# The impact of non-resident waterfowl hunters in North Dakota



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

The ND Game and Fish Department has published (Wildlife Division, Project W-67-R-42, Phase D, Migratory Game Bird Investigations, Job No. D-1-2: Waterfowl Harvest Survey, 2001) resident and non-resident hunter numbers and harvest data for the following years.

*1985:* There were 41,467 resident waterfowl hunters and 6,384 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 189,090 ducks and non-residents harvested 32,474 ducks. Non-residents were 13.3% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 14.7% of the ducks.

*1990:* There were 27,529 resident waterfowl hunters and 5,928 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 88,094 ducks and non-residents harvested 16,456 ducks. Non-residents were 17.7% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 15.7% of the ducks.

*1993:* There were 30,271 resident waterfowl hunters and 12,071 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 118,055 ducks and non-residents harvested 39,471 ducks. Non-residents were 29.6% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 25.1% of the ducks.

*1996:* There were 39,009 resident waterfowl hunters and 16,355 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 204,796 ducks and non-residents harvested 80,575 ducks. Non-residents were 29.5% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 28.2% of the ducks.

*1999:* There were 39,118 resident waterfowl hunters and 24,209 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 239,794 ducks and non-residents harvested 139,331 ducks. Non-residents were 38.2% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 36.8% of the ducks.

*2001:* There were 35,310 resident waterfowl hunters and 30,029 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 234,458 ducks and non-residents harvested 183,177 ducks. Non-residents were 46.0% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 43.9% of the ducks.

As you can plainly see, the number and percentage of non-resident waterfowl hunters in North Dakota is increasing at an alarming rate.  As with hunter numbers, the annual non-resident duck harvest is also increasing at an alarming rate. Unless something is done to restrict non-resident waterfowl hunting in this state, I fear we will loose the quality hunting we now all enjoy.  Please let me hear your comments.


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

I agree. I think your state should set a cap for OOS hunters. I can sympathize with all the restaurant owners/gas stations/motels/bars etc that depend on increased revenue, but to keep the quality, limit OOS hunters.

My .02...


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2004)

Yeah, but in 16 years the total harvest was only 45000 more ducks killed??

Sounds to me like a lot of you residents are quitting hunting. JHegg, this is gonna bring a lot of heat. :lol:


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

:fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby: :stirpot:


----------



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

I'd like to know why the HIP registration info. is so wide open. Ducks 1 to 10 or 11 or more????? Why not just ask exactly how many so statistics can be more accurate??? I don't get it.

jhegg: WE ALL KNOW US NON RESIDENTS ARE THE PROBLEM. That's old news. I'm coming out anyway. 8) :beer:


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

> I'd like to know why the HIP registration info. is so wide open. Ducks 1 to 10 or 11 or more????? Why not just ask exactly how many so statistics can be more accurate??? I don't get it.


I have always wondered that myself. Does not make a whole lot of sense especiall when you have guys killing birds in the triple digets.


----------



## hoosier dhr (Jul 24, 2003)

Most people do not keep an acurate log on how many birds they got when they go out. I try to but sometimes even I forget


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Goldy's Pal,



> WE ALL KNOW US NON RESIDENTS ARE THE PROBLEM. That's old news. I'm coming out anyway


Good for you. Let me know when you are coming and I will go with you. I need to find some new spots anyway - all my old ones have been taken over by aliens. :wink:


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

Access is the issue.

All hunters, res or non res, directly impact the problem.

How do you please everybody at once?? Who gets priority/ special treatment??

Every state puts resident hunters first. Plain and simple.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Access is one of the issues.

Even if every square inch of land was accessible, we still can't take unlimited hunters and expect the ducks to stick around. They don't take it, and vote with their wings. The total waterfowl hunter numbers and mix (more weekday hunting) we've had recently are prematurely pushing birds out. Great for the SD duckers - bad for anyone with an interest in ND duck hunting.


----------



## nilsmaster (Sep 26, 2003)

It would be interesting to see how many of those NR's are actually born and raised in Nodak but left for a career. I imagine a vast majority since the numbers match in relation to the population leaving ND.

Anyone want to figure out and see who has the better harvest ratio?


----------



## Buck Jones (Apr 16, 2004)

First off has there ever been a study that shows hunting pressure actually moves the waterfowl out sooner or just relocates them in an area without pressure, be it in the same state or what. Or is the weather that also begins the push, or the natural instinct of waterfowl to begin their flight south, and pressure is only a part of it all.

Second we have to face it, hunting is a business and getting more so every year. Its to a point where if you are not willing to lease the ground you are interested in hunting on any more, someone else sure as heck will. A farmer has got to make a living and if they see their neighbor making a few bucks off leasing some ground for hunting, they are going to also sooner or later. After all they have to pay the bills, too.

Keeping out of state hunters out, I don't think will solve anything myself. Yes I am from out of state, but I don't hunt your state. I am just basing my conclusions on what is going on here.


----------



## nilsmaster (Sep 26, 2003)

If the dry cycle and loss of prairie keeps up you guys won't have ducks to shoot nor will the NR's. That simple. The numbers have kept coming up because we have had some pretty good years. It's starting to go back again. Take a look at the National Weather service's drought map. It's moving east

I'm tellin ya. Incentives to landowners!!! The public trust can remain as long as the public helps out with incentives to landowners!


----------



## northernwaterfowl (Apr 9, 2003)

Well, there is no drought here. We have had over 20 inches of rain since May 1st. Some houses are flooded in the area. There are so many sloughs here that it is unbelievable. I am going spraying now and wonder how many times that I will be stuck in the fields. I have noticed that some ducks are still nesting.


