Meet In CommonNews

Local

Bobcat season opens Nov. 23 in Pembina Gorge area

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: Grand Forks Herald

North Dakota fur harvesters and hunters may pursue bobcats in the northeast region, particularly in the Pembina Gorge area or Zone 2, beginning Nov. 23. The bobcat season in the region comes a day after deer gun season closes in the state. The bobcat season will run through March 15 in Zone 2, unless the harvest limit is reached before then. As in previous years, the zone’s harvest limit is eight bobcats for the season. A hunter with a furbearer license may shoot or trap one bobcat. “There’s a pretty limited harvest” in that part of the state, said Stephanie Tucker, furbearer biologist and game management section leader with the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. “Once eight bobcats are taken in the Pembina Gorge region, the season will shut down.” After decades being closed, North Dakota opened its bobcat season in the region in 2021 after the population numbers were on the upswing.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at Grand Forks Herald

Featured places to meet in Palo Alto, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Yutori

Yutori 3375 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA, 94306 US

Cafe Riace

Cafe Riace 200 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, CA, US

City guide for Palo Alto, CA

Community Poll

Organizations should collect less personal information rather than simply promise stronger security.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

Software says a student cheated with AI. Is that enough to fail the paper?

A teacher suspects several essays were written with AI. Detection software marks one student's work as highly likely to be generated, but the software is known to make mistakes and the student denies using it.

How should responsibility be assigned when evidence is powerful but unreliable?

Explore this quandary