# Hunting Pressure Concept



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

first of all, i have to start by saying you have some great information on this site about the legislative session coming up! great job! i just quickly read the hunting pressure concept the jud. b committee is suggesting... I'm wondering how likely you guys think it is that this will get passed? i remember hearing about it alot when hoeven put the cap at 30,000 and i thought maybe that 30,000 cap was the end to the discussion. i'm glad to hear the hunter pressure concept is still an active idea! hopefully this gets passed, it seems like it should since it is suggested by BIOLOGISTS!!! any ideas on this??


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I feel good about the HPC's chances this session. With a strong backing from many individuals and sportspersons groups, the Judiciary B supported it on a 15-2 vote. Of the 15, many were rural legislators.

The "let 'em all in" folks can dislike the number it produces this or any year, but they can't disagree with the logic. The HPC ensures the historic tourism pipline is filled every year, merely adjusting nonresident numbers for wetland conditions and the number of resident hunters. The HPC would have this year and will many years produce a nonresident cap higher than surveys have shown most resident hunters want. In that sense, it's the perfect compromise, because nobody got entirely what they wanted.

Another key feature of the HPC is that it is truly a one-time fix. If we've learned nothing else, it's that this cap stuff is contentious, divisive and a political hot potatoe. The "Nelson Plan" or any other fixed cap method must adjust when water conditions or resident numbers change. Any required adjustment will drag us through this difficult process again, and again, and again....... The HPC, on the other hand, is a dynamic cap that automatically makes necessary adjustments without the involvement of anyone other than the data gatherers. It is, then, the perfect, one-time solution.

ND Sportspersons and those nonres sportspersons who want ND to once again become the premier waterfowl state that it once was, please begin promoting the HPC. ND's talk to all candidates now from your district and ask them if they support the HPC. If they're not familiar with the HPC, educate them. If they support the HPC, send them to Bismarck this winter!


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Before I start here I want to reiterate that I liked the idea of the 22,000 cap. I still like the idea of the 22,000 NR cap. Those that plan ahead have no problem.

Not sure if it needs to go below that even if the HP model says it should.

Anyway ... a new question to those who care to discuss ... Economics 101 ?

When a resident spends money (again I agree they do ... my family spent a LOT of money when I was growing up in ND each fall hunting ... hotels, gas, extra box of shells, meals). But as we were spending dad's money it was money already in ND. We were simply recycling dollars already in ND. Guess we moved it from the city mouse to the country mouse ... but these $$$ were already in this state.

When a NR spends money in ND this money is NEW money in ND. It is new money that enters from other regions of the country. It is new money spent and taxed in ND that now starts recycling through ND too.

NR hunters bring new cash to ND.

Took a few economic courses in college, but that does not make me an economist. Anyone care to comment on the impact of this new money vs the recycling of money already in ND.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

i want to stay in ND mainly for hunting... if hunting goes down the drain, i will leave ND, my salary i received will no longer exist in ND... that will probably happen to many residents and their dollars if hunting goes down the drain...


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

I am sure our economist lurking on this site will now include this in his new economic model.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

PH

Your argument about new dollars vs. recycled dollars is familiar here in Minnesota. The anti-stadium folks bring in all the consultants that say that the money the Twins and Vikings bring in is only money that would be spent at some other recreational venue. Therefore, there is really no economic benefit derived from the Twins and Vikings.

However, there are folks from North Dakota and other parts of the Midwest that go to Vikings games. They are bringing new money into the economy that would not otherwise be spent in Minnesota. If the Vikings weren't here, the ND folks might spend their money in Fargo, Bismarck, Winnipeg, or Las Vegas. So, there is some economic benefit to Minnesota.

I guess that I would agree with you that non-resident hunters do bring new money into the state of North Dakota. But, it gets a little tricky trying to quantify that influx of dollars.

Do NRs spend as much money as residents? Some have said they don't.

Does the influx of NRs push some ND dollars out of the state when the North Dakotan decides not to hunt and goes to Las Vegas on vacation or drives to the Mall of America to spend some of his money on that stuff rather than hunting? Then, how much is North Dakota gaining?

I guess I would not pursue this issue very much. It is just too difficult to quantify the advantages and disadvantages. However, there are professional market research people in my company that would enjoy a $200,000 contract to help North Dakota figure this out if they really want to get into it. :lol:


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Its a really big envelope that I have mailed onto this site.

Food for thought though huh ??

I know it flies right in the face of the moderator on this Hot Topics page who tends to argue its a way of life that we are talking about protecting not just money.

Perry, maybe I should shut up and sit back and simply watch. Some of the ideas that I present across this site will certainly be used in Bismarck 2003 - by both sides.


----------



## hansonni (Aug 19, 2002)

Perry, I wouldn't spend a nickle on the Vikings this year! They stink!! The Twins on the other hand, hip-hip-hurray!! Any deer this year guys?


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Are not dollars dollars ??? If I (from Eastern ND) go to Western ND & spend $500 on hunting - or a NR from East Grand Forks Minn. goes there & spends $500 - You think they know or care which side of the river the US Dollar came from ???

Now if a NonResidents goes out there & spends his $500 on a outfitter that also provides meals - drinks - lodging & transportation to fields (maybe even shells & bird cleaning :roll: ) & dog :roll: I wonder how much this helps the local economy compared to the freelancer that spends a little at all these in town businesses ???

& by having so many trying to come out there at the same time for a few short weeks - full is full :roll:

I wonder if these folks will ever see the light ??? :roll:


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

I agree with Fetch- dollars are dollars-end of story. I spend a great deal of resident money in rural North Dakota in the fall during hunting season. However, from December through April I will spend a great deal of money snowmobiling in Wyoming. Not much to do in old Dakota from January - May??

In summary- if Prairie Hunter comes to ND with new dollars in the fall and spends it- chances are that a ND resident will use that money outside of ND sometime in the near future. I know alot of ND residents that go to Pheonix for the winter, or Florida, or a cruise, Ect. Ect. The bottom line is what comes in doesn't always stay in!


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

So the outfitter makes so much big time money that he takes the NR money and places in his investment stock portfolio held in NY. Thus the money is never in ND too long. Well that works too I guess.

The economy of ND requires that good, services, and money flow into the state and goods, services, and money flow out of the state. Each state needs interstate commerce just like the world needs global trade. ND does not print money so they need to earn it from somewhere.

Each state has built in efficiencies due to population, location, and natural resources.

Last time I looked, there were no cars, small appliances, blue jeans, guns, boats, decoys, or waders made in ND. All brought in from somewhere else.

ND is an agricultural state with some natural gas and oil thrown in for good measure. Much lignite mined in ND anymore ? ND exports a lot of grain, oil, etc... It would be nice if more grain or sugar processing plants like those in Hillsboro, Carrington, Velva, Enderlin (still open?) would be developed by more aggressive local businessmen and city/county leaders. Move a little further up the food chain and employ more local people to boot.

Small equipment and building component manufacturing also works in ND. If Fargo can pull Marvin, why can't other cities aggressively work to get other companies to relocate in ND. How about medical parts manufacturing - these components are small, easy to ship, and carry high margin. Location of manufacture should not be that important. ND could fit the bill here too.

Not easy, not easy at all, but how many civic leaders are really trying anymore to think outside the box and really save ND ?

I have got my self in trouble before on this site, but I am pretty sure ND takes a whole lot more Federal money than it puts in. Including or even not including federal grain subsidies. Long term this is not a good position for ND to be in.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

No, a dollar is not a dollar. That's what the balance of payments and international trade deficits are all about. A successful economy is one that is bringing in more dollars through trade or businesses than it is spending somewhere else. (We don't want to send all our dollars to Japan to buy their cars, but we sure would like to sell them as many Microsoft products and durum wheat as possible. That brings in new dollars to our economy.) So, if NRs could bring in a lot of new money, the economics experts will say that the state is better off financially.

But, as I said above, the inflow and outflow of dollars is very hard to measure and is really not worth arguing about, but it is good food for thought.

BTW - I sure like the new background on the web site. Now, my tired old eyes don't have to squint at the page. Thanks, Chris.


----------



## mjollnir (Oct 17, 2002)

Not that I am jumping on the band wagon for Outfitters.

