# Hunter Joe or Client CEO



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The question before us is do we preserve hunting for the common folk or commercial hunting operations? They are fire and water in the same bowl and only one will survive.

A bit of history on this thread. (And someone with a better grasp of the past can correct me if I'm in error)

In the 2001 legislative session the Sportsman's Alliance brought forward a bill to cap NR waterfowl hunter numbers that were feeding outfitter expansion. They were the first to recognize an alarming expansion of commercialized hunting for that species that was squeezing out North Dakotans. The bill failed by narrow margin.

At the same time commercial hunting for pheasants was increasing like a rocket. Which produced Pheasantgate in 2002, a request from a SW ND senator to the Governor to advance the pheasant season by several weeks for "tourism". After a series of special advisory meetings showed outrage by ND hunters, the Governor rescinded the early season idea, and handed the too hot situation to the legislature.

The 2003 session produced a series of hard won laws to expand public hunting access, gave a few plums to North Dakotans season-wise, and slowed the growth of commercial hunting. The ink was not yet dry on these laws when commercial hunting interests began to chip away at that intent. That same effort has been relentless to this day. Below are four bills that need to die. They will expand commercial hunting pressure yet again.

1216 and 2264 target pheasant season pressure for increased commercial purposes.
2165 while noble sounding in purpose of bringing new hunters into the sport, is, I believe intended to supply a stream of new one time clients to outfitters. Note the emergency clause, which would affect spring snow goose season.
1567 is an attempt by an outfitter to increase his client supply through outside booking agents. It also has the emergency clause. 

HB 1216 - (Rep's Kerzman, DeKrey, Froelich; Senator Lyson) - Would change the structure of the nonresident small game license from two 7-day periods to three 5-day periods. Passed house 53-40. SNRC to hear 2/26, 10:45 a.m..

HB 1567 - (Rep's Kasper, Griffin, Hofstad, Ruby, Schneider) - Clarifies that a guide or outfitter license is not required for a person who acts as a booking agent for an outfitter. A booking agent is defined as a person who receives only a fee for referring or marketing the services of a legal outfitter in this state. Passed house 87-4, emergency clause carried. Bill in senate.

SB 2165 - (Sen's Krauter, Lyson; Rep's Damschen, DeKrey, Kerzman, Nottestad) - Would allow individuals who are 16 years of age and older who have not taken the hunter education course to be issued an apprentice hunter validation, entitling them to hunt small game and deer for only one license year in a lifetime. Passed senate 47-0 with an emergency clause. Bill in house.

SB 2264 - (Sen's Klein, Erbele, Heckaman; Rep's Damschen, DeKrey, Weisz) - Would create a season-long nonresident small game license for $170, with $40 designated for the PLOTS program. Passed senate 26-19. Bill in house, referred to HNRC.

The SB bill will be voted in the House and the HB bills voted in the Senate.

*You get to set the future course of hunting in your state. Email will not cut it. CALL. To leave messages for legislators dial toll-free 888-635-3447.*


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

This stuff will continue to fly as long as its waterfowl and small game...

I don't know how to convince the deer only crowd that they are next on the commercial radar...Sadly most the deer only crowd don't care


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

It appears that the legislators have all ready made up their minds to pass 1226 & 2264. I don't believe all the resident opposition in the world will affect this one. It's all about the cash NR will spend in state...

Ok Rose-Man, I'll bite on your avatar. Your going to have to tell me the signifigance next time you're at the LEC...


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

That avatar is Mcluvin from superbad it was his fake id. Great movie just dont watch it with any kids around


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

> HB 1567 - (Rep's Kasper, Griffin, Hofstad, Ruby, Schneider) - Clarifies that a guide or outfitter license is not required for a person who acts as a booking agent for an outfitter. A booking agent is defined as a person who receives only a fee for referring or marketing the services of a legal outfitter in this state. Passed house 87-4, emergency clause carried. Bill in senate.


Dick,

What was the previous conditions in regards to booking agents? What will this law change? Was it illegal before for a booking agent to book hunts for an outfitter? Because I've seen booking agents promote hunts in ND for a long time.

I'd like some clarification before I contact my reps. My questions on the other thread haven't been answered.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=66173


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Matt Jones, 1567 is nothing more than clarifying what and what can't be done. The reason this came about was because someone started outfitting in Barnes County and Dick Monson didn't like it. Originally the language was unclear, it has since been set in stone what and what can't be done. This is a good bill and will pass big time even Dick Monson's rep voted for it along with Todd Porter.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Matt, in answer to your question, yes 1567 has been changed since inception, however it still open to ammendment in the Senate. The door is still open. It was uneccessary then and now. The stragety behind these bills above is to gain any advantage even if minimal. If it is neutered, nothing lost, but if ammended to increase outfitting the gain is tremendous for them. Look at 2264, originally a low ball license that gained legitimacy by raising the price a couple bucks. Now it's a good idea? 2165 to open the world of hunting to "new" hunters........with an emergency clause to put it into immediate effect? Excuse me I don't think so.
How many of you want or trust ND hunting law written by a handfull of outfitters?  Because these bills were.

I do not believe they have your best interests at heart.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> How many of you want or trust ND hunting law written by a handfull of outfitters? Because these bills were.


Sure would nice if you could tell the truth once Dick, you must be really be desperate. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

g/o,
I can remember when you supported out Delta chapter here in Fargo. I was leery of your support then, but the "powers that be" told me you were on our side. Unfortunately, I see now what I feared before is true. You are nothing more than a pimp for the outfitters and guides. At one time, you were the "model" of an outfitter - using only your own land and supporting youth hunting. I guess the money angle finally prostituted you too. Too bad, you could have made a difference.
Jim


----------



## Boonedog (Sep 10, 2006)

How can g/o be a pimp and a whore at the same time? I guess it could be like the guy who opened up a whore house and had to run it by hand until he could get some girls hired.



