# Help protect South Dakota waterfowl hunting



## jpallen14

Guys, here is a bill SB-143 that would make the 10 consecutive NR waterfowl license to 2-5 day periods in South Dakota. Here is the link to the bill. Send emails and call a few if possible. If passed this would essential create double the licenses. Please take the time and contact these folks if you want to protect South Dakota waterfowling and values!

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2012/ ... x?Bill=143

Here are the Senate Committee members that will be voting.

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2012/ ... ommittee=2


----------



## KurtR

I like it i have a brother and uncle both that come when they get license now maybe they will make more than one trip and we can hunt and fish a few more times together. As long as the total number of license stay the same i see no problem with this


----------



## jpallen14

KurtR said:


> I like it i have a brother and uncle both that come when they get license now maybe they will make more than one trip and we can hunt and fish a few more times together. As long as the total number of license stay the same i see no problem with this


You proved my point for me, thanks! Essentially you would be doubling the pressure by NR waterfowl hunters over the season because many would come twice. It would be the same as increasing the number of licenses available.


----------



## KurtR

bs they would hunt the same amout of days. 10 is 10 reguardless how you want to add it up. Presure maybe get away from the east side of the state and you wont see any presure. Presure that is funny if you think the small amount of presure from nr amount to any thing in the grand scheme of things. How do the pheasants ever handle all the presure. With the small amount of tags guiding for waterfowl here is a very very small nitche market. If they leave the number of tags the same the days hunted will be the same 10 is 10, granted a few will get to hunt a few more times with it being spaced out. But the g&f figure a ten day license and that the hunters hunt 10 days so nothing will change except makeing it a little more conveinent for the guys that paid for the tags to acctually hunt a fair amount.


----------



## WingedShooter7

KurtR said:


> bs they would hunt the same amout of days. 10 is 10 reguardless how you want to add it up. Presure maybe get away from the east side of the state and you wont see any presure. Presure that is funny if you think the small amount of presure from nr amount to any thing in the grand scheme of things. How do the pheasants ever handle all the presure. With the small amount of tags guiding for waterfowl here is a very very small nitche market. If they leave the number of tags the same the days hunted will be the same 10 is 10, granted a few will get to hunt a few more times with it being spaced out. But the g&f figure a ten day license and that the hunters hunt 10 days so nothing will change except makeing it a little more conveinent for the guys that paid for the tags to acctually hunt a fair amount.


Your right 10 days is 10 days but how many Non residents hunt for 10 days straight? I'm guessing the vast majority of them do not, with most hunting 3-5 days. So now you give them 2 5 day periods and it would be much easier to come back for those 5 days they never would of hunted in the first place, which would create more *Pressure*. As far as getting away from the Eastern side of the state, since we are talking about waterfowl hunting the obvious place that almost ALL non residents are going to choose to hunt is in the Eastern Side of the state. I know if I was a non resident I sure wouldn't be spending my time trying to hunt anywhere but the Eastern Side. Comparing pheasants to waterfowl is like trying to compare apples to oranges, waterfowl migrate and adapt due to the amount of pressure they are receiving. Pheasants do not migrate, at least they haven't since they were first introduced into the United States unless that has changed? Sure pheasants get a little jumpy towards the end of the season but they also are an upland bird that hides in cover, runs through cover, and can essentially move to a new section of cover in the same general area regardless of the amount of pressure.


----------



## mntwinsfan

Having two 5 day periods would absolutely add more days of NR hunting. With this in mind, guys might plan there trip earlier... Say Nov 1st. Normally the guys would have to hunt 10 days straight no matter what the hunting is like. However with 2 periods, they could save the second part for a later date. If the hunting is bad the first time, they have the second part as a backup...


----------



## clint_hay

KurtR said:


> bs they would hunt the same amout of days. 10 is 10 reguardless how you want to add it up. Presure maybe get away from the east side of the state and you wont see any presure. Presure that is funny if you think the small amount of presure from nr amount to any thing in the grand scheme of things. How do the pheasants ever handle all the presure. With the small amount of tags guiding for waterfowl here is a very very small nitche market. If they leave the number of tags the same the days hunted will be the same 10 is 10, granted a few will get to hunt a few more times with it being spaced out. But the g&f figure a ten day license and that the hunters hunt 10 days so nothing will change except makeing it a little more conveinent for the guys that paid for the tags to acctually hunt a fair amount.


living in brookings, i have to deal with the pressure of all the college kids. even as a NR they can still apply as a resident and hunt all year. and most kids (mostly from MN) say they didnt come to school in brookings because of the hunting. BS! they tell their friends how good the hunting is, and come to school at SDSU.

how can you even compare pheasants to ducks or geese? keep in mind, most of the pheasants killed are put out every year and are not wild birds.


----------



## slough

Nothing wrong with trying to keep pressure to a minimum. Comparing pheasant pressure to waterfowl pressure is beyond comparing apples to oranges; more like comparing apples to elephants.


----------



## KurtR

WingedShooter7 said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> 
> bs they would hunt the same amout of days. 10 is 10 reguardless how you want to add it up. Presure maybe get away from the east side of the state and you wont see any presure. Presure that is funny if you think the small amount of presure from nr amount to any thing in the grand scheme of things. How do the pheasants ever handle all the presure. With the small amount of tags guiding for waterfowl here is a very very small nitche market. If they leave the number of tags the same the days hunted will be the same 10 is 10, granted a few will get to hunt a few more times with it being spaced out. But the g&f figure a ten day license and that the hunters hunt 10 days so nothing will change except makeing it a little more conveinent for the guys that paid for the tags to acctually hunt a fair amount.
> 
> 
> 
> Your right 10 days is 10 days but how many Non residents hunt for 10 days straight? I'm guessing the vast majority of them do not, with most hunting 3-5 days. So now you give them 2 5 day periods and it would be much easier to come back for those 5 days they never would of hunted in the first place, which would create more *Pressure*. As far as getting away from the Eastern side of the state, since we are talking about waterfowl hunting the obvious place that almost ALL non residents are going to choose to hunt is in the Eastern Side of the state. I know if I was a non resident I sure wouldn't be spending my time trying to hunt anywhere but the Eastern Side. Comparing pheasants to waterfowl is like trying to compare apples to oranges, waterfowl migrate and adapt due to the amount of pressure they are receiving. Pheasants do not migrate, at least they haven't since they were first introduced into the United States unless that has changed? Sure pheasants get a little jumpy towards the end of the season but they also are an upland bird that hides in cover, runs through cover, and can essentially move to a new section of cover in the same general area regardless of the amount of pressure.
Click to expand...

I grew up in watertown and went to school at sdsu so i know the area quite well. I even go back home and visit and hunt with my dad and have yet to deal with all this "presure" that is spoke of. Your right my uncle who probally lived here as long or longer than most on here before he did 20 years in miltary would plan two trips back also my brother to so i am all for seeing them another time. It is to bad that you think you have all the waterfowl on the east side of the state after moving and having my eyes opened up you have nothing on the north centeral part of the state. Maybe that is why it is so good here all that presure that is spoke of over there. If they were going away from the lottery system or increasing the tags by a bunch you might have some thing to whine about but this measure will not change anything. If you can see the differnece in presure it is imagined in your head.


----------



## dakotashooter2

First this is no skin off my nose because I don't hunt SD anyway.

Actually there is just as much potential to keep the number of actual hunting days the same. First, currently most guys probably are not using the full 10 days anyway, probably closer to 6. Keep in mind, whether it is 10 days or 2- 5 day periods you are still only allowing 2 weekends within those time periods. I suspect if you split the license most hunters will also not use the full 5 days for each split but probably 2 1/2-3 day for each period (a long weekend). Under that scenario the number of hunting days will probably remain the same, however it would probably concentrate that pressure on weekends which may already be the case anyway. One of the concerns you hear from ND residents about our NR hunters is that they are "pressuring birds all week long" and "driving them out" (I have my own ideas on this). So keeping the pressure on the weekends may or may not be a good thing. In ND NRs can do 2-7 day splits. Outside of a handfull of hunters from adjoining states I'm not sure many come back for the second split.

What should be done in these cases is a survey of the NR hunters to determine what the end result likely would be.....instead of guessing.............

Another option is to require the use of different zones for each split. That can help move the pressure from the heaviest used areas. ND does this to some extent.....


----------



## KurtR

I would suspect that surveys have been done by the g&f and if they let this fly there math is how you put it. I was trying to say what you explained in a much better way


----------



## WingedShooter7

KurtR said:


> WingedShooter7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> 
> bs they would hunt the same amout of days. 10 is 10 reguardless how you want to add it up. Presure maybe get away from the east side of the state and you wont see any presure. Presure that is funny if you think the small amount of presure from nr amount to any thing in the grand scheme of things. How do the pheasants ever handle all the presure. With the small amount of tags guiding for waterfowl here is a very very small nitche market. If they leave the number of tags the same the days hunted will be the same 10 is 10, granted a few will get to hunt a few more times with it being spaced out. But the g&f figure a ten day license and that the hunters hunt 10 days so nothing will change except makeing it a little more conveinent for the guys that paid for the tags to acctually hunt a fair amount.
> 
> 
> 
> Your right 10 days is 10 days but how many Non residents hunt for 10 days straight? I'm guessing the vast majority of them do not, with most hunting 3-5 days. So now you give them 2 5 day periods and it would be much easier to come back for those 5 days they never would of hunted in the first place, which would create more *Pressure*. As far as getting away from the Eastern side of the state, since we are talking about waterfowl hunting the obvious place that almost ALL non residents are going to choose to hunt is in the Eastern Side of the state. I know if I was a non resident I sure wouldn't be spending my time trying to hunt anywhere but the Eastern Side. Comparing pheasants to waterfowl is like trying to compare apples to oranges, waterfowl migrate and adapt due to the amount of pressure they are receiving. Pheasants do not migrate, at least they haven't since they were first introduced into the United States unless that has changed? Sure pheasants get a little jumpy towards the end of the season but they also are an upland bird that hides in cover, runs through cover, and can essentially move to a new section of cover in the same general area regardless of the amount of pressure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I grew up in watertown and went to school at sdsu so i know the area quite well. I even go back home and visit and hunt with my dad and have yet to deal with all this "presure" that is spoke of. Your right my uncle who probally lived here as long or longer than most on here before he did 20 years in miltary would plan two trips back also my brother to so i am all for seeing them another time. It is to bad that you think you have all the waterfowl on the east side of the state after moving and having my eyes opened up you have nothing on the north centeral part of the state. Maybe that is why it is so good here all that presure that is spoke of over there. If they were going away from the lottery system or increasing the tags by a bunch you might have some thing to whine about but this measure will not change anything. If you can see the differnece in presure it is imagined in your head.
Click to expand...

