# It has started



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

nonresident license changes 
this is a bill that just got introduced into the minnesota state senate, I assume it is retaliation, or a balancing of how they are treated in other states

(e) A license issued under section 97A.474, subdivision 2, 
2.6 or 97A.475, subdivision 7, to a person who is domiciled in a 
2.7 state or province that prohibits Minnesota residents from taking 
2.8 game fish or small game during a part of the season that is open 
2.9 to residents of that state is not valid for taking game fish 
2.10 during the first 14 days of the season prescribed under section 
2.11 97C.395, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (1). 
2.12 Sec. 2. [EFFECTIVE DATE.] 
2.13 Section 1 is effective the day following final enactment.

Basically it says that if a resident from north dakota wants to come to Minnesota and fish they can't for the first 14 days of the season because North Dakota limits nonresident small game hunting.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I'm gonna jump up and down and fall on the ground and cry  When we got the good fishing we have here that ain't much of a poke in the butt.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Good !!! If it passes - we can ratch it up a notch too --- until they stay home & we stay home :roll: Guess who I think is the winner in that battle :lol:

I still say we need to restrict how many come here in the 1st couple weeks !!! they have to be spread out over the entire season & a more equal balance of where they go would not hurt either :roll:

Either that or just become one big happy State MinnKota uke:

Now SasKota has a nice ring to it :beer:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

It wil NEVER passs! If by some luck it does, the first two weeks of the season on the bigger deeper lakes usually sucks anyway.....Plenty of other things to do in MN lake country other than fishing. AND...if that's how MN feels it needs to manage IT'S resources then by all means they should do it. It's THEIR state and they should decide what is right!

Just out of couriosity, I wonder how many other states have a closed time for the taking of game to NR hunters other than SD and ND. And SD has had closures for many years....what's taken so long.


----------



## Austin Bachmeier (Feb 27, 2002)

B.F.D...... :toofunny:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

FH, I think you bring up a good point. While this is targeted at ND and SD, I suspect there's a lot of states that grant some preferencial season treatment to Res. E.g., IA has a res-only turkey period for part of the season, and oh yeah, MN has res-only prairie chicken and dark-house fishing.

As I've posted before, if this is designed to better MN fishing, it won't have much of an overall effect. ND fisherman represent about 2.5% of the overall MN anglers, and SD even less. Rather if it's about retaliation, and it makes them feel better, that's okay. I was born and raised in MN, spend the bulk of summer weekends at a MN cabin my dad and grandpa built in 1950 and when I had a chance to move back to this area, the ND hunting caused me to not think twice about residency. I haven't missed many MN fishing openers in the last 20 years, but will gladly start fishing Memorial if that's what is takes to get the hunting stuff on this side of the river fixed - just won't be able to put off those leafs for a couple of weeks any more.


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

Thats just breaks my heart


----------



## mfeining (Nov 2, 2002)

If Minnesota does pass this law, shouldn't we follow up and reserve our opener for residents. Oh yeah, we don't have an opener! Shucks. I feel the reason we don't need to close the fishing season is we don't overpromote our resources, YET. Sustainability is everything, my friends.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I still contend that in the end any loss of opportunity to enjoy hunting and fishing hurts us all and continues us all on the path to the european system where only the extremely rich hunt. These trends will accelerate the tightening of access that we are all feeling as the wealthy continue to secure hunting rights by purchasing the land out of fear they won't have access. Everytime this happens we all lose. Dick Monson wrote an excellent post a while back describing all the loss of access that has already occurred in ND. All you're doing in ND is catching up with the rest of the country and believe me its not a pretty picture. All sportsman nationwide should be working at reversing these trends not reveling in tightening the screws on each other. It may feel good now but it won't be long before you are looking over the fence at the land you use to hunt with a no hunting- no tresspassing sign hanging on it. And if your honest with yourselves you will have to admit you just don't have the funds to compete with these forces. But collectively nationwide sportsman untied would have a lot of political pull. Right now the dark side is dividing and conquering and you don't even know its happening. "IF you throw a frog in a hot pan of water he will hop out, but if you turn up the heat slowly he will be cooked before he realizes it" Croak croak croak!


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Yeah Bob you may be right but instead of us losing it all (our paradise) little at a time & then wishing we would have done things to have kept it & preserved it, as long as we could have - would't it be smart to do things now, before were over the hill & it's all down hill ???

If we stay on the path of a free for all how long before we are not much different than other States ??? & then who will want to come up or over here :roll: to see our beautiful sunsets & badlands & prairie & farmlands :roll:

Preserving the fragile enviroment WE LIVE IN - should be something we should take serious - it is more fragile & precious than most know or understand

Sharing it :idea: with those that really appreciate it & have references or a sponsor / invitation is how it should be - & if you have criminal or game violations where you come from - NO WAY should you be allowed in paradise :iroll:

Even Canada is smart enough to keep crooks & law breakers out


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

but the number of criminals wont put a dent in the pressure you are feeling its such a small %. I don't know the answer but my gut feeling is that all sportsman nationwide need to push for farm program recipients nationwide to allow plots type hunting on their alnds if they want the benefits of the tax funded farm program assistance. I know this will probably piss off half the readers on this forum but its the only way I see to keep hunting a regular guy sport and its the regular guy whose taxes are subsidizing farming.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/show ... ost1783922


----------



## win4win (Sep 8, 2003)

Well at least they put it in plain english....if you do this....we will do that.

Oh well they can sit and spin for all I care....I dont fish MN anyway.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This bill is poorly written...after all every state has non-res. restrictions.So it would affect everybody.

What do you suppose they would do if ND and SD got together and banned only Minn. non-res. the first 14 days of all hunting seasons.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

At my age and with my bad knees I have maybe have 10 or 15 years on the outside left in this sport so these trend won't really change my life much but you young guys better learn to organize and get some political clout on a national basis. Or learn how to sing along... croak croak croak!


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Furthermore KEN W, the wording of the bill is messy, to say the least. It doesn't seem that the bill PROHIBITS FISHING, it just prohibits "TAKING OF GAME FISH" for those first 14 days.

Define "taking" of game fish. Does "taking" constitute catching, stringering and cleaning for consumption? Does that mean you can catch and release all you want during those first 14 days? Because if that is so, I'm not too concerned. I release 98% of the fish I catch in Minnesota anyhow; it's mostly bluegills, perch, bass, and pike which I release immediately. Don't get me wrong, I keep 10-20 walleye from MN each year, but I know they don't comprise more than 2-5% of the fish I catch in the state. I can get by without those fish, and I can catch plenty of em here in SEND. I also make it a point to release eyes over 20" when I fish on Big Detroit, just like I do on the Sheyenne River.

