HB1131 - thoughts?

Pages

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
kjs's picture
kjs
Offline
Joined: Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:00am
HB1131 - thoughts?

HB 1131 - Introduced by Rep's Hofstad, Schmidt, Vigesaa; Sen's Carlisle, Lyson, Schaible. Would allow an individual who turns age 14 in the same year as the respective big game hunting season to apply for a license, an individual who turns age 12 in the same year as the youth deer season to receive an antleress white-tailed deer license for the youth deer season, and an individual who turns age 12 in the same year as the antelope season to apply for a license. In addition, the number of acres required to qualify for a big game gratis license would be lowered from 160 to 150. Passed house 85-6, emergency clause carried. Senate Natural Resources Committee heard 3/8, no action taken.

(Above is from the G&F website)

This bill also changes the deadline for gratis license applications for an "any deer" license - no more apply for badlands or for a unit wide buck tag with gratis tag as a fallback. 

Don't know why G&F doen't include this in their description.  Also not sure why the change from 160 to 150 acres - guessing some who fits the bill has a friend in the legislature.  I've been told G&F was more aggressive in checking the gratis license this year and someone probably got turned down.

Also guessing landowners won't like the change and non-landowners will think the change is overdue.

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 9, 2002 - 12:00am

The change from 160 to a lower number is probably because there are a great number of 1/4 sections in the state that are something less than 160 acres.  The original intent was for anyone owning a quarter of a section to receive a gratis tag, well a bunch who owned a quarter were probably called out on their holdings only being 159 acres.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

Pat'sPlace
Offline
Joined: Friday, February 20, 2009 - 9:17am

 Quarter section is typically 160 acres, but not in all cases... Then reduce it more if road r/w is acquired...the 150 rule would allow most "quater sections" to qualify for gratis.

Dirty.'s picture
Dirty.
Offline
Joined: Friday, November 9, 2007 - 1:10pm

I like it all. If a youth hunter is big enough to handle the weapon they are using, let them hunt IMHO, regardless of age. I know some 12 year olds that would be more responsible than some 22 year olds, 52 year olds, and 82 year olds.

My family owns land and uses the gratis tag system, and I agree it shouldn't be a fallback tag, you either apply for it and get the guaranteed tag or you don't apply for it and don't get a guaranteed tag. Sounds pretty good to me even if we are affected by the change.

I like the160 to 150 acre change too, because not every quarter section is exactly 160. Some are 157, 159, etc. because of road right aways and what not. This guarantees the option of a gratis tag to someone who owns a quarter section of land, but maybe not quite 160 acres. Sounds fine to me.

measure-it
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 4:00pm

 So, do these owners of 157 or 159---or 160 plus acres for that matter. hunt solely on their owned land only?    

Dirty.'s picture
Dirty.
Offline
Joined: Friday, November 9, 2007 - 1:10pm

measure-it Said:
 So, do these owners of 157 or 159---or 160 plus acres for that matter. hunt solely on their owned land only?    

They are supposed to. Just like non gratis tag holders are only supposed to hunt in their unit, and just like non landowners are only supposed to hunt on land they have permission to hunt (public, non posted, or permission granted). But of course, not everyone gives a damn about what they are supposed to do. Such is life.

Why did you post what you did? I may be dead wrong, but I'm guessing it wasn't because you were looking for an answer to a burning question that was on your mind. You and I both know there are gratis tag holders that abuse the system, but there are many who don't. I can name one who doesn't. So because some abuse it should no landowner have the option? There isn't a game law out there that doesn't get abused by some, but I don't think we should shut down the hunting season because of it.

I'm going to assume you have never shot up a school, but because someone did should you not have guns? Some folks think so. There's a lot of hipocricy in the world today and a lot of it right here on good old FBO. The gratis system is a priveledge set up for landowners who, like it or not, are largely responsible for the game populations in a majority of the state. I think it's a great priveledge to offer. It's a shame some abuse it but I disagree with punishing the masses because of a few a-holes.

Dirty.'s picture
Dirty.
Offline
Joined: Friday, November 9, 2007 - 1:10pm

By the way, I have never held a gratis tag in my life.

You may not have been being sarcastic in your post, but I hear alot of bellyaching about the gratis tag system (no different than the bellyaching I hear about everything else I guess) so if that's not what you were doing, my bad.

measure-it
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 4:00pm

Dirty, I'm not out to pick a debate nor a fight, but I feel that  1 quarter of land ownership is not a large enuf land-holdings to justify a gratis tag,.  The average quarter doesn't offer enuf habitat to hold animals other than maybe a passthru or such.  A gratis tag is designed for landowners who have land that is commonly used by wild animals to bed, water, and/or eat.  Landowners are stewards of the land and wildlife--no argument on that, but let's have gratis tags be justified to farmers/ranchers that deserve them.  Thx. 

Dirty.'s picture
Dirty.
Offline
Joined: Friday, November 9, 2007 - 1:10pm

measure-it Said:
Dirty, I'm not out to pick a debate nor a fight, but I feel that  1 quarter of land ownership is not a large enuf land-holdings to justify a gratis tag,.  The average quarter doesn't offer enuf habitat to hold animals other than maybe a passthru or such.  A gratis tag is designed for landowners who have land that is commonly used by wild animals to bed, water, and/or eat.  Landowners are stewards of the land and wildlife--no argument on that, but let's have gratis tags be justified to farmers/ranchers that deserve them.  Thx. 

