# NR-Law Spurs Talk



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Nonresident law spurs talk
By Mike McFeely
The Forum - 11/16/2003
Resident hunters are, for the most part, happy. Small-town business owners are, for the most part, unhappy.

That indicates the first hunting season with North Dakota's new nonresident regulations in place didn't do much to lessen the contentiousness over the issue.

"This was as good of a balance as we've ever had," North Dakota Game and Fish Department director Dean Hildebrand said.

"It was just a nightmare," said Susie White, co-owner of the Lone Steer Motel in Steele.

After a heated battle last spring, North Dakota's Legislature enacted several new laws regarding nonresident hunters.

Resident hunters prompted the changes. They felt an influx of nonresidents over the past decade put too much pressure on ducks and pheasants and made it difficult for residents to find a place to hunt, in part because of an increase in leased land and large areas controlled by guides and outfitters.

Rural business owners -- particularly those who owned hotels, restaurants and bars -- fought the changes because they believed any restrictions on nonresidents would hurt business.

Among the key regulation changes:

- Nonresidents were limited to 10 days of pheasant hunting per license, used either in one block or two five-day periods. They could purchase as many licenses as they wanted. In the past, one license was good for the entire season.

- Nonresidents could not hunt on state wildlife management areas or land enrolled in the state-controlled Private Lands Open to Sportsmen during the first week of pheasant season.

- Nonresidents were limited to 14 days of duck hunting. Seven of those days could be spent in either of two small zones in the central and southeastern parts of the state. The nonresident duck opener was one week later than the resident opener.

- Also, nonresident license fees went up substantially. Hunters who wanted to purchase licenses for both ducks and pheasants had to spend $185, up from less than $100 in previous years.

The state sold about 26,000 nonresident waterfowl licenses, said Hildebrand. That's down from the 30,000 sold in 2002 when the state imposed a cap on nonresidents.

Hildebrand said nonresidents purchased about 17,000 pheasant licenses over the Internet or telephone. Vendors around the state also sold pheasant licenses and those numbers haven't been tallied yet. About 22,000 nonresidents hunted pheasants in North Dakota last year.

"From the feedback we've received, resident hunters definitely appreciated having that first week of waterfowl hunting to themselves and the pheasant hunters liked the fact that the pressure was lighter on state land in that first week," Hildebrand said.

Mark Mazaheri of Fargo, a vocal advocate of stricter regulations on nonresidents, agreed.

"As a resident, it was nice to have less traffic on state areas in that first week of pheasant hunting. You'd see three rigs at a PLOTS area instead of 10. And the first week of duck hunting was awesome," said Mazaheri, who hunted 16 days in October. "I hunted with nonresidents and most guys understood. They didn't have any major complaints. If you talk to people who have hunted in several other states, they are more willing to accept the changes. North Dakota now is very similar to a place like South Dakota."

Mazaheri said he has landowner friends who liked the changes because they had fewer hunters asking for permission to hunt their land.

Small-town business owners in different areas of the state, however, say the changes had a negative impact.

The first-year co-owner of the Tailfeather Inn in Mott -- located in the state's prime pheasant belt -- said his business is down 75 percent from what he projected based on last year.

"This is really having a tremendous impact on Mott's economy," said Dr. Mark Wiegand, an Arizona resident. "The banker told me deposits are down 27 to 30 percent in the last two months because of the changes made."

Yvonne Peyer, owner of the 19-room Mott Motel, said her business is down, too.

"I'm way down from what it used to be," Peyer said. "I have guys from Minnesota who used to come back 10 times during the pheasant season. Now with the way the license is they can't come out that many times. &#8230; I'm full again this weekend, but some days this year I've only had four rooms filled."

Business owners in central North Dakota say nonresident waterfowl zones 1 and 2 slashed into their business.

"Last year was phenomenal. I had to get a few kids to come in and help out because one person couldn't take care of everything," said Carol Steichen of Carol's Kitchen in Tuttle. "This year was awful, just terrible. The zone thing they did, it just blew the hunters away. We really took a kick."

At the 5-room Wing Motel, co-owner Peggy Dockter said nonresidents are unsure if they'll return because the zones severely limited where and when they could hunt.

"I usually get bookings from them for the next year, but the majority said they wouldn't be coming back. With the way the zones are, they just didn't know," Dockter said. "Some of these guys have been coming here for five or six years and now they just don't know what they are going to do."

White, co-owner of the Lone Steer Motel in Steele, said she had dozens of cancellations. She said the restrictions on nonresidents hunting on state-controlled land and the waterfowl zones were the major issues.

"I was sitting down the other day thinking about it, and I came up with 15 people who have come here for years who didn't come this year," White said. "I had two good weeks when in the past we would have six good weeks. Everybody I ask is saying the same thing. It is just disheartening. It saddens me that so few people can have such an impact on so many people in our state."

