# The beginning of the end of hunting as we once knew...



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

This is it guys. With this new business sprouting up in North Dakota, you've now seen the last of hunting as we once knew in ND.

Even your tried and true method of gaining permission on fields from farmers is slipping away.

This story represents truly the beginning of the end to the way we once knew. Even with the new tactics of field hunting, getting permission freely etc... this is the death blow to even that method.

This should be a WAKE UP CALL to everyone reading this.... get OUT and start a PETITION DRIVE right away or do nothing and watch ND hunting disappear for good.

:eyeroll: :******:

Ryan



> For lease: hunting land
> 
> With one click of his computer mouse - and quite by accident - Doug James finally found a place to hunt.
> 
> ...


----------



## TANATA (Oct 31, 2003)

Guy wanted $50 for his land, Johnson got him $1500 what a nice guy! What a joke this guy isn't a hunter or sportsman. Another tie that puts on some camo every once in a great while. I know where this guy lives and his family, and they're not any better. Like father like son.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

This will force ND hunters to do 1 of 2 things.

1. buy land away from farmers/ranchers to protect their hunting.

2. lease hunting land themselves

Either way this hits EVERYONE with access issues.

You think we have a youth out-migration problem now, wait till we are Texas style hunting.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Live2hunt is correct IMO.



> He is now the financial services officer at the Bank of the West in south Fargo.


Im going to go close my accounts this afternoon. BoW probably wont care about my little bit but Im going to do it anyway.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

One thing is to check out if this guy has the licenses to do this sort of thing....because if he is managing real estate he might need his realtor license. But I am not sure of the laws of ND. But if he is doing it in other state......But maybe his financing title/license gives him the right to do so.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

> You think we have a youth out-migration problem now, wait till we are Texas style hunting.


I am going to start job hunting in Canada right now.

All of this BS is just.... uke:

Seriously, what can a guy do about this? Nothing. He is providing a service that is a win win deal for landowners who want to cash in (don't blame them) and the hunters with fat wallets (can't fault them for being sucessful).

What can a guy do about anything. Increasing pressure (R and NR alike), increase in posted land, increase in leased land, ect., ect., ect.

ND hunting has been coming to an end the past few years. This **** will just speed it up a bit.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

From the website...



> Mission Statement
> To aid in the conservation of land and wildlife and ensure that future generations have the opportunity to enjoy the outdoor activities that we have today


What a tool :roll:


----------



## tabes (Apr 11, 2006)

WELL GUYS ITS GOING TO BE A PAY TP PLAY HUNTING WORLD AND IT SUCKS FOR EVERYONE I FEEL SORRY FOR THE NEW HUNTER HAVING TO BUY GUNS CLOTHES ETC.. NOW HAVING TO PAY ITS ONLY GOING TO BE A SPORT FOR THE RICH


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

Glad I've got friends who farm and family who owns land.....

The sky is falling...The sky is falling!!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> Glad I've got friends who farm and family who owns land.....


I thought that too until I went home for pheasant opener and found a piece of property we have been hunting for years had now been leased.


----------



## james.hunter (Sep 5, 2007)

Well all i can say guys is the first person to tell me i cant hunt a slew because it is leased out and is no longer a WPA is going to have a big problem on his hands. I have hunted since i was 13 and NO ONE IS GOING TO STOP ME FROM HUNTING. EVER :******:


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

I know but I'm not quite ready to put the pistol in my mouth yet...


----------



## Blue Plate (Jul 31, 2006)

From my perspective a private land owner can do whatever he wants, it's HIS land. That said, I've never leased land in my life for hunting. Unless things get really bad, I never will.


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

no one listened to me when I said that within ten years it'll all be over. it's happening faster than i thought. sad, but then again who cares really, you're only here for a week or two.


----------



## bandman (Feb 13, 2006)

Heard some great stories this weekend where the local outfitter is flat out getting told to $&@! off for going behind some backs. (Taking advantage of the unacknowledged is very classy; especially when running a business!) :roll: :eyeroll: :******: Stuff like this spreads like a wild fire where I'm from so hopefully more and more farmers will open their eyes to this PROBLEM.

There's nothing worse than watching and hearing these things unfold all around the state, but all we can do is hope to hell that at least half of the landowners stand their ground to their highest ability for the much better future of this state.

Hope there's a lot of traditionalists out there and if you happen to be one; here's to you!

:beer:


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

WOW I read this on Sunday and to my suprise we mow for him. His rate just went up from $60 to $600 if he doesn't like it he can find a new person. This really ****** me off. He seems like a really nice guy. I have always wondered what the little www. sticker was on his EXTERA. WOW I am honestly steaming right now after reading the article again. :evil:

Hope he actually keeps me. Maybe then I can afford to hunt land in ND. :eyeroll:


----------



## Rick Acker (Sep 26, 2002)

I wouldn't throw in the "freelance" towel yet. These kind of web sites have been around for awhile. He has a total of 4 clients so far in N.D. It's coming, don't get me wrong...Build your relationships now.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

My neighbors have leased out their land and I have been approached on the leasing of mine. It's alot of money and it gets harder and harder to turn down. I dont hunt much any more but my daughters like to do it so I'll keep it for them. For those of you who do not own land all I can say is if you have a hunter / landowner relationship you shouldn't have to worry to much at this point in time but give it 10 years and it will be over. As a landowner I'm stuck in the middle. I truely believe it's the landowners right to do what he wants with his property with in the law. But I also see the sportsmans side of things also. How is someone making $8 /hour going to afford to take Jr. hunting? or for a hunter just to enjoy his day with out worrying how he's going to pay for this. It will certainly put an end to the new hunter. But if you look at the cost of land it has gone up quite a bit in the last 5 years in my area due to good grain prices and out of staters buying up what they can , you cant blame the landowner for trying to get a return on his property. It's an issue we all wish would just go away but that's not going to happen. To bad the hunters of ND and the sportsman couldnt come to an agreement. Pay to hunt is coming that's just the plain truth weather you like it or not. Why couldn't the sportsmen of ND have a "hunting club" or some type of organization. We would all pay a little extra for a hunting liecense , the extra $$ would go towards land access. We all could vote for board members of this organization and such. Yes this would be a pay to hunt but its coming anyway , why not lead the way? Just an idea.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Sorry for the brain lapse. I meant to say the hunters of ND and the Landowners could come to an agreement. sorry.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Quote:
> Mission Statement
> To aid in the conservation of land and wildlife and ensure that future generations have the opportunity to enjoy the outdoor activities that we have today


Mission statement my ***!!!!!!!!
His mission is to make money off wildlife, plain and simple!!!!

Oh yea, I looked at his website. Most of the leases on their don't even give you exclusive rights to the land you lease!!! Whata tool. There is a way to send a message to the webmaster of his site!! I did today!


----------



## james.hunter (Sep 5, 2007)

Sorry WHAT? Pay to hunt i dont think so. Are times really that hard that some land owners are going to try to make a quick buck. Sounds like to me people are just getting greedy. :******:


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Future generations of the wealthy are the only ones who will get to hunt . Hunters of ND and the landowners need to come to an agreement some how. There is no good from this , the average hunter will not have a place to hunt and the landowner who doesn't post or lease will see his land hunted to the point that there will be nothing there to hunt.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

I agree with Angus 1. There's been talk about an 'access stamp'. Seems like a good idea to me.

Actually, right now there seems to be an access death spiral. The more land that gets sold or leased for hunting, the more people jump on that bandwagon. Those guys will have access to their one little spot, but when everyone else does it, that's all they have access to. I'd get bored pretty quick. Not a lot of forward thinking among that type of 'sportsman.'.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

I nominate angus1s' posts for best post of the day


----------



## james.hunter (Sep 5, 2007)

Agreement no i dont think so. Unless i am hunting geese i dont hunt farmers land so if worst comes to worse if land owners want to be greedy and piss of the hunters thats there choice but as for me i will hunt one way or another and the land owners can keep there land and have all the fat lazy pay to hunt hunters they want. But thats just my two cents.


