# Fee Hunting At It's Finest!



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

By far most of the discussion concerning resident and non-resident hunting involves access to land. So in order to solve this problem we need to get more access. About the only way to guarantee access for the general public and for both in and out of state hunters and also respect the rights of the individual landowner is to aquire more land that is similar to PLOTS land , waterfowl production areas etc. Everyone has access to this land, resident or nonresident, the people from Fargo, the Bismarck hunters, the Minot hunters, the ethical hunters, the non ethical hunters, the holier than thou pure hunters. The list goes on and on depending on who does the e-mailing to these talk forums. There are no questions asked and no permission is needed to hunt this land. The only thing preventing this access is the lack of funds. So who should pay for this access? We all should be willing to pay. We should encourage the increase in the habitat fees that we pay when we get our license. Habitat fees do the two things that are most necessary for a successful hunt. First and foremost, they increase the animal populations and secondly they increase the hunting opportunities(access). Charge an extra $10/license for in state hunters and $50/license for out of state hunters(this difference should bring out the e-mail). It doesn't matter if you are a waterfowl hunter, upland game hunter or big game hunter, habitat is the key and we can all do more to promote more habitat. This money should be strictly dedicated to improving habitat and access. I think that when we have some of the best hunting you can find anywhere in the nation and when we look at what we charge in licensing fees we are selling our hunting at fire sale prices every year. I think that if we can guarantee that all the moneys will be spent on improving the service to our customer(the hunters) in the form of improvements in habitat and access they will beg to pay even more (a little humor) in habitat fees. Seriously though, our Game and Fish Dept. would love to help us out but can't do it without our financial support. If we have 30,000 nonresident waterfowl hunters alone and multiply that times $50 that is $1.5 million generated for habitat and $10 times the number of resident deer hunters alone(70,000) is another $700,000 for habitat. This is $2.2 million and does not include any of the other licensed sportsman so I certainly know that I am a little on the conservative side with the dollars generated by this proposal and this should really help to improve number one, habitat and number two, access. If you aren't willing to help out with these two issues then I will be judgmental and say you are not a sportsman and are really in it for selfish reasons. This is fee hunting at it's finest and is just going along with the trend that hunting is going in our great state!!! Bring on the habitat!!


----------



## David S Proffitt (Sep 13, 2002)

I totally agree! Increase and improve habitat and public acces and disallow any guide or outfitter from utilizing public access land. Improved access will reduce demand for guides and outfitters! Your numbers are very conservitive. If the goal was to aggressively pursue habitat and access improvements and sportsman soundly supported such an effort, land owners, business persons and sportsman would all benefit! 10,000,000 new dollars would not be an outragous goal.

Good post


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Noticed a lot of PLOT land was hayed along ND HWY 14. Adjacent posted CRP land was left untouched. Granted the landowners may have been different, but :

*PLOT land should be the last land hayed in an emergency. Plenty of other CRP land to hay. *


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree,but I think it is difficult for the GNF to compete with guides and outfitters who offer more money.Increasing the amount of the licenses won't help this as I believe there is a set price to offer for PLOTS.This is especially true in the Pheasant areas.How about giving the landowners some kind of tax break to offer more incentive.This would also have to be made up from the increased fees as some of this tax money goes to local and schools.
Also all income from leasing has to be reported to the GNF and ND Tax Dept.Anyone leasing land must file forms with the GNF with the amount of land,cost and discription of where it is.
Guides CANNOT be allowed to use public land.


----------



## Decoyer (Mar 2, 2002)

As for the plot land, landowners were required to put just as much Crp into the plot program temporarily as the amount of land they hayed.


----------



## scott (Oct 11, 2002)

I believe that in the long run the programs you mentioned will save hunters a lot of money. The fact is that hunting is slowly turning into a rich mans game. Now is the time to make these decisions before its too late. 5 years from now the majority of the hunting will be pay for acess and I guarantee you that it will cost a lot more than 10 dollars a year to hunt.


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

I am fully in favor of charging significantly more for out of state licenses. I would also agree that it is a good idea to "ear-mark" certain money to go toward improving quantity and quality of habitat. Your numbers look fair and reasonable and raising out of state licenses that much will probably eliminate many of the NR since it will become to expensive.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Ken W: What kind of BS are you trying to spread here. The Game and Fish Department "does not" collect the information about leasing land in North Dakota.

I've often thouht people post inaccurate information to try to stir things up, but to be a member of the staff, and not know if what you are posting is accurate or not, is shameful. :eyeroll:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

redlabel, perhaps Ken meant that those requirements "Should Be" in new legislation, i.e. the reporting of leased acres.

NDGF did do a survey of leased acres for Judiciary B this last year, with a total of about 400,000 acres leased in 2001. But that figure was only with 1/3 of the outfitters reporting. In the western tier of counties there were 86,000 acres leased by outfitters for archery. Ramsey County (Devils Lake) reported only 15,000 leased, when in fact one outfitter there leases more than that amount. Reporting was optional. The survey did not cover leaseing between private parties, such as corporations and individuals, which in the basin and sw ND, accounts for a huge number of acres. If you would like a copy of the Judicary B report, the committee will send it out.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I believe it was his suggestion that, that is how it should be.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

I guess he should have written "should be" rather than "has to" and "should have to file" rather than "must file". It has a drastic change on the meaning of what is written.

I think I'll just have to give up posting on this board. I enjoy the information but I just don't think like most of the people here.


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

Don't like people here?Do you personally know anyone here?We're just discussing issues important to the state.If you don't like someone's opinion,why leave?

I'm not trying to start something, I just don't see any grounds for "leaving".


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Miller:

Didn't say, "don't like people here", said "don't think like people here"

Didn't say, "leave", said "have to give up posting"

I'm just going to turn into a lurker.

It seems that most people on this site think alike. If someone disagrees or has another point of view the discussion soon turns ugly and to name calling.

The thread about Ed Schultz and the one where an article by Ron Schirra appears are perfect examples. The threads turn into nothing but name calling and labeling because they have an opioion different than the majority of people using this site.

The Hot Topics page starts out saying "Remember to respect everyone's opinion", but it doesn't seem like too many people read it.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Redlabel,
We have to keep posting the opposition other wise no one would think outside the same old box. It seems to me that some on this site push their personal agenda and style as the best and only way. The things that are offensive to some i.e. ACCESS problem has been creeping along for some 35 years. I noticed it after going away to college for just two years in the 60's and coming home to hunt deer. I felt like an outsider. Fetch stated a long while back that posting only went up a week before deer season which was not a big deal. Well it sure is a big deal to the freelance deer hunter. We need to be inclusive and take in the big picture, not devisive. That is "DIVIDE and CONCOURE" is what will make us all losers. Whether your a deer, duck or dove hunter try to build a concencuss and be calm otherwise you lose your credibility and your case.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

You are a dinosaur  Stick around - the carnivores need a change in diet once in awhile  ... :roll:

Your points of view filla niche - just don't be so affected, when everyone does'nt agree with them ??? It's only the internet.

