# Anyone Else as Mad as I am!!!!!!



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

:******: :******: :******:

I am wondering if anyone else is getting as frustrated as I am. These small town legislatures DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE MAJORITY OF THEIR CONSTITUANTES!!! I am from a small town, I go back several times a year to hunt/fish visit. I know the pulse of the town, the majority of residents do not want to be overrun with out-of-state hunters. The only people in these towns that want that to happen are the bars/rest/hotels. They are not anywhere near the majority, but somehow they are weilding all the power. Can anyone explain why this is so???

Almost every bill has been won by what I can the minority!!!! Why, hunting no matter what will not save these small towns...Well if they get their way(and it appears they are more and more every year) this will be another Texas!! G/O will take over. The only place left to hunt will be PLOTS and can you imagine 30,00 people fighting opener for that.

Well, there's always fishing...At least for know they can't take that away from me. And they wonder why less and less residents every year are throwing in the towel and finding something else to do with there time. The hassle gets worse and worse every year.

Sorry, but I'm frusturated that people just don't get it...


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Commercilization of the resource yeilds profits

Money is talking this session.


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

I know, the benefit of the few..the loss of many..That is what really upsets me, how these people have more power than the everyday citizen of this state.. :eyeroll:


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

its not just small town legilators! Here in Minot, home of the F's, things haven't changed. I think the only solution is to run for office, nobody seems to to represent the resident hunters of North Dakota. Even the Dems here are kissing the B-hind of so called business. Sportsman need to stand up! How many of us are there compared to hotel rest/bar owners. Why are they getting the sympathy? I as a resident spent 4 nights in a hotel this year about half of a normal year. I had over 20 meals at dining/bars and we all know we can out drink the nonres's.

Who wants to run for office?

TC


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I chose to stay here for the outdoor opportunities and now I am stuck here because of the roots to family, etc. I would move in a heartbeat if I could. I would move to the Twin Cities and come back as a non resident and hunt ND and make twice the money like my colleagues do. I am so sick and tired of hearing how we are the whiny minority and no one can understand that we are trying to save a quality hunt for all. Well, when the ND horizon is filled with wealthy out of staters paying a guide or outfitter for their meals and booze and gas and shells and groceries, the small towns will have their ***** blown away in the wind and then they will wonder why their legislators did what they did. Be careful what you wish for, you will soon be getting it. There will be no ducks in nd, they will be in Sand Lake , SD and the small towns better hope that we get a good pheasant population because that is all that will save them!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: uke:


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

DJL - I like the signature line.


----------



## Boy (Jan 24, 2005)

Yes Goose, I am as mad as you. Often think that I would like to run for office, but who wants to elect a 32 year old. All of the seniors in North Dakota still refer to us as kids and think we don't know anything.

There seems to be no vision during the session. The view is only at the piece of pie in front of them, not the whole pie, not even the whole bakery.

Suffice it to say I am not a republican, so I of course am in the minority. And no, I don't believe in rasing taxes!

On the national scale, how did you like the slap in the face ole W gave all of North Dakota after he got back to DC? It sure was nice of him to announce the cuts to the the farm program after he went home!!! Part of me says oh well, that't what you get for voting for him.

Here's to hoping common sense shows it face in the second half of the session and stick around for awhile!!!!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

If the minority is wining......are they the minority? Small towns are dieing and when they see people come in for a few months straight and spend as much money as they do, are they not proffitting off these people. Take away hunting (hypothetically) and all of a sudden those towns will die faster.
*G/O's are the problem*. Not the freelance hunters.
We don't need more goosepigs out there!!
We have fought a good battle but we are losing the battle because we have 45,000 waterfowlers against us (HPC), comparred to roughly 2,000 active sportsman. This is what is not being seen. We need outside support for things like this. For christ sakes Tony Dean was speaking against HPC and he lives in a state that already has it implemented(hypocrite). What icon did we have speaking for it! What people from other states talked for it, and not against it?

G/O have all kinds of time and money to put into it, where as we (sportsman) have only the time we can put twords it out of our everyday life.

Why do these small towns vote against it? My guess would be that they have some outside influence from outside sources.

GH4LIFE maybe when you go back to hunt and fish you should talk to them about these issues because our small towns voted it down. Sad to say but true.


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Well, I'm glad I'm not alone. The other thing that astounds me is how many pieces of leg. are getting introduced. If I were betting it is about a 10 to 1 in favor of non-resident advantages....Boy, I'm sure glad I pay taxes in this state...


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Just trying to get people to look outside the box.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

ND sportspersons have no one to blame for the way this session is headed other than themselves - period.

Interests are treated as they appear. When an interest appears small and/or weak, it is afforded that level of respect and attention - same in reverse.

This session is exactly what we bargain for when not enough sportspersons organize and attend advisory boards meetings and legislative forums or when they fail to contact their legislators. The message sent is "12 whiney sportspersons," and that my friends is not going to counter the emotion and weight of commercialization, no matter how "right" we are.

Coversely, when the thousands of sportspersons get active and involved, we're a force to rekon with, ala the pheasant debacle. In '03 we had just enough involvement to be effective. Had others joined in the effort and built upon that involvement, we could have finsished what was started last session. Instead, the number that have now first become involved is greatly smaller than those who have checked out over frustration, complacency and apathy. The commercializers have not, and are kicking our ***.

Lobbiests aren't going to cut it. They help, but on these issues, it don't get done unless YOU do it, and ever since the '03 session, there haven't been enough YOU's doing it - period.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here is the distribution of the miracle re-birth and passage of SB 2256

Did your senator vote as you asked him to?

I am happy to say mine did!

It is a sad day for rural ND outside of the main flyway.

