# Minnesota Lawsuit to be dismissed



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles ... /sta02.txt


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Victory is at hand...hopefully!


----------



## Roughrider (Apr 12, 2005)

I can feel my blood boiling. That is another reason no out-of-state hunters are allowed to hunt on our land. They always act like ND is a "lesser part" of MN. I know not all nonresident hunters think that way, but sometimes it seems like it. If we are trying to move equipment in the fall out-of-staters seem to always block the road by parking in the middle of it or drive down the muddy dirt trail rutting it up for years to come. Any ND hunters are always welcome at our place, but out-of-staters (unless they are with kids) are never given permisson. This just reinforces my standpoint


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Roughrider said:


> I can feel my blood boiling. That is another reason no out-of-state hunters are allowed to hunt on our land. They always act like ND is a "lesser part" of MN. I know not all nonresident hunters think that way, but sometimes it seems like it. If we are trying to move equipment in the fall out-of-staters seem to always block the road by parking in the middle of it or drive down the muddy dirt trail rutting it up for years to come. Any ND hunters are always welcome at our place, but out-of-staters (unless they are with kids) are never given permisson. This just reinforces my standpoint


Come on RR... who are you trying to kid? I've been hunting in ND for well over 25 years and have never seen the circumstances you describe. Stop making it sound like NR's are mad bunch of ruthless idiots that have nothing but death and destruction on their minds. Like it or not we are all hunters/outdoorspersons and the only difference between us is where we have our mail sent.

Coincidentally and indirectly, it was nonresident hunters who were the driving force behind Minnesota dropping their lawsuit. On May 13, 2005 President Bush signed a bill making it law that states have the right to govern hunting and fishing regulations within their boundaries. It also clearly stated that this is not a violation of the interstate commerce laws for a state to charge a NR a higher fee to hunt or fish in a state they don't live in. This of course was a result of the Nevada lawsuit so North Dakota and it's residents benefited because of the financial resources of Nevada.... and that saved your state and probably many others a whole lot of money even though the Minnesota lawsuit was pretty much a guaranteed win for ND anyway. This way it doesn't need to be litigated. Read about it here..

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stori ... 10267.html

No offense RR but attitudes like yours really "get my blood boiling". There were a vast majority of NR's that supported ND in the lawsuit brought on by Minnesota including many Minnesotans. All I've got to say is thank God all people don't feel the way you do. Hunting would definitely be a thing of the past if that were the case. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Roughrider (Apr 12, 2005)

Thats what I am talking about, all of these out-of-staters think they know more about what happens on the backroads of North Dakota than those of us who make our living here. Well since I have spent 365 days a year my entire life in rural North Dakota and you spend maybe one or two weeks a year here with your hunting buddies I will have to guess that I have seen a bit more than you.
I did say, "I know not all nonresident hunters think that way," but I did not say "NR's are mad bunch of ruthless idiots that have nothing but death and destruction on their minds" We have just had a lot more problems with NR's than ND's.
You say that "NR hunters were the driving force behind MN to drop their lawsuit," well who do you think was the driving force behind the lawsuit to begin with, it was NR hunters who were upset about ND opening the pheasent season a week early to residents. I know all about the President signing a bill that would end the lawsuit but my point is that *the lawsuit should have never been filed to begin with*. And about our state saving money, it has already cost our state time and money dealing with the lawsuit up to this point.
As for hunting being a thing of the past if everyone thought like me, we post about 10% of our land which is a lot less than most landowners in our area and let ANYONE with kids hunt on ALL our land.


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Roughrider said:


> I can feel my blood boiling. That is another reason no out-of-state hunters are allowed to hunt on our land. Any ND hunters are always welcome at our place, but out-of-staters (unless they are with kids) are never given permisson. This just reinforces my standpoint


Sounds like more than 10 % to me.... "no" and "never" are pretty definite words.



Dakota kid said:


> The three individual plaintiffs are Collin Peterson, Starkey Grove and Charles Orvik. Peterson, a U.S. Congressman, regularly hunts in North Dakota. Grove and Orvik are native North Dakotans who say the state's regulations limit the time they can hunt with family and friends in North Dakota.


The suit was filed by your own former people... printed by By RICHARD HINTON, Bismarck Tribune.

Just for clarification sake... we spend a little bit more time in your state during the hunting season than a week or two but that really doesn't matter. We not only come to there to hunt but we enjoy the visit and just plain hanging out. I respect the fact that you are there all year but after the many years I've hunted there I have yet to see any of the problems you describe materialize.... and coincidentally we hunt the "up north" areas of North Dakota. As a matter of fact, I can probably count on one hand the amount of times that we ran into other people that beat us to a predesignated hunting spot and we had to find a different spot to hunt.

In any case RR I think your way of thinking is a bit on the radical side. If we all handled NR's the way you do we may as well establish standing borders around our states and treat them as seperate countries.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

> The suit was filed by your own former people... printed by By RICHARD HINTON, Bismarck Tribune.


*Former* being the key word there


----------



## Ripline (Jan 10, 2003)

The lawsuit was filed by a bunch of egotistical MN residents. Please do not stereotype all NR in the worthless group.
MANY NR support what the residents of ND are trying to do. Preserve a way of life.


----------



## Roughrider (Apr 12, 2005)

What does it matter where the 3 goofballs who filed the suit were raised? Anyway, Hunter_58346 had it right, they are *former residents* or *nonresidents*.


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Roughrider said:


> What does it matter where the 3 goofballs who filed the suit were raised? Anyway, Hunter_58346 had it right, they are *former residents* or *nonresidents*.


Yep and it sounds like your government is taking that matter very seriously. As copied from SB2113....

SECTION 3. A new section to chapter 20.1-03 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows: *Hunting by certain nonresidents. Upon payment of the fee required by section 20.1-03-12, a nonresident who was born in this state and who completed five consecutive years of elementary education in this state and a nonresident, not born in this state, but who graduated from high school and completed at least five consecutive years of elementary and
secondary education in this state is eligible to purchase a nonresident lifetime hunting and fishing license. * The nonresident must provide the director information the director requires to establish eligibility for a nonresident lifetime hunting and fishing license and must comply with
the hunter education requirements of section 20.1-03-01.2. To maintain eligibility for a nonresident lifetime hunting and fishing license, a nonresident must purchase an annual general game license. Failure to purchase the annual general game license results in automatic forfeiture of the nonresident lifetime hunting and fishing license.

SECTION 4. A new subsection to section 20.1-03-12 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows: For a nonresident lifetime hunting and fishing license, five hundred dollars.