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

I will say that access is a problem for a lot of hunters, more often than not it is the hunters from out of state who have the really tough time getting on. I think though by just asking farmers for permission breaks the ice for all hunters. If you go out and find where the guy lives and actually talk with him for a while more often than not they will let hunt, whether resident or non resident. So northern there is a lot of water up that way to huh!


----------



## nilsmaster (Sep 26, 2003)

northern,

I figured someone would say something. The truth is the dry cycle is coming slowly but surely and what's is most scary is that it isn't really showing it is coming. It's just the way the cylce's go. But, I swear, the earth up in that DL area must sweat because DL keep son a goin.

Plenty of water for the goosefest up there northern?


----------



## Nodak Duke (Oct 14, 2003)

Does anyone have the numbers that go further back than 1985?? It's really tough to put everything into perspective when half of the numbers are dry years and the other half were relatively robust years in terms of waterfowl production.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Duke,

1985 is the earliest that I can obtain information on the numbers of non-resident hunters. I believe that non resident hunter numbers were fairly constant at around 5-6,00 before 1985, but I will check on that. I do have total numbers of hunters and waterfowl harvest data back to 1950 or so. I will post that along with estimated fall flight numbers (if I can find that data). It may take me a few days to do this.

Jim


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

A great, comprehensive source for historical data relating to ND waterfowl hunters and harvest is Managing Nonresident Waterfowl Hunter Numbers in North Dakota, prepared by NDG&F in 2002. I'm sure you can still get a copy from them.

This report has much of the data on which HPC was based. It is also the report that was distributed in conjunction with the 2002 Spring Advisory Board meetings, where Hoeven directed Dean to seek public input about NR waterfowler cap numbers and methods. The vast majority of respondants favored a cap yielding less than 20,000. Dean recommended a cap that Fall of about 22,500, the number yielded through application of HPC. Hoeven picked 30,000, which was 29 (yeah, *29*) total NR hunters less than 2001 - the record high number of NR waterfowl hunters.

Listening to the people? Finding a balance? Relying on his professionals? You tell me. Actions speak much louder than words.

Another must read is a survey of ND's (general population) prepared for the Dept. by a guy from SD about the role and responsibilities of G&F and outdoors opportunities. Don't have the report handy, but it was printed with an orange cover. There are some very surprising results about how the non-hunting public views the prioritization of the states hunting opportunites for its residents and the perceptions of certain segments of commercialization. May as well order a copy of that too.


----------



## waterdog (Sep 23, 2003)

I find it kind of ironic when I see people on these forums talking about the out of state hunters and how their numbers are increasing and hurting the duck numbers. When I opened my states outdoor news paper I seen an add that reads " WANTED.... DUCK HUNTERS" it then goes on to read "Ducks are DESTROYING N. Dakota, if you can shoot, call us! Book early...you won't believe it! Shoot-out every day! Now I don't think that the out of state hunters can be to blame when you read stuff like this. I have been coming out to N.D. for the last five years and I look forward to the great hunting and the beautiful landscape that N.D. provides. I hunt according to the rules and I am proud to say I have never used nor will I ever use a guide. I think if you look right out your own front door you will see where the problem lies. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to hunt in N.D., and I have met nothing but great people in your state and that is why it is such an enjoyment to hunt there.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I posted this in the duck forum, but I just thought I'd share it here as well. This quote is from Mad Duck, and it suggests how the pressure in ND is actually changing the patterns of ducks coming from this area. Interesting logic. I'm not going to argue where much of the problem lies, and I think the dreadful "Resident Vs. Nonresident" argument gets old as it's so much more than that. But no matter who's causing the pressure, many biologists concur that there's too much pressure in a short time here.



> Two recent trends provide a biological rationale for believing this gunfire tutorial is sufficient to educate our flocks and even influence the behavior of duck species that are viewed as "intellectually challenged."
> 
> The first involves North Dakota, where the first week of the season gunning is limited to residents. The shooting is fairly light. During the second week, when ducks overnight face thousands of nonresident hunters, the sudden eruption of heavy gunfire causes ducks to flee southward. South Dakota hunters report a major influx of ducks after nonresidents begin blasting away in North Dakota. This escape flight is a new phenomenon that cannot be attributed to normal migration patterns or weather.
> 
> A second involves declining juvenile productivity. Our flocks today contain a higher percentage of adults - birds that have survived at least one gunning season and learned to avoid heavy shooting. Once the shooting begins, the young quickly learn from the adults to retreat to refuges, private sanctuaries and out-of-the-way areas during the day, waiting until nightfall to fly into nearby fields to feed.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

jhegg said:


> Goldy's Pal,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


jhegg&Goldy's,

Email me and I'll bring the coffee and bear-sign for the drive out!


----------



## maple lake duck slayer (Sep 25, 2003)

There was an article in the Star Tribune last Sunday about HIP and duck harvest numbers. Stated earlier in this thread, in the stats, NR + Res hunters harvested 417,635 in 2001 in ND. I know that the years are not the same, but in 2003 in Minnesota, hunters harvested 884,500 ducks. Margin of error is +/- 10%, which means the harvest could have been as low as 796,000 ducks or as high as 973,000 ducks. Everybody says that MN has horrible hunting, you can't get anything, etc, than why such the large numbers when compared to the state of ND. I guess I may have figured out a reason while I typed this: NR+Res hunters in ND number about 60,000-70,000. Minnesota has about 100,000 Res hunters alone. So if MN has way more hunters, which means way more pressure, in an area that supposedly is not good habitat for ducks and duck hunting, how do they(Minnesotans) harvest so many birds and not drive them all out of the state? Just some things to think about, I am not trying to anger anyone.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Because they don't ALL hunt them the WHOLE first week of the season and then again during MN teachers convention....I would pretty much assume that they are hunted much the same way as waterfowl were in ND before the onslaught of NR hunters all coming for the opener ....weekends they are hunted and then pretty much left alone to REST during the week.