I hear you about some chunks of land not holding squat for wildlife and I'm not here for a fight either. I have nothing to gain or lose by this, but a lot of quarter sections do offer enough habitat to hold animals and more than enough opportunity for the owner of that property to have no need to hunt anywhere else. The land I hunt is made up of many quarter sections, each holds plenty of wildlife and each has a gratis tag holding landowner that shoots their deer every year on the land their gratis tag allows them to hunt. I like the fact that I don't have a gratis tag because I can hunt it all, but those guys are happy hunting their own little piece of heaven and I'm glad they are.

I think the system was screwy with the gratis tag being a guarantee if one was unsuccessful in the lottery. I think the fact that one now has to decide to get a gratis tag or apply for the unit is a big improvment. Many landowners probably won't like it, but I do. I would think most non landowners would like it too. But then again, I'm shocked on a daily basis about what some people think.

Lycanthrope's picture
Lycanthrope
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:00am

TOTALLY AGREE.  It SHOULD be a FULL SECTION. The gratis was meant for farmers to be able to get a deer every year, how many farmers do you know that actually make a living off 160 acres these days?

measure-it Said:
Dirty, I'm not out to pick a debate nor a fight, but I feel that  1 quarter of land ownership is not a large enuf land-holdings to justify a gratis tag,.  The average quarter doesn't offer enuf habitat to hold animals other than maybe a passthru or such.  A gratis tag is designed for landowners who have land that is commonly used by wild animals to bed, water, and/or eat.  Landowners are stewards of the land and wildlife--no argument on that, but let's have gratis tags be justified to farmers/ranchers that deserve them.  Thx. 
fullrut's picture
fullrut
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:42am

Land owner doesn't always mean a farmer.

Lycanthrope Said:
TOTALLY AGREE.  It SHOULD be a FULL SECTION. The gratis was meant for farmers to be able to get a deer every year, how many farmers do you know that actually make a living off 160 acres these days?
measure-it Said:
Dirty, I'm not out to pick a debate nor a fight, but I feel that  1 quarter of land ownership is not a large enuf land-holdings to justify a gratis tag,.  The average quarter doesn't offer enuf habitat to hold animals other than maybe a passthru or such.  A gratis tag is designed for landowners who have land that is commonly used by wild animals to bed, water, and/or eat.  Landowners are stewards of the land and wildlife--no argument on that, but let's have gratis tags be justified to farmers/ranchers that deserve them.  Thx. 

Education will tell you a tomato is a fruit, while wisdom will tell you not to put it in a fruit salad.

Dirty.'s picture
Dirty.
Offline
Joined: Friday, November 9, 2007 - 1:10pm

Lycanthrope Said:
TOTALLY AGREE.  It SHOULD be a FULL SECTION. The gratis was meant for farmers to be able to get a deer every year, how many farmers do you know that actually make a living off 160 acres these days?

I'd be fne with that too, but would that change anything about the point of this post or my reply to it?

measure-it Said:
 So, do these owners of (whatever acreage you want to insert) hunt solely on their owned land only?    

The only thing I'm certain of is that we won't all ever be happy no matter what restrictions or opportunities there are/aren't. Bellyaching is a part of human nature. So is not being satisfied with what you have. I still like every single part of this bill.

Lycanthrope's picture
Lycanthrope
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:00am

I agree, but the original intent was for this to be for farmers, not for people who buy some land to use for recreational purposes or just to live on. I wouldnt have a problem with 150 acres = gratis doe, but for a gratis buck, you should need 600 minimum... Heck, if you really want a buck and you own land, just buy a bow tag!

fullrut Said:
Land owner doesn't always mean a farmer.
Lycanthrope Said:
TOTALLY AGREE.  It SHOULD be a FULL SECTION. The gratis was meant for farmers to be able to get a deer every year, how many farmers do you know that actually make a living off 160 acres these days?
measure-it Said:
Dirty, I'm not out to pick a debate nor a fight, but I feel that  1 quarter of land ownership is not a large enuf land-holdings to justify a gratis tag,.  The average quarter doesn't offer enuf habitat to hold animals other than maybe a passthru or such.  A gratis tag is designed for landowners who have land that is commonly used by wild animals to bed, water, and/or eat.  Landowners are stewards of the land and wildlife--no argument on that, but let's have gratis tags be justified to farmers/ranchers that deserve them.  Thx. 
Dirty.'s picture
Dirty.
Offline
Joined: Friday, November 9, 2007 - 1:10pm

Lycanthrope Said:
I agree, but the original intent was for this to be for farmers, not for people who buy some land to use for recreational purposes or just to live on. I wouldnt have a problem with 150 acres = gratis doe, but for a gratis buck, you should need 600 minimum... Heck, if you really want a buck and you own land, just buy a bow tag!

But there you go, picking and choosing who should be allowed to shoot what, how, and where and who shouldn't. It's almost like a little mini model of our government!

There are plenty of folks who don't think you should be able to use your bow tag state wide and plenty more who think you shouldn't be able to just buy a bow tag over the counter, and plenty more who think you shouldn't be able to have a bow tag and a rifle tag in the same year, oh and plenty more who think we shouldn't have gun or bows or be able to hunt at all.

Funny how willing some are to put restrictions on others about what others should or shouldn't be able to do but when the tables turn it's an atrocity. Like I said, there's a lot of hipocricy these day and no shortage on this website.

I still get a kick out of those on FBO who were rallying together to support all the smoking bans with total disregard for the business owners who were affected but were then calling on those same business owners (your fellow sportsmen) who took it in te shorts over those bans to join forces against the bans on guns...and felt no shame whatsoever as they did it.

Lycanthrope's picture
Lycanthrope
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:00am

Well, if you think about it, the gratis system could destroy deer hunting by non land owners in ND. Also it has the potential to make deer hunting into a rich mans game. How much land does a mature buck occupy? A lot more than a doe, it would make sense, if you want to kill a buck every year, you should own enough land to house that deer (not in a fence)

In most of Northern Minnesota an adult doe's home range is between 150-300 acres.

