Bill proposes increase in North Dakota fishing, some hunting license fees
Feb. 8—BISMARCK — The price of fishing licenses, some hunting licenses and assorted other permits in North Dakota would increase next year, pending the outcome of a bill in the Legislature.
House Bill 1470 is sponsored by Reps. Glenn Bosch, R-Bismarck, and Todd Porter, R-Mandan. Sen. Dale Patten, R-Watford City, is sponsoring the bill in the Senate.
Among the increases outlined in HB 1470, the price of a resident small game license would increase from $10 to $20, and a nonresident small game license would increase from $100 to $120. The price of a resident fishing license, which currently costs $18, would increase to $25, except for resident senior citizens and disabled veterans, who would pay $10 instead of the current fee of $5 for a fishing license. The price of an individual nonresident fishing license would increase to $60 from the current price of $53.
Resident big game hunting licenses would remain at $30, while nonresident big game and archery licenses would increase from $250, the current price, to $350.
Furbearer licenses, turkey licenses, paddlefish tags and resident early Canada goose licenses also would see slight increases under the proposal.
The increases would take effect April 1, 2026, the start of the new license year in North Dakota.
According to Jeb Williams, director of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the fees proposed in the bill are simply "to get the conversation started."
The numbers could change, in other words.
"Our hope is that (a fee increase) can be done in a way that spreads out the increases to all user groups so no one is significantly impacted," Williams said. "The fees that are out there in the bill are some comparables from neighboring states, which are always a nice guide for us on this discussion but certainly not a final product, either."
The fee increases, Williams says, are necessary to offset the higher cost of doing business. From a budget standpoint, Game and Fish also has put extra emphasis on wildlife habitat and hunting access, he said.
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.
In an interview with the Grand Forks Herald, Rep. Todd Porter, the House co-sponsor, said legislation to increase license fees hasn't been a tough sell, historically, because it doesn't come along more than once a decade or so to keep up with annual increases in inflation. By law, Porter said, the Game and Fish Department's reserve fund can't fall below $15 million without legislative approval. Game and Fish is funded entirely by special funds — in this case, license and permit fees and some supplemental federal dollars.
"We want to keep a little money in the bank with them," Porter said. "Over the years, that reserve has kind of fluctuated between $15 million and $30 million, and now it's projected to fall below $15 million in the next biennium.
"So, we wanted to preemptively get in front of that and get our fees back in line with surrounding states. We aren't looking to be out in front of the cost to (hunt and fish) in the region. We just want to be in the general vicinity of it."
The bill had its first hearing Thursday, Feb. 6, before the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Porter, who has served in the House since 1999, chairs the committee.
John Bradley, executive director of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, said the organization supports the proposed license fee increase. The NDWF's goal, he said, is to see that fee increases address department needs without pricing anyone out of hunting or fishing in North Dakota.
"I think it's past due," Bradley said in a recent interview. "We see the need on the landscape for more habitat, more access, and the license fee can go to address those (needs).
"It's not going to get us where we need to go long term, but it is a step in the right direction. ... When you look around the country at other people's fees and license structures, we're one of the best deals in town — and I think we still will be the best deal in town. But it is time for a raise."
Williams, the Game and Fish director, said the goal is to arrive at a number that puts the department in a position to maintain and build on the state's outdoors opportunities, while maintaining a reserve fund above the $15 million legislative mandate for years to come.
