# Sad Sad Sad



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I'm sorry but I am so sick of reading articles like this uke:

All it is - is what they want us to hear & think. :******:

Not what came out of all the meetings last year.

Not a compromise at all ???

Other than some very predictable easy to do ( but hard to understand :roll: ) & to little, too late to stop or slow what is happening.

A total waste of time & energy & a continuation, down the do nothing road :eyeroll:

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandfork ... 780963.htm

I guess this is the plan ??? to slowly wear those down, that know how special ND is & was & let it evolve into a commercial - for profit industry. Because who will stand up & say NO WAY ??? After doing, just that 

While the folks that go to the meetings, continue to only want to talk Deer & now Elk hunting :roll: (been there done that too many times)


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

These new zones won't make any difference if there is not a cap.Especially after the legs. changed the law by eliminationg the 7 day license,but then said a non-res. could hunt in 2 of the 3 zones at the same time.
I guess we need to let the governor know that we want a cap.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

It will be interesting to see how many waterfowl licenses are sold now that the licenses will be split for waterfowl and upland hunting.

How does one go about letting the governor know a cap is wanted when so few people attend these meetings?

I don't understand why so few people choose to attend. Without a show of support it is easy for some to make a claim that the people promoting caps are the vocal minority.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Fetch,

Could you copy and paste the article. I'm having trouble opening the link.
Asyou might guess, the Forum didn't think such an article was news worthy.

Sorry, I retract my statements.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Guys, it's the old talk-talk/walk-walk deal. On this site, by and large, we're preaching to the choir. If you want to make a difference, and we need many to pitch in to make a difference, you've got to start getting personally involved and start working with the rest of the congregation. It's not easy and it takes time, but that's about what it takes to have good hunting too. If we want to get a handle on this stuff, folks are just going to have to realize that they need to make the politics of hunting part of the total time and commitment they put into hunting. Heck, I've traveled farther than Cayuga for a morning or afternoon hunting/fishing outing, and the advisory board meetings are a great way to get to know and network with Dept. employees, sportspersons and others concerned. This site is important for sportspersons to be able to connect, but if you want to make a difference, you've got to move away from the keyboard sometimes and to things like the advisory board meetings.

If we in fact go dry this year and have lower duck limits, it'll be a tough year to evaluate the effects of 1358 (license split), but I'll be real surprised if we sell much less than 30K. Hard to quantify, but most that thought hard about it believe that the number of upland hunters doing the $10 add-on with no real intent to waterfowl hunt was probably 10-15%. Folks complain a lot about increased license costs, then they pay them when it's time to do so. And last year we sold out of 30k waterfowl licenses on 10/11. Without a cap, 30K+ is still very possible this year.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

I know some of you think that the separating of the stamps and the zoning are only cosmetic fixes to a greater problem, but here is my proposal........
Let's wait and see. Maybe there were a lot of NR's who bought the addon just because it was there. I think the zoning will thin things out in the supposedly 'crowded area'.
But how can you ridicule the changes if you haven't seen the result yet. 
If next year at this time you guys come to me and say that there was still unbelievable avercrowding then I will join your cause and raise my voice along with yours, but if you aren't even going to give the changes a chance, and will only be satisfied with everything your way, then I say to you sit down and SHUT UP!

It is time that we as sportsmen work together for the betterment of the sport and stop degrading each other. We lose hundreds of young kids every year. They would much rather play with their xbox than shoot ducks and that is extremely sad.
To me that is a better cause than all of this bickering.

Take a kid hunting and fishing today, it may be their only chance to experience the outdoors.

cootkiller


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

CK, no crowding in the lake region, the extreme SE or other areas outside these 2 special zones? The G&F and legislators who first tee'd up this idea have all admitted the boundaries for the 2 special zones and the fact there were only 2 special zones was completely arbitrary. The powers that be in your area have done a good job to exclude the lake region.

This issue needs a statewide solution, not to say that the entire state need be treated the same. For instance, HPC could have/can be combined with zones, to cap statewide numbers based upon statewide water but put more hunters in zones with more water and thus more hunting opportunities.