I actually grew up in Rapid City, so I'm not "eyes closed" on other places that have waterfowl hunting beside the Eastern Side. I and who ever else is against these bills isn't whining, once one bill goes through its only a matter of time before another goes through but thank you for the assumption.


----------



## KurtR

Is that what you were saying when the bill went through to change it to lotery system with limited license. Is it only a matter of time till residents will have to enter a lottery to get waterfowl tags? Spin it any way you want to make your self feel right


----------



## drakespanker12

i like dakotashooters idea, put zones on it and enforce it, unlike nd where u can hunt in the same zone for both 7 day periods


----------



## Chuck Smith

Here is a spin on things....

National hunter numbers are declining dramaticly. All you are seeing is that we need more hunter numbers afield. Do bills that cap or restrict anyone helping this situation? Some things to think about.

Now growing up I hunted many places with my father in state and out of state. But waterfowl hunting in certain states is a joke. So hunter numbers are declining. Now where states where there is good hunting and a person can take family or invite family back to hunt want restrictions or tighter restrictions. Is this helping with retaining or introducing hunters?

It is something to think about.


----------



## clint_hay

KurtR said:


> WingedShooter7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up in watertown and went to school at sdsu so i know the area quite well. I even go back home and visit and hunt with my dad and have yet to deal with all this "presure" that is spoke of. Your right my uncle who probally lived here as long or longer than most on here before he did 20 years in miltary would plan two trips back also my brother to so i am all for seeing them another time. It is to bad that you think you have all the waterfowl on the east side of the state after moving and having my eyes opened up you have nothing on the north centeral part of the state. Maybe that is why it is so good here all that presure that is spoke of over there. If they were going away from the lottery system or increasing the tags by a bunch you might have some thing to whine about but this measure will not change anything. If you can see the differnece in presure it is imagined in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Growing up in Nebraska, and moving to SD, it has been 100 times harder to get on fields. In Nebraska, i would MAYBE get turned down 3 times a year. First year hunting in SD this past season, I would get turned down easy 3 times a weekend. One weekend I got turned down 11 different times! Mostly because...1. i have relatives hunting it 2. its leased 3. the last time i let hunters on my land they disrespected my land 4. someone else asked to hunt already. All im saying is there are already enough hunters on the eastern side of SD. We dont need anymore!


----------



## Augusta

[/quote]
Growing up in Nebraska, and moving to SD, it has been 100 times harder to get on fields. In Nebraska, i would MAYBE get turned down 3 times a year. First year hunting in SD this past season, I would get turned down easy 3 times a weekend. One weekend I got turned down 11 different times! Mostly because...1. i have relatives hunting it 2. its leased 3. the last time i let hunters on my land they disrespected my land 4. someone else asked to hunt already. All im saying is there are already enough hunters on the eastern side of SD. We dont need anymore![/quote]
+1 We are seeing the same issue in ND. I wish ND would adopt SD waterfowl restrictions.


----------



## jpallen14

Why change something that works? Never makes sense to me.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Growing up in Nebraska, and moving to SD, it has been 100 times harder to get on fields. In Nebraska, i would MAYBE get turned down 3 times a year. First year hunting in SD this past season, I would get turned down easy 3 times a weekend. One weekend I got turned down 11 different times! Mostly because...1. i have relatives hunting it *2. its leased* 3. the last time i let hunters on my land they disrespected my land 4. someone else asked to hunt already. All im saying is there are already enough hunters on the eastern side of SD. We dont need anymore!


My questions on the Leased land...

Is that land leased by people for pheasant hunting or strictly for waterfowl? Is is leased by a NR? Is it leased by a guide?


----------



## clint_hay

Chuck Smith said:


> Growing up in Nebraska, and moving to SD, it has been 100 times harder to get on fields. In Nebraska, i would MAYBE get turned down 3 times a year. First year hunting in SD this past season, I would get turned down easy 3 times a weekend. One weekend I got turned down 11 different times! Mostly because...1. i have relatives hunting it *2. its leased* 3. the last time i let hunters on my land they disrespected my land 4. someone else asked to hunt already. All im saying is there are already enough hunters on the eastern side of SD. We dont need anymore!
> 
> 
> 
> My questions on the Leased land...
> 
> Is that land leased by people for pheasant hunting or strictly for waterfowl? Is is leased by a NR? Is it leased by a guide?
Click to expand...

I dont really stick around and ask specifics after i get turned down on a field. all on corn fields that are already cut, so i doubt pheasants. how would i know if it was leased by a NR or guide? the area i hunt, i doubt there are any waterfowl guides. what difference does it make? if i ask a farmer "would it be ok if i hunt your field?" and he says no its leased....its leased! nothing i can do about it, getting turned down wether leased by a NR or guide is being turned down.


----------



## Chuck Smith

My point is pressure that people talk about this has nothing to do with.

Getting turned down because the land is leased is not exactly "pressure" on the resource. The land could be leased for hunting rights. Now the person who leased the land could be a guide for waterfowl or just upland or both. It could be a deer hunter leasing the land. It could be a waterfowler leasing the land. You don't know. So saying it puts pressure on waterfowl hunting is not an accurate. That is my point.

Then getting turned down because a relative is hunting.....not exactly pressure. Is that person hunting it that day, the next weekend, the next month??? All you know is that they are hunting and not when. Maybe the hunt it ever other weekend and the land owner just turns people down all year. Is that pressure on the resource....NOPE.


----------



## KurtR

[/quote]
Growing up in Nebraska, and moving to SD, it has been 100 times harder to get on fields. In Nebraska, i would MAYBE get turned down 3 times a year. First year hunting in SD this past season, I would get turned down easy 3 times a weekend. One weekend I got turned down 11 different times! Mostly because...1. i have relatives hunting it 2. its leased 3. the last time i let hunters on my land they disrespected my land 4. someone else asked to hunt already. All im saying is there are already enough hunters on the eastern side of SD. We dont need anymore![/quote]

I have the exact oposite experience but i grew up in watertown/brookings and got to know people. When i was 16 it was hard getting older farmers to trust me but once they learn that you dont tear **** up and close gates they will help you even find birds. Been gone for 10 years now and can call back and get on land right now. So i should feel bad for some one that does not get on right away when i have years of helping in summers and forming realtions ships involved. The only place i see alot of presure is down in pierre whth the goose camps. Did not get turned down once this year be it for ducks,pheasants, or deer, but i just dont drive up at 5 in the evening and hope to hunt the next morning. I put alot of time and effort in to just getting to know peolpe. Go help hay or during a branding and for relationships just dont expect to get on some ones land. Percieved presure that is a great way to describe it


----------



## mntwinsfan

IMO, we have a really good thing going. Residents are happy and most knowledgable NR are happy. Why let money for a few people get in the way? Draw rates are very high (70-80%) and hunting is great. Why would a NR continue to bicker? Like I have said before... If NR are that disgruntled with the system, they can move here.

Perceived pressure is still pressure. I hunt everywhere in E SD. Kurt, your the lucky one. You grew up here, people know your family, etc. Of course you will get permission. However, guys like me hunt everywhere in the state, and its tough to get to know people.


----------



## clint_hay

Chuck Smith said:


> My point is pressure that people talk about this has nothing to do with.
> 
> Getting turned down because the land is leased is not exactly "pressure" on the resource. The land could be leased for hunting rights. Now the person who leased the land could be a guide for waterfowl or just upland or both. It could be a deer hunter leasing the land. It could be a waterfowler leasing the land. You don't know. So saying it puts pressure on waterfowl hunting is not an accurate. That is my point.
> 
> Then getting turned down because a relative is hunting.....not exactly pressure. Is that person hunting it that day, the next weekend, the next month??? All you know is that they are hunting and not when. Maybe the hunt it ever other weekend and the land owner just turns people down all year. Is that pressure on the resource....NOPE.


if someone is hunting in that area, that field/slough and those birds in that area are being pressured! just because he/she is a relative to a farmer, they are still a hunter, and hunting birds in that area. they hunt birds, birds get pressured...."hunting pressure"


----------



## dakotashooter2

Pressure.... is also a subjective term. Some guys see any competition for a spot ,at all, as pressure. When I started hunting it was nothing to see 10-20 other vehicles on the road at 3 am all heading for the same general hunting area (maybe 20 sq miles). When shooting time came we would hear them shooting around us but rarely see them and rarely fought for the same spot. At the time we didn't consider that to be pressure. Now if someone encounters 1/2 that they are screaming it's too much pressure.


----------



## KurtR

mntwinsfan said:


> IMO, we have a really good thing going. Residents are happy and most knowledgable NR are happy. Why let money for a few people get in the way? Draw rates are very high (70-80%) and hunting is great. Why would a NR continue to bicker? Like I have said before... If NR are that disgruntled with the system, they can move here.
> 
> Perceived pressure is still pressure. I hunt everywhere in E SD. Kurt, your the lucky one. You grew up here, people know your family, etc. Of course you will get permission. However, guys like me hunt everywhere in the state, and its tough to get to know people.


I hunt from perkins county all the way over to codington so other than the far southwest and south east i am around. I would like to know how many remember the days of the power plant by bigstone now that might be considered presure or over by the refuge at wilmont nothing to see 50 people in the ditch. with 95 % residents. Luck has nothing to do with it alot of hard work and hunting season is year round when forming relationships and getting to know people. If you can get nascar to relocate here my brother would move back in a heartbeat but till then he just gets a license and if schedule works out comes and hunts. Twice now he has had a license and dates turned out not working and hunted 0 days along with my uncle once wonder how many times that happens. If you think with the small amount of nr that hunt here they are the ones putting the presure on you are dilusional. It is mostly the residents who are jumping birds out of the roost and sky blasting. If they wanted to increase tags by 1000 would be an issue but all this does is ad a little convienence to it.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Clint you are not getting my point.

