# I just wish



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Those that present bills would really understand ??? Example: Give Non Residents a 1/2 price License if they come after the second week ??? I'm sorry but the 1st two weeks many come to get the easy pickins - then you have the Minnesota Teachers Convention & it is even more crowded - Then the next weekend it is Wisconsin Teachers Convention & the same thing. You see the Kids get a long weekend & many pull their kids out of school that is why those weeks are so crowded. If you want to spread them out - then do it after the 1st month. But in reality they will pay & come for the 1st month. That is why limits have to be made - plus zones will spread them out. Then sell extra licenses for the later season (but not if it will just make the entire season crowded.) I have got to say, more than 5,000 a week is to many. 5,000 or less per week makes more sense thats 30,000, or more if the weather holds up. Spread those 5,000 out over all the waterfowl areas & there would be no problems. If thats not good enough (Move Here)!!!

Posted on Fri, May. 10, 2002

OUTDOORS: Lawmakers consider duck hunting rules
Advocates say regs are needed because numbers of out-of-state hunters are rising
By Dale Wetzel
Associated Press

"These are bill drafts. They're vehicles for us to drive. We've got to start somewhere. I keep saying that I don't know if we've got Volkswagens or Cadillacs."

Rep. Lois Delmore,D-Grand Forks, committee chairwoman

BISMARCK - North Dakota lawmakers are fine-tuning a series of measures to regulate out-of-state duck hunters, including proposals for a license lottery and cheaper licenses for sportsmen who hunt later in the season.

A number of provisions in the bills, which are being crafted by the Legislature's interim Judiciary "B" Committee, are familiar to lawmakers who are veterans of the Legislature's hunting debates.

Among them are proposals to limit nonresident hunters to seven- or 10-day periods afield during the duck and goose season, cut the number of nonresident licenses in half, and require visiting hunters to enter a drawing to obtain a waterfowl license.

One bill would offer a half-price license to visiting sportsmen who hunt after the first two weeks of duck season.

The state Game and Fish Department says visiting duck and goose hunters bought just over 30,000 licenses during last year's season. One bill would cap out-of-state waterfowl licenses at 15,000, and the state Wildlife Federation and Sportsmen's Alliance would like the limit pegged at 10,500.

Rep. Lyle Hanson, D-Jamestown, a committee member and vocal advocate of regulations on out-of-state hunters, said new rules are necessary because of the rapidly rising number of visitors.

Many nonresident sportsmen have "shot off everything" in their home states, Hanson said during a committee meeting in Bismarck on Thursday.

"They don't have nothing left, and that's why they're out here," Hanson said. "We can't just handle everybody in the world. It's nice to have some nonresidents, but we can't handle them all."

Tom Bodine of Velva, a North Dakota Farm Bureau spokesman who operates a guide service, said groups of sportsmen often travel into North Dakota to hunt.

Some proposals would make it difficult to ensure that all members of a hunting group would get licenses, Bodine said.

"If they are not able to be successful in getting a license, we'll lose them," Bodine said. "They have to take off time from work, schedule everything, and I don't think they would return."

Connie Krapp, marketing director for Northern Plains Electric Cooperative of Carrington, said many rural North Dakota residents charge fees for hunter access to their land. That is an important source of income, she said.

"To me, any legislation that is used to restrict the number of nonresidents coming in really puts limitations on rural North Dakota in terms of economic development," she said.

The committee's chairwoman, Rep. Lois Delmore, D-Grand Forks, said the panel will meet at least twice more to consider its assortment of hunting bills.

Any proposals the committee endorses still must be debated by the Legislature, and there will be plenty of opportunities for advocates and critics to have their say, Delmore said.

"These are bill drafts. They're vehicles for us to drive. We've got to start somewhere," she said. "I keep saying that I don't know if we've got Volkswagens or Cadillacs."

[ This Message was edited by: Fetch on 2002-05-10 08:19 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Fetch on 2002-05-10 12:42 ]


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Some of the provisions of the bills legislators are kicking around are pretty tough.

