Baiting bill limiting North Dakota Game and Fish policy passes Senate
Sen. Keith Boehm, R-Mandan, speaks during a public hearing of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee on Jan. 17, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
A bill preventing policies that would limit the use of baiting for big game animals on private property passed the Senate floor Wednesday on a 31-15 vote.
Senate Bill 2137 would prohibit the North Dakota Department of Game and Fish from creating rules and policies on using bait for wildlife. The bill, similar to a proposal that failed in 2023, attracted a packed crowd to a Jan. 17 committee hearing and submitted testimony from nearly 200 people.
Charlie Bahnson, wildlife veterinarian for Game and Fish, stated the department wanted the ability to restrict baiting as a means to control chronic wasting disease in deer and other diseases that could affect wildlife and livestock, according to written testimony.
North Dakota hunters debate deer baiting rules
Sen. Randy Lemm, R-Hillsboro, told fellow senators that he disagrees with the Game and Fish Department's theory that CWD can be spread through deer congregating around a bait station. He also said the disease can live for long periods of time in the soil with an incubation period between 17 months to four years. The average lifespan of a whitetail deer is up to four years, he said.
'More animals will be killed by hunting, predators or cars before they will ever get to the point of lameness caused by CWD,' Lemm said.
Sen. Keith Boehm, R-Mandan, said regulations on CWD don't line up with the science on the disease and voted in favor of the bill.
'If a property owner wants to feed an animal on their property, they have that right. It is their property,' Boehm said.
Sen. Michael Dwyer, R-Bismarck, was among those who voted against the bill.
'The Game and Fish Department is trying to balance the concern over the disease with the attempt to provide as many hunting opportunities as possible,' Dwyer said. 'I think we should let the Game and Fish Department do their job.'
The bill was amended to include a July 31, 2029, expiration date for the law. It will be transferred to the House for its consideration.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
North Dakota governor's veto ‘clear and unambiguous,' attorney general says
Attorney General Drew Wrigley and Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness talk to reporters June 11, 2025, about an opinion related to Gov. Kelly Armstrong's veto. (Mary Steurer/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota's attorney general said Wednesday Gov. Kelly Armstrong's veto was 'sound,' dismissing a differing conclusion by legislative staff that his intent was unclear and the Legislature should hold a special session to fix the error. The opinion by Attorney General Drew Wrigley means $35 million for housing programs Armstrong's office unintentionally crossed out in a May line-item veto can move forward unless the matter is challenged in court or the Legislature reconvenes. Armstrong's veto message for the Industrial Commission budget described cutting $150,000 set aside for a Native American-focused organization to fund a homelessness liaison position. But a markup of the bill also crossed out a $35 million appropriation for affordable housing and homelessness — funding Armstrong had intended to leave intact. His office later said there had been a 'staff markup error.' 'Prudent remedy' for veto error is special session, Legislative Council advises Since then, the Legislature has been trying to figure out what actions, if any, must be taken to address the veto — including the possibility of calling a special session. Wrigley found that the unintentional markup does not change the substance of the veto because Armstrong's written veto message was 'clear and unambiguous' about what parts of Senate Bill 2014 he intended to cut. He said in a Wednesday press conference that a 'visual image' should not 'take precedence over the written orders, the detailed description offered by the one person with the power to veto.' Attorneys for North Dakota's legislative branch in a Friday memo took a very different position, advising the Legislature that calling a special session would be the 'prudent remedy' for the mistake. In its memo, Legislative Council said legal precedent suggests the marked-up bill is part of the official veto document. 'It would not be appropriate to allow the Governor and Attorney General to resolve the ambiguity by agreement,' the memo states. Doing so could have unintended consequences for how ambiguous vetoes are handled in the future, Legislative Council said. Wrigley called the Legislative Council memo a 'political document' and said the Attorney General's Office has the final say on the matter unless the issue is challenged in court. 'The power in question is strictly the governor's power and it has to be in compliance with the constitution and laws of North Dakota,' he told the North Dakota Monitor last week. 'That's the only assessment here. There's no role for this in Legislative Council. They have no authority in this regard.' Armstrong, whose office requested the opinion, in a statement agreed with Wrigley's findings. 'We appreciate the Attorney General's determination, which clarifies the matter, avoids the cost of a special session and nullifies the flawed interpretation that initially blew this up into something much bigger than it needed to be,' he said. A special session is estimated to cost $65,000 per day, Legislative Council has said. The Legislature could still decide to reconvene for a special session to override the veto if it chooses to, Wrigley said. Legislative Council Director John Bjornson said the office did not immediately have a statement on the opinion. This story was updated. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Attorney General Opinion
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
ND Ethics Commission has no authority to punish officials violating ethics laws, state leaders argue
Photo illustration by Mark Harris for ProPublica. Source images: Getty, Kyle Martin for the North Dakota Monitor. This article was produced for ProPublica's Local Reporting Network in partnership with the North Dakota Monitor. Sign up for Dispatches to get our stories in your inbox every week. Ever since North Dakota voters created an ethics watchdog agency seven years ago, dubious lawmakers have pushed back against giving it power to actually keep an eye on state officials. That was true in the session that just ended, as legislators shut down many requests from the Ethics Commission, keeping the agency on a modest budget and rebuffing measures that would have given it more latitude in its investigations. The offices of the governor and attorney general also argued during the session that the state constitution does not permit the commission to create or impose penalties for ethics-related violations. 'I was hopeful that the tide was turning,' said Rep. Karla Rose Hanson, a Democrat from Fargo and member of the Appropriations Committee, which worked on the commission's budget. 