4-3-14 legislative update

[h2ofwlr]

Muskie size limit debate continues at state Capitol
By Joe Albert Associate Editor, MN Outdoor News
April 3, 2014

St. Paul — Game and Fish bills in the state House and Senate continue making progress, and the two bills look relatively similar.

Two items contained in the Senate bill – SF 2227, authored by Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing – are the primary differences: increasing the minimum size limit for muskies in inland waters to 55 inches, and allowing people age 60 and older to use crossbows for deer, bears, turkeys, and rough fish during the respective archery seasons.

Rep. David Dill, DFL-Crane Lake, chair of the Environment and Natural Resources Policy Committee, and the author of that body’s Game and Fish Bill – HF 2852 – isn’t so sure about a 55-inch minimum, which muskie advocates are pushing.

He envisions the possibility of the Legislature taking up the matter next year, though the DNR also is working through a process that would result in a 50-inch minimum size limit for muskies as early as 2015.

That process also could result in some lakes having even higher minimum size limits.

Dill, for one, says he needs more information before making a decision.

“Does (a 55-inch minimum size limit) come at the expense of someone else?” he asked. “Honestly, I don’t have time to answer that question, and I haven’t had time to look at it from a public policy perspective.”

The DNR is neutral on the 55-inch legislation, said Bob Meier, the agency’s legislative affairs director.

The agency, likewise, believes the crossbow piece “is more of a social issue,” he said.

Meier said the agency hasn’t heard much about it, though some people believe it’s the first step in allowing anyone to use crossbows during the archery season.

On the other hand, others say allowing crossbow use may help keep older hunters in the field.

“We’re seeing a sharp decline in deer hunters after the age of 50,” Meier said. “That’s kind of frightening.”

Both the House and Senate bills include a program to provide cost-share grants to local recreational shooting clubs. The DNR would administer the program.The Senate bill includes a $2 million appropriation from the Game and Fish Fund for the program. The agency believes that amount may be “premature until we figure out the parameters of the program,” Meier said.

Deer baiting
Legislation that would have reduced deer-baiting penalties for first-time offenders isn’t likely to pass this year. Under the proposal, conservation officers couldn’t seize firearms from hunters who hadn’t been caught hunting over bait previously, and hadn’t shot a deer over bait.

“The bill is dead,” Dill said.

The DNR is working on the issue, Meier said, adding it came up because some people believe COs are being arbitrary in the seizure of firearms.

[h2ofwlr]

And from 2 weeks ago:

Legs for wolf-hunt moratorium?
By Joe Albert Associate Editor, MN Outdoor News
March 20, 2014

St. Paul — A Senate committee last week approved a bill that would temporarily suspend wolf hunting and trapping in the state, though its future is unclear.

The Environment and Natural Resources Committee approved SF 2256, authored by Sen. Foung Hawj, DFL-St. Paul, on an 8-6 vote (it failed on the first vote, 6-6, but was reconsidered after the arrival of two senators who’d been absent for the initial vote).

The committee is the same one that passed a wolf hunting and trapping moratorium last year. That bill didn’t go anywhere, and indications are this year’s version may not, either, though it did pass out of the State and Local Government Committee earlier this week. It now goes to the environment finance committee, where the moratorium stalled last year.

Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing and chair of the Game and Fish Subcommittee, voted in favor of the bill in the environment committee. But he doesn’t believe there’s traction for it in either the Senate or the House.

“As far as I’m concerned, the issue is settled for the year,” he said.

The bill would require the DNR to close the wolf hunting and trapping season “in order to study the outcomes of the wolf hunt on the wolf population and to implement the wolf management plan.” It would require creation of a new task force to review the plan on an annual basis, and have the DNR collect a variety of data, including a study of public sentiment about wolves.

It also would prohibit baiting – which is legal for hunting and trapping wolves – within 10 miles of tribal lands where taking wolves is prohibited.

The DNR opposes the bill for a number of reasons, including the baiting provision. Such a ban would affect more than 10 million acres of land in the state, of which about 9.6 million acres is in non-tribal ownership, said Bob Meier, DNR legislative affairs director.

Representatives from the Minnesota Farmers Union and Minnesota Farm Bureau spoke in opposition to the bill, as did the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association and Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Alliance.

Schmit, in an interview after the hearing, said the state can do better in terms of how it authorizes wolf hunting and trapping. He doesn’t believe the bill is necessarily “the right remedy for the wolf hunt in Minnesota.”

Schmit looks at the bill as a vehicle for continuing the conversation about state wolf management.

“I don’t know if we’ve struck the right balance yet,” he said. “But I don’t think drastic change is necessary.”

Schmit, who is carrying the Game and Fish Bill (SF 2227), said he’s not open to amending the wolf hunting and trapping language on there.

“It’s not appropriate to put it on the Game and Fish Bill,” he said.

Outdoor Heritage Fund
The bill that carries the recommendations of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council – HF 1926, authored by Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul – continues sailing through the House.

The bill last week passed the Legacy Committee, and could be on the floor by later this week. The bill retains funding for a controversial project Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa project, but in last week’s hearing, funding for aquatic invasive species was the primary point of contention.

Some groups would like to see more money – and tighter timelines – in the fight against AIS. The bill includes more than $4 million to evaluate AIS-prevention strategies.

Hansen noted that last year, the debate was about whether it was appropriate to spend money from the Outdoor Heritage Fund on AIS.

“We’re no longer debating whether (Outdoor Heritage funds) should be expended on aquatic invasive species,” he said. “We are debating how and who, and probably where. But the why is no longer there.”