Zones: If narrower hunting zones had been in effect last fall, I probably would not have had my shoot of a lifetime. We traveled to North Dakota from Minnesota after the big snowstorm last October. We were froze out up North so went down by the South Dakota border and shot our limit of snow geese because nobody knew where the birds were for a few days except us. If strict zoning laws had been in effect, we would have been SOL.

Lotteries: It is tradition that our hunting party includes 4 to 5 guys. We have been doing it since 1983. A lottery could mean that only one or two of the guys get their licenses. That would be a really bum deal and wipe out a fall tradition.

Is there any chance of getting NR licenses assigned on the basis of seniority - how long we have been buying licenses in North Dakota?

[ This Message was edited by: Perry Thorvig on 2002-05-10 08:50 ]


----------



## Dr. Bob (Mar 3, 2002)

The lottery idea unless well planned would screw up alot of partys. I hunt with a buddy for my first week and then hunt with my daughter the second week.

I sure hope they can come up with something that makes sence.

Dr. Bob


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

Perry&Bob,In North Dakota for lottery deer applications you can apply as a group of up to four people.Maybe the game&fish will allow a group to apply on one application if this goes through.


----------



## Wood Duck (Mar 22, 2002)

Just a thought... How about selling licenses (possibly within a qouta) for say 2003, or 2005?? this year. The die hards would get thier preference over those who may be undecided untill the last minute and probably dont have a long tradition of hunting ND. This would be a way of granting seniority due to the $$ comitment rookie hunters may not be ready to commit to. There will always be a few rich guys to whom the $$ wouldnt matter, but the big #'s of hunters would fall in the middle money-wise.


----------



## NDMALLARD (Mar 9, 2002)

I am very much in favor of a limit on non residents and the use of a lottery to determine who comes and hunts in OUR state. For the groups of hunters who want to hunt together, they should be able to apply as a group and either get drawn for a license for all of them or get turned down as a group. This would help in two ways that I can see. First, It would make everyones chances equal thus eliminating tthe ability of only the "rich" to obtain licenses. Second, it would slow the purchase of land by out of state rich hunters. After all, who wants to own land they may not be able to hunt. This should be put into place for both waterfowl and upland liscenses.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

ND Mallard...That would only work if the outfitters were not given permits before eveyone else.In the deer lottery they can get half of the non-res. permits to sell as a package.You can bet if there is a lottery they would be pushing for that.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I think the numbers they threw around are too low. I like the lottery, but agree it should be applied as a group.

My only defense for the lottery is in the effect of buying land. Why would you buy land if you aren't picked in the lottery? This would help reduce the trend of NR buying up land.


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

Interesting idea and I can see your logic of giving a good deal to NR hunters after the first few days/weeks. It is a good compromise and deserving of consideration.

However, there is a believable scenario that is not accounted for.
1. We have farmer "Jon" who lives in Hettinger, ND (all names are fictional, but the point is coming). He lives on the family farm that his grandfather purchased in 1920. His brother, "Jim" lives in Lodgepole, SD (just across the border) and teaches math at the high school in Hettinger. Every year on opening weekend Jim comes up and hunts with Jon and Jon's son Billy along with Jim's son, Bobby. However, now with your proposal as I understand it there would be limits on NR hunters on opening weekend and also "zones" assigned. When it comes time for Jim to apply he fills out his address as SD and is immediately put into the "NR" pool. Then he gets his license, not for opening weekend, but he is willing to make that concession because he understands the debate. Then he is assigned a zone that does not include his brother's farmland. This is not a case of a big shot out of stater coming in and taking up good land. This is someone who is all but a resident not being able to hunt on land that is his "traditional" (and familial) hunting land. This is a possible scenario and not an easy one to legislate around. I think I have covered all of the bases of "hunting rights." They have a "tradition," pay taxes, work in state, happen to live in another state because of some kind of unusual circumstances, they are not using (or over-using) public land. How does your proposal give Jim what he wants and deserves as a "sportsman"?