----------



## Ryan_Todd (Apr 11, 2004)

that was a great post maple lake. you did your research and asked great questions. maybe the difference is when the hunters actually go out. i mean in nd the hunting presure litterally changes over night. where in minn i believe the pressure is more spread out over the course of the season and the birds have more time to adjust. just my thinking :huh:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I've got another/different pure guess. I'll bet, as compared to ND, a very large percentage of the total MN ducks killed are killed the first two days of the season. Saturate a time/area with hunters and you're going to keep moving and kill a lot of ducks, for a short time, until they get tired of that game and just plain boogey out of the area. And I bet MN-reared ducks do out-migrate or find their way into the metro or onto refuges pretty quick. Ducks have options, and repeatedly getting hammered at and chased of their roosts aren't high on the list.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Minnesota also has the opportunity to hunt ducks farther south. The northern half of Minnesota can get froze out and there may be still be ducks in the south half of the state.

Overall I also think that the areas of water in MN are much bigger and harder to hunt than in ND. Many of the mallards I hunted in Minnesota sat on 600 acre lakes out in the middle and the only way to hunt them was to get them in a field. They rafted up in the middle and never went near the shore. After opening weekend we almost always hunted birds coming off the refuge as this was the only place they didn't get harassed.Most of the ducks in ND sit on areas where they are easy to hunt and easy to jump. A guy can jump four or five spots in a morning. Multiply that by 20 groups of hunters and you can harass alot of ducks in a pretty short amount of time. Fly 20 miles and it doesn't matter the same thing happens again and again untill they put on the 200 mile migrate and are out of the state. There is no rest. Guys come up here and hunt for a week not just on the weekend.


----------



## Ryan_Todd (Apr 11, 2004)

GG you make a good point. we do have a lot bigger water that is impossible to jump. ND just needs to get a few more refuges. but then i suppose a guide would lease up all the land around it. you guys just can't win over there.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

We need more rest areas (hundreds) and a capped lottery. That is the bottom line.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

GG
BINGO!! we have a winner


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree FH.I would guess Minn res. are like ND res....hunt Sat. and Sun and back to work Mon.Birds get a rest...whereas a lot of the 30,000 NR here hunt all week as a vacation.

Plus hunting closes at 4:00 every day for the first week or two in Minn doesn't it?


----------



## maple lake duck slayer (Sep 25, 2003)

Yes, you are right about the closing at 4:00 Ken.
A lot of non-res probably do hunt all week, but it is not like there are 30,000 of them all hunting at the same time. They are some what spread out. And I think a lot probably don't use their second week to come back and hunt.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

MLD...you are right in that most who come a distance only come for 7 days and hunt in 2 zones at once...but they are hunting all week.

Are there any numbers from you Mn. guys as to how many non-res hunt waterfowl in Mn?


----------



## maple lake duck slayer (Sep 25, 2003)

I will look into that.


----------



## Ryan_Todd (Apr 11, 2004)

i don't think we get too many NR's for waterfowl except geese. i would guess that most NR come to MN for fishing and deer hunting.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Ryan...I think you are right....that's the main reason why Minn. shoots lots of ducks...residents don't hunt during the week like non-res. hunt here.With the 4:00 closing the ducks get to rest during the week.

That is how it was here in the 70's and 80's.Even though we had 70,000 resident waterfowl hunters...most went back to work on Monday.

Now the birds are getting hammered every day,whereas in Minn. they aren't.

Turn thousands of non-res. hunters loose in Minn everyday and I wonder how long it would take before the birds leave.


----------



## Ripline (Jan 10, 2003)

Excellent point Ken. Do you have any suggestion on how to limit the pressure caused by NR who will hunt for the week. It's aforgone conclusion that alot of NR will be hunting ND this fall including myself. What can we do to limit the pressure other than not coming. Our group (4) makes a practice not to hunt the same pothole more that half a day, *NEVER* hunt a roost, and we are fairly mobile. We are going to attempt field hunting during the afternoon. 
Any suggestions?
:beer:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Shoot really straight and limit out in the morning.  Easier said than done. To be honest. If I go and hunt ducks in the morning and don't limit. I usually don't go hunting in the afternoon for anything. Kills the scouting time and do you really need to kill more ducks. Drive the country side find new spots chat with the farmers, relax enjoy your time here. I know alot of the travelers want to squeeze in as much hunting as you can but you can do much better spending more time scouting and less time shooting. If you do your homework you won't need the afternoon.

If you want to shoot ducks in the fields. Hunt them in the morning you will do much better than in the afternoon.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

One way I see to lesson pressure is to issue non-res. a book of tags.When they are gone you are finished hunting...instead of eating them every day or giving them away in order to keep hunting.3 days limit of tags.When I first started hunting in ND in the 60's we recieved a book of tags.If the limit was 6 per day...we got 18 duck tags.Saskatchewan now issues non-res tags for all upland.

Another way would be to limit non-res. to hunting only until noon.Manitoba does this.Before anyone complains about this...I should say that it is non-res. who are putting the pressure in the birds during the week.

A third way is to have a non-res. cap by zones.Only so many in each zone,similar to our deer hunting.With maybe 4 zones running north to south.Like along Hyw's 281,3,and 83.


