Hunters score victory with bill that overrules North Dakota Game and Fish policy
Hunters wore orange shirts to the Capitol on Jan. 17, 2025, in support of a bill to end restrictions on using bait to hunt deer. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
North Dakota lawmakers on Friday sided with hunters in the debate over whether the state Game and Fish Department can restrict using bait when deer hunting on private property.
The House passed Senate Bill 2137 after rejecting a proposed amendment. The bill is the same version that passed the Senate.
The North Dakota Game and Fish Department has banned landowners from setting out feed for deer for the purpose of hunting in some areas of the state. The department testified against the bill, saying that feeding bans are part of an attempt to slow the spread of chronic wasting disease in deer.
Charlie Bahnson, wildlife veterinarian for Game and Fish, said in written testimony that chronic wasting disease is still rare in North Dakota, but the department needs the feeding restrictions as a management tool.
But Rep. Matt Ruby, R-Minot, argued that the bans have no effect on the spread of the disease that can be fatal in deer.
Baiting bill limiting North Dakota Game and Fish policy passes Senate
Some states have seen large declines in deer populations. Ruby said North Dakota should continue to monitor for the disease.
North Dakota has had 122 positive tests of chronic wasting disease in deer since 2009, The Bismarck Tribune reported, citing Game and Fish Department data. Of those, 119 cases were from deer killed by hunters.
Supporters of the bill argue there has only been one confirmed case of chronic wasting disease in the state, a deer that was found dead by a landowner near Williston that tested positive for the disease.
An argument against feeding is that it encourages deer to congregate in large groups, helping disease spread. Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, said the state should encourage feeding because with more feed sources, the deer groups would be smaller, he said.
The failed amendment would have put limits on how much feed could be put out and put restrictions on where feed could be placed. It also called for a Game and Fish report on chronic wasting disease to Legislative Management.
Hunters have turned out in large numbers at the Capitol to show support for the bill.
The bill heads to the governor for his signature.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues to stop Utah law expanding access to discounted drugs
Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, is pictured on the first day of the legislative session at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca is suing Utah's attorney general and insurance commissioner over a law passed during the legislative session aimed at stopping drug manufacturers from limiting where hospitals and clinics can buy discounted medication. Filed in May in federal court in the District of Utah, the company accuses the law of being unconstitutional and in conflict with prior court rulings. Sponsored by Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, SB69 deals with the federal 340B program, a decadesold provision in the Public Health Service Act that aims to supply hospitals and health clinics with drugs at a discounted price. The program requires drug manufacturers to provide discounts on certain outpatient drugs for entities covered under the program, like hospitals, clinics, or Native American tribes. According to the American Hospital Association, hospitals can pass savings from the 340B program along to patients by offering health care to uninsured patients, providing free vaccinations, or expanding mental and community health programs. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX But Vickers, who owns and operates a pharmacy in Cedar City, said the program is not popular among drug manufacturers, who have tried to limit where the entities covered under 340B can obtain the discounted drugs. Speaking on the Senate floor earlier this year, Vickers said manufacturers have been enforcing a 'one pharmacy rule,' where certain drugs can only be obtained from certain pharmacies. 'From their perspective it's expanded more than they would like, so they've tried to limit the access of drugs,' Vickers said. 'Essentially, you could have a patient being able to get a product at a discounted price in one town but not the other.' SB69, which passed in March during the final week of the legislative session, tries to prevent this. The bill is relatively simple at just 53 lines, and states that drug manufacturers cannot restrict pharmacies from contracting with entities covered under the 340B program. It also restricts manufacturers from preventing the delivery of a 340B drug to any location authorized to receive it. 'I don't stand here professing that the manufacturers are happy with this, I will tell you they're not,' said Vickers earlier this year, telling his Senate colleagues that states that have passed similar legislation have been targeted by lawsuits. 'But what we're looking at is providing access to medication at a discounted price.' Vickers was right. AstraZeneca, the global pharmaceutical company that generated more than $54 billion in revenue in 2024, is now suing Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike to stop the enforcement of SB69. The Utah Attorney General's Office did not provide comment on the active litigation. In the complaint, attorneys for AstraZeneca point to prior court rulings that supersede Utah's law. 'Apparently dissatisfied with the scope of federal law, the State of Utah has enacted a statute seeking to achieve under state law precisely the same result that federal courts have resoundingly rejected,' the complaint reads, accusing SB69 of requiring 'discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.' According to AstraZeneca, the requirement in SB69 goes beyond the original intent of the 340B program, putting state law at odds with federal law and violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Plus, the lawsuit alleges, SB69 violates the Contracts Clause of the Constitution because it interferes with agreements between drug manufacturers and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Constitution's Takings Clause, which protects private property from being seized for public use, since SB69 requires AstraZeneca to transfer its private property (prescription drugs) to entities covered under 340B. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Forbes
