03-15-2004, 10:41 PM
Lawmakers say they're confident of keeping hunting restrictions
By DALE WETZEL Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press - 03/14/2004
BISMARCK, N.D.
Although they regard a Minnesota legal challenge to state hunting policy as foolish and insulting, it is not likely to influence the North Dakota Legislature's hunting policy decisions, lawmakers predict.
"I really don't think it's going to have a lot of effect," said Rep. Jon Nelson, R-Wolford, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. "In the Legislature, when you talk about hunting, the lines are already pretty well drawn."
During the 2003 Legislature, lawmakers defeated restrictions on visiting hunters that were much more onerous than the rules which prompted the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Bismarck last week.
One proposal, defeated by one vote in the North Dakota House, sought to link the number of nonresident duck and goose hunting licenses to a state Game and Fish survey of waterfowl breeding conditions.
Under the bill, less water in North Dakota's prairie potholes would have meant big reductions in the number of available licenses, which currently are not capped.
Another unsuccessful bill, sponsored by Nelson, would have imposed a limit of 10,000 duck licenses for visiting hunters during the first 20 days of the fall season. Last year, out-of-state hunters bought 26,020 licenses.
The state of Minnesota and Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed by Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch.
It contends North Dakota's restrictions on out-of-state hunters - including visiting sportsmen who own or lease hunting ground in the state - represent unconstitutional limits on cross-border business.
North Dakota's Legislature approved some of the hunting changes that Hatch is challenging. Lawmakers agreed to bar visiting hunters from about 640,000 acres of land controlled by the state Game and Fish Department during the first week of pheasant season, which is tentatively scheduled to open Oct. 9.
The agency implemented other limits, including a ban on visiting hunters for the first week of duck season, and a seven-day limit on the amount of time they may spend in two duck-hunting zones in central and south-central North Dakota.
Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, who has pushed for broader limits on out-of-state hunters, said North Dakota residents deserve hunting advantages in their own state. Porter is vice chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
"What we did ... is try to come up with a balance for both the residents and the nonresidents and make it a good hunting experience for everybody, in regards to access and the availability of the game," Porter said. "You take an area around Jamestown and you tell everybody they can hunt in that one area, how long do you think the ducks are going to stay there?"
Visiting hunters have thronged to North Dakota in recent years, drawn by wet conditions that have aided duck and goose reproduction, and mild winters that helped the state's pheasant population flourish.
In 1990, Game and Fish Department statistics say, 5,522 visiting hunters bought North Dakota waterfowl licenses. The number increased to 21,873 in 1999, 30,028 in 2001 and 29,992 in 2002, when Gov. John Hoeven set a limit of 30,000 licenses.
The number of nonresident pheasant hunters zoomed from 11,857 in 1999 to 22,840 in 2002. While the number of resident duck hunters has remained stable, resident pheasant hunters have become more numerous, increasing from 47,609 in 1999 to 56,155 in 2002, the last season for which figures are available.
"Pheasant hunting went wild. We had good conditions," said Paul Schadewald, a Game and Fish administrator. "Word gets around, and people start showing up."
The increase has prompted appeals to Hoeven and the Legislature to limit the number of visiting hunters, and restrict the amount of time they could hunt in certain areas of the state.
"The idea wasn't to be punitive to anybody from any other state," said Sen. Tom Fischer, R-Fargo, the chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. "It was to spread the pressure around."
The lawsuit, Fischer said, "is pretty foolish. I don't think it will make any difference in what we do in the Legislature."
Lawmakers and Stenehjem also point to the limits Minnesota imposes on visiting sportsmen. For example, visitors may not hunt elk, moose or prairie chickens, and they must remove ice fishing houses from lakes overnight. Minnesota residents may leave ice houses on frozen lakes for the duration of the ice fishing season.
Stenehjem said he intends to meet with South Dakota's attorney general, Larry Long, this week to discuss hunting issues. Both men plan to attend a National Association of Attorneys General meeting in Washington, D.C., which begins Monday.
South Dakota's limits on visiting duck hunters are much more stringent than North Dakota's, and represent another potential legal target. For out-of-state sportsmen, South Dakota sets aside only 3,775 licenses that allow duck hunting in most of the state.
Stenehjem believes South Dakota, and possibly other states, may intervene on North Dakota's side in the litigation.
"This is not a lawsuit that we can afford to lose," Stenehjem said.
Nelson represents a rural district in north-central North Dakota, including McHenry and Pierce counties and most of Benson County. He and other rural lawmakers have resisted pressure to restrict the number of visiting hunters, saying they bring much-needed business to North Dakota's countryside.
However, Nelson said he believes the new laws and Game and Fish Department regulations have worked well for activists on both sides of the issue.
"I would like to see no restrictions at all," he said. "But resident hunters have a concern, and we have to look at those as well."
Porter said he considered the lawsuit an insult.
"We made their playground a little more restrictive, and I'm offended that they look at us as their playground," Porter said. "The part of this that's so offensive is, they think that we took something away from them that isn't rightfully theirs in the first place. It's the state of North Dakota's, not the state of Minnesota's."
[signature]
By DALE WETZEL Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press - 03/14/2004
BISMARCK, N.D.
Although they regard a Minnesota legal challenge to state hunting policy as foolish and insulting, it is not likely to influence the North Dakota Legislature's hunting policy decisions, lawmakers predict.
"I really don't think it's going to have a lot of effect," said Rep. Jon Nelson, R-Wolford, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. "In the Legislature, when you talk about hunting, the lines are already pretty well drawn."
During the 2003 Legislature, lawmakers defeated restrictions on visiting hunters that were much more onerous than the rules which prompted the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Bismarck last week.
