# Where will NODAK be in 10 years?



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

So where do you guys see NODAK being in 5-10 years as far as access and compared to other states. I am kinda getting bumed about the lack of access farmers seem to be giving. I would say any givin night if I find three fields holding birds I will be gauranteed to be turned down twice. Do you guys see NODAK as being the best in the MIDWEST or leases and outfitters locking things up? Heres another, if you owned land would you let people in?

On a side note, I was scouting tonight and watched as a father and sun sat in a field next to a water hole and shot doves. Made me stop and think about this and I wondered where we would be without the next generation.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

i honestly think nd will be just like every other state in 10 years. g/o are going to destroy the hunting here. it's too bad


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Blake:

Enjoy it now. My best advice, make an effort to start a journal and chronicle your hunts and take as many photos as you can. You are witnessing the front end decline of freelance hunting in North Dakota.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

It depends, will we ave the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done and finish in ND the protections my home state tried to do there? Referall to limit my right to sell access to a reseller,aka G/O.IMHO


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

I have a question about this, actually two.

1 What defintion do you guys use so that you can be called "freelancers"?

2 What exactly are you losing that will make NoDak like the rest of the states?

3 Which states are you talking about?

If someone could answer me these two questions it would help me. Thanks.

IAHunter


----------



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

I am referring to the fact that any giving day I am able to drive around and hunt anywhere I want. That 7 times out of 10 I can. Other states would include Texas, Illinois, Arkansas where it costs $$ to buy a lease or hire a guide! A "freelancer" is someone who asks for permission to hunt and then moves to a new area, asking for permission again...its a process. Do you understand? NODAK is not like these "other" states..YET


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

IAHUNTER, in response to question 2: we do not intend to end up like other states that were ONCE known for good hunting.

This report warns that Arkansas' booming duck-hunting business could bust state's flock unless pressure is relieved.
BY TREY REID ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE

"Arkansas gained a reputation as one of the best duck-hunting spots in the country. (early 1900's) Duck hunters have been coming to Arkansas ever since, and these days they're coming in numbers like never before. That could be a problem, according to a report compiled by the Arkansas Wildlife Federation, a nonprofit conservation group founded in 1936.
In the wake of two consecutive seasons of lackluster duck hunting in
Arkansas, the federation embarked on a mission to find causes of the
declining success. The result was a report titled "Improving the Quality of Duck Hunting
in Arkansas," which the federation released last week. One of the report's primary conclusions was that hunting pressure has
played a big part in recent downturns in hunting success. "We wished to be the Duck Capital of the World," the report states,"and we got it."
In an effort to ease the pressure and presumably improve the quality of
hunting, the federation report calls for the state Game and Fish
Commission to impose duck hunting regulations that are more restrictive than those allowed by federal guidelines for setting seasons.
The report recommends the following actions:
Shorten season length to about 53 days and include two sevenday splits
of closed hunting. (Federal law allows Arkansas to have a 60-day season.) Reduce the daily bag limit to five ducks, including three mallards,only one of which may be a hen. (Federal law permits a daily limit of six ducks, including four mallards, two of which may be hens.) Prohibit spinning-wing decoys. (Federal law and Arkansas regulations
allow the use of spinningwing decoys, although some states have banned
them.) Prohibit hunting on all federal and state sanctuaries and rest areas. (Last year, the Game and Fish Commission opened some state rest areas to limited hunting.) Limit the number of hunters, "particularly nonresidents," on publichunting areas through the use of a permit system. (Most wildlife management areas in the Game and Fish Commission's inventory are open to all resident and nonresident hunters.)
Limit hunters to morning-only hunting on public and private land in
certain regions. (Duck hunting is allowed from 30 minutes before sunrise
until sunset statewide, but state law restricts hunting on most wildlife
management areas to morning-only hunting.)
Dr. Ducote Haynes of Little Rock, chairman of the federation's duck
committee, will present the report's findings and urge the Game and Fish
Commission to adopt the recommendations when the commission holds its monthly meeting on Thursday.
*"The primary responsibility of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is to protect the wildlife and resources of this state so Arkansans, our kids and grandkids can enjoy the resource," *Haynes said.
The Game and Fish Commission will vote on duck hunting regulations for the 2003-2004 season at Thursday's meeting. It doesn't appear likely the commission will adopt any of the federation's recommendations for the coming season. "I think they're right about some of these things," Commissioner Mike Freeze of England said. "But it's got to be more than Arkansas. The reduction in days needs to come at the national level." Historically, it's rare for the commission to impose hunting
regulations that are more restrictive than what is allowed by federal law. Last year the commission reduced the daily bag limit to five ducks from the federal maximum of six. It was believed to be the first time the commission had been more restrictive than federal frameworks since the modern commission came into existence with the passage of Amendment 35 in 1944. While last year's bag limit reduction was received well by most hunters, commissioners said further restrictions likely won't get the same reception.
"Nobody's going to complain too much about getting 50 days," Freeze
said. "But they'll scream bloody murder if all the other states have 60." That doesn't mean the commission won't consider some of the
federation's recommendations in the future.
"Some of that stuff we might address as a state," Freeze said. Any adoption of the federation's recommendations likely would be tied
to the willingness of other Mississippi Flyway states to follow suit.
"I think you'll see some changes," Commissioner Sheffield Nelson of
Little Rock said. "If we could get other states to address these issues, I
think you'd see that we would be one of the states at the forefront.
"Somebody has to take the initiative to present it. I'd like to see the
commission take the lead, contact the states around us and the Flyway
Council. It's very possible we could effect some change."
Haynes, chairman of the federation's duck committee, said that would be a good starting point. "If we could influence the commission to just think about it a little bit, we'd be one step closer to solving some of our problems," Haynes said.
Most waterfowlers agree that Arkansas duck hunting has declined over
the past two years. But getting them to agree on the cause is entirely another matter. Some hunters blame natural factors such as droughts on the northern breeding grounds and unseasonably warm weather during the fall and winter migration. Others point fingers at improved habitat conditions in states to the north of Arkansas.
The theories have a couple of things in common: Each likely has some
effect on the success of duck hunters in Arkansas, and none are within the control of those hunters. But hunting pressure is different, the federation says. "That's something we have some control over," Haynes said. Few dispute that hunting pressure is increasing. *Sales of Arkansas duck stamps have increased from about 38,000 in 1989 to an all-time high of nearly 95,000 in 2001.*> Not only are the number of hunters increasing, but those hunters are going afield more days than in the past. Between 1991 and 1996, hunters in Arkansas averaged about 414,000 days a year in the field. From 1996 to 2000, the number of days averaged more than 780,000 a year. The average number of
hunting days per hunter increased from about 11 to more than 14 during the same 10-year period.
*Hunters in Arkansas never killed more than 1 million ducks before 1995. Since then the number of ducks killed in Arkansas hasn't fallen below 1 million. "We have more hunters, and they're hunting more days," said Ducks Unlimited biologist Mike Checkett, the former waterfowl program coordinator for the Game and Fish Commission. "The pressure is causing ducks to behave differently. I think we're driving birds to spend more time sitting somewhere else, and it's affecting individual hunter success.*> 
*"The only way we can control pressure is the number of days, the number
> of hours per day and the number of hunters."*> But imposing additional restrictions on hunters means limiting opportunity. It makes management decisions a balancing act for the state's decision-makers.
"We're trying to do what's best for the resource, and we're also trying
to provide opportunity for sportsmen," Freeze said. "And sometimes
balancing those two things is hard to do."
*A solution offered by the federation is to limit the number of
nonresident hunters who are allowed to hunt on public hunting areas in
Arkansas.*> Again, it's a ticklish proposition. Duck hunting has become important to the state's economy. Stuttgart estimates that duck hunting injects $1 million a day into that city's economy alone.
"We don't want to send the wrong message to out-of-state hunters,"
Nelson said. "But there may come a day when we aren't left any other choice than to limit the number of hunters. "If stamp sales continue to increase, I don't think we'll hesitate to take other steps, and one step might be permit-hunting on our wildlife management areas."

About the report

The report, which is about 60 pages, is available free from the Arkansas
Wildlife Federation. Information on obtaining the report is available by
calling (501) 224-9200 or 1-877-945-2543.
"I applaud their efforts in putting this report together," Nelson said.
"I hope every duck hunter in the state reads it."


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I have this report and would be willing to share it with anyone intersted in it. I have not posted it because of lenght. Send me a PM as it is very interesting reading.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Ron, I know you and tosdak are both interested in farm issues as they relate to hunting. Friday a 160 acre property was auctioned off in Barnes County for $525 an acre. This same piece had been listed previously as farmland and did not sell because of the poor soil type and cattail sloughs that cover it. It was now listed as "great hunting property!" and sold right away to 10 fellows for a hunting club.