Yea's 
Andrist 
Every 
Hacker 
Krebsbach 
J. Lee 
Schobinger 
Thane 
Tenboath 
Wardner 
Bercier 
Christman 
Erbele 
Fraborg 
Heitkamp 
Klein 
Kringstad 
Lindaas 
O'Connell 
Tallackson 
Tollefson 
Warner 
Bowman 
Krauter 
Lyson 
Stenehjem 
Taylor 
Traynor 
Urlacher

Nays 
Brown 
Dever 
Flakoll 
Kilzer 
Mathern 
Nething 
Syverson 
Fairfield 
Mutch *Absent*
Seymour 
Triplett *Absent*
Cook 
Espegard 
Fisher 
Grindberg 
Holmberg 
G. Lee 
Nelson 
Robinson

2 Absent


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Maverick, trust me, we do talk about it. The main problem is the majority is silent, they don't think they can make a difference. The minority has got the money/influence to make the big difference. The majority is not fighting the fight. The additude I see is this is the future and there is nothing we can do about it except *****. Like you said, people have jobs, family, plenty of things to keep them busy. You are correct..The only people complaining are the ones who stand to make a dollar/ they don't care about anything else. Do you think anyone else other than these people are driving the agenda.

Let's take a typical small town
800 residents...2-bars/ 1-hotel 2-rest...maybe 5-10 guides/outfitters..

So 15-20, or lets even be generous 100 people in a town of this size are setting the agenda. That is what is wrong!!!


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Dan, I agree with everything you said. You are correct, we are getting our ***** kicked, it is a sad day. It's just frustrating that people don't care, or how people actually believe this crap the other side is pushing..


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Well GHT4Life


> The main problem is the majority is silent,


Why do you think they are silent? and it's not because they think that they can't make a difference! That is way of the 80's and 90's.



> Let's take a typical small town
> 800 residents...2-bars/ 1-hotel 2-rest...maybe 5-10 guides/outfitters..
> 
> So 15-20, or lets even be generous 100 people in a town of this size are setting the agenda. That is what is wrong!!!


Funyy because those 20-100 people are trying to keep the town alive. If they were not doing what they thought was right for the town they wouldn't be there trying to improve it.

Do you think the Reps. are looking in there best interest of the town or themselves.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Hey Mav

How are Guides and Outfitters trying to keep small towns alive, Didn't I read some place this year that Mott businesses are sucking wind? and we all are aware of what is going on out there!

Oh Ya I forgot! it was because the license was raised $10.00 

Not trying to pick a fight bud :wink: , Just looking for some logic in your response.

I agree with the Bars and Hotels trying to keep a small town going for their benefit, but when O/G's lease all that the eye can see and charge $100.00 to $250.00 per gun per day, the opportunity to hunt is for the select few that can afford those prices. I could not afford to hunt there and hunt as much as I do.

Bob


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

I agree 100% that G/O's are not trying to keep the towns alive I was merly using his post.

G/O's leasing up land is our major problem....... 


> I agree with the Bars and Hotels trying to keep a small town going for their benefit, but when O/G's lease all that the eye can see and charge $100.00 to $250.00 per gun per day, the opportunity to hunt is for the select few that can afford those prices. I could not afford to hunt there and hunt as much as I do.


I am right there with you on that!!! :beer: 
When October comes around and Danni's Place, local dinner,grocery stores,gas stations are full of hunters all week long for 3 months, it makes me happy to know that they are paying the bills.
The local dinner in gackle has been through numerous hands in the last 10 years, because they couldn't make it financially. Now the taste freeze is for sale for the same reason.


----------



## goosebgone (Feb 11, 2005)

There are more than just the restaraunt/hotel/guides and outfitters supporting these bills. In our area we have another problem in that our rep is a grocery store owner. Guess which way he votes on these bills. Makes it kind of frustrating knowing that my tax dollars are going to a biased rep. :eyeroll:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

:beer:   

Mav

I do believe that in my lifetime Commercilization is going to take my grandsons ability to freelance hunt unless something is done. Dan laid it out it is that simple. The involvement of everyone in the big picture is going to be required.

Landowners, Small Town Businesses, Large Town Businesses, Sportsmen Both Resident and Non-Resident all need to be on the same page. Is it possible? Being the eternal optomist that I am I will say YES IT IS!! It has to start with the involvement and I mean MASS involvement of the enteties involved. Instead of 5 people at an advisory board meeting there needs to be 200, When a small community like Lidgerwood invites hunters to come we need to go, when fellow hunters on this site ask for help and advise we need to give it to them and not chastise them for asking a question. We need to play the game better than we do, and better than outr opposition does. I find it amazing that everyone on this site can type and voice an opinion but only a few have their opinion printed on the opinion page of the local paper. A former employer of mine once told me never say anything that you could not defend with fact. The facts are out there! how many have done the homework to study and understand the facts, Very few because this person cares about deer hunting, this person cares about goose hunting, this person cares about duck hunting, and coyotes, pheasants, elk, and on and on and on. But the common thread in all of the previous sentence is the word "HUNTING" and that is what commercilization is affecting, Hunting! doesn't matter what species, they would prefer us to go away so they can have it all.

SB 2256 was a good example of political influence. it was voted down and the small towns and O/G's that would stand to benefit the most from this got on the phone and started typing and showed us what we need to do!!

I really do feel sorry for the out-of-the-flyway communities here are some facts that will show how the pressure set up in the flyway

Total NRs waterfowl 26,040

Zone 1 (Pettibone,Woodworth,Gackle,Ashley,Kulm,Cleveland,Streeter,Jud) 
First seven days 5,823. Second 7 days 1,522

Zone 2 first seven days 3,031
Zone 2 Second 7 days 889

Zone 3 appox 90% of the state no day restrictions. All season 23,640

Let's mess around with these numbers a bit

1. 11,265 (43%) NRs participated in one of the two special zones.

2.14,775 (26,040 - 11,265) (57%) only hunted zone 3.