----------



## Ryan_Todd (Apr 11, 2004)

those sound like all good suggestions ken. i think putting a cap on each zone and making four different zones would work out really well.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

That's probably the one most non-res. would go along with...it would not only spread out the hunters,but it would spread out the money to more rural towns.It would also slow down leasing and buying land by non-res.Since you would not be guaranteed a licnse every year.

I would also eliminate the law that says you can hunt in 2 zones at the same time if you hunt only 7 days.


----------



## Ryan_Todd (Apr 11, 2004)

another way to reduce the presure would be to cap the amount of NR in each zone on a weekly basis. i know this wouldn't sit well with nr but it would limit the amount of hunters in a given area at any given time.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Ken W I think you are wrong on the north south boundry lines there is a reason that the zones use to run east and west and still somewhat do it is so that as the waterfowl move south you can't chase them until you hit S.D., hence you would have to purchase another lisc. in order to pursue them further south, also with your method you would be able hunt the zone most desired as it would suddenly include the Bismark to Harvey area which are currently zoned into two smaller zones due to the extremly heavy hunting pressure in that area. Anyone wishing to hunt outside of what are now zones 1 & 2 under your zones would then have to do heavy battle just to get a lisc. and this still would not limit the heavy pressure on those areas. Go back to the zones of two years ago and leave it alone. As for your tag idea there is a reason that the state of ND no longer does that either, it is called poaching of sorts because hunters use to not tag anything until after it was cleaned and still would give the birds away and save their tags in order to keep hunting, or they would have resident's transport the game for them as they did not have to tag any game. Another factor to all of these rules you proposed from the old school is that the population of waterfowl also was on a dramtic increase around the time that the tagging stopped and the limits of birds (snow geese)was increased to about 10 per day I believe, you would have had to have a brief case just carry around all of the tags you would need to hunt in ND. Ken there is not a simple solution to any of these banterings about zones or caps or on numbers of hunters. It all comes down to one thing and one thing only while we are in the field hunting or doing any outdoor activity we all should remember to be curtious sportsmen and work together and not interfer with each others hunts or activities unless we are asked to participate as part of each other group, when we have worked together with other hunters weather it be jump shooting or posting and driving we have had much more fun hunts and made some great new friends. Ken this fall when I get up there I would be happy to buy you a beverage of your chosing at the Watering Hole in Willow City and debate the pros and cons of nr's in ND. You will find out that most of nasty little NR's are not such bad guy's after all. I already know that I have yet meet an ND resident that I did not like so far everyone up there has been great I always tell everyone when I travel that MN has good people but ND has the nicest people you will ever meet!! See in the fields in a few short weeks.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

jd,
Most of the hunters living in North Dakota really enjoy other hunters from other states the problem is not that the residents dislike nr hunters on a personal level. The cumulative effect of so many hunters is what most here do not like. The quality of the hunting for many here, what they consider quality hunting, has gone down hill. Not because hunters from other states are bad guys but because there are just to many of them.

There are many places in the US that they charge a recreation fee and only allow so many people to use it. Beaches, rivers, etc etc. ND waterfowl hunting could be treated the same way. When to many people show up the experience goes down for all. To many people in one area reduces enjoyment, fewer ducks and game reduces enjoyment.

Irregardless of money, if the quality of hunting goes down because of to many people then we all lose. This is THE driving force behind guides leasing up land. If so many people were not showing up to go hunting then guides wouldn't need to lease. There would not be competition. Reduce competition and you reduce the need for guides to lease.

Why are there few waterfowl guides in SD and few pressure problems. 
#1 There is no guarantee that the people who get a license will hunt with a guide
#2 There are not enough people hunting that guides feel they need to lease acres.

If we did pass a law that set a cap. The absolute worst thing we could do would be to automatically give guides licences.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

jd mn/nd...Nasty non-res????I DO NOT DISLIKE NON-RESIDENTS.

I was asked what could be done to lesson the pressure on waterfowl to keep them from moving south.I gave 3 ways to try to do that.that's all.

It is non-res. who are putting on the pressure by hunting all week.

As far as zones go...The old zones were based on Snow Goose migration patterns in the 70's and 80's.There weren't many large Canadas and ducks were something to hunt in the afternoon.That has changed dramatically.Most non-res. now come here to hunt ducks all day.New zones are needed to spread out the hunters...most complaints about zones is that they do not allow you to follow the birds after it freezes up here.North -South zones would help that problem.

"hence you would have to purchase another lisc. in order to pursue them further south"

You can only buy 1 waterfowl license.

As far as tags goes...at least some would not do what you suggest...they would tag their birds...it would be better than the way it is now...where non-res hunt all week and give away or eat enough to keep hunting.This free for all is why the birds are under pressure.

When will you be in Willow City?


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

I too remember the old tag system, Ken. It was a hassle. But, that's the way it is. I think it is an idea that should be re-established.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I agree with Jd MN/ND the problem with the tags is that the people that cheat will figure out a way do it anyway and only the ones that are law abiding in the first place will be inconvienced. Kind of like gun laws they only affect the law abiding folks. Keep trying.... :lol:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Of course there will still be cheaters with leg tags. Some are deterred by nothing. But, the tags will create much greater enforcement opportunities for daily and possession limits and will separate the really brave cheaters from the amateurs. Just found our Sask. upland leg tags from '02 as we were working on this year's trip.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Of course leg tags are an inconvience.No more breasting birds.But I don't see any other way to keep people from hunting and shooting a limit every day for 5-7 days.Someone will always fing a way to break the law...no different than Minn having lakes with size limit restrictions.Someone will try to get around it.

