# NR LicenseTotals?



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Does anyone know how many NR waterfowl licenses were sold this year?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Perry, here are the latetest totals. NR waterfowl 25,950. NR Small game (upland) 17,063. The upland figure includes only internet and phone sales, not local vendor sales.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Thank you, Dan.

I thought the numbers would be down.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Perry, unfortunately, they are not down. We could have used "down" this year with the much worse water conditions.

Until this year, if as a NR you wanted to hunt waterfowl in ND you had to first buy an $85 small game license, then for a $10 add-on you got a waterfowl stamp. If you were mostly an uplander, you had already paid all but $10 (excluding fed duck stamp) that would give you the opportunity to hunt waterfowl too. When you purchased a small game license, you were asked if, for $10, you would also like to keep your options open on waterfowl.

Everyone recognizes that this format likely caused some percentage of waterfowl licenses to be held by those who had no or very little intention to actually hunt waterfowl. Third hand, I heard Cannonball alone sold (via the computer in their operations) 300 waterfowl tags and shot one goose the entire Fall '02. Randy Frost, formerly of DLCC, is on record saying the number of '02 and prior licensed but not active waterfowlers was on the order of 15%. I think G&F believes it's somewhere between 10 and 15%.

With the licensing format change ($85 for each license), there is likely to be virtually no "just-in-casers" this year.

So, 85% of last years 30K cap is 25,500 and 90% is 27,000. By the time the final numbers are tallied and we get through the high plains season, we will likely end at about 26,250 total NR waterfowl licenses sold. Thus, we're right at or maybe even slightly above where we were last year for NR waterfowlers, with significantly worse water conditions than last year.

Any wonder SD filled with web feet so quickly this year and ND was by and large mallard-less for 3 weeks?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Dan...if Hunter Pressure II had passed,how many non-res. would have been allowed to come here?Can you figure that out.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Yup, Dan. I agree. I just hope that some of those "travelers from out of state" will be a little discouraged by what they found and decide not to re-up next year.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ken, HPC II, in it's pure form would have likely produced something on the order of 21K licneses. The last form of 2048 that rattled through the process and had a general support of sportspersons (the Senate version) would have produced something on the order of 27k. The very last version of 2048 that was defeated (the House version - that was not widely accepted but would have gone into conference for sandpapering), due to all of the crazy adjustments and multipliers, would have likely produced something north of 40k.

This would not have been a good year to evaluate the effectiveness of the Senate version of 2048. We were wet early and then went very, very dry. As such, even the Senate version of 2048 would have produced too many licenses. But, on the whole, over many years, the model is valid and was (and still is) the best system to match appropraite hunter numbers to expected hunting opportunities.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Even 21 K seems high to me - based on how much it dried up before hunting season happened


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Fetch, the beauty of HPC II is that it accomplished many things very well, but admittedly, probably nothing perfectly (as if anything could). The data upon which the model is based has been consistantly collected for 28 years, giving a very solid base line. Because the final critical data is collected in May, final licenese numbers could have been developed 3 months before the season, giving better lead time to make arrangements for our visitors and tourism. In fact, some of the licenses (a conservative number) could have been made available for sale say 1/1, and then more licenses issued when final numbers were known. Habitat conditions sometimes change quickly, this year being an example, and to adjust for actual habitat as of the first day of the season would not be practical.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

Very good info guys. Perry I wouldn't count on many non residents being too discouraged to return. While we found the hunting conditions much harder this year than normal, due to dry conditions, it was still better than my area has to offer. That is what keeps people returning, that and a trip to ND is like a nostalgia kind of thing. I look forward to coming up there for the other 51 weeks out of the year that I am not up there. There just aren't that many states left that have that much rural area and wide open spaces. I hear people on here talk about farmers up there farming and/or owning thousands of acres. A large family farm in Illinois now is maybe a couple hundred acres. Its just a very different thing, so I think that people are going to keep coming. I probably will not be able to make it next year, for personal reasons, but I would have otherwise.
That being said, I as a NR do agree there needs to be some type of limit to the numbers of hunters. I don't profess to be educated enought to put out what kind of number would be reasonable, but some cap with a lottery system if the numbers that apply are greater that the number available.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Gaddy,

You might be right. But, there are some who need a whole lot of shooting and easy access to be happy. This bunch could get easily discouraged by poor water conditions and low bird numbers. There was a decided downward trend in the 80s and early 90s. This will probably happen again. If it doesn't, there is going to be some real howling about NR limits.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

So if the bill had passed we would be similar anyway.

Now the big question is...was the number lower because of the dry conditions,
or because of not wanting to spend the extra $10 as before,
or because of all the new restrictions, they said the hell with it we are never going back.

probably all 3

As you say Dan...if we have a dry winter and spring...then 2048 would really make a difference.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

What were the NR-small game license numbers in 2002? Too much paper here, I'll never find it.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Do the 17,000+ upland licenses include multiple licenses to individuals? I would assume that is the total number sold, thus not yet an accurate picture of how many NR upland hunters were out there.

Second it would be nice to see how many of the 25,000+ NR waterfowlers also purchased at least one upland license. I would many of the waterfowl hunters showing up after the pheasant opener hunt pheasants at least a day or two during their visit to NoDak.

Mallard less? really? Hunting pressure? yes I suppose, but what about the fact that much of ND was dry?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

ph, In a way, the curent system would be more accurate. Previously an NR could buy a season long license but averaged only 5 days afield. Now we know the license is only good for 10 day periods, and if he purchases mulitple licenses, he is more likely to be afield. Should it not give a truer picture for both hunting pressure and expenditures? The actual days hunting would be a better indicator than the season long license. ??


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Dick,

I believe the new system is better for tracking. Notice I have the word YET in my previous post.

My point (or maybe it was a question) was that 17,000 licenses sold does not necessarily mean that 17,000 separate NRs hunted in ND this fall. Some may be the result of the multiple license effect??

In principal I agree with your post, but this years numbers will be difficult to compare to last years numbers due to too many assumptions.

Either way - surveys answered honestly may be the only way to determine how many days an average NR spent out in the field.

Also do not assume that someone who buys 2 upland licenses are hunting 15-20 days or for that matter even 10 days. Many NRs that are ND born or have strong ND connections may be buying a second license since they hunt grouse in September or plan to pheasant hunt late season with relatives. Their license times in October may overlap with waterfowl hunting days.

While some may complain about the cost of $85 licenses others just accept it as a done deal. A trip to a pheasant hunting preserve can easily exceed $100 for one 4 hour hunt.

Now if someone was hunting for 40 or 60 days straight in ND than the NR licenses would start to add up. Still the guy complaining probably also complains about taxes, etc....

Hey I guess if you are paying to hunt with a G/O why should you have to pay the state too? :eyeroll:

Often the richest guy is the cheapest - maybe that is how they got where they are :wink:


----------