3.8,865 (23,640 - 14,775) choose zone 1 or 2 for one of there hunting periods and then picked another period in zone 3.

4. 2,400 (11,265 - 8,865) of those who picked zones 1 or 2 did not chose a second week.

5. Assuming a similar percentage pertains, approximately 3,147 (14,775 *2) - 3,147)) of all NR waterfowl hunting (or at least periods chosen) occurred in zones 1 or 2, and 76% (14,775*2) - 3,147) +8,865)/ (11,265 + 8,865 + (14,775*2) - 3,147) occurred in zone 3.

6. Thus, loosely, 24% (11,265 / (11,265 + 8,865 +(14,775*2) - 3,147) + 8,865)/ (11,265 + 8,865 + (14,775*2) -- 3,147) occurred in zone 3.

Area inferences are somewhat difficult, since zone three is so large and contains much very poor waterfowl ground. Zones 1 and 2, on the other hand, are generally good waterfowl areas through out. That said, zones 1 and 2 probably represent less than 24% of the states good or better waterfowl habitat and are probably carrying more than their FAIR LOAD OF PRESSURE, at least NR PRESSURE.

Did creating zones 1 and 2 with one period limit mitigate pressure in those areas or did it actually create more pressure because folks were drawn there because of perceived higher quality that drove a need for special rules?

So there you have the facts. No shortage of hunters in Zone one

What is going to happen to small communities outside of these areas, I can guess.

Bob


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

goosehtr4life...boy you just put me in one of the most hell hated catagories of business in the State of North Dakota. HOTEL OWNER what a bunch of selfish pigs we are for wanting to keep our doors open and make a living, to pay our bills, raise our kids, and hopefully a few extra so we can go hunting too. Damn I never realised what an *** I was until you pointed it out. :eyeroll:

Maybe we are not all like that??? Some may be, but I'll bet its more like the big chains and the big names, not the mom and pop operations around the state.OH and maybe I'll try to turn down a few rooms just to make you feel better :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You bet, I'm frosted. My one son has already left North Dakota for the public hunting lands of Montana.

There is only one way to stop the progress of this cancer in our state. We must attack from the point of economics. This is the reality of the situation: two hundred common hunters provide much more income to a local community than a dozen affluent customers. This has years of data behind it. I heard Dr. Giest Thursday, but I would like to see the audience reaction in Bismarck tonight. Unfortunately I couldn't be there. His years of study show that lack of access will reduce hunter numbers and lower business incomes from hunting.

I know because of landowners rights we can't stop them from charging to hunt. We can however control hunters, and we could make it illegal for them to pay to hunt. If we can't stop the hooker, we can stop the john.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

We have a lot of work left to do. Now is not the time to pull stakes and fold the tent! There are a lot of bad bills that need to be defeated. This will not happen if we depend solely on the urban legislator to carry the load.

On 1422 I was in contact with a number of business owners that GL4H mentioned. None where willing to support it based upon the zones. I realize that it could and should have been amended out of committee but we all know how Nelson works!

On the latest it may be that the rural Sen heard from the locals and this concern caused some change in votes when the info was shared with other Sen after the vote and during the debate. The zone issue the last two seasons has not set well with many because of the 7 day restriction on 1-2. It did help the pressure as it was designed to do but tell Curty you are going to loose 30% of your bookings and still seek his support.

I will be in contact with all of my hunting associates and friends and landowners to get some rural Rep support to stop the latest flip. If they hear from some of these people along with the bar, and gas stations owners we may have a chance.

It is foolish to ignore the rural area's in gathering support and it is foolish to think that unless educated that a bar owner is going to understand these issues if they do not hunt themselves. Couple that with the info that FB and others send to the farmers while our idea was dropped on them at the last minute and we wonder why?

*Mav* is more right than many want to admit, HPC is gone for this year. Let's learn and get your rural contacts involved now. My only hope is that this lesson is learned and the same mistake is not repeated in the future.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Curty,
Believe it or not, we are on your side! If there is no access or if hunting pressure is too great - you won't have any business and I won't have anything to hunt. I don't think it is selfish of either one of us to work for what we want. What I want helps you. What you want helps me. Let's work together to accomplish our goals.
Jim


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

jhegg..I beleive what you said,but reading the post where small biz owners are basically the ones at fault kinda got me fired up a might bit. Maybe I should have calmed down a little before posting or worded it better but thats me....thanks for the support guys.

I really believe there is a common ground that is good for everyone,the wildlife of our state, the sportsman,the landowners,businesses ect. We just agree to disagree. Thanks for the support guys!!!


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

I would not support this bill either, as much as I hate zones, I loath selling hunting rights to the higher prices. Would i pay the $15 absolutly but in 5 years where does it end $100? $200?

Bob, not being an a$$, could you explain your numbers for me in more simplistic terms. Interesting how it breaks out, and but I don't understand quite what your getting at. (probably my dumbness) My impression is that even though zone 3 has more acres and more hunters, Duck hunting acres are more concentrated, and those concentrated areas, ie Devils lake have more of an access problem(G/O) than do zones 1 and 2.??????? Therefore more the overcrowding and compitition.

I willl say it again, if you concentrated on G/O and commericalization of certain areas, you would not give rural towns and most NR's and a reason to speak up and fight. But the fight of using zones and caps does allienate all these people.

my question is how are rural reps/voters/landowners/business owners the minority in this debate. Most of the hunting occurs in these areas. The ND city hunter has as much to say in this debate as does a NR.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

In 5 years or less, probably less, all of you will be hunting on Plots or paying big fees to G/O's. Plainsmans son has the solution.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dan I have reread your post a couple times. Yes the sportsmen are at fault, only if they perceive it to be a problem in the first place. We had Pheasantgate to energize a group of people and as much as I did not like his positions on hunting issues Ed Schultz pounded this day after day after day.