But before you say that they don't help the local economy think about this. If you or a NR use that Outfiiter you are paying $500.00 for food, lodging and a guide. That $500.00 is helping pay for at least 3 jobs plus keeping a business running. Same can be said if you spend it freelance accept you are problably paying the businesses direct . So in that respect the moneys probably effects the local economy the same, accept if your paying a Outfitter the local farmers are getting lease payments too, which unless you pay to get on land isn't happening.

I still feel the best way to approach this is regulate the Outfitters and charging Farmers by requiring them to offer a percentage of public access for every leased acre. And require them to keep books on charged hunts, so no funning business can happen.


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

Definetly true. But freelancers spread the money around the town. The big outfitters have everything available through the lodge, so at times they are maybe filling up their gas tanks as they go out of town. Freelancers stay at a hotel, eat at various restaurants, drink at the local bar, and so on.

I don't necessarily think the money issue is as big as so many claim. No matter what, there will be people spending money around each fall. The balance over the years show when the NR's aren't here, the residents are on the countryside and vice versa. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a good economy base one that has a good inflow of $ from the taxpayers? Why strip the one resource that's beneficial to being a resident and sell it out when we could be putting all that effort bringing in more companies, factories, and industries? That would offer more jobs to the smaller communities.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Since I have been involved with development of various projects (primarily energy) in 23 western states (even NoDak), I have learned a thing or two about economic development over the years. First off, hunting dollars are nothing more than seasonal tourism dollars. This has been the biggest misnomer that has been generated over the entire non-resident debate. Tourism dollars support service sectors within the existing local economy (restaurants, hotels, etc.), and depending on their permanence may or may not create permanent jobs. Without a long-winded dissertation, economic development is the generation of new, permanent jobs. Further, if these jobs are around the national median wage then even better.

An example: if I am developing a $300 million power plant in North Dakota, what has more long term economic value: the construction of the plant which brings in temporary money from the construction phase or the creation of 100 permanent jobs to run the plant?

Construction of the power plant would be fulfilled by unions that supply skilled laborers, which most likely wouldn't employ very many local people, so there wouldn't be new permanent construction jobs (of course there would be some hiring locally, but not to a major extent). Second, most of the products used to build the plant would be fabricated and shipped from other areas (not enough local infrastructure to support this type of project). Third, the construction money would not support infrastructure requirements (e.g., schools, sewer, etc.) needed to support the local government. Fourth, (and the main point of post) the real development is the commercial and industrial development that is needed to support the 400 families moving into an area to fill those permanent positions.

To further illustrate my point, the power plant will provide a very large annual tax payment to the local government to provide a healthy infrastructure to attract those local employees to buy homes in their jurisdiction. The new employees buy the homes, which supports the bank lenders. The homeowners need services for their homes, so they go to a local hardware store to purchase items. In essence, the new jobs drive a local economy to provide services for their money. It is the creation of permanent jobs that spur local development. Look at Beulah and Hazen for prime examples. Without lignite mining, there would not be a Beulah or Hazen. I think you get the idea.


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

Fetch, to most rural western ND, they would agree that a dollar is a dollar and are more than happy to have free-lance hunters spend money. It is a misconception that they don't want free-lancers. We have gone over this many times and I agree that most (the vast majority) of free-lance hunters are good and honorable citizens and obey all laws and regulations and are considerate to those whom they deal with while on hunting trips (provided their favorite hole isn't occupied).

I think you are close on your analysis of a fee hunter paying $500 and a free lancer paying $500. What you seem to be saying is that you spend your $500 and that should count for you and your contribution to the economy, but the money that a fee-hunter spends shouldn't.

The fact is that if an outfitter provides food, lodging, transportation, etc. then this has to be bought from someone. If not, then it is a monopoly and you should take it to federal court for breaking anti-trust laws. What the outfitter is doing is playing "middle-man." He is taking the money and making the hunter right one check (or credit card purchase) and paying off these various services that are already in the town and are helping them pay bills. It is seasonal tourism income, but it is the only thing keeping many of the towns out here alive. There isn't a "Christmas Rush" in a town of fewer than 500 people.

Let's say that the company doesn't farm out these services to established businesses. They do them themselves. Where does the food come from? Are they also ranchers raising their own cattle? No, they are going to buy it. If they know what they are doing, they will buy it locally, or landowners who don't want to see their town die will "black ball" them and refuse them access to land. The money still goes to the local grocer to buy these products. Maybe not all the meals are provided by the outfitter. Then the NR will have to go to eat at the local restaurant/cafe.

Now, let's stretch our minds and consider "What if the outfitter is local?" Let's say he charges $500 per day of hunting. Of that he "farms out" $450 and keeps the other $50 for themselves. If they are local, then that is money that is reprocessed into the economy. That is money that they will use to make purchases in town (maybe extra gas, more groceries, etc.) It's funny, when people get money, they tend to spend it. That is how small town economies work.

North Dakota is a natural resources state. We don't get many people coming here for the climate. They don't come here for the pay (no one in ND is paid significantly more than they would get elsewhere, even just across one border). ND economy depends on its natural resources, whether that is coal, oil, agriculture, or outdoor activities. While there may be instances of outfitters hurting local economies, there are also instances of them helping local economies.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

well again you miss the othersides points.

I doubt many small towns are going to be saved by the income from outfitters & if $500 is spent I doubt the town is getting $450 :roll:

Like in the analogy- If the $500 came from FL residents or FL non residents just about all of the $500 goes to the town ??? (motel - gas - food - cafes- bars - etc.) No need for middle men - & no larger tracts of land have to be leased & posted - & made off limits to the residents & Non residents - that want to freelance. Now you have mainly NR's and some sorry people like fast Eddy :eyeroll: I bet there are 10 to 1 (or higher ???) more Freelance hunters. So the way it is now, only a few should have access to hunt - where most of the birds are (go read Dick Monsons post again) Here it is :


> how & why Pay to hunt folks operate Westerner, In 1992 I visted one one of the first people to go into commercial hunting at Mott. He gave us permission to hunt that year, but told us next year most ground would be leased in the area. I asked him why the commercial firm would need so many acres? His reply was that if people had a place to hunt at no charge, they would not need an outfitter.
> His group was in effect "buying out the competition" and raising the price, in the same way that any other business buys out a competeing business, and then closes them, leaving the consumer at that buyers mercy, in this case the outfitters mercy.
> 
> The second business tactic that the outfitters must have is saturation liscenseing . They accomplish it by having an unlimited number of nonresident liscenses for sale by NDGF, NRs being the target market, as few residents will pay. Saturation liscenseing assures that any habitat not leased will quickly be pounded to dust by large numbers of freelance hunters. And the birds will move to the least pressured areas, the leased land.
> ...


 No concern for Residents wanting to hunt pheasants ??? Be able to get a motel room ??? Why would we want to go out there & drive around & beg to hunt - be turned down - hunt what little that is available & overhunted by both the residents & NR's that still keep trying ???

I don't get your blind approach & attitude ??? Be Happy your winning - Lets see what it does for your town down the road ??? I just hope not all are as blind and heartless :eyeroll:

Also this is why limits have to be implemented - your winning, so now something has to be done to keep us Freelance hunters from coming out there & bothering you :roll: :******: :eyeroll:

*YOU KEEP SAYING IT"S CONCERN FOR SAVING THE TOWNS, IS THE MAIN GOAL ??? :roll: Get real - it's about BIG BUCKS for a few at a great loss to many. 
*


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

Fetch, I seriously doubt, but I guess I can't prove, that you spend $500 per day when you go hunting. The fact is that when "resident sportsmen" spend their money, it isn't necessarily in the small town. Until fee hunting came to our part of the world there was relatively little economic impact from hunting. Maybe it is different in other parts of the state. I will not claim to speak on their behalf. But in the SW corner most of the "resident sportsmen" came to town with relatively full tanks of gas, coolers of beer and lunch meat, did their hunting and left. In the SW, fee-hunting has brought in people who fly in from around the country. They don't bring anything but their clothes and gun (usually not even shells). They fly in and buy everything locally. If they are staying at a B&B they may not buy the food directly, but you better believe that the B&B does. That is a lot of extra gallons of milk for breakfasts. These hunters go out to eat because they can't make it a "day-trip" and come down for the day carrying their provisions with them.

Finally, what does a "resident sportsmen" always do for the community that a "NR sportsmen" won't. The fact is that at least with "fee-hunting" there is money guaranteed to be going into the farmers hand. Even if all the other money goes out of town (which I don't think happens nearly as often as you believe).