SECTION 5. A new section to chapter 20.1-08 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows: Governor's proclamation concerning the hunting of whitetailed deer. By proclamation, the governor may make available to individuals possessing a nonresident lifetime
hunting and fishing license, a license to hunt whitetailed deer in the manner, places, and times as the governor prescribes.
Page No. 3 50184.0100

Sounds to me like your government takes former residents as a pretty important group of people and if this study is concluded and accepted the word "former" resident had better be taken pretty seriously.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

wiscan22 said:


> [Sounds to me like your government takes former residents as a pretty important group of people and if this study is concluded and accepted the word "former" resident had better be taken pretty seriously.


This was 1 Rep's idea.It wasn't even brought to the floor for a vote.They put it into an interim study as part of a general study of non-res. issues.

So don't get to excited about it.It would encourage outmigration of young people.Might as well move to Minn....better pay and still be a resident of ND..... :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

KEN W said:


> So don't get to excited about it.It would encourage outmigration of young people.Might as well move to Minn....better pay and still be a resident of ND..... :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


Boy, would it ever!! It wouldn't be limited to just young people, I think it would go into middle aged folks also.


----------



## dwshunt (Apr 26, 2003)

As always there are strong opinions on both sides. I want to respond even though writing or e mail isn't the best forum. A word or words can be taken out of context and then the whole comment is doomed, but here goes with only the best intentions.

I am a former resident born and raised in Bismarck. My family and I travel back often to visit family and friends. I come back every year to hunt and fish since I left by my choice in 1986. I lived in NH for 7 years where the hunting isn't too good. I live in MN now and get to hunt some on my wife's cousins land. There is still nothing like ND.

The point I want to make is this is America and we are fortunate to get to go to other states to see the sights, fish, hunt, play, etc. that our own state may or may not have. It's one of the great things about living here. I respect every landowners rights and wishes as do most NR. I believe you do need some controls on NR to protect the resource and the residents. I believe most NR support that as well. As far as the MN lawsuit, I know alot of MN hunters who were very upset it ever happened and not one who supported it.

Remember, we are all on the same side, someday hopefully we can all get along. Take a kid hunting or fishing, it is unexplainable the feeling you will get when they harvest game or catch a fish!

Good Hunting.


----------



## mntwins (May 19, 2005)

I have never been to North Dakota or plan on it anytime soon after hearing some of the talk and threats and stuff done to minnesota vehicles. Frankly I have been wondering why ever time a new duck magizine comes it has several articles promoting the dakotas? Heck there are so many north dakota advertisments in there it sounds as if they are dying to have people come there? Why don't the residents get after the advertisements in the magazines? Hell every morning there is always at least one "Discover North Dakota" uke: . Tony deans show is all about promoting the dakota's :roll: . I know where both side are coming from, and can understand thr feeling when seeing the non-resident hunters around your favorite spots. As I understand it it has been getting worse and worse over the last 20 years right around when all the advertising started. Every state has there "egotistical bafoons" and I don't think it's all of mn fault. I can't tell you how many times I have seen nd plates fishing in northern mn . My most fondest mement was last year on lake of the woods was when a guy was trolling crankbaits through 5 others boat party trying to jig.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Hey I saw the same thing only it was in North Dakota, We could talk about the Minn residents that were busted on Devils lake for taking to many white bass, or how about the Minn hunter who killed the people in Wisc, its kind of a pointless argument don't you think? These people are not outdoorsman they are slob hunters and slob fisherman if not murderers. Weather a slob is a resident or not, have some balls call them on it! They do it because they get away with it. This Minn vs ND residents is old to some. But to some of us who see land access as we know it getting tight, its a tough subject. The idea of the lawsuit was that hunting is a business that scares the hell out of me! Hunting is not a business and should never be considered such!

TC


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

blah..blah blah....blah blah blah blah..blah balh,ba ba bahh blah.....don't try to tell me that North Dakota shouldn't be able to set it's own rules. That is by far the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Hey here's something, why don't we take a poll of florida, texas, kentucky, and south carolina and see what they want for dates and rules. Sounds like a great idea to me, those states should probably make the rules for our state. Yeah, blah blah blah, that's about as gay as MN bringing a lawsuit against us and wanting us to bow to their needs. There aren't many in our state that are against the out of state hunter as long as he is courteous and abides by OUR rules. Many get stereotyped because there are a lot of dip.**** MN guys, and this is just me being truthful. I've met a lot of dips.hit ND boys as well, but I haven't stereotyped either one of you. blah blah balh,,,,,yeah whatever, maybe MN should make the rules for us and just overrun the state and drain all the water and kill all the ducks.....blah blah blah.....somewhat like what happend in MN.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

I would be willing to bet that if you took a percentage of the dumb [email protected]@ NR and the [email protected]@ NoDakers, you would have two very similar numbers. I don't care what state a person comes from, if they act like an a$$, they aren't an outdoorsmen.

I guess all I'm trying to say is please don't bang NR for everything. 98% of us are just like the 98% of you and believe that you DO have the right to regulate your own state the way you decide. But remember, we are still allowed an opinion, even if it doesn't mean anything.

IaHunter


----------



## Gary Bottger (Nov 24, 2004)

> Hunting is not a business and should never be considered such!


Look south and you will find your answer. The only problem I have with this is game and fish know no borders. Why should a ND resident be able to shoot ducks and geese any sooner in any state then someone from outside their state. Now if your talking about planted pheasants that is fine by me but when your talking about a mirgatory bird I don't think ND residents should have any more rights then any other person willing to pay the fee to hunt ducks and geese.

I hunt with people from a bunch of different states and as with anything you will have your bad apples. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Nebraska Outdoors Admin said:


> I don't think ND residents should have any more rights then any other person willing to pay the fee to hunt ducks and geese.


Couple of questions.
How many nr waterfowl hunters visted your home state last fall?

How many total, nr and res. hunting waterfowl last fall?

What is the population in your home state?


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

How many NRs hunted SD last year? :beer:


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Look south and you will find a bunch of regular joes who are kicking themselves in the a$$ for not standing up sooner and doing something about the quality of hunting and accessability for the regular guy. I applaud ND for trying to ensure a quality experience for their residents first. I spent 36 years of my life as a resident of ND and I know first hand the sacrifices that those residents have to make to live there. A resident only week is not going to hurt anything. In all actuality it is the first weekend. The majority of residents only hunt on weekends. It is the NR that come for 2 weeks and apply constant preasure that moves the birds out of the area and hence out of state.