Interestingly enough this price is going to be used by land appraisers to set values for surrounding farmland, raising the price to existing farmers who wish to purchase real cropland and then have to pay for it with the farm commidities that land will produce. Good luck to them. Is this where NODAK will be in 10 years?

Farmers have a clear stake in supporting access issues along with hunters. Both should be natural allies.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Having talked with many farmersm across the state this past week at Big Iron while working our booth this point was brought to m attention many times. i have spoken and posted on this issue many times in the past and it is a common area to start rebuilding the bridge that FB and G/O have blown up for us these past few years.

Many farmers and ranchers read these postings as was evident by them asking me if I was the same person that posts here. Ironiclly even though we disagreed on some other issues all agreed that action needs to be taken to stem the tide of the escalating tax base that the above actions are causing. This is a area of common good that needs to be solidified before the next session.

As one rancher from south of Dickison said to me if I wanted Nd to be like TX I would be raising Longhorns instead of Angus.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Interesting. i too hear of these situations way to often, and I have no real blinking idea what to do about it. I get many calls from guys saying there is a nice piece of land in Griggs county for sale, I dont have time to come see it. What can I expect to find to hunt on it. First off I would like to know if these were residents or non who purchased it. If it is residents, it is tough to argue with guys who are willing to put their money where there mouths are. But this land should be taxed at a recreational property rate, and should not be used by appraiser to set the value of agricultural lands. I think one of the greatest things this country could do would be to try and put the ownership of land back into the hands of the people who live and work on it. Tazation is one way that can happen. Live in a rural setting within 10 miles of your land, get a tax break, otherwise, tax it as an investment. Just a thought, should be in the other thread to.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

don't be too quick to see raising realestate taxes for anyone. Come up with a formula that values land based on the income it produces. Swamp 
and other good wildlife habitat should be low taxes unless its leased for an income. All our taxes in this country are crushing our economy we have the highest tax rates of any capitalist country on this earth. If this country went to a consumtion tax you would have to hide in a swamp to not have a job. even in North Dakota.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Sorry thats supposed to read "consumption" Tax


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Where will ND be in 10 years...... several of the people we have talked to are putting together accounts to either lease or buy depending on what happens during the season and how the Gov's summit goes. So to answer the question, it seems there will be alot more land owners who are non-resident. The people who can afford to buy up land are the same people who can afford to travel out of state or country. To insure a hunting heritage some will spend whatever it takes, it does'nt matter if it's in MN, ND, IA or Wisc, as long as the travel is managable. The people of ND are not the only ones who want to ensure hunting for their kids, the problem for ND is that what they did this year has geared up the "money" and it is coming.....soon!


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

JMS, you are dead on. That's why some capping, along with g/o restrictions and public lands, must be part of the long-term solution. Because there will always be an ever-growing number of folks who first become interested in ND and who have the ability/desire to secure exclusivity, the free-for-all will eventually trend to heavy exclusivity over most of the best ground and result in even greater mayhem and very poor quality on the balance. Even those who jumped on the pay-access bandwagon early will soon find themselves out-bidded. That's the inevitible next phase of the commercialization process we're in so far. But, if there's no guarantee of a license each year........


----------



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

I like your guys points. The next step should be, "What can I do?" What are your guys thoughts on how to preserve today for tommorrow?


----------



## Crabby (Aug 27, 2003)

:eyeroll:

Whelp, It's private land. The owners to buy or sell. Either buy your own piece, or get together and give the owner a better offer to let you use it.

That, or go cry when somebody else has it and doesn't want you to use it.

It's the American way. Oh, and especially don't try and take my rights without compensating me. Or you'll pay in court.

Crabby


----------



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

you must be an owner :lol:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well you probably think I sound like a broken record, large amounts of public land publiclan public land public land....... It is the only true insurance to keep hunting available to all. This isn't a theory either, its fact and all you have to do is compare states with public land to those that don't. In all the states out east its public land or pay thru the nose and Ron is right the bidding will continue to rise until all of you are out of it. People in North Dakota don't have a clue what some people out east will pay to hunt. I don't care how unpopular it is with the tax man or any other politician its your only hope. You cannot descriminate legally and tell people that they can't hunt their own land, caps and liscenses restrictions won't hold water on private land. Its unconstitutional and will not be held up in court. And the wealthy that can afford to spend thousands on hunting lands for recreation have the money, will and lawyers to prove that point.