Doesn't seem to affect my fishing...go ahead, big babies, welcome to the game.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

More like 95% Bob. The rest of states, except maybe SD, already are so screwed up in terms of hunting and leasing and outfitters. Where were all those sportsmen when they were loosing what they had. Now you want ND to just open up the gates and work with the rest of the nation's sportsmen so we can keep what "we" have for everyone. "WE" are working with our legislators, governor, and gnf to try to strike a balance between opposing sides. ie 400,000 acres enrolled in public hunting areas with a pledge from our governor and gnf to enroll many more hundreds of thousands of acres into the programs in the coming years. I'm not saying the NR hunters are not welcome in ND, they are, but what's in it for the local "regular" guy to band together with say MN hunters/fisherman. Maybe someone in MN might try another approach.....introduce legislation that would allow ND and all NR's in the state to share in some of the ways the MN resident pursues game and fish. ie. spear fishing, permanent ice fishing houses, hunting restrictions (both waterfowl and upland). Then maybe ND sportsmen might look at things a different way. Working together is not a one way street.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Field hunter what I was saying to Fetch is that keeping violators out of the state won't help much as far as reducing pressure is concerned bbecause there just aren't enough of them. You're are correct its too little too late and the whole hunting thing as we all grew up doing is almost over. ND is tha last stand and I don't think the young people that this will really affect realize it or if they do realize don't care enough or have the iniative to do anything about it. Soon the leasing and posting of private land will tighten the noose on your hunting like it has in the rest of the country and that will be that. I can just hope the process takes at least 10 years so I can get my time in.


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

I doubt it will gain much momentum, resort dollars lost always ring loud here in MN. Several times in the past legislators have gone so far as to extended the season for a week or two so resorts could fill some cabins.

However, if someone does some homework and figures out how many ND and SD guests actually spend time at a resort as a paying guest, well maybe then perhaps it could be different. For the most part, I don't believe many do come for the opener, especially for vacation, the kids are still in school, weather is never safe inthe middle of May. Then the majority of people it would effect would be cabin owners from ND.

Plus how would they have the Wardens enforce it. Check every boat or look for a ND plate at the ramp. Not very probable.

Does this legislation cover all the season openers, Bass, Musky, trout etc..
I still contend that would get some peoples attention, particularly the bass and musky guys. No tournaments for the first two weeks, no pre-fishing for the T's after the two week cut off, could have a small effect on a small group of guys.

But again, I doubt it will have a chance at making it out of committee at this point, mainly because like else where, most people are not concerned enough about anything unless it directly effects them. Apathy will be the doom of us all.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

How about my other idea - Only allow NR's by invitation or Sponsors - either a guide or Resident (that buys a License) can sponsor a NR ??? Give each Resident so many & so many to the guides & anything over that will cost more with fees escalating as the # you bring in goes up ??? Maybe they have to be with the sponsor or Guide at all times

This could let landowners get their relatives in - Guides could only get so big :roll: (Not big enough to lease up 1/2 a county) We can get our friends in - Maybe even so many per week - so not all come at once ???

G&FD would sell more licenses - cause many would buy them - to get their friends & relatives in the State & maybe even more (residents) would go hunting ??? 
Could even cut down on slob problems as many will be on their best behavior


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The silver lining to this guys is that it may wake up the people in MN to start making what they have better. I bet that the debate will run much different than ours did on hunting. We want protections to the quality of hunting and the resources they will have to have the same approach or the thing is dead.

THis I bet will stir some interest to the south or them and make WI jump up and cheer, as they will see the benifit along with SD from the south and ND area's like Jamestown and Valley City and DL will get a extra kick.


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

Wait, Wait... Im not going to even pretend to figure out what that bill means. But I will say this, I know of NOBODY from SD who goes to fish in Minnesota other than to get together with family members. In fact, on a typical day on Waubay or any of the other "new" lakes back when they "took off", I would venture to say that most South Dakotans felt like the nonresidents at the boat ramp. There were more MN, IA, Neb, Wisc, plates than SD ones. It was like a damn zoo when you were out fishing, which was something that we never had to deal with much. And don't get me started on pheasant hunting. Much NR opener here for waterfowl, there is nothing but a steady stream of cars running through Watertown with Blaze orange caps on their dashes. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with NR hunters, but we are not immune to them either. Now that I'm really not sure if this post goes with the tread anymore, I will stop rambling.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

I was under the impression that fishing in N.D was good anyway.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fetch the problem always come back to economics like everything else you have to follow the money trail. If only land owners can invite NRs then wealthy Nrs or hunting clubs comprised of them will become landowners( to us land in ND is cheap) and more land will be posted and we all lose. When is the last time you saw hunting club land open to all? Unfortunately (because I don't like legislative interference in private property rights) I think your only long term hope is that there are more hunters than landowners and you will have to get laws passed insuring hunting access to all licensed hunters. Or get laws passed preventing NR hunting in any form although you will then probably suffer a backlash from all the landowners that are currently leasing to out of staters. Or I could bring up the government land issue again but I don't want to get hit with any snowballs :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Ken W, You state that "basicaly it says that if a resident from North dakota..." does the bill actually identify North dakota. As to say only north dakota and not somebody from Wisconson or Ohio. I guess what I am trying to say is, does the bill specificaly descriminate against ND? Or is it a Nonresident bill encompassing all Nonresidents?

not that I care. I live in cleveland and I am 20 min. from Lake Erie. I will never fish in MN. but I still support ND in spirit. You guys do what you need to do to keep ND a freelance state. I will pay the extra money or wait on a list. As long as I do not have to pay for acess I will come. :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The bill does not identify ND...it says "state or province."But you can bet the farm that they are mainly talking about ND and probably SD.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

I doubt that this will fly as well because of Minnesotas resort owners and the strong voice they have.
I also agree that limiting the first 14 days to residents only will not mean much as that is not the best time for fishing in this state as a rule.
Too bad.
I would much prefer to see non residents limited to 14 days total...maybe the first 14 days.
North Dakota has some great fishing but for some reason there are still a ton of you who own lake cabins over here.
I survived quite nicely not hunting in NoDak this year. Im sure glad I dont pay taxes on property out there that I cant use when I want to.
I wish you all that same peace of mind.
I would imagine that Minnesota IS targeting North Dakotans as some of you have been concluding. Is that such a stretch? I mean, when you guys got your limits, I felt like you were targeting Minnesotans. Stands to reason both ways as you probably make up most of our NR fishermen and we probably make up most of your NR hunters. 
The trouble is that most of you are upset about G/Os leasing up land, not the freelancers. Raise the $ all you want but the guys using the G/Os will still come because they can afford it.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

You should believe it when those on this site have sniffed out the MN bill as poorly written, they should know considering the one they threw on us NR's last year.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

I'm a little surpised at the number and type of responses posted here. Throughout this whole controversy many ND res were saying MN should do what's right for them and put their own restrictions in place. Now that a bill is proposed to do just that people on here (Fetch) are saying fine "we can ratch it up a notch too." Always trying to be one step up.

I guess what I'm really shocked at is that so many of you seem to take offense to this even though you're all saying it won't affect you. MN is one of the LAST states to impose rules like this. Other states have been doing this for years. So now MN is wrong for doing exactly what ND and SD have done? I can't remember who wrote it but they said 'communication is a two way street'.