Maybe we should cut the non-res. daily limit back to 4 then.Can hear the screaming already if we did that.But it is a way to take pressure off the birds.

The important thing here is that most of us here feel we have reached the saturation point.Even our GNF biologists feel that way...are we doing heavy damage to our breeding stock???Probably.

So what's the answer?????


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Would there be any objection to having a one day, once a week state wide rest day, lets say thursday.

This would allow the pressure to be eased on the birds, allow easy enforcement, and maybe help mend the fences a bit between both non-residents and residents because essentially we are both giving, and both recieving.

I know this may be an impossible outcome, but it allows there to be a mutual lifting of pressure on the birds (residents point of sensitivity) and also allows non-residents to be seen as a group willing to comprimise. Honestly, what really is going to be the outcome of this lawsuit? There will be no winner in either party's favor in light of any judgement.

As sportsman we need to rectify the relationship between these two groups, not focus on one individual issue. If we focus on this single issue the repercusion of it will be lived not by today's generation of hunters, but by the generations to come, our children and their children.

Essentially this has become THEE issue that will judge many come. There must be compromise in order for there to progress. So I ask you, all of you who write on this forum...how many times have we fought the same verbal battles, how many times must we repeat this battle before we own up to the fact that both parties must be able to find a common ground?

What is that common ground? It is the very thing that we abuse, The Great Outdoors! We abus eit by not wanting to share in it by planning for its preservation and the continuation of its heritage. That heritage that has passed through many generations. We will indefinately see change among the laws and the regulations, that is part of life. But it is how we interact as fellow sportsman that will decide the future of our heritage. There may never be a time when there is complete agreement, that is for certain, but there can be enough of an understanding that we can have the foresight to do what is right so that instead of destroying what we love so that it remains the same we preserve it by planning and sharing it so that the next generation can enjoy in all its beauty and grace.

So I challenge you who post here, start a topic of solutions, not of threats and battles.

"I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends."

Author: Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Northdakoktakid

An admiral objective. However, I can't think of a working compromise. If we want to reduce pressure in North Dakota and we compromise that can mean only one thing. Some residents will have to give up hunting to make room for nonresidents. I don't know any states that do that, not to any extent anyway. The thing is I believe that nonresidents will have a much better experience with reduced hunting pressure. The number of license for any birds, or game animals should be decided by wildlife experts, not legislators or governors. I live with the regulations of Colorado when I elk hunt there. I also live with the regulations of Montana when I hunt deer and elk there. It is what I expect, and it is what I expect of others. Another state dictating to a neighbor is the height of arrogance. Minnesota hunters, I do not judge you by your politicians or the law suite, I judge you one at a time as I meet you in the field. I certainly wouldn't want people judging me by North Dakota politicians. In ending I would like to say that real sportsmen would rather hunt less often, if required, for a higher quality hunt when they do go.
Northdakotakid, rest days would help.


----------



## Ripline (Jan 10, 2003)

I think this thread has been a good discussion and not really argumentative. Debate or open discussion will end up in some sort of resolution. I agree with Ken, tags would be a good idea and would result in limiting the amount of pressure the NR can apply. If hunting is slow, the all day hunting can procede. If birds are all over, then the NR will be force to pick birds or shoot them up and stop early. Both reduce the pressure being applied. I have seen this done in several states. 
Another idea may be to have a set amount of tags available to NR's based on the spring survey. The NR gets tags based on the amount of ducks and the amount of hunters applying. Has holes, but is another idea.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I believe we recieved 3 times the daily limit of tags back in the 60's.

This still allowed a generous duck limit and basically forced us to hunt something else when our tags were gone.


----------



## maple lake duck slayer (Sep 25, 2003)

I know this is a little old, but the DNR sent me info. on non-resident waterfowl numbers for MN today. Estimated duck and goose hunters (non res) combined for last year was about 4,000.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

If we give a rest day it would benefit NR's most. Without NR's we wouldn't need rest days. Nothing against NR's but they are going to have to quit trying to change ND into something they don't want, like their own states must be. I'm not picking on NR's it's just that they are usually the ones to suggest changing things to be more of an advantage for them. Believe me I am just as sick of the R vs NR as everybody else from ND.

I do most of my hunting Tuesday thru Friday because the wildlife is more settled down. My favorite day to hunt is Thursday, I beat the long weekender's and the wildlife is calmed down after 3 days of rest.


----------



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

> I'm not picking on NR's it's just that they are usually the ones to suggest changing things to be more of an advantage for them.


Not really. In fact if you would look over most of the posts in the last 6 months you'll find the residents want the changes to benefit everyones hunting experience for the long term quality of the sport, and many non-residents agree there needs to be something done about what hunting in Northdakota has become.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

MLD...Thanks for getting the info.

That means only 4 % of the waterfowl hunters in MN are non-res.

ND has roughly 45% non-res. hunters.Sure they don't all come at once but I would guess most are here the first week and the third week.So all those guys are putting pressure on the those birds all week.

Whereas Minn. res. probably go back to work on Mondays like us and it closes at 4:00 anyway.

I still think the best way to cut down pressure is to limit non-res. to a tagging system.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Goldy...I don't know man, it isn't ND that is threatening lawsuit over regulations is it. I think we all are just trying to do the right thing for the wildlife first and ourselves second. I doubt very much if any NoDak's are trying to increase hunting pressure, as a matter of fact we have zones now, something we didn't need for ourselves that is for sure. Like I have said before I personally have no problem with NR's I hunt with them all the time. I have been a NR three times in my life so far and have always paid what was expected, no problem.