----------



## Dave Owens (Nov 11, 2002)

Guys,

PLOTS is leased land done with your dollars. Game and Fish is just writing the checks for you. This came about after Hovens visit with the Cannonball company and the Pheasent season issue. I was apossed to PLOTS as I believed the CRP lands should have been open from the beginning. Now every single hunter in ND is a fee hunter like it or not.


----------



## crna (Nov 7, 2002)

can't believe i'm saying this, but i'd love to have 1997 like blizzard this winter and bring everything back to reality


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Many aspects of this are of concern not the least of which is the ability of NDGF to manage the wildlife populations of our state. How many hunters would be able to hunt on a 640 acre chunk of good habitat ground throughout the season? How many will hunt this land if it is leased to an individual or small group? There are so many variables the possibilities are endless

It takes hunters to keep the wildlife populations at or near management goals. The spiral downward could have a snowball effect in certain regions of the state if leasing by a select few makes the trip to that area a waste of time and resources for the family or friends hunter groups, regardless of residency.

Just my .02
Bob


----------



## Springerguy (Sep 10, 2003)

The bigger issue is the loss of CRP acres that will occur over the next 3 yrs. Once the habitat is gone we'll return to pheasant hunting as it was pre-CRP. Yeah, some contracts will renew with marginal land but, for the most part, the state will return to more modest pheasant populations. When that occurs I'd guess the leasing will become a thing of the past after the first big snowstorm hits the population and they don't have the habitat to recover as in the past years.

By the way, please note that the young business owner is a ND resident and not one of those dang NR's.


----------



## bandman (Feb 13, 2006)

Springerguy said:


> By the way, please note that the young business owner is a ND resident and not one of those dang NR's.


He's neither, he's the :evil:


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

The best thing you residents can do to combat this is to insist that there be a CAP on all NR licenses sold. This will address the problem quickly... however, it will not ever happen as there is too much money involved now.

:eyeroll: :******:


----------



## bandman (Feb 13, 2006)

hmmmmmmmmm...................something we've been saying ALL ALONG??????

I can see the 7 page argument coming already.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Interesting perspective from another state.

Hunters need to kill 12,000 more elk in Montana, FWP says
By MICHAEL BABCOCK 
Tribune Outdoor Editor

As tens of thousands of Montana elk hunters headed for the hills this morning, they probably weren't thinking, "Gee, we have too many elk."

However, that is the case, say the state's game managers, at least according to the Montana Elk Management Plan that Fish, Wildlife & Parks adopted in 2005.

They point to locked gates, a string of mild winters and changing hunter behavior.

"I would agree on all three of those," said Great Falls hunter Dave Bleskin, who has hunted elk for 26 years.

Elk, a symbol of all that is wild and free in Montana, are the ultimate big-game target for many hunters.

"There is a mystique and a passion for the animal and a passion for hunting them that is unequaled in any other state, pure and simple," said Ron Aasheim, head of communication and education for FWP. "'Did you get your elk?' is the question you hear on the street."

So many issues surround Montana's elk and elk hunting that FWP has planned a day-long elk summit for Dec. 8 at the Montana State University student union building in Bozeman.

This also is a season-setting year, which means the Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission begins considering proposals Dec. 20 to change season structures and regulations.

"Elk are a big thing for Montana," said Quentin Kujala, a wildlife management bureau chief for FWP. "We tried to put a different look on this summit. If you want to be engaged, here is a look at the information. Here is how to be involved. If you don't like the way things are going, here is the process. Here are the places for input."

How many elk?

Wildlife biologists say there are almost 124,000 elk in Montana - about 14 percent more than the elk management plan calls for. In 2006, hunters killed 26,118 elk and game managers wish they would have killed about 12,000 more.

Biologists arrive at the estimated number of elk by counting animals from airplanes during winter surveys and applying trend statistics to those numbers. They determine hunter success through telephone surveys.

Last winter, biologists counted 100,933 elk and they projected the total elk population at 123,571. The elk plan objectives are based on the known number of elk - not the projection. The elk plan target is 88,835.

"Being over objective is not a problem. It might be a symptom of problems," Kujala said. "One problem shows up when you have liberal season packages that should be (harvesting) lots of antlerless elk, and they are not. What is the problem? _*The problem is access to harvest opportunities."

Hunters cannot kill elk if they cannot get to them, and about a third of Montana's elk are out of reach.

"We estimate that 35 percent of all Montana elk are on private land that is inaccessible to the general hunter," Aasheim said.

"The most important single answer is access to harvest opportunity," Kujala added. "Access to elk. If hunters are not able to get to elk that are on specific properties, or a series of properties, those properties become refuges of sorts."*_A string of mild winters and changing hunter habits also are reasons for growing elk herds, officials said.

"Certainly access is a big issue, but look at winter, and hunters may be less willing to work as hard as they once were. Those are key things that result in more elk," Aasheim said. "It really isn't that complicated but the solution is difficult.

"There also is public land that while it is accessible, it is not accessible in the way (hunters) like it," he said. "We want to be fair in talking about access. There is no question that locked gates are part of the issue, but there is a lot more to it than that."

"In the Gravellys, where a lot of the land is public, there have been some road closures. Some of those were for elk security and that was by design. But it prevents hunters from using OHVs (off-highway vehicles), and it limits other access they were accustomed to," he added.

"That is not good or bad, just a fact."

What about the weather?

"Look at our falls the last couple of years," Kujala said. "They have been very mild. Elk have remained in remote, distant backcountry haunts. We know from experience that when you have mild weather you have smaller harvests. Bitter cold and snow drive elk into closer proximity to hunters."

Kujala, who was a wildlife biologist in charge of elk in the Sun River area, said there are a lot of places in the backcountry where elk can stay almost the whole winter.

"If the snow is fluffy and easy to move, that doesn't mean a problem for elk. They can paw through it or nuzzle through it," he said. "If it is wet and freezes, that is a hard cap, and the wind may not blow that off."

He added that mild winter temperatures around 30 degrees are "not cold by elk standards."

"At 20 below zero, elk are burning calories. They are out later in the morning and out earlier in the afternoon eating and exposing themselves to hunters. Even cold weather without snow changes their behavior as they increase forage time," Kujala said.

Mild weather does not help the elk harvest, according to biologists. Montana has had mild winters for the past seven or eight years.

Changing hunters

Kujala also said that aging hunters and reduced motorized access may play roles in the number of elk harvested.

"As an aging hunter corps grapples with issues, as you refocus your attention on whether you go or you don't go, that means that (the hunter) as a management tool is contributing less and less to the antlerless elk harvest," Kujala said. "Either he doesn't have an ATV or chooses not to pursue elk in another manner."

Bleskin, the hunter, said that letting hunters retrieve downed animals with a vehicle would be an easy, harmless way to increase the elk harvest.

"Where I hunt, you were able to drive all the way into there. You could drive the whole Forest Service area and you could retrieve your animals. That is a big thing," he said. "Not too many people want to hike in three or four miles and then pack an animal out on their back."

Bleskin said a surge of hunters in the area he hunts pushed the elk off the public land and onto private land closed to hunters. When the Forest Service closed roads in the area to vehicles, the elk slowly returned, but it is too far to pack out an elk if you get one, he said.

"I have no problem walking in and shooting an animal," Bleskin said. "But it is difficult to pack this animal out (and) be back to work on Monday if you shoot it on Sunday morning. It would be nice if they had certain times of day to retrieve your animal. There are old logging roads and Forest Service roads all over. It would keep game in there and prevent having to pack it out several miles.