I respect others opinions and can see where many might find it unfair to those who are willing to pay to be in ND. When your on the outside looking in it is hard to see all the dynamics at play. In the whole scope of things is it really to much to ask of you to allow these people one week of peace in their own state to which they contribute to year round. I don't think so and I live in ohio so I am in the same boat as all NR's. I don't mind at all cause I know when I do come back it will still be better than any other state. :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

jimboy..... :beer:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> Why should a ND resident be able to shoot ducks and geese any sooner in any state then someone from outside their state.


Why?

1. Because outside of the very general framework set down by the Feds, all management of waterfowl falls upon the state in which they are located. This principal, long used and followed by virtually every state to one degree or another to "customize" its waterfowl program, was furthered confirmed by Congress per the legislation that is the topic of this thread, in response to the widely criticized Montoya decision that involved big game in AZ but was seized upon my MN as the basis for its suit against ND.

2. As others have suggested, just one of those perks for hanging our hat here year round as opposed to visiting a few days each year. Interestingly, most wouldn't view this perk as so critical if ND had a reasonable number of total hunter days that mitigated pressure at other times during the season. It's really the last vestige of sane traditional ND duck hunting for many of us unless you scout until the wheels fall off, dumb into a deal, have a bunch of stuff locked up or the birds stick around in decent numbers late.

3. How is this, really, any different than the spiffs given R's for things such as deer, elk, etc. in other Western states where certain units or time periods are much harder to obtain or closed for NR's? Those critters migrate, some between several states, waterfowl just migrate more. Should Canada be able to impose certain R perks when the flight is really Continental? But, the whole migration thing is really just a red-herring - in terms of interest and uniqueness to R and NR hunters, birds are to ND what big game is to many of the Western States.

Don't have to like it or agree with it, but those are just a couple of reasons "Why?".


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Well, Round 1 officially to ND. Judge Hovland issued a decision today tossing the MN suit in full. There are some very interesting points in the decision whatever your take on these issues.

Will MN appeal Judge Hovland's decsion to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals? Probably.

There is also a very similar recent decision to that of Judge Hovland originating from Wyoming and currently on appeal to the 10th Circuit.

A show down at the USSC at some point to resolve a probable split of authority seems likely.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Read the SJ here:
http://www.ag.state.nd.us/documents/MNHuntingOrder.pdf

Read the Fargo Forum Here (where one of our own is quoted  ):
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index. ... ction=news

Join the party here:
http://www.budweiser.com :beer:

For non-legal folks, a Summary Judgment is one of the biggest BOO-YAHS one party can give to another. It basically means that the party being summarily ruled against didn't have a leg to stand on in the first place.


----------



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

I am wondering what any of you think about the comments Judge Hovland made on page 18 of the Summary Judgment where he says 


> "While North Dakota has not violated the Constitution by enacting new non-resident waterfowl hunting regulations, the wisdom of such a decision is questionable. Hopefully, the Legislative Assembly of North Dakota will carefully reconsider the decisions made in 2003 concerning the new hunting regulations and the ramifications to North Dakota in terms of the impact on tourism and economic development."


I would have been much more pleased had these "comments" not been made as part of the Judgment. My concern now is that Hovland's words will be used as a basis in attempts to remove the 2003 legislative changes during the coming 2007 session. I'm sure we will be hearing those comments again at that time.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Actually, I could care less if they elimated the 2 zones in the SC part of the state.....every NR tries to squeeze into that zone now as they perceive it to be the best hunting......let them go there two weeks in a row...it'll keep them away from the other...Better areas.


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

I was thinking the same thing as I read the summary: could have done without the commentary on economic development.


----------



## Ripline (Jan 10, 2003)

His comments look like political bs.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

As I understand from reading the article linked above. Does the MN legislature really believe that ND enacted these restricions to restrict "their" access to ND hunting. I was under the impression that all NR hunters would be affected by this. ND has never made any distinction between MN hunters and other state hunters yet MN is saying it will retalliate and specificaly names ND as the target and the reason for these retalliatory measures.

I am sorry but in my view of the situation that makes MN look like a bunch of spoiled brats who are going to punish "Peter for living in the same state as Paul"


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Sorry guys but anyone talking about this affecting out migration has jumped the gun. It is a problem *now* with the current laws the way they are. When it comes to out migration it is a money issue and not a hunting issue! What we are not realizing is that it is a problem because employers have the pick of the crop and can pretty much pay what they want! They don't respect the hard work they get from the graduating classes and other parts of the country does.( This is coming from a graduate who has weighed his option and lived in other parts of the country. I see it first hand.)

We can't say that this will affect outmiration when only a small % of the people that graduate actually hunt and fish!

*Outmigration is a problem now, because we have thousand of people graduating a year and only hundreds of jobs to fill. I am sure some jobs have opened but when you go to college and get a degree in law what good does it due when all you can find is a job in the construction world, you start to ask your self what did I got to college for?
*

Let is be known that I am all for the study of this bill, but I am not for the statures of the bill. It should be written a little different, and the qualifications should be harder.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I disagree Mav. I had the chance when I first came back to live in ND or Mn and I chose ND. At that time, MN coiffers were full at there was way less tax to pay on the MN side of the Red. I chose to live in ND for one reason only!! I also know many others that have done the same. I know that this is not the end all for outmigration but it sure doesn't hurt it. I think that outmigration would increase if non-residents had the same perks that residents do.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Yes Dan but you can't deny it is a problem *now* not when or if the bill passes. That predicting the future.


> I had the chance when I first came back to live in ND or Mn and I chose ND.


 We are talking about *now* not *then*
If we set up poll to ask college graduates ( at there college not on this site because it is kind of a biased opinion here) on what is more important in there future: Hunting or Money, I can gaurantee that most would say money and a job.

It is a problem now! Even with the laws trying to prevent it!

It's not all NR it's only about 6% or so, that would qualify under the way it is written now, and I don't like the way it is currently written, but I do believe is should be studied.


----------



## Roughrider (Apr 12, 2005)

We're a little off subject but.....
Mav, I don't disagree with you. The outmigration issue is a lot more complex. It will not be solved by just passing a hunting law or giving a tax break. It will take a combination of MANY things to slow the "brain drain" since there are MANY reasons for people to leave. I do believe that giving resident hunting rights to former resisdents will give us youth less of a reason to stay here. Hunting is one of the many reasons I will be returning home. This problem is very interesting, and probably won't ever be solved. I have already made the decision to return home (and take a very large pay cut) but I have a lot of freinds who have choosen to leave, and each has a different reason.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I don't think it will solve it either but I don't think that it will hurt to have legislation in place. What is different about then and now. I chose to stay for the outdoors in ND as a resident, others can now do the same!!