Adult bucks occupy 250-800 acre home ranges and travel extensively during the fall rutting season.

So if we go by what the MN says, requiring 150 acres for a doe and 600 for a buck isnt unreasonable.

 

Dirty. Said:

Lycanthrope Said:
I agree, but the original intent was for this to be for farmers, not for people who buy some land to use for recreational purposes or just to live on. I wouldnt have a problem with 150 acres = gratis doe, but for a gratis buck, you should need 600 minimum... Heck, if you really want a buck and you own land, just buy a bow tag!

But there you go, picking and choosing who should be allowed to shoot what, how, and where and who shouldn't. It's almost like a little mini model of our government!

There are plenty of folks who don't think you should be able to use your bow tag state wide and plenty more who think you shouldn't be able to just buy a bow tag over the counter, and plenty more who think you shouldn't be able to have a bow tag and a rifle tag in the same year, oh and plenty more who think we shouldn't have gun or bows or be able to hunt at all.

Funny how willing some are to put restrictions on others about what others should or shouldn't be able to do but when the tables turn it's an atrocity. Like I said, there's a lot of hipocricy these day and no shortage on this website.

I still get a kick out of those on FBO who were rallying together to support all the smoking bans but were then calling those same business owners who took it in te shorts over those bans to join forces against the bans on guns...and felt no shame whatsoever as they did it.

Dirty.'s picture
Dirty.
Offline
Joined: Friday, November 9, 2007 - 1:10pm

Lycanthrope Said:
Well, if you think about it, the gratis system could destroy deer hunting by non land owners in ND. Also it has the potential to make deer hunting into a rich mans game. How much land does a mature buck occupy? A lot more than a doe, it would make sense, if you want to kill a buck every year, you should own enough land to house that deer (not in a fence)

In most of Northern Minnesota an adult doe's home range is between 150-300 acres.

Adult bucks occupy 250-800 acre home ranges and travel extensively during the fall rutting season.

So if we go by what the MN says, requiring 150 acres for a doe and 600 for a buck isnt unreasonable.

 

I don't disagree with the fact that it is getting much, much harder for the non-landowner to find and hold onto a place where they can hunt, however I'm not sure how that will change or has changed just because of the number of acres each landowner owns. All private land is owned by a private landowner and that didn't just happen overnight. Non landowners who wanted to hunt on owned land always had to find a place to hunt.

If anything is going to destroy hunting by non landowners and turn it into a rich man's game it's the outfitting business and fee hunting and it's aready happening. It certainly isn't gratis tags going to people who own less than a section of land!!! And to be honest, what will really speed up the process of destroying hunting is sportsmen trying to push additional restrictions onto each other while those who don't want you hunting or owning weapons in he first place sit back in the shadows and wait for their opportunity. That too is already happening.

What I like about this bill that is different than others is it is actually lifting restrictions (for youth and for landowners) rather than tightening them. The nooses are tight enough the way it is. We need to police ourselves and restrictions and laws are necessary, don't get me wrong. But we need to stop worrying about what everyone else gets to do that we don't and focus on real problems instead.

 

fullrut's picture
fullrut
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:42am

I fail to see the relation between a buck's home range and allowing someone to have a gratis tag. I'm sure most that have the 600 acres would be happy as hell to be able to hunt more land. I still don't understand what the issue is. How many gratis tags are issued per year vs all of ND acreage?

Education will tell you a tomato is a fruit, while wisdom will tell you not to put it in a fruit salad.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, January 5, 2010 - 5:31pm

That 150 acres has to be in one area right? One piece of land? Not 20 here, 80 a couple miles down the road, and 50 a few miles from the 80?

Dirty.'s picture
Dirty.
Offline
Joined: Friday, November 9, 2007 - 1:10pm

BringingTheRain Said:
That 150 acres has to be in one area right? One piece of land? Not 20 here, 80 a couple miles down the road, and 50 a few miles from the 80?

Gratis Resident & Nonresident Landowner

Eligibility: An individual who is a resident, corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership,or partnership that has executed a lease for at least one hundred sixty acres [64.75 hectares] of land and that actively farms or ranches that land or an individual, corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership, or partnership that holds title to at least one hundred sixty acres [64.75 hectares] of land is eligible to apply for a license to hunt deer without charge, or if that entity is a nonresident upon payment of the fee requirement for a nonresident big game license, upon filing a signed application describing that land. If the license is issued to a corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership, or partnership, only one license may be issued and the license must be issued in the name of an individual shareholder, member, or partner. The land must be within a unit open for the hunting of deer.
 

fullrut Said:
How many gratis tags are issued per year vs all of ND acreage?

Also a very good question. That info is possibly hidden on the G&F website somewhere maybe?

SilvercreekHunter
Offline
Joined: Monday, November 29, 2010 - 1:35pm

Sounds great!, those late Nov and Dec birthday's just miss the wire under the old system, now it gets a few more kids out enjoying the great fall hunting in ND.

CZ550
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 12:00am

The acres can be split up.  I agree with other posts. If anything they should increase the amount not decrease it to be eligible.  Wasn't this done for people who are actually farming?  After all if you rent land you can get one but is must be rented for farming/ranching not hunting.  The gratis rights must also be part of the lease too. I wonder how many don't bother to include that or even talk about it with the landowner. 
     There are restrictions.  Transferring your gratis is only allowed to a family dependent who lives with you.  If you transfer your gratis you can't also get one too. 
    Maybe there should be two levels.  Have it so if you have less then a 1/2 section you have to pay for it but are guaranteed a license. 

