# Hunting By Nonresidents in Saskatchewan



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

Again, the Saskatchewan Outfitter's Association has a proposal in front of the now convened Sask. Legislature. The proposal would require that all nonresident waterfowl and upland hunters use the services of a guide to be able to hunt in the province. What a great way to reduce the number of "us" in Saskatchewan. Unless the Sask. Wildlife Federation and the tourism industry there really get involved, this could materialize. As I have been told, the Outfitter's Association is not that large in numbers, but has substantial funds to hire lobbyists to confront the Legislature for support of this. IF passed, the law would go into effect in 2007. I intend to chase this down further through some Sask. contacts, and will post any pertinent findings.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I'm told the driving force behind this is the continuous wanton waste being displayed by Americans, as well as countless misc. game violations. Every time some slob fills a dumpster, the media picks up on it. It makes everyone look bad and there's too many "shooters" going up there.

So I'm told that by requiring waterfowl hunting through a guide, it allows the hunters to be watched and regulated to ensure that laws aren't being broken.

This is really no different than the problems we have here in ND. Look at all the gross violations that pop up every fall.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Also would ensure the guides a ready supply of paying clients. Can't blame them. Different country, different rules..


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Chris Hustad said:


> So I'm told that by requiring waterfowl hunting through a guide, it allows the hunters to be watched and regulated to ensure that laws aren't being broken.
> 
> This is really no different than the problems we have here in ND. Look at all the gross violations that pop up every fall.


Except, here, its the guides doing the offending....

M.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This is strictly a money issue.They are using the violations situation as a crutch.

SERM is doing an economic phone survey.I was called last week.They want to know how much money you spent on motels,restuarants,gas,etc.And would you come back if G/O were required.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Will Minnesota sue?


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Canada is a different country Dick not a neigboring state of the union.
Mn and NoDak for that matter do not have much if anything invested in Canada. North Dakota and Minnesota do have tax dollars that do not recognize boundries in the way of CRP and government properties not to mention duck stamp dollars. 
I had nothing to do with the failed lawsuit.
It is interesting though that whenever Canada pulls something that affects the NoDakers interest in recreation there, you guys make a stink.
By the reasoning and logic that has gone on here for years, you guys should just shut up and mind your own business. If you want to go to Canada to hunt and they want you to hire a guide...hire one.
Or...
MOVE THERE!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

The difference is that the Canadian Gov is calling us to see what we think. Pawlenty let us know what he thought we should think.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bert if there was an emoticon for tounge in cheek I'd have posted it.  Should have gone with the smilie.

If I heard right the MN-ND case is being heard today, again.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

I don't recall any one from the ND fish and game calling NR to ASK how we felt (like Sask is doing). Pawlenty only sued AFTER he met with your governor and was TOLD what the new regulations would be.

This board is filled with hypocritical 'locals'. I'm not saying all are hypocrits but a lot of ND residents have voiced their opinions on here and it's funny how they don't like being treated the way they are treating others.

Bert, GREAT POST.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Oops, if I'd read farther I'd have seen Dan's post on that topic.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Dlt . . . thanks for keeping us posted. I don't think the change will be approved, but keep us posted. Also, would you please ask your friends in SK if there is anything we can do to keep it from happening.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> It is interesting though that whenever Canada pulls something that affects the NoDakers interest in recreation there, you guys make a stink.


Doesn't just effect ND, and it's not just ND (as for it shouldn't be)that's making a stink. The last thing ND wants is for people to have to come use a guide if you come to ND to hunt. WAY DIFFERENT!!!!



> Mn and NoDak for that matter do not have much if anything invested in Canada. North Dakota and Minnesota do have tax dollars that do not recognize boundries in the way of CRP and government properties not to mention duck stamp dollars


Don't forget that programs like

Deltawaterfowl and DU doesn't just stop at the border. Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, are also benefitting from these programs, which are funded by America.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Good Lord, if some of you had a Crayola 64 pack, it would be filled with 32 white and 32 black crayons - no shades in between.

If something like this was contemplated in ND, every R I know that has worked on "the issues" over the last number of years would be as opposed to to it as most NR's. Regardless the short-term benefits, _*in the long run it would be very counter-productive to require all NR's to use guides*_. In fact, in '03 there was a very poorly-worded bill sponsered by a very commercial-friendly legislator that sounded a lot like this, an *we worked *to (*successfully*) kill it.