-- unless your one of the whiners ??? who can't handle real conversations online ??? & debate , or ask for clarification, or admidt mistakes & correct them online ??? The ones that have to cry & complain to admin. Cause your to weak to think & for yourself ??? Then go away you will never fit in :roll: (I did not say you were - as in it's a fact ) :roll:

Why do you folks even come here ??? or any other talk forum ??? If you want everyone to think like you ??? & act like you ??? (not have a sense of humor like you ??? ) What a boring world it would be :******: 

I know lets change the name of this forum, to the lets all agree, or your not welcome forum ??? Where lurkers are always sitting around waiting for something to agree on ??? Ummm I think this is the HOT Topics forum :roll:


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

I don't think I'm a dinosaur, old maybe, but not a dinosaur.

Quite to the contrary I think the dinosaurs are the people who long to keep North Dakota in a backwards state of no change. These are the people who want the rural landscape to never change but remain open to them so they can pass on the tradition of hunting to their children and grandchildren. They long for the rural people to return to the time honored value of letting everyone hunt where ever they want whenever they want. The Hunterasaurus I called them. The people who have the newest decoys, the remote controlled robo ducks, the latest blinds, 3 1/2 in shotguns, and time to spend hours driving around scouting. Then get upset if someone else finds the same spot they found, or heaven forbid someone moved a rock in the rural landscape so that something there changed from 30 years ago.

Those people need to get a reality check. Life is changing, not just in the cities, but in the rural areas as well. Will it ever be the same again? Probably not. Does life ever change? Certainly. Do we need to change with it? Of course, if we want to survive in the new situation.

Sure these points of view fill a niche, they come from a viewpoint that does not belong to the status quo here.

No whining here, I'm big enough to stand on my own two feet. I can handle the conversations, I just get a little discouraged at the amount of inaccury that is reported. The number of people who respond without reading or understanding what another person is saying. The number of people who just resort to name calling and making huge generalizations that are unfounded. I don't know if those people are mental midgets or if they are just too young to have ehough experience to understand what is being said. (I sometimes think by the spelling that they are just young.)

Why do people like me come here? Mainly for the information. I certainly don't want to join the list of people that call Ron Shcira names(an idiot, another LL Bean type, etc) or do the same to Ed Schultz (who I believe was a hero on this site when he was championing what he called pheasantgate.) No, I come for the information that is available. Information on decoys, reloading, dogs, guns, and other things that help me make more intelligent decisions. I've made enough mistakes and learned that most of my best ideas over the years have been stolen from others. It's also part of why I subscribe to more sporting goods magazines than I can read anymore. Outdoor Life and Field & Stream to be sure, but also Double Gun Journal, Gun Dog, Grays Sporting Journal and several others. It's mostly for information gathering and reading a good story, not for the talk and the chance to debate with someone that often misrepresents what you have to say.

Do you think I'm looking for Utopia, certainly you can understand that I'm enough of a realist to know that doesn't exist. I'm just looking for information to be accurate before being posted.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Thats all fine & well for you ??? (and your opinion :thumb: ) But you act the same - as you don't like - when you put down peoples spelling & analogies of Mr Schara ???

You see it's all relevent & depends on your past & knowledge - right ??? I just choose to defend one side alot more than the other.

Just because your past & knowledge is different than others does not make it any better or worse than others -Does it ???

Here is a post I wrote in regards to South Dakotas waterfowl Laws.

It shows how different we are & how I have a different view of things (not ready to give up)



> You SD folks have fantastic Waterfowl laws. (maybe a little low someyears on the #'s of NR's allowed ???) But I bet the quality of waterfowl hunting is outstanding. & secure to remain that way for many years to come. Not to mention how it also affects conservation to the resource.
> 
> It does seem ironic how different the pheasant laws are ???
> 
> ...


Just because were on totally different sides, of many fences ( & all have different things to learn & information to decipher.) Does that make anyone more right or more wrong than the other ??? I feel your attitudes on many things are inaccurate - But I'd tell you to your face not ask anyone to censor it ??? Plus I enjoy debate & differences & respect your right to disagree - do you ???

If you don't like it, or can't handle it - why do you keep coming into the HOT TOPICS ??? You prefer to have a LUKE WARM TOPICS page where only cool thinking & highly educated ( spelling :roll: ) police come to check up on each others spelling & grammer & weather their information is accurate to your satisfaction ??? Before they should post ??? :roll: then email Chris & check it out ???

PS.... I'm being sarcastic & challanging you to a verbal duel - ??? I can go on forever


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Yes, it is all relevent, and depends on you past and knowledge. I believe some people would call that experience.

We all tend to defend the side we like best the most.

One's past or experience might make a difference if you learn from it. If the snow goose did not learn that decoy spreads were dangerous they would not have an average age of 8+ years, or know to stay in Canada. Of course that wouldn't be good for us because we would not be able to gain the experience from traveling to another country.

Ah, South Dakota, a nirvana for the resident waterfowl hunter, a bit different for the resident pheasant hunter. I enjoy both, can't hunt ducks when the water is solid, and chasing the rooster adds to my experience.
I think if you checked with the businesses in these areas they would be glad for more non-residents. I believe I recently read where the resident waterfowl hunting population has remained fairly constant at around 30,000. I personally would rather have our waterfowl regulations and their pheasant regulations if I had to live with a choice of them.

In the land of majority rule it does make a difference which side you are on. Just ask Rick Clayburgh if he wishes more people had been on his side. Or if someone doesn't know that they are supposed to stop for a stop sign do you think it would make a difference to you when they went trough the same intersection you did when you drive home tonight?

I'm not sure from what you wrote if you think I asked something to be censured, but I can assure you I did not, I only asked for people to post accurate information. I enjoy conversation, and an exchange of ideas, I do not however, enjoy a exchange when the other idea is stuck in a bucket of concrete.

Information is not accurate to my satisfaction, rather information is either accurate or not. It is difficult to have a lot of credability if someone goes around exclaiming that 2 + 2 = 5

Spelling is must for communication. Which of the following would you rather read.

The North dakoa depertmant of animalsss (that would be a typo) & fish decided to establish the nonresidnet waterfwl lisense at 30,000 for 2002

or

The North Dakota Deparment of Game & Fish will establish the non-resident waterfowl license limits at 30,000 for 2002. Applications will be processed on a first come, first serve basis.

Whether people can spell or not or give accurate information or not they generally fall into three catagories.

People who make things happen or 
People who watch things happen or
People who wonder what happened.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Be really careful what you wish for. SD is less of a waterfowl nirvana than you may be dreaming of:

1) SD does not sell unlimited waterfowl hunting licenses because they sell 60,000+ nonresident pheasant hunting licenses. SD game and fish makes their needed money with pheasants. Commercial hunting is run at an extreme for pheasants. Money, money, money is made on the pheasants. Access to private waterfowl hunting land may be denied to you because the cattails hold pheasants too.

2) Guides get almost all the NR waterfowl licenses they need around Pierre. In fact many of the available NR waterfowl licenses are for private land only -- thus through guides only. Not much "freelancing" going on along the big MO in SD. Residents are forced to try pass shoot geese along government land since all the corn fields above the river are leased.

3) *Access to private hunting land is with permission only in SD*. All land is automatically posted and closed to hunting - not sure you want ND to go this way do you ? Many of the landowners that are not leasing land still like a little cash for hunting access unless you are friends or family. Pay to hunt very common through much of the state.