"I anticipate, and welcome, input from many partners on the license fee increase bill," Williams said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Prudent remedy' for veto error is special session, Legislative Council advises
Gov. Kelly Armstrong speaks during a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 27, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) Legal staff for North Dakota's legislative branch concluded the 'prudent remedy' to correct an error with Gov. Kelly Armstrong's line-item veto would be for the governor to call a special session, according to a memo issued Friday. But Attorney General Drew Wrigley, who is working on a separate opinion, maintains that Legislative Council has no role in determining the execution of the governor's veto. Armstrong announced May 22 a 'markup error' with a line-item veto that crossed out $35 million for a state housing development fund. The red X over the funding did not match what Armstrong indicated in his veto message that explained his reasoning. North Dakota governor unintentionally vetoes $35 million for housing programs A Legislative Council memo distributed to lawmakers Friday concluded that legal precedent supports the marked-up bill as the official veto document. 'Engaging in interpretive gymnastics' to disregard the markings on the bill could lead to unintended consequences in the future, Legislative Council concluded. Emily Thompson, legal division director for Legislative Council, said the Legislature needs to have an objective document to clearly illustrate what was vetoed, such as the specific veto markings on the bill, so lawmakers can exercise their veto override authority effectively. Lawmakers have six days remaining in their 80-day limit and could call themselves back into session to address the veto. However, the memo cautions that the Legislature may need those days to reconvene to respond to federal funding issues or other unforeseen reasons. Legislative Council recommends the governor call a special session, which would not count against the 80-day limit. A special session of the Legislature costs about $65,000 per day, according to Legislative Council. Armstrong is waiting for an attorney general's opinion to determine the next steps, according to a statement from his office. He previously said he would call a special session if necessary. Wrigley said Friday it's up to his office to assess the situation and issue an opinion on the governor's question. '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,' Wrigley said. 'That's the only assessment here. There's no role for this in Legislative Council. They have no authority in this regard.' Armstrong on May 19 issued two line-item vetoes in Senate Bill 2014, the budget for the state Industrial Commission. His veto message explained his reasons for objecting to a $150,000 one-time grant for a Native American-focused organization to fund a homelessness liaison position. But the marking also crossed out $25 million for housing projects and programs and $10 million to combat homelessness, which he later said he did not intend to veto. Chris Joseph, general counsel for Armstrong, wrote in a request for an attorney general's opinion that the markings served as a 'color-coded visual aid,' and the veto message should control the extent of the veto. Wrigley said his office is working on the opinion and aware that resolution of the issue is time sensitive. Bills passed by the Legislature with appropriations attached to them, such as the Industrial Commission budget, go into effect July 1. 'I look forward to publishing my opinion on that at the earliest possible time,' he said. The Legislative Council memo states, 'It would not be appropriate to allow the governor and attorney general to resolve the ambiguity by agreement.' In addition, Legislative Council concluded that if the governor's veto message is to be considered the controlling document for vetoes in the future, more ambiguities would likely be 'inevitable and frequent' and require resolution through the courts. The memo cites a 2018 North Dakota Supreme Court opinion involving a case between the Legislature and then-Gov. Doug Burgum that ruled 'a veto is complete and irrevocable upon return of the vetoed bill to the originating house,' and further stated the governor does not have the power to 'withdraw a veto.' 'Setting a precedent of the attorney general issuing a letter saying we can just go ahead and interpret the governor's veto message to mean what was, or was not, vetoed, that's a really concerning precedent to set,' Thompson said in an interview. Wrigley said any issues resulting from the opinion could be addressed by the courts. 'I sincerely hope that they (Legislative Council) are not trying to somehow publicly advocate, or attempt to influence a process for which they have no role,' Wrigley said. Legislative Council memo SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
46 State Medical Associations Urge Senate to Reject Medicaid Cuts in H.R. 1
The House Budget Reconciliation bill will cause at least 7.8 million Medicaid enrollees to lose their health care coverage. SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Just days ahead of an expected Senate vote on H.R. 1, 46 state medical associations, as part of Physicians for Medicaid have sent a letter to the United States Senate urging them to reject the dangerous cuts to Medicaid proposed in H.R. 1 that will cause millions of patients to lose coverage and even more to lose access to care - children, pregnant women, seniors, veterans, the disabled and working families. Statewide hospital associations have also weighed in, as proposed cuts impact all providers, including physicians and hospitals. The bill, which includes $200 billion in cuts to the existing and longstanding provider taxes, would have a catastrophic effect on state budgets and the country's entire health care delivery system and would impact 49 state Medicaid programs. Provider taxes have been authorized under federal