Another proposal floating around Sask is to limit NR's to 6 days waterfowling per year. *I'm all for it*, and it would just as successfully eliminate a good share of the wanton waste there. It would send some of the hogs elsewhere and would generally reduce pressure (yes, there can be pressure in Sask). Sask is a wonderful place to waterfowl and some simple measures like this ahead of a full-frontal assult by the commercializers would ensure it remains a special free-lance destination and doesn't suffer the same degradation as ND.

I'd also be *all for *Sask imposing a cap something on the order of the NR waterfowlers today. It would also ensure that Sask remained a special waterfowling destination. If some years my ping-pong ball didn't float to the top, no sweat - small price to pay to preserve a top-notch resource available most years.

I don't drive to through all of ND to Sask in the heart of the waterfowling season for a change of scenery. I do it because it offers something virtually impossible to find in ND at that time: good, consistent, sane waterfowling. Anything Sask can do to preserve that, short of handing exclusivity to the shooter enablers, is fine by me!

Bert and Powder, where's the hypocracy in that?


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

Restrictions are restrictions. It doesn't matter what they are only that the goal is to limit the amount of poeple. Every time this argument comes up the first thing R's do is say 'it's not black and white' or 'we're comparing apples to oranges'. The fact is when all is said and done all hunters will be limited in the amount of time they get in the field. Therefore we are comparing the same things.



> I do it because it offers at that time something virtually impossible to find in ND at that time: good, consistent, sane waterfowling.


This is exactly what the NR's from other states are giving as a reason to hunt ND. To them, ND is that haven where they can get away from the more pressured areas of their home state. Right or wrong your current level (even with #'s on the rise) is considered sane to them.

Only a true hypocrit would be concerned that my post was directed specifically at them.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

I called the Tourism Bureau in SK about this issue. They said the SERM (SK's name for their Fish & Wildlife Branch) is looking for input on this issue. You can email your comments to them at this email address. I would recomend that if you hunt in SK you let them know how you feel on this issue.

[email protected]


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Restrictions are restrictions. It doesn't matter what they are only that the goal is to limit the amount of poeple.


 Actually your wrong there. Where is SK saying it will limit the numbers of NR. It is trying to get you to *hunt* with a *guide* when you go there, not limiting anyone except limiting how you hunt.

Yes this would probably bring less people up there to hunt, but it's still not limiting how many can come there.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

It's limiting by economics. Raise the price, fewer people will go. While it may not be their intended goal it will be an unintentional side affect.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

I must admit that I find it utterly ironic for any North Dakotan to want to tell another state (or in this case, province) how they should regulate their hunting and NR access!!!!!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> It's limiting by economics.


Yes but it's intention is not to limit!!!!
It is saying you have to PAY to PLAY....again putting a $ value on everything. Which means bad things for *you* and *me*.....


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

DLT,

Thanks for the input....it is something all people who travel to Canada to hunt should take a look at....because once it happens in one providence, others will follow. That could include fishing as well.

Cinder,

Thanks for the email address....I will get on it right away.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> Restrictions are restrictions


32 white and 32 black...



> Every time this argument comes up the first thing R's do is say 'it's not black and white' or 'we're comparing apples to oranges'.


It's really easy to argue issues when you can put them into only two simple buckets: (1) Restriction of any sort = bad; or (2) No restriction = good.



> This is exactly what the NR's from other states are giving as a reason to hunt ND. To them, ND is that haven where they can get away from the more pressured areas of their home state. Right or wrong your current level (even with #'s on the rise) is considered sane to them.


No arguments here, "pressure" and "sane hunting" are very subjective and relative terms. Waterfowling here sucks compared to what it was even as late as the late 90's. Recognizing that, I'd support anything Sask does to preserve its' quality, even some <gulp> restrictions, so long as they don't had the keys over to the guides - then I'm out.



> Only a true hypocrite would be concerned that my post was directed specifically at them.


Huh? Think you better hit Webster's real quick, because now you're really mixing up labels, definitions and slams. I personally invested time and effort to make sure guides didn't get any sort of exclusivity over NR's in ND. I'm opposed to guides in Sask getting exclusivity over NR's. I am all for caps and/or further day restrictions to cut down NR hunter days to reduce over-all pressure in ND. I would support and gladly accept similar actions in Sask - though it would <gulp> restrict my hunting there.