The issue of caps for the waterfowl season where in place that fall keeping the burners going both pro and con. this kept the fires burning hot and heavy. Plus there were other issues of concern like the corp farming bill that also stirred the juice of both rural and urban people along with the G/O License bill.

Now fast forward to this session. We had no hard plan to gather support for until the final day of filing. We had no hot button issue to attract non waterfowl hunters to become engaged, and yes there are those that do not hunt waterfowl. So in short, learn from the mistakes made this year and do not assume that the peanut gallery does not understand what it takes to get the rural hunter engaged, as it is obvious that the direction that we took this session surely did not do it!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ND4life

What I am getting at with the numbers is: Most hunters want to and do hunt the "Prairie Couteau" or the "Devils Lake Region" section of the flyway as the law sits today the pressure is staggered somewhat by zones. If this bill passes the house and eliminates the zone structure for an extra $15.00 what would the incentive be for anyone to want to hunt out of these areas in the "good" waterfowl hunting areas. My guess will be if this turns into law that the numbers will show excessive pressure early and spotty areas of fair hunting into the mid to late season. I am going to guess that due to the Commercilization of the Devils Lake Region it will get worse, and in the Couteau there will be more hunters because of it. I am just guessing on most of this but I have hunted the Couteau region for close to 30 years, and I lived there for a good portion of my life.

I hunt this area on occasion now as I have located some "good" waterfowl hunting areas off the beaten path, and prefer to spend the majority of my time there.

I still can not get over the fact that most considered zones a restriction. In theory they were intended to equalize pressure and distribute wealth. I guess the "I got mine the heck with anyone else" attitude has become so ingrained in our society that even attempting to do something beneficial can not be looked at as anything other than a restriction.

Later


----------



## Robert (Feb 13, 2005)

Dan Bueide said:


> This session is exactly what we bargain for when not enough sportspersons organize and attend advisory boards meetings and legislative forums or when they fail to contact their legislators. The message sent is "12 whiney sportspersons," and that my friends is not going to counter the emotion and weight of commercialization, no matter how "right" we are.
> 
> Lobbiests aren't going to cut it. They help, but on these issues, it don't get done unless YOU do it, and ever since the '03 session, there haven't been enough YOU's doing it - period.


The situation may not be a grim as you paint it. It would seem to me you should consider the possibility that you are the vocal minority and maybe not the enlightened majority you think you are.


----------



## Robert (Feb 13, 2005)

Bob Kellam said:


> :I really do feel sorry for the out-of-the-flyway communities here are some facts that will show how the pressure set up in the flyway
> 
> Total NRs waterfowl 26,040
> 
> ...


This is a perfect example of the lack of understanding exhibited by so many on this site. These are not the facts and if you ask the businesses in Woodworth, Pettibone, Tuttle, Steele, and many others you will get the reason why they are opposed to the zones. It does not bring more NR hunters to the area it brings less. By and large you will see they do not mind the outfitter. They bring people into their business for gas, food, and refreshments. By and large the freelance hunter may stop and buy gas and a pop and candy bar. The non-resident buys everything when they are there.

This also explains why the spending habits are so inaccuarely portrayed on these boards.

The resident hunter is portrayed as spending the most money. This may be true when you look at it on an annual basis and include the vehicles they purchase.

It is certainly not true on a daily basis when the small town communities see them during hunting season. It's just the spin the vocal minority place on it.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Robert,

I read your post with interest, but have some difficulty with your representation. In 1990, there were 5,928 non-resident waterfowl hunters in the entire state, roughly the same as Zone 1 5823 (Pettibone,Woodworth,Gackle,Ashley,Kulm,Cleveland,Streeter,Jud) 
for the first seven days in 2004. Are you saying that all 5,928 hunters were in Zone 1 in 1990 (in order to justify your statement that zones brought less hunters to zone 1 in 2004)? Data from the North Dakota Game and fish Department as posted elsewhere on this site, shows that residents spend roughly three times as much money as non residents and no, it does not include vehicle purchases or any other economic "sunk" costs such as guns. From my experience (living in zone 1), non residents bring their own vehicles, ammunition, guns, dogs, boats and do not buy these items here. If you have better data on the expenditures, I am sure the list would like to see it. While hosting friends and family that are non residents that have returned to North Dakota every year (some have been coming to North Dakota since the 1970's) that hunt in zone 1, even they are supportive of zones to reduce the number of hunters, even if this means not being able to hunt in some years. Another fact from North Dakota game and fish is that over 80% of hutners are freelance hunters just like most resident hunters. Another question, how do you propose to sustain the resource (e.g. ducks) with the increased hunting pressure? Some of the species of ducks we hunt return to breed in an area if they are successful in an area. If you kill off the breeding stock, those ducks will not be returning. Finally, if the small businesses are so dependent on non resident hunters, I would like to see some data as to how these same small businesses stayed in business in the early 1990's when hunter numbers were 80% lower than in recent years and second, what will these businesses do when drought returns, duck numbers crash, and hunters no longer visit the area? it is a short sighted and foolish business practice to base economic development and the bottom line on a resource which is highly variable in its availability and subject to unrestricted exploitation.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

indsport

What you post is correct, but it becomes a PR battle that we lost because of lack of notice, and education time. It does little to be right if no one is hearing the truth and are hearing the falsehoods funded by our tourism dept,G/O and FB.

I ask this of you and others how many contacted a rural business and sought support or idea's on these issues! Being right is not enough, you have to inform people about it!


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

ron, shouldn't be an education to the rural business, they no better than you, where their money comes and how much NR hunters mean to them. They don't need or want some city slicker telling them how they should feel. You guys are fighting the wrong fight.