New topic: Living in Dickinson I wound up driving down to Hettinger County last week. I saw dozens, maybe hundreds of mature roosters (not this years chicks) on the sides of the road. The birds are there, getting to them is going to be the problem. Every quarter of land that looked like good cover was posted. What may be interesting to you is that relatively little of the land had "Cannonball Company" signs on it. Most of them were the standard issue, "No hunting/trespassing" signs. In other words, it is not necessarily the "fee hunting" giants that will restrict access.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Westerner, Too bad for "Jim". I guess he'll have to either hunt pheasants in SD or move to ND. On the other point about all the mature pheasant roosters south of Dickinson, I've said before on my replys that there just are not enough birds being shot and the guides and outfitters and ranchers charging for land access are not shooting as many roosters as could be shot so their clients have more birds to shoot. Its only a matter of time before a BIG Blizzard hits the southwest and wipes out all the birds which will kill all this debate for a long time. Too bad we can't find a middle ground so that more of our resident sportsman can harvest some of those over abundant roosters.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Like in Deer hunting - You have a place to write your preference of zone on the application.

You could also have your preference of weeks - with a 1st second third etc. choice.

For all the same reasons deer hunting is now the way it is - so should waterfowl & upland be. I think they should be totally seperate licenses (for NR's) & seperate / different zones.

When I started deer hunting you went to the Cenex (actually Farmers Union) or Hardware store. The night before & bought a license - for the entire state. (Buck or Doe) Then it went to you had to buy a buck license seperate. & 3 zones (I believe)??? How many are there now & why ???

PS.... I have never put down a second choice (for zones) for deer & always put down Buck & only one name per application - I have never not got what I wanted. Even for Mule deer. (only tried once) & got a 18 high & 24 wide 4X4 

My cynical theroy is they hate to return your check ???


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

First of all, thank you Fetch for your response. I can see the situation you describe and how that would work

As for "Field Hunter," it is responses like yours that have caused the problems with landowners and decreased accesss. To simply say "too bad" for the scenario I presented gets around. Jim and Joe will tell all their friends about what happened (if what I described happens) and it comes across as "unjust" to the landowners out here. Here is someone who tries to "play by the rules" but because of the fact that they live just across the border they were denied hunting. I have heard many hunters asking "Why don't they let us onto their land?" The fact is, if this is your attitude, you will continue to have trouble finding new places to hunt.



Field Hunter said:


> Westerner, Too bad for "Jim". I guess he'll have to either hunt pheasants in SD or move to ND. On the other point about all the mature pheasant roosters south of Dickinson, I've said before on my replys that there just are not enough birds being shot and the guides and outfitters and ranchers charging for land access are not shooting as many roosters as could be shot so their clients have more birds to shoot. Its only a matter of time before a BIG Blizzard hits the southwest and wipes out all the birds which will kill all this debate for a long time. Too bad we can't find a middle ground so that more of our resident sportsman can harvest some of those over abundant roosters.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I would sympathize with "Jim",but where do you draw the line.He is after all a nonres.The problem would be if you make exceptions,ereryone would be looking for loopholes.After all living here has to be worth something.Maybe Field Hunter was a little brusque about it,but making those exceptions would open a big can of worms.In your example "Jim" teaches in Hettinger,why doesn't he live there?


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I like trying to answer questions with analogies. I wish the folks that are going to make decisions or are opposed to how residents feel would come on here & give us a chance to explain. (or brain storm these things together) ??? Way too many have taken a misinformed special interest - in this issue. Trying to make things up & rally support thru fear & not allow any debate using 1/2 true emotional, or economicaly Negative SPIN. When there all kinds of ways to promote & allow residents to be 1st in being able to have access to our hunting resources. --- Other wise why would'nt more & more residents move out of state & then return & take advantage of ND laws (& precieved notion) that we need these high #'s of Non Residents ??? & need to sell our hunting - & eventually it will be to the highest bidder. (& only the wealthy will win in the end)  Plus ND will learn a hard / lasting lesson that this was not a good thing to do. Isn't real economic development wanting to have folks from other states want to move here & bring or start or expand their businesses here - because of the quality of life ??? We are on the threshold of selling out one of the biggest reasons so many of us (that have stayed) live here.

