ND Senate committee hears testimony on bill limiting Game and Fish authority over baiting (SB 2137)

The Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee took testimony on Senate Bill 2137, which would strip North Dakota Game and Fish of the authority to prohibit supplemental feeding on private property for the purpose of taking big game.

Why it matters: Supporters of the bill told the committee restrictions on hunting over feed reduce hunting opportunities and rely on disputed science. State wildlife officials, conservation organizations and professional wildlife biologists warned removing the agency’s ability to act by annual proclamation would limit flexible disease-response tools—particularly for chronic wasting disease (CWD) and other wildlife illnesses that can affect livestock and long-term herd health.

Several residents spoke in favor of SB 2137. "I am in favor of Senate Bill 2,137," said Marty Beard, identifying himself as a North Dakota citizen from Burleigh County. Scott Schmidt, a private landowner southeast of Bismarck, also testified in support and said he found no validation that CWD “is any more serious or devastating” to North Dakota’s herd.

State wildlife officials and conservation groups offered the strongest opposition. "We ask that you vote no for this bill," said Dr. Charlie Bahnsen, wildlife veterinarian for North Dakota Game and Fish, arguing the department needs proclamation authority to respond quickly to disease threats. Bahnsen described CWD as a fatal prion disease affecting deer, elk and moose and said early, flexible responses are important to keep infection rates low and avoid long-term population declines.

Brock Wall, chairman of the North Dakota chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said his organization ultimately supports restrictions on baiting and would prefer bans on supplemental feeding where the disease is found. "If my group could wave a magic wand, we would ban feeding too," Wall said, adding that his chapter educated itself with veterinary and prion research before taking that position.

John Bradley, executive director of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, told the committee the federation opposes SB 2137 because it would "severely undermine" Game and Fish’s ability to manage deer using current science. Phil Mastrangelo, representing the North Dakota chapter of The Wildlife Society, urged lawmakers to "allow the professionals within North Dakota Game and Fish Department to do their jobs" and said the agency is managing risk rather than acting on emotion.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several points: whether detection equals confirmed disease, the distinction between feeding and hunting over bait, and the legal authority of the agency to ban supplemental feeding year-round. Dr. Bahnsen and others said positive tests from lymph node tissue followed by confirmatory immunohistochemistry indicate an animal is infected and that prions are environmentally persistent—likely remaining infectious for years or longer. The agency witnesses also said the department lacks clear legal authority to ban all supplemental feeding and relies on governor’s proclamations to set seasonal restrictions on methods of take.

Witnesses cited examples from other jurisdictions to illustrate consequences of high CWD prevalence. Testimony included claims—attributed to witnesses and external studies—that provinces or states where baiting and feeding remain common showed faster geographic spread and higher prevalence of CWD than jurisdictions that restrict those practices. The committee heard estimates and examples from Saskatchewan, Wyoming, Kansas and U.S. states with differing approaches to baiting and feeding; speakers differed on how to interpret those comparisons and on how much the bans themselves accounted for different outcomes.

Several speakers noted implementation work already under way: Dr. Bahnsen and others said Game and Fish has used surveillance, local baiting restrictions in specific units (for example, Unit 3C and a baiting restriction in the Williston area), and investments such as construction of hay yards to reduce winter congregation, which one witness described as a $6,000,000 effort since 2009.

The hearing closed with no formal committee vote. Chairman Lueck said the committee will bring the bill back for further consideration at the next available opportunity.

Less critical details and next steps: The committee adjourned the hearing after extended testimony and public questioning; senators and witnesses said they expect more hearings when weather and scheduling permit. The agency and multiple conservation groups offered to provide additional data and to meet with legislators before the bill returns to committee.