----------



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

Now now doc, it is easier said than done. As much as I hate to admit it, my fiance and I have been looking in the cities. It is hard to find a decent job around here. I have a decent one, but she is very upset about how her career is starting. We will be making the trek to the twin cities to look at options this summer. It sucks, but it may be a choice we have to make if we want to have a decent home/life.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I absolutely do not blame anyone for looking at greener pastures. I feel very fortunate to be working and living in the town I started first grade in!! My daughter does and my son will go to the same elemntary school I did. We have two sets of grandparents within 15 miles of us. I know that I am very lucky to be where I am at and that not all people are so lucky. But, I also make a lot less than many of my colleagues to be where I am at. I have made that choice and by no means do I regret it. I will get to take my daughter to basketball camp every day this week. I coach my daughters basketball team and my sons t-ball team. If I wasn't able to take time when I wanted I wouldn't get that privelage. If I was in the cities making more money I would also be working a lot more hours and commuting more hours and I wouldn'r have the free time I now do. We all make our choices and I have never regretted mine!! (well, maybe when it is 20 below. The more birthdays I have the less I like the cold!!)


----------



## Roughrider (Apr 12, 2005)

Remmi, it's all about choices. The cities might look alot greener right now with a bigger paycheck and more entertainment but when it comes time to raise a family where would you rather be the Twin Cities or Bismarck? Choices.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Heres how I feel ~ take it how you want~
In the legislation we were told that allowing college students ( The ones who were said to live off the nipples of society) to have the run on the land as residents was a good idea, and we should vote for the bill( which I see hurting the hunting in ND.Why, You ask, because we have a few free lancers abusing the system and going to school for 5- 10 years, then moving out or back the state they are from). Even when other states don't reciprocate to our children going to other states to study????

As soon as I become a NR( who has been a ND resident for alomst 30 years) I become part of the problem( land access, hunting pressure), and lose my interest in the political hunting world. Realizing that my hunting is now on the verge of being gone what do I do? Buy land and become the statistic of NR buying up land for hunting purposes ( Just like BobM has told us to do). Again hurting the hunting communtiy. 
Now if we have some unification of the sportsman around the state and we need help who do we ask for help from, because we are not getting it done by ourselves! It's a fact!

But If I am a NR with something to lose, I think I might pay attention a little more.

To me we are kicking ourselves in the *** when we allow 18-20 year olds come to our state, study a little bit and hunt as much as they want.( It is happening) So what happens to those who drop out of college? Do they just give up their liscense. No! They hunt/fish as long as they can, then usually leave our state to be near their families.
But when a patron of the state of 30 to 50 years leaves, he has now become the problem of access/pressure.

Who do you think will be more powerful in the legislation when we need letters to our senate. A couple of college students or a x-resident who has the intention of the state in mind seeing as he has seen and experienced all at hand.

What is 6-10% of NR liscnese compared to getting the legislation on our side.

Here's something to think about:


> Dakota kid wrote:
> The three individual plaintiffs are Collin Peterson, Starkey Grove and Charles Orvik. Peterson, a U.S. Congressman, regularly hunts in North Dakota. Grove and Orvik are native North Dakotans who say the state's regulations limit the time they can hunt with family and friends in North Dakota.


Do you think these guys would have brought this case up(if this bill had passed) or would they be on our side trying to help our cause?

Dan from what I am reading, the main reason you came back was family?

And RR you sound like you are apart of the Outmigration who through time has probably changed his opionion on what is more importnat in life. My question to you is why did you leave in the first place?

No personal attacks here just trying to let you guys see that we are not going to concure this alone, and we may need the help from our families in other states? Because they might actually be the influnce needed.


----------



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

I agree it's all about choices, but the closer I get to marriage........and eventually children.........the more I realize my choice is I want to provide a better standard of living for my family..........and it may be somewhere other than here for a while. I NEVER thought I'd be looking out of state, but have begun just that.

I'll tell you one thing though, if I do leave the state, I will have done so WEIGHING my hunting/fishing rights. I know I forfeit the right to complain about the regulations! Gotta run, trying to make money :wink:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Dan from what I am reading, the main reason you came back was family?


The main reason I came back to the *area* was family but my wife wanted to live in Moorhead or rural MN. I was very emphatic that I wanted to live in ND for the hunting benefits. Maybe this argument doesn't hold water since I had the same job either way but I think it shows that for now there are some benefits for some that are near the area and want to hunt ND as a resident.

Taylor,I know that you have put your blood, sweat and tears into this state. I have a hunting buddy that has done the same and is now a non-resident. He and I have talked about this at length. I just think that if we open those flood gates that there will be land purchases galore if they know that they have a lifetime hunting license. I agree with RR that it all comes down to choices.

I don't disagree that there are those that will take advantage of the student status, but I do also feel that it is a way to give them a taste of lobster and let them know that they can eat it every day or only for a few weeks a year. Maybe it should be restricted to those states that reciprocate, I don't know. Maybe also a four year limit on it.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

If you want to hunt like a resident in ND....live in ND. To open the hunting to a lifetime license and remove the restrictions now in place to NR hunters would be a big detriment to all involved. The big shots from MN and other states would drive the price of land sky high and would purchase and lease everything they could get their hands on.


----------



## softballdad (Nov 27, 2005)

From what I've just read ND residents seem to like our money but not us . Sounds an awfull lot like Ontario and France . If you keep us away who will keep your conservation efforts going. Are you willing to pay more for resident Liscences. I might a little late finding this but I'm sure glad I did. 
How many MN residents do you know you've called us egotistical and other fine names we are not all like this. [/b]


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Who supported our efforts during the lean and dry years when there were only 5000 NR waterfowl licenses sold? Seems we made out just fine so your point is moot.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Interesting....softballdad....for your first post you had to go back and dig this up from the past June.....all of this has been rehashed over and over and over and over. :stirpot:

You lost the lawsuit .....move on....... :eyeroll:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Ditto.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

All that you have to do is look at the land prices and pheasant hunting in SD. If you don't own land, or have a butload of money to pay out, you may as well stay home in central SD, because all you are going to do is road hunt.

I agree that landowners have the right to do whatever, but pay hunting and loss of access for the average guy will eventually do what the antihunters want, and eliminate hunting in the long run.

I personally will hunt no matter what, and so will my children, but I feel that if you recieve federal dollars, i.e. farm subsidies, you land should be open to public foot traffic hunting for that year.