Because you got turned down for permission does not mean the resource is getting pressured. You don't know if that resource is getting hunted for one day a week, 7 days a week, one weekend a month or every weekend. So the "pressure" on that resource you don't know.


----------



## mntwinsfan

If this bill gets passed, it will make the 3 day licenses available to be used statewide. Normally, 500 would be used in the NE and 1500 were reserved for the river. One of the sponsors of the bills emailed me back after I asked him where these licenses would end up. He said the commission is in charge of deciding where they will be used but he is convinced they will be available statewide. Now, adding 2000 licenses might add a bit more pressure. Personally, I dont want to see that...


----------



## fishnfool

I would like to throw in my 2 cents worth as one of the dreaded nr's. I am a 52 yr old man who has had the pleasure of hunting South Dakota for the past 15 yrs a couple for pheasant a couple for waterfowl and the last 8 yrs for archery deer . I make the assumstion that most of the people complaining about nr's are young people base on the comments. 
I applied every year and only have drawn waterfowl tags 4 times in 15yrs because of your quota's but I am not complaining only stating fact that thier most not be a over abundance of nr licenses issued. I have been a supporter of DU for years and realize my dollars have gone to support the prairie states as well as the canadian prairie wetlands . I think it is selfish to only think these birds Belong to any one state or the people who reside in them. With the small amount of people who reside in ND and SD due think if all the nr's decided decades ago to not contribute financially you would have the waterfowl population or habitat to support it . Im not trying to argue with anyone but simply point out that without the concern of all the waterfowl community wheter resident or nr we would not have the waterfowl for ALL to enjoy.


----------



## mntwinsfan

Drawing 4/15 years does not make any sense. Either you didnt' apply correctly every year or you literally have the worst luck in the world. Based on the draw statistics in the last five years, one year preference will guarantee you a license next year. There is just not enough people that apply. The draw rate has been 60-90% over the last ten years. Based on preference points you literally have the worst luck in the world.


----------



## fishnfool

I applied correctly every year with my friends and I looked it is 5 times in 15 yrs I spoke to the South Dakota Fish & game Dept and they said it was based on the area we try to draw in which happens to be in the SE part of the state I dont make the rules I followed them and then as a group we must have the worst but no accordind to SD fish & game


----------



## duckp

If you apply for a 3 or a 10 day,there is no way you don't draw at least every other year.Most of my friends draw every year.And to say that anything that brings non-res people back here more often doesn't increase pressure is beyond silly.Right or wrong,more visits equals more pressure.
GFPs knows this and its simple math.Doesn't necessarily double it but certainly increases it.


----------



## clint_hay

Chuck Smith said:


> Clint you are not getting my point.
> 
> Because you got turned down for permission does not mean the resource is getting pressured. You don't know if that resource is getting hunted for one day a week, 7 days a week, one weekend a month or every weekend. So the "pressure" on that resource you don't know.


I think you and I could go back and forth on this all way...that being said, this will be my last comment.

Yes i understand your point...but when a farmer tells me that his/her relative is hunting it, i assume that weekend. why? because birds move, and do not stay in one field/slough for a month or a even a week. they move due to hunting pressure, the food source is gone or weather.

If birds are feeding in a certain field one day, they may not the next...let alone the next week


----------



## Blue Plate

Is math in South Dakota different than other places, isn't 5x2=10? :wink:

Most guys don't use all 10 days regardless if they are broken up or not. Presure is a relative term when it comes to SD, there really isn't much espcially if you get away from the "bigger" cities. Getting permission is tough in SD for whatever reason. You either need to know someone or just work hard to find landowners, or hunt public ground.


----------



## jpallen14

FYI, HB-1091 unfortunately passed committee. Off to the house floor in the near future. I'll keep you folks in the loop.


----------



## 9manfan

clint_hay said:


> living in brookings, i have to deal with the pressure of all the college kids. even as a NR they can still apply as a resident and hunt all year. and most kids (mostly from MN) say they didnt come to school in brookings because of the hunting. BS! they tell their friends how good the hunting is, and come to school at SDSU.
> 
> quote]
> 
> and you have done a survey on this and know exactly why every kid from Mn goes to SDSU is for hunting ducks...really...


----------



## duckp

2 times 5=14.
Of course I went to school in Minnesota.Obviously people from there are better at math,heck just look at their State budget. :beer:


----------



## 9manfan

duckp said:


> 2 times 5=14.
> Of course I went to school in Minnesota:beer:


I bet you went to school in Minnesota just to shoot our ducks.... :beer: .....


----------



## greenc

wow your state is leased up and outfitter central i dont think you have to worry i have hunted many states but SD is the worse for waterfowl if you are free lancing and dont know anybody its over rated sure we get our birds everytime we go there but it is getting worse and worse every year so i dont think it will phase your season at all. reasons why are lottery to hunt, outfitters, leased up land.


----------



## duckp

Great,then you don't need to come back.


----------



## jpallen14

HB-1091 passed in committee and will be voted on by the House on Thurday 2-2-12.
Bill
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2012/ ... 091HAG.htm
House Members
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2012/ ... mmittee=76
Again this bill will likely make all 3-day licenses valid statewide or in eastern South Dakota on public or private land. Send out some emails soon.


----------



## Beavis

9manfan said:


> clint_hay said:
> 
> 
> 
> living in brookings, i have to deal with the pressure of all the college kids. even as a NR they can still apply as a resident and hunt all year. and most kids (mostly from MN) say they didnt come to school in brookings because of the hunting. BS! they tell their friends how good the hunting is, and come to school at SDSU.
> 
> quote]
> 
> and you have done a survey on this and know exactly why every kid from Mn goes to SDSU is for hunting ducks...really...
Click to expand...

He doesn't need to do a survey bung hole!!! And he didn't say all MN people either. As far as I'm concerned MN are terrible at waterfowl hunting. And this isn't everyone in MN, just my personal expierences


----------



## 9manfan

Beavis said:


> 9manfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clint_hay said:
> 
> 
> 
> living in brookings, i have to deal with the pressure of all the college kids. even as a NR they can still apply as a resident and hunt all year. and most kids (mostly from MN) say they didnt come to school in brookings because of the hunting. BS! they tell their friends how good the hunting is, and come to school at SDSU.
> 
> quote]
> 
> and you have done a survey on this and know exactly why every kid from Mn goes to SDSU is for hunting ducks...really...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't need to do a survey bung hole!!! And he didn't say all MN people either. As far as I'm concerned MN are terrible at waterfowl hunting. And this isn't everyone in MN, just my personal expierences
Click to expand...

I think I'll just rest my case.... :rollin: .....


----------



## Gunny

Beavis said "As far as I'm concerned MN are terrible at waterfowl hunting."

Yet traditionally MN waterfowl hunters harvest more waterfowl per year...


----------



## mattmegan

To All, I really enjoy this waterfowl forum and for the first time I'm responding to some of the post. As a MN resident I agree with the SD residents to some degree, if I lived in SD I too would want to keep the NR to a minimum. I apply for the 10 day permit and have been successful. We have no trouble getting access to private land as a matter of fact I don't recall ever being told no. The people of SD are awesome ! I tell my friends in SD that MN leads the league in both, fence post and NO Hunting signs. So to all the people of SD a big thank you ! love your state. One item I find odd, someone suggested kids are choosing SDSU based on the duck hunting ? I don't have hard facts to support my case, but all the numbers I've see tell the same story, the sport of waterfowl hunting is loosing numbers in a big way with the largest decline in young hunters. I really would like to see some hard facts that show kids are going to school in SD for hunting. Even if that was the case how many are we talking about, not many that's for sure . Duck hunting is very expensive, not to mention all the equipment. So where are the college kids keeping the 3 doz decoys, boat, Heck I have a 3 car garage and still don't have enough room for all my duck hunting crap. Love SD and its people. Too bad MN has drained ever pothole in the state. Had we taken better care of our resources maybe we wouldn't need to use someone else.


----------



## the professor

mattmegan said:


> To All, I really enjoy this waterfowl forum and for the first time I'm responding to some of the post. As a MN resident I agree with the SD residents to some degree, if I lived in SD I too would want to keep the NR to a minimum. I apply for the 10 day permit and have been successful. We have no trouble getting access to private land as a matter of fact I don't recall ever being told no. The people of SD are awesome ! I tell my friends in SD that MN leads the league in both, fence post and NO Hunting signs. So to all the people of SD a big thank you ! love your state. One item I find odd, someone suggested kids are choosing SDSU based on the duck hunting ? I don't have hard facts to support my case, but all the numbers I've see tell the same story, the sport of waterfowl hunting is loosing numbers in a big way with the largest decline in young hunters. I really would like to see some hard facts that show kids are going to school in SD for hunting. Even if that was the case how many are we talking about, not many that's for sure . Duck hunting is very expensive, not to mention all the equipment. So where are the college kids keeping the 3 doz decoys, boat, Heck I have a 3 car garage and still don't have enough room for all my duck hunting crap. Love SD and its people. Too bad MN has drained ever pothole in the state. Had we taken better care of our resources maybe we wouldn't need to use someone else.


It only takes one guy out of a group to have a rental house to park all the gear. I can list 10 guys off the top of my head that selected SDSU for undergrad or post grad based partly on the waterfowling opportunities. One brick house close to campus comes to mind. It was a revolving door for waterfowling students for the better part of a decade. God only knows the amount of birds cleaned and busch lights consumed there... :laugh:


----------



## duckp

Great post Matt.When I grew up in Mn there were potholes and water everywhere.AND,I'm old but not that old.It took less than 50 years to turn the western pothole region of Mn into fences,black earth and at least one drainage ditch per mile.Unfortunately with 'gold fever'(ethanol)the draining and fence to fence farming is starting here as well.Won't get 'bad' in my time but it also won't take 50 years with todays $$ and equipment.
Gunny,yup the harvest there is nearly double that here-so why the hell are you guys coming here?Stay there and shoot twice as many. :lol: 
Semper Fi.