And to say (mfeining) that the reason you don't have an 'opener' is because "we don't overpromote our resources" is ludicrous. The reason you don't have an opener is because you dont' have the instate population like MN does. Other states have fishing that is comparable or they go to Canada. I realize that ND does have good fishing. You can promote it all you want but it doesn't stick out noticeably from Oahe, Mille Lacs, Leech, LOW, Red or many others that are much closer. If I'm going to drive 6-8 hrs. to go fishing I could be in Ontario.

Bobm...Good post.

Sponsors....you already have those....they are called guides. The minute you try to do something like that the number of guides will skyrocket. And I'm not talking about the big ones who are already there. It would be the small ones that no one knows about. Cash services.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

If Minnesota wants to pass this bill. I say good for them. My parents and grandparents both have lake homes in Minnesota and if I don't fish the first 14 days it sure won't break my heart.

If the sportsmen of Minnesota can organize and pass any laws that will adversely affect the well dug in commercial outdoor recreational interests then they will have done something.

However untill Minnesota sportsmen get organized I don't think you will see anything at all.

Just a whole lot of complaining.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Guys, obviously going to be a difference of opinion about the pros and cons of this MN bill, but let's make sure we're dealing with the facts when forming those opinions. Again, the relevent stats (and I won't editorialize, just the stats):

1. Fishing Stats. In 2002, ND had 170,230 licensed anglers. Of that number, 40,177 or 23.60% were nonresidents. Of the nonresidents, 10,850 were MN residents. Thus, of all anglers licensed in ND in 2002, 6.37% were MN residents.

Also for 2002, MN had 1,082,265 licensed anglers. Of that number, 267,193 or 24.69% were nonresidents. Of the nonresidents, 26,600 were ND residents. Thus, of all anglers licensed in MN in 2002, 2.46% were ND residents. Top three importers of MN nonres fishermen: IA 50,435; WI 45,592; IL 37,958.

2. Hunting Stats.

In 2002, ND had 146,579 total licensed hunters. Of that number, 47,681 or 32.53% were nonresidents. Of the nonresidents, 50% or 23,850 were MN residents. Thus, of all licensed hunters in ND in 2002, 16% were MN residents.

In 2002, MN sold 835,230 hunting licenses. Of that number, 23,142 or 2.77% were sold to nonresidents. Of the nonresident sales, 2,502 were sold to ND residents. Thus, of all hunting licenses sold in MN in 2002, .3%, three-tenths of one percent, were sold to ND residents.

If MN wants to improve its fishing, it's barking up the wrong tree. If MN wants to extract a pound of flesh or exert some political pressure for its traveling sportspersons, this is certainly one way of trying to do so. Think all of us are pretty sure the actual motive is the latter, and that's fine. What a mightmare for MDNR to review the G&F regs from every jurisdiction each year to determine who's on restricted list.

jms and powder, I think you've over-estimated the reaction of most. I (and I gather most others) don't really care much. The only thing that bothers me is this bill puts the emphasis on retribution rather than actually doing something to better outdoors quality and opportunities in MN.

Bert, if you need to check the numbers, Paul Schadwald at NDG&F is very helpful and responsive. Can't remember the guy at MDNR I dealt with, but you will get him by making a license data info request to: [email protected]. Cabins and fishing are two different things. Fortunately and unfortunately there are many things to do at a cabin other than fish (wish I could spend 5% of cabin time fishing - but then who would do the chores?). If it's a traditional woodsey lake cabin you're after, MN has the market pretty well cornered. If you're just looking at fishing, ND holds her own nicely. Ironcially, think I'd get a lot more fishing in if we didn't have the cabin, but still prefer we have the cabin for ten other reasons, none of which has anything to do with fishing.

Hope MN sportspersons work as hard on the dove bill as this one.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Silly. If you want to esculate a border war at least pick the month of June. No ND or SD resident can fish in MN during the month of June. Still this is silly.

I would prefer the economic route. IE. states that impose time limit, high dollar licenses (ND or SD upland) will incur the same when they visit MN to fish.

Come and fish all you want, but you will pay up every 10 days.

*Or impose a NR license for use of public DNR boat ramps ($100 NR license/year).* You need that sticker on your pick up window to launch a boat from a public ramp in MN. Easy one to enforce.

This one should be an easy one to pass since resort owners will get a boom of NRs hitting their paid access points to avoid paying the NR fee.

That could inturn keep NRs off those small undeveloped lakes where the fishing still is beyond belief - yes that means great.

Doves - yawwwwwn

Based on what most have said over the past few years this thread should have absolutely no effect on 95% of the active hot topic posters living in ND. In fact it should help deliver what you need most - a good kick in the rear to jump start your own agenda.

PH


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

I have not read the bill in full, but I understand there is also 
another bill going around MN. The bill reads that MN will 
charge non-residents what their state charges Mn residents
to hunt. I believe they were talking bow hunting at 1st but
it sounds like it will spread across the board to all hunting
licenses. What do you think of that proposal?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Croak! croak! croak! Thats not what I think, its what I know!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Just out of curiosity, how do the MN guys track the different types of legislation on hunting and fishing issues? Might be better than, I think there's this bill and I hear there's this bill and this bill is going to do this.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

I tell ya what, ND has some of the best early walleye fishing around! If MN won't let me fish the first 14 days, it is just another great reason to stay in ND!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Powder said:


> I'm a little surpised at the number and type of responses posted here. Throughout this whole controversy many ND res were saying MN should do what's right for them and put their own restrictions in place.


This bill has nothing to do with Mn. doing what is best for them.If it did this statement would not be in there... "state or province that prohibits Minnesota."
This is pure retaliation.As Dan stated above only 2.46% of all fisherman in Minn. are from ND.

If you want to do what is best for Minn. it would include all non-res.

Our laws treat all non-res. the same.Close the season the first 14 days for everyone, or as stated above this would be a nightmare to enforce,since laws change yearly.

Example...the past 2 years only ND res. could hunt waterfowl the first week.That could change this year IF the Dept Of Inter. said no early opener.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

Not stated in Dan's figures, but if you do the math, 20.4% of all ND resident fishing license holders also fish in Minnesota. Any Mn bill concerning fishing for nonresidents would have a direct affect on the good people of ND. I guess if we can keep most of those people from fishing here, it would lessen the pressure and increase the quality of fishing for us residents. That almost sounds like a ND statement!


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

I don't argue that this bill is in retaliation for what ND did and that it would be difficult to enforce. But I don't think that's the only reason. ND was just the last in a long line of States that restrict NR's. It was the final straw. No where in the wording of that bill does it only say ND residents will be targeted. And because MN restrcits NR's in a different way than other states have chosen people are mad.

I disagree that what MN is doing is not in their best interest. By restricting only those residents of states that restrict Minnesotan's, Minnesota is sending a clear message that if you don't want this to happen to your citizens then don't mess with ours. They are not 'ratcheting it up' they are saying if you want to play this game so can we. If you as a state are willing to drop the restrictions we'll automatically back off too. I think MN is showing that they don't want to play that way but will if they have to.

What's the saying....treat others the way you would wish to be treated. If you want to restrict NR because you feel (and rightfully so) it protects your resources and your best interest then expect other states to do the same. MN DID NOT start the restriction war. It's only playing catch up.