"It is awful discouraging after you have harvested an animal if you have to pack it out three or four miles, and you are walking out on a perfectly good road," he added.

Kujala noted that as the elk population increases, so does the number of bull elk, and most hunters want to shoot a bull.

"People have a first tendency to shoot or hold out for a bull," he said. "If you couple that with landowner access issues, if there are only a finite number of hunters going on a property and all of those want to shoot a bull, what have you done? Nothing really."

The elk management plan

While Montana has managed elk through an established plan since 1978, it wasn't until 1992 that the state adopted its first comprehensive elk management plan. Unlike previous plans, it divided the state into 35 elk management units and established statewide and EMU population objectives. The planning process included a much greater degree of public participation.

In the plan, an EMU might be the same as a specific hunting district, or it might comprise several hunting districts.

Kujala said that in an EMU there might be a cluster of hunting districts tied together for some geographic or elk population-related reason. For example, hunting districts in Regions 4, 6 and 7 make up the Missouri Breaks Elk Management Unit.

The Bob Marshall EMU has pieces of Region 1, 2 and 4 and includes the Sun River hunting districts.

Elk objectives in the plan usually are well below the habitat carrying capacity. The most significant factor in establishing objectives is landowner tolerance.

"It comes in direct conversation and from the annual sense of game damage," Kujala said.

Plan in motion: HD 410

In Hunting District 410, which is part of the Missouri Breaks EMU, the target population for elk is 2,300. In 2004, biologists counted 3,656 elk there.

"A management response was initiated because we needed more harvest," Kujala said. "That manifested itself in additional antlerless elk licenses. Now elk numbers have gone down, and the area is very near objective."

In response to the high number of elk in 2004, officials cranked up the number of antlerless elk tags. In the fall of 2005 and 2006, FWP issued 600 antlerless tags, and both of those years they also authorized 600 elk B tags, or a second tag, which is only good for anterless elk. This year, the number of antlerless tags was cut back to 400, with 400 elk B tags.

Kujala said the total harvest from HD410 was 759 elk in 2006, including 187 on traditional cow tags and 139 on B tags. Hunters took 433 elk on A tags. Biologists believe there are about 2,226 elk currently in HD 410.

Great Falls archer Dan Bertus has hunted elk in HD 410 for a decade and a half.

"I find it hard to believe there are still 2,200 elk down there," he said. "It is odd that now you see more mule deer than you do elk."

Bertus called this bowhunting season in the Breaks disappointing and said he ran into other hunters who said the same thing.

"I just don't know how accurate their winter counts are. The elk move back and forth across the river," he said.

Successes and failures

FWP has tried a number of season types and incentives to get elk populations to levels prescribed by the management plan.

"We have done cooperative access agreements, community working groups, provided kill permits to landowners, tried damage hunts and management seasons, antlerless elk tags that allow a hunter to take a second elk (and) habitat conservation easements with access stipulations," Aasheim said. "We have offered expanded youth hunting opportunities in which adults can take only bulls but youths can take an antlerless elk. There are variable-priced outfitter set asides and the Block Management Program."

Game-damage hunts worked - they allowed landowners to have hunters come in and take antlerless elk that were damaging the farm and ranch land.

Some landowners abused that system - they wanted the hunters to cull the antlerless elk after they restricted access.

"It is their right to restrict access to their land, but the public was saying, 'We don't want to have to clean up the antlerless elk if we don't have an opportunity to take a bull,' Aasheim said. "It is a landowner's right to restrict access, but that has implications to hunters and his neighbors. That is the balance we try to get to."

Bleskin said there is lot of elk, and that FWP is managing them well.

"I like the quality and caliber of the bulls, and that goes back to some of their management. Fish and game managers have done a great job as far as elk numbers and quality, but it goes back to access," he said.

"There are getting to be elk in places there have never been elk before because big landowners have a lot of elk, and they don't allow hunting. ... The elk will spill out, and they get hammered a little bit, and they run back to their sanctuary."


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Dave Owens said:


> Guys,
> 
> PLOTS is leased land done with your dollars. Game and Fish is just writing the checks for you. This came about after Hovens visit with the Cannonball company and the Pheasent season issue. I was apossed to PLOTS as I believed the CRP lands should have been open from the beginning. Now every single hunter in ND is a fee hunter like it or not.


Dave,

I disagree with yout fundamental sense of the issue at hand. It is about exclusion of the public from what is the "public trust". When the G&F opens PLOTS it is simply insuring that the public trust is accessible. When a guide (or this #$%^&) leases land they do it to EXCLUDE the public from the public trust. Other places (e.g., Sask & Alberta) have simply made it illegal to sell/barter access to land for hunting. This was really a non-issue because no one thinks that they should be making $$ of the game animals that belong to everyone. (That's why AdamFisk is looking at Canada - good post!) When folks are not granted access in Alberta, it is simply on principle - because they are G/O's, 'Sotas, or Texans.

M.


----------



## TANATA (Oct 31, 2003)

Not going to snowmobile anymore because of all the ridiculous costs these days. Now I wont be able to afford to hunt any land that's worth a crap either. What am I going to do with all my free time and money?!!? Good things guys like these are around to keep us all below the rich.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

tb, an access stamp , great idea. Now for a land owner to get funds from this "organization" he simply lets people hunt. This land would be posted just as plots. Now if plots is paying $3 to $4 per acre and the "stamp" matched the amount of land that would be opened up for hunting would be wonderful. I have been offered $8 / acre from a outfitter for my property , I turned it down of course.

The state could be divided into districts , lets say 6 . In each district people/sportsman and landowners could vote for 2 people to sit on a access board. One being a sportsman with no ties to owning property, the other a landowner. Money, ideas and agreements could be made between landowners and hunters through this process. Yes there will be the landowner that still says no but he gets no $$$ . When he heres his neighbor who signed up for plots and the access progam is bringing home $5 to perhaps even $8 /acre he will think twice about the couple thousand acres he has posted. Now there will be the landowner who will still say " hunt I don't care" and it will not cost any of us a dime just as it has in the past. But those guys are going to be far and few between.

Now think about this , the access problem isn't going to go away, plain and simple. Pay to hunt , Leased land , Leased hunting rights are here and are going to become more popular, not one of us can argue that . So why not lead the way? Why not try something no other state has tried? Yes the access stamp ( or such) will be a form of pay to hunt. So is PLOTS. You don't here to many bad things about PLOTS. As I read some of the replies I see where some have said nothing will stop me from hunting , I'll do it anyway..ect.. This is not a good approach. Will you be trespassing? Poaching? As a concerned citizen of ND I hope we all can get something worked out and soon so our children , no matter how rich or poor they are have an opportunity to hunt.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

I like it a lot. $8/acre will turn a lot of heads.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

It really amazes me how some people seem to feel they have the right to stamp out someone else's right for their own right. That land owner isn't fencing in the public trust. That public trust has the freedom to move to and from his land for you to hunt. What he is doing is is exercising his right to to charge for someone to be on his land whether they hunt or not. If you don't want to pay that fee then you just exercised another one of your rights. Dave Owens is right, if a land owner is payed money for plots then plots is leased land and you are paying for it. The proposal angus 1 proposed which has been brought up before seems like a solid one. How many hunting license were sold in North Dakota last year? Several thousand I assume and at a $6-$8 extra charge that would seem to open up a lot of land into plots.