----------



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

So how much does it cost to buy a lease in Ark, Georgia, or other states? I really have know idea. How do young people down south hunt? Just curious...


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I too hate to sound like a broken record, but the models are there for us. We just need the courage to see them. For instance, SD seems to have no problem limiting to 6000. Waterfwol leasing is almost nonexistant through most of the state, while unrestricted, uncapped pheasants have led to rampant leasing and haing many SD residents priced out of the ability to hunt in there home states. NR's dont buy land to hunt in SD, they leave land either for pheasant outfits, or else for the farmers who use it. Sure some resident tycoons buy the very best, but at least there dollars all stay in the state. You just have to get by all this cant and ask what CAN we do???


----------



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

i like that tsodak. instead of modeling after MN, look at SODAK.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

t who was Govenor of SD when that all happened ???

Is there any history or anything written on how & why SD got that passed ???

Who spearheaded it ???

How can we find out about the model ???


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Bob and Crabby, nothing, even the US Const, says a state must give landowners the right to harvest game on their land or that land ownership somehow insulates a nonresident from different treatment on G&F laws pertaining to nonresidents. I'm not aware of any Fifth Amendment "takings" restrictions in any way related to this. When it comes to your RIGHTS to game and fish in another state, you have none unless given to you, so there's nothing to compensate for when taking away.

If you're refering to the Az. case, that was decided on the basis that under the facts and circumstances of that case, the Commerce Clause within Article 1, Section 8 prevented the tag allocation/cost differential which was pretty sever in that case. That was a pretty extreme case and many don't think it will last or will be limited to extreme situations as was present in that case.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If you want a 10 to 20 year plan go ahead and go for the caps but if you want a permanent fix that can't be encroached upon so your kids will be able to hunt then public land is best. The competition for hunting land will continue to grow and the rate of demand will increase as well. South Dakota isn't a hell of a lot different than ND you have to see what goes on out east to really get it. We wish we had the quality of hunting that SD has. Leases for deer out east can easily be in the thousand dollar range per man, sometimes more, alot more. Quail hunting day leases ( yes 1 day) $150.00 to 300.00. If watched this process in both Texas and Georgia in my life and its not a pretty sight.


----------



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

How did SODAK end up with a cap of 6000?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Bob, we're not that far away from some of the other states now. $500/gun + for a day of watefowling (yes it includes meals/lodging, but c'mon, that represents maybe $100/day at most) and $5,000 for a 5 day buck hunt is here, now!

You CAN'T acquire enough land to perpetually increase hunter numbers.

First there is the economics of acquiring, managing and maintaining the land. In 2002 alone, NDG&F paid $368,000 of taxes on 183,000 acres it controlled. It sounds as if what you're proposing is something akin to buffalo commons, where ND becomes the county's designated hunting grounds. Do the math at probably something like a blended rate of say $600 per acre and build your model on how much land you think you'll need, how you're going to pay for it (if by lease figure a 10% cap rate) and then how you're going to pay for the taxes and management (got to get it critter firendly in the first place and have to keep it that way) indefinitely. I'd be really curious to see what this model would yield in terms of a financial commitment and what you see as the sources for that revenue.

Then, before you get it going, you've got to convince everyone interested that it's so important that rural ND should pack up and move on, because that much land taken out of production and out of local control would have an impact on rural ND like nothing before. And don't rely on the seasonal tourism dollar increases, because it's going to take a some pretty intense multiplier to replace the displaced year-round dollars.

Fianally, when you've secured all of the important hunting areas in ND in the name of limitless hunters, now put a waterfowl hunter in every quarter section of land every day during the waterfowl season. They'll all have a real nice view of specks in the sky non-stopping between sask. and SD.

Public access is one of the components, and in the upland context can probably allow for more hunters before other restrictions are needed, because you can actually create, grow and retain additional upland opportunities by securing public grounds. But even in upland there are very practical limitations that will always and only make it part of other necessary elements, not the end all be all. For waterfowl, we just can't take any more pressure, no matter how much more public land, period, or we're going to send even more of them prematurely packing.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

Thanks to those that answered my question.

As to the aspect of taking land out of production, here in IA we have public land that is still in farm production. The farm land is rented out by local farmers on a bid system allowing the state to pay taxes on it, a farmer to make money off of it (if the grain prices are good), and open access to the public. This might be one thing for NoDak's Natural Resources to take a look at. The land has more habitat areas than would be economically feasible if owned by a farmer.