> In the 2001 legislative session the Sportsman's Alliance brought forward a bill to cap NR waterfowl hunter numbers that were feeding outfitter expansion. They were the first to recognize an alarming expansion of commercialized hunting for that species that was squeezing out North Dakotans


After the non-res waterfowl license went to $85 instead of $15 if they already had a small game license, the number of non-res licenses has not been above the 30,000 that it was capped for one year, I have to admit I don't remember which year that was. Capped or not it would not impact the few hundred waterfowl hunters that use an outfitter. The vast majority of the non-res waterfowlers come from Minnesota and Wisconsin


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

jhegg said:


> g/o,
> I can remember when you supported out Delta chapter here in Fargo. I was leery of your support then, but the "powers that be" told me you were on our side. Unfortunately, I see now what I feared before is true. You are nothing more than a pimp for the outfitters and guides. At one time, you were the "model" of an outfitter - using only your own land and supporting youth hunting. I guess the money angle finally prostituted you too. Too bad, you could have made a difference.
> Jim


WOW?????? I guess anything goes in the Hot Topics???????? :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

jhegg said:


> g/o,
> I can remember when you supported out Delta chapter here in Fargo. I was leery of your support then, but the "powers that be" told me you were on our side. Unfortunately, I see now what I feared before is true. You are nothing more than a pimp for the outfitters and guides. At one time, you were the "model" of an outfitter - using only your own land and supporting youth hunting. I guess the money angle finally prostituted you too. Too bad, you could have made a difference.
> Jim


Jim, what has changed about G/O?? Nice slap at the guys that ran the Delta Fargo chapter as well. That is a real cheap shot at G/O and at Monte and I as well. You basically are telling people that we are whores as well. What are you doing for the envioronment these days Jim?? What are you doing for the state of ND? Drinking beer with your buddies??? That will get a lot accomplished!! :eyeroll: 
G/O and I don't always agree on all topics, ask him. We butt heads on many occasions and on many topics, but there are few people that care for the enviornment as much as he does and there are few that understand it as well as he does. He deserves better than to be slandered here from anyone that cares to throw out that kind of worthless drivel!!! Ver weak Jim!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I hope you all read and think about these simple words:

"no ones right when everyones wrong"

How about you all starting over with things you agree upon. Then when you have established a positive starting point introduce one idea at a time and stick to it until an agreement has been reached. Then with the new concessions move forward to the next idea. :beer:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Boonedog said:


> the number of non-res licenses has not been above the 30,000 that it was capped for one year, I have to admit I don't remember which year that was.


The year the cap was in place was a joke. It was a meager effort meant to "shut us up" rather than really accomplish anything. They did the math, looked at the records, and found that on average, we get roughly 30,000 NR waterfowlers a year (I think the year before the cap we had 28,000 or so NR waterfowlers), so what do they do, put the cap right at our average. :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

SB 2165.....what is so bad about this bill? It allows people to hunt with out take the hunter course and on an apprentice basis for one year. So if they want to hunt after that they need to take the course. It is a way to introduce hunting to people who might not do it otherwise. Think about it. It would allow someone to bring a step son, son, grand child (older than 16) over to hunt with them. I see more people using this bill that are not using a guide than ones that would.

Or am I not getting the big picture on this one?

SB 2264......is a good bill but the price needs to be higher. Like $250. Think of it $250 is about what 3 of the licenses would cost and that would allow a person to hunt 6 weeks straight.

Don't people want more money to go towards PLOTS? People talk about loss of access? How about R hunters still get to hunt PLOTS for a week before NR. That would not change....even though a NR would contribute more if they purchased this license.

HB 1216.....This will help the commercial people. But it will also help town economies. Because the people who don't hire guides would be more apt to make another trip back to there destination.

******* Disclaimer******** I know the people who live in the towns make the economy go. But the little extra always helps.

Also the only one that has to do with waterfowl is the SB 2165. But again that is just a one shot deal. Like i said I see more people who don't use guide taking advantage of that. I know of buddies that want to go with me but don't have the hunters ed. I tell them to just take the class and they can come. But they are too lazy.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Chuck, I believe 2264 (season long upland license) does not give the owners of ND wildlife remotely true value for pheasants. We have roughly a 3 month season, yet NDGF gets a fraction of the license money per hunter compared to SD. Why so low? More money for PLOTS sounds good but the impedement for signing up is not money but unwilling landowners, IMO. The high use areas are the least likely to sign land into PLOTS, yet the CVBs from those areas are the louodest in demanding more hunters at a reduced price.

1216 is no different. Tom Sawyer is painting the fence with labor from CVBs. And ND is getting robbed.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> Don't people want more money to go towards PLOTS? People talk about loss of access? How about R hunters still get to hunt PLOTS for a week before NR. That would not change....even though a NR would contribute more if they purchased this license.


Money isnt the issue with PLOTS. The state has EXCESS funds available for PLOTS. We need more landowners willing to put the land into the program, so we can use some of the EXCESS funds that we already have for the program. 
So the "more money for PLOTS" is a moot point in relation to 2264.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dan,

I don't think anything has changed with g/o. He has always been aligned with the guides and outfitters and probably always will. What is his official position with the outfitters group? That and his availability to always support the despicable actions by those in his profession tells me very clearly where he stands on these issues.

Read that to be:
"Resident be damned - we want our cut of the wildlife resources".

As far as a "cheap shot" at you and Monte and Delta - where in the hell did that come from? Could it be that you are licking too much off the g/o plate and feel a need to defend it?

I don't feel that I threw a cheap shot at anyone, but apparently voicing an opinion that doesn't agree with yours is automatically a "cheap shot". So be it.

Jim Heggeness


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

2264.....this bill is ok. but needs to just be at a higher price...like i mentioned ($250 or more). One thing with the up coming fall is crop prices are going to be a fraction of what they were last fall. If you increase the $$$'s for PLOTS more people in the economic situation our country is in could help enroll more land if the price is higher. Also many NR hunters who don't use guides look for PLOTS area's and go to those destinations. I have done it many times. Get the PLOTS book and just drive.

1216.......now all it is doing is adding an extra day. Like I said I can see how it will help the commercial operations. But I also see it helping the free lance hunter as well. one thing like I have mentioned before is have one of the 5 day periods be after dec 1. or what ever date. Here is another thing....the people using guides will go down. People won't beable to afford the $100 a day per gun fee.

So if a person (average person) who used a guide now wants to hunt and has had some financial cuts.....will they pay $100 a day....that is $400 every trip. Plus lodging, food, etc.