Lycanthrope's picture
Lycanthrope
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:00am

Well if a mature bucks home range is 600 acres, and we give out 4 gratis tags for that same 600 acres.... Nevermind, its not that hard to comprehend, is it? The problem is that the # of gratis tags going out has been increasing fairly steadily (except maybe just recently because they have cracked down on fraud significantly), but as a long term trend the amount is increasing. At the same time the size of farms is also increasing, that means that a lot of people getting gratis tags are not farmers.  I think a person should only be promised a tag for a deer if that deer can be supported on the amount of land they own. I dont think you should HAVE to be a farmer to get a gratis tag, but you shouldnt get a tag for a mature buck if you are only providing 1/4 of the area necessary for that same buck to survive in the wild.

fullrut Said:
I fail to see the relation between a buck's home range and allowing someone to have a gratis tag. I'm sure most that have the 600 acres would be happy as hell to be able to hunt more land. I still don't understand what the issue is. How many gratis tags are issued per year vs all of ND acreage?
BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, January 5, 2010 - 5:31pm

Dirty. Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
That 150 acres has to be in one area right? One piece of land? Not 20 here, 80 a couple miles down the road, and 50 a few miles from the 80?

Gratis Resident & Nonresident Landowner

Eligibility: An individual who is a resident, corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership,or partnership that has executed a lease for at least one hundred sixty acres [64.75 hectares] of land and that actively farms or ranches that land or an individual, corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership, or partnership that holds title to at least one hundred sixty acres [64.75 hectares] of land is eligible to apply for a license to hunt deer without charge, or if that entity is a nonresident upon payment of the fee requirement for a nonresident big game license, upon filing a signed application describing that land. If the license is issued to a corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership, or partnership, only one license may be issued and the license must be issued in the name of an individual shareholder, member, or partner. The land must be within a unit open for the hunting of deer.
 

fullrut Said:
How many gratis tags are issued per year vs all of ND acreage?

Also a very good question. That info is possibly hidden on the G&F website somewhere maybe?

I've always assumed that the gratis land had to be 160 acres of connected land. That doesn't give me an answer.

gst
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

Lycanthrope Said:
TOTALLY AGREE.  It SHOULD be a FULL SECTION. The gratis was meant for farmers to be able to get a deer every year, how many farmers do you know that actually make a living off 160 acres these days?

measure-it Said:
Dirty, I'm not out to pick a debate nor a fight, but I feel that  1 quarter of land ownership is not a large enuf land-holdings to justify a gratis tag,.  The average quarter doesn't offer enuf habitat to hold animals other than maybe a passthru or such.  A gratis tag is designed for landowners who have land that is commonly used by wild animals to bed, water, and/or eat.  Landowners are stewards of the land and wildlife--no argument on that, but let's have gratis tags be justified to farmers/ranchers that deserve them.  Thx. 

Can you show me one "farmer" that 'actually makes a living" off one section of land?

Dirty.'s picture
Dirty.
Offline
Joined: Friday, November 9, 2007 - 1:10pm

BringingTheRain Said:

I've always assumed that the gratis land had to be 160 acres of connected land. That doesn't give me an answer.

Yeah sorry about that. It doesn't have to be in one chunk as I understand it now. It can be spread out.

Lycanthrope Said:
Well if a mature bucks home range is 600 acres, and we give out 4 gratis tags for that same 600 acres.... Nevermind, its not that hard to comprehend, is it? The problem is that the # of gratis tags going out has been increasing fairly steadily (except maybe just recently because they have cracked down on fraud significantly), but as a long term trend the amount is increasing. At the same time the size of farms is also increasing, that means that a lot of people getting gratis tags are not farmers.  I think a person should only be promised a tag for a deer if that deer can be supported on the amount of land they own. I dont think you should HAVE to be a farmer to get a gratis tag, but you shouldnt get a tag for a mature buck if you are only providing 1/4 of the area necessary for that same buck to survive in the wild.

fullrut Said:
I fail to see the relation between a buck's home range and allowing someone to have a gratis tag. I'm sure most that have the 600 acres would be happy as hell to be able to hunt more land. I still don't understand what the issue is. How many gratis tags are issued per year vs all of ND acreage?

So do you think only 1 buck lives on every 600 acres? We have 160 (well, 157) acres that we actually hunt and we have 20 plus regular bucks every year and see countless others during the rut that are just cruising through. They don't exclusively hang on our land of course, and neither do the does, but they are definitely regulars. It hardly ever fails that my dad fills his gratis tag on an outside buck we've never seen before. Please incorporate this into your 600 acre/gratis tag theory. I'd be interested to hear how that ties in.

I don't have a problem with reserving gratis tags for those that own at least a section of land, but not for some made up reasons. If you want to reserve it for those who have more land that is good enough reason for me. However, it is a nice breath of fresh air to see a bill that lifts restrictions rather than tightens them.

Lycanthrope's picture
Lycanthrope
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:00am

I know a mature bucks territory (typically) is larger than 150 acres. MN G&F says a mature buck usually inhabits 300 to 800 acres. I didnt say theres only one buck/600 acres. Most people get a buck tag because they want (hope) to get a deer with a nice rack, or they would get a doe. Does inhabit less space than bucks do typically, so why not make the land requirements less for a gratis doe tag than they are for a gratis buck tag?

Dirty. Said:

So do you think only 1 buck lives on every 600 acres? We have 160 (well, 157) acres that we actually hunt and we have 20 plus regular bucks every year and see countless others during the rut that are just cruising through. They don't exclusively hang on our land of course, and neither do the does, but they are definitely regulars. It hardly ever fails that my dad fills his gratis tag on an outside buck we've never seen before. Please incorporate this into your 600 acre/gratis tag theory. I'd be interested to hear how that ties in.