As for the "friend" near Mott this has not happened. Who is the big company that is leasing up all this land? The largest one I know of in the "Mott area" is the Cannonball Company. If outfitters are going to claim to be making an economic impact, don't you think that I would have heard of this company? I have talked to people around Regent/Mott and they haven't heard of it. The largest one, by far, is the Cannonball Company, and if you ever wonder, why don't you call them (the 1-800 number is on their website). Ask! Ask how they run their business. I have done it. They lease exactly 0 acres. The land is always under the direct control of the landowner. The landowner agrees to allow hunters onto that land under guides from the company (this way, they have some control over the activities of their "guests"). If you talk to the bed and breakfasts, they will tell you that they spend $$$ on food for their guests at the local grocery store. All the vehicles for the company are filled at local gas stations. The company provides no shells to anyone, they have to buy them from local vendors or bring them along. They have had opportunities to make their business run on a larger scale and hire large out-of-state firms to run their business. They declined because then money would be leaving the local area. All the money stays local. I don't bring this up necessarily to indicate that this is necessarily typical for businesses across the state (I won't pretend that I have done an exhaustive survey) but to refute your copied text from another post about "buying out the competition." All of the contracts are 1 year deals and are renewed annually. If this is hurting the small town economies so much, why don't more businesses complain. Why aren't the landowners complaining about the lousy payment's they get for their land. If people are getting so rich, why aren't there more nice houses going up? More signs of these few people making lots of money and the rest of the town rotting away. Let me assure you that if this were happening, there would be a much louder stink in this part of the world. Lots of money is coming in, and lots of people are getting a piece.

If you check on the internet for other "guides/outfitters" in the west, most are small operations. A couple of landowners and businessmen pooling their resources.

I have said many times that I am in favor of charging higher rates to non-residents, or even having a separate license for those who come in for fee-hunting purposes. If you think it makes good business sense to sell as many licenses as possible for fee hunting, that is flatly not true. If they do, as you suggest, want to cater to high paying customers, these people are used to getting what they pay for. They are not interested in paying for "McDonald's" type mass production. Like when choosing where to eat, you don't pay much to go to McDonald's and the food indicates that. It is produced for mass market. If that is what you want, you will not pay much for it. Fee-hunting companies watch carefully the number of hunters they have on land (or they don't exist for long).

The whole thing reminds me of a story I heard. A Jewish man in a small small village in Russia at the turn of the century subscribed to an anti-semitic publication. When his friends asked him why he read all that rubbish he said, "When I am having a bad day, it helps me feel better to see how powerful I am." The moral of the story is that people tend to ascribe great power to those they don't understand and portray themselves as a somehow "oppressed majority."

I understand why you are frustrated with the current situation. There is very little land available in the SW corner of the state. Most of it is posted "No Hunting" (not necessarily because of membership in a fee-hunting company). I think it would be far wiser to ask "Why are their fewer hunting opportunities" than simply saying "If we get rid of fee-hunting or place more restrictions on it the that land will be open." Unlike with some waterfowl who damage crops, pheasant are seen as, at worst, benign. They don't harm anything. Placing restrictions on fee-hunting will not open any of the land that is now closed to hunters. The land would still be locked up and farmers/ranchers would be even less interested in allowing free-lance hunters onto their land. To come at this and determine who the enemy is and attack is unwise since, the fact is, you may be incorrect.

Land was being locked up in the SW part of the state before fee-hunting ever started. Hunting companies didn't suddenly show up, tell farmers they could make a ton of money ("to heck with the rest of the town"), and suddenly all the farmers put their land into a couple of huge fee-hunting companies who quickly took the money and ran leaving everyone high and dry. If that were happening the politics of this would be extremely different.

_"No concern for Residents wanting to hunt pheasants ??? Be able to get a motel room ???" _I do have a question about this statement in your post. What hunting companies own these hotels? If the hotel is sold out, isn't that good for the local economy? Wouldn't it make sense that if you had called earlier they would have had room for you? From the sounds of that paragraph it doesn't sound like you have/had any intention of coming to these towns and supporting their economy. If you plan to, I suggest you call ahead and make arrangments. Believe me, there are lots of pheasant still out there.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

> Fee-hunting companies watch carefully the number of hunters they have on land (or they don't exist for long).


This is why I no longer go out west to hunt. Freelance hunting only exsists as Dick Monson described.( Thats not for me) & because of this trend Freelance hunting will not exist for long.

Your right Westerner - why are you so defensive & worried ???

Obvisouly you don't need the people who live in the bigger cities ??? You can do it all alone (exsist) Fee hunting will save your way of life :roll:

They won't buy their groceries, the same places that resturants & grocery stores do (now ??? or someday ???) to increase profits ??? :roll:

I always ate Breakfast & Supper in the towns I stayed in & always went to the local grocery to get lunch & snacks.

When I did go out there - I almost always made reservations - But one of the last times, my room (the second night of 3) was given to someone else ??? - even though I secured it with a Credit Card. & there were hunters lined up begging for rooms in the lobby. & everything was full plus many camping & sleeping in their vehicles. (at least the 1st couple weeks of the season) - this is why zones & limits how many per zone - per week makes sense.



> Finally, what does a "resident sportsmen" always do for the community that a "NR sportsmen" won't.


Pay taxes in the State - that does alot more to help keep your towns stay alive than Fee hunting. We used to lobby for & vote for things that help agriculture in the State. Alot of us indirectly work & provide services for all residents of ND - Healthcare - Entertainment - the companies related to agriculture - the stores that most of you travel to to shop, instead of supporting your local merchants :roll: , cause you like variety & styles like the rest of the country- Work in Government that provides countless services to all of ND - Roads & highways - Educate your children after high school - provide services to defense & law enforcement of our state & country - work in banking & finance that is rarely local anymore - provide energy (pay for pipelines to provide water) & fertilizer & chemicals that is rarely local anymore - Provide services & jobs for your old friends & your children, that could no longer remain & work for the fee hunting companies & all their spin off economic benefits :roll: I could go on & on ???

Have you read Curt Wells article in this month's Dakota Country ??? It is more about the future than past or present.

As far as Big Bucks do the math (how many hunter X how much per day X for how many days) I think alot would be amazed how much is taken in - & who gets the most.

I'm all for B&B (bed & Breakfast type operations) that cater to Freelance hunters also. That work together to provide hunting lands - This concept could be a hundred times as big as it is. If plenty of land was made available - thru tax incentatives, or the State doing creative things to make it work. Thru increased fees for all (but especially NR's) or taxes & fees on wealthier pay to hunt types like you like.



> "Why are their fewer hunting opportunities"


 other than Fee hunting it is because of poor management of Non Resident hunters - Too many in to few towns with services - all coming for the same few weeks.

How are you guys going to feel when these fee companies start buying up all the lands, or other Non Residents buy the better hunting places ??? For hunting a few weeks a year ??? & then rent it out to a local farmer, to help defray their costs to hunt ??? Or leasing from the renters of the land for farming, that don't want to be bothered, or worry, or care about hunting ??? Your pretty confident these people have yours & your towns best interest in mind ???

& your final comment to give us whats left over after the Pay to hunt people are thru :roll: Is not my idea of a reasonable answer :eyeroll:


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

Fetch, I am sorry about your experience when you lost your room. That shouldn't happen and is unethical and should be illegal. Why in the world did you only lose the 2nd night (just curious)? If I were you I would report that to some kind of law enforcement to see if that is even legal, especially since you guaranteed it to a card. Did you get charged for that night, or was that amount refunded/not charged? You have a very valid complaint and I will not argue with it.

I don't agree that Freelance hunting will not exist long. According to all the posts I have read about the joy of hunting and people still finding places to hunt I don't see it going extinct.

I am not defensive and certainly not worried. I am merely questioning your opinions and giving my side of information.

I never said I/we could do it all alone. I am not opposed to you hunting and never told you to stop. All I am saying is that you have taken on the elimination of fee-hunting as a crusade and some of your information isn't accurate and seems more based on panic than reality.

I also didn't say that fee hunting will save our way of life. All I said was that, economically, it doesn't seem to be hurting the businesses down here as much as you seem to believe and it is providing sources of income that weren't there before (local people--hunters themselves believe it or not--can guide, B&B's have opened to accomodate people, etc.).