4 days ago
- Forbes
Trump Promises 'NO CUTS' To Medicaid— But Estimates Still Say Bill Could Impact 7 Million Americans
President Donald Trump insisted this week his signature policy bill won't cut Medicaid—a narrative many Republicans have adopted to counter estimates the GOP's proposed changes to the program could reduce Medicaid spending nearly $800 billion over the next 10 years with new work requirements and a ban on Medicaid for gender-transition care, among other measures. President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., talk with reporters after a House ... More Republican Conference meeting on the budget reconciliation bill in the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, May 20, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) 'There will be NO CUTS to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid,' Trump wrote Monday on Truth Social, claiming 'the only 'cutting' we will do is for Waste, Fraud, and Abuse,' repeating the GOP's narrative that the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act' won't directly reduce Medicaid spending—despite an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office that changes to the Medicaid program will ultimately leave more than 7.6 million people without benefits over the next 10 years. The legislation, passed 215-214 by the House on May 22, largely along party lines, would revise Medicaid through four primary measures: It would implement additional 'eligibility and enrollment' rules, including new address verification standards, provider screening requirements and penalties for states that offer Affordable Care Act coverage to undocumented migrants by reducing their Medicaid spending. The section addressing 'wasteful spending' calls for a prohibition on funding for gender transition procedures for both adults and minors under the federal Medicaid program and the state Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). One of the ways the bill aims to tamp down on 'abusive financing practices' is via a moratorium on new or increased provider taxes states collect to help pay for Medicaid expenses that aren't covered by the federal government; proponents of the freeze argue states sometimes use the provider taxes to also pay providers, allowing states to report more Medicaid expenses and boost the matching funds they receive from the federal government. The legislation would increase 'personal accountability,' primarily by mandating new 'community engagement' requirements for Medicaid recipients to log at least 80 hours per month of work, community service or a work program, or be enrolled in an educational program for at least 40 hours per month—representing the largest Medicaid-related cuts in the megabill, according to the CBO. 64%. That's the share of Medicaid recipients, ages 19-64, who already work, including 44% who work full-time, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which notes many eligible enrollees risk losing coverage because of the 'administrative burden' of reporting requirements associated with work mandates. Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, and Jim Justice, have expressed concerns about the bill's impact on public health care coverage, according to Politico. Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., have also expressed concerns the bill doesn't go far enough in making spending cuts. The bill would reduce federal matching funds from 90% to 80% for 14 states plus the District of Columbia that offer coverage to some undocumented migrants through Medicaid expansion programs under the Affordable Care Act, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Congress approved topline spending goals earlier this year to enact Trump's agenda, instructing relevant committees in the House and Senate to write policy legislation in line with the new figures. The bill approved by the House is the result of that work. The Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid, was tasked with finding $880 billion in cuts, and there was virtually no other way to enact them without making changes to Medicaid. Medicaid emerged as a major sticking point for Republicans negotiating the terms of the bill, with those who represent swing districts initially advocating for Medicaid to be left intact and fiscal hawks pushing for even more cuts. It was changed at the final hour to move up the start date for work requirements from 2029 to 2026 to appease hard-liners who threatened to withhold their votes and imperil the bill's passage. It was also revised to prohibit gender-affirming care for adults, in addition to minors, as the initial version proposed, among other revisions. The Medicaid cuts will help pay for increased spending on the border, an extension of Trump's 2017 tax breaks, and new provisions to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, among other measures. A small group of House Republicans, including Reps. Don Bacon, R-Neb., and Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., publicly expressed concerns about slashing Medicaid spending, but ultimately voted for the bill. Malliotakis was among eight who are members of the Hispanic Conference or represent districts with sizeable Hispanic populations and sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., last month warning 'slashing Medicaid would have serious consequences, particularly in rural and predominantly Hispanic communities.' Malliotakis told CNN over the weekend she agreed to accept the Medicaid changes because they target 'people in the country illegally' and 'people who refuse' to meet work requirements. Bacon said in late April he would accept no more than $500 billion in Medicaid cuts, though it's unclear why he agreed to a bill estimated to exceed that figure by at least $200 billion. Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Passes House: What That Means For You (Forbes) Medicaid Cuts Threaten A Key House Vote On Trump's Agenda Today—Here's Why The GOP Is Divided (Forbes) Student Loans Under Trump: New Policy Plan Adds Rules—Could Disqualify Some And Increase Payments For Others (Forbes)
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Michigan Senate Democrats won't consider a trans athlete sports ban. Will Trump target the state?