I don't have a problem with reserving gratis tags for those that own at least a section of land, but not for some made up reasons. If you want to reserve it for those who have more land that is good enough reason for me. However, it is a nice breath of fresh air to see a bill that lifts restrictions rather than tightens them.

Lycanthrope's picture
Lycanthrope
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:00am

My point is that the gratis was started for farmers, and farmers at the time it started often had smaller farms. NOW increasing the land requirements wouldnt hurt any farmers because almost all of them farm thousands of acres, but it would help reduce the tags given out to people that just buy a small amount of land to get a deer every year...

gst Said:

Lycanthrope Said:
TOTALLY AGREE.  It SHOULD be a FULL SECTION. The gratis was meant for farmers to be able to get a deer every year, how many farmers do you know that actually make a living off 160 acres these days?

measure-it Said:
Dirty, I'm not out to pick a debate nor a fight, but I feel that  1 quarter of land ownership is not a large enuf land-holdings to justify a gratis tag,.  The average quarter doesn't offer enuf habitat to hold animals other than maybe a passthru or such.  A gratis tag is designed for landowners who have land that is commonly used by wild animals to bed, water, and/or eat.  Landowners are stewards of the land and wildlife--no argument on that, but let's have gratis tags be justified to farmers/ranchers that deserve them.  Thx. 

Can you show me one "farmer" that 'actually makes a living" off one section of land?

fullrut's picture
fullrut
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:42am

I think the key is the amount of gratis tags vs total acreage in the state. That would offset your 600 acre theory. Or are you going to pick and choose who's 600 acres holds deer? I'm going to have to agree with Dirty on this one.

Lycanthrope Said:
I know a mature bucks territory (typically) is larger than 150 acres. MN G&F says a mature buck usually inhabits 300 to 800 acres. I didnt say theres only one buck/600 acres. Most people get a buck tag because they want (hope) to get a deer with a nice rack, or they would get a doe. Does inhabit less space than bucks do typically, so why not make the land requirements less for a gratis doe tag than they are for a gratis buck tag?
Dirty. Said:

So do you think only 1 buck lives on every 600 acres? We have 160 (well, 157) acres that we actually hunt and we have 20 plus regular bucks every year and see countless others during the rut that are just cruising through. They don't exclusively hang on our land of course, and neither do the does, but they are definitely regulars. It hardly ever fails that my dad fills his gratis tag on an outside buck we've never seen before. Please incorporate this into your 600 acre/gratis tag theory. I'd be interested to hear how that ties in.

I don't have a problem with reserving gratis tags for those that own at least a section of land, but not for some made up reasons. If you want to reserve it for those who have more land that is good enough reason for me. However, it is a nice breath of fresh air to see a bill that lifts restrictions rather than tightens them.

Education will tell you a tomato is a fruit, while wisdom will tell you not to put it in a fruit salad.

Wile.E.Coyote
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 18, 2013 - 10:59am

My Dad gets a gratis tag for the two quarters we own.

Just because you guys think a deer doesn't "live" on the land 24/7 you don't think a guy should be able to get a gratis tag? Give me a break.

If thats the case, there are a PILE of people across this state that should just up and quit deer hunting then because the area they are ABLE to hunt might not be the adequate acreage for Mr. Buck to call home.

The land we own holds deer from spring until about Decemeber most years. They don't witer there and they don't spend all their time there, but they are there enough of the time to justify hunting it.

I can't believe some of things people come up with against these gratis tags. You all should be happy about this land, now you only have to buy 150 acres to get a gratis tag rather than 160.


Wags86's picture
Wags86
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 6:05pm

Lycanthrope Said:
I know a mature bucks territory (typically) is larger than 150 acres. MN G&F says a mature buck usually inhabits 300 to 800 acres. I didnt say theres only one buck/600 acres. Most people get a buck tag because they want (hope) to get a deer with a nice rack, or they would get a doe. Does inhabit less space than bucks do typically, so why not make the land requirements less for a gratis doe tag than they are for a gratis buck tag?

I dont have a dog in this race so i dont care either way really. Is this ^^^ above how mn gratis tag system works? Cuz it sure sounds like something they would do..... the land of 10,000 regulations

 

 "I get what you're saying:  Like a sausage replica featuring a Polander holding a sacred illumination device." 

 

Wile.E.Coyote
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 18, 2013 - 10:59am

On top of the whole thing it also gets kids out in the field sooner instead of sitting at a computer pissing their time away......

They can do that when they get to be our ages.

Tacoman's picture
Tacoman
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 13, 2006 - 3:56pm

Lycanthrope Said:
Well if a mature bucks home range is 600 acres, and we give out 4 gratis tags for that same 600 acres.... Nevermind, its not that hard to comprehend, is it? The problem is that the # of gratis tags going out has been increasing fairly steadily (except maybe just recently because they have cracked down on fraud significantly), but as a long term trend the amount is increasing. At the same time the size of farms is also increasing, that means that a lot of people getting gratis tags are not farmers.  I think a person should only be promised a tag for a deer if that deer can be supported on the amount of land they own. I dont think you should HAVE to be a farmer to get a gratis tag, but you shouldnt get a tag for a mature buck if you are only providing 1/4 of the area necessary for that same buck to survive in the wild.

fullrut Said:
I fail to see the relation between a buck's home range and allowing someone to have a gratis tag. I'm sure most that have the 600 acres would be happy as hell to be able to hunt more land. I still don't understand what the issue is. How many gratis tags are issued per year vs all of ND acreage?