I could give a hoot at whom your comments are directed - just wanted to (again) point out the complete lack of logic that opposing o/g exclusivity in Sask (and in ND) and favoring NR hunter-day restrictions in ND (and in Sask) equates to hypocrisy - makes no sense.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

How did this post all of a sudden become a NR vs R of a ND issue......wow.

But I am going to throw my .02 cents in...(because I am bored)

I am from MN.....I would go along with a 6 day lisc in ND, I go along with the opener for R, I would go on setting a bag limit for NR.....that is all fine....but when people state about culling the # of Lisc, and stuff like that I cringe.....

Here is why.....You are playing into the hands of G/O's and also will have more people limiting access.....

Let me explain.

1. If you limit NR numbers some NR will buy land and post it and keep it a personal play ground (some do already but I know many who don't.)

2. If you limit #'s you will let the guides go to the state and get issued some of those NR lisc.....

Example: I am a guide and Run 4 fields where I can hold 6 hunters on each field.....I only use 3 fields a week or lisce period. SO I can have 18 hunters.....my book of business is all NR hunters. So I would need 162 lisc. to make my opperation work. If you start to limit the NR numbers way down....Like SD.....I will go to the state and demand you give me a portion of the NR lisc available to make my opperation work. Otherwise I will go belly up and have to leave the state. (state would not want a business going belly up if they can tax it.)

Now if the state passed a law stating you need X number of acres to get X number of NR lisc....well as an G/O I will go lease more land....less access.

Now I am all for restrictions for the good. But you have to be careful of how far is too far. SK is going way too far on this one and will see tourism dollars fall.


----------



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

Finally reached Darrell Crabbe, Executive Director of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, which is taking up a very active role in opposing the guide proposal by the outfitters. His comment was that "this confrontation with the Outfitter's has been brewing for several years and has finally come to a head". Evidently, this proposal was put forward by similar outfitter organizations in 3 provinces - - - Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Manitoba has "rejected" the idea; Alberta may very well go along with it; and Saskatchewan has a lot of "grass roots", small town opposition to it. My original post was inaccurate in that this has NOT reached the legislative stage yet. But it is being discussed with and promoted to Minister of Enviroment (under whose control this is), and whose office CAN introduce/recommend legislation to put this into law. The Sask. Wildlife Federation representatives will be meeting with the Provincial Government Cabinet the first week in April in an impromtu, one on one discussion to put forth the arguments against any guide requirements by the outfitters. Besides introducing an economic impact survey to this Cabinet, they intend to point out that IF the outfitters get this control, they will eliminate access (SOUND FAMILIAR?) to large blocks of land now availble to their own residents. Bottom line here at this point: YES!! They DO want those of us in the "states" to contact people/organizations that are important in defeating this idea. Mr. Crabbe said he is putting together a list of important contacts and would forward them shortly, and he asked that the list be disseminated as much as possible. As soon as this list is received, it will be posted here.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Thanks for the heads up DLT.

Keep up posted.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Chuck,

It falls on deaf ears. Ive been saying the same thing for a long time and they dont get it. Bandaids fall off.
Bottom line is that the NoDakO folks dont want anybody to "tell them" "argue with them" "suggest to them" that there are more ways to look at things than just the way they see em because...by golly, my mailing address ends with ND! And yet they will holler that they are getting screwed fishing in Minnesota, waterfowl hunting in Canada and big game hunting out west. (yes, each of those issues have been brought up here more than once so when ONE of you quotes it and says "I never..." maybe you didnt but somebody did.)
What Canada does (I used to hunt there) should be left to them to fight out for whatever reasons. If you dont see it that way, you have no business telling disgruntled NRs to flake off when they offer a piece of their mind.
You guys who want to limit NRs in NoDak are no different in my eyes than the Canadian outfitters are in yours. You both have your own agendas. They are both rather self serving and arguable, and they are both noble and just in the minds of each.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

How is wanting to preserve a good hunting experience for _*all *_make people self serving???? :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

define all.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Thanks....DLT....I took part in the economic survey a couple weeks ago.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> define all.


Everyone that hunts!!!!