law, approved by both Republican and Democratic administrations, and affirmed by state legislatures in 49 states for decades. They are a legitimate financing mechanism used by states in partnership with the federal government to fund essential health services and have kept rural hospitals, maternity wards, nursing homes, and physician practices open. The bill also imposes damaging changes to federal student loan programs making it harder for students to pursue medical careers at a time of critical physician shortages. We urge the Senate to pursue more balanced solutions that expand the physician workforce and preserve Medicaid for our patients. "If these provider tax cuts are enacted, it will create significant gaps in State budgets, forcing states to raise taxes, or reduce benefits, coverage, and provider payments. These reductions will lead to even more crowding of emergency departments and as the uncompensated care burdens grow from patients losing coverage, many rural hospitals, nursing homes, and community physician practices will be forced to close to all patients," the letter says. There are three main provisions in H.R. 1 (as passed by the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025) that will drastically limit or eliminate existing provider taxes nationwide. These provisions below apply to all provider taxes, including hospitals, nursing homes, managed care organizations, and other provider categories. Moratorium on New or Increased Provider Taxes (SEC. 44132) – Under the provisions of H.R. 1, none of these taxes could be increased after the passage and enactment of the law nor can any new taxes be adopted by the state Legislatures (there are 19 categories of provider taxes). This provision would freeze taxes and not keep pace with increasing health care costs over time. It is also not equitable between states. Revising Payments for Certain State Directed Payments (SEC. 44133) – Once a provider tax is established, state Medicaid programs can fund supplemental or enhanced payments to providers using a variety of rate methodologies. Under H.R. 1, any future directed payments would be limited to the Medicare payment rate. Medicare physician payment rates are already 33% behind the costs to provide health care. These rates will not keep pace for public hospitals and physician specialists that care for the sickest patients nationwide. Requirements Regarding Waiver of Uniform Tax Requirement for Medicaid Provider Tax (SEC. 44134) – The language in H.R. 1 requires provider taxes in multiple states to uniformly tax hospitals, nursing homes, and managed care organizations within each category of provider tax. The uniformity requirement will be extremely difficult for most states to meet and therefore, it eliminates multiple provider taxes in many states. The HHS Secretary has discretion to allow for a transition period, which is not something upon which states can rely. "These provisions will destabilize state health systems, reduce access to care, and worsen physician shortages. Instead, we encourage you to protect Medicaid – a proven, cost-effective safety net that serves 80 million vulnerable Americans," the letter concluded. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE California Medical Association; Physicians for Medicaid Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Freedom Caucus warns it will ‘not accept' Senate changes on green energy tax credits
The conservative House Freedom Caucus said Friday it would 'not accept' changes that 'water down' its cuts to green energy tax credits as the Senate weighs whether to alter parts of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The House version of the 'big, beautiful bill' would make drastic changes to tax cuts for low-carbon energy sources passed in the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Climate-friendly energy projects, including wind and solar, would only be able to qualify for the credits under the House bill if they begin construction within 60 days of the bill's enactment. This brief window would likely make many projects ineligible for the credits, and it is expected to significantly hamstring the development of new renewable power. In a post Friday on social media, the Freedom Caucus warned the Senate against loosening that restriction or others included in the bill. 'We want to be crystal clear: if the Senate attempts to water down, strip out, or walk back the hard-fought spending reductions and IRA Green New Scam rollbacks achieved in this legislation, we will not accept it,' said the post, which was attributed to the Freedom Caucus's board. 'The House Freedom Caucus Board will stand united holding the line. The American people didn't send us here to cave to the swamp — they sent us here to change it,' it added. The Senate has been widely expected to consider changes that could slow the rapid elimination of the tax credit passed under the House version of President Trump's 'big beautiful bill.' Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Jerry Moran (Kan.) and John Curtis (Utah) released a letter warning against a 'full scale' repeal of the tax credits. Senate Republicans can only afford three defections and pass their bill. On Friday, a group of 13 House GOP moderates released a letter calling on Senate leadership 'to substantively and strategically improve clean energy tax credit provisions' in the legislation. 'We believe the Senate now has a critical opportunity to restore common sense and deliver a truly pro-energy growth final bill that protects taxpayers while also unleashing the potential of U.S. energy producers, manufacturers, and workers,' the group said in the letter, which was led by Reps. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.). Altogether, the letters illustrate what could be a tough task ahead for Republican leaders as they look to find a measure that will keep at least 50 senators on board and appease the House. Emily Brooks contributed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