But, as many of you are pointing out, with waterfowl being a migratory bird that is capable of leaving a state over night I agree that there is a need for NR caps in ND. With more public land access across the state there is the possibility of having higher caps because of the spread out pressure. And I know what hunting pressure is. Opening weekend of pheasant season in Iowa...100,000+ out in the field those two days. Invasion pretty much sums it up.

IAHunter


----------



## MACBARN (Aug 1, 2002)

Dick and Ron, think that Dean should get a copy of this report along with all the legislators.As I have posted before ,there is very little water left insmall potholes west of jamestown. The big water is holding most of the birds, In order to hold birds this year I would ask everyone who shoot out of a boat to limit your hunting . Get in and get out.Never hunt past noon.Go to town or hunt upland. The BOAT people will be out here in large numbers again this year. Take them aside in a friendly ND manner and try to explain to them how we do in ND.Have talked to Dean obot this, maby on his radio adds,he is thinking about this.Good shooting this fall SB


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Sandy, I agree, the Pioneer Press article is a great piece for an ETREE notice to have guys send their legislators and also local papers. Include the instructions to copy and paste.

Guys, I urge you to do it now. Education in the off season can make a differance for legislators, as they are not swamped with other contacts.

Unrelenting pressure.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Will send a copy both in the mail and of the web to Dean and some others!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron I'm 100 % in agreement with you as it pertains to waterfowl. I don't think the waterfowl issue is solvable. Upland land aquisition could be simply Farmers wanting to get out of the business, for whatever reason, selling to the public land system. These lands could then be made available on a bid basis at very favorable rates for other farmer to keep in production with the caveot that some wildlife habitat considerations are met and that the hunting would be the same as the plots. Unlike Plots though it would be permanent not subject to a future change in policy. Original purchase of these properties could be payed for by a $100.00 hunting stamp for every adult that buys a hunting liscense. Its not the only solution its just part of it. As far as maintaing it, if its not attractive because it not good cropland let it go on its own, fallow land makes good upland habitat. The farmers that worked this land would have better economies of scale and hopefully find it profitable. Many other states have huge amounts of public land how do they afford it if its such a burden? Let me ask one more question if all water was put off limits to duck hunters would the ducks be huntable on upland type land like I mentioned above? Would that take enough pressure off the ducks to keep them from migrating?


----------



## Crabby (Aug 27, 2003)

I didn't say anything (this time) about restricting NR's and wasn't talking about that as a "right". But private land ownership is a "bundle of rights" and one that you folks would like to step on is my right to sell it as I see fit. Remember, even if the State would like to buy it, somebody else might offer me more. And I have the right to the highest bidder. Read what others are posting as the "fair price" for hunting and hunting land in their state. The fair price in ND is that or more. If you can't keep up, you're eventually going to be left out.

Sad for some, but it's the American way.

8) yeah - I own some hunting land. It's all mine. Not yours.

Crabby


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Crabby, not sure how any of this could be construed as impinging on your right to sell your protery? But, neither does the state nor her citizens have any obligation to give you an amenities package (e.g. some sort of of rights in the game or preferential rights to a license) to boost the sales price. In that, you have no "rights".

Just out of curiousity, how much land are we talking about and how many hunter-days were spent on that land last year? Please be honest.


----------



## Nate (Sep 11, 2003)

I can't wait to see Crabby's answer on how many "hunter days" he spent on his own land.


----------



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

Thats the problem. I would like it when NODAK follows its (Good) neighbor SODAK and caps it at 6000. No one complains about SODAK-ever on waterfowling. What gives?

With that mentality this sport would die. :withstupid:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Caps are a bandaid, a temporary fix residents with money, will still purchase the prime areas and you will not have a place to hunt. You can't cap them. Public aquistion of land by the state is the long term solution. Its the only solution that cannot be gotten around by the wealthy interests that want exclusivity.


----------



## Lizard (Sep 10, 2003)

WELL--you better do something or it will end up just like Minnesota--NO DUCKS,NO PHEASANTS--NO GROUSE-- NO FISH, JUST LOTS AND LOTS OF HUNTERS, with nothing to hunt and no place to hunt. I think limiting NR's is a great place to start. If you can get it limited enough. It will help limit the number of hunters the outfitters run through and thus help curtail some of the rampant outfitter mentality of COMMERCIALIZATION that will be the downfall of a great sport.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

No pheasants because of private land in pheasant areas with not habitat no ducks because the farmers( on private land) have drained the potholes. No grouse???? maybe right now because the cycle is down. MN has tons of grouse to hunt and tons of public land to hunt them on. Minn also has great deer hunting for everybody who want to go once again on public land!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Last night I watched some kids playing Boggle. The timer is a small hour glass. As the sand ran out of the top, I thought that is where hunting in our state will be in 10 years. Run out.