*All those cornfields full of mallards are left alone ... because the pheasant hunters will walk it tomorrow. Permission denied.*

4) Many SD residents were economically forced to hunting pheasants on public land and *road ditches*. A recent SD court ruling has essentially outlawed road hunting pheasants in SD, further squeezing out the resident hunter. This battle was likely paid for and won by large commercial hunting operations. Sell out for $$$ ?????

5) SD has a lot more "PLOT" land, but fairly heavily hunted by pheasant hunters from opener on. Reasonably good hunting for the "freelancer" but I have no idea how many ducks or geese use this SD land.

6) The amount of waterfowl land is further compressed in SD because the MO splits SD almost down the middle. SD has significantly less waterfowl habitat.

7) Snow Geese at Sand Lake were short stopped by ND (Devils Lake and SE ND area) long time ago. Access to fall hunting around Sand Lake is difficult at best ...

Maybe I am off base, TSODAK you out there ? Care to comment on the quality of waterfowl hunting and land access in ND vs SD ?????


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

A ha, I like that post.

A case where experience and accurate information give a clear cut difference as opposed to looking at something on the surface and thinking it is better.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Well of course I only want to pick & choose the parts I prefer 

This is one of the main problems of communications on all these issues.

Imagine the poor :roll: Legislator trying to make sense of all this ???

Have commercial interests done a better job of lobbying & asking for their wants & needs ??? YES (IMO) Does that mean we should not continue to try & get them to see the other side ??? NO - Or the side from all walks of life in ND ???

Do you feel the true side of what residents want & what is truely best for ND is being communicated equally ??? I suppose you would say yes if Pay to hunt appeals to you ???

Do you really think ND small towns have been told all the facts ??? & look at issues for what is real economic development ??? Or just what a few have SPUN to get them all riled up & angry about Land Rights issues & us against them issues ie: East vs West ??? Big cities vs Rural ???

Do you think the NDG&FD has a good feel & handle on what should be done ??? & if we had a different Director (& Govenor) alot of these things would be different ???

I am not completely ready to say this totally ??? Cause I need to think it thru somemore But I may change my mind at some point on ND's No tresspass Laws :-? Cause the way things are going & the problems I see happening the past couple years - there may be no hope, to ever change things for the better unless it happens & concessions are made on both sides (alot of this comes after visiting Canada this fall for SOB hunting) & tsodak made me think once :lost: But what a world of differences there are in attitudes & the ability to get access in Canada ??? BUT also it may be to radical of a change (cause the wheels of Gov. spin way to S L O W ) - & thats all I'm going to say on that for now - cause I'm CYNICAL of the old give an inch they will take a mile :eyeroll:

What do you think the ideal solutions could /should be ???

yeah SD sucks when it comes to pheasants  & my impression is it would be even worse if waterfowl laws were the same there ??? Wouldn't it tsodak :lol: ( no preessure here on ol T ???  ) OK lets leave all up to him - you & PH :roll: ??? All in favor say I :wink:


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

I guess I try to deal with all the issues because even though some are unpleasant it's like life and you have to deal with the good and the bad.

You're right about there being problems with communications on these issues.

I don't know how the poor legislator deals with it, especially those from the rural areas. When you look at waterfowling issues you are looking at about 5% of the population with an activity that lasts about 6 weeks. No wonder it has only gotten lip service in the past.

Yes the commercial interests do a better job, because they take the time. They attend the committee hearings, and they are organized. I think because it's their livlihood at stake. Hunters by and large (and I am generalizing here, I know) are an apathetic group. They buy a DU, Rocky Mountain Elk, or Pheasants Forever ticket and think they've done their part. They can drive half the day to hunt or fish but they don't make the effort to get to the advisory meetings to speak up and/or find out what is going on. Then a No Trespassing sign goes up or property they have hunted free becomes leased and then they are galvanized for action, but alas, it is too late.

I don't know what is the true side and best for ND so I can't say if it is being communicated correctly. So you don't jump to any conclusions I don't believe in pay to hunt for myself personally. I have only paid to hunt twice in my life. Once about 20 years ago when I took my Father-in-law pheasant hunting near Mitchell, and another time when I was in Georgia on a golf vacation at Callaway Gardens we paid for a quail hunt on a plantation. It was fun and I would do it again sometime. I work extremely hard at finding places to hunt during the off-season and usually have all my places lined up by early August.

I think the people in the larger cities in North Dakota need to get off the idea that the small towns need to be told the facts. The don't need to be told about these issues, they live them 365 days a year. They are not looking at economic development to save them, they are looking for economic impact to help them hang on a little longer. It is important also to remember that the people in those towns have a tremendous sense of community and loyalty to one another. They understand "united we stand, divided we fall." This year in one area we hunt there were two ranchers that posted there land with signs that said "OPEN TO NON-RESIDENT HUNTERS ONLY". This was more than 15 sections of land and done totally in response to the actions taken last spring. Were they right? Who knows. Were they expressing their opinion? You damn right they were.

I do think the NDG&FD does the best they can for the sportmen of ND. Solutions don't come overnight but they are planning and I believe they have only the best interests of North Dakota in mind.

I also believe the Governor has the best interests of North Dakota in mind. I think he is not as personable as he should be and many take this an an insincere attitude.

I would accept a No Trespass law in a heartbeat. I think we will see one within the next 10 years. I think a lot of people post and or lease to avoid the hassles of being asked to hunt so much. It would eliminate a lot of the competittion because most people give up when the see a no hunting without permission sign. We use a method that enables us to gain permission on more land than we can hunt each year (an idea I stole from someone else). Isn't the access different in Canada partly due to a lack of pressure?

The ideal solution escapes me. I would substantially raise the non-resident fees. Either get more money from them or the same amount of money from less of them. It may hurt some but I personally would try to weed out a lot of the non-resident free-lancers. Those that use guides and outfitters don't compete for the same places I use. I run into competition from the guys with campers and tents that camp on WPA's and Private lands. They bring all their equipment and food with them, so the only impact they have is a some gas and if they happen to run out of booze. I'd eliminate camping on PLOTS and WPA's and get them into motels. These people plan to come here hunting and I think they hunt hard and I think they are good hunters. It seems they will hunt all day for a limit as opposed to the average resident who will hunt for the morning and accept what they got because they realize they can go hunting next week if they want.

The ideal solution for me would be to get a group together and buy enough property to satisfy our own hunting needs. This is what it will probably come done to. I'd get enough land and develop it for ducks and upland game. Goose hunting would be done in Canada because it is too uncertain in ND anymore.

That's about all I got, just thoughts and ramblings.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Well, no pressure here eh boys???? Alright, my opinion is changing as the year goes on, but speaking as a private citizen here goes.

At least in the area around Jamestown, SD has this area beat from a "Quality of Hunt" standpoint. the amount of NR pressure here is AMAZING!!!! especially compared to SD. I am absolutely 100% convinced that a lot of birds are pushed right out of southern ND into Northern SD. If you think this is crazy, look at some of the data a grad student from SDSU is doing with Radio collared Geese in response to the early goose season. The will move 100 miles plus the day after the early season starts. In fact, I am starting to wonder if those hunts really do much to reduce the resident canadians. More are killed in Sept, but I think many many less in October. But, back to the issue at hand.