This whole thing reminds me of the long ago range wars where the cattle barons thought they had the right to open range for their cattle but the land owners felt they had the right to fence in their land. The cattle ranchers wanted the free grass and the land owners wanted to profit from their land. We all know who won that war and those that continue to insist they have the right to free hunting at the expense of others are headed for the same fate as the cattle barons. Where you hunt is not a right but a privilege. Work with you state and you can continue with that privilege. Who in their right mind would not pay a extra $8 for thousands of acres to be opened up for hunting to them.



> The 2006 license sold for $49,500, up $6,500 from last year, the state Game and Fish Department said. The money will be used for bighorn sheep management in North Dakota.
> 
> "It was amazing to see that," said Brett Wiedmann, a big game biologist with Game and Fish. "You couldn't help but smile. It is a real indication of how others view our efforts in North Dakota."


If that isn't selling public trust game to the rich, I don't know what is. Least of all before you throw stones and call people names know who you are in bed with. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

cwoparson, right on! IF it were to cost the sportsman an extra $10 or even $20 for a stamp per year it would still be a cheaper way to hunt or should I say access. With land prices for instance we just had a quarter of crp in my area sell for $780/ acre, if it cost the average hunter $15 for the stamp / year and he or she hunted from age 18 to 75 at $15 / year it amounts to buying one acre of this land. This idea I'm sure is not bullet proof and some will say I'm not paying but either we are part of the solution or our days of reasonable access are over.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

When the PLOTS program started Governor Hoeven's original goal was to get one million acres enrolled into the program. Now that this goal has been reached where do we go from here? I like the idea of an access stamp but we already have/had a program in ND that with a little tweaking could be a great way to unite rural and urban hunters instead of constantly pitting them against each other.

Community PLOTS.

The program was developed by the legislature as a means of increasing hunter opportunity by involving rural communities, local sportsmen and landowners into a pact to open land and pay the landowner more than the current going rate for regular PLOTS land. The community and local sportsmen were required to raise funds and secure landowners willing to enter the program and the funds were matched by NDGF. So if the going rate for PLOTS land is three bucks an acre they had the ability to raise enough funds to pay twice that and more if they worked hard enough at it. At the onset of the program I was pretty excited about the possibilities and was willing to work with a community to raise funds in Fargo and other urban areas that could be given to the community as a donation toward the project. I was basically told to "butt out" because that was not the intent of the program. The intent was to get local businesses to take ownership and donate the money. IMO it was a failed effort from the start and only one "community PLOTS" parcel was established, I think spite had something to do with it.

Now let's look at the program with an Urban/Rural cooperative.

Sportsmen from urban/rural areas and sportsmen's clubs throughout the state could work with community leaders to raise funds from business leaders in the metro areas as well as local communities. If the target is $8.00 per acre to give to the landowner the total funds required to pay a landowner for 640 acres of land access with habitat would be $5,120.00 split that between urban and rural and the fundraising becomes a little more feasible compared to trying to get the same amount from 3, 4 or 5 businesses in a small rural community. Now incorporate a fund matching payment from the NDGF and there is a real possibility of paying a landowner $10.00 or more for good accessible land with the landowner being able to at least get enough money to help with or even pay the taxes on the land. The stipulation of no special opportunity to use the land for those donating would have to be a platform in the program and IMO it should be open to residents and nonresidents, if funds were raised by NR's willing to engage in the program.

Just a little food for thought.

Bob


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Angus that is something I have stated for years.....use more of the sportsmans $$ to help programs for access, enforcement and habitat.

Now when people state a cap (early in the post) that will take away funds and do nothing to stop leasing of land. It has done nothing out west of the leasing of land for big game and that is a drawing and point system.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

The reason there is leasing / guiding and such is for the $$$ who has the $$$ out of staters. A cap would do nothing but prevent $$$ from coming into our system. The deer season is a lottery so a cap will do nothing there and bird season weather the geese get shot here or in SD, NEB , OLK.. they are getting shot so we might as well take the $$$ . Upland game well you probably got me on that one but then again the land in this program would be open for all of us too. We could also save the first weekend just as it is now. I have mentioned this around town a little , a lot of farmers won't sign up for the PLOTS because it is a govenment agency but alot said they would sign up for some other program , them saying this did kind of take me by surprise.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

fishingbuddy thread....

This is Blake Johnson, sorry for those of you who disagree with what I am doing..so far most business has been done out of state. I would also be sorry when all the small farmers who needed that extra $1,000 to stay a float during a bad year had to sell out to corporate farmers and now all that is posted. I find it hard to believe that you have hunted all 2 million acres of public access land in ND. Where was everyone on this site when I tried to get a wildlife license plate petition going? My idea was to subsidize the farmers with the profits and to give them the funds to keep there CRP payment closer to that of cash rent. I believe 4 people emailed me to get on board to that idea. So, nay sayers what have you done to try to help the state. I feel sorry for the people that complain about things but never want to step to the plate to get anything done. If you are worried about getting on land pick up the phone and call me. I will get you onto my land if you are ever struggling to get on land. Also we will run ads FOR FREE for any landowner that would like his land to go for youth hunting. WE WOULD MAKE NO MONEY on this and doing it to keep the sport alive. We have been selling a handful of leases for $500-$600 for 280 acres for the season in SD. Does that really seem so expensive? Take 4 other buddies and you are looking at $100 a piece for the YEAR. I appreciate everyone's opinion and you are all entitled to them. I do not want to run this thread and this is not the place to discuss this so I encourage you to email me or pick up the phone and I would be happy to listen to your side of the story and help you understand some things with the research I have done on the issue at hand. I appreciate everyone's enthusiams when it comes to hunting. Hunter/Landowner relationships are skewed not because of people wanting money but because of the lack of respect to landowners and personal property. Hopefully this will help. Thanks for everyone's opinion. Whether fore or against I am always happy to listen.

Yours in Conservation,
Blake Johnson


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

Why pay when it COULD be free?


----------



## Blue Plate (Jul 31, 2006)

Blake Johnson reply seems right on IMO. I don't support leasing to hunt but he brings up a few valid points.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Like docch said in another thread. Do a search for wake2wake540 on google and check out some of the results. Nice pics and check out his posts on fbo, nso, sdo, ako etc... :roll:


----------



## james.hunter (Sep 5, 2007)

Well you all can pay to hunt if you want i am not going to. I am buying 60 acres of land when i get back from IRAQ so i will always have some place to hunt and so will my friends. As for leases i am 100% against them. Thats the last thing i will say about this issue. :******:


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

James.hunter , think about it. 60 acres? that doesn't even get you a gratis deer tag here in ND. 60 acres lets say you get it cheap at $700 an acre = $42,000 + land taxes every year and liablity insurance. That's some cash. What I have proposed would only cost you at the most about $700 in your life time and open up thousands of acres for you to hunt. I understand where you are coming from and I agree it would be nice to have your own land. Now that you would be a land owner are you going to post it? Of course you will, and I don't blame you for that. Yes what I have talked about is a form of leasing, a cheap way for all of us. But do you have any other idea? "Buy your own land" doesn't really fit into the average sportsmans budget, neither does leasing. Like I said earlier either we lead the way with new ideas and plans or sit back and enjoy these last few years. No one likes change , I certainly don't but the time has come and we need to change with it or get lost in it.

THANK YOU for your service to our country.


----------



## james.hunter (Sep 5, 2007)

Well it might be cheaper but The land i am looking at already has a house and i intend to live there with my wife and kid. So no lease hunting for me and my family. As for all the other outdoorsmen and women i hope leases are done away with. We already pay enough for the outdoors and there is no reason we need to pay any more. :beer:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

I have to agree once with djleye, this guy is a real tool!!!!!!!!
I've always been one who is pro business and always like to see new ideas. However when this young gentleman makes a comment like this


> I have relatives who when they see Minnesota license plates, they don't want to answer the door."