----------



## KurtR

the professor said:


> mattmegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> To All, I really enjoy this waterfowl forum and for the first time I'm responding to some of the post. As a MN resident I agree with the SD residents to some degree, if I lived in SD I too would want to keep the NR to a minimum. I apply for the 10 day permit and have been successful. We have no trouble getting access to private land as a matter of fact I don't recall ever being told no. The people of SD are awesome ! I tell my friends in SD that MN leads the league in both, fence post and NO Hunting signs. So to all the people of SD a big thank you ! love your state. One item I find odd, someone suggested kids are choosing SDSU based on the duck hunting ? I don't have hard facts to support my case, but all the numbers I've see tell the same story, the sport of waterfowl hunting is loosing numbers in a big way with the largest decline in young hunters. I really would like to see some hard facts that show kids are going to school in SD for hunting. Even if that was the case how many are we talking about, not many that's for sure . Duck hunting is very expensive, not to mention all the equipment. So where are the college kids keeping the 3 doz decoys, boat, Heck I have a 3 car garage and still don't have enough room for all my duck hunting crap. Love SD and its people. Too bad MN has drained ever pothole in the state. Had we taken better care of our resources maybe we wouldn't need to use someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> It only takes one guy out of a group to have a rental house to park all the gear. I can list 10 guys off the top of my head that selected SDSU for undergrad or post grad based partly on the waterfowling opportunities. One brick house close to campus comes to mind. It was a revolving door for waterfowling students for the better part of a decade. God only knows the amount of birds cleaned and busch lights consumed there... :laugh:
Click to expand...

You went to school for a decade..... :beer:


----------



## 9manfan

KurtR said:


> the professor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mattmegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> To All, I really enjoy this waterfowl forum and for the first time I'm responding to some of the post. As a MN resident I agree with the SD residents to some degree, if I lived in SD I too would want to keep the NR to a minimum. I apply for the 10 day permit and have been successful. We have no trouble getting access to private land as a matter of fact I don't recall ever being told no. The people of SD are awesome ! I tell my friends in SD that MN leads the league in both, fence post and NO Hunting signs. So to all the people of SD a big thank you ! love your state. One item I find odd, someone suggested kids are choosing SDSU based on the duck hunting ? I don't have hard facts to support my case, but all the numbers I've see tell the same story, the sport of waterfowl hunting is loosing numbers in a big way with the largest decline in young hunters. I really would like to see some hard facts that show kids are going to school in SD for hunting. Even if that was the case how many are we talking about, not many that's for sure . Duck hunting is very expensive, not to mention all the equipment. So where are the college kids keeping the 3 doz decoys, boat, Heck I have a 3 car garage and still don't have enough room for all my duck hunting crap. Love SD and its people. Too bad MN has drained ever pothole in the state. Had we taken better care of our resources maybe we wouldn't need to use someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> It only takes one guy out of a group to have a rental house to park all the gear. I can list 10 guys off the top of my head that selected SDSU for undergrad or post grad based partly on the waterfowling opportunities. One brick house close to campus comes to mind. It was a revolving door for waterfowling students for the better part of a decade. God only knows the amount of birds cleaned and busch lights consumed there... :laugh:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You went to school for a decade..... :beer:
Click to expand...

They call that a Doctor... :beer: ...


----------



## the professor

KurtR said:


> You went to school for a decade..... :beer:


Was not referencing myself in that post. Just some friends. I'm called "the professor" for other reasons, the least of which would be how many years (2) i went to school! :bop:


----------



## mntwinsfan

the professor said:


> mattmegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> To All, I really enjoy this waterfowl forum and for the first time I'm responding to some of the post. As a MN resident I agree with the SD residents to some degree, if I lived in SD I too would want to keep the NR to a minimum. I apply for the 10 day permit and have been successful. We have no trouble getting access to private land as a matter of fact I don't recall ever being told no. The people of SD are awesome ! I tell my friends in SD that MN leads the league in both, fence post and NO Hunting signs. So to all the people of SD a big thank you ! love your state. One item I find odd, someone suggested kids are choosing SDSU based on the duck hunting ? I don't have hard facts to support my case, but all the numbers I've see tell the same story, the sport of waterfowl hunting is loosing numbers in a big way with the largest decline in young hunters. I really would like to see some hard facts that show kids are going to school in SD for hunting. Even if that was the case how many are we talking about, not many that's for sure . Duck hunting is very expensive, not to mention all the equipment. So where are the college kids keeping the 3 doz decoys, boat, Heck I have a 3 car garage and still don't have enough room for all my duck hunting crap. Love SD and its people. Too bad MN has drained ever pothole in the state. Had we taken better care of our resources maybe we wouldn't need to use someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> It only takes one guy out of a group to have a rental house to park all the gear. I can list 10 guys off the top of my head that selected SDSU for undergrad or post grad based partly on the waterfowling opportunities. One brick house close to campus comes to mind. It was a revolving door for waterfowling students for the better part of a decade. God only knows the amount of birds cleaned and busch lights consumed there... :laugh:
Click to expand...

The brick house is still being represented Mitch!!!


----------



## KurtR

Just messin with ya. I may have been in a brickhouse, green house or a gray house in the 97ish and on time frame. boy that was a long time ago and the stuff we used to get away with would make the kids there now think we were all crazy. Hell i remeber hearing storys of how they used to flip cars in the streets during hobo days. When you hear the sheep coming down the halls of hansen lock your doors and stay the hell out of the way. Oh the good old days what i would give to go back and only have to worry about where the next kegger is and which slew am i going to in the morning


----------



## Gunny

duckp wrote: Gunny,yup the harvest there is nearly double that here-so why the hell are you guys coming here?Stay there and shoot twice as many.

Will do.

Also we have a secret motive for infiltrating the Dakotas... We are annexing them for your corn... One of these days we will rule the world!!! Maniacal laugh, maniacal laugh, maniacal laugh... oke:


----------



## Gunny

You see, the way I see it is that with in the next 15 years, everyone residing in The Dakotas will, at one point in life, have lived in this wasteland of horrable hunters and slob hunters. Inviting all of their friends and relitaves to hunt a few days, destroying all of the natural vegitation while busting roosts and sending all of the birds south. Not to worry though. We have so much mony we will follow them south, then east...

Arkansas... We're comin' for you... oke:


----------



## Pokey00

Just a comment in general, and it really doesn't make much difference what state you live in or from. But the overall picture is that all states are losing their waterfowl hunters. Instead of bashing each other all the time, we should be happy people are out there that continue to hunt waterfowl regardless in what state. That is money to that state's DNR to maintain the waterfowl enviroment.

Since a lot of the focus seems to be about out of state hunters in South Dakota, everybody seems to forget that South Dakota is even complaining about the numbers dropping for RESIDENT hunters. Where are they? The numbers seem to be dropping faster then the total number of non-resident hunters being allowed to hunt. I bet those non-resident hunter's are spending a larger share of money for their 10 days of hunting then what the resident hunters are spending for their season on a one by one comparrison!

I have hunted South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. I do enjoy the South Dakota hunting more then the other states. Sure more ducks, but one of the main reasons I enjoy it that when we talked to the RESIDENT farmers asking for permission to hunt, they are always polite and wish us the best hunting. One reason why, they never see any other hunters in the area where we hunt, resident or non-resident. We never see any other hunters ourselves. So where are all these South Dakota hunters that are so starved of hunting because of outsiders taking everything.

If the South Dakota resident do not want any outsiders, then maybe they should quit taking Federal money support and do it all themselves. Then lets see how much it will cost them and how many quit because of the cost. This statement goes for hunters in each of their own states.

I am sure I will get a lot of snide remarks, but I feel I will because I hit a truth nerve with some.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ALL NEED TO SUPPORT EACH OTHER AND KEEP THE SPORT GOING FOR ALL!!! Thank you.


----------



## SDOutdoorsman

I could be wrong, but I believe one of the main reasons that residents (including me) dont want the number of nonresidents licenses to go up isn't necessarily because we dont want more residents hunting here, but we dont want waterfowl hunting here to be so commercialized like the pheasant hunting. In most places its fairly easy to get on private land to waterfolw hunt. Most land owners say sure shoot all the ducks and geese you want but dont shoot any pheasants. If i went out and asked people permission to pheasant hunt their land I bet I could go ask 100 farmers and I would be suprised if one told me I could. Thats because they are getting payed for people to hunt their land for pheasants. Most have several out of staters that come in groups and pay to hunt their property. I dont think splitting the 10 days license into two 5 days periods will have a huge impact on this but every year the tourism groups will fight to find ways to get more and more nonresidents here hunting and this will lead to more guides and rich people leasing up the land and will make it tougher for us residents to have the opportunies we have now.


----------



## jpallen14

SB-143 that would have create 2 5 day periods was pushed to the 41st day this morning. Basically that means the bill was killed Thanks for everyones support. HB-1091 hits the house floor today. I'll cross my fingers.

NR waterfowlers spend money in South Dakota....but do not inflate the numbers. I personally hunt with a several a year. Many hunt for 5-10 days. I know for a fact none spend over $500 in South Dakota on their trip. Zero buy any shells, decoys or any waterfowl hunting gear in South Dakota. They all show up with it. Many never even eat out. They bring a grill and crockpot and bring all their groceries from out of state with them. I hunt out of state every year for 10 days straight for about $400.

Between gas, hotels, shells, misc gear, lisences, in state banquets, and donations to South Dakota wildlife Orgs. I spend several thousand dollars hunting waterfowl throughout the season in South Dakota each year. A ton of NR that hunt in South Dakota do not I repeat do not want to increase NR waterfwol license numbers.


----------



## BigT

Pokey00 said:


> I bet those non-resident hunter's are spending a larger share of money for their 10 days of hunting then what the resident hunters are spending for their season on a one by one comparrison!.