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Limiting people and then using the words "everyone" and "all" is rediculous.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Didn't say that you would get to hunt every year. With your logic we might as well throw out all the regs and just let it be a free for all. Maybe we should abolish all limits too so Bert can have an enjoyable hunt when he is here in North Dakota??!!
Tell us all what would be the way to go then. What can we possibly do to appease you. Would you ratherthis becomes a pay to play paradise? Would you rather it ends up like MN waterfowling? What do you want??


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> What Canada does (I used to hunt there) should be left to them to fight out for whatever reasons. If you dont see it that way, you have no business telling disgruntled NRs to flake off when they offer a piece of their mind.


So do you feel that ND should be the same way? If not then I am reading a bunch of hypocratic statements.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

This is what I got back in a reply when I emailed this address:

[email protected]

____________________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Smith:

The Saskatchewan Outfitters Association (SOA) has requested that
Saskatchewan Environment consider a mandatory requirement that non-residents
must use the services of an outfitter for game bird hunting in Saskatchewan.

While government manages the resource for long-term sustainability, it does
regularly explore options that support optimum economic return from the use
of the resource. We have researched the potential impact of mandatory
outfitting for game birds in the past and found that it could lead to
significant reductions in non-resident hunters and to a reduction in
associated revenues. However, in light of the SOA request, Saskatchewan
Environment is currently undertaking further economic analysis to be
achieved in part through telephone surveys of resident and non-resident
hunters. You or your colleagues may be contacted during the course of that
process.

Mandatory outfitting for game birds in Saskatchewan is not being considered
for the fall of 2006. If changes are proposed in the future, Saskatchewan
will strive to alert affected hunters via communications tools including the
department website, the Outfitting Today newsletter for outfitters and the
annual Hunters' and Trappers' Guide.

Thank you for your interest.

Bob Skaftfeld
Resource Management Specialist
Saskatchewan Environment
Resource Stewardship Branch
3211 Albert Street
Regina, Saskatchewan
S4S 5W6
Phone: (306) 787-4652 
Fax: (306) 787-1349
_____________________________________________________________

I encourage everyone that hunts in Canada send off an email to the above address just to let them know how you feel.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Just admit that it makes the experience better (which is BS because it is outfitters that are the problem not the NRs) for all residents and some non residents at the expense of other non residents and therefore is not good for "everybody" or "all".


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Quote: 


> What Canada does (I used to hunt there) should be left to them to fight out for whatever reasons. If you dont see it that way, you have no business telling disgruntled NRs to flake off when they offer a piece of their mind.


Again I ask the same question? So do you feel that ND should be the same way? If not then I am reading a bunch of hypocratic statements.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

I'll admit I love the resident only week. But after that what's there to admit? SD on the other hand................

I miss Fetch! 
:box:


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Mav,

I think North Dakota (and I mean the people on this forum because you guys dont represent the whole state) dont have much to say about Canada's rules and regs because you guys do make it more difficult for NRs to hunt in NoDak and refuse to admit that there are people who pay the price to protect the RESIDENTs experience.
You think thier reasoning is bogus and I think yours is too.
Id hate to see this guide thing come to pass in Canada. Just like I hated to see the price hiked and the time shortened in NoDak. Its a horse a piece to me. Either scenario makes it tougher for me.
If you are truly committed to bettering the experience for ALL, then impose the same restrictions on yourselves.
Telling me that I have to pay more and hunt less and you are doing it for my own good makes me want to hurl.
I can accept that you do what you do and I live with it. I choose not to hunt there anymore. I dont like it but it is out of my hands.
Just dont expect me to look at what you have done as some wonderful benevolent gesture for the good of all. Just knowing that somebody is getting good duck hunting doesnt make up for not being able to do it myself.
If you hunt Canada and if they demand guided hunts and if you say "screw it" "too much of a hassle" and "doesnt seem fair" then you will know how I feel.
Always easiest to tax the guy who can't vote.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

So are you going to answer my question or just walk around it? Do you think ND should be the same way? Not in the guided hunt aspect, but be able to make our own decisionson how we manage our resources.



> I choose not to hunt there anymore. I dont like it but it is out of my hands.


When was the last time you did hunt here?