A mature deers homerange is 600 acres?  wow you really got those deer figured out.   I don't have a problem with gratis tags.  The system was abused very badly up until last year when they cracked down and called all those that applied for the tags.  Lots of people that were getting gratis tags arent getting them now.  It is just too bad the NDGF started enforcing the rules and lowering tag numbers after the majority of the deer were already gone. 

Wile.E.Coyote
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 18, 2013 - 10:59am

Lycanthrope Said:
Well if a mature bucks home range is 600 acres, and we give out 4 gratis tags for that same 600 acres.... Nevermind, its not that hard to comprehend, is it? The problem is that the # of gratis tags going out has been increasing fairly steadily (except maybe just recently because they have cracked down on fraud significantly), but as a long term trend the amount is increasing. At the same time the size of farms is also increasing, that means that a lot of people getting gratis tags are not farmers.  I think a person should only be promised a tag for a deer if that deer can be supported on the amount of land they own. I dont think you should HAVE to be a farmer to get a gratis tag, but you shouldnt get a tag for a mature buck if you are only providing 1/4 of the area necessary for that same buck to survive in the wild.

fullrut Said:
I fail to see the relation between a buck's home range and allowing someone to have a gratis tag. I'm sure most that have the 600 acres would be happy as hell to be able to hunt more land. I still don't understand what the issue is. How many gratis tags are issued per year vs all of ND acreage?

If thats the case then why wouldn't this apply to people that don't own land as well? If a person can't hunt on a parcel of land that "supports" the deer they shouldn't hunt then?

Makes less than zero sense.

Trapper62's picture
Trapper62
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 12:00am

HB 1131 - Introduced by Rep's Hofstad, Schmidt, Vigesaa; Sen's Carlisle, Lyson, Schaible. Would allow an individual who turns age 14 in the same year as the respective big game hunting season to apply for a license, an individual who turns age 12 in the same year as the youth deer season to receive an antleress white-tailed deer license for the youth deer season, and an individual who turns age 12 in the same year as the antelope season to apply for a license. In addition, the number of acres required to qualify for a big game gratis license would be lowered from 160 to 150. Passed house 85-6, emergency clause carried. Senate Natural Resources Committee heard 3/8, no action taken.

(Above is from the G&F website)

This bill also changes the deadline for gratis license applications for an "any deer" license - no more apply for badlands or for a unit wide buck tag with gratis tag as a fallback. 

Don't know why G&F doen't include this in their description.  Also not sure why the change from 160 to 150 acres - guessing some who fits the bill has a friend in the legislature.  I've been told G&F was more aggressive in checking the gratis license this year and someone probably got turned down.

Also guessing landowners won't like the change and non-landowners will think the change is overdue.

 Where does the bill state this? Maybe I am just not seeing it? 

This is from the bill:

g. Applications for license issued under subsections a, b, and f received by the game and fish department on or before the date of the application deadline for deer gun lottery will be issued as any legal deer. Applications for license issued under subsections a, b, and f received by the game and fish department after the application deadline will be issued based on licenses available."

I talked to Randy Kreil last week about this and that was yet to be determined.  Granted there will probably be no buck tags left anyways.   But I would gladly shoot a doe on my land if not drawn for a muley tag.

fishing farmer's picture
fishing farmer
Offline
Joined: Friday, January 15, 2010 - 6:47am

the way i see this one tag per landowner good for rifle or bow or muzzy
 

one tag per non landowner for rifle or bow or muzzy

that would make it fair, no person would have more then one tag

pick your season stay in your season  and make them all one drawing
 

Crackshot.'s picture
Crackshot.
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 11:53pm

fishing farmer Said:

the way i see this one tag per landowner good for rifle or bow or muzzy
 

one tag per non landowner for rifle or bow or muzzy

that would make it fair, no person would have more then one tag

pick your season stay in your season  and make them all one drawing
 

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

Bowhuntin
Offline
Joined: Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:00am

I'm not following the illogical argument at all regarding acreage size. If a landowner owns 155 acres and applies and receives a gratis tag, yet the land is barren of cover and holds no deer, wtf makes any difference to anyone else how many acres he owns or if he gets a gratis tag? Seriously. By law (Dirty covered the obeying the law part well enough I don't have to add to that) the person can only hunt on his land so if there are no deer there wtf difference does it make to anyone else? The logic behind some of the shit being posted is so asinine it boggles my mind. The landowner sits on HIS PROPERTY every legal shooting moment of the entire season, doesn't see a deer, doesn't shoot a deer, again, wtf difference does it make to anyone else???

Here's how you spell the real problem: J-E-A-L-O-U-S-Y.

kjs's picture
kjs
Offline
Joined: Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:00am

 Trapper62

I don't understand your question - u seem to answer it yourself.  Most units don't have buck tags left after the first lottery w a few exceptions - u could then still get a gratis tag but it would be for antlerless deer only (same as currently available if the gratis applicant drew a antlered license in the lottery - they could still get a gratis tag for a doe)

I'm not saying it's right or wrong - just didn't understand the confusion.

What did Randy Kreil say?

"I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to become a vegetarian."