A trans rights flag at the Transgender Unity Rally at the Michigan Capitol. Jan. 30, 2025. Photo by Jon King. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for Chalkbeat Detroit's free newsletter to keep up with the city's public school system and Michigan education policy. The Republican-controlled House passed two bills last week that would bar transgender girls from competing on girls sports teams. But Democrats, who control the Senate, say they will not consider the legislation. 'Our legislative agenda is long and attacking kids is not on it,' Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, a Democrat from Grand Rapids, told Chalkbeat in a statement. Failure to take up the Republican-sponsored bills could draw unwelcome political attention to Michigan at a time when the Trump administration has targeted for investigation states that don't comply with its view on Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on sex. Since taking office for the second time, Trump has issued several executive orders targeting the rights of transgender Americans. One in January said the U.S. government would only recognize two genders, male and female, while another issued that month attempted to ban gender-affirming health care for transgender youth. A February executive order called for schools to block trans girls from competing on girls sports teams. Trump has threatened to withhold federal funding from schools that don't comply with his executive orders. Executive orders cannot override existing state and federal statutes, though, and there have been legal challenges to the constitutionality of Trump's executive orders. But the Trump administration's threats to states that don't comply with the order have stoked fears over how he intends to enforce it. Multiple federal agencies opened investigations into Maine this year after a heated exchange between Trump and the state's Democratic governor, Janet Mills, in which she promised to follow the state's law protecting transgender rights. In one of those federal cases, a judge issued an injunction to stop the government from freezing federal funds to the state. But there are two other open cases that have been assigned to the Department of Justice to enforce. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said other states are at risk of losing federal funding for Title IX violations, specifically singling out California and Minnesota. Officials in those states have said their civil rights laws preclude them from complying with Trump's executive order. Bondi's office announced Wednesday that it has opened an investigation into California. Like some other states, Michigan recently expanded state protections from discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender identity and expression. The expansion of those protections two years ago has long been a signature issue for Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. She signed the expansion of the state's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in 2023, saying in a statement that 'Michigan is a place that will fight for your freedom to be yourself.' It is possible what has happened in Maine could happen in Michigan, said Nancy Chi Cantalupo, associate professor of law at Wayne State University. 'But what is happening in Maine is in no way a success for the current administration at this point,' she said, noting that the federal government has never withdrawn funds from a state under Title IX or any other civil rights statutes it enforces. 'It's not like there's a light switch the federal government can use to just turn off federal funds at its whim,' she said. 'There are a lot of steps it has to go through.' Brinks did not respond to a question about whether she or others in the Democratic Party have concerns Michigan may be targeted by the Trump administration. Whitmer's office did not respond to questions about the bills. In Michigan, a prohibition against trans girls competing on girls sports teams would affect few athletes statewide. The Michigan High School Athletic Association, the private organization that runs the state's high school sports competitions, said there were no trans girls competing on spring sports teams this year. None played on winter sports teams, while two played on fall teams. About 25 states have already passed similar laws restricting trans girls from playing on sports teams aligned with their gender identity. Advocates for transgender rights say sports bills aren't really about limiting the teams trans girls and women can play on. 'If this bill were just about sports, it wouldn't be proposed in coordination with all of these other anti-trans bills [nationwide,]' said Kye Campbell-Fox, a research assistant and laboratory manager at Michigan State University, who studies the impact of legislation targeting the rights of trans kids. 'This is a coordinated campaign to push trans people out of public life.' Though the Michigan bills have effectively died, advocates say lawmakers' focus on the issue — and the language they often use to talk about trans athletes — is still harmful to all trans children. The Michigan bills, for example, referred to trans girls as 'biological males,' ignoring their gender identities. And some lawmakers have said that the presence of trans girls in locker rooms could lead to sexual violence against other girls. Rep. Mike Harris, a Republican from Waterford, said during a hearing for the bills that he was concerned about the potential for sexual assault if trans girls use girls locker rooms. 'I don't think it's appropriate to place biological boys and girls in the same room, to strip down naked next to each other,' he said. There is no evidence to support the idea that trans girls will assault other girls, though there is evidence that trans populations face increased risks when they use bathrooms according to the sex they were assigned at birth. Republican lawmakers' rhetoric has emboldened some students and adults to feel freer to make hateful remarks, and LGBTQ+ youth are being affected by it. 'I'm hearing a lot of fear from youth,' said Jude Krajnyák, a regional coordinator for a research policy project at the Michigan Organization on Adolescent Sexual Health. 'Things everyone else gets to take for granted — like playing soccer in middle school — are rights that are being taken away from us.' Krajnyák said he heard from a trans girl in middle school who gave up on playing soccer because she said 'it's just not worth' the backlash. Currently, the Michigan High School Athletic Association determines eligibility for trans girls to play on girls teams on a case-by-case basis. The executive director of the association, Mark Uyl, makes the determination based on a number of factors, including what gender is recorded on the students' school documents and other paperwork. Students are also asked whether they've begun hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries. 'The MHSAA asks for documentation on therapy and surgery as our policy allows for a waiver to be both approved and denied — and part of that decision is based on where in the transitioning process a student is at the time,' Geoff Kimmerly, director of communications for the association, told Chalkbeat. The policy went into effect in 2012, according to the association. It aligned with federal law during the Obama administration, as well as federal requirements from the Office for Civil Rights during Trump's first term and Biden's presidency. 'The MHSAA follows and will continue to follow all applicable state and federal laws,' said Kimmerly in a statement. 'We are monitoring developments in this regard closely.' Hannah Dellinger covers K-12 education and state education policy for Chalkbeat Detroit. You can reach her at hdellinger@ Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