What I am getting at is that these bills in my eyes have more positives than negatives if they get tweaked a little.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> but the "powers that be" told me


Who was that aimed at then Jim???? :eyeroll:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dan,
I wasn't "aiming" at anybody. The "chapter" agreed to accept g/o as a sponsor, and we did. His actions after that led me to believe that he was not aligned with the ND resident hunter. Like it or not, that's all there was to it.
Jim


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> If you increase the $$$'s for PLOTS more people in the economic situation our country is in could help enroll more land if the price is higher.


Chuck, no offense, but what part about money not being the issue for PLOTS don't you get? Its a tired old argument with no merit when it comes to PLOTS.

If I remember correctly the state had roughly 1.2 million in SURPLUS PLOTS funds in 2007, and Ive heard of close to that number other years. We don't need MORE MONEY for it, we need the WILLINGNESS OF THE LANDOWNERS to enroll the land into it. This bill, will do nothing towards enticing landowners into enrolling in this program.

This bill (2264), this "added NR money" towards PLOTS, will NOT help get more land into PLOTS. There is no way the state will be able to match even mediocre commodity prices for this land. And besides that, the good hunting land, the CRP, the "trashy" land not greatly suited towards agricultural production, the land dotted with multiple potholes making agriculture a "headache" are ALREADY IN THE PROGRAM.

Sorry to burst your bubble.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

barebackjack said:


> Chuck Smith said:
> 
> 
> > If you increase the $$$'s for PLOTS more people in the economic situation our country is in could help enroll more land if the price is higher.
> ...


Not to sidetrack this thread, but BBJ I disagree. My understanding (from what Bob K also said) is that it isn't about more money that isn't being used... but rather that the amounts being offered aren't matching market rental rates and/or lease rates for a given area. It isn't so much that the interest isn't there. It's that the interest isn't there given what ND G&F is willing to pay. Hence we might have MORE PLOTS if only they'd offer higher compensation rates for prime PLOTS acres.

They just need to develop a better formula that provides escalated rate levels for high interest areas that have a higher birds/acre level and/or more hunter hours than somewhere more remote with fewer birds.

Correct me if I'm mistaken please?

edit: and if true.. I might further add that I agree with Chuck. If those additional funds mean that we will start using them!

I've suggested in other threads that we should have an additional Temp PLOTS program that is a potential compromise solution that would entice farmers to temporarily offer hunting access for 1-3 months per year, provided that they meet stricter criteria for providing super prime access in specific targeted areas with the highest bird populations. Maybe we also require that daily permission be acquired in writing from each farmer with those special acres enrolled, so that (if they wanted via a "Contact Me" designation) they could meet those wanting that daily access, if only to get names/vehicle licenses for liability purposes.

If we worked with farmers to learn what their hesitation is to providing the access, we'd go a long way towards getting more acres enrolled.

Or so it seems to me..


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

barebackjack said:


> Chuck Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Don't people want more money to go towards PLOTS? People talk about loss of access? How about R hunters still get to hunt PLOTS for a week before NR. That would not change....even though a NR would contribute more if they purchased this license.
> ...


I'll agree to an extent but I'll disagree also. I really think that not enough land owners get asked to put land into plots. I really think there are a fair share of land owners that would be willing to put land into plots. A big thing also you can't forget is a lot of crp has been taken out and the state hasn't been pushing hard to cycle pieces of land back into crp. Crop prices are moderate right now, but in this day and age there are quite a bit of aggressive growers taking a lot of land out of crp. I think the state has to get more aggressive and form more relationships with land owners.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

bretts said:


> I really think that not enough land owners get asked to put land into plots.


You would really have to be living under rock to not be aware of the program. Its a two way street, part of which is on the state in being pro-active in gaining land for this program, and part of which is landowners willing to enroll in the program. I maintain, if a landowner wants to be in the program, he doesn't need to be asked, he will do it on his/her own accord. Everyone is well aware of the program.



R y a n said:


> it isn't about more money that isn't being used... but rather that the amounts being offered aren't matching market rental rates and/or lease rates for a given area.


That doesn't change the fact that its not a matter of not having enough money, the state already has plenty of money for this program, they may not be offering a fair value for land enrolled in this program given commodity prices, I see these as two separate issues. Doesn't matter if they have 1.2 million or 2.1 million, if their not offering enough to the landowner, their not going to get additional acres enrolled.

Now, if this bill was amended to include more money available to the PLOTS program WHILE increasing PLOT payments, I would still be against it. I think even $250 for a season pass for NR's is too cheap. This bill (2264) is nothing more than whoring out our resources for the cabbage.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

1216 is not just adding another day. It is turning 2 hunting periods into 3 for the same price, $85 base price. So 6 ND hunting periods would cost $170, while the same amount of time in SD = $300. We are getting screwed price wise on both 2264 and 1216.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

I hear a lot of guys worrying about there hunting being taken away due to land access problems with guides and outfitters. And, the argument is that the average guy can not go out and hunt like they used to. With this economy (which will not turn around anytime soon even though I hope it does) and declining hunter numbers you guys want to raise NR tags to stupid amounts of money. Personally I believe they are pretty good right now. Not saying I wouldn't like to see them lower but who doesn't want to get more bang for there buck.

While trying to protect the hunting privileges of the common guy you are turning your back on those very people. MOST of the guys that come to your state to hunt are average guys who pay their money, hunt, and leave. You never know they are there. A few pay high bucks to hunt or buy access.
Just like probably most ND hunters like to freelance and just hunt and a few make people pay for access.

Put a reasonable cap on the number leave the prices alone. I see a lot of talk about charging NRs more for access yet they can hunt that land they pay access for less than a Resident. Why not offer to Raise your licenses and access fees.

$250 for a season pass is not enough come on...while you pay what $20.00

Also a 3-5day period would probably have guys in your state for three short trips and not two long ones or maybe it will bring a little more money to the state


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

Dick Monson said:


> The question before us is do we preserve hunting for the common folk or commercial hunting operations? They are fire and water in the same bowl and only one will survive.
> 
> SB 2165 - (Sen's Krauter, Lyson; Rep's Damschen, DeKrey, Kerzman, Nottestad) - Would allow individuals who are 16 years of age and older who have not taken the hunter education course to be issued an apprentice hunter validation, entitling them to hunt small game and deer for only one license year in a lifetime. Passed senate 47-0 with an emergency clause. Bill in house.
> 
> *You get to set the future course of hunting in your state. Email will not cut it. CALL. To leave messages for legislators dial toll-free 888-635-3447.*


And what exactly does this have to do with "preserving hunting for the common folk...."