I did not intend to imply that resident fee hunters don't support the local economy. What I am saying is that not all of them support it equally, so to say that because you spend $x, then if there are x hunters, they will have spent that much money.

A lot of money is taken in during hunting season. My question is, do you expect that your gun should be free because of your right to hunt and to bear arms? What other things do you expect to be free?

"Pay taxes in the State - that does alot more to help keep your towns stay alive than Fee hunting."
Do not all people in the the state not pay state taxes? If that is the case I am going to question the payroll people at mine and my wife's work place. Payment of taxes does not give you any right to claim authority over others in the state. As for NR, the money they spend in town does infinitely more than state tax revenues (federal ones are exempt since NR pay them too).

"Alot of us indirectly work & provide services for all residents of ND - Healthcare - Entertainment - the companies related to agriculture - the stores that most of you travel to to shop, instead of supporting your local merchants :roll: , cause you like variety & styles like the rest of the country- Work in Government that provides countless services to all of ND - Roads & highways - Educate your children after high school - provide services to defense & law enforcement of our state & country - work in banking & finance that is rarely local anymore - provide energy (pay for pipelines to provide water) & fertilizer & chemicals that is rarely local anymore - Provide services & jobs for your old friends & your children, that could no longer remain & work for the fee hunting companies & all their spin off economic benefits :roll: I could go on & on ???"
As for roads and highways and other government operations, we all pay taxes too(yes, even fee hunting companies, if not, they should according to the law, I have never argued for tax breaks for them), so shouldn't we have the right to good roads too?

We also pay for all services such as educating children after high school (even if we have universities in the west too). Apparently, by your logic, you think that just because you work in an industry that helps other people (not free of charge, mind you) that you have the right to take advantage of other people's resources free of charge.

Do you think that anyone who goes to "Healthcare - Entertainment - the companies related to agriculture - the stores that most of you travel to to shop, instead of supporting your local merchants :roll:" demands that these services be provided free of charge? All of these things help, but none of them are free arbitrarily. If someone is on medicare, then some healthcare is free but that has nothing to do with our discussion since this service is not connected to favorite vision of hunting heritage.

As for banking and finance (which you say is rarely local anymore) what if I were to say that this should then be illegal and those that work there should lose their job? These industries are out to make money, are they therefore unethical and the enemy of everyone? Of course not, and that is not what you mean, but put in the context of this discussion, that is what it implies. It implies that their motive is completely altruistic which it obviously is not. So working for them, while a legitimate occupation, is not necessarily a service which would entitle you to the right to claim the right to dictate to those in another industry what they can and cannot do. FYI, there are very few statewide banks and financial institutions that are not also national, so probably more NR work in them than Residents.

I could definitely see a tax break to B&B operators (and other services) that can prove that they have hosted freelance hunters (like cutting partially or completely the taxes paid on that income) as an incentive. I have also never argued against raising fees for NR hunters. I have also argued in favor of a "fee-hunting tax" which would charge them a percentage of their income from operations (gross, not net) and pigeon-hole that money for either general state funds or even for the improvement of private hunting. You and I actually do agree on these issues fully!

To allay your fears about fee hunting companies buying land, why would this suddenly start now? Most land that is bought for hunting purposes out here is actually bought by wealthy RESIDENT FREE LANCE HUNTERS (there aren't many, but there are some). I would be in favor of putting higher property taxes on land that is owned by people not listing ND as their primary residence to help the state's budget and to discourage large out of state companies and private individuals from purchasing large tracts of land at prices that local residents can't match.

For what it is worth, farmers don't generally want/try to purchase land. They prefer to rent. It is hard to come up with the money to purchase land and also, in rental agreements, the deal can be broken every year, but if the relationship stays good (like it usually does), it can make money for the landowner while not having to give up ownership (depending on the length of the agreement, maybe more money than sale) and be more feasible for the renter as well since they aren't bogged down with as much debt. Right now, good hunting land that is also farmed goes for about $1000/acre. A quarter is 160 acres and generally, these are the units that are bought and sold. That means that a farmer has to take on $160,000 of debt to buy it, whereas, he can take on $5600-$6400 in debt by renting it for $35-40/acre (about what rent is right now out here). It doesn't take an economist to figure out that this is a very easy decision.

Let's say that a fee hunting company decided that it needed 20,000 acres to support its operation. Now, they have to make $20,000,000 just to pay off their land. If they are charging $500 (about the upper limit of what people will pay for pheasant hunting out here) that means it will take 40,000 hunter- days (1 hunter for 1 day) to pay off the land, and that doesn't include any other expenses. Let's say they host 1,000 hunter-days per year, it will take 40 years and no other expenses to pay this off. If they buy less land, they can host fewer hunters, or risk the hunters getting angry about the lack of "hunting opporunities" with that company and not come back.

Leasing land makes a lot more sense to hunting companies (but not as much sense as "pay-by-the-bird" compensation plans). For this reason, I am not concerned about fee-hunting companies buying up lots of land (or much land at all). As far as NR buying up land, I think that Resident free lance hunters buy more. They get together in groups of 7-8, and then it is $20,000 per person, the price of a medium to upper level car. They deem this a reasonable price for guaranteed hunting access on good land (bad land doesn't cost nearly as much for obvious reasons) and it goes on indefinitely. As long as there are pheasant/waterfowl anywhere, they will have pheasant/waterfowl to hunt, especially if they manage it carefully. They can also rent the land out to the farmer and get some income back on their investment and the landowner gets to use the land relatively cheaply. Your right, this is a bad idea for everyone :beer:

There is still free lance hunting out here, believe it or not. It even happens on land that is marked no-hunting. In fact, I heard a story from a landowner last year that said they had two hunters from Oklahoma come to their door asking to hunt. They said they were a part of a fee-hunting operation, but it was late in the season and there were not many hunters around. They explained to the hunters that they only let "friends" onto the land at this point in the season. The hunters kicked the ground humbly and said, "What does it take to be your friend?" The landowner said, "I have some chores that I could use a hand with." After the chores were done (about an hours worth of work) they went out and had a great hunt...on private land...posted No Hunting...from a landowner in a fee hunting company. They didn't presume that they shouldn't have to work and told the landowner that they would be happy to help next year for the same access. As I have said many times on this MB, it isn't always money that gains access to land.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

> All I am saying is that you have taken on the elimination of fee-hunting as a crusade and some of your information isn't accurate and seems more based on panic than reality.


I've never said this, or half the stuff your dreaming up now ???

I stand by the accuracy of everything I've ever posted (but I could be wrong & so can you) :roll: :wink:

You are grasping at straws now trying to SPIN things and confuse everyone (including yourself)

All I am for is controls on fee hunting - More Zones & restrictions on how many per Zone & use Zones to spread hunters out over the state & in the weeks they come. Also think the Hunter Pressure Concept makes more sense, than a FREE FOR ALL, or POLITICAL PERKS for a few :-?

If this will put a halt or slow down the proliferation of fee hunting & leasing of lands * SO BE IT*

I think your wrong on your analogies of how much more NR fee hunters contribute to your economic well being. You don't get it, or see it, admidt it. :roll:

I wonder how many of the land leasee's (for hunting) pay the land owner ??? or the land renters ???

There has to be limits on all this & I think eventually there will be - or God willing - Nature & free enterprise will sort it all out right ??? YEAH :roll: after it's all screwed up :******:

I think you forget how much folks, in our cities (Residents) help provide for your services (thru taxes & Free Enterprize) If there is no reason to live here - than the quality of these services will deteriate & as the total population continues to drop - the burden of taxes will increase for those that remain, or services & business will go away. -It's going to alot of NR Fee hunters to make up the differences :roll:

We need to work together - To maintain the quality of life for all NODakers

I've never spoke about free hunting or having RIGHTS to anything you keep bringing up that old BS ??? :eyeroll: (& it's getting to be a OLD none truth - that needs to quit being used to rile people up !!! :******:

- I believe the State can do alot more to equal things out. There should be alternative programs that would benefit resident hunters & land owners - other than Fee hunting.

But you missed all those points long ago :roll: & now are trying to find someone to debate with about your opinions - FINE !!! just don't misinterpret mine. :******:

I'm not going to try & explain our fears about land purchases in ND & how it will ultimately make us like most others states - You don't see or understand, or care about the uniqueness of ND as far as hunting goes. I do - & if people like you are the majority - then ND will fall into the same State of the State as most other States  But if the majority like it as it has been ??? what is wrong with finding new & improved / creative ways to keep it that way, or maybe even make it better for all ???