And what is posted about the breakdown for NR's that use guides proves my point that I have been making. a small percentage of NR's use guides you could reduce that number and rural areas won't feel as much of a loss. The 20% of NR also are not the ones that are spending money all over the rural areas. You could put a cap on NR, but the only thing that would result in is the percentage of NR using guides would theorically go up. They are the ones that plan far ahead and would still get their lic, where the freelancer who decieds last minute to take a trip, couldn't go. So imposeing a cap, doesn't equal less land tied up by G/O's.

Instead, make a G/O's fee based on how much land he leases. Give G/O a certain number of lics, like 3000, (20%=6000)and thats it. keep accurate records and tax landowners on the money they recieved for leases. and I am sure there could be other ways. then educate the tourism dept and rural towns that your new plan only effects 6000 NR's, not 30,000 opens up land, reduces pressure in certain areas, and everyone would be happy, except of course the G/O, but they don't matter anyways, they are wildlfe pimps and don't deserve to be heard.

zones brought less hunters than the year prior, not less than early 90's when it was dryer. it also restricted NR to one 7 day period, so they lost the NR who comes twice to that area. A lot of these small towns are dying no matter what, and the are grasping at what the can to stay alive. in due time when NR's disappear because of duck populations, it could be doom for these people. I know I have been told that the town we have a house in, that if it wasn't for hunters buying these old houses, they would stay vacant and deteroiate. A lot understand this and are thankful, taxes are being paid, houses are being kept up, and that many use the house more times a year than just hunting season.

bob,

zones won't equalize pressure, maybe for deer,pheasant and such, but not waterfowl, people won't come if they only get get a spot in a fair area. are they a restriction yes, this year I was invited on a hunt land by a landowner but was across the zone line so I couldn't go. I also didn't hunt one day because the group I was(they had 7 day statewide lics) with decided to leave one day early and head to another part of the state, my date for that zone didn't start till thursday so I couldn't hunt. I couldn't imagine my quality of hunting if there were 8 zones.

man I sure wanted more hunters in zone 1 when I was there, maybe get the birds moving instead flying over a couple of hills and sit all day.


----------



## Robert (Feb 13, 2005)

indsport said:


> Robert,
> 
> I read your post with interest, but have some difficulty with your representation. In 1990, there were 5,928 non-resident waterfowl hunters in the entire state, roughly the same as Zone 1 5823 (Pettibone,Woodworth,Gackle,Ashley,Kulm,Cleveland,Streeter,Jud)
> for the first seven days in 2004. Are you saying that all 5,928 hunters were in Zone 1 in 1990 (in order to justify your statement that zones brought less hunters to zone 1 in 2004)?
> ...


It is short sighted and foolish to try to support an argument with data and information that is 14 years old, but if that't the best you can find let the spin begin.

If you want information go talk to the people that run a business in one of those small towns and you'll get some hard numbers. Check with Carol's Kitchen in Tuttle and she can explain exactly what the zones did to her business. Talk to the Flath's that run a bar, cafe,and grocery in Robinson.

Ask them why on the first weekend of waterfowl, that is resident only they have 4 hunters at noon in the cafe and the next weekend the cafe if full of out of state hunters. Explain to them the facts that residents outspend non-residents and they'll laugh in your face.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Robert, the two page hunter expenditure summary can be found here:

Page 1:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/media/Overview1_NDGF.pdf

Page 2:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/media/Overview2_NDGF.pdf

What you may not understand is that some communities have deliberately priced themselves out of the tourism market. And tourists responded. Mott is prime example, your area may be another. It is a misrepresentation to say your position is held by all rural folks when that is not the case at all. In the '03 session there was blatant slaming of resident hunters by the commercial folks and it is coming home to roost. If you do a search of past topics on this fine site you will see those positions pro and con.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Robert wrote:


> Explain to them the facts that residents outspend non-residents and they'll laugh in your face.


You have confirmed our contention. What you are looking at in the little restaurant that thinks NR are saving them is the aftermath of economic suppression that has already occurred. I would venture to guess that the only possible reason for NR to outnumber residents in a local restaurant is because your local public access has already gone down the toilet. Is there an outfitter leasing up land locally? That is the only possible explanation. What you are describing is the aftermath that we have warned of. It's just happening a lot faster than we thought. Same thing has already occurred in Mott. These people didn't shoot themselves in the economic foot, they shot themselves in the head.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Well isn't this quite the whizzin match

Robert: What do Tuttle, Robinson, Pettibone, Woodworth and any of the other highway 36-corridor towns do to attract additional resident hunters or NR hunters for that matter? I got the sh!t kicked out of me on this site for even suggesting that scenario last fall. I grew up in this area and still hunt there on occasion, but on another thread I mentioned that I prefer to hunt other areas also so I do. Is there any incentive to keep resident hunters consistently returning to hunt? Last year from Wing to Hurdsfield to Pettibone to Dawson to Steele and back to Wing a number of good waterfowl hunting areas were dry from the previous year. USFW and NDGF reports said the hatch was down 40%. There was good hunting around HH as well as Cherry, Alkali and some of the other water areas but a lot of the smaller potholes had no water. I know the area but most do not. Is it against the rules for small communities to list on the bulletin boards a list of hunter friendly areas? Last year gas prices were at an all time high everything was expensive. Most resident hunters do not hunt as much as some of us do and they have limited resources to spend, so they hunt where they are familiar with the territory probably closer to home. Non residents are similar to me to the extent that they probably save all year to go hunting for their week or two, they have a budget and they want to have fun and they do. I hunted birds 50 days last year not counting spring light goose, I scrimp and save, work two jobs during the summer because hunting is special to me. You can bash residents all you want but there is a reason why they are not visiting the areas you mention, I don't think it is the people that live in the area, they are for the most part great people, always have been always will be. So why is it that residents don't hunt the area in numbers like they used to? Zones? Soft Outfitting, Outfitters, Preference posting of land, Hunting expenses, Hunting Pressure,Waterfowl Numbers, Upland Populations, is it all of the above? None of the above? What is the answer?