*I happen to think this is a great idea. My 27 year old sister for some reason wanted to go hunting this year for the first time. She couldn't get her Firearm Safety in time so she bought this apprentice license...which the apprentice has to be accompanied by a legally licensed adult, and must purchase those licenses. She went and enjoyed it enough she is finishing hunters ed and even asked for a shotgun to hunt with next fall.

OH MAN what a threat to the average joe......*

If your problem is with G/Os deal with them. There are many G/Os that work hard and honestly in all states of this nation remember that. Put pressure on enforcement.

There are many Non-Residents, Residents and/or "COMMON FOLK" that these things affect so make sure every angle is looked at to protect those people.

Sounds like people want the game to themselves at times (not all the time and not everyone mind you)


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

Bustem36 said:


> Dick Monson said:
> 
> 
> > The question before us is do we preserve hunting for the common folk or commercial hunting operations? They are fire and water in the same bowl and only one will survive.
> ...


--Hunting is a privledge, if a person wants to tag along to hunt well that's awesome, show them why you hunt and hopefully you have some great hunting action. If that person wants it bad enough, well then they will go to hunter safety. Work for something, not everything needs to be spoon fed. If she didn't have her hunters safety in time, well, that's poor planning nothing else. Safety is and should be the number one concern to all hunters. Hence why we have hunters safety.


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

jhegg said:


> That and his availability to always support the despicable actions by those in his profession tells me very clearly where he stands on these issues. Jim Heggeness


Do you feel that G/O's position of everybody deserves their day in court is actual support of despicable actions???


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Dick if you like SD's laws so much why not move there? :lol: 
And for the rest of you that like other states laws better you would be much happier where you fit in. A majority of us don't want to be like some other state. Lets just keep going forward we will be just as screwed up as the rest of the states plenty soon enough. :beer:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

bretts said:


> Bustem36 said:
> 
> 
> > Dick Monson said:
> ...


Exactly!! Why does everybody think that when they bring a new person to tag along on the hunt they HAVE to shoot? I went on as many hunts as a little kid just tagging along watching and learning as I have as an adult and actually done some shooting. They dont NEED to shoot to enjoy the hunt. And perhaps, this bill will teach the wrong values, that you NEED to shoot stuff to enjoy hunting.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

ABsolutely BBJ, I agree. Very well said!!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Bustem36 said:


> I hear a lot of guys worrying about there hunting being taken away due to land access problems with guides and outfitters. And, the argument is that the average guy can not go out and hunt like they used to. With this economy (which will not turn around anytime soon even though I hope it does) and declining hunter numbers you guys want to raise NR tags to stupid amounts of money. Personally I believe they are pretty good right now. Not saying I wouldn't like to see them lower but who doesn't want to get more bang for there buck.
> 
> While trying to protect the hunting privileges of the common guy you are turning your back on those very people. MOST of the guys that come to your state to hunt are average guys who pay their money, hunt, and leave. You never know they are there. A few pay high bucks to hunt or buy access.
> Just like probably most ND hunters like to freelance and just hunt and a few make people pay for access.
> ...


I shouldnt be suprised, after all, you are a NR. So what your saying is, you dont even want us to pimp out our resource, you want us to be the easy chick that gives it away for free? :eyeroll:

Thats exactly what this does. It makes a "special" license, one which you DONT HAVE TO BUY. Than it gives it away for pennies. I say, make the damn season long license AT LEAST $500. That way, the average guys can buy their regular license (ya know, they cant afford to make multiple trips anyway) and the rich fat cats can flex their money muscle by shelling out the dough for the "special" license and create some REAL state revenue.

The following isnt directed at you bustem.

NR's have had it to good in ND for to long. We are relatively cheap in our licenses, we dont impose number limits like our neighbor to the south, and generally, are pretty damn accomodating to NR hunters (come on, a statewide waterfowl license for $125? :eyeroll: ). NR hunters, that for one reason or another come to our state to hunt, come for a reason, these reasons vary, either theyve already destroyed to much habitat in their own state, over hunted it to death, or allowed their wildlife resource to become commercialized to the point of pricing most out of the sport or at least making it very difficult. Well, ALL OF THESE THINGS are happening here, RIGHT NOW! We are trying to do something about it lest ND end up like some of the very states you guys come from. Yet, when we try to impose restrictions, to thwart the threats that are looming for hunting in our state, the NR's scream their heads off calling it unfair, greedy, and a host of other things. We're doing it for a reason people! Its not to be mean, or greedy. We're trying to preserve something here, so that I, a resident, and you, a non-resident can partake of what we have here for many years to come. Im sorry, but restrictions must be made, "average joes" may get priced out of "special" licenses, you may not all get to come here every year, you may not get to hunt the entire state, etc etc. And like it or not, NR opportunities should be given up before resident opportunities. Dont like it? MOVE HERE! Become a resident. If not, shut up!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Maybe if we keep the costs down for the NR's just maybe a few might either return to ND to live and even more may just pack up and move here. We don't have nice weather to offer but we do have plenty of wildlife to go around so that is a calling card we should use. Oh that's right we have been!

Is it really that hard for you Residents to get your limits that you need to fence yourselves in so to speak?


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

barebackjack said:


> bretts said:
> 
> 
> > Bustem36 said:
> ...


I also went on many hunts without a gun when I was younger...then before I could get my Hunters Saftey I shot ducks and geese with a shotgun and that limit went towards my fathers licenses (which was legal at the time not sure if it still is). This license is a one year once in a lifetime item. Again those "apprentice hunters" must be accompanied by a legally licensed adult. Nobody is getting spoon fed. Isn't youth deer hunting and waterfowl hunting days spoon feeding? Set aside a special day or weekend so kids can get out and shoot stuff.....Would you be against letting these apprentice hunters participate on those days?

And, it is still hunting. Just because she carried a gun doesn't mean shes learning the lesson that you need to shoot something. AND, that mentality is not learned from programs like this...that mentality is learned from hunting with people that have that mentality. People learn it or develop it from people coming on the internet or making hunting videos where all the harp on is shooting your limit we killed this many or that many.