'But my general perspective is that the legislative body as a whole, specifically the majority party, is very hostile to the Ethics Commission and their work.' Voters created an ethics commission in North Dakota. Then the Legislature limited its power. North Dakotans, fed up with what they saw as ethical lapses by public officials, voted in 2018 to amend the state constitution and create the Ethics Commission. The amendment set rules for public officials and empowered the commission to both create more rules and investigate alleged violations related to corruption, elections, lobbying and transparency. North Dakota was one of the last states to establish an ethics agency and since then, the commission has struggled to fulfill its mission, the North Dakota Monitor and ProPublica reported this year. The amendment left some ambiguity about the commission's role and whether it can enforce ethics laws, leading to ongoing disagreements about how it operates. State leaders' actions this year further hamstrung the agency at a time when public officials across the country have been working, in various ways, to reverse or rein in policies created through citizen-led ballot initiatives, including those related to abortion and employee benefits. Danielle Caputo of the national nonprofit Campaign Legal Center said several state governments have worked to undermine ethics initiatives in particular. North Dakota leaders' assertions this year that the ethics agency cannot punish officials for wrongdoing is another example of that, she said. 'We have seen what appears to be a concerted effort in those states to overturn ballot initiatives or to twist their language in a way that's most beneficial to those who want less enforcement,' said Caputo, whose organization has studied the issue. She said North Dakota is 'one of the more egregious examples of that that I've seen.' In an email to the North Dakota Monitor and ProPublica, the governor's office called Caputo's take a 'gross mischaracterization' and said the governor does not oppose the Ethics Commission. In a separate email, Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness called the notion that the attorney general's office is undermining the intent of voters 'unimaginable.' As government officials debate the commission's authority, North Dakotans have reported more concerns about ethics violations to the agency this year than in any other. The commission as of late May had received 72 complaints this year. There were 41 complaints filed in all of 2024. By the end of last month, the commission had 63 pending complaints, some of which date back to 2022. The agency — which has three full-time staff members and five commissioners who receive a small stipend to oversee the work — has yet to disclose whether it has substantiated a complaint. (State law requires that the commission keep complaints confidential until the end of the process, so little is known about the nature of the filings.) The Ethics Commission supported House Bill 1360 this session that it said would have overhauled its process to speed up investigations and allow it to close cases sooner. Under the measure, sponsored by eight Republicans and two Democrats, the commission would have been able to settle and dismiss complaints at any time instead of at only certain stages in the complaint process. It also would have been allowed to investigate alleged ethics violations without someone filing an official complaint. The agency currently cannot investigate some North Dakotans' tips because they must be submitted as formal complaints, which some complainants are uncomfortable doing, agency staff have said. Staff from the offices of Gov. Kelly Armstrong and Attorney General Drew Wrigley, both Republicans, testified against the bill because they said it would have given the commission too much power. Faced with strong opposition from state leaders and their own reluctance to give the agency more authority, the House voted overwhelmingly to reject the legislation. Most of the House sponsors voted against it. Rep. Austen Schauer, a West Fargo Republican who chaired the committee that worked on the legislation, acknowledged tension between the Ethics Commission and the Legislature and oppositional testimony from the executive branch. 'The bill was basically DOA, and we just had to move on,' Schauer said. Lawmakers instead settled on tweaks to the existing process; one requires the commission to develop time management standards and another allows it to informally settle ethics complaints with the accused. Those settlements would only be made public if all parties to the agreement consent. 'There's people that for years have been sitting with this complaint over their head, which is absolutely unfair,' said Rep. Mike Nathe, a Bismarck Republican who has criticized the commission and proposed some of the changes. He also said he thinks the commission's caseload includes fake complaints submitted by North Dakotans who want to 'weaponize' the system against their political opponents. (Because state law requires that the commission keep complaints confidential, this claim cannot be verified.) Rebecca Binstock, the Ethics Commission's executive director, said the agency will look for ways to work around the hurdles that continue to slow down the investigation process. 'The Commission must now consider how to fix the process absent legislation,' Binstock wrote in an email. The Legislature also approved a measure that protects its members from prosecution for voting on something that would provide them with a financial benefit as long as they disclose their conflicts. Lawmakers, some of whom said they want to keep the commission small out of consideration to taxpayers, also turned down the agency's request for $250,000 over the next two years for a fourth staff member who would conduct training and education for the public. That would have allowed current employees to spend more time investigating complaints, agency staff said. 'I don't recall a discussion with the public being, 'We're gonna have a multimillion-dollar branch of government,'' Rep. Scott Louser, a Minot Republican, said during a legislative hearing in April. State leaders also argued the Legislature is the only entity that can create penalties for ethics violations and delegate enforcement of those penalties to state agencies. The commission can only punish officials for wrongdoing if the Legislature gives it that authority, they said. Chris Joseph, the governor's general counsel, testified this year that if the commission were given the power to both create and enforce penalties, it would be 'defining, executing and interpreting its own rules' without oversight from other parts of state government. The commission, however, says its enforcement authority is implicit in the constitutional amendment. That interpretation could soon be tested. Binstock indicated in an email that commission staff members have wrapped up investigating several cases and are waiting on commissioners to take action, which could include imposing penalties. Ellen Chaffee, part of a group called the Badass Grandmas that organized the ballot initiative and drafted the amendment, said voters intended for the Ethics Commission to impose punishments for wrongdoing. 'The people who worked on the amendment had understood that the only way to have unbiased follow-up on any violations of ethics rules was for the Ethics Commission to have that responsibility,' she said. Mike Nowatzki, the governor's spokesperson, said if the amendment does not reflect what the advocates wanted, 'they can always seek to clarify it with another constitutional amendment.'
