only sportsmen to blame? You say it a two way street, what do landowners need to do to rectify the situation?

There’s douchebag hunters out there for sure. But what kind of productive talks do you think will take place when this is the other side’s stace:


It’s not just sportsmen that need to come to the table. This bill was about as good a compromise as could be and they’re still pissed.

 

[wct12]

Not bashing all landowners. And how exactly does this infringe on landowner rights?

@wtc12, what was it didn’t like about this bill, and in your opinion what would have been the answer to the pronghorn situation? This wedge you speak of between landowners and sportsmen, is it only sportsmen to blame? You say it a two way street, what do landowners need to do to rectify the situation?

There’s douchebag hunters out there for sure. But what kind of productive talks do you think will take place when this is the other side’s stace:


It’s not just sportsmen that need to come to the table. This bill was about as good a compromise as could be and they’re still pissed.

I said something needed to change, but wasn’t sure of the answer in my first post.. I also said I don’t have the answers of what to do but maybe having landowners and sportsmen sit at the table with the department to try and come up with an idea, or the department ask for input from both sides at things like advisory board meetings to try and come up with an answer would have been a solid start.. What I don’t like about this bill is that the department backed it while only taking input from one side (I’m sure getting a few more bucks in their pocket didn’t hurt the decision either).

I said it’s a 2 way street.. that means both sides need to work on it.. but the department only ever invites one side to the table (sportsmen). Maybe actually listening to input from some landowners instead of these “special” sportsmen’s orgs would be a good start to try and reduce this. I did not go to the access and habitat summit in bismarck so maybe that was a start.. but I’ve heard from multiple on both sides of the isle that the best part of that was the snacks. The way landowners rectify the situation is through habitat and access. Lots of farmers wouldn’t mind planting habitat and allowing access (I’m on a local sportsmen org and we gave it away 250 acres of plot seed a year as a small group and work with the NRCS on a few things and they are very well received, but we get input from both sides on things to do so that really helps). But the problem is they usually never get a seat at the table so their comments/concerns/questions are never even heard.

What kind of productive talks do you have when

-sportsmen post the subsidies website and bash on landowners
-sportsmen scream they are a public resource but only want to deal with them 2 days before season to the sunset season closes and then hope the landowner does a good job helping them survive
-yelling at them they have every right to be on their private property and there is 0 reason it all needs to be “posted” without being posted.. (all 3 states that surround us are this way and and the 2 provinces that touch us if I remember correctly)

It’s not just sportsmen that need to come to the table, but they are the only ones that get an invite. Maybe the landowners are so upset because this bill was drafted with 0 input from their side/perspective because they didn’t even get an opportunity to have a seat that table.

 

[deleted user]

I said something needed to change, but wasn’t sure of the answer in my first post.. I also said I don’t have the answers of what to do but maybe having landowners and sportsmen sit at the table with the department to try and come up with an idea, or the department ask for input from both sides at things like advisory board meetings to try and come up with an answer would have been a solid start.. What I don’t like about this bill is that the department backed it while only taking input from one side (I’m sure getting a few more bucks in their pocket didn’t hurt the decision either).

I said it’s a 2 way street.. that means both sides need to work on it.. but the department only ever invites one side to the table (sportsmen). Maybe actually listening to input from some landowners instead of these “special” sportsmen’s orgs would be a good start to try and reduce this. I did not go to the access and habitat summit in bismarck so maybe that was a start.. but I’ve heard from multiple on both sides of the isle that the best part of that was the snacks. The way landowners rectify the situation is through habitat and access. Lots of farmers wouldn’t mind planting habitat and allowing access (I’m on a local sportsmen org and we gave it away 250 acres of plot seed a year as a small group and work with the NRCS on a few things and they are very well received, but we get input from both sides on things to do so that really helps). But the problem is they usually never get a seat at the table so their comments/concerns/questions are never even heard.

What kind of productive talks do you have when

-sportsmen post the subsidies website and bash on landowners
-sportsmen scream they are a public resource but only want to deal with them 2 days before season to the sunset season closes and then hope the landowner does a good job helping them survive
-yelling at them they have every right to be on their private property and there is 0 reason it all needs to be “posted” without being posted.. (all 3 states that surround us are this way and and the 2 provinces that touch us if I remember correctly)

It’s not just sportsmen that need to come to the table, but there are the only ones that get an invite. Maybe the landowners are so upset because this bill was drafted with 0 input from their side/perspective because they didn’t even get an opportunity to have a seat that table.

If you are on a local sportsman board, you are at the same table as any other org. I know someone on the wildlife federation board, and this “table “ doesn’t involve landowners because they’re usually discussing volunteer jobs on G&F land or habitat projects on private land that the owner made an agreement on.