Unless we stand up on our hind legs and take it back.

Crabby is right about selling land to whoever he wants. However we *do not* need a law that facilitates it. The current game law with no restrictions on NR #s, does just that. (Cannonball's clientel is 90% corporations, primarily NRs, according to their press release. Their clients love it, come back and buy a ranch. 90 day season). The upland and waterfowl seasons, in their current forms, facilitate absentee ownership and the take over by the super rich of what is guarenteed for all ND citizens by Constituatioal Measure 1.

Caps prevent it just as Lizard said.

I wonder how many would purchase hunting land in ND if they were not guarenteed a waterfowl license every year? Zip. How many upland hunters would buy up ND ranches for pheasants if they were limited to non consecutative 5 day hunts per month of season? Zip again. Caps, caps, gota have caps. Throw in a lottery too. Make it fair for the little guy. And Crabby can still sell his land.

If land access was wide open, it would be meaningless without caps. Dolly Parton said you can't put 40 lbs of mud in a 10 lb sack.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Is that why she always looks like she is going to explode Dick???

This is a god thread, although it is moving away from visions of the future into what needs to be done now. In reference to SD, I believe, and I may be wrong, that it was done through the ballot, not the legislature. And further, it was at a time much like this, although I think the almighty dollar was maybe valued slightly less then. More of an item rather than a goal. I dont know how much it was related to the trespass issue, but I would imagine some.

Last night I was laying in my hotel room in Fargo watching the Twins whup up on the Chisocks, and here comes an ad from SD's tourism Dept advertising a two day three night hunt for pheasants at Pierre for only $1100. Wow. I can only imagine what would happen in ND if the tourism dept did that today for Sheldon Schlect. Make Pheasant Gate look like my daughters tea party. But it is interesting to see what that cap has done in SD. WHile pheasants leases run rampant and drive wedges between families, waterfowling for the most part is a tame baby. In the vast majority of the state very little leasing. And now the pheasant outfitters, especially the fly by nighters have such a monetary stake doing anything about it will literally tear the place apart. Yet the forces of commercialism will never stop. THey will march and march until there is nothing left from the cow to milk.

By the way, I like the paint job on your barn Dick. Tom


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Dolly Parton :lol:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I should have gandergrinder put his logo on the vent.----NoDak in 10 years?-----I think we will see more involement by the common folks in this hunting controversy. North Dakota has always been populist by nature. But of course we have to educate folks and communicate between the groups. Keep the communication open. If you look at the last 2 years, we made great progress in getting people fired up and inspecting the merits of the arguements. I don't think we have to go 10 years out because the governor's race and the next session will tell a lot.

Imagine 10 years from now that you can tell a kid "this is better than it was in 2003."


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Obviously Lizard has never hunted or fished in MN


----------



## Lizard (Sep 10, 2003)

WAKE UP BOZO's---Canada figured out this same problem a few years ago--now you can bring back only limited number of fish, whereas the old days people brought back all they could fit in their coolers. Who complained--the exact WHINERS that are on here wanting to take all they can from North Dakota--Minnesota tried to regulate Walleye and Crappie numbers a few years ago--once again the WHINERS were out in force saying nobody would come to their towns and spend money for only 3 walleyes or 8 crappies. And now when fish numbers are decimated the same people are all concerned. The Minnesota DNR caved to these WHINERS and we will pay for all eternity--things hardly ever go back to the way they were.--North Dakota---you have a GREAT resource!! covet it --it won't come back--I would rather see you limit guys like me,and still have a neat resource than open it up to the WHINERS and have it GONE IN 10 YEARS!!!!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hey Lizard I think your right they should have a limit on guys like you! It could be called the " No hunting for people that don't know what they are talking about law"! Sorry, I hate to be abrasive but you are simple wrong about MN. Mn has excellent public hunting, better grouse hunting than anywhere else in the US good deer hunting and Bear hunting all on public land and anyone that purchases a liscense can hunt the whole season.