That is laughable. This is the same old line that gets argued here all the time. North and South Dakota will survive if you are not contributing your couple hundred dollars every other year. Supporting the local talent at the Hopscotch and Kongo club does not constitute keeping the state fiscally solvent for the year. Does the NR money help, sure cant hurt, but I would guess the 5k plus a year I spend helps more. I believe most NR's hunt on a budget, not all, but most. When I hunt elsewhere I try to keep it as economical as possible. I hunt Utah for 10 days for under a grand, including fuel. I am not sure how that state has kept it's head above water the past 3 years with me not there, but they are surviving.

Fighting these bills has nothing to do with not wanting to see NR's hunt in SD, but everything to do with protecting the quality of hunting this state has to offer. I hunt with several people that are not SD residents, and they all seem to enjoy the hunting here. With the habitat and public lands being lost to ethanol and other things, I think it is even more important now to protect hunting here than ever. You are correct in that we should support other hunters, we also should support their defense of their states hunting as well.


----------



## BigT

mattmegan said:


> So where are the college kids keeping the 3 doz decoys, boat


It is possible to hunt waterfowl sans boat. I have done it, and have seen it done... oke: I don't believe every student is attending SDSU for the waterfowl, but I would venture to bet there are alot of them. I hunt with several students from there, and it definately wasn't a negative factor for choosing that school, and they all have their own stuff, so it is possible. I would be interested to see how many came to the school and then stayed in the state due to the hunting.


----------



## jpallen14

HB-1091, Vote count no-37, yes-29. Nice work


----------



## Horker23

You guys complain about "pressure". You have never seen pressure! We kill plenty of birds a year in the great state of Sota and have to work around pressure. Yes birds act differnt, but there are ways of still getting it done. You assume that everyone will just flood to south dakota to hunt ducks now. Come on!
I went to school in south dakota for 4 years and yes you guys have it great but adding a split in the license is not going to make a hell of a differnce. 
Adding more licenses is going to do nothing more then make people that wanna kill birds consistently step up there game if they are feeling so pressured!

Im not saying im for it but, im just saying!


----------



## Horker23

Fighting these bills has nothing to do with not wanting to see NR's hunt in SD, but everything to do with protecting the quality of hunting this state has to offer. I hunt with several people that are not SD residents, and they all seem to enjoy the hunting here. With the habitat and public lands being lost to ethanol and other things, I think it is even more important now to protect hunting here than ever. You are correct in that we should support other hunters, we also should support their defense of their states hunting as well.[/quote]

Not to hijack, but then Minnesota should increase our nr fishing and only allow one 10 day period!


----------



## BigT

Horker23 said:


> Fighting these bills has nothing to do with not wanting to see NR's hunt in SD, but everything to do with protecting the quality of hunting this state has to offer. I hunt with several people that are not SD residents, and they all seem to enjoy the hunting here. With the habitat and public lands being lost to ethanol and other things, I think it is even more important now to protect hunting here than ever. You are correct in that we should support other hunters, we also should support their defense of their states hunting as well.


Not to hijack, but then Minnesota should increase our nr fishing and only allow one 10 day period![/quote]

That would probably be a good idea. Why would you not want to protect your resources?


----------



## Horker23

I agree but I think the whole point is that it is suppose to go both ways


----------



## mntwinsfan

I would venture to guess that not many South Dakotans are making their way to MN to fish....


----------



## WingedShooter7

Well considering that the bills all got shut down, I really don't think sitting on here and arguing about it for another year until they probably try to pass something similar to this is going to do much.

The thing that probably bothers me the most, is the pure lack of knowledge and education about the subject that those that introduced this bill had. Some of the things that were mentioned when trying to convince other reps to pass this was completely misinformed information. I realize that the reps have quite a few things on their plate to learn about but when someone can't even say flock of geese, and calls them herds or tries to say how the migration has been drastically changing its routes it just goes to show what they are really about regardless of what they try to say, and that is MONEY.

Good work everyone that wrote in and expressed how they were concerned, it obviously goes to show that at least some of them listen.

Horker, you coming out here for snows this spring?


----------



## Horker23

Yep


----------



## jpallen14

I support any state raising license fees on NR and limiting numbers. States need to protect their resources for the ones who really care. Just saying.


----------



## Augusta

jpallen14 said:


> I support any state raising license fees on NR and limiting numbers. States need to protect their resources for the ones who really care. Just saying.


+1 Maybe all those NR's should consider spending their "hard earned" dollars in their home states. Then maybe they would have the funds to restore their habitat that has been destroyed by wetlands being drained or that has been destroyed by other means. I always find it ironic that NR hunters seem to thing that they are so welcome in other states and how the residents are begging for them to come...I have never seen or heard of this myself...it's always the opposite...I agree with MN rasing the NR fishing fee, then maybe everyone could catch 14 inch walleyes instead of the standard 10-12 inch... :lol: Anyways, you SD boys keep watch over what you have, always remain vigilant. It bothers me to see how close that vote actually was, let those reps who voted "yes" know that you will remember them in the next election. Keep giving NR residents an incentive to face their own habitat problems, heck, maybe someday MN could be back in the glory days of waterfowling, and everyone will want to spend their "hard earned" dollars in MN. Just my thoughts on the subject....


----------



## slough

Augusta said:


> [ Anyways, you SD boys keep watch over what you have, always remain vigilant.


Exactly. Of course SD hunters don't experience much for pressure (at least compared to most states), that's the point. I've never hunted in SD but there is nothing wrong with trying to preserve what you have, even though godforbid it may cost the state a few bucks.


----------



## fishnfool

I've learned one thing from this web site it's where the largest amount of cry babies in the country live thats ND followed by SD


----------



## Augusta

fishnfool said:


> I've learned one thing from this web site it's where the largest amount of cry babies in the country live thats ND followed by SD


Gordie, sounds like you found a great reason to stay home and hunt your home state of Michigan. :beer:


----------



## WingedShooter7

fishnfool said:


> I've learned one thing from this web site it's where the largest amount of cry babies in the country live thats ND followed by SD


Well....I guess I won't be crying if you don't ever show up here then if that's what your preconceived notion is.


----------



## duckp

deleted-double post


----------



## duckp

Good work JP.Great news.
Yes,people with brains want to keep SoDak waterfowl as is cause of it's quality.As to Mn and fishing,hell our ramps are full of Mn plates who must not like fishing there.Use that argument on Iowegians,not us. :lol: 
Gunny,I understand the rape and pillage thing-hell Minnesotans even did it too our muskrats last year-til we finally stopped it.Do you guys eat them?Bet they are served in all those fancy bistros huh?I do pity Arkansas though.


----------



## coyotebuster

Good for SD! I wish the state of MN would only allow two 5 day blocks on NR boat and PWC licenses, sucks being over run with wake boats and jet- skis.


----------



## Gunny

Of course we eat them... Duh... :roll:

Another true fur bearer, the muskrat (also known in restaurants and in some areas as "marsh rabbit," although there is a true swamp or marsh rabbit) is noted for its clean food habits. It's a vegetarian and as such seldom eats anything to give an off-flavor to its dark meat, but it can carry tularemia. The fat is unpleasant and should be removed. This is most easily done if the skinned and cleaned carcass (it has musk glands, too, which should be removed) is refrigerated overnight. This hardens the fat and makes it easier to peel off.

The muskrat, even a young one that will weigh about 1 pound and serve 2 people, should be soaked overnight at least, in 2 or 3 baths of water with 1 tablespoon salt per quart, or use 1 cup vinegar to each quart of water. Older, larger specimens will reach 3 pounds in weight and require longer soaking. Incidentally, the muskrat fur, after the long guard hairs were plucked off, was at one time called "Hudson seal" -- a favorite fur of fashionable women earlier in the century.

Jacqueline E. Knight

As muskrat is mainly herbivorous, its flesh is sweet and palatable, similar to rabbit, although darker, and is fine grained. It can be delicious roasted, broiled, braised or stewed.

They should be skinned and cleaned as soon as possible, then washed in warm salted water. Be sure to remove all the musk glands from inside the legs as well as the white tissuet skin and all the fat. Soak the meat in a weak brine for 2-3 hours to draw out the blood before cooking.

Try them: dredged in seasoned flour and pan fried with sliced onions. battered and deep fried. Or ground in a meat loaf.

From: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

================================

Allegheny Baked Marsh Hare (Muskrat)

Recipe By:	Jacqueline E. Knight

Amount	Measure	Ingredient	Preparation Method
1 Muskrat	
Salt	
3	medium	Potatoes	
2	tablespoons	Butter	
Freshly-ground black pepper	to taste
1	teaspoon	Dried summer savory	
1	cup	Minced celery	
2	large	Carrots	cut into quarters
3	slices	Bacon

Soak muskrat in water to cover, with 1 tablespoon salt per quart 
of water, overnight. Cook potatoes and mash with butter, 1/2 
tablespoon salt, 1/4 teaspoon pepper, the savory and celery. Stuff 
muskrat with potato stuffing, and sew up or truss. Rub with 1 
teaspoon salt and 1/8 teaspoon pepper. Put on a rack in roaster, 
with legs tied to body. Arrange carrot quarters around the muskrat 
and the bacon on top. Bake at 400 degrees for 10 minutes. Pour 2 
cups hot water over the meat and cook an additional 35 minutes. 
Remove bacon and cook for 10 minutes more.

This recipe yields 2 to 4 servings.

================================

Cream Muskrat Casserole

Recipe By:	Hunters Information Service

Amount	Measure	Ingredient	Preparation Method
5	tablespoons	Butter	
2 Muskrats	cut into pieces
1 1/2	cups	Thick cream	
1/3	cup	Vinegar	
5 Scallions	diced
Salt	to taste
Freshly-ground black pepper	to taste
1/2	teaspoon Thyme

Melt 3 tablespoons of butter in casserole and brown the muskrat
pieces lightly in it. Mix the cream, vinegar, scallions, salt, 
pepper, herbs and butter together. Pour half the cream mixture 
over the muskrat. Cover casserole and simmer over very low 
heat for an hour. Be careful not to burn the mixture. Skim off the
butter and add remaining cream mixture. Heat gently for 10 
minutes until sauce thickens.