I do have to agree alot of the requests to change do come from within the state, we have strong o/g lobbys here, and they do get what they want.

Ken W wrote



> I still think the best way to cut down pressure is to limit non-res. to a tagging system


.

Sounds sensible to me, this is one more sugggestion from a R to do the right thing so NR's can always expect a decent hunt in ND, I guess we are just to nice sometimes. 8)


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Buckseye
You hit it right on the head man!!!!!!!

The o/g and tourism lobbies are trying to get anyone with a shotgun and a heartbeat here to hunt because they have wildlife to sell! oops I ment to say access fees to sell!

My friends from Mpls and Goldy are not really the problem because they are attentive enough to realize that there is a problem.

Ken, I am interested in this duck tag thing. How was it rolled out? when did they quit doing it? would it be expensive to implement?

Have a good one!


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Ken,

I think Bob is probably correct when he is concerned about the
cost of the tags. Are you implying with the tags a NR would be
allowed to shot his/her 12 ducks and that would be it for the 
7 day period?

If the answer is yes, I don't think that would fly due to 
discriminating against NRs.

I have no problem with hunters eating game during there 
hunting trips, but it burns my butt when they attempt to pawn
off their daily limit!


----------



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

> Goldy...I don't know man, it isn't ND that is threatening lawsuit over regulations is it.


Did NR's have a say in this lawsuit? NO. Although I can't control and have any political pull against a lawsuit there are ways that might come as a surprise to you that can make a difference in Northdakota. While some non-residents come home from their trip out there and brag about the birds they shot and how great it is, I tell them it's O.K but nothing that great, not worth the long drive, etc. You all know how "word of mouth" works against you. Why would I want to compete in an area that I hunt with someone else if I could help it. Anything to keep some pressure away is what everyone can do to help the problem. Every little bit helps.


----------



## SuperHank (Aug 23, 2004)

If I lived in Nodak I would be concerned about too much NR pressure but I would take pains to develop a plan that moves NR hunting toward the middle of the week and towards the end of the season rather than bunching the use of NR licenses on opening day and the weekend. I was in the southern part of the state for a week in 2003 and I literally saw one group of hunters and they were on the weekend. In the meantime I killed as many pheasant as I wanted and got permission from every farmer I asked. I knocked a field full of lesser canadas and snows out, along with jump shooting mallards and teal. The fact is that you shouldn't have a problem finding good hunting if you will look. Maybe its a little harder than it used to be but Nodak bird hunting is as good as it gets.
In the Eastern part of the US there is no place that I know of that has the opportunities to hunt on your own like your state. I'll be back on October 28th.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Thanks Goldy, we all have the same problem with that. It's hard not to share what is good in this world. These dang computoys work against us alot when it comes to letting the cat outa the bag too. It's no more your fault than mine there are issues that need to be tended. 8)

Just a side note: my mom has been growing a garden in ND for 75 years and has never seen a summer like this, nothing wants to grow. I guess it's been to cold for the most part.


----------



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

It's the wifes' fault. :roll: She was hoping for a cool summer and she got it.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Dang Goldy maybe you are to hotblooded for your little lady....take a cold shower :lol:

Tell her she owes my mom some tomatoes and cucumbers :lol:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

You know, there's usually more than one way to skin a cat. If the MN suit is successful (big "if" after Judge Hovland's recent foreshadowing), we'll just need to get a little creative, which AZ is also doing right now. Try this one on for size: As to all hunters, R and NR alike, no more than three days gunning in any week (M-Sun), and not less than three days separation after any two consecutive days. It's non-discriminatory and would do a ton for pressure relief. With the internet and phone licensing system, registration logistics wouldn't be that big of a deal either.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

PSDC said:


> Ken,
> 
> I think Bob is probably correct when he is concerned about the
> cost of the tags. Are you implying with the tags a NR would be
> ...


The reality is that it is not discriminatory at all. Simply put it is a tracking method in which to monitor the Fed law on possession. It is deemed a reasonable expectation that once the birds are in ones home that they will be consumed. That expectation is not there for the most part when on a trip into the field. This type of standard is applied in most states.

In ND for example on non migratory birds and fish we do not have a overall possession limit, but we do have a trip possession limit.

MN is the same for many of the species and SD and other states. It is strictly a consumption rule applied to all hunters.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Ron,

My question to Ken, would a NR ONLY be allowed 12 ducks
for their 7 day period with the tag system.


----------



## Ripline (Jan 10, 2003)

I think Ken reference the tagging rules back in the 60's which provided tags for three times the daily limit. In today's numbers, that would be 18.
IMHO, that would be plenty of tags. 
On a side note, back in the 80's, Wi has a point system. 100 points was your limit. A hen mallard was a hundred point duck, pintial canvasback were also. Possibly another method of aleviating the pressure.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Got no problem with that as long as it applies to both residents
and non-residents.

One easy way around a possession limit, is by making the 
ducks/geese into jerky. Once processed, they are no longer
consider part of your limit.


----------



## Ripline (Jan 10, 2003)

That doesn't alleviate the pressure issue being discussed. It adds to it!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

PSDC,
Might be up to interpretation. A bunch of guys I know from MN that hunted here a couple of years ago, 11 guys total, took their entire weeks limit of ducks and had them processed into sausage at the local locker plant. After taking possession they were prompty given big fines by the local warden for transportation of birds without proper ID (no wings attached). I'd love to hear the conversation between a warden and a bunch of guys that have a tub full of jerky they just made and a bunch of limits hanging on the lodgepole as well.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

FH,

The warden would lose that one in court. Well aware, because I 
hunt with both a state and federal COs every year. They were 
the ones that told us how the Federal laws work.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

PSDC...yes that is what I meant.Back in the 60's we had 3 days limit of tags.So with the daily limit of 6 ducks...you would get 18 tags.But you could not have more than 12 in possession at any one time....