Fetch, I am extremely gratified to see you with an open mind on trespass. It hopefully does not have to happen, but all I have been trying to say about that is that it would not be the end of the world. The best thing that would happen is that we would have to reestablish the relationships with farmers. But that is not the focus either.

I want to address some items from PH.

1. It may happen that you are denied access for sloughs on pheasants, but the same thing happens here with deer, this is not a big deal. SD Pheasant hunting IS commercialized in the extreme, but the resource amazingly huge there, and more importantly, land locked. They will only move so far in response to pressure. See above with waterfowl. Many areas of the state are underutilized for pheasants, just like waterfowl here.
2. Those mighty MO guide liscences are an interesting case. All the revenue from them are used to lease public access in the immediate areas of the unit for private access. I have had friends hunt out of public field pits out there and did well. But, there is no more pass shooting there now than there was before those special liscences. Correct me if I am wrong, never actually hunted there, just lots of friends.
3. Most landowners realize the liability issues of any cash transfers, and proceed accordingly. It CAN be difficult to find landowners, but sweet with the sour.

All those cornfields full of mallards are left alone ... because the pheasant hunters will walk it tomorrow. Permission denied.

No (edited for nasty language, I apologize, got worked up) is going to walk for pheasants in a field where mallards are feeding..... Pheasants are preharvest hunted in Cornfields, mallards post. period.

4. Not a lot to comment on here. Does not translate very well to ND situation I think.

5. SD Does have less habitat. Period. But that means it should be worse, mot better right?????

6. Sand Lake hunting is tough, just like Chamberlain pheasants are tough, and Devils Lake waterfowl is tough. You go to the most advertised queen of a place, and thos eplaces are always going to be to popular. But, the good marginal areas of SD see MUCH LESS pressure than the equivalent in ND. I have had some killer Snow Hunting the last years 30 miles east of Sand Lake. Many of them coming from SL. But there is no way I could have gotten onto the land they were flying over to get to where I was. To much money.

Please don't complain to me about the cap in ND this year either. Anyone who planned ahead at all could have bought there liscence into the first week of the season. It is not my problem they did not plan ahead. I think this is the best part of the SD System. If you want to hunt in SD, you PLAN AHEAD AND COMMIT. No fly by nighting.Why lease property for next year, when you may not get a liscence. WHy pay a guide when free lancing is a snap. Land stays open for all, rather than the hgihest bidder.

I think SD should limit the NR pheasant hunters at levels where they are now, or tie the number to developement of public access as it developes. I plan or hope that the ND PLOTS will reach that million acre mark as well.

Now, you landowners rights people are probably torqued at me too. I think ND should pass the Tresspass law. It would be a big change, but give and take. The realtionships are worth is. That is actually the worst part of the PLOTS program in my opinion. It is like a hooker, a sure thing. You dont have to build any relationship, just take care of business. There is NO WAY we will ever have 20% of the habitat in any program, so hunters must DEAL WITH LANDOWNERS!!!!

Just read yours Red Label. I agree with the camping thing, but no way with the free lancers. I think that leasing and guiding are the real root of the problem, not free lancers. And you are a lot bette than me if you can plan for a weeks trip and not need to buy a bunch of stuff you lost, broke, or forgot.

My hands are tired. I will surely write more later. Tom :sniper:


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Actually I have hunted many creeks and sloughs through *harvested* corn fields in SD. Flocks of mallards often left the cornfield when we started hunting pheasants. I guess many SD residents are the dumbass because they think no pheasants stay around once the corn is cut. :lol: Wrong.

The cut cornfields have provided great hunting for two or three hunters rather than some damn army or 20 or 25 walkers and posters.

We had no waterfowl license -- guess I could care less where the ducks flew. Access granted because the farm was owned by friends of the family. These SD friends were not a dumbass though - they had the good sense to hunt with us. Rather have a couple of pheasants a piece than a bunch of stinky ducks (their comment not mine).

Duck hunters had to look elsewhere or follow that fleeing flock.

TSODAK I have never complained about the cap in ND and in fact favored the 22,000 cap as an excellent compromise this past fall. I had my license two days after they went on sale. 

I grew up hunting in the Jamestown area. No longer hunt there - agree hunting pressure is probably very intense, but the pressure in that area was fairly intense in the late 70s and early 80s. If you were hunting a WPA on a weekend, you often had to be out there 2 hours before shooting time to beat the competition there. That area always pulls people from all over SE ND and NRs alike.

You are new to the area. Once you learn the area well - you can be consistently successfull - especially if you meet and become friends with a few landowners.

Of course birds move to hunting pressure or they are in the freezer. Like shown in SD, Canada geese do the same thing in high pressure areas of MN and will likely do the same in ND as hunting pressure rises in some specific areas of ND.

*Areas around Jamestown always had a mid season lull - where ducks seemed scarce. Go to the Fargo Forum archives and read Lohman's outdoor column from the 80s. He talks often about mid season lulls when locals have moved out and migrants have yet to arrive. It is common through many if not most areas of ND. *

I have hunted in ND for over 25 years straight. We always joke that every year is different. Wet, dry, early migration, late, cold, warm, etc... We have been consistently successful hunting in ND because we go with the flow. When there are no snow geese or they were not decoying well - we picked a field with more mallards. When the mid-season lull hits ND for ducks we chase pheasants, grouse, or scout, scout, scout until we find that far off hidden slough full of greenheads.

I make every attempt to talk with the landowner / farmers especially when hunting harvested grain fields (never know when they plan to disk or apply anhyd. am.). I still have relatives that farm or ranch in ND and many of my friends work in the ag industry in ND.

*BUT the tresspass bill would not be good for ND hunting. PERIOD.*

Too many absentee or living in town land owners in ND. I like to see posting signs - at least you can get the name to call.

TSODAK Do you have stock in the company that prints all the county plat map books ???


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

My opinion was asked for, and there it is. Interestingly, when I have hunted pheasants in creeks and fencelines through corn stubble, since it is after 1200 when you can start hunting pheasants there ducks in the fields are a rare commodity. But, I will take you at your word. I maintain that that is a rare circumstance to be denied for that.

And dont think I ama disaffected hunter or something. I had a real good year, hunting 100% on PLOTS ground. Until this weekend I had not hunted anything not in the program. This weekend I went after some Pheasants I saw in a nice slough on unposted ground. I was very happy to be able to do this. How handy to be able to just park and walk out ofter making sure there were no signs. BUT, if that landowner had driven by, I would guess that he would have been less than ecstatic to see me out there. To me that is the quandry. Unless we support each other and REALY get along, then we can tear each other to pieces, Joe Public is not going to care.
You are missing my point about the movement of birds. There is LESS PRESSURE in NESD, so birds from SEND are moving in there, and diminishing the quality of the hunt. Zones or caps or whatever, this is a problem that needs addresing. It is in fact a quality question, not a quantity. A trespass law would definately change ND hunting, not 100% for the better, but not 100% for the worse either. Hunters would be less mobile, but they would learn to respect and individual landowner more, and really learn the pieces of ground they have access to. SE LE VE

Just saw this on another board, about a similiar discussion in SD this is from a gent named Waders some of you might have run across on the SD situation. Tom

The people's land that I was hunting this weekend for waterfowl had guys from Michigan, Minnesota and Ontario pheasant hunting on it. If these guys were allowed to buy over the counter waterfowl licenses I believe I would get a call saying something like, "sorry but our out of state hunters are coming this weekend and they might want to try and shoot a some ducks." I am pretty good friends with the landowners but I never hunt pheasants on their land and I have never asked. Pheasant hunting is so popular and with unlimited numbers of out of staters coming here I just stick with publics, road hunting or only hunting pheasants when I am invited on private land. Thankfully our state government listens to it's citizens and has kept the lottery system in place for waterfowl licenses. I don't care if I get called greedy or selfish but I don't want to compete with people who will come in for few days and tie up land.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

I did ask for response, thank you. Most who have been on this site for awhile know I have no problem with discussing out ideas. Compromise is the key to keeping most people relatively happy.