But that will probably open a can of worms.

As for NR vs Res ethics in hunting, it is probably close to the same, but, My in-laws run a pay pheasant hunting outfit, and I usually take my dogs to hunt 6 or 7 times a year. Let me tell you, My head is on a swivel out there till I get to know the group, and I would say it is close to 50% are told not to bother coming back because the are straight up idiots. I chewed out several guys for continually blasting hens, and they told me hey, I am paying to be here so who cares. Needless to say I turned them in.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is holding a special event in the Baker Moot Court Room at the UND Law School in Grand Forks this Friday, March 24th, at 2:00. This is essentially taking the appellate process to the people and is a great opportunity for law students and the public to see the Federal appeals process in action. For those of you not familiar with the Federal appellate structure, the several Circuit Courts throughout the country are just one appellate step below the US Supreme Court.

One of the three cases that will be heard by the 8th Circuit panels (3 judges) this Friday is the MN hunting lawsuit. This is the appeal filed by MN after Judge Hovland booted MN's case in its' entirety last year.

Because of a conflict, I won't be able to attend. But, it should be pretty interesting, and hopefully when the opinion comes out some weeks later, will, once and for all, put an end to this wasteful and ill-advised lawsuit. Please attend if you can, and report back how things went.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Federal appeals court will consider Minnesota hunting lawsuit *
The Associated Press - Friday, March 24, 2006

GRAND FORKS, N.D.

Minnesota is trying to revive a federal lawsuit against North Dakota duck hunting restrictions.

A panel of three federal appeals judges are hearing the case today. They're holding oral arguments at the University of North Dakota's law school in Grand Forks.

North Dakota laws give resident hunters a week's head start on the duck hunting season. Visiting hunters have to pay more for licenses.

And nonresident hunters need to buy licenses to hunt on land they own -- while North Dakota residents can hunt land they own without a license.

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in June of last year. Attorneys for the state of Minnesota are asking a federal appeals court to reverse that decision.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (STEN'-jem) says he's confident the dismissal will be upheld. He says states have long had the authority to regulate game and fish within their own borders.

Nine states -- including South Dakota and Montana -- have signed a legal brief backing North Dakota's position.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

> Nine states -- including South Dakota and Montana -- have signed a legal brief backing North Dakota's position.


That should hold some water.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

softballdad:


> If you keep us away who will keep your conservation efforts going.


Uh...not Minnesotans...you have lost all your ducks and pheasants because you lack conservation efforts. Go back and read some other posts. In 1958 Minnesotans shot 1.5 million pheasants. 2005 you shot only 400,000. Go back and look at the road side counts from 1958 to now. You have depleted your resource. Funny thing, your duck numbers follow that same trend. And you question us about conservation efforts????

Nobody is trying to keep you away. We are trying to manage a resource so that it is around for the future. That my friend is conservation.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Live2hunt,

Minnesota habitat is not nearly what it was for ducks or pheasants. Nobody denies that. However, do not lay that on all Minnesotans and especially not the sportsmen.

North Dakota is not the paridise it is because of anything you guys did either. Sure, your sportmans groups have had an impact but the same efforts in Minnesota are being made without the same results. For one reason or another, few people want to live in NoDak. The fewer people you have living there, the more critters you have living there.

Also, the fewer people you have living there, the fewer the number of groups and interests there are vying for the attention and money of the government so the sportsmen of NoDak are more likely to be heard than the sportsmen of Minnesota.

Farming practices changed dramatically in Mn over the last 4 decades which has been a major factor in the decline on top of the drainage that went on, pushed by the Govt. to increase production for the war.

The fact that Mn (S and SW) is better corn and bean ground than most of NoDak is part of the reason that the pothole country in NoDak didnt get drained. Another reason is that if you farm sections instead of acres, leaving this slough or that is not a big deal.

Now, all that being said, North Dakota is better overall hunting for Waterfowl and pheasants than Minnesota. Agreed. Just dont break your armpatting yourself on the back for making it that way because you didnt...and...don't blame Mn Sportsmen for the situation over here because we are doing what we can against a govt. and populus and industry that is in a whole other league than that of NoDak.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bert Wrote



> North Dakota is not the paridise it is because of anything you guys did either


So those of us that have ownership in land that keep it in CRP even when the contract expires did nothing?

Those of us that plant food plots are doing nothing?

Those of us that belong to wildlife clubs and improve habitat are doing nothing?

Those of us that work with our legislators to develop wildlife friendly legislation are doing nothing?

Keep you broad brush bitterness to yourself!!

Don't you dare try and tell me that I put nothing back into the resource.

I can't blame the legislators in Minnesota for not listening to you if you treat them like you treat some here!!!

Bob


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

4-Curls,

Now I know who (or what) Bert is...


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

I have CRP. I plant hundreds of trees each year. I created two wetlands on my property and put another 28 acres into perpetual easement. 
So who gets painted with a broad brush when Minnesotans like me (and there are a lot of us) get hung with the blame for poor habitat here?

I said, your sportsmans groups have an impact but I stand behind saying that you wildlife populations have a lot more to do with lack of people, wide open spaces and different farming practices and history.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> 4-Curls,
> 
> Now I know who (or what) Bert is...


And...................................


----------



## KYUSS (Aug 27, 2005)

Hunter_58346 said:


> Who supported our efforts during the lean and dry years when there were only 5000 NR waterfowl licenses sold? Seems we made out just fine so your point is moot.


 Amen! This " your state needs our money" stuff is BS. The lawsuit MN brought against ND hurt the MN nr's more than anything. MN files a lawsuit against ND and the MN nr's wonder why they get singled out. I live in rural ND and I know alot of landowners that will not let MN's hunt their land because of the lawsuit. That lawsuit was a BIG slap in the face to all the honest, ethical waterfowlers from MN who enjoy the experiance of hunting ducks in ND.

ND must protect what we have or there will be nothing left to protect.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I am one of those guys that moved to ND for the outdoors. I had better job offers in other states for more money but that didnt matter to me the quality of life in ND far out ways a dollar sign. And I think ND gets better hunting because we are red :wink: and MN is blue  .


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Bert: I have posted this before but obviously you didn't read it.

Minnesota pheasant count information

2004: surveyed about 2/3 of the state based on the map they provided found average of 101.9 pheasants per 100 miles. The state recorded a harvest of pheasants at right around 400,000.

1958: that same survey found 425 pheasants per 100 miles and recorded the harvest of pheasants at right around 1,550,000.

This was all based on MN DNR data.

In ND, for 2004 residents and nonresidents harvested 587,600 birds.