It gave her the chance. She would have been fine with just going along but I noticed the apprenticeship program and told her she might as well do it. She carried a gun just like many if not all of us did when we were very young she just happened to be 27.

And, when did it become so bad to introduce people to hunting and open opportunities for people?

And saftey is an individual thing...Yes, I believe to hunt on your own at will you should be required to take hunter saftey. But, I have hunted with people and chose not to hunt with people that have gone through Hunters Saftey that I will never be caught hunting with again. Just because they took the class doesn't mean they are safe by anymeans.

And now I ask you again how does this preserve hunting for "COMMON FOLK"


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

buckseye said:


> Dick if you like SD's laws so much why not move there? :lol:
> And for the rest of you that like other states laws better you would be much happier where you fit in. A majority of us don't want to be like some other state. Lets just keep going forward we will be just as screwed up as the rest of the states plenty soon enough. :beer:


 :beer: Exactly


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

On the issue of the surplus.....What I hear from farmers is that they are not offered enough money for PLOTS that they can make of the land two ways.....rent and farming it. It the $$ was closer to that rate they would.

So if there is a 1.2 mill in surplus...why not raise the rate. My uncle ownes 400 acres. 200 is enrolled into PLOTS and CRP. when his CRP contract is up he is seriously looking at taking it out of the program because he can make more money by renting it. Like he does with the other 200 acres. The he is getting less than the average rental rate for that area too.

He is a NR land owner that bought land for an investment. So looking at his investment why wouldn't he try to capitalize on it. Now if lets say they raised his PLOTS re-enbursment up a couple of $$'s he may keep it in effect.

So the $$$ agruement is valid.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> On the issue of the surplus.....What I hear from farmers is that they are not offered enough money for PLOTS that they can make of the land two ways.....rent and farming it. It the $$ was closer to that rate they would.
> 
> So if there is a 1.2 mill in surplus...why not raise the rate. My uncle ownes 400 acres. 200 is enrolled into PLOTS and CRP. when his CRP contract is up he is seriously looking at taking it out of the program because he can make more money by renting it. Like he does with the other 200 acres. The he is getting less than the average rental rate for that area too.
> 
> ...


Only from the standpoint that the state isnt paying enough, NOT that there isnt enough money.

Like ive said before, this bill would do nothing towards increasing payments, only increase funds for the program, which isnt the problem. We have plenty of money, the money is no good if the state isnt willing to stay competitive with commodity markets or cash rent markets as low payments will not coerce more land into the program. What we would end up with, is a larger surplus of money for the program, but no extra land in the program. Seperate issues.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Now on adding the extra day.......I agree it will cause 3 five day periods. Then 6 five day periods for $185. you forgot the other fees that a NR is required to purchase as well.

But I do understand that totally.

But like I mentioned before I like the proposed bill. But it needs to be tweaked. Make one of the 5 day periods be after dec. 1.

They can purchase another lics....but can only use 10 days of it again. So it would be 4 five day periods for $185. this would be less days hunting than is allowed now.

I have been saying this all along. People would rather just shoot down bills instead of tweaking them for the good of all. This gives the Average NR hunter another day or three trips if needed. The average NR hunter does not buy 2 licenses. The average NR hunter spends 1 week as of now out there....two weekends at the most.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Only from the standpoint that the state isnt paying enough, NOT that there isnt enough money.


Now is this a problem? People talk about not enough public access......if funds are not being spent then that is a huge problem!!!

I understand not to deplete the funds so that if the funds don't show up the next year you can keep the same. But 1.2 mill. you could use 1/2 of that. With this economy people will look for $$'s.

I understand people just don't want NR hunting year round. They think it will ruin "their" hunting experience. I totally am for preserving the R over the NR. But this really does not do that. Because the NR hunter can purchase as many small game license they want.

Like I have stated......good bill but needs tweaking.

1. *higher price.*

Make it cost as much as 3 licenses. That is 6 weeks of hunting. Most NR wont hunt 6 weeks. Because Deer season in the home state will be happening in that time period, along with holidays, etc.

2. *With Higher Price.....more allocated for PLOTS.*

$40 is good it is 3 times greater than what would be as the law is now. But it could be more.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was just picking threw this whole thread and it was interesting. I thought I would throw in some quotes I liked. They came from both sides, with many ---- well most had good points. I think we all need to heed the last two quotes. 
I will make one comment. Ryan you said we need to pay more and match rental/lease fee. That is not reasonable at all. The landowners still get full use of their land. They get full CRP payment, or they hay it, or the pasture it, or they even raise corn on it. They get full income from their property, the PLOTS is simply supplemental. Some come close, but there is still only one profession where you can sell your product and still have it.



> The question before us is do we preserve hunting for the common folk or commercial hunting operations? They are fire and water in the same bowl and only one will survive.





> I don't know how to convince the deer only crowd that they are next on the commercial radar...Sadly most the deer only crowd don't care





> How many of you want or trust ND hunting law written by a handfull of outfitters?





> The year the cap was in place was a joke. It was a meager effort meant to "shut us up" rather than really accomplish anything.





> I'll agree to an extent but I'll disagree also. I really think that not enough land owners get asked to put land into plots.





> Lets just keep going forward we will be just as screwed up as the rest of the states plenty soon enough.





> Exactly!! Why does everybody think that when they bring a new person to tag along on the hunt they HAVE to shoot?





> So what your saying is, you dont even want us to pimp out our resource, you want us to be the easy chick that gives it away for free?





> If I remember correctly the state had roughly 1.2 million in SURPLUS PLOTS funds in 2007, and Ive heard of close to that number other years. We don't need MORE MONEY for it, we need the WILLINGNESS OF THE LANDOWNERS to enroll the land into it.





> Not to sidetrack this thread, but BBJ I disagree. My understanding (from what Bob K also said) is that it isn't about more money that isn't being used... but rather that the amounts being offered aren't matching market rental rates and/or lease rates for a given area.





> How about you all starting over with things you agree upon. Then when you have established a positive starting point introduce one idea at a time and stick to it until an agreement has been reached. Then with the new concessions move forward to the next idea.





> We're doing it for a reason people! Its not to be mean, or greedy. We're trying to preserve something here, so that I, a resident, and you, a non-resident can partake of what we have here for many years to come.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> 2. *With Higher Price.....more allocated for PLOTS.*


I agree, but there needs to be an amendment to increase the PLOT payments than too.