Later.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

And Robert you will want to review this topic also:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... t=econ+101

It answers your question where the business went.


----------



## Robert (Feb 13, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> Robert wrote:
> 
> 
> > Explain to them the facts that residents outspend non-residents and they'll laugh in your face.
> ...


I have not confirmed your contention or anything else. I have just stated some facts that fly in the face of your view.

These little restaurants don't think for a minute that NR are saving them, but they do see them as a source of revenue they don't want to see diminished.

Local access is very good in this area and there is no local outfitter leasing up the land. So what is the real explanation once the only possible one is not a valid point?

In reality the only thing you have is venturing a guess. It amazes me how much someone thinks they know and ventures a guess when they are not familiar with an area themselves.


----------



## Robert (Feb 13, 2005)

Bob Kellam said:


> Well isn't this quite the whizzin match
> 
> Robert: What do Tuttle, Robinson, Pettibone, Woodworth and any of the other highway 36-corridor towns do to attract additional resident hunters or NR hunters for that matter?


What difference does it make what they do or don't do to attract the hunters. The fact remains that the NR hunters are the ones that fill the restaurants and bars during hunting season. While the freelance resident hunter may stop for gas and a pop and candy bar when they are in the area.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Robert,

I am familiar with the Robinson area. I have hunted it for many years (unfortunately, I am now 57 and in the twilight of my hunting career). Have you ever driven that area and observed the "no hunting" signs? I have and there are more every year.

Horsehead Lake used to be a good place to hunt cranes and geese. I used to pass shoot them off the west side of the lake a lot. I used to shoot pass them off the east side too until the law was "clarified" to prohibit hunting from road "right-of-ways" if posted. Well, I hunt there no more!

I now see 10-15 out-of-state rigs every time I drive through that area. In addition, some are hunting along the lake shore. That, plus the high water levels. has driven the crane out of the area. I do not see many geese there either.

What happened? High water levels, too much hunting pressure and no more pass shooting from "road-right-of-way's". Why should resident or non-resident waterfowl hunters frequent that area any more? Fewer birds and access problems will never increase hunter populations and local area hunter expenditures, whether they are resident or non-resident.

If the local resturants and cafe's want increased business, they had better work with the local landowners to provide more hunting opportunities. Big outfitters and guides will kill the local business. Just look at Mott as a prime example. Yet, the guide/outfitter''s are still trying to pin the blame on zones and non-resident hunting restrictions.

This is a crock! Open up the land, keep the hunting pressure at a reasonable level, and the local business will have plenty of support from both resident and non-resident hunters.

On the other hand, support the guide/outfitter business, and you will have what you are seeing now - fewer hunters, less income to local business, and guides/outfitters laughing all the way to the bank!

What do *you *want?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ron,

I'd like to have the hours of my life back that I've wasted responding to your grenades and cheapshots. I won't make that mistake any further - other, more-productive things to do. Per usual, your diagnosis and recommended course of treatment couldn't be more wrong. Suffice it to say, we don't operate in a dream world, without time, financial, factual, political and other practical constraints.

And, don't wait for us mis-guided souls to get things straight. Since you have all the answers and connections, feel free to dive in any time and get it done. Just a word of caution - it's a lot tougher than just talking smack on a website.


----------



## Robert (Feb 13, 2005)

jhegg said:


> Robert,
> 
> I am familiar with the Robinson area. I have hunted it for many years (unfortunately, I am now 57 and in the twilight of my hunting career). Have you ever driven that area and observed the "no hunting" signs? I have and there are more every year.
> 
> Horsehead Lake used to be a good place to hunt cranes and geese. I used to pass shoot them off the west side of the lake a lot. I used to shoot pass them off the east side too until the law was "clarified" to prohibit hunting from road "right-of-ways" if posted. Well, I hunt there no more!


I used to buy gas for $.23 a gallon, I used to pay $.10 for a soda, I used to, I used to, I used to......

What an overworked line, times change and you need to change with times. If it takes harder work to get access make the effort. Don't just cry about how you want it to be how it used to be.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Robert

I guess from your lack of response that you do not want to discuss the situation in the area. All you want to do is throw NR in my face and rehash the whole resident non resident issue. there are enough threads here on that subject already.

Good Hunting

Later.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Robert, if you read my post, I live in your zone, used to hunt around the woodworth area, and no longer hunt there due to the number of hunters, so I am familiar with the local area and have had more than one conversation with the people I know that farm in that area. Based on the people I talked to, the small town businesses are talking about the zone issue, but the one time I told a small business that I was a local resident from the other part of the county, they said they would rather have non residents and I was basically made to feel unwelcome as a resident hunter. I also have non resident friends and family who used to hunt in your area and are now staying away due to hunter pressure. In my own part of zone 1 as an example, in 1990, our township had 2 sections of posted land. In 2004, 34 sections were posted. In 1990, an unposted 30 acre slough less than 1/2 mile from my house had 2 groups of non resident hunters use the area the entire season and 10 broods of ducks were counted there. In 2004, that same slough was hunted by resdients and nnon resident for 14 of the first 21 days of the season and there were only 4 broods of ducks raised on the same water.


----------



## Robert (Feb 13, 2005)

indsport said:


> Robert, if you read my post, I live in your zone, used to hunt around the woodworth area, and no longer hunt there due to the number of hunters, so I am familiar with the local area and have had more than one conversation with the people I know that farm in that area. Based on the people I talked to, the small town businesses are talking about the zone issue, but the one time I told a small business that I was a local resident from the other part of the county, they said they would rather have non residents and I was basically made to feel unwelcome as a resident hunter. I also have non resident friends and family who used to hunt in your area and are now staying away due to hunter pressure. In my own part of zone 1 as an example, in 1990, our township had 2 sections of posted land. In 2004, 34 sections were posted. In 1990, an unposted 30 acre slough less than 1/2 mile from my house had 2 groups of non resident hunters use the area the entire season and 10 broods of ducks were counted there. In 2004, that same slough was hunted by resdients and nnon resident for 14 of the first 21 days of the season and there were only 4 broods of ducks raised on the same water.