Does anyone know if the muskrats in Arkansas are bigger than the pittley little ones in SD? A Fat cat needs to eat, right? :thumb:

Has anyone here seen the keys to my Rolls? :wink:


----------



## KurtR

The day i eat a muskrat times are getting really tough. The bills got shot down so be it. In generall i like how the waterfowl system is set up here i was liking this just for family that comes back and hunts. Didnt want the number of permits increased just help with schedule flexability some. I didnt take it as anyone was whining just stating opinions and if your from out of state and dont like it hunt somewhere else as i am sure life will carry on the same with or with out you.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Off topic but yet was brought up here...

The Muskrats...

You know why MN people were coming over.....because the Resident trappers were not taking care of the problem. Also the high price of fur helped too.

But if you talk to the farmers and township people they wanted all the muskrats dead. Why do you think some of the roads are getting washed out? The muskrats chew up the roots of the aquatic plants. Leave the rest. That floating mess clogs up the culvert....yep wash out!! Of the great mass of floating vegitation in the middle of the lakes. So don't "bash" NR for taking care of a problem critter.


----------



## 9manfan

duckp said:


> Good work JP.Great news.
> Yes,people with brains want to keep SoDak waterfowl as is cause of it's quality.As to Mn and fishing,hell our ramps are full of Mn plates who must not like fishing there.Use that argument on Iowegians,not us. :lol:
> Gunny,I understand the rape and pillage thing-hell Minnesotans even did it too our muskrats last year-til we finally stopped it.Do you guys eat them?Bet they are served in all those fancy bistros huh?I do pity Arkansas though.


You can come to Mn and get all our rat's too if you want, way too many of them around, they are benefical to a certain degree and then they turn into problems, I agree , keep they trappers from MN in Mn, why would we want to help you guys out..... oke: ..... :beer:


----------



## jpallen14

I wonder what the nesting success rate is for ducks and geese on muskrat huts/homes? Extremely high I'm sure. Resident and NR trapper don't even come close to scratching the surface when it comes to reducing muskrat population. It is largely dependent on water and aquatic plant conditions.


----------



## fishnfool

Just a heads up to all you SD residents who don't want NR's in your state you may wish to contact whoever is in charge of your tourism and petion them and tell them to stop running your SD great faces great places ads in our state as you dont wish to see any NR's in your state . For not wanting any NR's SD sure does run an awful amount of ads on tv in Michigan trying to get people to visit, you may also wish to try to get them to cancel the sturgis bike rally and quit advertising mount rushmore.


----------



## 9manfan

fishnfool said:


> Just a heads up to all you SD residents who don't want NR's in your state you may wish to contact whoever is in charge of your tourism and petion them and tell them to stop running your SD great faces great places ads in our state as you dont wish to see any NR's in your state . For not wanting any NR's SD sure does run an awful amount of ads on tv in Michigan trying to get people to visit, you may also wish to try to get them to cancel the sturgis bike rally and quit advertising mount rushmore.


No that stuff is fine ,just don't shoot their ducks...  ....


----------



## SDOutdoorsman

fishnfool said:


> Just a heads up to all you SD residents who don't want NR's in your state you may wish to contact whoever is in charge of your tourism and petion them and tell them to stop running your SD great faces great places ads in our state as you dont wish to see any NR's in your state . For not wanting any NR's SD sure does run an awful amount of ads on tv in Michigan trying to get people to visit, you may also wish to try to get them to cancel the sturgis bike rally and quit advertising mount rushmore.


Maybe I missed it somewhere but I dont think their was anyone in this thread that was complaining about or even mentioned NR's coming to visit Mount Rushmore or the Sturgis Bike Rally. Once again I could be wrong but by looking at the title of the thread and reading through it, I'm pretty sure is has to do with South Dakota Waterfowl Hunting.


----------



## KurtR

fishnfool said:


> Just a heads up to all you SD residents who don't want NR's in your state you may wish to contact whoever is in charge of your tourism and petion them and tell them to stop running your SD great faces great places ads in our state as you dont wish to see any NR's in your state . For not wanting any NR's SD sure does run an awful amount of ads on tv in Michigan trying to get people to visit, you may also wish to try to get them to cancel the sturgis bike rally and quit advertising mount rushmore.


bye


----------



## recker

I have been going to South Dakota for 25 years to hunt as a NR and strongly pushed for the two five day periods. Our buddy owns a motel in a small town there and would love to have this. Everyone resident we know in the town would like more money coming into the town. The state has lost half of its resident waterfowl hunters in the last ten years so this hardly would ruin the hunting.

I have seen pressure increase on a few well known lakes in the last ten years but most areas you will never see another hunter. Lots of hunters come from a long way and will not make two trips. People like myself who are closer will make two trips. Heck I have hunted North Dakota who have like 9 times the non resident hunters SD has and rarely see another hunter in the area I hunt. In bad economic times the state needs more revenue and imo this will not do anything to the hunting as there are so many ducks and so many areas it really wont matter.


----------



## jpallen14

recker said:


> I have been going to South Dakota for 25 years to hunt as a NR and strongly pushed for the two five day periods. Our buddy owns a motel in a small town there and would love to have this. Everyone resident we know in the town would like more money coming into the town. The state has lost half of its resident waterfowl hunters in the last ten years so this hardly would ruin the hunting.
> 
> I have seen pressure increase on a few well known lakes in the last ten years but most areas you will never see another hunter. Lots of hunters come from a long way and will not make two trips. People like myself who are closer will make two trips. Heck I have hunted North Dakota who have like 9 times the non resident hunters SD has and rarely see another hunter in the area I hunt. In bad economic times the state needs more revenue and imo this will not do anything to the hunting as there are so many ducks and so many areas it really wont matter.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion but nearly 40 representatives, countless state senators, 1,000s of resident & NR waterfowl hunters, and dozens of wildlife orgs. thought your views are wrong. That fact of the matter is the only people pushing for the increase are folks who generally know or care little about the resource and believing they will make money off the resource at the sacrifice of residents and NR who enjoy South Dakota waterfowling. The vast majority of residents and NR waterfowl hunters do not want anything changed, what else needs to be explained?


----------



## duckp

Amen. :beer:


----------



## wildrice

Sorry Boys, have perference points for 2012 for a 10 day hunt with two other NR's............we'll show up about when the migration pushes through and basically see nobody hunting them. Oh, and I don't go near the might Mo either. Sorry, just have to say it, you guys are spoiled.

WR


----------



## mntwinsfan

Yea and guess what... You are prolly gonna have a very good hunt. Are we spoiled? Yea prolly compared to other states that have messed up their waterfowling systems. For a second, think of where we are coming from and try to avoid the greed. If you had really good hunting in your state, you would want to protect it. Grow up!


----------



## recker

I am not sure why you are attacking me. I dont recall asking for anything to be explained I was stating my opinion. I guess I missed that survey were NR' were opposed to having two five day periods. As you said I am entitled to my opinion and am more then happy to take my second trip to North Dakota instead. They still have some pretty good hunting imo.


----------



## southdakbearfan

South Dakota hunters have seen the complete commercialization of pheasant hunting, that is why we are protective of waterfowl hunting.

Being a lifelong resident of south dakota, it saddens me to think of 25 years ago when I would be invited out to pheasant hunt every weekend all year long, if I wanted. Now, even my father of 72, who has tons of farmer friends has given up hunting for pheasants more than about once a year, and that is traveling far away from the town he has lived in for 40 years to have access without expectation of payment to areas where I have traded work for access with farmers/ranchers. Up until 5 years ago, I would beat the bushes asking for permission and it got to the point where one season I talked to over 20 different farmers I knew and all said they couldn't afford to let me hunt as they had pay hunters.

It is what it is, but it sucks. I don't expect it to change in the near future, nor do I fault the farmers for doing what they do.

But, as I said before about commercialization, we have seen how the rates go up and up to the point where one cannot justify shelling out $300+ a day for hunting pheasants in a state where a large percentage of incomes for families do not allow it.

I consider myself lucky to have a friend that allows me to help work cattle, haul grain and in return gives me all the hunting access I want. And this is just when he needs an extra hand, not more than a few days a year.

On a side note on this issue, I believe this is where the Anti's gain ground every year. When I grew up everyone hunted, now it is lucky if 3-4 kids out of my 3 kids classes hunt. It has become a pay to play game and the masses have given it up. Maybe some day in the future it will turn around as less and less get into hunting there will be less willing to pay for it, but by then there could be enough national sentiment to eliminate it all together with fewer and fewer being involved.

Waterfowl hunting is one of the last partially protected hunting sports left in SD for the resident and the local residents and state sportsman's clubs will fight tooth and nail for it.


----------



## duckp

Wildrice,
Good on you.AND we will do everything we can to keep it that way for you.Think about it-you prove our point. :thumb:


----------



## Augusta

southdakbearfan said:


> South Dakota hunters have seen the complete commercialization of pheasant hunting, that is why we are protective of waterfowl hunting.
> 
> Being a lifelong resident of south dakota, it saddens me to think of 25 years ago when I would be invited out to pheasant hunt every weekend all year long, if I wanted. Now, even my father of 72, who has tons of farmer friends has given up hunting for pheasants more than about once a year, and that is traveling far away from the town he has lived in for 40 years to have access without expectation of payment to areas where I have traded work for access with farmers/ranchers. Up until 5 years ago, I would beat the bushes asking for permission and it got to the point where one season I talked to over 20 different farmers I knew and all said they couldn't afford to let me hunt as they had pay hunters.
> 
> It is what it is, but it sucks. I don't expect it to change in the near future, nor do I fault the farmers for doing what they do.
> 
> But, as I said before about commercialization, we have seen how the rates go up and up to the point where one cannot justify shelling out $300+ a day for hunting pheasants in a state where a large percentage of incomes for families do not allow it.
> 
> I consider myself lucky to have a friend that allows me to help work cattle, haul grain and in return gives me all the hunting access I want. And this is just when he needs an extra hand, not more than a few days a year.
> 
> On a side note on this issue, I believe this is where the Anti's gain ground every year. When I grew up everyone hunted, now it is lucky if 3-4 kids out of my 3 kids classes hunt. It has become a pay to play game and the masses have given it up. Maybe some day in the future it will turn around as less and less get into hunting there will be less willing to pay for it, but by then there could be enough national sentiment to eliminate it all together with fewer and fewer being involved.
> 
> Waterfowl hunting is one of the last partially protected hunting sports left in SD for the resident and the local residents and state sportsman's clubs will fight tooth and nail for it.