And Plainsman makes an EXCELLENT point. The land in PLOTS isnt taken out of production. If its crop, the owner keeps the crop. If its CRP, the owner still gets their CRP check, gets to hay it, graze it, or whatever. So, the PLOT payment is mostly just a "thank you" for allowing hunter access on that piece of ground. Now, does that need to be competitive with other markets? Its really a "good will" offering. On both ends. In essence, its the state acting as an outfitter by providing private land to hunt on.

Not to hack on the landowner, but some out there think we need to bow down to those who enroll in this program, when in fact their kind of having their cake and eating it too. Its not like their going "above and beyond", they have a pretty good deal going in this program as well.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

My question is.......

Does Plot payments need to be a bill or can the division who runs it can make that decision?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> My question is.......
> 
> Does Plot payments need to be a bill or can the division who runs it can make that decision?


Good question.

If it doesnt take a legislative act, than any bill with extra PLOT funds going in it, should have a clause stating that the extra PLOT funds will only be allowed IF the agency in control of PLOT funding ups its payments. Or something to that effect.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

BBJ.....

It is a supplement. But with CRP payments lower than rental rates the "bonus" of PLOTS helps to keep CRP alive and running. Yes they can hay it (I don't agree with this) but haying is to supplement or divert the cost of purchasing hay or putting land into pasture for cattle.

Off subject...but ...

I also agree that the PLOTS program needs to be revamped a little too. The payment for crop or pasture land should be less than for CRP, wetland restortation, catails, etc. Yes the animals are feeding off the crop but again that is a cake and eat it too. But with CRP it is habitat for everything.

But again little off subject.


----------



## tlr (Feb 20, 2008)

I think that the PLOTs payment should be high enough in addition to the crp payment in order to entice the land owner to keep it in crp instead of taking it out and putting it backunder the plow.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Or like Chuck said, make the PLOT payments for CRP higher than say crop or pasture to help entice maintaining that ground in CRP.

I think we need a new thread for this subject.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> My question is.......
> 
> Does Plot payments need to be a bill or can the division who runs it can make that decision?


NDGF can set the payment through Administrative Rules if I am not mistaken. Payment is currently based upon the Quality of the land for providing habitat.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

This from the HB-1216 thread in Legislative Topics. 
*Bob Kellam said:*


> *Chair Lyson offered an amendment in committee after the hearing, and the committee voted to adopt the amendment, to include waterfowl in the bill.
> 
> The waterfowl hunters need to know and to react. Next stop for the bill is conference. There is no more opportunity for public comment*.


Boys, you need to pay attention here. That NR upland bill just got ammended to include *waterfowl.* !!!!!!!! You need to seriously get involved. Sign up for that etree below. Then follow the course of action.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I assume this is in the Senate right now...so senators are the ones that need to be contacted?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Yes, ultimately the senate will vote on the bill, regardless how the conference committee decides the amendment. Waterfowl, now there's a surprise.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> Chuck, I believe 2264 (season long upland license) does not give the owners of ND wildlife remotely true value for pheasants. We have roughly a 3 month season, yet NDGF gets a fraction of the license money per hunter compared to SD. Why so low? More money for PLOTS sounds good but the impedement for signing up is not money but unwilling landowners, IMO. The high use areas are the least likely to sign land into PLOTS, yet the CVBs from those areas are the louodest in demanding more hunters at a reduced price.


There is the potential for this to be counter productive. If numbers of NRs increase so does the competition for access which lends itself to "fee" hunting. There could come a point where access fees would equal or exceed plot payments and it's not hard to see what could happen. An extra $50 for plots doesn't do any good if nobody wants to be in the program.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against NRs. And their dollars definitely frost the cake for many small towns but at the same time their impact is not as dependable as the locals. When the game is gone so are the NR's and it will be the residents that steady the boat...unless they have already been pushed overboard.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> When the game is gone so are the NR's and it will be the residents that steady the boat...unless they have already been pushed overboard.


And 1216 (2 seven day periods to 3 five day periods-same price)was amended yesterday by Senate Natural Resources Committee to include* waterfowl*. Vote 6 YEA, 1 NAY.
Make those contacts to your state senator for a NO vote on this bill.

Just a bit ago we were told by commercializers that a bill was rock solid and nothing to worry about. 1216 is a good example of what can happen when a bill gets amended and is now circling the drain. 

Contact info:
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=63683


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

I dont believe this bill was amended because of an afterthought. Lyson and the outfitters had this planned all along. How do you like your commercial buddies now fellas. They are greedy, just like the big boys on wall street. They dont give a **** about the residents or unguided nonresidents. The nonresidents that support this are just like kids turned loose in the candy store. They will eat and eat until they get sick and puke on everything.They wont be happy until this like most states, you gotta pay to play.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The day I have to pay is the day I become an anti-hunter.Why should I care if some yahoo with deep pockets wants to pay some G/O to shoot a public resource.I will also spend a lot more time fishing,since most waters are owned by the public.

Hopefully it won't come to that before I get to old.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

What is the 1-800 number to call the legislative office to contact my senator? Could someone post it? Thank You


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> *You get to set the future course of hunting in your state. Email will not cut it. CALL. To leave messages for legislators dial toll-free 888-635-3447.*


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> I have nothing against NRs. And their dollars definitely frost the cake for many small towns but at the same time their impact is not as dependable as the locals. *When the game is gone so are the NR's and it will be the residents that steady the boat...unless they have already been pushed overboard*.


Wow, very well said!!!!


----------



## Buck25 (Mar 27, 2008)

> NR hunters, that for one reason or another come to our state to hunt, come for a reason, these reasons vary, either theyve already destroyed to much habitat in their own state, over hunted it to death, or allowed their wildlife resource to become commercialized to the point of pricing most out of the sport or at least making it very difficult. Well, ALL OF THESE THINGS are happening here, RIGHT NOW! We are trying to do something about it lest ND end up like some of the very states you guys come from.


i don't know much about this stuff that is for sure. But some ND residents seem to think that North Dakota is the only state that gets non resident hunters. 
Ummm...well which states are doing so terrible as far as managing there outdoors?
Minnesota has a way higher population so yes it is gonna be harder for hunters to find land. Deer hunting has gone down the hole because of this i admit. But as far as pheasants goes ND and SD is pheasant country thats just the way it is. Just a guess but i'm think SD gets just as many or probably more NR pheasant hunters? As far as duck hunting goes if Mn was located in the center of the flyway north dakotans might want to come to Mn? just a thought..idk its just the way it is.
I go to school in ND and i get a resident license which i love. But i still hunt more in Mn then Nd...I love hunting in the god forsaken over populated filthy liberal lands of Mn.[/quote]


----------



## Jaybic (Sep 8, 2005)

In reference to BBJs comment about NRs coming to ND because they have already ruined hunting in their own state, I would say he left out a few reasons.