I have hunted in SD a several times (12 - 15 years ago) and you certainly should know more about your old home state. We often saw flocks of mallards that no one ever pursued. Pheasant is king in that state. Even if ducks were part of the license ... we were there to hunt pheasants. Already had had enough good ND duck hunts by then. 

10:00am pheasant opener later in the season, correct? We started walking that field later in the day around 4pm. No one hunted the corn field in the morning ... duck tornados returned in the afternoon ... some obviously never left. Single example(s) ... I suppose. But if I had a pheasant operation, would I let in the duck hunters before noon ?? Not so sure.

TSODAK I bet you hunt the PLOT land since I understand you are part of the acquisition program. It would really be nice to be paid to scout all of those PLOT lands to separate the good from the bad. 

Like everything else in the world today, not all PLOT lands are created equal. Some good, some bad, some ugly.

On that note, quite a few of the PLOT lands I have seen across central and northern ND appear almost worthless to most hunters or wildlife. Must say PLOT land south of I-94 is vastly superior.

You are new to the program so I am sure these are not your fault, but...

Much of the PLOT land that I saw along ND hwy 14 had been completely mowed, yet the CRP land posted and adjacent to the PLOT land was left intact. Separate owners I suppose. Still, it would be nice to see this PLOT land mowed LAST. Must have been extremely frustrating to local hunters ... I saw pheasants standing in front of the posted CRP cover.

That PLOT land west of Carrington was a dirt field last year. Seeded ?? Hopefully !! We stopped there to exercise our dogs on the way home. If I had planned to hunt there I would have been discouraged.

Still other PLOT land in north central ND (Ward, McLean, Montrail) appears like good CRP acres, but they are often "on the other side of town" from where the natural bird populations want or are known to be. So many (certainly not all) are vast fields of empty "grass".

Would be nice to find areas that tend to be more natural "bird" areas and/or are a little more *biodiverse* in habitat. Wood lot, ponds, marsh, or other winter cover. Better for hunters and wildlife as snow fills these vast fields of grass.

I guess what I am saying is either ND rushed to quickly to find land and often took the first land offered to them or they could not get the cooperation of landowners with known "hot spots". Take their time, spend hunters' dollars wisely, keep PLOT land intact, and everyone wins.

*I look forward to your success in acquiring better PLOT land for all hunters and wildlife to enjoy. I will be checking out the SE ND PLOT land after Christmas as I hunt with ND family.*


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Manitoba requires landowner permission to hunt. In SK it depends upon what game management zone you are in. Many zones are still "open" like ND is. Others (probably near the traditional hunting hot spots) do require landowner permission.

Spelled out clearly in the SK hunting regs.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

I can tell you that I hunted often the area south of I-94 and roughly east of Hwy 1 in the 70s and 80s. Drought years aside. Hunting pressure was always intense especially along ND hwy 11. Potholes often void of ducks in SE ND.

This area never staged the numbers of ducks that areas west of Jamestown did. SE ND offer great goose hunting and OK pheasant hunting but I always remember ducks as hit or miss. If we wanted ducks we drove further in the night and had much better success going west.

Hunting pressure ... sure you are probably right ... but this was when only 5K or 7K NR hunters came to ND and they were mostly goose hunters up north. Habitat or pond quality may also be better in other regions of ND.

Cass county has about 1/6 the population of ND. Nearly everyone in Cass has to travel to hunt with the exception of Chris and his Sept goose hunts. Oh wait Alice, thats right, quality hunting there for everyone living in Fargo.

Add in Wahp, Valley C., Jamestown and all the towns in between and you squeeze in a lot of resident hunters in an area that is farmed very intensely and habitat much more limited compared to other parts of ND.

This area does have a tough time accepting a lot of NRs and should be contolled better. ND G&F ever live up to the 2K or 2.5K quota in Zone 2 ???


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Just want to tell you guys that this is a very interesting thread. Your behavior and reasoned thought is commendable. Thanks for the effort. :beer:


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

You are correct about this SE corner, and even more than that. An awful lot of those SE residents have NR relatives that come to hunt with them. And lets face it, driving one or two hours for a day hunt is feasable, but driving to Cando or Kenmare is more of a week long trip. I really do think a lot of the problems could be resolved with zones, but people have to get over this, idea that we are sticking it to the business community by haveing any restrictions on numbers. That is where it crosses from quantity to quality.
You are right though that I have a cool job, scouting the good spots while I am signing them up. I am not going to get into defending the program with you here, just realize that we are not paying for every acre inside the signs, and just because they have signs around them does not mean I have done the scouting for you. Impossible to do. Just ask Fetch. He wonders why we cont sign up more fields for waterfowlhunting in crops, while I get call wondering why we are paying for crop ground where no deer or pheasants can eat, let alone hide. Basically every habitat condition has its place, and we try very hard to value it as such.

Never hunted Canada, I have no idea. I sincerely hope to hook up with someone who knows that game when I have some vacation time built and the kids all in school.

One other thing. I am really worried about the national trend to value wildlife in terms of economic impact. It is a nice sidelight, but I fear that the EI of hunting had more to do with the Season extensions and liberal bag limits than anyone really wants to believe. I can see no other explanation for it. When Trent Lott makes it that big of a campaign and congressional issue, we are in trouble. I really fear that a new, mroe insidious age of market hunting is coming. And it will take another collapse in game numbers to deal with it. Not for all species, and not everywhere, but waterfowl are primed for this to happen. Hunting and wildlife management should always be viewed as a quality of life issue, not an economic benefit one. It is noce to have the EI, but the cost may in the end be worth more than the benefit. Every here of killing the goose that laid the golden egg??? Tom :withstupid:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Just rent every harvested corn field and have a lottery, or rent a field program for those not taken in the lottery a 1-800 # to call to see whats open or if there are any cancellations (& heavy fines for anyone who rents & does not show up - All during late Oct or during November :roll: - Do it (lottery) in July, so we can plan Vacation days on what & where we are drawn ??? :roll: Also so we can get a motel room :roll: Or have Farmers / Landowners have a 1-800 # to call to say they have huntable fields, holding birds to rent by the day & use the above 1-800 # to put the two parties together ??? (Maximum 2 days per field - per party) so people are forced to move around - also move around in zones (about 12 should do ??? maybe more ??? I guess you could include wheat & barley fields also for earlier hunts & I want this for Residents only !!!-Call it ND reality waterfowl field hunting - Otherwise I'm done field hunting waterfowl in ND - Boat hunting public waters is where I'm heading (& visits to Canada- for real unspoiled - uncrowded field hunting WITH LOTS OF BIRDS TO BOOT  - How did this happen Canada get so good & ND so Bad ??? :eyeroll:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Getting back to my original post, yes there is a lot of posted land. Yes, there are a lot of leased acres. Yes, there are a lot of reasons why we have limited access but don't you think that we should number one, work on improving habitat and number two gain access priviledges by encouraging an increase in habitat fees to help the Game and Fish Dept. with the concerns of all sportsman
who would like to come and hunt North Dakota. Habitat fees spent on plots land are very fair because if you buy a license to hunt you have gained access to thousands of acres of habitat with unlimited access, no questions asked. For every plot with no birds there is a plot with birds, for every plot on the wrong side of town there is one on the correct side of town(this was a cute response) for every plot hayed there is one that is not hayed. Bring on the habitat and bring on the access!!!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