The subsidy thing usually comes up when a landowner declares that johnny public has no vested interest in the wildlife/ag world. Sometimes a low blow IMO.

Wildlife is a public resource, no debate about it. Nobody expects nor should they expect us landowners to foster the population. Sure people get upset when they see habitat go under the plow. There are tools available if they become a nuisance.

Literally never heard of anybody claiming rights to access private property. Not once. In MN only ag land is automatically no trespassing.

If you really think that the Ag/Landowner group has no input on any bill regarding wildlife, hunting, or land, you’re crazy.


Honestly both sides are guilty. Some hunters see every landowner as the “you’re touching my corn” guy. Some landowners see every hunter as a poacher / freeloader / trespasser.

Bottom line I guess if you’re that upset with hunters, post your land. End of story.

Edit: I really don’t mean to sound like a dick. I know how some of my posts come across. But I think the final trump card is landowners have is “OK, it’s posted”. And if you don’t want to post it, don’t. Majority of landowners let a guy hunt if they ask. The ones who do the most squawking were never saying yes anyway.

 

[yellowlab]

I said something needed to change, but wasn’t sure of the answer in my first post.. I also said I don’t have the answers of what to do but maybe having landowners and sportsmen sit at the table with the department to try and come up with an idea, or the department ask for input from both sides at things like advisory board meetings to try and come up with an answer would have been a solid start.. What I don’t like about this bill is that the department backed it while only taking input from one side (I’m sure getting a few more bucks in their pocket didn’t hurt the decision either).

I said it’s a 2 way street.. that means both sides need to work on it.. but the department only ever invites one side to the table (sportsmen). Maybe actually listening to input from some landowners instead of these “special” sportsmen’s orgs would be a good start to try and reduce this. I did not go to the access and habitat summit in bismarck so maybe that was a start.. but I’ve heard from multiple on both sides of the isle that the best part of that was the snacks. The way landowners rectify the situation is through habitat and access. Lots of farmers wouldn’t mind planting habitat and allowing access (I’m on a local sportsmen org and we gave it away 250 acres of plot seed a year as a small group and work with the NRCS on a few things and they are very well received, but we get input from both sides on things to do so that really helps). But the problem is they usually never get a seat at the table so their comments/concerns/questions are never even heard.

What kind of productive talks do you have when

-sportsmen post the subsidies website and bash on landowners
-sportsmen scream they are a public resource but only want to deal with them 2 days before season to the sunset season closes and then hope the landowner does a good job helping them survive
-yelling at them they have every right to be on their private property and there is 0 reason it all needs to be “posted” without being posted.. (all 3 states that surround us are this way and and the 2 provinces that touch us if I remember correctly)

It’s not just sportsmen that need to come to the table, but they are the only ones that get an invite. Maybe the landowners are so upset because this bill was drafted with 0 input from their side/perspective because they didn’t even get an opportunity to have a seat that table.

You keep saying the department should have talked to landowners about this, and the department supported it. The truth is that the department never asked for this bill and did not support it. It is obvious you dislike them, but when you blatantly lie to try and prove your point, who is the problem?

 

[Wall-eyes]

I agree with how hard it is to draw tags of any type should not be any gratis tags or come up with different system. I have many good friend landowners that have in their lifetime shoot around 30 to 50 bull elk, 30 to 50 nice muley bucks and 30 to 50 nice antelope and on and on. I can't even draw God damn tag, does something seem wrong. I have one really good friend that the land was his dads now his he cash rents it out that I have gone with to help get his bull elk tag many times cause I can't draw and when I do he will let me hunt his land. Dozen elk over 350 inch's and over dozen mule bucks over 180 inchs he has land right next to park. Just not right and to let you know he lets no one hunt, just family and so with my other rancher farmer friends no hunting period so how many landowners in badlands let any one hunt not very many you better be good friends. Most of them don't even shoot their animals family members do.

 

[Obi-Wan]

I said something needed to change, but wasn’t sure of the answer in my first post.. I also said I don’t have the answers of what to do but maybe having landowners and sportsmen sit at the table with the department to try and come up with an idea, or the department ask for input from both sides at things like advisory board meetings to try and come up with an answer would have been a solid start.. What I don’t like about this bill is that the department backed it while only taking input from one side (I’m sure getting a few more bucks in their pocket didn’t hurt the decision either).

I said it’s a 2 way street.. that means both sides need to work on it.. but the department only ever invites one side to the table (sportsmen). Maybe actually listening to input from some landowners instead of these “special” sportsmen’s orgs would be a good start to try and reduce this. I did not go to the access and habitat summit in bismarck so maybe that was a start.. but I’ve heard from multiple on both sides of the isle that the best part of that was the snacks. The way landowners rectify the situation is through habitat and access. Lots of farmers wouldn’t mind planting habitat and allowing access (I’m on a local sportsmen org and we gave it away 250 acres of plot seed a year as a small group and work with the NRCS on a few things and they are very well received, but we get input from both sides on things to do so that really helps). But the problem is they usually never get a seat at the table so their comments/concerns/questions are never even heard.

