# Residents take on Dan's suggestions



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Sorry if this offends you Dan,I can't hold back any longer... I think if you don't want us to make any comments on your suggestions...I think we should start a new thread for res. to be able to comment on them....

To use Dan's phrase...NON-residents please stay out of this one - let's see what the residents have to say about these suggestions....

1. One or more closed shooting days on the weekends.

2. One or more closed shooting days during the week.

3. Closed shooting hours, e.g. can't hunt after noon.

4. Shorten the current allowed hunting periods (i.e. the 10 days/license for upland and the 14 days total for waterfowl).

5. More zones - have to stay in them.

6. More zones - can only spend so much time in any one of them.

7. Caps, without any of the other stuff above, even if it meant possibly someday you couldn't hunt ND every year.

8. Higher license fees to the point that it would discourage a material number of people from coming.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

So...here goes...I think the best would be some kind of combination of 5,6,and 7.If that were accomplished,there would be no need for the others.

We need zones ...with a cap for each specific zone.The cap should be flexible to mirror the habitat conditions....2048 based.If the GNF can do it for deer hunters...they can do it for waterfowl and upland also.Plus...Outfitters must not be allowed to get a specific allotment of the lottery licenses.

This would accomplish a number of things...

1.It would spread out the hunting pressure.
2.It would stop non-res. from buying land just for hunting...no guarantee to be able to hunt it.
3.It would spread out the economic benefit to all of rural ND

In my mind NR have no legimate complaints against being forced to pick a zone...ALL RESIDENT DEER RIFLE HUNTERS MUST DO THIS...AND THERE ARE 80,000 OF US WITH 31 ZONES.If I'm driving down the road that is a zone boundary...and there is a dandy buck on the wrong side...i do not shoot it.


----------



## Dean Nelson (Mar 3, 2002)

I would like to see No 3 put into place.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I think the best options are 5,6, and 7. I think placing more zones that you have to stay in and adding caps on the number of licenses available the first 2-3 weeks of the season with an overall cap would be the best way to go about reducing pressure and keeping the locally raised birds in state longer.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

7, and then 6 and 5 in order of importance.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

7 6 5 3

I'd be curious why any Resident would not be in favor of these ???
& lets discuss what could be done, to make it work for them ???

Plus totally separate these by Upland & Waterfowl & none of these should affect Residents that live here

It would be easy to do & makes the most sense - Don't like it - Move here

Find a way to tax G/O so as not to want to lease so much land & make $$$ off our resources & the rich be able to get all the better places

Also have a Cap on how many G/O the State needs - Only less than 5 % use them - why do we need so many ???--- They have tried to use misleading info & anger & frustration (of NR's) & mis-informed small towns & businesses. They have used politicians - to try & get things to go their way, so that % that will pay has to go higher - But I think ND residents are finally on to them - Hopefully the politicians figure this out & do their part to not sell out, what makes ND so special & unique from other states ---

What we have should be protected, or else a greedy few will ruin it faster than most can imagine - then what will we have ??? :eyeroll: More people trying to get the heck out of here.

Imagine if Residents (license) buyers could bring back relatives, or have a way to sponsor, or give friends a preference in a lottery, to be able to come hunt here --- everyone would want to stay here, or live here - It would be an incentive to live here, or have relatives or friends that live here ??? It could be a positive - that would get National attention.

I predict having resources & laws favorable to Residents of ND in outdoor related industry & tourism, will soon be the biggest thing we will have to bring in the kinds of people we want to live in ND - especially if the State & politicians ever learn this & do the right things to protect manage & promote it.

With how we are getting older (Baby Boomer's) - we all will be looking for places to retire - that are affordable & have things we want to do, that are affordable & condusive to retirees. ---Just think of the possibilities if we would invest in & plan for this (make it happen) -Even use the talented Educated people that are leaving (or have already left)- the Boom to small towns would be fabulous --- Look at Lakota, as an example - (on the right track) - New Nursing center - newer community center - Transportation - add things Seniors want & like - trips & travel - casinos - healthcare - affordable housing - home healthcare - meals on wheels - shopping & small town living, that has these services, is going to be in demand - even many that moved away because of weather, have returned or want too - for the quality of life & people --- Well lets not spoil one of the biggest attractions our State has - hunting & fishing & find other ways to make ND a affordable, safe, retirement destination - thats where the future is (Not to even mention the jobs & services that will go along with this) :roll:

Not just a place to visit for a couple weeks a year & wish you could get out of :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=+effec ... fl=0&x=wrt


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

One other thing....these restrictions should apply to Non-res. only.

Residents always come first.


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

If I had to choose, I'd go with 8, 6 and/or 3.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

I would have to go with 7-5-3. Don't force the common man out. Just limit how many come in!


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

I like 4,5 and 6. I've always been a big advocate of zones. Used to be that the zones were meaningful. There were about 7 of them. Then they got bigger and bigger until they meaningless, until last year. I liked them last year but they should have been more extensive. I mean, no zones around Devils Lake, what a joke. I think #4 is critical. Always have. If nr's could waterfowl hunt all season long, a LOT more of them would buy/lease land. This is huge and must be protected.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

I would want 7,6,5 and issue their licenses in a weighted lottery like our deer licenses.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

5, 6, 7. CAP THE NUMBERS PER ZONE. And CAP them based on HPC.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

TIME OUT! :******: 
Wasn't there alot of whinning about PRESSURE??? The birds do not have any TIME or a place to rest. And since I am even older than twice most of your age I remember when we used to stop hunting geese at noon or 1 pm. This allows them (the geese) a chance to get comfortable for a while, allows you (the hunter) a chance to make some new friends. Fix fence, haul bales, play cards etc. Therefore Number 3 needs to be on the top of every ones list oke: : Resident and Non-resident alike. :withstupid: Some of you need to check your list again :beer:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Is a half day hunt subtracted as a full day hunt against the total number of days that can be hunted?

I like it the way it is now, why change it. Two days a week are all day and the other five are half days.

Maybe change duck hunting hours to match goose hunting hours.

Get rid of them all but # 3


----------



## rifleman (Jan 22, 2004)

I'd go for a combination of 5,6, and 7 based on what the biology says the resource can handle. We have to stop treating the waterfowl resource as some sort of commodity that just automatically is available in ever increasing numbers every year.

When you vote, keep in mind how enforcable any new regulations would be, wardens are spread pretty thin already. Also, we're talking waterfowl, not just ducks or just geese. I think most of the controversy is over duck hunting, not goose hunting.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

SOB's need killing remember - Were saving the Tundra - Plus if they ever have a crash & some disease gets into the flock they could take out a lot of other waterfowl with them :roll:

Canada's are now a nuisance


----------