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Yes, I answered your question, you should have that right if you are willing to do the same for Canada or anybody else but evidently, you guys are not ok with that or else this thread wouldnt exist. 
Like I said, if you have hunted Canada for years, have land to hunt there, have friends to hunt with and for whatever reason, that privilage is yanked, then you will know what it is like.
It's just guides, you can still hunt. It will be less of a good experience for you but... 
It's just more money and less time but you can still hunt. NoDak is less of a good experience for me.
You dont get it. I am your buddy. I dont hunt NoDak any more. You should be thanking me for being the omega to your alpha, the means that justifies end. You win.
The only time I pop off here is when I see irony or hipocrisy.
Oh well, the ND fishermen and jet skiers should be showing up over here by the thousands any day now.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Like I said, if you have hunted Canada for years, have land to hunt there, have friends to hunt with and for whatever reason, that privilage is yanked, then you will know what it is like.


What privledges were Yanked from you? You can still FREELANCE hunt here in ND. You are making out to be as if you can't hunt here anymore. If this passes in SK FREELANCE HUNTING is gone. And that's how hunting started.

Now if ND had made a policy saying you had o hunt with a guide then YES it would have been yanked out from your feet. You can still go to your friends place and hunt with them, on there land.

As I agree that there are some similarities, the hidden agenda behind it is WAY DIFFERENT! You have to admit that!
ND wants to limit the numbers ( for pressure,waterfowl included)
SK wants to restrict you to hunting with a guide.



> Oh well, the ND fishermen and jet skiers should be showing up over here by the thousands any day now.


and MN not fishing our lakes? Common give me a break!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> It's just guides, you can still hunt.


That ain't hunting, that's shooting. Big difference from what a freelance hunting experience is. See, Bert, I don't go out just to shoot. I enjoy the scouting, the setting up, the whole hunting experience and that, as Mav said, is still available in ND. Are you serious that you cannot see a difference?????


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Djeye and Mav:

But if the state limits number it is kinda the same thing....they are limiting the NR....that is what SK could be doing....limiting the NR. Not by numbers but by the way NR can hunt.....limiting is limiting.

And like I stated before if the state limits numbers down too far....the state will be pushing the NR to use a G/O.....or the NR will buy and tie up more land....

Then that would limit access for ALL!

Now lets get back on the original subject......Email or contact SK with your concerns. They are asking Hunters for info....HELP THEM OUT!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Chuck:


> But if the state limits number it is kinda the same thing


SK is not trying to limit the numbers! They are limiting or resticting (What ever you want to call it) *how you hunt*! Not the amount of people that come and go. Will it limit people? Probably, but when those FEW that do go, will not have the option to hunt where they want, or how they want!
*After all that where is the sport of it?*



> Now lets get back on the original subject......Email or contact SK with your concerns. They are asking Hunters for info....HELP THEM OUT


 I am 100% with you there. They are the only one to make the decisions.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Mav...

All I am saying it that SK wants to limit the way NR hunts.....some in ND want to limit numbers....it is all limiting NR hunters. either by numbers or by how the NR can hunt.

Question: If they limit the NR to only using a G/O....will that also limit numbers?

Just food for thought?


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Will it limit people? Probably, but when those FEW that do go, will not have the option to hunt where they want, or how they want!
> After all that where is the sport of it?


That be the case then hunting is not hunting anymore. Then it is shooting!
Who suffers the most? Small towns!!!
More food for thought


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Totally agree with the it is not hunting it is shooting......

on the small towns.....

If you limit numbers will that also hurt the small towns?

Guides still put people up in hotels, met for breakfast at the local cafe, have a beer or two at the taverns.

But numbers hurt the small towns. IMO both (limiting numbers and forcing people to use guides) would hurt the small towns. They go hand in hand. Only a few people can afford guide costs, so numbers would drop.....the loser in all of this is the SMALL TOWN.

Now for the record.....I am not the NR that states "My dollars are keeping small towns going." I hate it when I read that on these forums when people talk about the R and NR issues....But all money helps. I know that Residents (people living in that town) is what keeps small towns going. 
I am from a small town and own a business in a small town.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Post wasn't directed to Sak. deleted


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Feild Hunter,

what?

Maybe some one can shed some light on this for me......Has the Sk goverment asked the farmers?

I know when I have hunted up in Canada most farmers want you to hunt there feilds to chase the birds way from the grain. That is why they have the "boomers"....cannons that fire off blanks to scare way flock of birds.

Also one thing I would be kinda afraid of is the hotel owners that have an in with the G/O. They might push for this plan....it will gaurentee more money for them.