I couldn't readily find 100 miles counts, but I think you would find that our numbers have basically been climbing since 1958 and not gone down since 1958.

It seems to me the duck numbers would probably be relatively the same following the dry and wet cycles. I don't want to read too much into it, but it seems to me the MN DNR and its birdhunters quit caring about ducks and pheasants quite some time ago.

Just some food for thought but it seems to me that MN should be a haven for both ducks and pheasants.



> So who gets painted with a broad brush when Minnesotans like me (and there are a lot of us) get hung with the blame for poor habitat here?


. If you are a sportsmen and live in MN, you should be blamed for what has happened to your bird population. There is no reason why you shouldn't have the numbers from 1958.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Live...

So you are telling me that even though I have never drained a swamp, plowed up habitat, HAVE reclaimed 2 wetlands, took 53 acres out of production and put it in CRP, lobbied at the state and local levels for habitat, that I am part of the problem with Mn's lack of birds?

What kind of math did you use to jump to that conclusion?

You keep pointing to the fact that Mn's bird populations are down? Well duh!

The efforts of sportsmen in NoDak have helped the situation in NoDak by are not the reason for the wealth of birds over there. The efforts of sportsmen in Mn cannot be expected to work that miracle. If you dont understand that, you dont know anymore about when why where how and by whom Mn habitat got screwed up.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> If you dont understand that, you dont know anymore about when why where how and by whom Mn habitat got screwed up.


Enlighten us Bert!!!!!!!!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Bert: You as a landowner may have done all that, but the politicians and county commissioners don't support that. They support drain tiles and more tilled acres.



> The efforts of sportsmen in NoDak have helped the situation in NoDak by are not the reason for the wealth of birds over there.


 So did God just create them? I think it was a combination of landowners, sportsmen/women, the NDGFD, and a few others that helped in our wealth of birds.



> The efforts of sportsmen in Mn cannot be expected to work that miracle.


 Why not? Is it just easier to blame ND for your problems and try to legislate what we do with our state?


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Live,

Yes, as a landowner, I have done all that. And no, the township, county and state fathers dont support it like they should but all I can do is go to the meetings, be on the committees, write the letters and say my prayers.

Yes, God did create the wide open spaces of NoDak and the lack of human population and the reasons why it didnt get drained like Minnesota did. Like I said, the sportsmens groups have helped but you would still have ducks up the wazoo out there without them simply because of the farming practices, geography and lack of people.

I dont, never have and never will blame North Dakotans for the lack of birds in Minnesota.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

dljeye

Enlighten you?

Ok.

To say that the lack of habitat and birds is the fault of todays Mn sportsmen is wrong. The habitat destruction namely draining 75% of the wetlands in the south and west all took place before we were born. If that had happened in the Couteau region of NoDak, Id like to see your sportsmen outdo the damage. As much CRP got put in as possible (with a lot of pushing from Sportsmen and PF) but, unlike NoDak, not as much qualifies as highly erodable land (HEL land) and therefore couldnt be enrolled in the program.
We lobby at the capitol as a group and will continue to do so but the deaf ears that it falls on are not a result of our lack of teamwork and commitment. Dollars and cents are a lot different over here as to where they come from and where they go than in NoDak. The squeakiest wheels get the grease.

So yes. Live N has TGO (Tremendous grasp of the obvious) in stating the numbers of birds have dropped in Mn because of habit loss. Nobody would disagree with that. But blaming Mn sportsmen for is it (especially this one) is way out of line.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Bert: I think you got it right. "Farming practices" is probably your biggest problem over there. Just too many wetlands drained and not enough programs for DNR to support strong bird populations.

If everyone contributed like you did on your land, I really think you would end up with birds up the wazoo. You had them once.

"If you build it, they will come."


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Farming practices and overdevelopment of shoreline which is contributed to by residents and non residents alike.

Dead Lake, where I live for example used to be a lot shallower and ricier and duckier than it is now. A dam was constructed to hold more water and attract more tourists to the resorts. Carp got in it, the duck holding vegitation diminished and without food the ducks split. I didnt do that either but I have fought tooth and nail (and checkbook) against unregulated poorly thought out development which would intensify the problem.

Another reason why ducks (especially divers) dont cruise through here anymore is because we are close enough to the great lakes and the wonderful zebra mussel. Ducks love em and Wisconsin hunters have been shooting more of them but unfortunatly, the mussels filter out all the nastiest crap in the water which is good for water clarity but gets in a Bluebills liver and kills it. I didnt bring those damn things over either.

I hope you are beginning to see that it is all very complex and a totally different game than what NoDak is blessed with.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Actually, Bert, I know some of your Dead Lake allies very well and know of your struggles there.
I also believe you when you say that you are doing your best for your state habitat. Is Bert to blame in general.......NO, but are MN sportsmen in general......probably. As are ND sportsmen to blame for not getting the things done that we feel need to be done to ensure quality hunts here. As a group, sportsmen are becoming a very apathetic group. We need a much higher rate of involvement on _*many*_ issues. I do more than some but not as much as others. So, yes, I am to blame even though I do a lot more than some. The point being, I could do more, we all could.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Not to get off the subject or to ruin a good discussion but how about you guys put a little money towards something very positive. Here's some good SPAM!

DELTA WATERFOWL 4 CURLS CHAPTER BANQUET
Wednesday April 26th
Courtyard by Marriott - Moorhead MN
5:30 Social - 7:00 Buffet Dinner
Live & Silent Auction, General Raffle, Hunt Package Raffles

This is a non-political event....Everyone Welcome.....Let raise some money for the DUCKS.

pm djleye for more details and tickets.

Ok....Back to the Bloodshed!


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Hey Monte, can I get a ticket too?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Field Hunter, How much are the tickets? Are there things for the ladies or do you leave them home?


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Tickets are $45.00 for a single and $60.00 for a couples ticket......Buffet dinner and many live and silent auction items.....and MANY general raffle tickets.

For the ladies? We have womens spa packages, wildlife pillows, throws, many gift certificates.....a couple rather large Gift Certificates from Sportsman's Warehouse (they have many things that would appeal to women as well as men) Scheels Merchandise, a mens and womens Delta watch, a set of watches from a local jeweler, not to mention more items that are still coming in that will appeal to the women in the audience. I know my wife likes the Redlin prints I've brought home in the past...this would be a ladies chance to pick the ones they want their husband to bid on at the event.