----------



## Lizard (Sep 10, 2003)

bobm--IT IS SPELLED L-I-C-E-N-S-E !!!!!! GOT IT? You are the problem--you buy into the "cycle theory"! The very worst of years back in the sixties and 70's is far better than the best of your so called cycle now. The DNR caved into WHINERS like you and left a limit of 5 saying the limit did not affect the population, and people like you bought into that only because you wanted to harvest as many birds as you possibly could--THE GREED FACTOR! They plowed roads into every large parcel of woods left--so you could get your 4 wheelers in no doubt. They refused to do anything about predator control. The deer hunting is fantastic--only due to the logging industry and GOD for his nice winters. Just watch--with the current bobm mentality of take take take---The DNR has turned the Whitetail into a pest--take all you want as long as you give us the money for the extra tags. If we suddenly get a winter of old, with lots of snow and extremely low temps. The deer herd that the bobm's like to pound their chests about will be gone and they probably will want to go to North Dakota uke:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hey Lizard if everbody shot like me and hunters had anything to do with grouse populations you would be knee deep in them. BUT unfortunately hunters don't have much affect and Its not spelled liscense its spelled mature forest habitat due to less logging = fewer edge type birds like grouse. And if you don't believe in the cycle OK but your certainly going to have a hard time convincing a lot of very knowledgeable bioligists. because it happens everywhere even in Ontario where they sure as hell don't have a lot of hunters. I don't own a four wheeler, don't road hunt and am not a whiner. 5 bird limits!!! I have never shot five grouse in a day in my life but if I do I'll sure be proud of it. In fact I don't know anyone who has shot 5 in one day. Shot at yes killed no. And your right about the deer herd and hard winters its a perfect example of a natural cycle and not selling deer tags won't change it one bit. Making roads can help grouse populations if they are creating clearcuts it just takes about 7 years to get the habitat favorable for grouse. An I apologize for getting personal I don't usaully do that and feel using fact is better than sarcasm. Please forgive me for being a smartass about it. Thanks. And I don't like the roads or the four wheelers either or a lot of other technology. I hunt with a double barrel shotgun and I hunt deer with a longbow even during the rifle season which is legal here in Georgia.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Hey Dick,
We could put my logo on your barn and we could also recruit dancers to fill up the barn with hunters during hunting season and bring some economic development to your farm. Just let me know when you want to work out the details and I'll start recruiting the dancers. Just don't tell my girlfriend or the stuff might hit the fan. She's the one who pointed out your painted barn to me in the first place. She might be able to find me if word got out.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Hey Dick, so is it true you painted your Barn to say NodakOutdoors.com??? I got yet another thing to look forward to on my trip west!


----------



## scissorbill (Sep 14, 2003)

Hey bobm and Lizard-- I believe both of you have some valid points,Minnesota does have lots of public land and right now a very healthy deer pop. and like Lizard I believe only a bad winter away from a wipeout as critical winter conifer cover is fast being harvested and deteriorating. As far as ruffed grouse bobm is right there is thousands more acres of ideal habitat then years back and yet fewer birds. Predators , both avian and ground dwelling get a free ride many many more people better access coupled with the fact that much is not understood about the "cycle".One fact that the late Gordy Gullion proved was that the harvest of birds after the fall shuffle say after Nov.1 has a negative effect on the following years breeding pop.The Mn DNR really doesnt care though as this may mean afew less "hunter opportunity hours"and most importantly less lic. sales i.e. less $ and thats whats really counts to hell with the resource. Minnesota has done a miserable job on waterfowl as the hunting in that state is pathetic. witness the hordes of hunters including many Dnr employees(theres only 3500 or so)heading to other states and provinces to hunt.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Lower demand for paper and pressure not to clearcut has produced and older forest that is not as good grouse habitat as 20 years ago. And Gullion also stated that late season pressure " could" reduce the breeding populations but that it would not be a state wide impact but in pockets and that the grouse from nearby habitat would fefill the niche. You can go to the MN web site and then to the drumming counts papers and see the plated graghs of the 10 year cycle. I've been hunting grouse and woodcock for 35 years in Wisconsin and MN and they both have great grouse hunting every 10 years. And I agreed that deer are suseptable to bad winters but thats been going on since the dawn of time. And my point was and still stands these are not things that "ruined" hunting in MN as Lizard claimed. Duck hunting in Mn is shot because the Farmers drained the pothole habitat to grow crops that are already in surplus and hunters had nothing to do about that either. We hunters should work across the board to enhance access. Which I still say means more public land before we are all looking over the fence with a posted sign on it!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

That should say "plotted graphs"


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Bobm,
It is pretty obvious that you are on the more public land bandwagon. However in the case of MN waterfowl you can put all the public land up you want and it will do nothing for the numbers of waterfowl. The right kind of public land may help but public land is not the cure for lack of birds. 
All the Minnesota hunters may argue with me about numbers of birds but I have lived and hunted in Minnesota and it has nothing in comparison to many other states in terms of waterfowl numbers. In this case public land is not the answer. Education of Minnesota's hunters on habitat issues is the most important issue if things are going to change in that state.