 I question if this person has any validity. This statement is about as immature and biased as they get. If I was from MN I wouldn't even consider doing business with this gentleman after that comment.

Bob Kellam, I like your idea although I wonder if it could get the support needed? For a little insight 8 bucks an acre is what the landowner received for our Community PLOTS. Funny isn't it, when I asked the Forum about doing a story on Community PLOTS they said it wasn't news worthy. Yet they find the garbage in this article newsworthy, go figure.


----------



## Rick Acker (Sep 26, 2002)

Buying your own land just doesn't make sense unless you have deep pockets. You might as well fee hunt 30 days a year and it will probably will still be cheaper than buying your own land in most cases.


----------



## NDNorm (Mar 23, 2006)

to me, if the commodities were different, I'd call him a pimp.


----------



## james.hunter (Sep 5, 2007)

Sure Rick what ever you say. :lame:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

What doesn't make sense is to tell someone it doesn't make sense to buy property. Such a weird comment. Only place I know that takes deep pockets to buy land is southern California but even now that is questionable unless you like toasted property. He's talking about 60 acres with a home already on it that he and his family are going to live on and in. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

cwoparson said:


> Only place I know that takes deep pockets to buy land is southern California but even now that is questionable unless you like toasted property. He's talking about 60 acres with a home already on it that he and his family are going to live on and in. Makes perfect sense.


It's all perspective. To many of the guys living in ND, deep pockets could be serveral hundred thousand dollars... Living in a major metro it is ten of millions....

Thankfully more truly rich Americans who have millions they have to re-invest each year or pay taxes on... could care less about ND farmland. Because if they did... none of you would be hunting.... I used to do IT for a large TIC or REIT property company. (Go look at what DBSI Group of companies does for business to learn more http://www.dbsi.com ) We had clients that had $2-$15 million a year they needed to dump their excess ca$h into, else they pay Uncle Sam capital gains taxes that would make you choke. All of you are darn lucky that these types of companies aren't coming after your hunting property. You think it's locked up tight now? Try finding an absentee landowner who only has the property to divest his portfolio, and has likely never even visited it. Try getting _*his *_permission. 

Expensive property exists in more places than southern Kalifornica... Go to Seattle, Boston, South Beach Miami Florida, Martha's Vineyard, North Carolina Seashore, or Hawaii. Except for Malibu, San Diego, Hollywood Hills and San Francisco proper, the rest of Kalifornia isn't that expensive compared to the aforementioned places....

But yes.. real estate is the best investment any person can make. God isn't making any more land last I checked. But I hear there is some cheap land near the snow goose nesting territory that is slowly coming available. 

Ryan


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

:huh: I don't know what any of that has to do with a guy buying a house on 60 acres when he returns from Iraq to live with his family. Especially to tell him he'd be better off to just fee hunt for 30 days as if he was infringing on someone's free hunting. If it takes deep pockets to buy a house and just 60 acres to raise your family on in ND then it makes a person wonder if indoor plumbing is a luxury up there. :biggrin:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

cwoparson said:


> :huh: I don't know what any of that has to do with a guy buying a house on 60 acres when he returns from Iraq to live with his family. Especially to tell him he'd be better off to just fee hunt for 30 days as if he was infringing on someone's free hunting. If it takes deep pockets to buy a house and just 60 acres to raise your family on in ND then it makes a person wonder if indoor plumbing is a luxury up there. :biggrin:


Wow your right... I kinda went off on a tangent there? Sorry bout that.. Not sure what point I was trying to make. I think I meant to bring it all back together but didn't put the conclusion in... :huh: I gotta say that about my own post on this one.

Been a long day...

I think what I meant to say is that 60 acres and a house would indeed be a stretch for alot of guys in ND. That is likely a $500,000 investment minimum which does indeed put it out of most guys reach making ND wages and having other bills too...


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> I have to agree once with djleye, this guy is a real tool!!!!!!!!


'Bout time you come to your senses!!!!! :wink:


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

BUY the 60 acres! IF we look at how it was presented. First the house wasn't mentioned. He said he was going to buy 60 acres for him and his friends to hunt on. It sounded like he was a little upset over the leasing issue and was just going to buy land and hunt it. MY first thought is that 60 acres isn't much to hunt especially when you start inviting friends. But since there is a house and such go for it, good investment.

Now for the rest of us, We just spent how long arguing over nothing. Did it get us any closer to a solution to the problem before us? No. If the sportsman of ND don't come up with a plan of action what's going to happen? It comes down to do you want to hunt or not? We can sit here and nit pick someones post and argue over things that don't really matter in life, but we can't seem to piece together a plan for the future of hunting in ND. Just the truth.


----------



## Rick Acker (Sep 26, 2002)

My comment about "not buying hunting land" was not directed towards desert boy. I'm referring to the average North Dakota hunter like myself that has a dream to buy a quarter or say 1/2 section of hunting land. Some quarter sections of land that I've seen priced in the area I hunt are over 200,000.00 dollars. Do the math. You could fee hunt 30 days a year or so and it would not add up to that price after taxes, specials, etc. Am, I saying that buying land is not a good investment. Absolutly not. But, to have an extra quarter of million dollars lying around to buy land, I would say is deep pockets for this state. By the way, 60 acres may buy you some land to put a house on, but sure is hell ain't enough land to hunt on in my book. A quarter of a section of land isn't enough.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Angus

I like your idea of a habitat stamp and in all reality it is probably going to need to come to that along with other measures to keep access available to the hunters that do not or are afraid to ask for permission to hunt.

My feeling is that even if the idea of community PLOTS does develop into a workable plan, and I am somewhat skeptical of the legislature or NDGF embracing any type of fee increase, some landowners that are currently enrolled in the PLOTS program will see the discrepancy and want to have increased payments on their enrolled ground. The habitat stamp idea has the potential to increase that payment. Just a little rough math; if the state sells 107,000 habitat licenses (that is amount sold in 2006), if the habitat stamp cost increase is $8.00 for each license that would amount to $856,000 dollars and raise the cost for the general game and habitat license to $21.00. If the average price paid for plots is $3.00 per acre and we have a million acres the cash outlay is 3 million dollars the increase would be a $1.16 per acre up to $4.16 that is still below the tax assessment of most land that I know of. If we want to raise the payment to landowners to the 6 to 8 dollar range the price increase for the habitat license would have to be in the 40 to 60 dollar range putting the cost of the general game and habitat license at $73.00 at the high end. And at that point I am afraid we may be pricing out some of the hunting public. There has to be some real incentive to some landowners if we are going to expect them to set aside their prime habitat land for our recreation instead of leasing it out to other hunting/business interests, others will enroll land simply because they have a different philosophy.

(math is for example only I am not sure yet what the average payment to landowners is I am still checking into it)

So in my view of the issue there has to be a little for the public sector and a little from the private sector in order to maintain or even increase the amount of accessible land to keep up with the hunting pressure we now have in ND. Another question will be very important as well. Will an increase in accessible acres exponentially increase the hunting pressure on publicly accessible land?

I envision this possibly set up as a volunteer habitat advisory board to work in conjunction with the legislature and NDGF to assist the NDGF so the management of the program so it is not all dumped on NDGF. I also envision the possibility of having signs with major donators names listed on them as a means of thanking them for their donation and as a means of advertising their business

I am currently in the process of drafting a proposal to submit that includes a moderate habitat stamp increase and the Community PLOTS ideas to work in a symbiotic relationship. Once I have covered all of the pros and cons of the program I will do a final version and present it to some of the States decision makers. Anyone with other ideas feel free to post up thoughts and suggestions.

This will be a tough sell and without wide spread support of landowners, sportsmen and the groups they belong to it will not have a chance.

Regards

Bob


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob....