What kind of productive talks do you have when

-sportsmen post the subsidies website and bash on landowners
-sportsmen scream they are a public resource but only want to deal with them 2 days before season to the sunset season closes and then hope the landowner does a good job helping them survive
-yelling at them they have every right to be on their private property and there is 0 reason it all needs to be “posted” without being posted.. (all 3 states that surround us are this way and and the 2 provinces that touch us if I remember correctly)

It’s not just sportsmen that need to come to the table, but they are the only ones that get an invite. Maybe the landowners are so upset because this bill was drafted with 0 input from their side/perspective because they didn’t even get an opportunity to have a seat that table.

What percent of the ND legislators are Land owners ? Many land owners not only had a seat at the table they were the ones who had the opportunity to add amendments and voted on the bill. So to say they didn't have a seat at the table is BS

 

[wct12]

You keep saying the department should have talked to landowners about this, and the department supported it. The truth is that the department never asked for this bill and did not support it. It is obvious you dislike them, but when you blatantly lie to try and prove your point, who is the problem?

I’ve been very up front on my dislike of the the departments big game departments handling of many things.

I sat in the house energy and natural resources committee room and testified on another bill (where I voiced my displeasure on camera with just the big game departments and sang praises of other parts of the department) the same day 2155 was discussed. Did Casey Anderson with the department stand up there (it’s submitted testimony as neutral and his testimony was mostly neutral) and lay out the facts on license numbers per unit and then say that this bill might open a few more units because their needs to be X number of license (no landowners) available and allude to it being fine?

As I said. I don’t support the bill but I support a change of some kind. I just don’t like the chance of losing more access where access is already extremely limited.

I also did not sign in on 2155 taking a stance either way when I was there. Just so you know.

 

[wct12]

What percent of the ND legislators are Land owners ? Many land owners not only had a seat at the table they were the ones who had the opportunity to add amendments and voted on the bill. So to say they didn't have a seat at the table is BS

I’m saying landowners don’t get a seat at the table with the department. And hopefully legislators are voting how their constituents want.

A VAST majority of north Dakota does not pay enough attention (my generation of 30 and younger especially) to have a clue about what’s going on in bismarck (because if they did there would be a lot of representatives that wouldn’t be down there or be censored). The legislator looks at things like testimony submitted which is greatly in favor of so good on them for voting that way..

But I’m saying landowners have very little if any input with anything the department does/releases. Look at the people sitting at the tables with them during meetings. It’s sportsmen’s orgs representatives, not landowners or landowner orgs representatives.

 

[wct12]

If you are on a local sportsman board, you are at the same table as any other org. I know someone on the wildlife federation board, and this “table “ doesn’t involve landowners because they’re usually discussing volunteer jobs on G&F land or habitat projects on private land that the owner made an agreement on.

The subsidy thing usually comes up when a landowner declares that johnny public has no vested interest in the wildlife/ag world. Sometimes a low blow IMO.

Wildlife is a public resource, no debate about it. Nobody expects nor should they expect us landowners to foster the population. Sure people get upset when they see habitat go under the plow. There are tools available if they become a nuisance.

Literally never heard of anybody claiming rights to access private property. Not once. In MN only ag land is automatically no trespassing.

If you really think that the Ag/Landowner group has no input on any bill regarding wildlife, hunting, or land, you’re crazy.


Honestly both sides are guilty. Some hunters see every landowner as the “you’re touching my corn” guy. Some landowners see every hunter as a poacher / freeloader / trespasser.

Bottom line I guess if you’re that upset with hunters, post your land. End of story.

Edit: I really don’t mean to sound like a dick. I know how some of my posts come across. But I think the final trump card is landowners have is “OK, it’s posted”. And if you don’t want to post it, don’t. Majority of landowners let a guy hunt if they ask. The ones who do the most squawking were never saying yes anyway.

Our local sportsmen board is just a bunch of guys that wanted to see populations rebound so they got together well before my lifetime and formed it. There is no lobbying, no dues paid to a higher cause, nothing on that front.

What I meant by a seat at the table is when orgs like BHA, Wildlife federation, etc get to sit at the table and discuss literally anything with the department.

My point being on my 3 bullets is it’s all unnecessary (from both sides) and there hasn’t been any discussion from “the corn touching” land owner posted on this thread that I’ve caught minus someone post a screenshot of a Facebook page post (could’ve missed it), but can show multiple posts of sportsmen hating on landowners on this thread.