----------



## Dave K. (Aug 28, 2003)

Most of the public land in MN isn't worth anything for waterfowl numbers. Hell, most of them just have a clump of cattails on them with some WPA signs around it and that's the closest thing to a pond you'll find. There are some that provide great hunting but then you have to compete with everyone else in what seems like the state. I have noticed a big increase from last year on the number of ducks in the areas I hunt and just an inkling of them use public land. Goes to show that MN public lands bad points outweigh the good considerably. We got some birds, just don't come close to ND.

I need to move to ND...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hey guys I know the waterfowl thing is a whole different issue. I have repeatedly stated that. Some where on this website there is a post that gave a detailed description of the decline in waterfowling in western Mn and the reasons. I just can't find it if some reading this knows where it is let us know. My point is that for UPLAND/deer/everything yes even ducks- hunting on and creating public land is the best permanent option. And if you are unsuccessful in preserving quality waterfowl hunting you may be very happy to have the option to hunt upland on public land. I don't offer any of this in a vacumn. I am suggesting that the two issues are worked on in parralell with different approaches taylored to the specific issues. I really don't think you will be able to fend off the market forces that will eventually "own" waterfowl hunting due to its very small geographic location verses very high demand. I just haven't seen any success in any other states, ( however I'm not suggesting you don't keep trying). If the waterfowl land stays private I believe it will end up posted for the highest bidder and the only sure way to prevent that is to make it public. I quit duck hunting 35 years ago ( and I train labs ) because I don't want to go through all the grief you guys are currently going through, and yes this issue really is that old it just recently has finally made it to ND. When I go hunting I want to have fun not get in a confrontation over some little piece of swamp. As a young man I had a bad temper but had enough sense to know I should'nt put myself in those types of situations. Pheasant and grouse hunting give me the solitude I'm looking for and if someone did give me a hard time I know there are just as many birds down the road a piece. Duck hunters and deer hunters tend to be very territorial over "their" spot. If you don't want public land to hunt on anytime you want fine with me but I'll never understand the logic because its not.


----------



## scissorbill (Sep 14, 2003)

Bobm Got to respond to your post first off I got you beat as I have hunted grouse for 42 yrs.There is thousands of acres of ideal grouse habitat in mn. Out east maybe the forest is aging ,but not here.The good and bad winters come and go as you say but the difference now is the conifer cover which is fire dependant is being harvested and not being replaced at adequate levels. You read it here old Scissorbill told you things will change with the deer pop. The next bad winter will be devastating. The landscape has changed .As for Gullion that is nonsense there are only so many birds whether you i or a hawk kills them yhere still dead they just dont magically reappear . I been through this silly arguement before


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well old scissorbill you are correct the next severe winter will affect deer numbers which is the point I've been making all along, but the number of hunters won't. As far as the grouse thing you are entitled to your opinion but I'm in a industry that sells to the paper business and they are not doing the cutting they were at one time in MN or anywhere else. And without natural forest fires the forest ages and the openings necessary for prime grouse habitat age as well and the grouse pop goes down. And there are many factors like raptor population ect. that have an effect as well. If you think gullion doesn't know what hes talking about thats fine with me, I'm sure he'd say the same about you! Hope you get a limit of grouse, if you do e-mail a picture to Lizard.


----------



## scissorbill (Sep 14, 2003)

Hey Bob I encourage you to take a trip to northern mn and tell me they are not doing any cutting .Aspen is being hammered at an astonishing rate as is jack pine. As i stated mn has more acreage of prime grouse habitat than at any time in the last 50 yrs. yet numbers are lower than previous lows and so on good luck to you .


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hey scissorbill you can tell we are both old we're the only guys with nothing better to do on a Friday night! If I get a chance to hunt MN this year I'll do my best to make all the grouse extinct, but if I was you I wouldn't sit up all night worring about that.


----------