I just have one question. How can Out of state organizations help out? Because isn't their a law in place that does not allow Non-profit groups (DU, Delta, etc) that are not in-state to purchase land or manage land?

I am still confused on how all that works. Didn't the governor vetoed or kept DU from buying some land?

Because DU (please don't start to bash them) campaign in the last couple of years has been to do work in the Dakota's. Access/habitat should be right up this campaign's alley.


----------



## DelSnavely (Oct 17, 2007)

We need to make the land owners use "Special" tags and license for their out of state hunters who lease their land. They should also be audited to make sure they pay TAXES on ALL their income. Maybe this would meen putting together a special Warden to check their books and land. That way the "Special License" hunters would NOT BE ALLOWED to hunt ANY land eccept the land they leased. As it is now, out of state hunters can hunt on ND "Public" land after the first week. That way they can drive all the pheasants off the land owner's property and then go hunt them on our public land. That should not be. Once you lease land THAT'S ALL YOU CAN HUNT, PERIOD! Also make the land owners who lease land actually TAKE CARE OF THE ANIMALS! If you're going to SELL a hunt, they should be made to plant Food Plots and MANAGE the animals on their property. It won't seem like such a "great deal" when they have to put all that money BACK into managing those animals. We won't have to worry about "Out of Staters" hunting OUR public land AT ALL and they ALL will have to be AUDITED each year to keep them in line.

That's the only way we will be able to keep our "Public" land safe for ND hunters. Since we're loosing a lot of public areas anyway.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to make ALL CRP "Public ND Land" also since it's the GOVERNMENT and therefor YOU and ME, who PAY the owners to do NOTHING with that land.

JMHO...


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Realistically, could it ever be made illegal to lease land for hunting? The management is done by a government agency on behalf of the public. In essence they're selling access to a resource that we all paid for. I feel like they're using the keg-party argument: "I'm not selling you beer, I'm selling cups!" That argument doesn't stop the guy who throws a kegger from facing charges for distribution because everybody knows that the reason to buy the cup is because there's beer. The reason to hunt the land is because of the wildlife... not because I enjoy going for walks through waist-high grass or cat-tails over my head. I don't want to force people to open all of their land... I'm not some sort of commie. However, I want to make sure that people aren't selling access to something that, in a sense, we all already paid for.

Are there any organizations devoted to getting a ban on leasing hunting land? I think I'd donate more to that cause than just about any other.

Can you get this sort of thing on a statewide ballot with a petition? My personal opinion about the state legislature is that farmers make up a disproportionately large percentage of the body, and farmers either see this as an extra source of revenue or not a problem, because they have all the land they could ever hunt.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Del....

Resident Hunters Lease land too.....so should they be under this idea that you are presenting?


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Has anybody ever kicked aroung the idea of making the gratis licenses unitwide in exchange for a public access easement. It might open up some acres. The gratis tags come off the top anyway, and if it opened some ground up what would it hurt.

I also think that creating a new land classification (ie. recreational) for taxable value purposes would go a long way too. It would relieve some of the tax burden from ag land that is being overly valued because of what some entities are willing to pay for hunting land in the same district.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

DelSnavely said:


> It wouldn't be a bad idea to make ALL CRP "Public ND Land" also since it's the GOVERNMENT and therefor YOU and ME, who PAY the owners to do NOTHING with that land.


The problem I see with this is that CRP is generally nowhere near what people can get for rent. In essence, the land owners are paying an "opportunity cost" every year that they don't rent the land. A prime example would be my wife's family: they all know that they could be making more money if a lot of the land wasn't in CRP, but there are a lot of family members who hunt it. If they couldn't be assured that they'd have exclusive access to the land, there's no way it would remain in CRP. Personally, I don't want to run the risk of losing even more CRP acres.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

"Nothing" is a bit of an overstatement, "Minimal" might be better as there are still weed control issues in CRP ground. The chemical and diesel costs if you spray can really mount up. Couple that with taxes and there really isnt much profit for a guy at $35 flat.


----------



## DelSnavely (Oct 17, 2007)

Maybe the CRP thing won't work, but I do believe in making those who "lease" land ONLY able to hunt the land they lease. If you're from ND and lease the land you want to hunt, you GIVE UP the abbility to hunt PUBLIC land! As a ND resident, public land is open to you. If you want to buy a "Special" license for a leased property, then that is your tag for the year. The next thing you know, they will be leasing "Public" land to gain revinue for the state. You get one license for the year, PUBLIC or NOT! If you "ask" to hunt private land and are given "written permission", "without paying" then you would still have your "regular" license. It would be hard to keep track of, but the only ones who get a regular license are ND state residents anyway. Still, it should ALL be recorded and subject to an audit by the G&F Dept.

That's the way I see it.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

We talk about how a cap would hurt economically, but what about a graduated pricing scheme where the licenses go up in price as more of them are sold? The rich guy's always going to be able to afford it, and if you buy in early, it would still be affordable for most people. You could tweak the pricing equation to get you maximum profit while lowering the pressure by whatever amount is deemed necessary.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Del,

I like that. I suppose you could enforce it by running stings... not that I like stings, but people would definitely be taking money under the table otherwise.


----------



## DelSnavely (Oct 17, 2007)

omegax said:


> Del,
> 
> I like that. I suppose you could enforce it by running stings... not that I like stings, but people would definitely be taking money under the table otherwise.


It wouldn't be as difficult if the "Permission Slips" had to be "Notorized" and recorded with the F&G as well.


----------



## DelSnavely (Oct 17, 2007)

Oh and there are instructions on starting a "Voter Initiative" in ND on my web site. http://www.myspace.com/medcanassnd in the Blogs.

Are we going to sit back and do nothing?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> Bob....
> 
> I just have one question. How can Out of state organizations help out? Because isn't their a law in place that does not allow Non-profit groups (DU, Delta, etc) that are not in-state to purchase land or manage land?
> 
> ...


Chuck

The donations would be cash not land, there is no provision of law that I know of that would prevent any organization from raising funds and donating it to whomever they wish. My thought would be to create a vehicle to accept the donations with no strings attached for control of or management of the land enrolled.

A seperate (different colored license) was discussed in the past at length. the problem is logistics and the willingness of the legislature to accept this as a proposal for a new regulation. NDGF currently is pushing for more and more internet licensing, currently it is a significant portion of all licenses sold in ND. How do we have/force them print out a different colored license and how could it be enforced. Other problems would be to have the administrative ability to know of all land lease transactions statewide and who the parties involved in the transaction are.

the gratis issue was brought up last legislative session and it did not go anywhere and creating a new land classification was made very difficult becuause of the current laws on the books for land that is sold contract for deed. there is no requirement in ND to record this transaction until the contract is satisfied. There was no interest in opening a can of worms to revamp the land recording process in ND last legislative session.

Chuck

I forgot to answer your question about Non Profit land ownership. Yes ND has a law regulating ownership of land by NP orgainzations. There is a board in place to review and approve/reject any applications for NP land conservation. This would not be a land purchase scenario it would be another level of PLOTS and if a percentage ofthe money raised for the program (yet to be determined) was from nonresident hunters the land would be open to NR hunters the first week of the season where it is now restricted.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob...

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now I just want to get a grasp on what you are talking about. YOu are talking about starting another access program. Where a stamp will be produced and that money goes towards the program. Then you want private individuals, business, non-profit groups or what ever to donate or match funds type thing. So it will be state (stamp) and private (others) funded program to kick in some extra $$$ to the land owners to grant access.

Am I correct so far.

Now do you want the private donations to be broken up into In-state funds and Out-state funds?

Because my question is if a group like DU, Delta, PF, whitetail groups etc. donates which category would they fall into (in state or out state)? Because they get funds from all over the country.