Game and Fish deputy director Roger Rostvet said more than 90 percent of nonresidents hunt five days or less. He said a small percentage of hunters in zones 1 and 2 were nonresidents who own land and had their hunting severely limited by the new regulations.

The changes didn't make a difference in Devils Lake, said the city's chamber of commerce director Greg Otis. Devils Lake is a popular destination for waterfowl hunters. It was located in Zone 3, which nonresidents could hunt for the 14 days their licenses allowed.

"The word we're getting back is that everybody had a pretty good year, very similar to years past," Otis said. "There were a lot of birds and a lot of happy campers. All in all, things were good for us."

Factors besides the new regulations probably figured in to fewer nonresident hunters in some areas of the state, Hildebrand said.

The south-central and southeastern parts of North Dakota were extremely dry and many wetlands disappeared during the summer, meaning there were fewer places to hold ducks. October's extremely warm weather, followed by a blast of extremely cold weather in late October and early November was not conducive to having many ducks in the state.

And, with the southeastern and south-central areas of the state harboring a high population of pheasants, many hunters didn't need to drive to the southwest for good hunting.

"Hunters today communicate better than ever and are more mobile than ever," Hildebrand said. "If your buddy from Minneapolis hunts ducks around Ashley and doesn't have much luck, but hears there are a lot of ducks up at Devils Lake he is going to call you and say, 'Forget about coming to Ashley. I'm going up to Devils Lake. Meet me up there.'"

North Dakota is spending $10.5 million over the next three years to acquire more land accessible to the public. But Hildebrand said that can't compete with private interests that are willing to pay high prices for good hunting land.

*"I would encourage the local communities to work with landowners to try and ensure access to the land. The businesses and chambers of commerce need to help make sure hunters who are coming to their towns have a place to hunt," Hildebrand said. "The greatest attraction for nonresident hunters is that they have access to hunting land."*

Rob Drieslein, editor of the Twin Cities-based Outdoor News, said he did not hear many complaints about North Dakota's new regulations from Minnesota hunters.

"The discontent, like the ducks, has blown over for the time being," Drieslein said.

Readers can reach Forum reporter Mike McFeely at (701) 241-5580 or [email protected]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

It would have been interesting if McFeely would have asked local business about the market hunters leaseing 100,000s of acres.????? Or about the pending Farm Bureau lawsuit that is designed to shut down North Dakota hunting.??????Or how farmers feel about outragous land purchases by hunters for 5 days a year.?????? Maybe that will be in the next article.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I wish I would of thought of that :roll: 


> "I would encourage the local communities to work with landowners to try and ensure access to the land. The businesses and chambers of commerce need to help make sure hunters who are coming to their towns have a place to hunt," Hildebrand said. "The greatest attraction for nonresident hunters is that they have access to hunting land."


Seriously good article - & Yeah DL was as crowded as ever :roll:

The truth is being heard

What is sad is the Lone Steer & how they over book their motel & the mess that creates I'd never go back there again :******:


----------



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

Boy oh Boy, I think its safe to say you cant please everyone. I am happy :wink:


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

from the numbers that are shown in the article, I just can't see how all of the motel's business can be down as much as they say. There were only 4000 less waterfowl licenses sold as compared to the year before. 4000 people spread out over the entire state, and not all people come during the same week of Oct for waterfowl hunting. Pheasant hunter numbers were also down, but the total number is not yet determined because they don't have a total of the licenses sold by venders yet. Just doesn't seem like there was that big of a difference.


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

I guess what was in my mind reading the article is that most of the land out West is fee hunting right? Now when you stop to consider that there are more birds showing up in the Eastern part of the state then why drive all the way out to Mott when I can hunt birds by Jamestown?? There is also a lot more land access. Yet somehow some people can't figure out that access will bring more people. I guess you reap what you sew huh?? The other part is on the waterfowl and I really don't know how to feel about that when you are a business owner in an area that has been zoned. I guess I'll do a little more reading on that....


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

I hunted for a week in zone 1-what a mistake. One side of Hwy 3 I could hunt, the other side just stare. Businesses in this area are highly irritated and are passing petitions around to change it.

The zones seriously messed my hunt up. I normally don't hunt in that area but changed my mind due to the better water conditions in that area. I saw very few other hunters.

Zones are counterproductive to a good hunt. I say get rid of all zones and let business people from different towns compete with each other for the hunters. This will force towns to establish relationships with landowners, etc. If you don't have access, ya don't have hunters. Cap the number of nr hunters based on HPC but also throw in another variable: nest success. (More on this in later posts).