Your bottom line goes back to one of my bullet points though and you touched on it earlier.. of “why should they have to post it”.

**I’m not trying to be a dick on here also, just playing devils advocate. I’m a landowner (who does get a gratis deer tag from time to time) but also a sportsmen that gets to enjoy the outdoors a lot more than most due to my job and have been seeing access (we’ve got great relationships built so it hasn’t directly affected us as much) but other groups hunting around losing access more so year after year. I hunt a couple other states where I have to ask for access no matter what and i do around here also even if stuff isn’t posted (common courtesy thing). I just hate seeing landowners and sportsmen keep bashing heads. It’s not good for either group, and I hope something can come around to help try and fix it in my lifetime so my kids and future grand kids get to enjoy it like I do.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Antelope Numbers Are Dropping. That’s Why Two Hunters Are Launching the North American Pronghorn Foundation​

The new conservation group will focus on struggling herds and habitat
By Andrew McKean
Published Apr 18, 2025 3:01 PM EDT

A new critter org is launching to advocate for antelope health and habitat. Photo by Neal Herbert / NPS
A grassroots conservation organization devoted to pronghorn antelope will launch Monday with the goal of funding research-driven habitat and migration projects around the West.
The North American Pronghorn Foundation grew out of founders’ affection for pronghorn and the recognition that, between habitat fragmentation, obstacles to seasonal migration, and impacts from drought, feral horses, and development, the continent’s original ungulate needs advocates and assistance.
At least initially, the group will exist as a volunteer-driven entity with memberships, merchandise, and a social media presence, but not as state and local chapters or a paid staff. Instead, the group will aggregate its funding to be used in on-the-ground projects, says co-founder Brock Wahl of Bismarck, North Dakota.
“We’ve observed that while there’s been an increase in the last few years, historically pronghorn haven’t gotten the resources and attention and dollars associated with research of other big-game animals,” says Wahl. “With GPS collars these days you can really get a sense of where animals want to go and how they’re using the landscapes. We’d like to leverage that knowledge with a start-to-finish model where we help fund research to find out what animals need in terms of habitat or removing barriers to migration, then utilizing results of that research to put projects on the ground that benefit pronghorn.”

The logo for NAPF.
Co-founder Randy Routier, a South Dakota outfitter and rancher, said that projects might be as simple as replacing the bottom strand of barbed-wire fences with smooth wire and lifting it up a few inches so pronghorn, which scoot under fences instead of vaulting over them like deer and elk, can pass safely.


“In some cases, high-quality habitat exists, but pronghorn can’t reach it because of a fencing issue,” observes Routier. “That’s an easy problem for us to identify and fix, to enable antelope to go where they need to go.”
Founders highlighted helping with local habitat needs, including building or enhancing water sources in the Southwest, contributing to wildlife-friendly highway crossings in key migration corridors, and mitigating impacts of large-scale solar projects. Wahl noted that across their range, pronghorn populations have slipped some 20 percent in recent years.
“I feel it’s an American responsibility to safeguard an animal that has such a unique place here,” says Wahl. “After all, it’s such a distinctly American animal whose closest relative is the giraffe. Plus, with the increase in Western hunting, with tags harder to draw and with chronic wasting disease on the landscape heavily impacting deer in some places, pronghorn will only get more pressure and attention, so it’s timely to advocate for the resource that’s facing challenges.”

​

“With something like 40 percent of the world’s pronghorns, it would be easy to focus exclusively on Wyoming, where there have been some significant population declines,” says Wahl. “But Wyoming already has an effective infrastructure for pronghorn conservation, including the Wyoming Migration Initiative, the Monteith Shop, and Game and Fish’s pronghorn studies. We want to make sure that other states and areas benefit from similar infrastructure, advocacy, and funding.”
Advocacy may extend to the policy arena, but Wahl said the group will be judicious about the issues it tackles, and aims to work with industry and other partners on solutions.

A map showing pronghorn declines by state from 2021 to 2023.
“I think you can expect that we’ll submit comments to support the Sublette (Wyoming) Migration Corridor, and we’ll likely be involved in public policies that address the negative impacts of feral horses on pronghorn habitats, and maybe comments on energy infrastructure in the wrong spots, but as a 501c3 we’re going to pick projects and policies wisely.”
The North American Pronghorn Foundation is the second high-profile species-specific conservation organization to launch in the last months. The Blacktail Deer Foundation was started by the Mule Deer Foundation in December to advocate for coastal black-tailed deer.

Other groups formed in recent years to advocate for a specific species or landscapes include the Rocky Mountain Goat Alliance, formed in 2011, and the North American Grouse Partnership was established in 1999. The North American Pronghorn Foundation is actually the second conservation group with that name and focus. A previous version, based in Rawlins, Wyoming, has been inactive for over a decade.