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

Fetch, you are correct that either one of us could be wrong on any one of these things through simple human error. I presume that we both have reasonable motives for standing by our positions. My entire previous post (with the possible exception of the quote you opened with, that was an interpretation and could be wrong, I am sorry) was merely a response to the words you said. What am I dreaming up?

If I am spinning things, point it out, and then give verifiable information that refutes it. If I am "spinning" (your words, not mine) things, this means that I am presenting inaccurate or misleading information.

As for my knowledge of how fee hunting has hurt local businesses who get (apparently) fewer resident free lance hunters, can you give me an explanation of this statement, or how my numbers (which I have never presented) of how economically fee hunting benefits local residents is incorrect, misleading, or otherwise incorrect, or are you going to stay with making blanket accusations ("You are grasping at straws now trying to SPIN things and confuse everyone (including myself).")

Now for the question about where the lease money goes, to the renter or the landowner. That is a legitimate concern, however, that depends on the contracted arrangment between the two (sometimes that is the deal, other times not, but it is irrelevant). If this is the case, then it is an ethical problem not with the hunting company but with the renter/rentee relationship.

As for how much fee hunting helps local economies, I can back that up with numbers. Let's say a company charges $250 per day to hunt and it is run locally and provides access, 1 night at a B&B, and breakfast. I did some calling around and the highest lodging rates I got for anything SW of the Missouri River (pheasant country) is $64.95 per night lodging (this is a best western, so I don't know how much stays local and how much goes to out of state firms). This is a suite with a fridge, microwave etc. Not just and everyday room, which runs about $56/night. That is what a free lance hunter pays, or less, for each night. If you know of a higher rate, please let me know and where it is. Now, let's say that you spend $100 per day in food (I don't know of anyplace SW of the Missouri that this would happen, but we will go with it). Now for Gas. Lets say you have a 20 Gallon tank and the price is $1.65/gallon and you fill the tank full every night from empty. That adds up to $33.00. You have now spend a total of $200, and stayed in Dickinson, not Regent/Mott where this company would be to help their local economy. Since most nights during prime hunting time the hotels are full, the odds of there being significantly more hunters is irrelevant since they won't help the small town business any more due to distance of drive. With the fee hunting company, there would be $250 spent in a small town. This analogy presumes that the company doesn't buy any gas, or provides shells.

The fact is that I do see it (economic impact). Whether you believe me or not, that is irrelevant. Jobs are created in small towns, people make extra money, and, trust me, it shows. Without fee hunting, there would be only 1 B&B in Regent (maybe). With fee hunting, there are at least 5-10. Those people are making money off of it (they are residents of ND that stay here all year round). Do you honestly think they don't see it. Some of them have employees (Crocus Inn) to help with the serving of food. Do you think they don't see economic help from fee hunting. Resident Free Lance Hunters had a long time and didn't add a single business to these towns that isn't still there with fee hunting. So, which one helps the local economy and which one doesn't? I welcome resident free lancers to this area, but don't think that I am upset with what has gone into the small towns from fee hunting companies.

Another way it helps the local economy is that I can't think of a single business that has closed since fee hunting really took off out here because of lost business to free lance hunters. On the contrary, many people are able to supplement their income, so more seasonal jobs are created (hardly a bad thing for the economy).

You want to place restrictions on zones and who can hunt their (your words)? What if someone makes a reservation and the company in this small town assumes that it will receive this money, then the customer doesn't get permission for that zone. He then decides not to come or spend his money. How does that help the economy? That won't suddenly open up more land for resident free lance hunters.

I don't know why you are so concerned with companies saturating licenses to help themselves. That is not a good business model. They would decrease demand for their product and price themselves out of existence. Hunting companies have just as much reason to want to see reasonable numbers on the land they manage as anyone. It isn't the number of pheasant that is the problem. On the good pheasant land in the SW there are plenty of them. They are well loved and taken care of (not the same thing as tame) and then the numbers go up. Zones wouldn't suddenly add pheasant to land that already has few.

First of all, just because some groups do things in a way that doesn't help local economies doesn't mean that they should be restricted as a group.

No other industry in the state faces a situation where they receive little or no state money, make a profit, and are then told that they need to be restricted when they don't have a monopoly.

I think you overestimate the dependence that small towns have on large cities in our state.

I am fine with having other programs other than fee-hunting to offer resident hunters, but that doesn't mean that fee-hunting has to go.

Why won't you try to explain your fears about land purchases in ND? I believe they are misplaced (assuming that NR and fee-hunting are the main culprits). Can you give me any reason to change this belief, other than that it is what you believe?

What I am tired of is attempts by our state to use state tax money to fund ill-founded attempts at economic development that cost lots of state money to set up infrastructure and try to "lure" people into living here. Measure 3 lost because people don't want to spend money that isn't there to "bribe" our people into staying. Fee hunting has taken a resource that is already there, and infrastructure that is there, or people pay for out of their pocket and brings in thousands or millions of dollars into the state, and now people want to put restrictions on it to limit it for the very reason it is successful. I am in favor of making sure laws are obeyed and taxes collected on the funds generated, and I have said that from the beginning. But this is the best economic development to hit my part of the state since the last oil boom!


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

> You want to place restrictions on zones and who can hunt their (your words)? What if someone makes a reservation and the company in this small town assumes that it will receive this money, then the customer doesn't get permission for that zone. He then decides not to come or spend his money. How does that help the economy? That won't suddenly open up more land for resident free lance hunters.


A lottery like deer hunting has in July would solve that.

Now if there were a program to have a special stamp for access to CRP lands & any other that would want to participate. To open these lands up for Freelance hunters. That was equal to or better than what private fee companies pay. Would'nt this open up lots more lands to all (remember there are considerably more freelance hunters ??? (both resident & non resident) It would be alot more acceptable to the majority ???

If there are B&B's in most small towns & motel rooms & camp grounds - the money spent by Freelance hunters would be alot more than Fee hunters. Because Freelance hunters again are the majority (by far) Someone have the statistics please post them.

Why is it that residents out spend Non residents ??? (according to the NDSU study ???- & I bet alot more than Pay to hunt on leased property.
You are missing the biggest group of hunters by putting your eggs in the basket you think is better.

I blame the G&FD & Legislature & Tourism dept. (& more recently the Govenor) for not sponsoring better programs for Freelance hunters. Or have tax incentives for private people, who would do the same. Kinda like what the Farm Bureau tried to do - only not hold someone hostage, to buying insurance, to get in the program :roll:

All this would create better jobs with benefits.

Programs like Creps & coverrlocks & PLOTS are OK ??? But will never provide enough lands for Freelance hunters. Leasing CRP & other good lands for those that are willing to pay the State to sponsor this in a Non Profit manner - would be much more economically better (as in providing more lands to more people)

In waterfowl country they could hire (again create jobs) people to lease fields / wet lands that would be good for waterfowl hunting - Barley & wheat & Corn after harvested. The better wetlands are privately owned & I think most farmers would rather trust the State to be fair, in sharing the profits (lease payments) than a for profit business. Or private businesses doing it on their own. (Remember Libility Insurance is not cheap) & I wonder if it is being purchased by all ??? & even the ones that do, are not really following the Laws for guides & outfitters - By having one policy for all the guides in the company ???) I wonder how many landowners & renters, are putting themselves & the owners of the land at risk, by current practices.

I bet if you talked to people that did not profit, or sell out to Disney world - They are not as thrilled by the monolopy & overcrowding it has caused. To think we would want to be the Disney World of waterfowling & Pheasant hunting is a WEIRD analogy. :rollin: Plus Hunting is only a few weeks a year :roll:

ND has a history of cooperative & State funded ways of providing things for North Dakotans. At least my ideas would help & serve alot more people & communities all over the State. Than your vision of what is working :roll:

Having a free for all with Residents & Non residents buying up available lands for their private hunting preserves, is not a good thing - As it grows & proliferates - it will be as big or bigger problem than fee hunting for rich out of state hunters. Restrictions on the #'s of out of state hunters controlled this many years ago.

Without the free advertising by our tourism dept. most of your customers would go to So Dak. or Iowa for pheasants & will again, once Mother Nature wipes out all your pheasnats - what will be the plan / sceme then ??? Think the Sportmen & women & tax payers will want to bail out the Fee companies & B&B's ???