Also to let you know......I have been stating this issue ever since I have been on this site. I have talked about creating another stamp/fee to generate revenue for habitat, enforcement, and access. I know many NR's would whole heartedly agree and pay or donate.

Chuck


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Chuck

community PLOTS is already or was a program in ND it just never got off of the ground. It was designed as a way to get communities to take some ownership in getting hunters to their area. Only one parcel was ever created. It is a very nice piece of ground BTW.

what I am proposing is instead of having the community do all of the fundraising to get the land into the program that the program be revised to allow urban centers, sportsmans clubs etc. to help with fundraising and donate the funds raised to a community interested in getting into the program. I am sure that if a national organization at the national level donated funds they would certainly be able to count as a NR contribution thereby opening the land for the first week to NR hunters at least in my mind that is how it should work. It is not intended to replace the current PLOTS program it is intended to be (IMO ONLY) a workable version of another level of the existing PLOTS program

These are just ideas and so far nothing has been proposed and it is going to take a lot of organization and discussion to get a workable plan that the Legislature and NDGF could put their arms around. It may never work. You and I have had several discussions on how to get something like this going in MN.

The habitat stamp idea would be incorporated to provide additional funds to those already enrolled into the PLOTS program, possibly as an incentive to enhance their property to create better habitat. Similar to CRP where different land classifications receive different rates of payment.

Clear as mud?

Bob


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I am starting to get it.....

You would like to see gun clubs, sportsman's clubs, etc. in Fargo/Bismark/Grand Forks or other towns to donate some money to Community PLOTS program. Instead of a Community PLOTS is would be kind of a ND Sportsman's PLOTS made up of money donated by sportsmen, bigger city communities, etc. and have nothing to do with the current Plots fee charged on the license.

Then have an addition stamp to help fund the two programs with it being optional to purchase? Or is the stamp a total different monster.

Sorry for all the questions.....just trying to get a grasp on everything. Because as a NR i am willing to donate or help out.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

No option to purchase, that would be a big fight with the farming community. The additional stamp fee would be for PLOTS contracts that already are in place to increase the payment to the landowners.

I would also include urban/rural businesses and individuals in the mix for donations, not just clubs and sportsmans organizations.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

That is a great plan. I also bet that if one of those "New" community plots goes up in an area that is frequented by many NR's you could put a donation box or something like that in the local establishments and many NR's would contribute.

The stamp idea is great.....but if you charge everyone that extra fee. Everyone should have equal access. No first week for R and the open it up to everyone.

Again I compare that to if you go to a local high school football game and charge everyone $5 but you make the opposing team's fans sit outside the stadium for the first quarter of the game. I don't want to get into a huge argument that is just one thing I don't agree with the current PLOTS situation, but I deal with it.

But lets just say if you make a special stamp the NR could buy to be able to hunt PLOTS for the first week. Make that cost and extra $10 or what ever. Kind of like an early goose stamp. Then every NR that purchases this stamp could hunt PLOTS that first week. This would generate some extra income with out effecting any R license price. This is just an idea.

Because they can already hunt in the state but just not PLOTS land. So enforcement would be the same.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

I'm going to play "Devil's Advocate" here....

That's an insult to ask me to pay an additional $10 to be able to hunt land that I already contibuted to pay for.

I'm heading out to referee a playoff Volleyball game. I'll get back online when I get home.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ref I agree. But to ask a NR to buy another stamp and not be able to hunt is also an insult.

Like I stated I really don't care for the current PLOTS regulation now. It is like my example I stated in the previous post about the HS football game. But I deal with it.

Also like I stated make it optional. So if a NR wants to hunt PLOTS that early week they need to pay extra. Like an early access stamp.

I am gone for the day....got to go coach youth football.

Hope not too much hostility comes my way... :lol:


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

Chuck,

Be nice to the refs..... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Great topic guys I like what I hear Del, Bob K, Angus I like what you guys have to say. I think the most important thing is to keep this going. I haven't posted here in a while mostly becasue I noticed alot of bickering and not alot of ideas for solutions. I can't honestly predict a rosy/perfect world outcome for us freelance hunters but I know without a doubt if we do nothing???? good nite its over.

No offense Bob but I don't think getting the right information in the hands of descision makers is enough we need to become the descision makers. I think things are going to get crazy enough that a sportsman based platform could get some people elected, some might laugh but if farmers could do it in ND, sportsmen could!

I understand most sides of the debate. some farmers struggle and need every cent, I complain about buying 30 gallons of fuel imagine buying 3000! It would be awfully hard for me to say "no" to someone who offered me $1500 for exclusive rights to watch birds in my back yard?

I hope landowners understand alot of people have stayed in this community/ND because of the outdoor oppurtunities and put up with making next to nothing to do so. How can somone making $9/hr pay for access to birds?

One thing I totally disagree with is using state tax dollars to advertise or promote such things as pheasant hunting when pressure is getting out of hand. The very people paying for the promotion, ND taxpayers, are the ones being pushed out. hunting is not a form of econimic development either, any economist will tell you the ony way to creat wealth is to creat something from resources, ie manufacture. Using tax dollars to create an economic oppurtunity for a few while excluding others is just plain wrong, but so is the the way of the world I geuss?

I think leasing outfits need to be given tags/licenses to be administered by the land owner/lease co. All hunters who lease land would have to follow the usuall state laws of course. If landowners want to profit from managing wild game (property of ND R's) on private land or managing access to it they should bare the burden/exspense of such a business. It would be easier to tax as all legal income should be. The number of tags/licenses to be adminstered by a landowner could be determined by G and F depending on the acres in question.

I'm not sure if its the right idea but Non R's could hunt all the private land they wanted, maybe they couldn't hunt public land? Maybe nonR's could have the option of just paying for thier tags on private land and then if they want to hunt public land that is a seperate license if they want it for an extra $100.00 I as a resident don't mind paying extra for a license to help something like plots. Some of you might laugh at that but if things continue as they are ??? its only a matter of time before public land becomes real tight! I had a nightmare in which I branded my duck decoys with my initials as if they were cattle so not to mix them up with the 3 other parties hunting the same half acre slough!

TC


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> . hunting is not a form of econimic development either, any economist will tell you the ony way to creat wealth is to creat something from resources, ie manufacture. Using tax dollars to create an economic oppurtunity for a few while excluding others is just plain wrong, but so is the the way of the world I geuss?


Hunting may not be a form of economic development but tourism is huge!!!!



> I'm not sure if its the right idea but Non R's could hunt all the private land they wanted, maybe they couldn't hunt public land?


I would love to see how the residents of ND will finance things with out the help of the NR


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

The beginning of the end occurred in the mid/late 90's, when demand for quality ND hunting opportunities began to outstrip supply. All of the rest (buying, leasing, increased o/g, increased posting, the need for PLOTS, etc) are just very predictable manifestations of that imbalance. Supply is relatively fixed and only artificially curtailing demand will return equilibrium. It's really that simple.

Nothing earth shattering about this new business venture - just one more step along the commercialization path that started several years ago.

Did anyone else find it ironic that this piece appeared on the same page where the topic of Doug's column was the need to recruit youth hunters? Damn hard to recruit youth hunters in the face of commercialization.