Example: G/O tells a hotel owner that all of his clients will be refered to used your hotel. More money for the hotel owner. Since all NR hunters will have to use a guide.

I hope this is not true but who knows.


----------



## SlipperySam (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't think that the Hotel owners will push for that. After all when you go to hunt up in SK where do you stay? Some with friends I guess. But I would guess that most stay in a local motel or what not. What they have to weigh is how many guys will just not come anymore that spent $700 versus how many guys will go every 3 years and spend $2000, most of which is given to a single person rather than the gas station, restuarant owner, hotel owner, etc...


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Maverick,
I can't hunt there anymore. I can't hunt as long as Im used to and it costs me more, therefore, I can't hunt there anymore. I could when it was affordable and the time let me come and go when it worked for me.
You make it sound like Sask is saying you cant hunt there anymore. 
It is more similar than different.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> I can't hunt there anymore. I can't hunt as long as Im used to and it costs me more, therefore, I can't hunt there anymore


Bert you sound bitter, and YES you can hunt here! 


> I choose not to hunt there anymore.


 So what is it really.....Can't afford....or choose not to? You are giving 2 different reason's why you don't hunt here anymore to comply with your story? If I had to guess I would bet you choose not to!


> You make it sound like Sask is saying you cant hunt there anymore.


Now you are putting words in my mouth. I'm saying SK will be ending the term hunting and should change it to shooting!
I am not crying about paying more, just saying I can't hunt anymore, because using a guide is not hunting to *me*. Just shooting! When you use a guide do you set up decoys clean birds,scout? NO, they do all the work (or for me the fun part), but if the day comes where I have to use a guide well then I won't *****, I 'll just save some money to do it!
WAY DIFFERENT!!!


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

If my information is correct the mandatory use of guides in Sask. will backfire big time. The guides in Sask. are assigned a specific area. They can sell their guiding operation and the area goes with it. It seems that people from the states are buying these guiding operations. I dont believe that there are any laws that prohibit residents of United States from owning businesses in Canada. These guiding operations will go for big money. What is big money to a guide living in the middle of Sask?. Lets pick a number $50,000.00 no wait lets up the value of the operation; how about $100,000.00 Chump change.The guys that will buy these operations have rings on their pinkies that cost more than that. They fly in 10 million $ jets. I hope you dont think I am blowing hot air because I was aware of in 2 North Dakota transactions of that nature last summer. One I was involved in. Jet in buy a section jet out. It was never hunted. He paid $380,000.00 for a section and didnt hunt it. There is plenty of big money out there to buy out the Canadians. I would hate to see the guys in Regina calling somone in Dallas to reserve a hunting spot. The more they commercialize the sport the more big money will take over. Most of the big money is in the states.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Mav,

Hunting with a guide to you is not hunting. (me either)
Hunting in a neigboring state and having to pay more and hunt less is not hunting to me. Therein lies the similarity.

My idea of freelance hunting is not roaming the countryside and setting up anywhere I want simply because it isnt posted.

My idea of hunting is going to any one of 4 landowners house whom I have known for 15 or more years drink a cup of coffee and then hunt because they invited me. His property, his invite unimpeded by some guy from Fargo. If I want to hunt the opener with young kids, I can. If I want to kill an afternoon hunting pheasants while duck hunting, I can do it without forking over another 90 bucks. If I specifically want to hunt roosters early and late and inbetween (when I have time) I can do that.

So, yes the extra cost I can come up with and the shortened time still allows me some hunting time but the combination of the two prostitutes the experience to the point where it would be about as enjoyable for me as hunting with a guide in Canada would be for you. Get it?

If you would not go to Canada because of a guide law, then you are in exactly the same boat I am in. You could still hunt, but you wouldnt.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I'd have to agree with that post to the extent that I also feel "prostituted" when visitig MN....Family fishing license....$47.00 No problem......then when my kids come to fish it's $35.00 each...16 years old....still in my "Family"....then there's the 2 portable fish house licenses....another $40.00 or so each...Then I get to watch my MN neighbors spear the big northerns in the lake....Kind of off the subject but I've watched several residents of the great state of MN catch one bucket load of bluegills and crappies week after week after week with no obvious concern for the resouce ths Winter.

Fortunately, I can accept the fact that it costs money to enjoy your great state and I gladly pay the extra fees and don't complain about the things I can't participate in while others can.

