HB1131 - thoughts?

Pages

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
kjs's picture
kjs
Offline
Joined: 7/10/03
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
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

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's picture
Pat'sPlace
Offline
Joined: 2/20/09

 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: 11/9/07

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's picture
measure-it
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/27/09

 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: 11/9/07

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: 11/9/07

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's picture
measure-it
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/27/09

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: 11/9/07

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
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/3/04

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: 9/28/05

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: 11/9/07

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
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/3/04

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: 11/9/07

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
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/3/04

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: 11/9/07

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: 9/28/05

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: 1/5/10

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: 11/9/07

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's picture
SilvercreekHunter
Offline
Joined: 11/29/10

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's picture
CZ550
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/27/02

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
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/3/04

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: 1/5/10

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's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

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: 11/9/07

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
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/3/04

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
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/3/04

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: 9/28/05

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's picture
Wile.E.Coyote
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/13

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: 12/14/10

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's picture
Wile.E.Coyote
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/13

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.

Pages