Besides, statistics can be made to say anything you want. Lets use that 2.46% that Ken and Dan used. What they didn't mention is that 2.46% accounts for 26,600 fisherman. Which, by the way, is nearly 3,000 more than MN residents who hunt in ND (23,850). And please don't start about how MN has so many lakes and this number of people can be spread out throughout the year.....that was the point of this paragraph. Statistics and percentages lie. These are all Dan's numbers and I posted the link.

In the end I think this whole thread will be irrelevant because I would be shocked if that bill passes.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/members/ph ... ght=#15520


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Powder, I'm okay, with this MN proposal, really. What's ironic, however, is the angle and effect. MN responds with fishing restrictions that are actually aimed and designed to better some of its citizens hunting opportunities elsewhere rather than having any significant impact on most of the residents at home. This bill might be in the best interest of the traveling MN sportspersons, but it has only an inconsequential effect on doing anything meaningful for MN sportspersons within MN. Further, what does the bill say about the state of hunting in MN and the desirability of MN hunting if MN responds to hunting restrictions with fishing restrictions? All around, just sort of a sad commentary.

And as to statistics, yes they can often be manipulated, but you can't throw up the "numbers conspiracy theory" to ignore meaningful data either. The gross number of ND folks who fish in MN as compared to the gross number of MN folks who hunt ND has as much relation to one another as the number of MN people who visited Medora this summer as compared to the number of ND people who have seen a Vikes game in the last 5 years - not much. To understand the impact of something, you have to make things that are comparable relative to one another. Is 2.46% of the overall fishing pressure in MN significant, and how is reducing 2.46% of the overall MN fishing pressure going to meaningfully improve MN fishing? On the other hand, if ND could further restrict 16% of the overall hunting pressure (MN residents - and actually a much higher percentage if you look solely at res and MN nonres upland and waterfowl hunters), now that would yield results.

And, those numbers aren't mine - they are the numbers given to me by the license information folks at NDG&F and MDNR. I welcome you or anyone else to double check them.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Dan,
I disagree that these restrictions are a total knee jerk to NoDak's hunting restrictions and in no way benifit the Mn Sportsmen.
Is it a reaction? Yes. But it WILL benifit Mn sportsmen by reducing some competition for fishing over here.
The angle of attack?
Of course we are going to use fishing. What else are we gonna do? 
Its not like there are more than 3 people in the whole state of North Dakota who come here to hunt ducks.
If North Dakota jacked its NR fishing fees and otherwise limited opportunities and left NR hunting alone, do you think there would be near the brewhaha that there is now?
The state of hunting in Minnesota? Why it is in the hurt bag when it comes to waterfowl. That's no big secret. Still decent but not like the good old days.
According to you guys, throwing money at it will change that. Is that what North Dakota did?
Certianly if we could bust all the tile in SW Minnesota it would become duck heaven again. Sadly, that aint gonna happen any time soon because of cost and the time it takes to do such things. 
Are we sitting on our hands over here? Heck no, there are reclaimation projects all over the place (Ive done two on my own property) but you dont fix 100 years of draining in a couple of years. Meanwhile most of us will never live to see any significant improvement and that is why we go to North Dakota in the mean time.
Again, I doubt that this bill will fly and I doubt even more that it would change much.
What I would like to see is NR's (who come from a state with nonres restrictions like NoDak) are limited to the first 14 days of the season or 14 days in August to do their fishing over here. That and Id like to see the price of that license triple to help pay for some habitat. (that makes sense right?)
That would accomplish two things.
A. It would mean less pressure on the resource from people who dont seem to appreciate it very much resulting in a better experience for resident fishermen and...
B. Open the eyes of many Mn. lake cabin owning North Dakotans who think they can have the best of both worlds.
I would be perfectly happy to never hunt NoDak again. In fact I probably never will so it aint about that for me. It is about the pressure and crowding in Mn for fishing that is at least equal to that of the hunting in NoDak.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Bert said:


> It is about the pressure and crowding in Mn for fishing that is at least equal to that of the hunting in NoDak.


You can't honestly believe that can you? It's about retaliation plain and simple. How in any way shape or form will this bill do anything to help pressure? There's definitely pressure and overcrowding on some lakes, but the pressure is there from Minnesotans. Comparing the NR pressure on MN lakes to the NR pressure in ND for hunting is completely ludicrous.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Matt,
I said it is about retaliation. But thats not all.
Id say that there is way more hunting land that goes begging in North Dakota than there is Lakes in Minnesota that dont feel non res pressure.
Cripes, Ive had over 4000 acres of North Dakota to hunt for the last 10 years and never see anybody else. 
I live on a lake in Mn and cant look out my window in the summer without seeing someone from NoDak.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Bert, this stuff is frustrating, isn't it? Frustrating for you, us and all. We don't like to restrict any more than you like being restricted. But, let it go on it's natural way, and the vast majority of us will be looking from the outside in, in less than a generation.

Yes, the proposed restriction will reduce SOME pressure, but not enough (even your proposal) for you guys to notice the difference - 2.46%. The bulk of your fishing over-pressure comes from within and E, S and SE. The proposal may feel good, but won't yield results.

Blindly tossing money at any problem rarely works, and no the tiles aren't going to get removed any time soon. Love that guys like you are chipping away, for you and more importantly for those who will follow. Got to be some other ideas. What about designating a two-county area in duck country as a limited pressure, draw-only type hunting (likely except for landowners), maybe restrict days that can be hunted by day or hunter. Create a little ND/SD at home. Guys that have invested in those areas will squack, but the two counties could be rotated so no one area takes the hit each year. Lots of squaking about something like this, but there aren't any easy answers in any of this. Just widh more of you would get more jacked up about bettering things at home as opposed to what ND is doing.

License costs. MN isn't exactly shy right now. Turkey tag as high or higher than most. Waterfowl same. Fishing license slightly higher than ND. I'm not advocating a reduction, but I don't think you'd find on the whole that MN licences are off the pace with competition now.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Pressure isnt why our duck hunting is sub par right now. Dwindling habitat and competition with two neighboring states that have seen unprecidented precipitation for 10 years in a row has changed the flyway.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Bert habitat destruction would be a better description but dan has it right
"the vast majority of us will be looking from the outside in, in less than a generation. " So lets keep screwing each other because it feels so good!
Croak croak croak!


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Ratchit ??? :roll:

I think all traveling hunters should have to pay premium prices & the money go to PLOTS and Lots more Enforcement (wardens)& simuliar programs.

If a side benefit is to keep us from being over run by NR hunters all coming at the same time so be it

How do our fees compare to Sask. or Manitoba ??? (even Minnesota ???) for a NR hunting license ??? You usually have to pay top dollar - for the Best oke:

Maybe instead of a gun fee we have a simuliar Habitat fee ??? to balance it out ??? Maybe to help pay for seasonal Enforcement - hire & train other law enforcement folks to work evenings & weekends etc. (pay em good $$$) to Help our G&FD ???

This whiney stuff about waterfowl & WPA's being everyones is getting real old :crybaby: The only way you will ever get equal opportunity is to MOVE Here !!!