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

In my opinion, if the leasing thing takes over in ND it may hurt the farmers working the land more than help them. the amount of money they get for leasing may not be worth the loss of support of the voting hunters. At this point alot of the voting public hunt, they appreciate and support the farmers because they own the land they hunt on. If they lose that resource quite honestly they're not going to worry that much about the farmer. Considering the majority of the voting public live in cities they have more votes to cast for the legislators that see things their way, which may not favor the farmer as much as in the past and present. I can see things from both points of view as I grew up on the farm and was not able to stay on it, leasing the land for hunting would not have changed that. I still own land and don't post it. I think the farmer and sportsman need to realize they depend on each other to an extent that they can both affect each others lives significantly, both good and bad.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I have been doing a little research. A few years ago some of us worked pretty hard with the legislature, the ND Professional Guides and Outfitters Association and States Attorney's to modify the rules and regs for the Guides and Outfitters in ND

Here is the current Century Code version for qualifications of ND outfitters;

*20.1-03-37. Guides and outfitters license qualifications.*

1. An individual who is eighteen years of age or more may apply for a guide or outfitter license.

2. An applicant for a hunting guide license and an outfitter acting as a guide shall provide the director proof that the individual is certified in adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation or its equivalent and in standard or first aid or its equivalent.

3. An applicant for a hunting outfitter or fishing outfitter license shall provide to the director proof that the individual and the individual's business operation are covered by general liability insurance against loss or expense due to accident or injury from outfitting services, at a minimum of one hundred thousand dollars per individual and three hundred thousand dollars per accident.

4. An individual must hold a hunting guide license for two years to be eligible to apply for a hunting outfitter license unless that individual provides proof to the department that the individual has been exempt under subsection 4 of section 20.1-03-36.1 and has been conducting outfitter or guide service as an exempt individual for at least two years.

5. The director may not issue a license to an individual who has been convicted of a state or federal criminal game or fish violation in the last three years or whose license to hunt or fish is under suspension or revocation. As used in this chapter, "conviction" means a finding of guilt, a guilty plea, a plea of no contest, a plea of nolo contendere, a judgment of conviction even though the court suspended execution of a sentence in accordance with subsection 3 of section 12.1-32-02, or a deferred imposition of sentence in accordance with subsection 4 of section 12.1-32-02 or an equivalent statute. The term does not include a finding of guilt which is reversed on appeal.

6. If an application is for a business association, the applicant must be an agent of the association to be held personally responsible for the conduct of the licensed outfitter's operations, in addition to the association, and the applicant must be actively and regularly employed in and responsible for the management, supervision, and operation of the outfitting business. The department may only issue an outfitter license to a business applicant if the applicant is qualified to conduct the business of outfitting. 
_*A corporation or association may qualify for an outfitter license if a majority of stock is owned by licensed outfitters in good standing or landowners who own agricultural land used for the outfitting business, or if a limited liability company, the majority membership interest is owned by licensed outfitters in good standing or by landowners who own agricultural land used for the outfitting business.*_ _*If a business entity owns, is a leaseholder in land, or provides compensation for the use of land, and directly or indirectly receives remuneration from hunting on that land, the business entity must be licensed under this title unless exempt under subsection 4 of section 20.1-03-36.1. *__*A business entity may not conduct business operations through a subsidiary, contractor, or an agent that would permit the business entity to avoid this chapter. This section does not authorize any act or transaction prohibited by any other law of this state.*_
7. An applicant for a hunting guide or hunting outfitter license must have legally hunted in this state for part of each of any three years in a manner directly contributing to the individual's experience and competency as a guide. The department may waive this requirement if the applicant proves that the applicant has legally hunted for parts of at least three years in other states and an outfitter employing that individual would suffer an undue hardship without that individual.
..........................................................................................................
The exemption listed in the law is for landowners who guide or outfit hunters on land they own.

So if I am reading this correctly he needs to be a licensed outfitter to provide this service in ND and a simple check with the NDGF has shown that he is *not *currently a licensed ND outfitting business.

Bob


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

How so? If someone calls me and asks for a place to hunt and I put them in contact with the land owner does that make me a guide or outfitter? Seems from what I read of his site he is nothing more than a listing service that takes bids for land owners that want to lease their land. He's not outfitting or guiding anyone so why does he need a Guide and outfitters license?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ND Century Code definition of an Outfitter.

"Outfitter" means a person that holds the person's business operation out to the public for hire or consideration; provides facilities or services for consideration; maintains, leases, or otherwise provides compensation for the use of land and which receives compensation from a third party for use of that land; or otherwise uses equipment or accommodations for consideration for the conduct of outdoor recreational activities, including hunting animals or birds and fishing on lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams. An outfitter may act as a guide. The term does not include a person holding title or an equitable interest in business operations if the
purpose of the business operation is to provide food or lodging to the general public, chamber of commerce activities, travel agencies, or others that offer free information to attract outdoor and recreational use of their communities.
...........................................................................................................

You are correct if he is providing this service free of charge. If he is not he fits into the Outfitter description.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

> I think the farmer and sportsman need to realize they depend on each other to an extent that they can both affect each others lives significantly, both good and bad.


 Daren99

Now that is the quote of the day! :beer:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Let me play devils advocate here for a moment with what you wrote.

"Outfitter" means a person that holds the person's business operation out to the public for hire or consideration;"

The land owner would be in the business of farming or a ranch operation. Would leasing access to his property be considered his business operation?

"provides facilities or services for consideration; maintains, leases, or otherwise provides compensation for the use of land" 

Where would he fall into the above? No facilities provided by himself, maintains no property or leases and certainly doesn't provide compensation himself.

"and which receives compensation from a third party for use of that land;"

If he is paid by the land owner then it is not directly from a third party to him is it?

"or otherwise uses equipment or accommodations for consideration for the conduct of outdoor recreational activities, including hunting animals or birds and fishing on lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams."

If the land owner is providing nothing more than access permission then the above does not apply does it?

Just throwing out some thoughts as to why he just may be legal in what he is doing. If I thought someone was breaking the law I'd notify the authorities. Has that been done?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

cwo, Here is the key words here "compensation". Example, last spring I had a bunch of nice young guys from this site staying at my place and hunting geese. I helped them by finding some geese and helped with them securing permission. This was not on land I owned or leased for ag purposes so there fore I need to be licensed because i was receiving compensation. Even though I did not "guide" them per se


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Okay, I can understand that and I'm just asking questions to get a better understanding. But my thought process is had you received compensation from the hunters it would have been from a third party as identified in the law. However if the land owner had paid you would that still apply as a third party, especially if the land owner had a listing service agreement with you and would actually have been your only direct customer? See what I'm getting at. Where am I going wrong in that thinking?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> If I thought someone was breaking the law I'd notify the authorities. Has that been done?


Yes


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

cwo, I understand your question and it is a good one. If I am understanding you correctly, if I worked for the rancher and guided on his land would I need a license. I would say no as long as you were on his land and his land only. It would be just my opinion, you would need to contact the game and fish to make sure. I have a licensed shooting preserve and if I have people guiding on those acres they do not need to be licensed.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> I have a licensed shooting preserve and if I have people guiding on those acres they do not need to be licensed.


That's interesting and brings up another fuzzy point. If a land owner hires someone to advertise for them and is paying that agent directly then that agent could possible be considered a employee of the land owner. Now my curiosity is peaked as to the results of this.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I've just sat back for the past 5 days or so and watched the debate on this subject. I have found it very interesting on how we get side tracked and start splitting hairs. We are now trying to define "outiftter" , "compensation" , the issue of resident, non-resident and so on. Deer season starts in a week, we will then read on this site or some other about all the posted signs and access problem it happens every year, but what have we done about it in the past week ? or even year? This problem will not be fixed overnight that I know but this problem didn't show up overnight either, and time is marching on.

As Bob K. said " this is about hunters and hunting and trying to find a way to keep land access availble and afforable. " :-?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Hey Guys

I like the original direction of posts on this thread until recently (when this thread started going down the R/NR toilet again)... so in order to keep this thread focused on the original post, I split off some posts and put them into their own thread here:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... 328#352328

I tried only removing the relevent ones to that side topic... hopefully you'll agree..

Thanks

Ryan


----------