DJ,

Working on Habitat would be a great place to start. However there is more habitat in the state than most states have with the increase in CRP acreages we've seen in the last 2-3 years. Unfortunately, you can have all the habitat in the world but if you don't have access what's it worth?

Increase fees to hunt? Great idea. The problem right now is there just isn't enough PLOTS, in my opinion, The GNF seems to be signing more and more land into this program every year but they need to put MANY more acreas into it soon and they need to concentrate the arces in more of the prime areas...you know, where there actually are pheasants. (sorry)
The PLOTs that do have birds are just hit so hard, and sorry for this also, by the NRs day after day that they quicky loose the game that was using them. Just not enough PLOTS right now to support he numbers of hunters in the good areas.

While I'm on the PLOTS subject....I just don't know if a picked corn field is a good substitute for hayed PLOTS land. While deer hunting this past weekend, we noticed a lot of the white temporary PLOTS signs in some rather bad habitat areas. I think that if we get a severe winter this year there may be some very serious die-offs of pheasants and there will also be many deer depredation problems due to a lack of the thick stands of CRP in many areas.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

DJ - I believe North Dakota has an overwhelming amount of habitat already. The southwest part of the state does not need more habitat. It produces a whole lot of pheasants on what is there right now. However, any field with more than 1 inch of grass within 20 miles of Mott is posted. I think that the Cannonball folks should have about one month to run their guiding operations. They probably do 90% of their business in the first month of the pheasant season anyway. Last year we drove around the Mott area on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. We saw NO hunters. That's because others apparently knew of all the posting and weren't dumb enough to drive around counting no hunting signs like we did. So, there was plenty of land there. We just could not get on it.

Wetlands? I think North Dakota also has plenty of those. More habitat? I don't think so.

Just give me access to what is there already. A reasonable limit on NR hunting days allowed and the number of guides will do that.

The State of North Dakota could quadruple the amount of Plots land and it would not appreciably improve the quality of the hunting experience except on the first day of the season. After that, all the pheasants and ducks are going to be over on that posted or private property that does not get pounded everyday like the Plots land would be. Those Plots parcels are just like targets. Anybody who can read a map (most hunters can) find those Plots parcels very quickly. They get beat to death.

This is an incredibly complicated issue. Thanks for giving your 2 cents worth, DJ.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

TSODak we are closer on many opinions than you think. Fetch knows I will push the envelope on this site ... even if it stretches far beyond my own beliefs. I want people on this site to think about these issues from many perspectives (other than their own). Some may say I put a spin on the issues ... I say it is discussion. 8)

I am certainly green with envy on your job. You should enjoy some fringes since it is not the money you entered your profession for.

I started in college towards Wildlife mgmt, but chickened out and went elsewhere. Took enough classes I suppose to be technically ignorant.

My friends that completed degrees and advanced degrees have struggled for years as temps and technicians before getting jobs as professionals in the wildlife field. They to earn those "fringes" of knowing where the birds are year around.

Not really attacking the PLOTS program, but when I was driving down ND 14 I was hoping to run the dog for a 20 minute stretch and maybe pick up a shot on a rooster or at least move a few hens. Guess I am having a problem getting over the mowing ... really so few PLOT lands ... losing even one or seeing one that really does not seem "gamey" is certainly discouraging to me let alone residents of ND.

Again I look forward to your success in acquiring good PLOT land and habitat for ND gamebirds.

Good Luck


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

*Fetch : Peas, Peas, dry edible peas.*

*Quit eating turkey*.  The market for peas will crumble forcing the Canadian farmer to plant something else (please not Barley).

New water reservoirs in SK, Canada, have not helped either. Des Lacs, Darling, and Salyer have all been short stopped by about 50 - 100 miles due to new Canadian reservoirs on the same dang rivers.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

You may be right PH, and if I sounded upset, I am a pretty emotional guy. That is one of the things I have to be careful about in life, especially now. I spout of way to fast, although I do always say what I beleive, and there are worse things than that. I will tell you, I always have an opinion, and my daddy taught me to argue it.

I do have a great job. Fetch knows much more than most the trail that led me here. I actually am not a wildlife mangement guy, my degree is in Range Management. I always thought being a warden would be a killer job, but could not imagine sacrificing the things they have to do, salary and lifestyle. So I went home and farmed for eight years. The death of my father led me aaway from the farm, and left me marginally financially able to pursue a career I always was interested in, and drawn too. I have been on the job four months now, and love it.

The haying thing is really tough, the worst of which is that in the long term the ground that was hayed is thought by some to actually be improved fora few years as wildlife habitat. Better nesting cover you see. Not going to argue this here, but it is a tough issue on all sides. the fact is is that some areas really needed it, and it would have been wrong to not allow any use. My .02$.

The scariest hing to me about PLOTS is the fervor with which it gets used. My fear is that as people become more mobile and willing to drive hundreds of miles to hunt what they want instead of what is locally available they view there plots guide as there scouting book, instead of one of thee resources they have. I simply cannot do all your scouting for you. I know you dont think that objectively, but everyone has expectations when they reach that little yellow square on the map. the problem is, Fetch wants more open fields to hunt waterfowl, you are looking for a nice deer hunting spot, and Bronco is looking for grouse. Not many pieces of ground meet all of those. The biggest thing I see PLOTS doing is offering people an alternative to leasing to see some revenue benefits from there land's wildlife. The other question people have to answer is what the program is all about. The theory is that we are trying to develop and encourage development of high quality habitat, not paying people for access onto the land. Yet all most people think anout are the hunting opportunities the land presents. Open field are not critical habititat for waterfowl. wetlands and nesting cover are. If we were really addressing habitat for pheasants, less emphasis mabe on CRP and more on tree belts or the cattail sloughs that will bring the birds through severe winters. That is more arguable yes, but maybe you get my point.

I have said it before and here it is again. PLOTS will never be a program that says" Come on out, you can hunt the ground here all weekend and find all the birds you want". I think we could have 3 million acres and not have that for everyone. We still have to keep relationships with landowners. And I think in the long run PLOTS can even help with relationships with landowners not even enrolled in the program. Enough for one night again. Tom


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Perry: I respectfully disagree with your position that there is enough habitat in the state. A couple of points to illustrate your post. The federal government has and will continue to create more habitat with their pen than all other conservation entities combined. Period. Case in point, you can add up the entire habitat conserved by every conservation group in the US, and it will only equal a small fraction of what the federal government has accomplished.