The current proposal does nothing for other pressure areas (except encourage more people to use them), and without caps, won't help the special zones much either. A seven day limit in those areas from an increasing number (or slightly decreasing but an even greater decreasing amount of productive/available area), doesn't accomplish much of anything.

Everyone who has tried to sell this proposal says, "well, it's something." Doing "something" just for the sake of appearing to address an issue neither requires nor deserves acceptance when it is so glaringly political and deficient in scope.

And as far as losing youth waterfowlers, the sure way to do so is to get their parents to the point where they just give up. There are exceptions, but by and large, outdoors participation doesn't normally happen without a heavy parent/child participation. Chase the parents out, you loose them and the next generation(s). I don't think you can blame the nationwide loss of youth hunters primarily on XBox - I think the trends towards commercialization have played a larger part.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Why & How did Deer hunting end up with 30 or 40 zones ??? & limits per zone ???

Was this done by the Legislature ??? Govenor ??? If so, who proposed & designed it & why ???

But we can have 60,000, maybe more, all come at the same time (first few weeks) & overcrowd certain areas & thats OK ???

At least with deer you can predict the harvest & know where the deer are. & they will be there year round. There is some good science in it.

I could sit down & draw up a 1/2 dozen better ways to zone the State for waterfowl (for lots of good / different reasons why. BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO we get almost nothing - that makes hardly a difference after a year to study it :******:

Over 100,000 deer hunters in 40 zones - 60,000 waterfowl in 3 :roll:

The biggest problem is lack of leadership & fear of political BS - Plus lack of knowledge & expirence in what is real. :******:

PS........ at least preaching to the choir - you feel someone might be listening & they may tell someone - The regional meetings obviously don't work - Now or in the past - too slow & too idealistic & too much time wasted discussing things that are redundant, or only pacify a minority with special interests. :eyeroll:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Fetch, participation at the regional meetings helped reverse the early pheasant opener and create the resident-only early duck opener in '02. These were not minor policy issues. Last spring there were about 300 at the Casselton meeting and strong showings elsewhere - that counted.

Any single act of attendance at the regional meetings; legislator, governor and dept. contacts; sportsperson group membership; etc., may seem insignificant. You get enough people actively participating in multiples of those functions, however, then you've got something. How many total hunters in ND?

The first person I share a blind with this fall that wasn't involved last session and makes some crack about crowding/pressure gets an elbow to the noggin. There are many ways to get involved, and unless you do, in my mind you forfeit the right to *****. If you've got time to hunt, you've got time to get involved in the politics of hunting, and if you don't invest time in the latter, most won't have to worry about the former.

An unprecedented number of sporstspersons got involved last session, and we made progress. But we still have too many hunters who think someone else can carry the water for them, and not much more involvement would have been enough to push us over the top.

Because of the politics involved, these issues will be about what group has the loudest and strongest voice, and a strong showing at the regional meetings is one important way of showing numbers of people who feel strongly about the issue. Without large numbers of people showing up for these meetings, making governmental contacts, and otherwise making their feelings known to those making the decisions (as opposed to themselves - us), how can we get the message out that this matters to enough people that these issues merit resolution?

Cynicism and lack of participation will ensure failure. Tenacity and participation will yield results. 1223, 1358 and 1050 today, 2048 and other advancements tomorrow.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Posted on Sun, May. 04, 2003

GAME AND FISH ADVISORY BOARD: N.D. proposes waterfowl zones
Plan would help distribute nonresident hunters, official says
By Brad Dokken
Herald Staff Writer

CAVALIER, N.D. - The North Dakota Game and Fish Department is floating a proposal that would divide the state into three zones for the fall waterfowl season and limit the time in which nonresidents could hunt in two of those zones.

Similar to a plan that state lawmakers scrapped in early April, the proposal would establish two controlled zones - one near Jamestown and extending to the South Dakota border, the other southwest of Minot - where nonresidents would be limited to seven days of hunting. After seven days, nonresidents in the two zones would have to move to the third zone - basically the remainder of the state - to finish out their 14-day licenses.

The third zone would be open to nonresidents for their entire license period.