If some can't get by the fact that things have changed then simply don't come over and hunt.


----------



## SlipperySam (Jan 17, 2006)

! When you use a guide do you set up decoys clean birds,scout? NO, they do all the work (or for me the fun part),

Actually, Most of the Guides that I know (from Michigan) have you help set up the decoys and also allow you to go along with them scouting and make you pay extra for them to clean the birds. I know a couple of the guides in SK also run that type of program because I have checked into doing a guided hunt up there (mostly because a 22 hour ride towing a decoy trailer doesn't excite me). Using a guide like that is really no different then hunting with a buddy that calls you up at work and says "hey, I got a hot spot for tomorrow. Wanna go?" (except your buddy doesn'y say it'll cost you $450)

This is an interesting discussion for me to follow being removed from the ND/MN line. I actually see both points.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Field hunter,

Then since you feel like I do, do like I do and stay home.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

...and, if Mn limits you to 2 -14 day opps for fishing, no opener and doubles your license cost, you will probably not be so "ok" with it.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Hunting with a guide to you is not hunting. (me either)
> Hunting in a neigboring state and having to pay more and hunt less is not hunting to me.


That is also where the differences inlies! Get it!



> My idea of hunting is going to any one of 4 landowners house whom I have known for 15 or more years drink a cup of coffee and then hunt because they invited me.


So you can make some more money and freelance hunt here. Still alows you that cup of coffee!
We can't just make more $ and freelance hunt in SK if this passes. We won't be able to have that cup of coffee with the farmers land we hunt up there ( like you do in ND).



> but the combination of the two prostitutes the experience to


Talking about prostitution, how do you think I feel (seeing as we are talking about how we feel about this situation)after hunting here 28 years of my life and I can't find a field because some NR have jumped all the slews? I am not blaming/bashing NR here, just saying that the influx of hunters to our state has prostitued the experience for me as well.

*BERT:*


> If you would not go to Canada because of a guide law, then you are in exactly the same boat I am in. You could still hunt, but you wouldnt.


*Maverick :*



> but if the day comes where I have to use a guide well then I won't b#tch, I 'll just save some money to do it!


Bert you can freelance hunt here. You can still have that cup of coffee and hunt the farmers land. You just can't do it as long as R! I think that what is your problem. Not the cost but the extended season.
Here's something for you, as a student your children can come and play as much as they want! They can get Res. status. When I go to your state to educate my self I don't get the same Res. status as your children do.

Slippery- I think you took what I was saying out of context. What do guides get paid to do? Yes they may ask you to help but I am guessing that they don't make you set up! Yes they probably let you go with scouting but if they don't have place to hunt there not really doing there job! Some places will clean your birds for you(part of the package). I have seen it here in ND.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Feild Hunter...I see your point.....

BUT:

In MN there is not Family Lisc. for residents. If you are over 16 you need to buy a lisc. So you are regulated just like the Resident....but pay more.

The shelter tags....I see that but residents have to pay shelter tags as well....just the NR pays more.

The people taking bucket after bucket.....Turn them in. They are poaching or taking over the limit.

Where Bert and other NR are getting excited is not so much in paying more (unless it gets way to high) but is the restriction of # of days, the talk of limiting the # of NR lisc., can't have the same opener, etc.

Now I agree with some of the regulations put into effect. I agree with a resident opener, I agree with limiting it to two weeks......But when now people on this forum talk about limiting the number of NR lisc....I disagree.

Then you are taking oppurunities away from people. Also IMO you are going to push the NR to the guides (like I have stated before).

Old Hunter:

I am afraid you are correct. The same thing I see is happening in ND, SD, NE, IA.....other guide opperations are moving with the migration. They hunt early in ND, SD and then follow the migration to ARK, LA. Then follow the flight back up in the spring with the snows.

If people want to see what I am talking about go to www.firewatersd.com and read there mission statement on the front page.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Wasn't this thread about Saskatchewan???

:lost:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Chris...

You are correct....I am sorry I got off track.

My last statement went with what Old hunter stated. About how some guides in SK are not from canada. I just posted that website....because that is what is happening in the states....People/Guides from other states are having a mobile opperations....I know of some that have operations based in Canada.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Chris,

You are right.