The state of North Dakota does not have a large amount of state owned and federal owned lands that many other western states enjoy. I believe the State and Federal government only own 6% of the land in North Dakota compared to 82% in Nevada. Look no further than Montana or Wyoming where large tracts of large are owned by the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. These lands are unique because they are required to be managed for beneficial uses through land resource management plans that range from everything from logging to hunting. Also, these lands are vast and provide free and unabated access 365 days a year.

Make no mistake; a vast majority of the habitat that exists in North Dakota has been created by farm bill subsidies. Wetland Reserve Program and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Reserve Program and Cover locks administered by the US Department of Agriculture to name a few have created most of what you see when drive the country roads. These programs are unique because they provide direct cash subsidies to the private landowners to enroll. Without CRP, pheasant hunting in Mott would not even be a destination for the die-hard wing shooter. Go back to the late 70's and early 80's; I remember a great pheasant season would entail shooting 3 or 4 pheasants throughout the entire year. What happens when the CRP program does not extend existing contracts? Back to marginally producing wheat and barley fields resulting in a majority of the topsoil being blown into South Dakota.

Due to the extreme weather and short-growing season, North Dakota agriculture is primarily a monoculture of small grain crops. If the weather were more favorable, corn or other higher value crops would be grown. Farmers would farm fence line to fence line and the prairie potholes would be a very distant memory. Also, the State of North Dakota would sell its soul for economic development. The price for economic is very high! The first resource to go is open space at the cost of existing habitat including wetlands, shelterbelts, buffaloberry patches, etc. Look no further than Minnesota; haven't they lost around 95% of their seasonal wetlands? Also, hasn't North Dakota already lost approximately 50% of their seasonal wetlands due to agricultural activities. Without the implementation of the Clean Water Act which was preceded by the Swampbuster Act, a lot more prairie potholes would have vanished from the State.

A lot of existing habitat on private lands is highly degraded through cultural practices. For example, native prairie grasslands utilized for ranching are typically so overgrazed and degraded from years of cultural mismanagement, they serve very minimal habitat functions. Cultural practices play a significant factor in this aspect (e.g., it's the way we have always done it), and the new farm bill addresses these shortfalls through the creation of habitat via several new programs (e.g., cover locks to keep watersheds from silting up and transporting all topsoil into the streams). Agriculture has historically gotten a free pass when it comes to environmental destruction. Not attacking the farmers, just look at the landscape.

IMHO, the State needs to do more to create even better habitat. If economic development ever got underway in North Dakota, the agricultural and open space would vanish and prairie pothole regions would be altered forever.


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

Tom- I agree with you on your PLOTS concerns. There are many tracts of PLOTS land south of Mercer and they get pounded by NR's and locals. Just 5 years ago you seldom seen anyone (especially NR's in this area). This area gets alot of traffic- I seen NR's (license plates) from Kentucky, North Carolina, Minnesota, South Dakota & Nebraska in this 1 area! That did not include all the locals (including me), and I am not up there every week.

But, why do NR's have all the resentment towards strict caps???? I am a NR Elk Hunter in Montana. I haven't been drawn for a license in 3 years??? I accept this, because it is resources vs. numbers. I get to go when I get a license and that is the end of the story. NR licenses depend on Elk numbers and conditions?? To me, we should have a statewide waterfowl lottery for NR's & a statewide upland game lottery for NR's. Base the number of NR licenses available off game numbers, access availability and environmental conditions. Does this not seem reasonable??

Land availability/access needs to be part of the licensing equation. Determine the approximate amount of public land vs. leased land -compare it to resident licenses sold and only issue a "safe" number of NR licenses to insure quality and safe hunts in the field. Maybe this would help prevent Outfitters from leasing up thousands of acres of land. The state would limit NR licenses by the following:

1. Game Conditions
2. Environmental Conditions
3. "Safe" access numbers- it just isn't safe having large numbers of hunters in very small areas.

*Promote & market resident & freelance NR benefits to local communities-provided landowners will consider opening their lands.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Caps are fine - if available licenses are allocated fairly.

Bronco you are treading some muddy water now. Montana is all about outfitter $$$.

Montana has become the wealthy man's destination for big game hunting (Bronco if you don't have the big $, then I commend you are your ability to budget your income towards hunting).

*Montana has sold its soul to the outfitter. Many of the available licenses are sold only to those who hunt with an outfitter.*

Nonresident Deer combination license (Deer A)
Only 2,300 licenses are available to the general public. Outfitters control most of the NR licenses. At one time there where quite a few landowner sponsored licenses available - now the guides have succeeded in getting most of these allocated to their pile.

Guides control access to a lot of Montana property. Montana does not publicly say how many guide issued licenses are available - could not find it anyway.

ELK
Nonresidents can get one of 11,300 licenses at a cost of $578 to $628 (w/deer).

Hunt with an outfitter and you are likely guaranteed a license at a cost of 1,000 or 1,100 (w/ deer).

Again, I could not quickly find how many "guide" licenses are available - similar to general draw ? unlimited ? not sure ?? Do you know ??

So you can not get an Elk license in Montana too often - Is it because they have limited the licenses based upon animal populations or hunting pressure OR is it because the guides get first choice and the average NR gets what is left over or essentially unsold ?

If a NR hunter is willing to pay almost double the cost of a license then what is the total cost of that hunt ? Imagine outfitters in MT can lease a lot of land and lock out the residents to more crowded public land or public land that presents difficult terrain.

*Wyoming also offers a disturbing trend to their big game lotteries. Kick in an extra $100 and you get extra weighting points in the lottery. Money is the name of the game there too. * uke:


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Bioman,

Good post in response to my habitat comments. I would agree that without CRP, pheasant habitat would be far less than exists today. Thank you federal government.

I don't know that North Dakota will ever be drained like Minnesota. I might be wrong, but it seems that if it was economically beneficial to drain ND wetlands in large numbers, it would have been done by now. I have a feeling, and that's all it is, that it is not economically feasible to drain wetlands in ND because of the price of land and the value per acre received by the grain or crops that are produced in ND vs. what corn farmers get in MN and Iowa.

Also, contrary to popular belief, ND has a lot of rolling terrain that makes it hard to dig drainage channels in a straight line. There don't seem to be many drainage ways when you get up on the Coteau. There would be more cost involved. The payback would be longer. It seems that if a North Dakota farmer needs more land to produce crops to pay for his equipment, it is easier to find land to rent from those who want to get out of farming.

Like I say, I could be wrong.


----------



## David S Proffitt (Sep 13, 2002)

Bioman is right on target. Our interests should first be on public accessible wildlife habitat. Habitat is tied to the financial interest of land owners. We as outdoorsman in the 21st Century have to be willing to take an increased financial interest in securing public accessible wildlife habitat to sustain great hunting. This means increasing fees. Tying increase in fees to increase recreation days is something I support. Separate waterfowl and upland game licenses. Go to time limited stamps for each (need a new stamp every ten days), increase zones for each area. Tie increases in fees to securing public access to wildlife habitat. Stabilize the economics related to these issues. I am sorry, I truly believe restricting recreation days (caps) restricts revenues. Restricting revenues increases the risk to securing habitat. Don't get me wrong, I support wildlife managers determining capacity of the resource on a year to year basis... just not the guy who couldn't find a place to hunt thinking reducing the hunters is the answer to his problems. Securing public accessable hunting areas also increases freelance hunting and reduces the need for guides.

