logo
Baiting bill, fee hike among top North Dakota outdoors legislation still in play

Baiting bill, fee hike among top North Dakota outdoors legislation still in play

Yahoo08-03-2025
Mar. 8—The number of outdoors-related bills introduced during the 2025 session of the North Dakota Legislature is down from previous sessions, but a few pieces of legislation stand out, bill-watchers say.
According to John Bradley, executive director of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, the NDWF has been tracking about 20 bills that impact hunters, anglers and trappers.
"Normally, we see about double that in a session," Bradley said. "It's been pretty quiet so far, but the good, positive bills that we've seen have moved through and have had really decent support from our legislators.
"So, (we're) kind of optimistic going into the second half."
Among the bills the NDWF is tracking is
HB 1470
, which would increase the fees of some hunting and fishing licenses. The bill passed the House by a 64-25 vote and now awaits action by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The price of hunting and fishing licenses in North Dakota hasn't increased since 2013, when the Legislature approved a fee hike that took effect in 2014. The Game and Fish Department is mandated to keep at least $15 million in its reserve fund. Without an increase, that fund is projected to fall below $15 million in the next biennium.
"We'll be supporting that in the Senate," Bradley said. "There hasn't been a license fee increase in over a decade. Everything else in this world has become more expensive, whether that's eggs, your mortgage ... you name it, it's gone up. And so, it's due time to keep the Game and Fish whole to keep them above their mandated $15 million reserve fund."
The bill could see "a little bit more discussion" in the Senate, Bradley said, especially as it pertains to nonresident license fees.
"We may see an uptick (in proposed nonresident fees) as that crosses over to the Senate, but 1470 as a whole is a good bill that we will be supporting," Bradley said.
The proverbial elephant in the room among outdoors bills, though, is
SB 2137,
the so-called "baiting bill," which would prevent the Game and Fish Department from restricting the practice of supplemental feeding for hunting — commonly known as baiting — on private land in units with documented cases of chronic wasting disease.
Game and Fish currently prohibits baiting for big game hunting on private land in hunting units with CWD-positive cases or within 25 miles of a confirmed CWD case. Baiting also is prohibited on state and federal lands.
A neurological brain disease, CWD is always fatal to deer, elk and moose, although it can take several months or more before obvious symptoms appear.
Proponents of the legislation to restrict the Game and Fish Department's current baiting ban authority flocked to the Capitol on Friday, Jan. 17, for the bill's initial hearing before the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee, forcing legislative staff to move the hearing to a larger room.
Hunters who favor baiting and oppose efforts to ban it on private land say it's a property rights issue. They say it increases hunting success for young hunters and people with physical limitations. They also question CWD's impact on deer populations and argue it doesn't make sense to restrict baiting for hunting when supplemental feeding is allowed the rest of the year.
Opponents, meanwhile, cite the potential disease risks of drawing deer into close quarters.
The North Dakota Game and Fish Department in February
reported 17 deer tested positive for CWD
during the 2024 sampling season — 15 taken by hunters and two "clinical" deer confirmed through diagnostic examination. That brings the statewide total to 122 since 2009, when the disease first was detected in unit 3F2 in south-central North Dakota.
The
Senate approved SB 2137 by a 31-15 vote
in late January, with a "sunset clause" amendment that the legislation be effective through July 31, 2029. The bill had its first hearing before the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Friday, March 7, but no action was taken.
Similar legislation passed the House by a 76-18 vote during the 2023 legislative session, only to be defeated in the Senate by a 26-21 vote in the closing days of the session.
Two other bills introduced this session in the House — HB 1236
and
HB 1325
, both of which would have limited the Game and Fish Department's ability to manage for CWD — were soundly defeated.
One in particular, HB 1236, would have prohibited the department from using license dollars for CWD management. That bill was defeated by a vote of 63-27.
Bradley of the NDWF says he thinks SB 2137 will get a "far more thorough" look in the House.
"Our take on it is the (Game and Fish) Department is the best (option) to manage CWD in our state, and banning baiting in certain areas is one of the best tools to slow the spread of CWD," Bradley said. "And with any wildlife disease or even livestock disease, to lock something up in statute doesn't really give the agencies the proper leverage to be able to address something on the fly."
As of Wednesday, March 5, the bill had received
247 pieces of written testimony
on the North Dakota Legislative Branch website.
Another bill that stands out, Bradley says, is
HB 1094,
which would allocate up to 10 big game licenses to nonprofit groups for fundraising. Existing legislation limits the allocation to 501C3 nonprofits, but HB 1094 would expand that to 501C19 nonprofits, which are veterans' organizations, Bradley said. The bill also would increase the percentage of fundraising proceeds that would have to go to conservation from 10%, the current level, up to 20%.
"So, if a nonprofit were to get a moose tag and, say, raise $50,000, you'd be looking at $10,000 going back into the resource instead of just the original $5,000," Bradley said.
Among other bills of note,
HB 1237,
which would have allowed nonresident hunters to buy full-season licenses for upland game and small game instead of limiting them to a 14-day license or two 7-day licenses, was defeated by an 86-4 vote in the House.
Meanwhile,
HB 1260,
which would allocate nonresident any-deer bow licenses based on 15% of the current year's mule deer gun license allocation, passed the House by a vote of 87-3. Currently, the nonresident bow allocation is based on 15% of the previous year's mule deer gun license allocation.
The change, if passed, would give the Game and Fish Department more flexibility in managing nonresident any-deer bow license numbers in years when mule deer populations are down.
"If a bad winter were to come through and really wipe out the deer it would give more accurate counts heading into the next year, as opposed to the current system of using last year's numbers," Bradley said.
For a complete listing of outdoors-related bills and their status in the Legislature, check out the
Outdoors Legislation page
of the Game and Fish website at gf.nd.gov/legislation.
Where North Dakota lawmakers vote on specific outdoors-related legislation, individual bills in the Minnesota Legislature, if they survive scrutiny, often are incorporated into an all-encompassing omnibus bill that includes several pieces of legislation as the session progresses.
Among the bills currently in play are House File
276
and HF
413
, which would affect the cost of fishing licenses for residents age 65 and older. According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, HF 276 would reduce the cost of a license by $10 for seniors, with lost revenue appropriated from the state's General Fund to the DNR's Game and Fish Fund. HF 413 would allow people 65 and older to fish without a license. Both bills have been laid over to possibly be included in an omnibus bill.
A few other bills of note:
*
HF 944:
Would allow landowners to use purple paint to mark no trespassing areas instead of placing physical signs.
*
HF 1120:
Would establish and appropriate money to the Keep It Clean program, an effort encouraging anglers and fish house owners to pick up after themselves while on the ice. The bill would direct the DNR commissioner to develop a grant program to provide funds to local units of nongovernment organizations.
*
HF 1387:
Would prohibit the sale, manufacture and use of lead tackle. Specifically, anglers couldn't use lead jigs weighing 1 ounce or less, or sinkers measuring 2 1/2 inches or less in length.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Air Force chief of staff to retire after only two years in role
Air Force chief of staff to retire after only two years in role