Lycanthrope's picture
Lycanthrope
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:00am

Ok, some of you obviously dont understand what Im saying so Im going to say it a different way. Gratis tag is basically a reward for what you are contributing.  You provide land to the deer, food, cover, etc, you are rewarded with the opportunity to harvest a deer for yourself. Considering the average range of a mature buck, the reward of a buck tag is too great for a small piece of land, a doe tag would be more appropriate. You contribute more land, the reward goes up. Maybe say 150 acres for a doe tag, 300 for a buck. I dont care, the G&F should decide. The more people that buy a quarter of land for hunting, the stronger the G&F's case will be to change the gratis system, but also the louder people will scream when it does happen.

measure-it
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 4:00pm

 Why did I post about deer habitat being more than 160 acres, so the requirements for a gratis tag should be more than 160 acres also is becuz the 160 minimum sets up a  rule that's just begging for abuse.  Very few 1/4s will hold deer for the landowner to hunt that chunk exclusively.  Thus, these people MAY go outside their boundries to fill that gratis tag.  Yes, I know that's not the only abuse during deer hunting, but it's one that is set up for those abuses. Gratis tags are a thank you to the landowners who suffer loses or problems from these wildlife, while still being good stewards to the animals.  And I'll be one in line to thank them for their care of the resource, but let's be honest about the reason and method behind gratis tags.  It's elementary, Watson!

Bowhuntin
Offline
Joined: Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:00am

Lycanthrope Said:
Ok, some of you obviously dont understand what Im saying so Im going to say it a different way. Gratis tag is basically a reward for what you are contributing.  You provide land to the deer, food, cover, etc, you are rewarded with the opportunity to harvest a deer for yourself. Considering the average range of a mature buck, the reward of a buck tag is too great for a small piece of land, a doe tag would be more appropriate. You contribute more land, the reward goes up. Maybe say 150 acres for a doe tag, 300 for a buck. I dont care, the G&F should decide. The more people that buy a quarter of land for hunting, the stronger the G&F's case will be to change the gratis system, but also the louder people will scream when it does happen.

I thought they already did decide, quite a few years ago?

I wish there was a "shaking my head" thingy along with the smiley faces.

badlandmule's picture
badlandmule
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 6:22pm

Lycanthrope Said:
Ok, some of you obviously dont understand what Im saying so Im going to say it a different way. Gratis tag is basically a reward for what you are contributing.  You provide land to the deer, food, cover, etc, you are rewarded with the opportunity to harvest a deer for yourself. Considering the average range of a mature buck, the reward of a buck tag is too great for a small piece of land, a doe tag would be more appropriate. You contribute more land, the reward goes up. Maybe say 150 acres for a doe tag, 300 for a buck. I dont care, the G&F should decide. The more people that buy a quarter of land for hunting, the stronger the G&F's case will be to change the gratis system, but also the louder people will scream when it does happen.

what about somebody with 6000 acres should they get 20 buck tags?

NorthDakota11's picture
NorthDakota11
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 - 12:24am

Is a landowner that has 1500 arces of "Farm Land" (corn and alfalfa)and his gratis tag any different then the guy right next door who only owns 160 acres of pasture land with a creek and lots of trees?

Both guys are land owners and at different times of the day have lots and lots of deer on their land. As a deer hunter what would you rather hunt? 160 acres of trees with 1200 acres of corn and alfalfa right next to it? I think we'd all pick the edge of the corn or alfalfa sitting in one of those trees and we just wait for a 150-180 buck of a guys dreams to walk by. 

To say that 160 acres isn't enough land to consistently have deer on it is just nuts, and to say a guy who is providing and caring for the 160 acres of bedding habitat to the deer that feed on that adjacent land of corn and alfalfa (which may not be posted because a lot of big time farmers don't worry about it if its not their home section)shouldn't get a tag because it's not enough land is nuts... I think one of you above hit it right on the head... Jealousy.

I'm also one that believes (was taught this by growing up with my father) that a landowner that hunts and has kids he wants to pass hunting down too should always be willing to open his gates to someone who asks... especially if that person has kids and can prove he respects the opportunity he has been given... My father has never said no to anyone to this day... he's taken the opportunity away from some people due to a lack of respect for him and his land but if you ask the gates will open. Has it limited our ability to harvest lots of mature deer? Absolutely! But we also have developed lifetime friendships with families that are coming back to our place in some situations for a 3rd generation now. 

I wish more landowners had the attitude my father does, it would open up opportunities for many of us to hunt areas we've never had the chance to in the past. The fact that many land owners don't let anyone on why I believe you see so many people with a bad taste in their mouth about gratis tags. It's really too bad.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, January 5, 2010 - 5:31pm

I know a mature bucks territory (typically) is larger than 150 acres. MN G&F says a mature buck usually inhabits 300 to 800 acres. I didnt say theres only one buck/600 acres. Most people get a buck tag because they want (hope) to get a deer with a nice rack, or they would get a doe. Does inhabit less space than bucks do typically, so why not make the land requirements less for a gratis doe tag than they are for a gratis buck tag?

In my experience during the ND rut, you could easily take that 800 x 4-8

NorthDakota11's picture
NorthDakota11
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 - 12:24am

 

BringingTheRain Said:

I know a mature bucks territory (typically) is larger than 150 acres. MN G&F says a mature buck usually inhabits 300 to 800 acres. I didnt say theres only one buck/600 acres. Most people get a buck tag because they want (hope) to get a deer with a nice rack, or they would get a doe. Does inhabit less space than bucks do typically, so why not make the land requirements less for a gratis doe tag than they are for a gratis buck tag?

In my experience during the ND rut, you could easily take that 800 x 4-8

Agreed, 800 acres is a relatively small area

NorthDakota11's picture
NorthDakota11
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 - 12:24am

 

BringingTheRain Said:

I know a mature bucks territory (typically) is larger than 150 acres. MN G&F says a mature buck usually inhabits 300 to 800 acres. I didnt say theres only one buck/600 acres. Most people get a buck tag because they want (hope) to get a deer with a nice rack, or they would get a doe. Does inhabit less space than bucks do typically, so why not make the land requirements less for a gratis doe tag than they are for a gratis buck tag?