It was some of north dakota guys concerned that changes might be made in Sask. that would effect their hunting experience there and what a travesty that would be as I recall.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Bert....Are you ever happy with anything!!!!????? :roll:


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Dljeye

Had some great ice fishing this year.
Happy about that.

Wife, 2 great kids, good dog.
Happy about that.

Heart still beats...

I guess I am happy about all kinds of things.

Why do you ask?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bert said:


> Canada is a different country Dick not a neigboring state of the union.
> Mn and NoDak for that matter do not have much if anything invested in Canada. North Dakota and Minnesota do have tax dollars that do not recognize boundries in the way of CRP and government properties not to mention duck stamp dollars.
> I had nothing to do with the failed lawsuit.
> It is interesting though that whenever Canada pulls something that affects the NoDakers interest in recreation there, you guys make a stink.
> ...


Bert....this is the post by you where it turned into a Minn./ND debate.You are the one who started it....not some ND guys.

All the ND guy's said was....require G/O and we won't go anymore....it didn't have anything to do with ND/Mn.


----------



## roostman (Jan 20, 2006)

Isn't it great being a resident of Northdakota, It's like a fish bowl that everybody would like to be in and we keep changing the rules so that the fish bowl doesn't get to full, right now we are at the point that we would like to put a cover on the fish bowl and say thats it no more. I know we discussed this in a previous thread about NR's. How would we feel if we were on the outside of the bowl? Yes Bert is bitter? But doesn't bert have the right too. We would feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot, so lets show some respect for are fellow hunters from out of state. Thay are no different then we except they live out of state. :roll:


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

This post has gone on way too long.

If Canada wants to the things listed above, they have every right to do it.

I think some of the posters on here just didn't say things correctly. If I read through here I see a few voicing their opinion that if this law comes into play it will hurt Sak. ability to have more NR's in the state because it is another restriction.

I guess if I was a Resident of Sak and saw my resources being depleted, I would want restrictions, but probably not this type of restriction. Once they put this into place for NR's, my guess is they will press for a bill requiring R's of Sak to use guides as well. Then everyone is in trouble.

Bert: You probably wouldn't have been blasted if you wouldn't have thrown out "It is interesting though that whenever Canada pulls something that affects the NoDakers interest in recreation there, you guys make a stink." If you want that discussion, start another thread. Would be happy to comment about the dam we built for you on Souris River that you manage and how you drained Lake Darling on us.....or about the so called road up near Pembina which is really a dike that floods out our ND farmers every spring.

Like I said above, this post has gone on way too long.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Saskatchewan has lost over 65% of it's waterfowl hunters since 1978 and it is projected to lose another 47% of it's remaining hunting population in the next ten years.(http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/waterfowl ... /partI.php). Could it be that the waterfowl guide industry in that province is trying to recoup some its losses?
Dan is right when he said that the citizens there can and will do what they think is best. Some of you have made it sound like the only non-residents that go there are from North Dakota. I would bet that if the statistics were revealed we would find that Minnesotans have purchased more licenses than North Dakotans had, Anyway,,,,they have the right to do what they see fit and I suspect that they will do just that, without input from either Minnesota or North Dakota.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Yes....Sask. should do whatever they think is best for them.....just like we will do here.

But there are 2 huge differences between ND and Sask.....illegal to lease land there.So G/O compete just like free-lancers do.If we could only have that law here in ND.

And it is illegal to charge people to hunt....since the wildlife belongs to all the residents of Sask.


----------



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

The Exec. Director of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federations has forwarded the following e-mail addresses for contacting different people/organizations to express dissapproval of the proposed outfitter guiding requirements. They would appreciate any e-mails that would assist them in getting this defeated. As follows:

David
Great to talk to you today................
Here is a list of people or organizations you should contact
to voice your disapproval with the proposed mandatory outfitting requirements.
Thanks for your attention to this serious situation
Darrell Crabbe
Executive Director
Sask. Wildlife Federation

Tourism Saskatchewan 1-306-787-9600 www.sasktourism.com
Saskatchewan Environment 1-306-787-2930 [email protected]
Deputy Minister Lilly Stonehouse [email protected]
Saskatchewan Party (official opposition) 1-306-359-1638 [email protected]
Sask Assn Rural Municipalities (SARM) 1-306-757-3577 [email protected]

Thanks again
Cheers
Darrell


----------