> I think you overestimate the dependence that small towns have on large cities in our state.


 Not if you look at the age of the residents in those towns - & what will happen in the next 10 to 20 years. :eyeroll:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

& you know what - all this ASSU-MEs :wink: - farmers & landowners want to profit from hunting ??? I don't think thats the case around most of the State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To All Farmers & Landowners that still allow hunting, my most sincere apologies if anything I say has offended you. I truely do Respect you & Thank You for allowing me the priviledge to be able to hunt your property. & would hate to think I do anything that would enhance Fee hunting. I know many of you love to hunt all of ND. You should be commended & praised for keeping ND as special as it has been - for as long as it has. * THANK YOU !!! *


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

I suppose a lottery would work. It would let most people know well enough in advance whether they are coming and if they got into where they want. My question is, and what you presented would be a valid solution to what I originally asked, is how would this increase access? There are plenty of pheasant on posted land, so lack of pheasant is not the problem. Even if people are spread out over zones, that doesn't mean they would be able to hunt in the places that do have pheasant, nor would it assure any more hunting opportunities in areas where "No Hunting" signs are prevalent. It would possibly (probably) hurt the income for fee hunting companies since not all of their clientele would get access to the zone they wanted. It would spread out hunters, but wouldn't, necessarily, increase hunting opportunities.

Could you elaborate on your "stamp" idea? As I read it, it sounds like the landowner would be paid to open his land up for public hunting to free-lance hunters. I am probably misunderstanding this since this basically sounds like the PLOTS program, but since the landowner is getting paid, isn't that, by definition, fee hunting on a public scale rather than a private scale? As I said, I am probably missing something so please expound on this.

From when I have talked to people, the hotel rooms are filled up right now in the SW part of the state (whether by free lance or fee hunting) so, even though the majority of hunters are free lance (that is indisputed), they are still coming out here and probably some fee-hunting people stay at hotels/motels so the elimination of fee hunting would not benefit these businesses by the introduction of new customers to fill empty spaces. It is possible that fee hunting may just provide access to the land and not offer lodging.

Most of the new B&Bs are connected with fee hunting companies. This way, they don't have any advertising costs nor do they have to worry about administering their bookings. Again, these are full already, so free lance hunters can't really claim to be giving these people more money.

***When I was getting my prices for hotels I talked to someone at the national reservation center for Best Western. She commented that it was an odd time for prices to increase at the hotel in DIX on the second weekend of October. She asked if it was a holiday or something. I said, "You might say that!"***

I feel like you think my philosophy is "I am all for fee hunting and to heck with the costs to free lance hunters." That is not a fact. I am in favor of people coming out to my part of the state (whether fee/freelance)and using our resources. However, I feel that some free lance hunters, out of frustration with their lack of access to land they had access to before, have decided that fee hunting is unfair and selfish and hurts the communities they live in more than they help them. Everyone would be better off if we just went back to something like it used to be. The fact is that, in some small towns, fee hunting has brought in a windfall of money that wasn't there before and to say that this isn't ever true is wholly inaccurate.

There are probably some companies that do abuse their welcome in small towns, but then these need to be addressed individually. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don't know of any out of state outfitter/fee hunting company in the hot-bed of pheasant country. They are all local establishments making real money for local people without cutting into the profits of others.

I don't think that changes that would cater more to free lance hunters would necessarily bring more money into these communities. As I said in my previous post, I don't know of anyone who lost their job or is paid less because of the loss of free lance hunters in Hettinger County, however, there are lots of jobs that have been created since fee hunting started in that area (and not all the land is controlled by fee hunting either).

As for hiring people to lease fields, where would their salary come from? Where would the money to pay the landowner come from? While, undoubtedly, some farmers would trust the state more, some (I think the majority, but there isn't a good way to prove that) would trust a local private company to pay them fairly and promptly. Now we would have a new group of publicly funded people spending government money to lease land for the use of about 50,000 people (10% of the population) rather than putting it in private hands (creating the same jobs) and using no state money (when the state is running a deficit).

I will say it again, I am all for fee-hunting companies following laws. I think they should pay taxes as the businesses they claim to be and should follow safety procedures and possess liability insurance or be open to paying out of pocket if sued.

As for my comment about DisneyWorld, I apologize. It was in poor taste and I will delete it. However, it would be very hard to find people that don't profit, directly or indirectly, from its existence or would rather that it weren't there.

I don't know that catering preferentially to free lance hunters would necessarily serve more people/communities all over the state. The fact is that, only about 20% (if that) of the state's residents hunt (according to license sales figures I have seen). Your ideas would primarily benefit those people. As a non-hunter, I see fee hunting companies putting money into the hands of local people in quantities that, in this micro-economy, far outweigh what we got from free lance hunters. They spend that money in their towns and mine (I live in Dickinson). This is money that wasn't there before fee hunting. These people buy furniture to adorn their B&B. They buy extra food to feed these people. Money is paid to farmers and ranchers who desperately need it. Trusted local resident's supplement their income by guiding or providing other services. These are all things that wouldn't, necessarily be used by free lance hunters (with the possible exception of B&Bs---which I contend would probably often cease to exist).

How exactly do you plan to legislate against a resident of ND purchasing land? You could raise property taxes on NR landowners, but refusing them the right to buy land at a fair cost would be a difficult sell. As a matter of fact, I don't think it is legal to forbid a private individual from purchasing land. Putting in a law like this is far more unethical than allowing them to buy land. What if someone wanted to sell their house/lot to someone from out of state?

As for Mother Nature wiping out the pheasant population, that is possible. Lots of things could happen. I have never said that state money should be then used to bail them out. Since most out here are local organizations, they would probably evaporate with people saying "It was good while it lasted." If the pheasant were all gone, I doubt free lance hunters would be falling over themselves to help out these communities anyway since they would no longer have anything to offer.

How, economically, are small towns dependent on large cities. What money flows from big cities into small towns (except through hunting). People in small towns are moving to big cities. That is a fact. That doesn't make small towns dependent on big cities any more than the other way around (which is pretty minimal).

As for the tourism dept. "free advertising", that is going to be an uphill battle for you to deal with. Farmers/ranchers, generally, see fee hunting as either favorable (see reasons below) or inert (since they are not mandated to participate). Since agriculture is the state's largest industry you are looking at explaining to legislators why the largest industry in the state (agriculture--historically a very unified group nationwide, much less statewide) and the 2nd or 3rd largest (tourism) should be clipped for the sake of free lance hunters who are having trouble finding places to hunt (a sub-group of a minority, quatitatively, in the state).

You are correct that landowners primary interest is not "How much money can I line my pocket with," but they see fee hunting as offering them advantages that free lance does not:

1. People---People tend to go where there are jobs, and in a small town, that often means working 3-4 seasonal jobs (work for themselves doing odd jobs for people around town, work as a custom harvester during harvest, and then as a guide during hunting...it ain't a luxurious life, but I pay my bills and I live where I want). If you cut out one of these jobs, they may very well leave the community.

2. Control---When there is an ethical guide (and most local people are) they will control instances of vandalism and irresponsibility by hunters they are with and those they see while out with them. It also allows them some control over who is on their land (the land is patroled by guides out guiding others and gives the landowner something to tell people who won't take "no" for an answer.)

3. Extra cash inserted into the local economy---Most people I have talked to that are here fee hunting look at it this way, "If I am spending $300/day to hunt, I am not going to quibble about spending $x of extra dollars on other services such as food/gas/drinks at the bar." They don't look at things from the same budgetary vision that we use---"I only have enough for the fees, so I won't be able to spend anything on anything else."

4. Pride---They are proud of where they are from and enjoy having people from places they would like to visit tell them how wonderful ND is and how fortunate we are to live here.

These are just some of the advantages I have heard from landowners.


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

Westerner, I respect your position and I think you bring up some valid points-although you & I disagree on the level of impact fee hunting organizations have on the local economy?? If Fee hunting is doing so much benefit- why am I donoting money to Operation Hayride to try to help ranchers out in your neck of the woods?? Seems like if there is that much local cash floating around off the successes of FEE HUNTING- they should be bailing out their neighbors/ranchers who are having a tough go of it. HERE WE GO AGAIN!- :eyeroll: - We freelance hunters don't have any real impact in your area- yet when someone has to "annie-up"- it just so happens to be some of us local free-lance hunters. Of the approximately $35,000.00 that has been raised to help local ranchers buy hay-how much came from your NON-RESIDENT CLIENTS?????