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

Couple more good snowfalls, more cold weather to keep it on the lakes. will probably eliminate most of the fishing in SEND due to winterkill. I haven't looked at to many maps of the lakes located in that area, but not many are deep enough to sustain many fish. But hey Devils lake and Sak are not that far away from Fargo, course there is always the RED right there in town to fish.

I think the way to motivate my legislators is to print up some of the threads on this site to read for themselves what the issues really are and what obviously most of ND sportsman really think of us here.

Maybe just cut & paste in an e-mail would be easier, faster and get to them in a much more efficient manner.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

I will hope for plenty of rain in N.D this summer to fill the potholes and maybe relieve some pressure, but "FETCH" I only hope your hunting world doesn't flip over like an old empty water dish like some of ours have here!! Then maybe the boot will be on the other foot and you will know how it feels to be at another states mercy for a good hunting opportunity. I hope it's not too EXPENSIVE for that so called "PRICELESS" flock to come in on your spread!!


----------



## Crabby (Aug 27, 2003)

:beer:

Just had to stop by and see your sorry reaction.

There ya go ya commies. Just the opening shot. Maybe work on your cabin taxes next. Get ready. Lack and load.

Crabby


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Not during the entire session of '03 did I hear of bills in ND targeted at Minnesotans. I just don't see the need to throw snowballs back and forth between the Red River. What does it accomplish? Whatever MN decides to do is fine with me, you have the right to do so. If you believe what you're doing is helping your future generations than I hope you get it done.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Crabby, glad to have you back (knew you'd be back - they always come back - even when they promise - "I really mean it this time" - they'll NEVER be back). Since you went missing (lurking), there was no one around to set the limit for the most miserable, rotten, bad attitude (except maybe Fetch :wink: ). Obviously you haven't been away at an extended anger management retreat. 

Anywho, on the cabin tax thing - too late. MN lakes country residents are already subsidized by all non-homestead cabin owners, resident or non-resident by virtue of the recreational property tax classification. Certainly affects all nonres cabin owners, but hits many more MN residents who live elsewhere but own a MN cabin. Maybe you're talking about a new, double-secret, nonresident recreational cabin tax?


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Taxes!
I would gladly pay non homestead tax on hunting land in North Dakota if it meant I could hunt it the whole season and didnt have to pay the price of a slightly used shotgun each year for a license.
Those of you who think retaliation is childish...
Dont want to see turd flinging across the Red...
Dont think its wise to keep screwing eachother...
YOU STARTED IT. We are just supposed to suck it up and take it?
You all put in qualifiers like "do what you want...but..."
That doesnt jibe with what you were saying before they made some noise in St. Paul. (by the way, I dont think much will come of this but I sure hope it escalates)
You should all be backing anything we do to relieve the pressure from our waters regardless if you think it makes sense or our motives are less than grown up. We are learning a whole pile of new tricks from you. Heck, if most of you would put your money where your mouths are, you would volunteer to stay in that state of yours with all the wonderful fisheries. I can think of a lot of Minnesotans who would buy your Minnesota lake properties so you wouldnt have to pay non homestead taxes any more.
And Fetch...
Nobody has asked for equal opportunity for non resident hunting in NoDak.
The complaint is mostly from freelance hunters like myself who are not your targeted enemies (G/Os) but carry the brunt of the fallout nonetheless.
You dont think that non resident pressure in Mn is a big enough deal to make a stink about?
Well, I dont think that alianating non resident freelance hunters and hurting small NoDak towns financially and pi-sing off landowners out there in order to stop the outfitters from tying up land is real bright either (cause they're gonna do it anyway).
Have a great day.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

There won't be any "ratcheting up" going on in ND, the small local economies that rely on hunting dollars coming in from out of state won't stand for it. As much as I love to come to the dakotas each season to hunt ( I fish at home) it is hardly "Eden", maybe for two months each year.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Way to go DB, LOL. I thought I remembered others posting something like that also. You're right, they always come back. CootK, sort of missed your stuff. This conversation is getting like the end of the Bison -Sioux rivalry......each side says they really don't care when in reality if there was an easy fix they'd jump at it. I'm looking forward to the "discussion" in the next couple of months....great for the cardiovascular system.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I think that Chris should put a disclaimer up that say's do not read unless you have taken your asprin to prevent heart attacks today!  :wink:


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

If MN wants to keep more walleyes to them self, let them! That's all they got! We have a baker's dozen that will provide some insight on how our fishing is. Slough Lake (even oin a slow day) is better than 9,990 lakes in MN. No jetski's, no drunken fools flying by you in a 2005 Checkmate speed boat blowing a roostertail. I grew up fishing Pelican Lake (our family has a cabin right off the Barry Point) and from what the DNR has done to that lake, they are ruining it!! Not to mention the public in general!

Realistically we have nothing to gain from there hunting and fishing(except comradery)

Mav....


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

MN deer hunters harvest close to 3 times as many deer during the season as compared to ND, fishing isnt " all they got", it's a joke to compare ND to MN fishing.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Ahhhh James, I believe they have more hunters don't they???


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

That is true, far more deer hunters, far more deer.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

I don't want to get off of this fishing subject but with all due respect, walleye isn't all we have here in MINN. Yes our waterfowl season is quite lame compared to N.D, but the deer are everywhere and small game is also very good. These are the fill-ins for a good hunting season all around. I fish the river which is open year round anyway. Turkey is very good here also, although a little tough to find land to hunt because of its popularity. I am lucky to have some of my own land to do some of these fall hobbies on, and just have to, as some say,"respectfully disagree" with the "fish is all we have". It's just what this state probably promotes the most up around the so called big lakes. Personally if I were to go to one of these lakes I'd probably do more sitting in a chair on shore with my feet in the air than anything else!! :beer:


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

On the topic of deer, does MN have mule deer?? I don't think so. If you're gonna say ND doesn't have good deer hunting, you're really fooling yourself.

I don't know why this always has to be a "we have this and you guys don't debate". ND has the best outdoor opportunities available right now. We have everything: birds, deer, fish etc. But the fact of the matter is that it won't last forever. The rainy cycle will eventually come to an end. Blizzards will knock out a majority of the upland game.... yadda yadda yadda.

I am one of the few who believe the NDGF is doing a wonderful job. They are actively managing ND resources, rather than waiting and reacting to adverse situations. If this means restrictions, I'm all for it.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

What?? Let me see. No Muley's, got me there!! if you would look into what my post read, it simply stated that we have more than just walleye. Nothing about what you don't have and what we have. I really don't think we need a mule deer population anyway, unless you want to drive 10 mph. through our section of the state after 2:00 in the afternoon!! I have relatives in Wyoming.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

GP, sorry to upset you, I was responding to the previous posts, not yours. oops

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that ND has a little of everything. If you want to hunt, you can hunt. If you want to fish, you can fish. Doesn't matter what you do in ND, you will be successful!

I grew up fishing in MN. But once the rainy cycle started in the 1990's, ND offered better opportunities. Like I stated above, all good things eventually come to an end, enjoy them while ya can!!