In my experience during the ND rut, you could easily take that 800 x 4-8

Agreed, 800 acres is a relatively small area

Silage1
Offline
Joined: Monday, February 25, 2013 - 7:18am

I'll start off by saying these new laws or changes to laws are good and should not hurt hunting in the state it actually might help
      A youth should not be denied the right to hunt because of their birthday being off by a few days or even a couple months. They still have to have their hunters ed. and they still pay there money. The sooner they get into hunting the more likley they will stay in it. Which is better for them and for the rest of us hunters/fishermen. 
     I also like the idea of the deadline for a gratis tag. it keeps the number of tags issued at the number the G & F wants. 1200 tags issued for a unit means 1200 tags given. Not 1219 or 1190 given.  In the past landowners would apply in the lottery and if turned down they would get a gratis later. I believe you could apply right up to the day of the season. Now everyone has top apply at the same time so no 2% allowance for late filing gratis tags. This is a small precaution for declining deer numbers and any future decline. And with the loss of habitat that is happening throughout the state  a couple deer here and there may make a difference.
     The change from 160 to 150 is alright also because land is not always sold in quarters or sections. And like previously stated quarters are not always 160. Roads were built where they could be and lakes are not owned by individuals. Also hills and valleys were not taken into consideration when land tracts were originally mapped out at least in most cases.
     
My thought are positive and i believe it will be positive for all those responsible and law abiding residents of ND.
      And who cares about MN or how big a deers range is. If you have deer on your land get a gratis or play the lottery like everyone else. I just had to get off subject and cause an arguement just because i can.

Lycanthrope's picture
Lycanthrope
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:00am

G&F didnt come up with the gratis system, it was legislated. Also I know for a fact there are people at G&F that think the amount of land required should be increased, but again, its not their decision and it wouldnt be popular. I know what you mean about the shaking your head emoticon...

Bowhuntin Said:

Lycanthrope Said:
Ok, some of you obviously dont understand what Im saying so Im going to say it a different way. Gratis tag is basically a reward for what you are contributing.  You provide land to the deer, food, cover, etc, you are rewarded with the opportunity to harvest a deer for yourself. Considering the average range of a mature buck, the reward of a buck tag is too great for a small piece of land, a doe tag would be more appropriate. You contribute more land, the reward goes up. Maybe say 150 acres for a doe tag, 300 for a buck. I dont care, the G&F should decide. The more people that buy a quarter of land for hunting, the stronger the G&F's case will be to change the gratis system, but also the louder people will scream when it does happen.

I thought they already did decide, quite a few years ago?

I wish there was a "shaking my head" thingy along with the smiley faces.

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:00am

 

Wags86 Said:

Lycanthrope Said:
I know a mature bucks territory (typically) is larger than 150 acres. MN G&F says a mature buck usually inhabits 300 to 800 acres. I didnt say theres only one buck/600 acres. Most people get a buck tag because they want (hope) to get a deer with a nice rack, or they would get a doe. Does inhabit less space than bucks do typically, so why not make the land requirements less for a gratis doe tag than they are for a gratis buck tag?

 Is this ^^^ above how mn gratis tag system works? 

The landowner provision allows for the landowner to obtain a guaranteed antlerless license @ no charge.

Buck tags in MN are statewide, OTC,  and though you must pay for a license to hunt each season (bow, rifle ML), you are allowed to hunt any legal season with any legal weapon until you kill 1 buck, then you're done for the year.

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



gst
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

badlandmule Said:

Lycanthrope Said:
Ok, some of you obviously dont understand what Im saying so Im going to say it a different way. Gratis tag is basically a reward for what you are contributing.  You provide land to the deer, food, cover, etc, you are rewarded with the opportunity to harvest a deer for yourself. Considering the average range of a mature buck, the reward of a buck tag is too great for a small piece of land, a doe tag would be more appropriate. You contribute more land, the reward goes up. Maybe say 150 acres for a doe tag, 300 for a buck. I dont care, the G&F should decide. The more people that buy a quarter of land for hunting, the stronger the G&F's case will be to change the gratis system, but also the louder people will scream when it does happen.

what about somebody with 6000 acres should they get 20 buck tags?

 Oops, that kinda blows a hole thru everything.

Glad to know that for planting miles of trees, leaving cattail wetlands that could be farmed in cattail wetlands, planting food plots, allowing right now this year over 300 deer to eat the alfalfa I raised for our cattle I get a whopping $20 value and am "allowed" to shoot a deer only on the property I own if I choose not to enter the lottery and get a gratis tag.

Thank you for this gracious consideration.

Dirty.'s picture
Dirty.
Offline
Joined: Friday, November 9, 2007 - 1:10pm

gst Said:

Glad to know that for planting miles of trees, leaving cattail wetlands that could be farmed in cattail wetlands, planting food plots, allowing right now this year over 300 deer to eat the alfalfa I raised for our cattle I get a whopping $20 value and am "allowed" to shoot a deer only on the property I own if I choose not to enter the lottery and get a gratis tag.

Thank you for this gracious consideration.

I'm a little confused. It's great for the wildlife what you do (whether voluntarily by leaving land out of production for habitat or planting trees, or involuntarily by having the deer raid your crops), but do you not like the gratis tag system? Do you think you deserve more than the guarantee of a tag to hunt your property? Do you think the more land you have and the more you do for the wildlife the more tags you should get? Are you also on board with thinking a gratis tag shouldn't go to someone who just owns a quarter section? I just don't follow what you were hinting at in your post butI know you're hinting at something. I also have family members who think since it's their land, they should be able to do whatever they want on it without being regulated...basically that any animal on their land should be fair game to them regardless of time of year, number of tags, etc. Is that also your line of thought?

Pages