Very well said southdakotabearfan, you boys in ND better pay attention to what this guy said, as you are the next state. Put a stop to being overrun by NR hunters, it is YOUR state and YOUR resource, the vast majority of you don't like being overrun by NR hunters, start doing something about it before it's too late! Put a limit on the number of NR hunters that can come to your state.


----------



## jpallen14

recker said:


> I am not sure why you are attacking me. I dont recall asking for anything to be explained I was stating my opinion. I guess I missed that survey were NR' were opposed to having two five day periods. As you said I am entitled to my opinion and am more then happy to take my second trip to North Dakota instead. They still have some pretty good hunting imo.


I have hunted North Dakota several times also, they do have some great waterfowl hunting and I'm sure they will be happy to have you.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> On a side note on this issue, I believe this is where the Anti's gain ground every year. When I grew up everyone hunted, now it is lucky if 3-4 kids out of my 3 kids classes hunt. It has become a pay to play game and the masses have given it up. Maybe some day in the future it will turn around as less and less get into hunting there will be less willing to pay for it, but by then there could be enough national sentiment to eliminate it all together with fewer and fewer being involved.


Now this is what I was talking about. When people want to limit NR hunters. Don't you think that the NR hunter wants to take their kid to a place to have great success to get them to be a lifetime hunter? Maybe they save up all year for a one week trip to take the kids to a great place to go hunting. But now when you limit the number of people you are taking away hunter numbers. Remember lots of $$$ in conservation efforts (DU, Delta, PF, Rocky MT elk, etc) that are used in your states for resources come from NR or people not from your home state! Who are the people putting money or donating to these groups...HUNTERS. So when you think you are "protecting" a resource are you really hurting it in the long run? Remember waterfowl are FEDERAL and are not owned by one state.


----------



## Augusta

Chuck Smith said:


> On a side note on this issue, I believe this is where the Anti's gain ground every year. When I grew up everyone hunted, now it is lucky if 3-4 kids out of my 3 kids classes hunt. It has become a pay to play game and the masses have given it up. Maybe some day in the future it will turn around as less and less get into hunting there will be less willing to pay for it, but by then there could be enough national sentiment to eliminate it all together with fewer and fewer being involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is what I was talking about. When people want to limit NR hunters. Don't you think that the NR hunter wants to take their kid to a place to have great success to get them to be a lifetime hunter? Maybe they save up all year for a one week trip to take the kids to a great place to go hunting. But now when you limit the number of people you are taking away hunter numbers. Remember lots of $$$ in conservation efforts (DU, Delta, PF, Rocky MT elk, etc) that are used in your states for resources come from NR or people not from your home state! Who are the people putting money or donating to these groups...HUNTERS. So when you think you are "protecting" a resource are you really hurting it in the long run? Remember waterfowl are FEDERAL and are not owned by one state.
Click to expand...

I think this would provide you with a great incentive to help begin restoring the lost habit in your home state of MN. Just think, instead of a kid having to save all his money for just one week of hunting in SD or ND, he could hunt all season long in MN. If kids could hunt close to home and have great success, this would encourage more young hunters to join the sport than say just going to SD or ND for a week. It is my understanding that MN has drained over 90% of it's wetlands, with the use of taxpayer dollars, I would think that if you are truely sincere in wanting to see younger people enter the sport, you would be concentrating your efforts on fixing the problem at home.....Just my thoughts....


----------



## mntwinsfan

Now this is what I was talking about. When people want to limit NR hunters. Don't you think that the NR hunter wants to take their kid to a place to have great success to get them to be a lifetime hunter? Maybe they save up all year for a one week trip to take the kids to a great place to go hunting. But now when you limit the number of people you are taking away hunter numbers. Remember lots of $$$ in conservation efforts (DU, Delta, PF, Rocky MT elk, etc) that are used in your states for resources come from NR or people not from your home state! Who are the people putting money or donating to these groups...HUNTERS. So when you think you are "protecting" a resource are you really hurting it in the long run? Remember waterfowl are FEDERAL and are not owned by one state.[/quote]

You are exactly right waterfowl are a federal and migratory species. People get very hung up on where DU's and other Federal spending ends up. At this moment, it doesn't make much sense for DU to spend large amounts of money in MN, Iowa, etc. The nesting grounds in MN and IA have been demolished. However, places such as SD and ND still have plenty of grass for nesting. Its safe to say that MN/IA aren't producing that many birds. The birds that SD produces end up in every state. So, if you want to pull Federal spending and limit DU's spending in SD go for it. Lets see people complain then.


----------



## fishnfool

I think all NR's should contact the organizations they donate to and elect to have them spend your donation in your own region I know that my donations to DU and delta will now be used in Michigan and would like to thank the 'Residents ' for making rethink where my donations goes. I also think that all of the resident who whis to block any NR's from hunting in thier state should also contact DU ,Delta etc and petion them to stop using NR's $ in thier state . And by the the way I think that will save me enough money so iI can now come out and lease some property.


----------



## duckp

Hilarious arguments but I enjoy them.
Bottom line:just checked the legislative update and it appears the 4 bills impacting NR increases of one sort or another have been defeated or killed in committee.End of story.


----------



## 9manfan

Augusta said:


> I think this would provide you with a great incentive to help begin restoring the lost habit in your home state of MN. Just think, instead of a kid having to save all his money for just one week of hunting in SD or ND, he could hunt all season long in MN. If kids could hunt close to home and have great success, this would encourage more young hunters to join the sport than say just going to SD or ND for a week. It is my understanding that MN has drained over 90% of it's wetlands, with the use of taxpayer dollars, I would think that if you are truely sincere in wanting to see younger people enter the sport, you would be concentrating your efforts on fixing the problem at home.....Just my thoughts....


This is the second time you have mentioned getting our wetlands back, the wetlands you are refering to are bringing 7500.00 to 10,000. an acre as agriculture land, is it your fault they got drained, no it isn't, it's not my fault either, it happened years ago and it's not going to change, if you really think it might, I have a bridge in California I would like to sell you.


----------



## Chuck Smith

9manfan..

You are 100% correct. Also with the price of corn....what farmer would want to put land back into nesting habitat for birds?

I have been preaching this ever since I have joined this site. The Dakota's will be seeing more and more habitat loss. They will need groups like I mentioned to help protect what they have. That is why these groups have focused on those two states in the past 10 years or better. They know once it is lost it is 10 times as difficult to get back. Many that bash the NR hunters have been hunting when CRP is everywhere. Now they are losing that ground and think the way to keep hunting good for THEMSELVES is to ban or restrict NR's. They don't see the big picture. But I will get off my soap box.

Like someone stated.....the bills have been killed.


----------



## 9manfan

Chuck Smith said:


> 9manfan..
> 
> You are 100% correct. Also with the price of corn....what farmer would want to put land back into nesting habitat for birds?
> 
> I have been preaching this ever since I have joined this site. The Dakota's will be seeing more and more habitat loss. They will need groups like I mentioned to help protect what they have. That is why these groups have focused on those two states in the past 10 years or better. They know once it is lost it is 10 times as difficult to get back. Many that bash the NR hunters have been hunting when CRP is everywhere. Now they are losing that ground and think the way to keep hunting good for THEMSELVES is to ban or restrict NR's. They don't see the big picture. But I will get off my soap box.
> 
> Like someone stated.....the bills have been killed.


For now, there's always next year.... :beer: ....


----------



## SDOutdoorsman

You guys act like its impossible to get a NRs license and that we dont want a single NR hunting here. We simply do not want to number of licenses to increase. This makes the quality of hunting better for residents AND NR hunters who get drawn for a license. Like I said before if their were an unlimited amount licenses waterfowl hunting in this state would become more and more like pheasant huting were you would be expected to pay to get on land, which would suck for both residents and nonresidents. I've had NR friends apply for license the last two years and they all were succesfull both years in getting drawn. They are happy with the lottery system because it makes the quality of hunting in this state better. Not sure what the success rate on getting drawn for a license is, but I think its pretty high so I'm not sure why a bunch of people are complaining.


----------



## Augusta

9manfan said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this would provide you with a great incentive to help begin restoring the lost habit in your home state of MN. Just think, instead of a kid having to save all his money for just one week of hunting in SD or ND, he could hunt all season long in MN. If kids could hunt close to home and have great success, this would encourage more young hunters to join the sport than say just going to SD or ND for a week. It is my understanding that MN has drained over 90% of it's wetlands, with the use of taxpayer dollars, I would think that if you are truely sincere in wanting to see younger people enter the sport, you would be concentrating your efforts on fixing the problem at home.....Just my thoughts....
> 
> 
> 
> This is the second time you have mentioned getting our wetlands back, the wetlands you are refering to are bringing 7500.00 to 10,000. an acre as agriculture land, is it your fault they got drained, no it isn't, it's not my fault either, it happened years ago and it's not going to change, if you really think it might, I have a bridge in California I would like to sell you.
Click to expand...

Number one, land is not going for $7,500 to $10,000 per acre in MN. How do I know this? I work in a field where we monitor land purchases/values in MN. So why can't MN people work to get their wet lands back? By the way, it's a "bridge in Arizona". Something tells me that you really do own a bridge in California.... :beer:


----------



## Augusta

SDOutdoorsman said:


> You guys act like its impossible to get a NRs license and that we dont want a single NR hunting here. We simply do not want to number of licenses to increase. This makes the quality of hunting better for residents AND NR hunters who get drawn for a license. Like I said before if their were an unlimited amount licenses waterfowl hunting in this state would become more and more like pheasant huting were you would be expected to pay to get on land, which would suck for both residents and nonresidents. I've had NR friends apply for license the last two years and they all were succesfull both years in getting drawn. They are happy with the lottery system because it makes the quality of hunting in this state better. Not sure what the success rate on getting drawn for a license is, but I think its pretty high so I'm not sure why a bunch of people are complaining.


+1 The real issue here is about preserving what SD and ND have and maybe even somehow helping other states with their wildlife issues. I think it would be in everyone's best interest if we all worked together on these issues, versus expecting others to give us what they have. I wish ND would follow SD waterfowling lottery system. Way too many NR hunters coming in.


