# Which is more of a problem?



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

Which is more of a problem.....licensed G/O or unlicensed day use fees charged by local landowners?

In my opinion the latter is just as much or more of an issue. Maybe resources should be spent making sure those people become licensed.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Powder, if I understand you rquestion correctly, private landowners guiding on there own owned or leased property (leased for farming, not for guiding) are specifically exempted from guide and outfitter licensces. That included landowners charging single day access fees to private individuals. There is no current mechanism to measure that.


----------



## headhunter (Oct 10, 2002)

The biggest problem is COMMERCIAL guides and outfitters. Thats who will drive up the price of land. Not ma/pop outfits who just have a few hunters up on occasion.


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

Neither. It's the people that continue to pay that are the biggest problem.


----------



## MResner (Mar 14, 2002)

Powder,

 That's sort of like having two grizzly bears chasing you and asking which has bigger teeth or longer claws!

Out here in the southwest, much more land is affected by the individual landowner/outfitters who charge hunters in one way or another. Those operations establish exclusivity for the relatively small percentage of hunters willing to pay the fees, and do so on many times the numbers of acres that Cannonball does.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

But without the influence of the Cannonball it may not have reached the current situation. This is a cause and effect syndrome.


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

The way to stop the ma-pa operations is to have an irs agent fee hunt on their land and view their taxes at the end of the year. I'm guessing very few claim it as income.


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

Unfortunately what it will probably take to open some of their eyes is a lawsuit. Which will probably happen in the not too distant future since that is an all too common way to do business nowadays.

A ma and pa outfit that may bring in a few hundred/thousand each year and most likely is not insured for it will be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Since they are charging they will not be exempt from liability and since they have no insurance could stand to lose everything.

They are literaly betting the farm for a little extra income.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Anyone who sells wildlife should have to register with the State Tax Dept. and the GNF.The big question will be ...are they selling actual wildlife or a service???


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Ken asked:


> The big question will be ...are they selling actual wildlife or a service???


 That is what outfitters plead, simply access.

From the mouth of Cannonball Company:


> Candrian said the Cannonball Company doesn't lease land to accommodate his hunters. Instead, the company makes agreements with landowners to hunt their land, and *the landowner is paid $17 **per **harvested bird* and keeps control of the hunting rights, Candrian said.


Follow the money. The client-customer stands there in hunting boots, hunting clothes, hunting license in his pocket, shotgun on his shoulder, decoy bag at his feet, and lab pulling on his pants leg. He isn't paying for access to look at the stars or take a nature walk. He is paying for an exclusive opportunity to harvest North Dakota's publicly owned wildlife.


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

I can't blame farmers and ranchers for taking $17 per harvested bird from Cannonball. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

The idea of having to register with the State hits on the idea that I was getting at. I don't like G/O's any more than you do and yes hunters per acre of land tied up is lower with them. But if you look at the total amount of land that is tied up by unregulated fee hunting I'm sure it's more total acreage than the G/O's have.

I'm not against a landowner making a few extra dollars. But they (we) need to make sure they are doing it legally. Paying taxes would be a start. At least the G/O's are required to be licensed, pay taxes, have insurance and are easier to be held accountable.


----------