Further-more, you drive me crazy when you say resident free-lance hunters hardly spend any money in your communities. Two-weeks ago, I was deer hunting around Medora, made some trips to Belfield, Amidon, Beach and between my father and I-spent probably close to $400 in 3 days, between gas, food, and nightlife in the pubs. NOW JUST HOW MUCH MONEY DOES A GUY HAVE TO SPEND PER DAY IN YOUR COMMUNITY TO BE CONSIDERED A BENEFIT??????? :beer:


----------



## waldo (Mar 7, 2002)

Westerner,
Two points I would like to interject. From your earlier posts[/quote]. As for NR, the money they spend in town does infinitely more than state tax revenues (federal ones are exempt since NR pay them too). 


> How, economically, are small towns dependent on large cities. What money flows from big cities into small towns (except through hunting). People in small towns are moving to big cities. That is a fact. That doesn't make small towns dependent on big cities any more than the other way around (which is pretty minimal).".


70% of the states population live within a 50 mile radius of the 4 largest cities. If you think that NR money does more for you than state tax money, how would your local schools dowithout 70% of their state funding?
You also say that good hunting(farm) land is $1000/acre in your area, I would like to know how much it was before pheasant hunting really became so popular in your area, maybe $200/acre. If this is accurate that means the tax levy on farmers land has increased 500%, it also has made it very hard for any farmers to buy additional land for their operations, as you stated "It is more economical to rent".


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Congrdulations Waldo, you hit it on the head. The dollars brought to the community by fee hunting are not free Westerner. You are all paying the costs. You can buy high quality land in the SE part of the state for Ag for 1000 an acre or less. Why in the world would any farmer say it is a good thing for land prices to appreciate on a bubble inflated with something that can be destroyed in one bad storm? The most damaging thing about leasing is that once you do it, I also have to do it in order to balance things between us and maintain a competetive balance. There is NO WAY that land can make an economic return agricuturally for anyone to purchase it. So instead, they put it in CRP, remove it from production, and remove job from the economy that way. Which we then replace with service hunting jobs. The NDSU study still says that Fee hunting only replaces 83% of the money CRP removed. (Correct me if Im wrong.) Tell me honestly that the entire situation would not be improved for the farmers if the slate were wiped clean with no leasing. No way. Guiding is fine, and would put money into the local economy, but competition for the resource would lower land costs, and make it EASIER to farm, NOT HARDER!!! My dream would be to make it illegal to recieve any renumeration for access, and let the guiding gates open wide. Shoot me or love me, there you are. Tom


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I'm glad someone else jumped in here (Thanks) I was startin to get a headache  , from beating my head against a brick wall :roll:

Now Westerner answer all these questions ASAP !!! oke:

Tell us where is your B&B ??? Does it have a Web site ???

I have got to be honest with you - I have only hunted one time that Far SW - Near Amidon for Mule Deer - stayed with a friend in Bowman. (got a nice 23 high X 18 wide Muley Buck - the 1st time I ever put in for one) I could go out there & hunt anytime with him - But frankly it's way to far to go for a few Pheasants :roll:

I have never said there should be elinination of guides & outfitters. But I don't think it should be a free for all - with them, at the expense of residents & freelance hunters .

If they had to compete with everyone for places to hunt. There would be no problem. Canada has laws that say no leasing of land for hunting. But all land you have to ask permission.( & that might not be so bad if there were a definite way to find & contact all land owners ??? I know & bet there is alot of under the table stuff going on up there (but it's illegal) & will eventually catch up with those breaking the law. But nothing like the legal mess we have got here.

How can a reasonable solution ever be found ??? ANYONE ??? Please add your ideas ???


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Westerner:

First and foremost, both non-game and game species are held in the public trust doctrine. No debating, this is fact. The State through the Wildlife Commission passes the laws, whereas NDGF upholds those laws and manages the resources. As stated from one of my previous posts: _under Roman law it was stated "by the law of nature these things are common to all mankind; the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea." What this meant was that the rivers, ports, sea, shores of the sea, and rights to fish in and use those areas belonged to the public trust. Stated another way, the "ownership" of such areas was deemed an inherent element of sovereignty. Thus, under the common law, these public rights were inalienable and could not be transferred by the government into private ownership, any more than could any other governmental power held by the sovereign. _

The proliferation of fee hunting is nothing but a one-sided edict to monopolize those game species held in the public trust by controlling access by exclusion via leasing. The best example of this would be to have a lake on your property and not allow anybody the opportunity to fish without the appropriate fee. As a citizen, I have the right via the public trust doctrine to obtain access to that resource (e.g., lake) because the landowner does not own it, the STATE DOES. No different with game species, the landowner does not own those pheasants, the STATE DOES. As I said in previous posts, I don't know how Cannonball Corp. can legally "sell" pheasants because they do not "own" those birds, the STATE DOES. If they raised and planted those birds, then that is a different story. A major case in point, you don't see commercial fishermen on Sakakawea, because game fish species are held in perpetuity via the public trust, and the degradation through over harvesting etc. would be a violation of the trust. Or stated another way, the State has the responsibility to protect the continued sustainability of the public trust resource (e.g., fish) so that people can benefit from its common heritage resources and their uses and values.

Tom absolutely nailed it in reference to making it illegal to receive remuneration for access. Based on the current laws, fee-hunting operations have created a monopoly on public trust resources by charging for access. This only works if you have trespass laws. Look no further than Montana; a guided hunt on private land is in essence, a payment to trespass on the land. You CANNOT SELL the elk to a hunter because they are held in the public trust, but you can provide access to that public trust resource. This is why ND is so unique. The existing trespass laws allow for equal access to public trust resources unless the land is legally is posted. Fee hunting is nothing more than in my opinion, an illegal capitalization of public trust resources, and as I have said numerous times, I don't know how you can do this in ND. If you cannot operate a commercial farming operation, how can you operate a commercial fee hunting operation? I assume it is the same principle.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

First of all - I like CRP because the Ag department is footing much of the bill for conservation not just hunters. Hopefully it is also the poor quality land that is removed from production - although that in turn does not reduce grain overproduction as well as if you removed prime ag land.

*From an economic sense should ND the reduce - not increase CRP acres in order to boost their economy ? *More young farmers, more implemment/equipment sales, more pesticide/herbicide sales, more grain in the elevator. Employment in ag based business would increase.

Government should focus on large scale economic support of international grain sales and shipments to best to improve the economy of ND.

Historically it is Cargill and ADM (your corporate Ag giants) that fight (with lobbiest $$) against the CRP program. These companies are traders of grain and essentially take a cut from every bushel of grain to pass through their elevators ....


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Fun Huh - Bioman ??? They kinda miss all the important points & then distract eveyone with trivial persuit







:roll:


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

OK, I don't have much time but I will answer as many questions as I can.
1. Waldo---What would your schools do without 70% of their funding. If you are going to make this argument, it has to go both ways or it is irrelevant. Do you think that in more urban setting that you don't receive state tax dollars, some of which are paid by rural residents hundreds of miles away? Are you honestly saying that more rural schools should have their funding cut off or lessened??? Or are you saying that more money is pumped into the community from state tax dollars than is generated by fee hunting. The fact is that between $300,000 and $500,000 is pumped into the economy in Regent directly from fee hunting (not counting supplies bought by their various members for food and other services that the community provides). If Regent still had a school (which it doesn't) there would probably be 100 or so kids there. That is about $3000 to $5000 per student. That is a pretty big impact for a single industry to offer. In the interest of equality, would the cities of Fargo, Bismarck or Grand Forks be told that, since they have an industry that gets state tax dollars (like a university) they should offer use of it for free to residents? That would be an interesting legal battle to argue that state funding for education should be cut off to a community because they don't let people onto their land without permission.

2. tsodak---The days of a farm able to make it on 1,000 acres are over out here (have been for a while). Most young farmers are not coming here from outside the area. They are young people who are buying their parent's farm. The parent's don't try to "rip off" their kids and charge them $1000/acre. If they are going to sell to someone outside the family, then the price goes to that. You are correct that agriculture cannot sustain a level of income of $1000/acre. I didn't say that it could. Most pheasant land is actually cropland. CRP has helped, but it is not the only thing that pheasant have going for them in that part of the country. In fact, the best land is right along the Cannonball River (I don't know if you have ever seen it, it is a bumpy ride and to step off the section line is trespassing, and trust me, the farmers take that very seriously) but it is almost all farmland, and good farmland since it is on a floodplain. Those landowners have no intention of converting it to CRP (nor would it be eligible, it is pool table flat!).