The Hill

time22 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Air Force chief of staff to retire after only two years in role

The Air Force's chief of staff, Gen. David Allvin, will retire this November after serving only two years of his four-year term, the service has announced, making him the latest senior military officer pushed out under the Trump administration. The Air Force revealed the surprise move in a Monday statement, noting that Allvin had 'announced plans today to retire effective on or about Nov. 1.' The release did not name a successor to be the Air Force's highest-ranking uniformed officer, adding that Allvin will continue to serve until one is confirmed by the Senate. 'I'm grateful for the opportunity to serve as the 23rd Air Force Chief of Staff and I'm thankful for [Air Force Secretary Troy Meink], [Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth] and President Trump's faith in me to lead our service,' Allvin said in a statement. 'More than anything, I'm proud to have been part of the team of Airmen who live out our core values of integrity, service and excellence every day as we prepare to defend this great nation.' The statement did not give a reason for Allvin's abrupt retirement plans, but The Washington Post reported that he was informed last week that he would be asked to retire as Hegseth wanted to go in another direction with the Air Force. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill. Allvin's looming departure follows a string of firings of other senior military officers in Trump's second term, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. CQ Brown — who also did not serve his full four years — Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, Coast Guard Commandant Adm Linda Fagan, and a slew of others serving in less prominent roles. Allvin, who became Air Force chief of staff in 2023 after service as the vice chief of staff since November 2020, is a career mobility pilot with thousands of hours flying aircraft throughout his 39-year career. In February 2024, Allvin and other Air Force officials revealed a sweeping reorganization plan in a bid to prepare the U.S. for a fight against China. But Hegseth a year later ordered the Air Force to hold off on its changes to the service and its structure. In addition, the Pentagon chief has differed with Allvin on the future of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer
We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer

