Hunters score victory with bill that overrules North Dakota Game and Fish policy
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
Forbes
03-07-2025
- Forbes
Medicaid Cuts Could Take Effect In 2026, Experts Say
The House voted to pass President Donald Trump's megabill Thursday, which cuts more than $1 trillion in Medicaid and federally funded health care programs over the next 10 years, and is now heading to Trump's desk—meaning states and recipients could start seeing real changes or funding cuts as soon as next year, experts say. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., arrives as House Republicans work to pass President ... More Donald Trump's signature bill of tax breaks and spending cuts by a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, July 2, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved The bill would limit how states fund Medicaid programs, including a phased reduction in provider taxes starting 2026, and the introduction of work requirements which would take effect in 2027—changes experts say could force states to cut services, reduce enrollment or find new funding within the next few years. Leah Rosenstiel, an assistant professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, told Forbes the bill won't implement all its Medicaid changes at once, but said some states could be forced to rethink their Medicaid financing strategies almost immediately. Rosenstiel said the existing 6% limit on taxes that states can impose on health care providers—which is how they raise revenue and pay for federal reimbursement—would phase down to 3.5% by 2032, with states losing more money for Medicaid. Leighton Ku, a health policy and management professor at George Washington University, told Forbes the Medicaid provisions—including work requirements for Medicaid expansion states—are expected to begin by 2027, with coverage losses 'really hitting home' in 2028 and 2029. Some states—like Alaska, which doesn't use provider taxes—would see little immediate change, where others that lean heavily on provider tax revenue could be forced to cut Medicaid services or find alternative sources of funding within the next year or two, according to Rosentiel and Ku. The most immediate impact on Medicaid would be changes to provider taxes, which would also change the way states work with health care providers to help finance their Medicaid programs, according to Ku. He told Forbes, 'Some of those changes are supposed to go into effect as soon as legislation is passed' and that 'We would begin to see some changes in the next year, in 2026.' Ku also said work requirements for Medicaid expansion states would follow suit in 2027. The bill would cut Affordable Care Act marketplaces, leaving nearly 12 million Americans without health insurance by 2034, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. What Can States Do To Protect Medicaid Funding? Rosenstiel told Forbes states have always had 'a lot of flexibility when it comes to Medicaid,' and that wouldn't change under Trump's bill. 'If a state government wanted to reduce spending on roads and put that money toward Medicaid, they're free to do that. States can also, of course, choose to adopt Medicaid expansion or choose to not adopt Medicaid expansion,' Rosenstiel said. She said the majority of states will have to make changes to their provider taxes if the bill were enacted. 'Medicaid is so much money, and the states receive so much money from the federal government for Medicaid—I would be really surprised if state leaders weren't already at least starting to think about what they would want to do even if some changes don't go into effect until a year or two from now,' she said. House Passes Trump's Signature Spending Bill, Meeting July 4 Deadline (Forbes) Trump's Policy Megabill Cuts More Than $1 Trillion From Medicaid: Here's How (Forbes)
Fox News
02-07-2025
- Fox News
Democratic doctors' protest against Trump's 'beautiful bill' derailed by flood of US Capitol tourists
The Democratic Doctors Caucus was interrupted by a barrage of tourists during a press conference outside of House Speaker Mike Johnson's office on Wednesday. As Congress rushes to pass President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" before the self-imposed July 4 deadline, House Democrats hosted press conferences throughout the Capitol on Wednesday protesting the $3.3 trillion bill. The Democratic Doctors Caucus, comprised of the six Democratic physicians serving in the House of Representatives, planned a press conference in Statuary Hall, a room down the hall from the House speaker's office. Apparently noticing the large gaggle of reporters staking out Johnson's office amid last-minute member holdout negotiations, the caucus moved their press conference to right outside the speaker's office. Donning their white coats in the crowded hallway, the Democratic doctors began their prepared remarks. But that area is a major tourist corridor, and the press conference was quickly flooded with tourists walking from the Rotunda past Johnson's office and into Statuary Hall. Police officers directed members to stand on one side of the corridor, while the press stood on the other. The result was unusable to journalists as tour guides and tourists' chatter drowned out their remarks. The Democrats' comments were inaudible. Their press conference also created somewhat of a tourist traffic jam between the two areas, as officers struggled to keep the area open. Democrats have railed against potential Medicaid cuts since Trump was elected in November. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), at least 10 million people will lose health insurance by 2034 due to Trump's megabill. While Trump has maintained that the bill does not cut Medicaid and Republicans claim the bill only cuts waste, fraud and abuse in the program, Democrats have continued to speak out against the projected cuts. The Democratic Doctors Caucus planned to highlight the harm Medicaid cuts could have on hospitals during their press conference Wednesday, but their remarks were drowned out by the steady flow and chatter of tourists walking back and forth from the Rotunda to Statuary Hall.