3. Fetch---I don't own a B&B and never claimed that I did. Therefore, no website. Sorry. The fact is that fee hunting companies do have to compete with everyone for places to hunt. They just seem to do it very effectively. They offer the landowner something for his resource (access to the land that is privately owned and there is a law protecting that).

4. Bioman---Where did the Cannonball Company ever say that they "owned" any birds. Where did they say that they "sell" any birds. They make no claim of that, nor does anyone make that claim on their behalf other than people who wish to slander them. Let me ask you a question. Why do you pay for anything involved in hunting? Isn't that paying to do something that you have a right to? Why do you pay to stay at a hotel (part of the fee paid goes to B&B's and other lodging considerations)? Part of the money also goes to the guide that assures that laws are obeyed and the hunters know where the boundaries are for what land they can hunt on and what land they can't. Part of the money goes to the landowner.

This is where things get confusing for people apparently. The Cannonball Company doesn't lease any land. The guide keeps track of how many birds are killed and whose land it was on. That number of birds is multiplied times a figure (I think about $10-15) and that money goes to the landowner. This way, there is no haggling over how much money they should pay to lease the land. It is simply a way other than leasing the acres that they use to compute compensation. It is the same principle as being paid by the hour. That doesn't mean that anyone owns that hour (how can you own time after all), but people take a wage x hours to compute the compensation. This system encourages farmers to, at their own cost, foster the number of pheasant on their land by leaving hay bales out for them, actually leaving crop stand in the field, etc.

The birds belong to the public, but trespassing on land is not legal. You seem to agree with this. As long as fee hunting companies have secured permission from the landowner to hunt on that land they should be allowed to do so. They are providing a service to the customer in that they set up the permission (finding landowners is a problem according to many posts I have read), lodging, and guides to make sure that they stay on appropriate land. Saying that you should not have to pay for that is like saying that you shouldn't have to pay to go on a cruise since:
"by the law of nature these things are common to all mankind; the air, running water, *the sea*, and consequently the shores of the sea" is public trust.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I did not mean that a living could be made on 1000 acres, I meant 1000 dollars an acre. That is a ridiculous amount of money for the ag capability of the land.

What if you really could wipe the slate clean and do like I said? What would the impact out there be Westerner? Lots of guides, and people could still restrict access. They just could not get paid for access or birds as in the scenarion you spoke of.


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

Westerner,

You missed mine?  I still pose the question- if fee hunting is generating these hundreds of thousands of dollars- why is the Wildlife Federation donating money and equipment to haul hay to Southwest North Dakota??? Why don't you guys just take care of one another??  I would think the Cannonball Company would throw in a $20-30,000.00 themselves if they really cared about you guys :wink: I am confused?? Seems to me like you folks in the Southwest part of the state like to milk both cash cows and this has been my complaint all along. You want resident help (or at least don't turn it down), but don't want much to do with us when you "Paying NR's come to town :eyeroll:

I am glad I donated, but sometimes when I read your posts - I feel like saying the hell with the ranchers out west and cancelling my check!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank God, I have met some really nice people who let me hunt and don't necessarily share your views.

Furthermore- let me enlighten you on some tax facts. In rural ND, you pay little to nothing for property taxes. I used to live in rural ND. What I pay per year for property taxes in Bismarck is equal to 6 years in rural ND!!! My property tax for a single family home here in Bismarck is near $3000.00 per year. My folks pay about $450.00 per year in Center ND for about the same size house. Rural schools and communities are far more subsidized than the cities and it doesn't take rocket science to figure that out- 70% of the population live around the 4 major cities. In addition, on a federal level- every dollar ND residents pay in Federal taxes- the state of ND gets $1.80 back!!! You should Thank your politicians- other than Minnesota there is no other state in the nation with more miles of paved rural roads. Heck- those NR Pay Hunters would never be able to find you guys had they not paved all your roads and put the signs up!!! Nobody would know you were out there


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Bronco, never ever forget that by the time you factor in the property taxes on the land someone owns to operate a farm out in the country, they pay far more than the 3000$ you or I pay in town. The two things are not very comparable, as one is a business expense, the other is a living expense, but farmers dont see it that way. Tom


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

Tom, I agree with you as I am really comparing apples to oranges to get a point across. But, my property has a value in Bismarck and a property with a similiar value in a small town does not (typically) bear the same burden. Farmers do pay more in taxes-however they have more property and more value?? If farmers in SW part of the state are selling for $1000.00/acre shouldn't they be taxed at that rate- on the value of the property??

Finally my point with Cannonball. If fee hunting is really the saving grace for rural ND- so be it. But why should people in other parts of the state continue to help these people?? I am saying that out of frustration- because I have a great deal of sympathy for the ranchers in the drought stricken part of the state. However, if fee hunting industries are the business of choice in SW ND-let them pay for county & community improvements.

For example- in coal country the mines and power plants are the industry in those counties. These industries pump a great deal of money in the communities for education & civic projects. If fee hunting is the "Great Economic Provider" for southwest ND- (as portrayed by Westerner)- then fine - let guys like me know-and we won't worry about them and the drought, the fires or their farming community :evil: They can look to their "wonderful" fee hunting organizations for assistance & money for additional projects.

I get kinda worked up when I read Westerner posts- when he paints such a rosy picture of these fee hunting outfits- they are smoke and mirrors. In addition-talk about putting your foot in your mouth :eyeroll: How can that be legal. I can see leasing property and allowing hunting. But when Cannonball keeps track of the number of pheasants killed and pays the farmer based off that number!!!!!!!!! That is profitting off a state resource-bottom line!!!

Tom- I ask you- if I went down to the river bottoms - on public land- cut down 4 acres of trees- a public resources - and sold the firewood for a personal profit- I would be regarded as a crimminal- what is different with Cannonball??? It is a state resource they are selling- not access rights :evil:


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Cannonball
While the reported Cannonball policy of having a payment per bird is wrong, I am sure when Cannonball becomes legally pressed they will simply reimburse the farmer on a payment per hunter access or some other method.  We can whine all we want, but if legally challenged they will simply change their method of reimbursement. *This argument about Cannonball has become futile, boring and old.*

Leasing
I hate it as much as the next guy, but across the globe hunting access is obtained by paying money to the landowner. ND may be a few decades behind, but appears to be catching up quickly.

Regarding lake access 
Bioman this is a whole separate issue. If a landowner or set of landowners owns the entire property around a lake then it is in fact closed to fishing if land is posted - unless you obtain permission to access the lake. If you fly-in maybe you are OK. Some of the very best panfish lakes in Minnesota are located entirely on private property. Access is limited and controlled.

The Minnesota DNR has done a lot of good work obtaining lake access on most lakes in that state. They also have a rule if the water touches a public road or property access can be made through that area. The Minnesota DNR also refuses to stock or manage any lake without public access. Similar set of rules in NoDak ?

I heard a story in ND about a fantastic perch pond/lake in southcentral ND. The lake was on private property and the farmer was very protective. Well the lake continued to swell with rain and eventually ran along side a ND highway. The next winter, the local people rushed off the highway and ice fished the lake hard. The landowner almost fought and threatened these people with a gun to leave - his fish. When the warden showed road access = public fishing waters.

  
The sad fact is the other golden rule tends to run true in hunting. Those that have the land make the rules.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

opps.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

If a lake is big enough to sustain a fishery, it will cross over a section line somewhere. In ND section lines are open to public travel, so often these are accessible if a person knows this. NDGF will not stock fish in a lake unless there is public access. Common sense, why waste the publics funds if they can't benefit from them. Sometimes in periods of high water as we have had, the fish stock themselves by overflowing waters.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Thanks Muzzy. I realize walking down that section line is different than attempting to hunt it during the fall. One difference between legal and acceptable is facing the rath of an angry landowner - who thinks they are right.

Quite a few new perch lakes in ND that are between 50 and 200 acres. You are right - just by random nature many should cross a section line.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Often, people need a visit from their local law enforcement when they decide to cross over the line and stop public access. They will still think they are right, but it is nice to see them put in their place.


----------