1. Simple change of scenery. Fun to hunt elsewhere
2. Dont have that particular critter in nearly the numbers because its different topography/geography.
3.Family and friends that are Residents.
4. Tournaments that they are INVITED to by Residents knowing full well its Residents who will win the tourny because they know the land much better and have much more land/permission.

I am sure there are other reasons.

I certainly can understand to some extent Resident frustration with NRs on some level. In Southern MN, I live in an area that produces more BIG bucks and better turkey hunting than almost anywhere else in MN and we have a huge problem with "outsiders" both RES and NRs coming in an setting up shop(particularly, Twin Cities city-slickers with lots of money and no manners or sense). We have some of the best fishing in the entire US and you can nearly walk across Lake Winnibigoshish on NR boats(some from ND would you believe).

Funny thing is, I can go to fishingminnesota.com forums and cannot find one post so rude and bashing to NRs as some of the ones I find here. Maybe what some of them really mean to say is, "We certainly want your money but we dont want you here!" Is this really the way it is?

I hope MN treats NRs better than how I see some NRs treated by ND resident posters on this forum. And to the NRs that go to ND and screw up and give me a bad name, I hope they throw the book at you and I will be happy to help any of the Nd residents badmouth you.

BBJ, I am not looking to have any issues with you and I respect many things that you post on some of the other forums and sites I frequent but I ask you kindly not to lump everyone in the same boat.

Do ND residents ever go out of state to hunt and fish and become NRs in that state? Would you want to be spoken of/to in that same nasty tone and manner that you used?

Jaybic
North Dakota NR and die-hard ND supporter.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

The simple way to fix this problem is just go and buy the land and open it up to the public if it is such a huge problem.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

My thoughts on access improvement:

1. Let gratis holders hunt unitwide. 
2. Allow the landowner to transfer the tag to a son/daughter (yes, even if he/she is a dreaded NR) gotta give a little to get .
3. No more depredation tags or monies without a public access easement
4. Land purchased for recreational use taxed be taxed more than agricultural land and the extra be used for plots. (Taxing a NR at 25% of land value annually outta add some money to the coffers.)

5. Let the state buy land for public use. ND could use more public land.

6. For God sakes, outlaw leasing of land for guiding and outfitting purposes. If you want to be a guide buy the land. I believe G/O owns the land he guides on.

I dont really have a problem with NRs that just come and hunt, its when they buy ND land. I also believe that we should lower the cost of a NR license (yup, I said it, lower) raising the price does nothing but discourage the average yahoo from tossing his kids in the truck and coming over for a couple weekends. IMO those are the folks I enjoy seeing. Average yahoo will get permission EVERY time from me, Others (the ones with the sign that is in my photo gallery and the like) not so much. Two 7 day periods seems like plenty to me, if they want more the answer is simple, move here.

As an aside, isnt being paid on a "per bird" basis selling wildlife. If they can sell them alive why cant I sell them (or parts thereof) dead?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

JDPete, I would only disagree with number1. Although many hunt unit wide already. The reason I disagree is that it's a problem already. You and I apply for elk, while the rich guys go buy a quarter of land and get a permit to shoot an elk every year. Something screwy is going on in the badlands because a guy buys land, gets and elk tag, the rancher still has all his cattle on the same land. I can't put my finger on the scam, but I know it's going on. If you let them hunt the whole unit you will never get an elk license. 
And speaking of depredation permits. I was shooting in a prairie dog town in the badlands one day and a fellow stopped and talked. He said he had shot three bull elk and his dad had shot three bull elk in the last ten years. When I was leaving I drove by his ranch and noticed his posted signs.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

How do you can you say the land is recretional or not. If it was me i would just rent it to a rancher and say he has cows out there. I just dont understand where people think it is ok for them to go out on peoples land like it is a right or some thing. If some one would come on your front yard park there truck and get out and have a picnic is that ok. You should have to get permission to go on anyones land. It is simple for the co's to enforce it in sd it is either yes or no. None of this sign every so often or what ever. I guess it ****** me off when people think they deserve to go on peoples land. I have worked hard to get access to land and being younger is extra hard. So instead of complaining about no land to hunt go do some work and make some conections.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

KurtR said:


> How do you can you say the land is recretional or not. If it was me i would just rent it to a rancher and say he has cows out there. I just dont understand where people think it is ok for them to go out on peoples land like it is a right or some thing. If some one would come on your front yard park there truck and get out and have a picnic is that ok. You should have to get permission to go on anyones land. It is simple for the co's to enforce it in sd it is either yes or no. None of this sign every so often or what ever. I guess it ticks me off when people think they deserve to go on peoples land. I have worked hard to get access to land and being younger is extra hard. So instead of complaining about no land to hunt go do some work and make some conections.


If you don't want someone on your land just post it. Doesn't take much to throw some signs on posts. Do it while checking fence. Get metal signs so they are there and legible year round. It's ok for people to go on other people's land because the law allows it and they don't post it.

I have asked permission for posted land and I've hunted non-posted land in ND without knowing who's land it was. I was perfectly legal. If a Farmer or Rancher doesn't want people on their land then they should post it. I've seen some huge properties posted and have posted large areas and it doesn't take much.

I don't believe that being young has anything to do with getting permission. Be (don't just act) mature, look respectable, and you'll be set. I have hunted several states by myself and just friends around the same age as me since I was 15. I'm now 23 and have only been turned down a couple times. 1 time the guy just didn't like hunters and the 2nd time the ladies son was hunting the land but she gave us permission to shoot any antlerless deer we wanted just no bucks. Both times in ND. Just guessing but I have probably gotten permission on around 25-30 different properties between SD ND MN WI. And only 2 NOs.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Plainsman, I should have added "in exchange for an access easement" to 1 and 2.