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

As long as you brought it up, how did the bear and ruffed grouse season go in ND? Along the same lines, how did the lake trout and salmon season go? The more you compare the worse of a comparison it becomes.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

yep, ND and MN are like apples and oranges. Nothing in common!


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Both states need to start protecting their natural resources better
than the past. I have a great example for ND, I've hunted around
Bader Lake for years. The NDG&F then starts stocking the lake, 
then changes the name to Dollinger-Schnabel. If you are curious
were the names comes from, the two own land on the north side
of the lake. Anyway, the perch fishing was great last year. Until,
every Tom, Dick and NR came out of the concrete jungles and 
hammered the lake!! Today, the locals can't figure out what 
happened to all the perch? My guess, in many 5 gallon buckets 
last year. The bucket owners were from Wisconsin, Minnesota,
South Dakota, Fargo, Bismark and yes Wishek, Ashley and 
Venturia!!

P.S. - I hope Blake gets the job with Mr. Roboto Spinning Wing
Decoy Company. I understand the starting pay is 1.2 
million yen!! Buy a lotta big foots with all that cash!!


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

PSDC nice location!  not a big deal B.A., I was shakin' my head a bit. :eyeroll: Maybe I'll taste my next cold one!!


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

I think the Musky season was a real hoot in ND last year to. I also hear rumor that BASS is going to GF real soon to look for a Tournament site.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Ya , well, How many Jackaloupe does Minneasota have????   Man, we have herds of them like you have never seen before!!!


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

Ya know guys it really doesn't matter what each state does to each other. I'm a Mn res. and never usually hunt anywhere else, (except Bro-in-laws in Montana & Wyoming 1 or 2 times a year) Look to the future. Suppose you have extreme dry spells like Mn had. Where are the waterfowl going then? Yep. probably Mn! Where then are you going to go if you're a die- hard waterfowler? Yep, probably Mn. We are only playing the Craps tables by screwin with each other. BUT, by what I read and hear about, you can have all the laws you want against NR's because you people aren't going to be able to hunt either, unless you have a pocketful of money or are good buds with one of the G/O's. (maybe ya'll should change your state's name to Northern Texas  )... Yep, Mn is a bad state, please stay home as I mostly do!! oke:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

There you go, Bubba has spoken, now take his advise. :beer:


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

No bear season here, but for a clarification, we do have ruffed grouse in the Killdeer Mts., Turtle Mountains, and the Walhalla Gorge area. We also have a large salmon population in Sakakawea. Several lakes with muskies also.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Sorry!!! Bubba - I think you have a better chance of







before the ducks return to Minn. :roll:


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

And after speaking with a bunch of the local old-timers!! That's exactly what they thought years ago when it came to N & S Dakota. Never say never. It hurts when you get bit in the arse. Regardless, I think it's B.S. what these two states are trying to do to each other. And even if the ducks don't return to Mn, still doesn't mean your G/O's are going away. In fact, I'm happy you have them. Keeps the H??? out of here!! Happy hunting (maybe) in the future Fetch!! :beer:


----------



## mfeining (Nov 2, 2002)

I'm happy to see all you MN guys speaking highly of your states resources and opportunities. I'm also happy to see a bill introduced that seems like you are somewhat protective of your natural resources and are willing to put them before resort revenue. I don't think it is selfish to afford residents "first dibs" if you will on the resources which they steward the entire year. I would even go so far as to say that you should reduce the daily limit and posession limit nonresidents are allowed and reduce yours slightly, but not to the nonresident level to improve fishing. As for ND, I think a tag system would be an effective way to limit overharvest of waterfowl and upland game. with nr licences, include maybe 10 pheasant tags and 20 duck tags. the g/o's with all of the prime land wouldn't have quite as much impact on the game populations this way.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

This is when the ducks will return to MN


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

It would look better in color! :rollin:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

melson, here's what you wrote 18 days ago: "The issues that are being brought-up again and re-hashed over and over are doing nothing but driving a wedge between sportsmen". Your offering on this thread today and your new thread yesterday (which had no good-faith intent to seek serious, rational input but was presented purely for its pot-stirring and provocative affect), tells me you need to practice what you preach.

And yeah, when things go dry in ND, MN duck hunting will get better, but ND duck hunting won't be as bad as you'd like to think either. Little published fact that there was some tremendous ND waterfowling in the dry years. Less ducks and less water, but where there was water there was ducks, often times lots of them.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

So I get it, it's O.K. to post a photo about hell freezing over before ducks return to MN in spite of people working hard to turn things around there, I guess that's not stirring up the pot. About the thread yesterday, you can look back through my threads (as you seem to enjoy doing) and find a mention of the possibity of people I know trying to make a land purchase. And you are right, the picture would look better in color but it wasn't invented yet.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I don't agree with the angle or tone Fetch takes on a lot of this stuff either. But we were talking about you, and I recalled some comment you made in the recent past about not driving wedges (which I found really ironic given you're typical tone), and then the crap from yesterday and today. Yeah, tough guys like you who (a) visit ND 10 days out of the year and think your experts on ND hunting issues, (b) demand to preserve "your rights" to play in ND a little each Fall and then slink back home for the rest of the year, and (c) want into ND so badly for your play time and then have the audacity to **** on this place (wasn't it you that made the "hardly Eden" comment too?); really chap my ***. There are a bunch of nonresidents I truly regret being impacted by the necessary current and future restrictions. Guys like you, not so much.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Dan, you are a senitive guy. All I want to do is hunt with my kids. Yes I spend less than 2 weeks in ND, right now. ND isn't Eden. The battle has begun unfortunatly between have and have- nots. I go to the Dakotas,MN,Iowa,Can.and Wisc. during the fall for one reason, to hunt with my family. I have to work around zones, lotteries, customs, A-HOLES each and every season, its getting old for all of us.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I have learned over the years it is better to have fun with & learn to enjoy things that used to make me MAD - I think it's a combination of of really knowing my stuff & been there/done that & Maturity & Happy Drugs :lol:

I enjoy being an Enigma :roll: To be like everyone else, to me is Boring 

I am sarcastic & cynical (But in a nice humorous sort of way) :-? & I like to make my points & add to conversations in that style. :evil: I do realize many do not like or understand that kind of humor :huh: Oh Well !!! 

James have I ever showed you my Motto ??? :roll: :wink: :lol:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

jms, "thenthative", not particularly so (ask my wife). Passionate, yes. Passionate enough to work my *** off to preserve one very critical part of what makes ND the very best place in the world to live.

If it was just about hunting with your kids, you'd never leave MN. Plenty of places where you live to go through the act of hunting any time you want. Quality hunting, on the other hand, means you often need to travel outside MN. In that respect, we're chansin' the same thing, and it'll be really sad and ironic if the day comes when me and my boys, ages 6 and 2, and other ND residents either quit or have to travel outstate (more-likely outcountry) to enjoy quality hunting.