I want to say something else too. I hunted a lot of PLOTS land for pheasants this fall in the southwest part of the state and found the hunting
excellent! We (three of us) hunted PLOT fields that we saw others coming out of and still had birds. Finding Pheasants was never our problem. The land generally was great! And yes we used the guide and then looked for other non-posted land to hunt too.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Must have been really good habitat.

I too have walked public land minutes after someone else just left and have (well the dog found them) shot quite a few birds.

I have also often seen hunters walking cover (CRP or a slough) adjacent to a road. Pheasants were running out to the side and behind them and crossing the road. Yah they put up birds, but plenty were missed too.

Pheasants are runners, sitters, and generally good at getting around hunters. Pheasants also move from sleeping, loafing, and feeding areas. A group of hunters can walk the grass and not see a thing. A group of birds moves into that grass an hour later. Next group of hunters shoots a bunch.

Often it is the hunter's mind that forces him to leave an area. *How many times can one group of guys walk the same area over and over without going crazy ? * Also - one group of hunters may walk the cover differently than the next, confusing birds and getting them to hold or flush.


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

PH-I will be the first to admit that guides control a great deal of the hunting in Montana- however I don't believe they control license amounts.

I have made 7 trips to Montana since 1990. I believe approximately 11,000 Elk tags have also been the amount dispersed to NR. I used to get drawn almost every year-however lately more NR's are applying for Elk tags in Montana. Surprisingly enough, I believe most of the increase has come from Minnesota! When I started you got a Elk tag, Mule deer tag and bear tag for approximately $425.00 and now it is $628.00 for the same tag minus the bear. We have never used a guide!

The difference with Montana is there are 100,000 of thousands of acres of public land and alot of ranchers that let you hunt. We used to hunt the Bear Ranch-no fee's- and we were given access to 1/2 the property= 27 sections bordering National Forest Service Land. You could have hunted all year and not covered all the land. In 7 years I only remember encountering other hunters in the field, maybe 2-3 times and that was usually near a trail.

The difference between hunting in Montana & hunting in North Dakota is that in Montana there is enough public land to support both. North Dakota does not have large tracts of public land-it is private and when the guides lease up the private land and do not allow access- the big problems arise. I believe it is the shear amount of public lands in Montana that allows such a large number of guides and outfitters to co-exist with freelance hunters.


----------



## Wally (Nov 15, 2002)

Actually Wyoming has a different method of applying and you can get either a $600.00 or a $300.00 license. When applying for a $300.00 license I get one about every three years. If I apply for the $600.00 license I get one every time. In order to hunt elk I gladly pay the $600.00 to know I'll get a license. ND should do the same for their waterfowl licenses. $250.00 for first come first served and then a $100.00 lottery for any left over.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Wally,

I understand your perspective, but the result is that we're pricing the poor average schmoe (like me) out of ND waterfowling. It'll be a rich man's game only. I think that would be a bad thing. Maybe $250 wouldn't do that (as much as $600 would), but it is a concern I have about solving one evil (crowding) with another evil (money).

M.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Bronco:
*Whether you are a native of ND or MN both are nonresidents in Montana. *Based upon all the "North Dakotan Joke Books" that have been published in Montana - not sure .........

I feel for you bud, but would also assume that it does not matter how many times you have been to Montana before. I was BORN and raised North Dakotan, graduated from a ND university. Much of my family still lives, works, and some farm in ND. I have hunted almost 30 consecutive years in ND as both a resident and now a nonresident.

Would love to see the 20 or 25K newbies leave ND for somewhere else - not likely to happen soon. No one on NoDakO really cares about my situation either as long as I maintain my MN residency.

Like Bioman I hunt mostly with ND residents when I go home to hunt. I agree something needs to be done - the degree of change and amount of compromise is what is under debate on this site.

*North Dakota has a fair amount of public land and most farmers will let you hunt free of charge on posted land - if you ask. SW ND appears to now be the exception.*

In Montana: I am not sure if the guides share of licenses are part of the 11,300 combination licenses. Their site does not say. If you go through a guide and buy a license by March 15 - its yours. Otherwise enter the lottery and take your chances.

The guide association was responsible for taking away a good share of the landowner sponsored licenses and reallocating them to outfitters.

I would guess part of your problem Bronco also started when Colorado ended their over the counter sales of Elk licenses and initiated a lottery. More Elk hunters probably figured Montana had better odds ?

Have the guides get the first cut, charging double for licenses, etc... will simply esculate the power of the outfitter in ND. Noticed that a lot of waterfowl outfitters have moved from charging $200/day to as much as $350 to $500/day in other parts of US. More land consumed and posted I would assume.

Sheldon (aka Streeter Outfitter) has proposed that all NR waterfowlers go through a guide. Is this the right direction ???


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

PH- the 11,300 Elk tags in Montana are for Non-residents without guides. If you draw one of the tags you can find a guide in the area you were selected, but guides do not have control of the 11,300 (or at least that is how it used to be). However, there is a guided license you can purchase through a guide which costs considerably more- but I am not familiar with that.

I have hunted since I was old enough to carry a BB gun in North Dakota and it is in my blood. I moved away from ND for almost 8 years- and missed it dearly while I was gone. As I stated in a previous post- I took a $30,000 per year cut in pay to come back here, and I live in Bismarck where the cost of living isn't any cheaper that where I was before.

I am sympathetic to guys like you PH, because I was in your shoes once. But the bottomline is areas are getting too overcrowded and something needs to be done. This is wrong and maybe a little discrimminating- but if I "ruled" North Dakota- I would give you old NoDak boys who had to move out of state for work a "preference license" :beer:

As for Colorado- you can still buy NR Elk licenses over the counter in certain areas. In fact I have a brother who lives in Denver and we plan to hunt in Colorado with him next year. The lucky little bugger gets his deer and elk almost every year.

As for guides- I strongly oppose any increase in guides or their power. If it was up to me- there wouldn't be any in ND- I would put them all in a horse trailer and drop them off in central Montana, introduce them to some "wooly" 4 legged girlfriends and hopefully they would stay :lol: Guides are NOT the answer to anything-THEY ARE THE PROBELM!


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Your kidding about the guiding thing right???????


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

TSODAK :: PH or Bronco ?

If your ?? is directed to PH, then yes Sheldon was reported to state all NRs should have to go through a guide service. I believe this was stated in one of the pheasant gate regional meetings. He showed up at one or more meetings with a group of bodyguards (his guides?). If someone was at this meeting please confirm or tell me I am off base.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

> that all NR waterfowlers go through a guide. Is this the right direction ???


Even Canada is considering this :eyeroll:


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Sorry, does look confusing doesnt it. Was addressing PH. the idea would be a joke. Why not do it with pheasants then too. We could all be rich, just drag along a NR with each guy every weekend!!!


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Been there done that :roll: I never got rich - but did hunt alot - some were great - still life long friends - others :roll:  :eyeroll:


----------