In the analogy you used - what if the family wanted to go to SD & hunt with Jim ??? & in reality - who would want to go to other Midwest states in the Fall (for waterfowl) ??? & why ???

Without further or stricter restrictions on Non Residents - ND would change very quickly to a state like most of the rest. It is CRAZY what people will pay to shoot a few ducks (or upland birds) a year - Why do some see that as a good thing ??? & want to see it expand ??? ??? ???


----------



## cancarver (Apr 6, 2002)

Fetch

To answer your question of why go to other midwest states for hunting; Opening week woodies in WI and MN, 300,000+ canvasbacks on Mississippi river in Late Oct to early November, Layout hunting 3-5 miles off the shore of Lake Michigan for sea ducks and various other divers, and if by chance ND is frozen out by the third week of the season, anywhere with open water in the midwest would be better hunting, and to continue you rduck hunting season.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Well SD would be hard to get in - I'm sure all the licenses are sold by the time it freezes up here ??? (& I don't begrudge that)

How many NR's do you get to do those kinds of hunting over there ??? Do you think it might impact the hunting if 30,000 NR's all showed up for the same 3 or 4 weeks & all went to a handfull of places that are Hot for that kind of hunting ??? All asking to hunt or crowd into the few public places ??? Near those towns ??? Not to mention the impact on the quality of hunting or the resources ??? Or the hunter or Landowner relations ???

& it would be OK to let it keep getting bigger & more & more shooters (with no end in sight) ??? Just let it be a free for all ??? Or those that have the most $$$ get the better hunting ???


----------



## cancarver (Apr 6, 2002)

We don't need 30,000 nr to cause the issues that you have we have enough hunting competion as it is with residents. Horicon MArsh has permits for resident and Nr residents. The area along the mississippi has had a great amount of pressure as of late. A guide has had a DU show, DU article, and Wildfowl Article about can hunting there. To get a good spot you have to get to the launch 3-4 hours before season. Sure it unfornate but you can't restrict people from federal land. Lake michigan hunting is really good but it is very expensive to get all the equipment that you need for such big water hunting.

I was just pointing out that there are a lot of other great hunting oppurtuniies for waterfowl hunting outside ND.


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

KenW, I know what you are saying about loopholes. I am merely trying to point out that this is how many landowners would view things. They would talk to "Joe" and he would tell them his story and they would be outraged. Any time you are looking at putting limits on things, there will be people who fall into holes. I don't think that is your (or anyone's) goal and I can appreciate Fetch's attempt to come up with a compromise, but it is loopholes that make "legislation" like this difficult and politically tricky. What I am concerned about is that battle lines have been drawn and it is the "small" resident hunters who will pay the price.
As for why doesn't "Jim" live there, there could be any number of reasons. Maybe his wife's family lives there and they need to be close to take care of them and be there for emergencies. Maybe he has a "hobby" farm there. It is a valid question.

quote="KEN W"]I would sympathize with "Jim",but where do you draw the line.He is after all a nonres.The problem would be if you make exceptions,ereryone would be looking for loopholes.After all living here has to be worth something.Maybe Field Hunter was a little brusque about it,but making those exceptions would open a big can of worms.In your example "Jim" teaches in Hettinger,why doesn't he live there?[/quote]


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I can see your point Westerner and it is tricky; but your not going to get a lot of sympathy for 'ol Jim since the state that he's from is far more restrictive than any other state in the country (and would continue to be far more restrictive than any of the proposals for ND). You're not going to get too many people feeling sorry for him just because now he finally has to deal with regulations imposed on him by another state, when his home state has had more restrictions all along. To have Jim complain about not being able to get a license would be the pot calling the kettle black.


----------