According to the nature of our economy, it's typical that costs increase over time (hello, inflation). But what we're seeing in elections cannot be considered normal. The Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to list which issues are the biggest problems facing the economy right now. Seventy-two percent said the role of money in politics is a 'very big problem' — landing it the foremost spot above health care costs, inflation, the federal deficit, poverty and every other issue. This is significant. While candidates for Congress and the presidency quibble over who gets access to power, moneyed interests continue to creep into the system, making elections costlier than ever. Sometimes it starts to feel like a contest just for the contest's sake. Let's take a look at the numbers. Just three presidential cycles ago, in 2016, the total cost of all federal elections rang in at $6.5 billion, a (relatively) modest increase from 2012. But four years later, the total cost more than doubled to $15.1 billion and, in 2024, nearly matched that total ($14.8 billion). The U.S. vastly outspends all other nations on elections. The source of money has also changed. Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of candidates who raised more than $200,000 for general election campaigns collected that money from within their districts from people they would ultimately represent if they won (79 percent of House candidates, 62 percent of Senate candidates). As my organization has reported, congressional elections truly have now become national campaigns, with just 17.6 percent local money in House races and only 27.5 percent in Senate races for 2024. So, while more money is pouring into the U.S. election system than ever before, the traditional relationship between elected officials and those they represent has fallen apart. Thanks to the research done by Unite America, we know that nearly all congressional elections are decided by less than 10 percent of voters. Put those low voter participation rates together with low local fundraising rates, and you end up with elected officials who no longer represent the people. And if our officials are not beholden to their constituents, but rather to partisan forces, we end up with a dysfunctional government. We shouldn't be surprised that the American people have had enough. Amid a more politicized landscape in which partisans are moving increasingly toward the extremes, money in politics is one of the few issues that both sides of the aisle can agree on — with 66 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats citing it as a very big problem. And yet, our leaders appear uninterested in changing a system that helps them stay in power. In every Congress, a handful of lawmakers have introduced legislation to reform the role of money in politics, but none of those bills have any chance at becoming law. In fact, a meaningful campaign finance law has not been enacted since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed in 2002 — nearly a quarter-century ago. Since then, the courts have eaten away at the restrictions created by the law, clearing the way for super PACs and the untraceable ' dark money ' funds that support them. And then there's the Federal Election Commission, which is tasked with regulating campaign fundraising and expenditures in line with current law, enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the law. But even in the best of times, the FEC rarely takes action. When fully staffed, it has three Republican and three Democratic commissioners, leading to partisan gridlock. But deadlocked votes would be a welcome change from what we are facing now. In order to take action, the FEC requires a quorum of four commissioners. Right now it only has three, so it cannot complete most of its core functions. That leaves the judiciary as the only branch of government considering changes to campaign finance laws. All eyes are on Maine, where voters overwhelmingly approved a 2024 ballot measure setting caps on contributions to super PACs. Opponents have sued to overturn the measure, and the case has been teed up for a federal district court's review. It is likely to end up before the Supreme Court in the next couple years, in what will likely be the most significant ruling on money in politics since Citizens United. Before that case makes it to the high court, the justices may consider another campaign finance case. Current law limits how much money party committees can spend in coordination with candidates' campaign committees. That law is being challenged and the case could be heard this fall. While all this is happening (or, at the FEC, not happening), political operatives are already gearing up for the next elections and strategizing how to raise as much money as possible. If nothing changes, the dollars will only get bigger, and voters will be even more dissatisfied. We deserve better.