Our general raffle table will be JAM PACKED with very nice gifts for both women and men.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

When I see foollish things happening while I'm out hunting it always makes me a little sad or mad until I see an out of state liscense plate then it brings a smile to my face and then I shake my head! If it is a Nodak, well they are just another stupid Nodak and if it is from Minnesota is just another stupid scissorbill. Would you rather be a stupid Nodak or a stupid scissorbill? But....please do not tell North Dakota how to manage our resources because we are doing a fine job without any outside help.


----------



## Straycat (Mar 21, 2005)

Has anyone heard anything regarding a decision about this from the federal appeals court hearings held last month?


----------



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

It has been over *4 months *since the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal of the "Minnesota lawsuit" on March 24th. Seems like a ruling should have come forth by now. Anyone close to this issue want to make a comment on this?


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

Minnesotans traded corn and lake lots for ducks a long time ago. I know many Minnesota Developers and construction workers who are also duck hunters. They have ripped up miles of lake shore lines to turn a buck. So the duck hunters should look at themselves before blaming farmers. But they are all to blame.

All North Dakota is trying to do is protect it's resource. Image if Minnesota would have done that 50 years ago. I think the best thing that could happen to Minnesota is if North Dakota would ban MN hunters. This would force them to clean up their act. This of course will not happen, but it would be interesting.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

hydro870 said:


> I think the best thing that could happen to Minnesota is if North Dakota would ban MN hunters. This would force them to clean up their act. This of course will not happen, but it would be interesting.


AhHa! Another blueplater hater!! :lol:


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

I BELEIVE I POSTED THIS BEFORE, BUT IF YOU ARE FROM MINNESOTA DO NOT VOTE FOR HATCH OR COLLIN PETERSON. I SURE WON'T. LOOK AT THE RESOURCES THEY WASTED ON THIS LAWSUIT ALONE. THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE METH PROBLEM INSTEAD. BECAUSE THEY SURE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT. COUPLE OF DUMB AXXES IF YOU ASK ME.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't hate blue plates. I am just making a point about how easy it is to hunt elsewhere rather than take the effort to fix the problem in your own back yard. Minnesota probably has more sportman than any state in the nation. You can't tell me they aren't a political force. This is a great thing! So what's the problem???? Waterfowl rally this, Mn waterfowl association that. What are the results??? What changes are you making?? I don't see any yet. This only leaves me to believe that you need to treat Minnesota hunters like childen - you need to pick up your toys and clean your room before you can go and play with the neighbor kids.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

hydro870 said:


> I don't hate blue plates.


Just jazzin' ya Hydro, I'm with you on this one.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Hydo - that is one of the most smug posts I have ever read on this site.

Hello no we aren't proud of what has become of duck hunting in MN, but MN hunters are practically the only ones in MN who do care about the issues! It's federal and state policies that have drained wetlands, pooled larger waters, and built up lakeshore. MN hunters are to blame for this? What, do MN hunters pass every bit of legislation in the country? Get real. MN hunters care about conservation and contribute their time, raise money, and are trying to make it better. And for this we get you sounding off like it's a waste of time. Well, it's not. And nothing's ever as easy as it seems. Maybe in your world, you can just snap your fingers and things happen. If so, get that NR cap in place if things are so easy. 
I, along with many others attended the rallys, but we can't do it alone. We need gov't to do the right thing. Maybe residents of ND can relate to this. 
But you tell me how MN hunters are going to reverse all the tiling that's been put in place over the years. Oh, that's right, we should have been writing farm legislation too.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

What? :huh: What did I say??? :huh:

Just having a little fun with the children analogy. :stirpot:

But seriously, sportsman in MN are a political force by shear numbers. Our ND Legislature votes on tons of outdoor related issues every 2 years. There is always a very loud debate. In MN you hardly even hear the debate in the legislature, and there are way more sportmen in MN. If you can't even get organized to the point where there is constant debate on the house/senate floor, that is a little concerning.

As just one example, ND got P.LO.T.S. passed with ease, why don't you? I will never buy the arguement that ND is a great hunting state becuase of our so called "poor land". We are a great hunting state becuase the people of ND choose to be. Every two years the treaspass law gets challenged, and every two years the legislature sides with sportsmen. Would your legislature vote the same as ours? You choose who you elect.

Long live the people of ND and their beliefs.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

hydro870 said:


> As just one example, ND got P.LO.T.S. passed with ease, why don't you?


MN already has a lot of public land to hunt, which I believe is the reason we don't have a PLOTS program.

Again I ask, if things are so easy then why isn't there a NR cap?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Shu, caps can be a reality, but it will take a common place that hunters and business owners can agree upon. While we have had success on getting some good legislation passed, ND legislature is still a political cesspool just like other states.

Last session we got out maneuvered and some of the sportsmen allies where setup to fail. When this happens you learn and move on to the next fight.

Some times also hunters do not agree on the issues and this can cause people to loose interest, or there is not other legislation that attracts there attention and gets them interested.

You can go back and read on this issue in the archives from Jan-Mar of 05 and see what I am talking about!

You guys had political maneuvers played against you this past year. The Sen Maj leader feared the turnout of conservative voters this fall if the ballot initiative would have went forward. I hope his stunt lands him out of office along with those that supported his decision. It like ND is the only way to change or get things done.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

> MN already has a lot of public land to hunt, which I believe is the reason we don't have a PLOTS program.


North Dakota has WPA's and WMA's also, sorry I'm not buying it.


----------



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

Down the Mississippi flyway (minnesota) there is a thing called closed refuge, so the birds can rest and eat before moving on through. The pools have had draw downs in the past few years and have gotten some good results by seeding down these closed areas keeping birds around throughout the season. Call them whatever you want but these are our so called WPA's. When you hunt on the river you don't battle droughts but instead the high water in the spring much like your Red through the Grand Forks' which in turn washes the waterfowl menu down to the gulf. This is what we battle Hydro.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

hydro870 said:


> > MN already has a lot of public land to hunt, which I believe is the reason we don't have a PLOTS program.
> 
> 
> North Dakota has WPA's and WMA's also, sorry I'm not buying it.


MN has 10 million acres of public hunting land, about 20% of the state. 
http://www.exploreminnesota.com/explore ... esota.html

ND has 3.2 million acres of public land, about 7% of the state.
http://www.ndtourism.com/secondary/view ... .asp?ID=49


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

> MN has 10 million acres of public hunting land, about 20% of the state.
> http://www.exploreminnesota.com/explore ... esota.html
> 
> ND has 3.2 million acres of public land, about 7% of the state.
> http://www.ndtourism.com/secondary/view ... .asp?ID=49


Yip, that means MN has about 1.7 acres per person and ND has about 5.3 acres per person. You keep digging yourself a hole, drop the shovel man!