So you would have to eat some,give some away,or go home and come back a second time to use tags 13-18.

It is for non-res. only.

With the high snow goose limit...there would be no tags for them...dark geese would get 9 tags.Pheasants would be different I guess...since you are allowed 15 in possesion.So you would get 15 pheasdant tags.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

I would be against the tag system for NRs only.

I don't see how the feds would allow that one to fly
for a migratory bird.

But, as I stated before, I would have no problem if
the tags applied to both residents and non-residents.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Just got off the phone with a CO friend, he is currently in a
meeting with other COs, both state and federal. He is going
to get a consensus amongst the group when game is 
considered part of your bag limit.

Apparently this is already a hot topic for the Feds and plan
on clarifing this in the field for ALL states.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

ND could go to a three duck daily limit and a six duck possesion limit and the feds would do nothing about it simply because states have the authority to set more restrictive seasons and bag limits but not more liberal.

ND is not obligated to use or set a season using the full alloted days either. That is why the Feds do not get involved in the issues of how states treat RH vs NR's.

Many of us at the advisory meetings this spring suggested a reduction in the bag limits upon ducks but it seems that it will not take place.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Ron,

Are you trying to tell us that the state can set different
bag limits for residents vs. nonresidents when it comes
to waterfowl or upland?


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

PSDC,
When you fnd out about the processing issue, I'm sure we would all be interested.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

No what I am saying is that the state can set a lower limit on the bag and days. These rules apply to all hunters. The point I am making is with the Fed regs you can only shoot and possess legaly 12 ducks unless you gift or consume some while here.

It bothers me greatly to hear people concerned that in a 7 day period they can only shoot twelve ducks. I live here and if I do not consume or gift away some birds I can only shoot 12 ducks in the same time frame.

The leg tags would be to prevent dumpster dumping and wanton waste which happens more times than not. I know a group of hunters that ate about 4 birds each daily while here. Nothing wrong with that. They left on the 6th day without a legal limit in possesion, but taking back a limit was not why they where here.

Back in the mid 90's they many times did not leave with any ducks left as they cooked and ate and shared what they harvested. THe emphis was not on numbers killed but days afield.

Having talked with Ken and others about leg tags it is clear to me that the idea which we one time used but discontinued when hunters numbers dropped is more geared towards compliance of possesion rules.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Tags are a way to lesson hunting pressure put on the birds that are now hunted 7 days a week dawn till sunset.You would only have a limited amount of tags.No res. would put up with this...non-res. wouldn't have a choice.

It is the non-res. that come here for a whole week that are putting all this pressure on them.Actually Minn. hunters probably only come for short periods...weekends and like us let the birds rest. during the week.

So maybe we should close all hunting 1 day or 2 in the middle of the week.

When it comes to non-res. vs. res....non-res. will always have more restrictions...after all we live here and non-res. don't have a voice in our legis. or Advisory meetings.The only way they won't have more rertrictions is if Minn wins part or all of it's lawsuit.And as Dan has said, states will then find ways around them.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

PSDC said:


> Ron,
> 
> Are you trying to tell us that the state can set different
> bag limits for residents vs. nonresidents when it comes
> to waterfowl or upland?


Yes, that is true. Feds only set the outer limits, states are free to do anything less. Subject to the commerce clause issues raised in the Montoya case and yet to be decided here, differential R/NR treatment, even daily limits, would be entirely up to the states.

One of the named individual plaintiffs in the MN suit fequents this site. The pushers of the MN suit tried real hard to get the Feds to weigh in against and nullify the ND nr waterfowl rules. The Feds advised they had nothing to say about such things and that the only recourse, should they so choose, was a Montoya-type challenge in Federal Court. Chuck, do I have that about right?


----------



## passshooter (Aug 25, 2004)

Personally, I don't believe that NR's are the problem. The big problem is loss of habitat & overpopulation in general. I think that the waterfowl & birds & big game belong to us all & anyone who posts their land should not be allowed to hunt it either. All hunting land should be open to all hunters or closed to all hunters. I think NR's should pay maybe 5 X's the cost of a R license & than have the same rights as R's. (that's rite, I believe that hunting is a right, not a privelege). (& please don't tell me about the rotten apples ruining it for all of us; life is only worthwhile if we live it as if people are going to do the rite thing).


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Passshooter,
Let me guess - you are a NR, right?


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Hmmmmmmmmmmm not sure what Passhooter is??????


----------



## GooseBuster4 (Sep 4, 2004)

So if i own land Passhooter you are saying that I should have no control over who hunts it, whether its harvested or not, whether they ruin the crops by driving over swathes or something like that. GREAT IDEA. Bottom line is that that is one of the dumbest posts i have ever read and if u seriously believe what you wrote you arent a read waterfowler.


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

:lol: :lol: :lol: Oh man, passhooter, you are a funny guy :lol: :lol: :lol:

...wait a minute... 

you were SERIOUS?!?!

Wow...isn't that, like, communism or somthing? I mean, you're basically saying landowners shouldn't have control of their land and just let anyone who hunts go on it no matter what....wow....i'm kinda speachless :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## hoosier dhr (Jul 24, 2003)

So passshooter, if u owned ur own land would u want someone telling u what to do with/on it ?