I don't live in your area, my original post was about the zones and number of hunters. I was trying to point out the inaccuray and assumptions made that were not based on fact.

It seems that is what happens in most discussions on this board. Everything turns into resident/non-resident or about guides/outfitters, even when people have no knowledge of the area they are writing about.
Give someone a few facts and they go into their own tiny world and want to discuss the number of ducks on one slough in ND. There need to be more people like Dick Monson and Dan Buiede that want to talk about the whole problem rather than be so narrow-minded.


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Curty, maybe I should clarify my position. I am from a small town, I know the small town business owners. I have nothing against them and try to buy everything I can from them(shells,decoys, everything)

Let me give you an example of informations they hear and rec. from outside interests.

1.) They keep saying residents get the first week of the season.
Fact, the hunting days for non-residents has been the same date forever, the first weekend in November, residents only is a week earlier than the normal opener. So non-residents DO NOT lose any hunting days.

2.) Caps/Zones- They are told less people are coming hear because of restrictions. 
Fact, we sold just as many if not more licences last year than the previous years with these so-called restrictions.

So what I do is tell them the FACTS and get them to understand what the other side is trying to do. The misinformation is amazing. If this is what businesses were told in my area I am making an educated guess this is happening everywhere.

So Mav, I have NOTHING against small town businesses, in fact I put my money where my mouth is. My original post should have included the reasons most of them are for no management of any kind(MISINFORMATION)


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

goose, sorry your information is wrong.

1. USFW has allowed the last couple of years an early opening, same amount of days, just opening a week earlier. That offering by the USFW was taken, but only grant to residents. when the season days and bag limits get reduced, hopefully this year. The USFW will pull that early opening, you will go back to opening on that first weekend in october. Then NR will be pushed back another week if it says with this format. So what is ND offered 70 day season, NR can only pick to hunt out of 63 days.

2. last years NR license numbers were down 5000 . In addition as a NR you can only go to zone 1 and 2 once in the current system. So for the NR that came twice to the same area, the small towns are losing that business. Which could be as much as half of there past business. As well as the NR that may stay in a town in zone 1, and has traveled in the past for hunting to a town that is now in zone 2 this year he couldn't do that. which is more loss of business.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

ND4LIFE,


> That offering by the USFW was taken, but only grant to residents. when the season days and bag limits get reduced, hopefully this year. The USFW will pull that early opening, you will go back to opening on that first weekend in october. Then NR will be pushed back another week if it says with this format. So what is ND offered 70 day season, NR can only pick to hunt out of 63 days.


Sorry, but you can't use something that has not happened in an argument to back up your point.

The early opener was an option given to the state. The state exercised the option and took the early opener. The STATE makes the rules when it comes to natural resources within its borders.

Have you ever thought that there may be land that NR can hunt on the NR opener because there are alot of Resident hunters that aren't out that weekend because they have already gone out? There is alot of land that I can't get on during opening weekend of duck that I can get on the rest of the season. The owners hunt on opener with their freinds and the rest of the year they don't care. The early opener for residents probably (an assumption not fact) benefits the Non resident freelance hunter as far as access goes.



> So for the NR that came twice to the same area, the small towns are losing that business. Which could be as much as half of there past business.


Again you assume that the hunters don't come back at all when in fact they may come back but go to a different zone. Overall the money is still coming to the state but not benefitting the same individuals. You say he is wrong but you only use assumptions in your argument, not facts.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

When it comes to economic development and stimulating the small town local economy the best scenario is to develope habitat, get the weather to cooperate and have no posted land and unlimited access for all local and NR hunters. When all of these criteria are working we will have the best of all worlds. Anyone who will give you the "ya but we need this" or "ya but we need that" is in it for their own self interest. They can spout off about "economic development" but "economic development" for whom? If you want to stimulate the North Dakota economy make the North Dakota outdoors available to all people. I hear all these people who think they are somehow going to contribute to economic development if they restict this or regulate that but you can't convince me. Minnesota tourism benefits tremendously from their 10,000 lakes but not because of limited access. Just think what would happen if you could lease acres on a like for fishing. Do you think that it would help the fishing industry? I don't remember who said it but the Mott area says their numbers are down well it certainly isn't because there is too much land that is open to all hunters. Kidder county is probably in a similiar situation and the Devils Lake area is probably in a similiar situation but has no way to measure it because of all the other kinds of dollars the "Big Lake" has generated for their local economy. As each area becomes more restricted the benefits get to fewer and fewer peoples hands. I suppose that those few hands call it economic development but.... I am not anti NR or anti G/O or pro resident but whenever I hear "we need to regulate this" or "we need to regulate that" I think about who will benefit and usually...I smell a rat!! Who are "we" and what is "we's" agenda? "We" need to think of everyone and not our own self interest. The almighty dollar will rule and "we" will call it economic development. And if you don't agree with "my economic" development then you don't believe in economic development. I do believe that there is room for everyone but whenever one group has too much influence it is not good for North Dakota.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

"So for the NR that came twice to the same area, the small towns are losing that business. Which could be as much as half of there past business."

You are correct.....those hunters still came to the state....they just went to zone 3.The zones are meant to spread out the economic impact.Which means the loss of income in zones 1 or 2 is the economic gain for businesses in zone 3.

Which is why I don't understand why zone 3 businesses wouldn't be in favor of zones.

I personaly would rather see no zones....let them all go to zones 1 or 2...less hunters up here for me to compete with....but that's just not right.


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

Opening that first week to NR's would allevate pressure by spreading it out over more weeks. When I was out for real opening for many years most residents were out road hunting and jump shooting. I am not argueing to get rid of this, I making a point that with these restriction you are effectively forcing NR's to come out certain days.