On the economic side of this equation I would suggest that zones only hurt businesses. Why box the freelance $$ into a few counties? If the birds are not there most NRs will leave and go home. Why stick around and spend $$ on empty skies. I talked to several hunters during my trip that were doing just that; packing up and going home early.

What the business owners don't understand is how a duck is raised and what it really takes to produce large amounts of ducks. They don't grow on trees and if they want to encourage hunters to come and shoot ducks then they need to shoulder some responsibility to provide them.

The real question is how to combat the reality of the above mentioned article. All the business owners sees is ducks and many are not serious duck hunters and do not understand the resource side of the equation vs the restrictions on nr duckers.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Dakota, I think you are missing the point. The reason zones were created was to try to spread out the non-resident hunters so they don't all go to one area to hunt which would results in too much hunting pressure on birds and the limited access. Lets face it, we have never had better water conditions than we have had since it started to rain in the early 90's. I'm afraid that the only direction the duck hunting is going to go is down without a lot of snowpack and rain to replenish the water. Our expectations are too high and we are spoiled with sucess from this wet cycle. If the amount of water continues to decrease the numbers of waterfowl hunters will be proportional to the decrease in water. The success of the hunters determines the demand. If the hunting is good people are willing to pay for the chance to harvest the resource. If the hunting is poor people will not be willing to pay for a chance at the resource. I don't think that caps and zones are the reason for the demise of certain towns. Any change in the number of waterfowl hunters is weather related. If hunters come and have success people will be willing to pay the fees associated with the opportunity to hunt. It is too easy to point the fingers at caps and zones. I would like to think that those that are actually concerned about our state and our resources would be willing to support us when the times are good and the times are not so good. If they are not willing to do that then they are in it for selfish reasons. Please remember that all the fees go to the best Game and Fish Dept. you can find and much of that money goes to habitat and access. Everybody supports a winner but if things aren't going so good you find out who your true supporters are! If the quality of water conditions continues to decrease the waterfowl hunting will go down and the number of hunters both resident and non-resident will go down. We may have seen the peak of all waterfowl hunting and this may the peak of a business cycle for those that rely on this resource as a source of income. It is totally unfair to point the finger at the Game and Fish Dept or our legislature. It is a great compromise for all parties involved with the resource. All parties have had to give up a little over the years and it is a very fair compromise. When people think they are the only ones to be victimized by a compromise they are in it for selfish reasons.


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

It appears every one is ready to blame the new laws for the decrease in business...again the topic drove Ed's show on KFGO, he was in out in Mott. He reported business is down and specifically blamed the day restriction on NR upland hunters...He had a guest on last week that stated the regulations caused the low numbers.

Is it just me or are they unwilling to see the whole picture, or just want no compromise??? Here was my take: Upland hunters are down, OK lets figure out why.
New regs---alot of border hunters made multiple trips in the past years many did not want to buy multiple licenses as dictated by the new regs, or didn't want to lock in to the day periods.
Land access---real or perceived, Mott is thought of as a pay-to-play area...access is limited
Statewide distribution of birds---why drive 5 hours when you can drive 2..also add waterfowl into the mix when you are in the eastern half. Mott isn't the only game in town anymore...
I'm sure there are more factors...I'm pointing out the major ones brought up.

The point is the new regs is not the only factor going on here...why is it the only one getting blamed????? New??easy target??? don't understand???
Why is it they always say new regs/resident hunter in the same breath???

You can say the same for ducks...The regs and zones did effect the numbers of duck hunters in areas...but so did land access, lack of water, warm temps and the weather change...

It will be a battle as it seems some do not want took look at the full picture of what may or may not be happening.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

A couple years ago you could find ducks everywhere. I even shot some in the badlands. This year, ducks where nonexistant in areas that were traditionally good places to hunt. Why?? No water! My favorite place to hunt ducks was completely dry this year. Some of the sloughs had already been reclaimed by the landowner, and planted on. The wet cycle is coming to an end. You can blame whoever, whatever you want. Fact is that low water levels have adversely impacted waterfowling in ND. Add lotsa waterfowl hunters, limited land access, and you have a dilemma. I just get sick and tired of people complaining about hunting in ND. If you don't like it, stay home.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

What struck me in the article is that new co-owner of the hotel in Mott is from Arizona and based his "projections" of what the hotel did last year. did he ever stop to think about three things: 1) ND residents may not want to stay at a place owned by a non resident. 2) pheasant numbers were up in much of the southern part of the state and I met at least 5 groups of non residents that would have gone to Mott but did not see the need and 3) NDGF pointed out to everyone including non residents, that over 85% of land is now posted in that area. Why go to an area where you cannot find a place to hunt? I also wonder whether tourism or business' read these sportsmen forums.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

This is a good thread.