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
North Dakota adding alerts for missing Native, endangered people
North Dakota Highway Patrol Lt. Jenna Clawson Huibregtse, right, special programs coordinator for safety and education for the department, speaks next to Phil Packineau, left, public safety administrator for the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, on new alerts being added to the state's emergency system during the Government-to-Government Conference on June 5, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) Members of North Dakota law enforcement updated the public on new alerts that will go into effect Aug. 1 to help locate members of Native communities and other adults who are reported missing. During the seventh annual Government-to-Government conference in Bismarck on Thursday, a member of the state Highway Patrol outlined how the feather and missing, endangered alerts will be added to the already established Amber, Silver and Blue Alert systems. North Dakota Highway Patrol Lt. Jenna Clawson Huibregtse, special programs coordinator for safety and education for the department, said Feather Alerts will specifically be used for missing members of the indigenous community. 'The phone blast, as we call it, or when we wake you up at 3 a.m. on your cellphone, we try not to, but when someone's life is in danger, we're going to do it,' Clawson Huibregtse said. 'That piece will only be used in abduction cases.' She added website, social media, electronic billboards and media releases will be used in Feather Alert cases not involving abduction or threats of bodily harm. 'To get that word out, that's the most important piece is galvanizing the public to help us find somebody,' she said. Once alerts are issued to the public, the person is usually found within a couple of hours, she said. North Dakota tribes push for more autonomy amid federal cuts Phil Packineau, public safety administrator for the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, said MHA has an emergency response agreement with state law enforcement to assist tribal law enforcement, if the need ever arises. 'We've identified numerous resources that we can bring to bear when there is somebody missing and that includes Highway Patrol,' Packineau said. He added Highway Patrol has been able to deploy its airplane with infrared capability within 45 minutes of being notified of a missing person. He said of the 86 missing persons reports from tribal lands in North Dakota this year, 83 of those individuals have been found so far. Packineau praised the tribal relationship with local and state law enforcement despite some tense times, like during the protests that erupted in 2016 and 2017 over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in rural Morton County. 'Even after DAPL, and everything that kind of soured a little bit in the Standing Rock area, when we've had missing persons, we've called Morton County and they said they could gather six to seven deputies and send them down. It's really that kind of a close relationship,' Packineau said. Clawson Huibregtse said a Missing, Endangered Persons Alert will also be added to the state's system Aug. 1 that will focus on abducted individuals between 18 to 65 years old. 'Right now in the alert system from 18 years old to 65, if you are abducted or your life is in serious danger of bodily harm or death, there is not an alert type that serves you right now,' she said. Clawson Huibregtse cited examples of Savanna LaFontaine-Greywind, Dru Sjodin and Sherry Arnold who went missing over the last 25 years, but law enforcement did not have a direct alert message system to notify the public of their disappearances. 'So, it will now. The missing, endangered persons alert will do that,' she said. She said the Amber Alert is used to notify the public when a child 17 years old or younger is abducted. Clawson Huibregtse added that about 90% of amber alerts in the state are issued to locate missing Native children. 'That's not just Native American kids that are on tribal lands, that's across the state from Bismarck, Fargo, et cetera,' she said. 'I always want to relay that statistic because it is kind of a staggering statistic because that is a really high representation in the amber alerts program.' Silver Alerts, she said, are not just for missing people aged 65 and older, but also people with functional and mental impairment or developmental disabilities. Blue Alerts are issued to notify the public of a suspect search for a person who attempts, or succeeds, to injure, harm or kill a law enforcement officer, including federal and tribal officers. House Bill 1535, sponsored by Rep. Jayme Davis, D-Rolette, created the new alerts and passed both legislative chambers with overwhelming support, 74-17 in the House and 45-1 in the Senate. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Kelly Armstrong on May 2. Rep. Christina Wolff, R-Minot, pushed back against the Feather Alert bill during debate on the House floor, saying too many alerts reduces their effectiveness. 'This is a feel good bill that does not guarantee to help the situation, but will absolutely dilute the effectiveness of our current alert systems,' Wolff said on May 1. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