In Maine, a political novice makes a long-shot bid to oust Senator Susan Collins
In Maine, a political novice makes a long-shot bid to oust Senator Susan Collins

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

In Maine, a political novice makes a long-shot bid to oust Senator Susan Collins

Advertisement 'We need to stop using the exact same playbook that keeps losing over and over and over again,' said Platner, a political unknown who serves as the local harbor master in the tiny town of Sullivan. 'Running establishment candidates who are chosen or supported by the powers that be in D.C. -- in Maine specifically -- has been a total failure, certainly in attempts to unseat Susan Collins. It is time for us to try something new.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up A competitive pistol shooter who worked as a bartender at the Tune Inn on Capitol Hill while attending George Washington University on the GI Bill, he said that 'everyone knows we live in a system that is not built to represent working-class people.' Platner said he had been approached in the past to run for local office, and had always turned it down. But when a group of labor unions focused on climate issues reached out to him about running for Senate, Platner found himself open to the idea. Advertisement 'The political situation feels like a precipice,' he said. 'It feels like it will go really, really dark, or we have an opportunity to claw something back for working people in this country.' An untested candidate like Platner may be a risky bet, but some Democratic strategists said that at a moment of deep anti-Washington sentiment, voters are demanding new faces over veteran politicians they view as part of a system that has failed them. Platner said he was recruited by political organizers who were worried that 'there was going to be a bad decision made for this race, and they went looking around this state for someone. I am terrified that the Democrats are going to squander what could otherwise be a spectacular opportunity.' He said his campaign would focus relentlessly on the dire economic landscape that has made it difficult to afford a house or health care in his state. And his pitch is that he has a unique ability to 'appeal to a lot of voters in Maine who aren't usually on the side of a Democratic politician, or a lot of people who just stopped voting, because they see a political system they feel does not and cannot represent them.' He has already attracted some national political operators to work on his campaign. His sepia-toned launch video was produced by Morris Katz, a top adviser to Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor. A senior adviser is Joe Calvello, who previously worked on the campaign of Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. Advertisement Platner, whose light social media footprint indicates that he has supported Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said he did not define himself as a progressive or a centrist. But he laughed at the idea that he would have any challenge in connecting with supporters of President Donald Trump. Half of his friends and colleagues at the dock voted for Trump, he said. 'I'm a waterman who works in the ocean with his hands. I'm a competitive pistol shooter -- that's my weekend hobby. I have an extensive combat background,' he said. 'Even if I tried to put myself into the buckets that we as a society have created, I don't fit into any of them.' Maine Republicans disagree. 'Being a Bernie Bro and Kamala Harris donor is a profile to appeal to Portland progressives, not centrist and conservative voters in rural Maine,' said Jason Savage, the executive director of the Maine Republican Party. (Platner made a small donation to Harris' campaign last year, and in 2016 donated to Sanders' presidential campaign.) Jordan Wood, a progressive former congressional aide, entered the race in April, making a pitch that Collins 'hasn't changed the system -- she's part of it.' For years, Collins, 72, who leads the powerful Appropriations Committee, has been able to fend off well-funded Democratic challengers despite Maine voting Democratic in the past three presidential elections. But this cycle, she is facing record-low polling, and her race is one of the top targets for Democrats seeking to win back control of the Senate. Platner may need to hone his attacks on Collins as he tries to make the case against her. In the interview, he criticized Collins for allowing Trump's sprawling domestic policy bill to win approval by the Appropriations Committee, then voting against it on the Senate floor. Yet the legislation was not a spending bill, and never went through the committee. Advertisement Mills, a two-term governor and former prosecutor, is still seen by her party's establishment as the strongest candidate to defeat Collins. She clashed with Trump at the White House this year over his threat to deny federal funding to Maine over the issue of transgender athletes competing in women's sports. But Mills is also not viewed as a perfect candidate. At a time when many Democratic voters are demanding generational change, Mills, if elected, would be 79 when taking office, making her the oldest first-term senator in history. 'I would think seriously about it, but I'm not ready to make any decisions along those lines,' Mills told a local television station in Maine this month. This article originally appeared in

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store