One proposal, defeated by one vote in the North Dakota House, sought to link the number of nonresident duck and goose hunting licenses to a state Game and Fish survey of waterfowl breeding conditions.
Under the bill, less water in North Dakota's prairie potholes would have meant big reductions in the number of available licenses, which currently are not capped.
Another unsuccessful bill, sponsored by Nelson, would have imposed a limit of 10,000 duck licenses for visiting hunters during the first 20 days of the fall season. Last year, out-of-state hunters bought 26,020 licenses.
The state of Minnesota and Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed by Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch.
It contends North Dakota's restrictions on out-of-state hunters - including visiting sportsmen who own or lease hunting ground in the state - represent unconstitutional limits on cross-border business.
North Dakota's Legislature approved some of the hunting changes that Hatch is challenging. Lawmakers agreed to bar visiting hunters from about 640,000 acres of land controlled by the state Game and Fish Department during the first week of pheasant season, which is tentatively scheduled to open Oct. 9.
The agency implemented other limits, including a ban on visiting hunters for the first week of duck season, and a seven-day limit on the amount of time they may spend in two duck-hunting zones in central and south-central North Dakota.
Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, who has pushed for broader limits on out-of-state hunters, said North Dakota residents deserve hunting advantages in their own state. Porter is vice chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
"What we did ... is try to come up with a balance for both the residents and the nonresidents and make it a good hunting experience for everybody, in regards to access and the availability of the game," Porter said. "You take an area around Jamestown and you tell everybody they can hunt in that one area, how long do you think the ducks are going to stay there?"
Visiting hunters have thronged to North Dakota in recent years, drawn by wet conditions that have aided duck and goose reproduction, and mild winters that helped the state's pheasant population flourish.
In 1990, Game and Fish Department statistics say, 5,522 visiting hunters bought North Dakota waterfowl licenses. The number increased to 21,873 in 1999, 30,028 in 2001 and 29,992 in 2002, when Gov. John Hoeven set a limit of 30,000 licenses.
The number of nonresident pheasant hunters zoomed from 11,857 in 1999 to 22,840 in 2002. While the number of resident duck hunters has remained stable, resident pheasant hunters have become more numerous, increasing from 47,609 in 1999 to 56,155 in 2002, the last season for which figures are available.
"Pheasant hunting went wild. We had good conditions," said Paul Schadewald, a Game and Fish administrator. "Word gets around, and people start showing up."
The increase has prompted appeals to Hoeven and the Legislature to limit the number of visiting hunters, and restrict the amount of time they could hunt in certain areas of the state.
"The idea wasn't to be punitive to anybody from any other state," said Sen. Tom Fischer, R-Fargo, the chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. "It was to spread the pressure around."
The lawsuit, Fischer said, "is pretty foolish. I don't think it will make any difference in what we do in the Legislature."
Lawmakers and Stenehjem also point to the limits Minnesota imposes on visiting sportsmen. For example, visitors may not hunt elk, moose or prairie chickens, and they must remove ice fishing houses from lakes overnight. Minnesota residents may leave ice houses on frozen lakes for the duration of the ice fishing season.
Stenehjem said he intends to meet with South Dakota's attorney general, Larry Long, this week to discuss hunting issues. Both men plan to attend a National Association of Attorneys General meeting in Washington, D.C., which begins Monday.
South Dakota's limits on visiting duck hunters are much more stringent than North Dakota's, and represent another potential legal target. For out-of-state sportsmen, South Dakota sets aside only 3,775 licenses that allow duck hunting in most of the state.
Stenehjem believes South Dakota, and possibly other states, may intervene on North Dakota's side in the litigation.
"This is not a lawsuit that we can afford to lose," Stenehjem said.
Nelson represents a rural district in north-central North Dakota, including McHenry and Pierce counties and most of Benson County. He and other rural lawmakers have resisted pressure to restrict the number of visiting hunters, saying they bring much-needed business to North Dakota's countryside.
However, Nelson said he believes the new laws and Game and Fish Department regulations have worked well for activists on both sides of the issue.
"I would like to see no restrictions at all," he said. "But resident hunters have a concern, and we have to look at those as well."
Porter said he considered the lawsuit an insult.
"We made their playground a little more restrictive, and I'm offended that they look at us as their playground," Porter said. "The part of this that's so offensive is, they think that we took something away from them that isn't rightfully theirs in the first place. It's the state of North Dakota's, not the state of Minnesota's."
[signature]
] Ya , it might be , but when Minnesota closes the first two weeks of fishing for Non-residents , then we'll hear N.D fisherman whine !!! I don't like either , but a eye for a eye I guess !! For one thing I can't understand , are'nt we all Americans living in America ??? I know that the raised prices for non-residents are a must , just to keep it from getting to crowded , but not raise the price that makes it a rich man sport !!!! Lets look at the stats anyway , Minnesota allows non-residents come and fish the entire season , same as North Dakota does for N.R s. Minnesota lets any N.R come and hunt deer and not limiting the tags !! N.D only gives N.R s 1% of the tags avaliable !!! hhmmm !!!! Minn lets all N.R s come and hunt waterfowl and uplandgame the same time residents get do , and not limiting the numbers !!! hhmmmm !!!!! Minnesota lets N.R come and Bear hunt , no exchange there with N.D . So all in all , if Minnesota limits the first two weeks of fishing , which gets overcrowed on Minnesota lakes like it gets overcrowed out in N.D when hunting time comes , so be it !!! I'll be happier having less congestion at the accesses and on the popular spots on the lake , cause I don't hunt anymore in N.D and could care less !!!!!