----------



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

Hydro, another problem Minnesota faces is too many people have money in this state. I could drive an hour to Rochester and get away from the river bottoms style and get my finisher out but for every door I knock on I would also get a waiting list 50-100 names deep, and if you don't think that's a pay to play game you are wrong, I won't and choose not to compete with that . Unless you have one hell of a connection/relative forget it, much the way getting permission to deer hunt has become. Own your own piece is the name of that game, or hope you are grand fathered in on some land and that you get along with the land owners kids who have suddenly become old enough and are interested in the hunting scene. Seems to me this whole story line (not exactly rocket science here) is a major reason why you have your Minnesota blue plates where you do, although this year could be a lot less. The better Minnesota hunting gets the better your situation, and in our neck of the woods we are doing something to better our habitat and "quality hunting experience."

I won't be coming to ND this year expecting a whole lot for ducks, but it is a get away with Dad for a week, a relatively cheap vacation that I work for, and just enjoying a different place in the country, and BS'ing with some friends out there that keep us coming back, plus I can actually use my field blind and relax like an old man easing into a hot bath.  I Hope you can live with that. I understand your point of view and actually support some sort of cap on NR but (and this is probably the wrong thread for this) you need to be careful on how hard you restrict the NR as badly as you want to. Remember, people in this state (except me) have money and hiring a guide which you do not want will be that much more of a temptation.

Have a good one.
:beer:


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Keep changing the argument all you want.

As Goldy said, we are trying to improve things in MN regardless of your negative attitude.

Done w/this.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

hydro870

Yes it is true that we have many sportsmen in MN. But one thing you are failing to remember is that we have many more non-sportsmen. ( remember we are a blue state. ) We would LOVE to put things back the way they were in the "good old days". The question is do you think the MN liberal left and tree-huggin' non-hunters, coupled with current farmers making more profit by using previously drained wetlands, will allow our sportsmans dollars to dictate what we will ultimatly have to do to re-gain what we have lost? It will never happen unless a farmer changes their farming practice, and returns it to its natural conditions.

So what in your "Great Conservation Mind" can we do?

And if your answer is "Thats not my problem, thats your problem". Then you understand where we as MN are with every MN non-hunter that doesn't care about who is hunting what.

This is our (MN) fight. It's an up hill, in to the wind pi$$ing match. The fight is NOT an even one.

I think North Dakota has every right to govern itself. If it's caps you want, fine. If it's zone restrictions, fine. Most MN hunters are OK with that. But your attitude and self-richousness speaks volumes of your inability to see how hard we, as MN sportsmen, try and try to do whats best for our fragile MN resources. It is exactly like screaming to the deaf.

Gunny


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

:fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle:

Holy cats!!!! You guys are depressing me.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

Quality post :roll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Hydro......Yes Mn has many sportsman....

But if you look at sportsman......We have a lot of anglers (they just fish), Deer hunters (care only about antlers), Waterfowlers, Upland hunters.
So we are divided in what each group wants.

So with that being said our state is very diverse in land scape.....

The Northern 1/3 of the state Rocky, Pine Forests. It is hard to grow pheasants and good habitat for nesting ducks in the N 1/3 of the state. Yes thier are lakes and other waters....but it is not good nesting habitat like in the dakota's. You need shallow lakes, cattail sloughs. Not walleye factories. Most of the state land is in the N 1/3. They manage this for deer. (N 1/3 of MN).

The Central 1/3.....most populated part of the state. (Twin Cities, St. Cloud and suburbs!) All the lakes around that area are developed for cabins and commuters homes. Or are recreational lakes for fishing, boating, jet skiing. Then the rest of the land (that is not being developed) is farm land. Drained and tiled.

South 1/3 of the State......Again mostly ag land. Tiled and drained. Not many lakes. The Mississippi is polluted. Has too much flow going through it with the lock and dam situation. We can not correct this because of the trade along this river system. But they are trying with draw downs and other things.

With all of this I am saying it is hard for MN sportsman to get together. If not because of each groups interests. Just the type of help that is needed. You can not put forth effort for ducks in the north....it will be useless. In the central part of the state....It will not happen because of population. The southern part.....needs lakes or to untile farm land.

If you look at most of the dakota's it is prarrie potholes. Great pheasant and duck cover, nesting, and living habitat.

Drastic changes are needed to get MN like the dakotas.....but if these happen....all the duck hunters in the Mississippi and Central Flyways will be very happy. Because then MN, SD, ND will all be duck producers along with Canada!


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

It is interesting that the sportsmen/women are divided. Basically, everything comes down to the dollars in the end. And you are saying everybody is fighting for the same dollars. North Dakota voted to increase "user fees" (increased the price of a hunting license) to pay for P.L.O.T.s With all the sportsmen in your State, this might be your solution. How many deer tags does MN sell per year. How much $$$ would doubling the fee generate. What if you did the same for pheasant and duck licences. If you doubled the price of a fishing license I know you would be rolling in it. It costs more to fill your Bass Boat with gas than it does for the license. I would be willing to pay well over $100 for a license if I new the extra revenue was going to such programs. Just one idea - now get-r-done!

Best of luck.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

True that Gunny, right on point.

Also one thing we as NoDakers see is a burgeoning supply of hunters with a real access issue, thus the influx of nr's here. Not only from Mn. either.

We are in the same boat as you with a state govt. who is swayed by the idea of $$ only and not for the betterment of all who are involved or atleast interested.

Only advice, keep the wheel squeakin' and MAYBE it will get a bit of grease.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Hydro......

I have been trying and speaking with my polititians with this same thing.....

A dollar increase for every hunting tag/lisc. Sold could go towards this program.....it would raise millions. Some agree but others don't care.

One thing that is funny....talking to farmers and land owners....they would love a PLOTS program....get paid to allow hunting with out being a "bad guy" for leasing the property. This would help out the regular land owner who allows anyone to hunt anyway.

I am a very squeeky wheel and come november I will try to be even louder!

A funny thing about the sportsman.....between fishing there is division.....You should have heard the up roar in my area the past few years about the Trout Streams. People wanted to pass on most major streams an "artificial lures only". Then a slots or catch and release only laws. They got some of the laws passed....It was the "BIG" money or intrest groups that lobbied.

This is off the subject....But I agree with a slot or catch and release....but the artificial only rule limits the people who can fish. The kid the digs worms and rides his bike to the creek is being left out. Or the person who is taking that 5 year old to his old fishings spots....they are very limited.


----------