DJ,

I agree with everything you have mentioned. I fully understand the purpose of the zones and admittingly when I was a resident and growing up there could have given a rats *** what/where they were.

The stark reality is that as long as the zones are there you will not be able to keep everyone happy. So, why have them? Two/three zones are so small that its a tough argument to suggest that they are spreading any hunters out. The DL business owners seem to be happy with the outcome of their season. I hunted NW of DL for 4 days and saw more nr hunters than I have ever seen up there.

I saw absolutely ZERO enforcement of these zones. Did not see a gamewarden in 12 days of hunting and over 2000 miles. I overheard an old guy in a cafe talk about his relatives ignoring the zones and hunting on both sides of Hwy 3. That really burned me up!

Take the zones away and let communities compete thru land access and landowner relationships. Some towns throw landowner appreciation dinners; more towns should do this. Besides by taking zones away you give rural ND one less thing to ***** about.

I have a bit of a soft spot for rural ND since I grew up there. I don't think the unfettered masses is a good idea but zones restricting access is an easy catch-all and one that will resonate with legislators. Who unfortunetly they will call to complain to and we definetly don't want them making science based decisions

Bottom line is, agree with the zones or their impact, the rural business lobby is loud and they are getting the ear of their legislators. That is hard to overcome and an answer is not easy. Unfortunetly, the perceived loss of $$$ will always resonate louder than the real reason why $$ was lost.
(weather, crops, whatever). Hell, I had one lady tell me that the flyway for ducks had now shifted east? Yea, ok....

NDJ,

You asked "why they always equate new laws with resident hunters?" Well, who pushed for a change? Thats the way the small-town b-owners view it. Resident hunters taking $$ directly out of their pocket by pushing for such changes. Agree or not, thats the perception I got this last fall.

It is unfortunate that residents have been given a bad rap by some landowners, business folks, etc. I could not believe it when I was told by not one but two landowners (60 miles apart) that I could hunt all their land as long as I was a NR! No resident hunters were allowed to hunt their land. Now that is sad but shows again there is a perception problem.

I agree with the pheasant issue and Mott. I shot pheasants NE of Harvey, and saw them in a ditch by Bisbee. They are absolutely everywhere.

This is just the reality as I saw it this fall. I'm not saying its right/wrong but am just relaying a perception that like it or not, has to be cleared-up with FACTS.

[/quote]


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

DK, I agree with you that perception is not reality, for market hunters. When concrete numbers furnished by NDSU economics surveys and biological data furnished by the professionals at NDGF are discarded by legislators who have a self interest, logic and truth do not apply. I did not hear Eddies program today from Mott, but I have to wonder if and when he will allow the other side to be heard? From the KFGO studio! DM


----------



## FACE (Mar 10, 2003)

I'd be really interested in seeing what business owners and NR's say next year if by chances weather conditons drasticaly improve to the point where waterfowl populations boom and can spread back out to more places and pheasant numbers again greatly increase, or even if the weather craps out completely and waterfowl numbers are wiped out! 
I find it very difficult to imagine that one would run a business that only counts on maybe a month and a half a year to carry it through the year! Not economically sound to me! Everyone has to realize that if there is only one or two hot spots to hunt because of weather related events people are definatly going to be discourage if they hunt in places where there are no resources. I hunted SoDak again this year and conditions where I went where not good to say the least...very dry and the pressure was very high compared to last year but none the less I had a great time! Just had to do more scouting and had to hunt a little longer but it was still hundreds of times better than any day hunting in MN! I can only imagine that NoDak would be the same. Even if the conditions don't sound to promising next year I am still thinking about making the trip to ND at least for the enjoyment of the experience. I strongly agree that the GO's definately have to have something done with them because they are the only one that I have not heard complaining about the problems you NoDakers are facing. In fact I think I hear them saying "Bring it on!"


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Brad Anderson, 
Beautifully put. I agree one hundred percent.
I love hunting in ND, if the number of animals bagged isn't quite to the limit, big deal, it is the outdoor experience that a person should be in it for anyway.

If you don't like it, don't hunt. Nobody is forcing you to go out into the field. It will open up a spot for a youngster to dicover the joys of the NORTH DAKOTA OUTDOORS.

cootkiller


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Coot killer;

You and I have had our 'outs' over the last couple years but I have to agree with you 100% on your post.

If you are going out to the field to bag a limit or its a bust, you are wrong in my eyes. Go for the love of the field, the smell of the wind with the cold snap in it and a hint of the sage you just flushed a brace from, and sharing a few moments with your/a kid and watch the excitement spread across their face, even if there are no batteries or 1 of 300 cable channels to change.

Let them find the excitement like we did when we were young.


----------