Forbes
30-06-2025
- Forbes
Spend $1, Get $3 Back From Washington: The Medicaid Funding Conundrum
Computer graphics of dollar banknotes stream flying around United States Capitol. Colorful twilight ... More sky with clouds in backgrounds. Finance, banking, monetary policy and quantitative easing concept. The great wave off Kanagawa homage to Hokusai. As the U.S. Senate deliberates the One Big Beautiful Bill, a key healthcare issue sparking debate is how to divide Medicaid costs, which serve low-income Americans, between state and federal taxpayers. Since 2014, Medicaid spending has surged 76%, reaching $872 billion in 2023—only 15% less than Medicare's budget, which serves seniors and Americans with disabilities. Medicaid's budget has grown faster than Medicare (66%), Social Security (60%), and the U.S. GDP (57%). Policymakers aiming to curb federal spending naturally focus on Medicaid. Medicaid costs are shared between the federal and state governments. One commonly used state funding practice—provider taxes—raises fiscal concerns for the federal government, according to the Government Accountability Office. Here's how it works: A state levies a provider tax on hospitals and other healthcare providers, based on revenue or other measures of size. It then claims this tax revenue (e.g., $1 billion) as its share of Medicaid funding and receives $3 billion in federal matching funds. The state returns most of the combined $4 billion to hospitals and uses the reminder for self-directed purposes related to Medicaid. It's a lucrative investment for hospitals—pay $1, get nearly $3 back. For states, it's an even better deal: a windfall of federal dollars with no real cost. But this game is rigged against federal taxpayers, who are left footing the bill. Worse still, both hospitals and states are now incentivized to expand provider taxes for bigger payoffs, further burdening federal taxpayers. The Government Accountability Office found that provider taxes drive a substantial and rapidly growing share of Medicaid spending, undermining accountability to federal taxpayers and limiting resources for patients in need. Moreover, as health policy expert Ann Kempski and I wrote in Health Affairs Forefront, this harms employers and workers. Directly, hospitals raise commercial prices to maximize Medicaid payments. Indirectly, large hospitals gain a competitive edge over smaller facilities and independent physicians, accelerating market consolidation and driving up commercial prices. States can achieve federal matching rates exceeding 12:1 for social needs, such as purchasing air conditioners for Medicaid beneficiaries. By offering such strong incentives, the federal government is effectively urging states to pursue these windfalls. It would be almost fiscally irresponsible for states not to do so. The root cause undermining Medicaid's program integrity is the separation between management and funding: federal taxpayers do not administer the program but generously foot the bill, giving states every incentive to overspend in order to receive even more. Various solutions have been proposed to address the Medicaid funding conundrum, including federalizing the program, delinking federal payments from state contributions, reducing matching rates, freezing provider taxes, and capping service payments. Solutions that tackle the root cause—the separation between management and funding—would generate greater federal savings but face stronger resistance due to their fiscal impact on states and providers, compared to those that merely treat the symptoms. Soon, we'll find out where the political winds in Washington settle.