Dean Hildebrand, director of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, discussed the proposal Wednesday night in Cavalier at the spring meeting of the Game and Fish Advisory Board. A traveling road show of outdoors issues, the Advisory Board circuit brings Game and Fish staff to communities in each of the state's eight districts twice a year.

"This is a way of trying to bring some sort of balance" to the nonresident waterfowl debate, Hildebrand said. "Is it the right way? I don't know that. This hasn't been an easy bronc to ride."

No caps at this point

After lawmakers failed to pass legislation to manage nonresident waterfowl hunters, Hildebrand said Gov. John Hoeven asked him to bring the zone proposal to residents during the spring Advisory Board circuit. The proposal doesn't include any caps on nonresidents - at least at this point - Hildebrand said, although restrictions could be implemented if public input warrants.

Hoeven would have to sign off on any proposal before it takes effect.

"The governor said 'take this proposal out (to the public) and have them take a look at it,'" Hildebrand said. "Whether we put a limit on nonresident licenses is still to be discussed."

Last fall, Hoeven implemented a cap of 30,000 nonresident waterfowl licenses. About 4,350 nonresidents hunted last fall in the first of the two zones bring proposed, Hildebrand said, with another 2,700 in the second zone. The remaining 23,000 nonresidents hunted throughout the state, the uncontrolled area under the Game and Fish proposal.

As part of the Game and Fish plan, nonresidents would have to specify the controlled zone they wanted to hunt at the time they purchase their license.

Back to square one

During the recent legislative session, House lawmakers defeated a bill that would have set nonresident license numbers based on spring wetland conditions and the previous year's hunting pressure. Widely known as the "Hunter Pressure Concept," the bill in its original form would have allowed only 22,000 nonresident waterfowl licenses if it had been in place last fall. Amendments later broadened that number to about 33,000.

While resident hunting groups favored the Hunter Pressure plan, tourism interests and small-town businesses opposed the measure and its restrictions on nonresidents.

"We're back to square one," Hildebrand said.

Hildebrand said legislators did pass a couple of bills that could have an impact on nonresident hunter numbers. One bill requires nonresidents to purchase separate licenses for upland game and waterfowl, eliminating the one license for both that previously was in effect. Also, Hildebrand said, lawmakers eliminated the seven-day waterfowl license that allowed nonresidents to hunt anywhere in the state.

Under HB1358, a nonresident small game license will cost $85, and a nonresident waterfowl license also costs $85. The nonresident small game license is good for 10 consecutive days or two periods of five consecutive days, and nonresidents can purchase more than one small game license per season.

Hildebrand said the change will pump another $2.1 million into the Game and Fish budget, money that will be used to boost the amount of private land available for public hunting access.

Leg tag idea

Another idea that's been making the rounds in resident hunting circles since the end of the legislative session involves issuing a set number of leg tags to nonresident waterfowl hunters. Nonresidents would have to tag each duck they shoot, and once they used up the tags, they'd be done hunting.

John French of Grand Forks said the tags, which were issued to nonresident hunters before being discontinued in the 1970s, would help cut down on the wanton waste that occurs when hunters shoot more ducks than their limit allows. Under the "liberal" regulations that were in effect last season under federal waterfowl frameworks, hunters could shoot six ducks daily and have 12 in possession.

Hildebrand said the tag idea had been brought up at other Advisory Board meetings and that Game and Fish would consider the proposal. But at this point, he said, the plan isn't part of the waterfowl proposal.

"I don't like to make any more rules than we need," Hildebrand said. "If we think wanton waste is a problem, we would move in that direction. If we decide to use tags, we could make that work."

The 20 or so people attending Wednesday night's meeting didn't appear to have strong opinions one way or another on the Game and Fish waterfowl proposal. Instead, they were more interested in talking about elk and deer - issues that are more relevant to the Cavalier area.

North Dakota again this year is proposing to open the first week of waterfowl season for residents only. As part of the proposal, waterfowl season would open Sept. 27, and nonresidents could begin hunting Oct. 4. The youth waterfowl season would be Sept. 19-20. The proposed opening dates are subject to federal season frameworks, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will set later this summer.

Game and Fish also has proposed that pheasant season open Oct. 11.


----------