I am sure there are no way of knowing but I bet a lot of people didn't come at all the second time. I know people that only went once vs there normal 2 trips.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Robert

Contact Mr. Schadewald Yourself If you do not believe the numbers or PM me with your email sddress I will copy you with the file.

You Ducked my question so I will present it again

_You can bash residents all you want but there is a reason why they are not visiting the areas you mention, I don't think it is the people that live in the area, they are for the most part great people, always have been always will be. So why is it that residents don't hunt the area in numbers like they used to? Zones? Soft Outfitting, Outfitters, Preference posting of land, Hunting expenses, Hunting Pressure,Waterfowl Numbers, Upland Populations, is it all of the above? None of the above? What is the answer?_

Robert wrote
_What difference does it make what they do or don't do to attract the hunters. The fact remains that the NR hunters are the ones that fill the restaurants and bars during hunting season. While the freelance resident hunter may stop for gas and a pop and candy bar when they are in the area._

Why is this Robert? You like to Keep saying this but you can not give an answer why

ND4life wrote
_zones won't equalize pressure, maybe for deer,pheasant and such, but not waterfowl, people won't come if they only get get a spot in a fair area. are they a restriction yes, this year I was invited on a hunt land by a landowner but was across the zone line so I couldn't go. I also didn't hunt one day because the group I was(they had 7 day statewide lics) with decided to leave one day early and head to another part of the state, my date for that zone didn't start till thursday so I couldn't hunt. I couldn't imagine my quality of hunting if there were 8 zones_

So you do not want zones so you don't have to do your homework and know where you are supposed to be hunting?

later


----------



## Robert (Feb 13, 2005)

Bob Kellam said:


> Robert
> 
> You Ducked my question so I will present it again
> 
> _You can bash residents all you want but there is a reason why they are not visiting the areas you mention, I don't think it is the people that live in the area, they are for the most part great people, always have been always will be. So why is it that residents don't hunt the area in numbers like they used to? Zones? Soft Outfitting, Outfitters, Preference posting of land, Hunting expenses, Hunting Pressure,Waterfowl Numbers, Upland Populations, is it all of the above? None of the above? What is the answer?_


I'm not bashing residents, but you seem to be a little thick headed and not able to understand what I write so I'll try again.

Zones don't affect the resident. Not much outfitting or outfitters in the area. Hunting pressure is certainly not the issue. Waterfowl numbers are good and Upland populations are as high as they have ever been.

Must be hunting expenses.


----------



## Robert (Feb 13, 2005)

Bob Kellam said:


> Robert wrote
> _What difference does it make what they do or don't do to attract the hunters. The fact remains that the NR hunters are the ones that fill the restaurants and bars during hunting season. While the freelance resident hunter may stop for gas and a pop and candy bar when they are in the area._
> 
> Why is this Robert? You like to Keep saying this but you can not give an answer why


I don't know why for sure, but I suspect the resident freelancer fills his vehicle with gas before he leave town, brings a lunch, and then goes home to sleep in his own bed and doesn't stop at the local watering hole to get liquored up.

I suspect this is mostly correct for the freelancing resident and the non-resident buys his gas in the small town, eats breakfast there and has them pack him a lunch. The probably stay open late so he can eat when he returns and then he stops at the local watering hole before he retires to the room or house he has rented for the week.

This must be right. I know I've picked up more hunting opportunities in bars in small towns in the evenings than anywhere else.

It's been fun riling up hte vocal minority but now it's off to work for the week and you'll have to find another guy to blast for a while to get your jollies.

Thanks for the entertainment.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Robert

No need for insults, I was just asking a question.

Later


----------



## Robert (Feb 13, 2005)

KEN W said:


> "So for the NR that came twice to the same area, the small towns are losing that business. Which could be as much as half of there past business."


Thank God, someone that finally put an intelligent thought to this concept.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Robert...so we agree....zone 3 will see a big drop in non-res. hunters with no zones....I guess if I was a businessman from zone 1 or 2 I would say."the heck with zone 3,they can get their own hunters.We want everyone to come to zones 1 and 2."

Because that's exactly what will happen...zones 1 and 2,along with Devils Lake will have full motels and the rest of the state will be getting leftovers.


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

homework??? don't understand, got invited while I was out there.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ND4life

I read the post again

Sorry My Mistake. Please accept my apology.

Bob


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Robert, I have tried to always present facts in my argument and did so in my previous posts. However, to quote your own posts.

"I don't live in your area, my original post was about the zones and number of hunters. I was trying to point out the inaccuray and assumptions made that were not based on fact. "

Well, as I pointed out, I do live in the area. My previous information was about zone 1, same as your quote "If you want information go talk to the people that run a business in one of those small towns and you'll get some hard numbers. Check with Carol's Kitchen in Tuttle and she can explain exactly what the zones did to her business. Talk to the Flath's that run a bar, cafe,and grocery in Robinson. "
and yes, I have talked to most of those owners, and yes, they said they had hard numbers but never did get back to me, or for testimony I follow, they have not presented those hard numbers at legislative testimony. In my post, there were no assumptions or inaccuracies that I am aware of, unless NDGF made a mistake in some of their documentation which I would greatly appreciate if you point them out to me. 
I believe that the past few years the drop in non resident hunters in zone 1 is possibly being driven by four items, three of which are "hard numbers". Numbers of ducks and available water in zone 1 were down. Hunters go where the water and ducks are, not where the business' would like them to be. Second, gas prices were at an all time high and, based on comments by non residents who used to hunt in the area of pettibone, cleaveland and Robinson, there is a perception that numbers of hunters are unreasonably high in that area and access to land has diminished.


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

:beer: no worries


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Robert

You made my point with your last post to me, Thanks
Happy Hunting!!

Later 
Bob


----------