That's my passion, and that's what I'm fighting for.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Dan,
Just what part of Fargo do you hunt mostly?
Those of us who live in Western Minnesota and hunt Eastern Dakota probably travel fewer miles to hunt than many Fargo GF hunters who go way north or way west and are just as out of their element as you claim we are. 
Lots of us visit NoDak on a regular basis in the off season. 
I know lots of Fargoans who spend a lot more time in Minnesota than they do in rural NoDak so knowledge of hunting issues based on residence doesnt mean squat.
I can only hunt 10 days in North Dakota so that limits what I see during the season but that was not my idea now was it.
Basically saying that NRs have no business forming opinions about the state of hunting in North Dakota is akin to Minnesotans being upset because North Dakotans second guess the Vikings (even though the average Minnesotan probably has more invested in the public lands you enjoy out there, than the average North Dakotan has invested in the Vikings). In the grand scheme of things, neither has much power to change anything.
It is your state, and this is your site. This forum is however on the WWW and when some (not all) of you take stupid shots at NRs as if you were sitting in a little cafe in Velva you are going to generate the pissing matches that you all seem to love/hate so much.
I agree that if NoDak dries up, the flyway will shift back some. There will also be fewer birds in the flock. I dont hope that happens but I dont have control over such things so it doesnt pay to discuss it.

NR North Dakota hunters
DU, Delta Waterfowl, License fees, PLOTS, taxes which pay for WPAs...
About half the ducks Ive shot in NoDak were born in Canada. (I follow the migration)

NR Minnesota fishermen
$35.00 license.
Every walleye taken was born in Minnesota and normally lives and dies in a single lake.

And yet owning a cabin here makes how many of you experts on what we should do?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Bert, residency does not drive knowledge, but experience and exposure does. Each year, I see quite a fair piece of the state when hunting. Over the years, I've seen just about every general area. I hunt all or parts of about 25-30 days each year, 90+% of which is in ND. Since moving back to ND, I spend much more time, for a variety of reasons, in rural ND during and in the off season, than I ever did when living in TTC.

Not sure where the 10 days comes from. On your first license, you can hunt upland for 10 days. For another $8.50/day thereafter, you can hunt upland some more. You can also hunt 14 days waterfowl. You can also predator hunt. Got buddies that deer hunt ND that you'd like to join up with? $50 gets you in the game with a doe tag for 17 days of deer hunting.

Forming opinions is fine - any which way. Being snotty and mean about it is neither productive nor reasonable, regardless of where you live.

This is my state, but is not my site.

Don't own a MN cabin, my MN resident folks do (and my MN resident grandparents before them). Spending a bunch of almost 40 summers there doesn't make me an expert on anything with which I don't have a fair amount of personal experience. My parents ownership or my use (or for that matter, my eventual ownership) of that cabin also doesn't prevent anyone, anywhere from accessing or enjoying the fishing on that lake. Every single acre of that lake is as available to you as me. That's why cabin ownership is fun, sexy and provocative in these debates, but not particularly relevant. A shot at the actual resource that's even remotely relevant to the hunting issues (i.e., the fish, not a piece of recreational property), is not affected no matter who owns a cabin.

And another reason why it's hard to mix fishing and hunting....that walleye you're talking about? He gets pressured, and he might get lock jaw, but as you pointed out, he'll likely die someday in the same lake he was born in. A duck gets pressured, he scoots somewhere else, today most likely outstate, south of wherever he was born. Pressure affects these two resources very differently.

Incidentally, talk to some of the active realtors in the lakes country, even those in the far West, and ask them where the greatest demand for cabins and lakeshore property is coming from these days - not West, but rather SE, from within and without MN (which coincidently tracks with where MN's greatest fishing pressure derives).


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

No one enjoys reading your posts melson. They are exactly whats ticking most resident hardcores right off to the point of not wanting any out of staters here. Pissing and moaning about a few new regs that no doubt help our state. Friggin' land grabbing for your non-resident, no ND tax paying, no ND voting hind end. If you love it so much where you live why dont you and your buddies buy land there? Because the outdoor oppurtunities suck there thats why! Clean up your own backyard and stay out of ours. Hows that for divisive!! dd:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fetch was that enigma or enema? :lol:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hey Dan how come you didn't ask us to ask your wife how "passionate" you are  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You hunk a hunk of burning love you :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

4LEG, if you dont like my posts then don't read them, or better yet use your influence to get me locked-out. You and your resident "hardcores" better get out of the state every once in a while so you can talk about issues like the ones here in "hot topics" without getting all childish and worked up. If you think for one minute that I am going to let you talk smack about MN and its resources without knowing anything about it first hand..ain't going to happen. Summer cabin users don't count.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Bob, you're scaring me a little (  ), but the thread needed a little levity, so thanks.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Boy I thought me and Fireball were getting bad, Heck we were having a lovefest :lol:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

My brain & bowels can use a good enema once in awhile :homer:

I'm off work now & just cracked open a Leinkugels Creamy Dark - Roast Pork in the oven :beer:

& then a nap & then off to the Hockey Game - It's warm 27 degrees & Sunny - Life is good k:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Kieth, Leinkugels will have the same effect :lol: Hey I finally sent your stuff today UPS you should get it sometime next week. Sorry for all the procrastination!


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

Jesus, a guy goes to work and comes back to another page and a half!! doesn't anyone work anymore?? Yeah J.M your the big reason why there is so much push and shove here  certainly there aren't any posts from residents "stiring the kettle" come on, some guys ask for a good tug back and forth and everyone knows it(myself included). Some guys want changes plain and simple, and others just have pure hate for N.Rs it's not hard to see that!! or is it??


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Fetch show the motto :bowdown:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Thanks Bob

Lets all go find James & burn him at the stake :bop:

James your points are well understood & have been discussed to death - write the Govenor - He never listens to us - Maybe he will you :roll: then we will have someone else to blame (or burn at the stake) :wink: ......How many Leinenkugels has it been ??? Man thats GOOD BEER :lol:

If I start singing cut me off :bartime:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

We don't want to burn at the stake, too tired. Just unleash the cornholers wearin' your corn cob hats on him!  :beer: = :drunk:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

:toofunny:


----------



## callmecrazy (Feb 20, 2004)

your right, this proposal doesnt do enough to benfit the resource. MN needs to go to a 14 day nonresident license. PERIOD!!! out of state vacationers who rent cabins for a week or two will still enjoy what they always have. nonresident land owners will not. as an added side benefit, maybe it will do something to help control the astronomical increases in prices of lakeshore and wooded recreational property in northern MN.
less harvest by nonresidents overall, and a speed bump for nonresident land ownership. that would fit the north dakota model pretty well i think!!


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

Good luck trying to get that one passed.


----------



## callmecrazy (Feb 20, 2004)

i tell you what, there would be an easier time passing those changes than the current proposal, because it would reduce (if not eliminate) resort opposition. they wouldnt see a loss in business, and minnesotans would get the benefits mentioned.
one other thing concerning MN waterfowl hunting, maybe if MN didnt have to follow the "regional" boards season guidelines, they could open 2 weeks later, and close 2 weeks later. it is a given, as anyone who lives along the mississippi knows, that shortly after the season closes is when the northern mallards arrive en masse. and all we can do is drive by field after field and watch them get fat before they head south for the arkansans and loiusiannians to shoot.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

callmecrazy said:


> one other thing concerning MN waterfowl hunting, maybe if MN didnt have to follow the "regional" boards season guidelines, they could open 2 weeks later, and close 2 weeks later. it is a given, as anyone who lives along the mississippi knows, that shortly after the season closes is when the northern mallards arrive en masse.