I didnt think of the Elk out west, the ability to get more than one tag should be scrapped in its entirety. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the intent was to throw the ranchers a bone in order to, hopefully, get access. Apparently it works like a square wheel. Maybe tie and access agreement to the big 3 gratis preference also. Nobody is forcing them to apply for the preferential tag, but in doing so, they agree to give also.

Kurt, it would be easy, just make it a box that is checked when registering the deed with the county. If 51% of the new owners income is not agriculturally based and the recreational box is not checked it is investigated. A NR buying CRP at an inflated price is recreational pure and simple. That land is no longer producing its potential income for the state of ND. It might also have the added benefit of lowering the land taxes for someone trying to make a living off the land by creating two different land tax brackets, and separating the agricultural value of the land versus what doctors and bankers are Willing to pay for recreation value. This should be done regardless of access.

Also, I have my OWN land to hunt. My brothers have thier OWN land to hunt. My folks have thier OWN land to hunt. My neibors hunt mine I hunt thiers. So dont tell me to go make connections ( I AM the connection) and I am NOT complaining. I do not think that folks have a right to do as they please with anothers property. Nobody is forcing anybody to do any of the things on my list, they are choices that are made and priveleges granted. I am, however, saying that the Game and Fish needs to cease any support or special priveleges that are not directly tied to access easements in writing and listed in the annual plots book.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Oh yea, it would need to be a felony to lie on the transfer form.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

jdpete75 said:


> My thoughts on access improvement:
> 
> 4. Land purchased for recreational use taxed be taxed more than agricultural land and the extra be used for plots. (Taxing a NR at 25% of land value annually outta add some money to the coffers.)
> 
> I dont really have a problem with NRs that just come and hunt, its when they buy ND land.


So if I am just running around hunting in ND I'm ok, but if I purchase land and hunt on it staying off countless other properties I turn into a negative?

We own around 800 acres in western ND. Same Rancher we bought it from runs cattle on a little of it, and some is leased out to a farmer. We have only hunted it twice since we bought it (about 4 years) cause we are letting it grow back a bit from over grazing. I guess that's unacceptable!?!


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Yes, it is unacceptable, you are a NR with recreational property in ND. You ARE a huge part of the problem. Nice story about renting it back to the rancher though.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Bustem36 said:


> jdpete75 said:
> 
> 
> > My thoughts on access improvement:
> ...


You took it wrong i completly think what you are doing is fine there should not be a penalty for buying land for your own purpose. What i was trying to say people are ****** they dont get to go on where ever they want to when they want to thats wrong. I am a few years older than you so doing what you say is what i would do but when some other kids have messed it up thats what makes them lery of giving more kids permission.

jdpete75 we dont have to post any thing in sd it is permisson only so that takes care of the posting problem. And your whole elk and deer system is messed up i think. We get elk in the custer state park once in a life time and out of the park if you draw you have to wait 15 years to apply agin so then it is usally 10 or more to draw and no such thing as gratis tags for elk here. sounds like what you want our g&f already does. And good for you for being the conection


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

I am not a big fan of it automaitcally being posted. The only (and I do really mean only) time I consider posting is when I have a gratis tag and I dont want a bunch of pheasant hunters running around pushing deer somewhere else. Now you see that I was being a little self serving in my first post. Other than that, I really dont care, have fun, please dont walk toward the house.

And I will clarify my distaste of money flush NRs buying ground for thier exclusive playtime. First of all they are direct competition in bidding. Second, for the money that they are willing to throw out a guy cant make it pay by planting it. Third, these inflated prices that get thrown around drive the assessed value af all the surrounding dirt up (unless you are selling, that is a bad thing). There needs to be two classifications of land and each taxed according to use and ownership.

Almost forgot, last but not least, every time a quarter (or whatever) is bought by an OOS interest, the loss of that quarter pushes the masses onto progressivly smaller areas. This increasess pressure on the still accessable areas, this creates even more posting and loss of access as those that were willing to let people out are forces to protect something for themselves before the masses stomp it to death.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

jdpete, Your assessment is spot on but your anger is misguided. IF your neighbors and others around the state had the same idea of not posting their land or had friendly signs up like ASK FIRST there would not be the perceived need for OOS hunters to buy land to hunt on. The two problem demographics I run into are the pay first landowners that have tied up all their land then hassle neighbors to do the same and the 'grandkids' 20 to 40 year olds that dont own the land but whine to grandpa to post everything because they think they are entitled to that land. Back in the 80's during the drought posted signs were rare. That generation of farmer still had the community spirit and respect for people regardless of where they lived. And in contrast we hunters were hunting because we loved the sport and the size of antlers or daily limits really didn't factor into the success. Now there are less hunters but competition has soared because we have had a change in crops and rain with mild winters. The antler size has increased and the pheasant numbers were high along with waterfowl numbers so we hunters aren't happy with just going anymore. We want to shoot the biggest and limit out everyday. We bounce from place to place chasing game without spending time having coffee with the farmer and just visiting.

They say these are the good ole days of hunting. But I'd rather have the game depleted 80's and the relationships that went with it than the game rich competition that hunting has become now.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

jdpete75 said:


> And I will clarify my distaste of money flush NRs buying ground for thier exclusive playtime. First of all they are direct competition in bidding. Second, for the money that they are willing to throw out a guy cant make it pay by planting it. Third, these inflated prices that get thrown around drive the assessed value af all the surrounding dirt up (unless you are selling, that is a bad thing). There needs to be two classifications of land and each taxed according to use and ownership.
> 
> Almost forgot, last but not least, every time a quarter (or whatever) is bought by an OOS interest, the loss of that quarter pushes the masses onto progressivly smaller areas. This increasess pressure on the still accessable areas, this creates even more posting and loss of access as those that were willing to let people out are forces to protect something for themselves before the masses stomp it to death.


Bet there are plenty of properties owned by parties from places like Bismark and Grand Forks just the same as NRs. Maybe not in the same numbers, I'm not sure, but don't drop it all on NRs or "OOS".

And posting doesn't always mean the loss of access. Look at the sign and call the number. I know a lot of people that just like to know who is on there property.


----------