Come on man just knock on the door and represent hunters ethically! :beer:


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

This topic always gets ugly doesn't it!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ya it does Remmi, I guess the only real analogy can be is that if you are a guest at someones house you follow unwritten ethical standards, even if you are told to make yourself at home, non residents are NOT unethical they just do not know or understand our style and methods of hunting, but they would for the most part understand being a guest in someones home. most just simply hunt the way they do at their state. Have we dropped the ball as far as educating our guests?

I have said in many posts that we have in a way forced the nr's to hunt hard for their two 7 day or one 14 day period, and we have concentrated them into zones. What is the answer, who the hell knows! Education maybe, perhaps capping the numbers, perhaps outlaw leasing of habitat land. all I know is that if change is to happen it needs to come from the top down, and how can the powers to be understand the problems unless people get involved and tell them. Rest assured the special interest lobby has been hard at work.

Have a good one!


----------



## DeltaBoy (Mar 4, 2004)

So if I were to walk up to your house and join you picnic you wouldn't mind?

Think of it this way for a second...

Your walking in on a lot of GREAT land that is preserved for a for a reason. If a guy post's his land, get out of your truck and sound your voice to gain permission. You wouldn't just sit down and join in on a family picnic, you would ask first wouldn't you?

Going hunting tomorrow and can't wait! I will get a crack at some birds before all the pressue comes...Grrr...

Good hunting!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Delta Boy

I see your point. Do you preceive the problem as not asking for permission and taking their chances? I know it happens but i did not think it was wide spread.


----------



## DeltaBoy (Mar 4, 2004)

Bob,

Yes, your right with your response and education or a mentor might be needed for some folks.

It's kinda of like you said, most people wouldn't walk into someones house with dirty boots on... It's all about respect!


----------



## goose killer (Mar 26, 2004)

I think we should limit the number of nonresidenst who can hunt even more. We should make the pheasant liceances last for 1 week and they can't buy any more. We should make the waterfowl liceances the same. I am fed up with the nonresidents who buy all the land out west by mott to hunt for themselves or charge people to hunt. I can't even hunt in my own state out by mott with out having to pay. This really ****** my off. :******: :******:


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Unfortunately the trend gets worse every year. If I could afford to buy land I would as well, but not to charge. Love to make some good money and buy a section or 2 and put it in an irrevocable trust for my family to hunt for generations to come!


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Just to throw some more confusion into the mix. Regarding the pressure theory. If the pressure does indeed push the birds out then explain why they can be hunted steady for a month or more on their wintering grounds and not move out!!! I've also heard that the birds now winter further north than they used to, most likely due to cycling weather patterns. I can remember a time when there was as much or more pressure on the birds (at their low point in population) yet there were plenty of birds all throughout the season. As a matter of fact when I started hunting few hunters field hunted for ducks. Nearly all shooting was done on water (roosting areas) or pass shooting near refuge areas. many now consider that a no no and claim it drives birds out. Maybe it's just the opposite. maybe our switch to disturbance in the feeding areas is driving them out!! I don't mind the non-residents but for those that do here is a plan. Lets send them and their money up to Manitoba to hunt and see if they can push the birds down to us. But I can see it now, then we would complain that the birds were gunshy because they had been hammered in Canada and we still wouldn't be happy. sighhhhhhhhhh When the bird number fall again so will the number of nonresident hunters. If many people spent as much effort on hunting as they did whining about non-residents they would discover it is not the problem they think it is.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Shooter2

It is a numbers thing. I will post numbers for you to look at later but the total number of hunters in the 3 prairie provinces are less than the total number for ND alone.

The birds start getting educated from being shot at up there and they just get more pressure in ND.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Hunters and guides will drop WHEN we go dry, but never proportional to historic levels. With nearly a 1:1 mix of R to NR today, neither will pressure. For historic reference, our last boom cycle saw a mix of about 10:1. The 10 tended to do almost all hunting on weekends. Today, the pressure is high and constant.

And then there are the o/g's, 5 times in numbers today compared to the early 90's. WHEN we go dry and birds, productive areas and hunters become ultra concentrated, the exclusivity will be severe.

Want to know if pressure has any bearing? Talk to the guys who hunt Northern SD and follow the Sand Lake numbers in the USFWS weekly migration reports.

We'll loose hunters and o/g WHEN we go dry, for sure, but dry will make what's tough even tougher, even for the hard cores.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Shooter2
I just got home, long day. Here are the numbers

Prairie Provinces of Canada Alberta, Sask, Manitoba

Total resident (canadian) hunters 2003 26,930
Total Non-Resident hunters 2003 18,512
Total 45,442

North Dakota

Resident hunters 2003 30,771
Non-Resident hunters 2003 26,066
Total 56,837

South Dakota

Resident hunters 2003 27,942
Non-Resident hunters 2003 4,717
Total 32,659

These are Numbers for waterfowl hunting only, I was made aware of them last night. I think it tells the entire story. Compare land mass with the Canadian Provinces, I do not have the numbers but I would take an educated guess and say ND has about 1/8th of the land mass with 11,000 more hunters. I am not trying to be sarcastic or slam you, but you do not need to be a NASA Engineer to figure this one out 

Shooter2 Sorry I read your post again and you were making reference to the wintering grounds down south. the reason they can be pounded down there and not move would logically be, they have no other places to go, and some other states have already adopted the HPC. I wish I knew more about Waterfowl Migration, how can a bird with a brain the size of a peanut fly from Texas to a spot in Alaska where it was originally reared? Maybe they know lunar cycles, maybe it is the angle of the sun, who know maybe they get the urge to mate. Sorry for the confusion it has been a long day!

Have a good one!


----------