I guess I will call you crazy then...because you do know that there's no guidelines under the MS flyway frameworks stopping MN from doing just that (opening later and closing later)? Or maybe you could really wise up and MN would set their season like WI or IA, and place a split in the season so you could open earlier and get a chance to hunt the early migrants and then close down for a few weeks and still have your season run late enough to get after those late migrants as well.

The only problem is that you care more about what's going on in ND regarding the setting of waterfowl seasons than you do in your own state. Wait, I guess the bigger problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about in the first place.



callmecrazy said:


> and all we can do is drive by field after field and watch them get fat before they head south for the arkansans and loiusiannians to shoot.


2002 Harvest Totals
AR 1,137,200
LA 820,800
*MN 944,600*

So where's your beef again? MN shot more than LA and was just behind AR.


----------



## H2OfowlND (Feb 10, 2003)

It's not just ND residents buying land in MN lake country up here. I've talked to people from IA who have a cabin up around Detroit Lakes. Also, how about the people from the Twin Cities that have cabins up here?? I'm sure there are quite a few from Moorhead, MN that have cabins too. How about people from outside of the tri-state region??? Aren't there NR's from FL, CA and other "rich" states that have cabins here???

H2OfowlND


----------



## callmecrazy (Feb 20, 2004)

sorry if i was misinformed. when i have spoken to my legislators and MNDNR people i have been told that MNDNR hands are tied in changing the season framework. i apologize if i was incorrect.
i am also curious about the harvest totals you mention? where does ND fall into that?


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

944,600 in Minn., that sounds about right, divided by 900,000 hunters gives me the state average annual harvest of 1.05 birds . (I rounded up) To think that I wasn't crazy about our Minnesota waterfowl season. :eyeroll:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Goldy if you ever get that many duck hunters over there - we will have to put a season on any that cross the river - cause there won't be any ducks left to shoot :wink:


----------



## callmecrazy (Feb 20, 2004)

the info i found was for the 10 year average harvest on the mississippi flway. it was for 1990-2000. LA average harvest was around 2.2 million birds. AR average harvest was around 1.4 million birds. MN average harvest was around 900,000 birds.
MN has 160,00 resident waterfowl hunters.
and the only thing i could find concerning season framework for MN stated the season couldnt close later than dec. 15. but it did not state what year this was for, so it could be old. maybe Matt can post the exact framework.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

1990 to 2000 ??? I shot 2 of the prettiest drake Buffleheads in 1992!!! Boy does that bring back the good old days!!! :rollin: :rollin: 160,000 are you sure on that?? because I know 159,000 of them hunt in my back pocket!! Hold off on your stats Jones', I'm going back to school for this one.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I was Hoping you guys would Ban us from the Vikings too - No Going to Games - no TV - No Radio :roll: :lol:


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

Who are the vikings??? uke:


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

callmecrazy said:


> the only thing i could find concerning season framework for MN stated the season couldnt close later than dec. 15.


MN closed before Thanksgiving this year so wouldn't Dec. 15 be more than two weeks past the current seasons closure? I'll have to check because I don't think there's anything under the frameworks stopping MN from closing as late as any other MS flyway state. I.E. if the DNR wanted to set the dates so that MN closed the same as AR or LA they could. Although the backlash from hunters is why they choose not to do so. The south zone in WI closed 2 weeks after MN did because they opened a week later and had a week split. MI likewise has used a split in the past to allow for a "late season" hunt.

ND's harvest in '02 was 550,200. The point I was attempting to make was that for all the complaining about how many ducks the southern states shoot, MN does shoot a fair deal themselves. The 944,600 is the number of ducks shot in MN, so that doesn't count the ducks shot by Minnesotans while hunting other states or provinces which I'd assume would be a sizeable number.

2002 was the first year the HIP survey was used to calculate the harvest totals. Tim Bremicker mentioned that there was probably some inflation in the MN harvest totals from hunters reporting ducks shot in other states and provinces for the MN HIP survey. So even though 944,600 is probably a little high, the total would still be a pretty significant number.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

The sad thing for my hunting in south east Minn. is exactly the state wide statistic. Numbers dictate, so I don't look for any significant changes 
around these parts. It's the way it's been for a while, I'm used to it now. When you hunt as much water as we have to, going into Dec. is a problem that some other states obviously don't have to be concerned with. Apparently I hunt the dormant area in Minn..


----------



## callmecrazy (Feb 20, 2004)

Matt,
actually there is a difference between season frameworks between northern and southern states. only Ms. Ar. and La. can have seasons opened through Jan. 31. no other state can do that. if you'll remeber, Sen Lott pushed this through. the other southern states on the mississippi flyway can have seasons open until Jan. 15
and this is fair, because naturally the birds arrive there later in the season. 
the thing the numbers didnt reflect is that there are far more waterfowl hunters in MN than either La or Ar. so on a per hunter basis, they are averaging many more ducks per hunter.
the northern flights of mallards didnt arrive in my area until the last week of novenber. we had tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of mallards around my area until christmas. 
i have talked with others who were a bit better informed than myself, and they said we'll never get a later season, because the majority of MN hunters dont live along the river. most other water is frozen earlier, and thats what makes the river such a focus late in the year. the rest of MN waterfowlers season is over before the river really gets good. and those hunters want the season to open and close earlier. so i geuss that wasnt a fair comparison on my part.
also, will you give me a honest answer on whether or not ND's spearing law wasnt in fact this same type of retaliation?


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

If that's true then why could you hunt ducks in MI, another northern MS flyway state, on Jan 4-5 under their late split this past year? I'm not 100% positive but I think the only dates the northern states aren't allowed to have are the ones under Lott's extension. MI, WI, IA, IL, etc all have zones and splits to allow for longer hunting seasons. There's nothing stopping MN from doing the same...except for the DNR, because they don't have the balls to try anything different so they stick to the status quo for fear of upsetting their large legion of fair-weather-opening-day hunters. Which I suppose is basically what you're saying regarding river hunters...although you'd think there'd be enough hard core hunters to sway the DNR's opinion with a little effort.

As far as the spearing goes, I honestly couldn't answer that for you. I've never speared and I really don't know much about it or how that regulation came into place.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

Birds will stay in canada until february if it's 85 degrees most of the season like last year. I think that the outlook some have about the river water not freezing as fast for example is not very accurate either. Unless you find good swift moving water your just as froze up as the next guy. Where you do find open water you better pack your sleeping bags, and plan on a lot of pressure. My big complain hunting the river is the lack of local birds to keep it interesting enough before a guy does get that one big push from up north. This is what N.D has way more of earlier in there season compared to my hunting here. Our habitat continues to get flooded down the river whenever we get high water. Now if anyone is interested in some numbers, come visit any popular boat landing on the most perfect day for birds to be moving and I'll guarantee that you'll raise your eyebrows on the average bird count. She ain't pretty. :eyeroll:


----------