----------



## jpallen14

Actually tons of wetlands are being restored in MN. I have a buddy that is contracted by DU and NRCS. They have a long list of landowners awaiting wetland restoration. If MN put time and Money into it I really don't see any reason why they could not make a big enough impact to increase waterfowl in MN. It took 100 years to drain the wetlands, what makes you think it can be reversed it in 5, 10 or 20 years?

Over the last 10 years drawing success for SD 10 day license has averaged nearly 90%. I personally know several guys that have applied to hunt waterfowl in SD and have been draw anywhere from 5-10 years in row. Wish I could get an elk tag like that. I guess if I got one every year though the quality of the hunt would deminish.


----------



## Augusta

jpallen14 said:


> Actually tons of wetlands are being restored in MN. I have a buddy that is contracted by DU and NRCS. They have a long list of landowners awaiting wetland restoration. If MN put time and Money into it I really don't see any reason why they could not make a big enough impact to increase waterfowl in MN. It took 100 years to drain the wetlands, what makes you think it can be reversed it in 5, 10 or 20 years?
> 
> Over the last 10 years drawing success for SD 10 day license has averaged nearly 90%. I personally know several guys that have applied to hunt waterfowl in SD and have been draw anywhere from 5-10 years in row. Wish I could get an elk tag like that. I guess if I got one every year though the quality of the hunt would deminish.


Yes, they are working on restoring wetlands, and hopefully, with the Lessard-Sams Outdoor money, this process can and hopefully will be increased, thereby bringing the waterfowl back to MN or at the very least keeping them here longer in the fall. I just hope they don't lose sight of the intent of the act.


----------



## 9manfan

Augusta said:


> 9manfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the second time you have mentioned getting our wetlands back, the wetlands you are refering to are bringing 7500.00 to 10,000. an acre as agriculture land, is it your fault they got drained, no it isn't, it's not my fault either, it happened years ago and it's not going to change, if you really think it might, I have a bridge in California I would like to sell you.
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, land is not going for $7,500 to $10,000 per acre in MN. How do I know this? I work in a field where we monitor land purchases/values in MN. So why can't MN people work to get their wet lands back? By the way, it's a "bridge in Arizona". Something tells me that you really do own a bridge in California.... :beer:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So your telling me that no land in Mn has went for 7500.00 to 10,000.00 an acre ???????........and the Bridge is the Golden Sate Bridge in California.... :beer: .....and who in their right mind would turn agriculture land back into wetlands, I wish they would, but if you still think they will, what else can I sell you that I don't have...... oke: ......


----------



## 9manfan

jpallen14 said:


> Actually tons of wetlands are being restored in MN. I have a buddy that is contracted by DU and NRCS. They have a long list of landowners awaiting wetland restoration. If MN put time and Money into it I really don't see any reason why they could not make a big enough impact to increase waterfowl in MN. It took 100 years to drain the wetlands, what makes you think it can be reversed it in 5, 10 or 20 years?
> 
> Over the last 10 years drawing success for SD 10 day license has averaged nearly 90%. I personally know several guys that have applied to hunt waterfowl in SD and have been draw anywhere from 5-10 years in row. Wish I could get an elk tag like that. I guess if I got one every year though the quality of the hunt would deminish.


These wetlands that are being restored , are probably ones that our over tiled land drains into and they never get a chance to draw down naturally, they turn into carp infested waters, again this in not your fault and I'm not blaming any of you guys, but you make it sound like, Hey let's get some of our wetlands back, it's not that easy,I'm 52 years old and I remember alot of great hunting sloughs that were drained when I was a kid, there not coming back, not in a million years, they might restore a few little ones here and there, but that's about it. Keeping the ones we have in good shape is about all that is going to happen that I can see in the future. Most of the good sloughs now have drainage ditches running right thru them, so that is how I KNOW they're not coming back, again not your fault.

And to the part about getting drawed for a SD license,I have no idea on that, I've never applied, I'm pretty contempt hunting my few spots here in Mn.
It's just that some of the debates I read about NR going to SD , like most college kids go to SDSU because they like to duck hunt, my oldest son went there and I counted another22 kids from around here that went there and not a one of them duck hunted, hell, if they had any money I'm sure it went for beer and pizza, I'm sure there are some kids that have went there did duck hunt, but I hardly believe it is the majority, and then I read about we should get all our wetlands back so we keep our kids here to hunt, God I wish it was that easy, but it's not, well I'm done with my short novel here and have to get back to work, if anyone would like a friendly debate about all of this, I'll be in Deadwood over St. Patties Day... :beer:


----------



## KurtR

Maybe the land in arden hills but regular farm land nope not going for 7500-10000 no way no how. How many bushell of corn would an acre have to produce to cover the cost of a 7500 dollar lease per acre. well corn is 6.38 a bushell if i looked at the right market that would mean you need to have 1175 bushell average per acre to just break even on your lease. So tell me again even if some one purchased that land for that price it would take 20 years to get to break even if averageing 60 bpa which i think is more realalistic. Maybe that is why mn is broke simple math escapes them


----------



## Chuck Smith

Farm land is going for in S MN is anywhere from $5000 to $8,000. And yes it is. I know because I am a realtor and monitor auctions, land sales, etc. So I know for a fact it is going in this range....and is going to go even higher.



> You guys act like its impossible to get a NRs license and that we dont want a single NR hunting here. We simply do not want to number of licenses to increase.


This thread was never about license numbers increasing. It wasn't about the number of days afield increasing. It was about making it that you can split the 10 alotted days into 2 five day periods. So why the call to arms? How does a NR think this is not a bashing thread when all this bill did was to allow people to split the 10 days into two periods.


----------



## 9manfan

KurtR said:


> Maybe the land in arden hills but regular farm land nope not going for 7500-10000 no way no how. How many bushell of corn would an acre have to produce to cover the cost of a 7500 dollar lease per acre. well corn is 6.38 a bushell if i looked at the right market that would mean you need to have 1175 bushell average per acre to just break even on your lease. So tell me again even if some one purchased that land for that price it would take 20 years to get to break even if averageing 60 bpa which i think is more realalistic. Maybe that is why mn is broke simple math escapes them[/quote
> 
> If you don't believe me, look up Redwood and Lyon counties for land purchases and then get back to me. Alot of old money being spent on land, better return from cash rent than the money laying in the bank.
> 
> There was 80 acres around Geroge Iowa that sold for 20,000.00 an acre, look it up.
> 
> http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/ ... land-sale/


----------



## jpallen14

Chuck Smith said:


> Farm land is going for in S MN is anywhere from $5000 to $8,000. And yes it is. I know because I am a realtor and monitor auctions, land sales, etc. So I know for a fact it is going in this range....and is going to go even higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys act like its impossible to get a NRs license and that we dont want a single NR hunting here. We simply do not want to number of licenses to increase.
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was never about license numbers increasing. It wasn't about the number of days afield increasing. It was about making it that you can split the 10 alotted days into 2 five day periods. So why the call to arms? How does a NR think this is not a bashing thread when all this bill did was to allow people to split the 10 days into two periods.
Click to expand...

Actually two bills listed in is thread had to do with increased waterfowl licenses. One was to split the 10 day license.

More than half the wetlands being restored by DU and NRCS are not even considered a wetland or lake before restoration. They are bone dry. Land in portions of SD has and are going nearly at the same price. So what is the point?

I still don't get the bashing part either. Please explain on why keeping the current system, that again I repeat the vast majority of resident and NR waterfowlers want the same is bashing.


----------



## KurtR

9manfan said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the land in arden hills but regular farm land nope not going for 7500-10000 no way no how. How many bushell of corn would an acre have to produce to cover the cost of a 7500 dollar lease per acre. well corn is 6.38 a bushell if i looked at the right market that would mean you need to have 1175 bushell average per acre to just break even on your lease. So tell me again even if some one purchased that land for that price it would take 20 years to get to break even if averageing 60 bpa which i think is more realalistic. Maybe that is why mn is broke simple math escapes them[/quote
> 
> If you don't believe me, look up Redwood and Lyon counties for land purchases and then get back to me. Alot of old money being spent on land, better return from cash rent than the money laying in the bank.
> 
> There was 80 acres around Geroge Iowa that sold for 20,000.00 an acre, look it up.
> 
> http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/ ... land-sale/
Click to expand...

Well i guess i am wrong. looks like you have 2 options 1. live in the dump that is mn and hunt here for 10 days 2. Move here

Guess that simple enough


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Maybe the land in arden hills but regular farm land nope not going for 7500-10000 no way no how. How many bushell of corn would an acre have to produce to cover the cost of a 7500 dollar lease per acre. well corn is 6.38 a bushell if i looked at the right market that would mean you need to have 1175 bushell average per acre to just break even on your lease. So tell me again even if some one purchased that land for that price it would take 20 years to get to break even if averageing 60 bpa which i think is more realalistic. Maybe that is why mn is broke simple math escapes them


It isnt a lease.....It is a mortgage. So with it at $5000 per acre that is roughly $30,000 a year in payment per 100 acres....and $50,000 a year in payments with $8,000 per acre.

Well the futures on corn is well over $7 a bushell, soy beans was $13 plus a bushell. The average yld per acre in my area is about 180 bushells with some going in the 200+. So My simple math with $7 corn on 100 acres and getting 180 bushel per acre...that is $126,000. Now yes it will take years to pay off. But many of these farmers are guys who have land paid for and are looking for more. So the $126,000 per 100 acres can go along way to help pay for the high price.

Now I am not saying that this is good. Because all it will take is 1-2 years of too wet or too dry and some of these farmers will be in a world of hurt. Also guys are trying to get into farming because they think they can make huge profits.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Also people mentioned that land is selling for the same price in SD.... I did a quick check on Cabela's properties. Which BTW is over priced......i check about 10 listings that were 100+ acres with out homes or resorts.....they were selling around $3000 per acre. Just so people don't get facts distorted.


----------



## 9manfan

^
^
^
I agree with you, acouple bad years and some of these guys are going to be in trouble, but most of the high end land that has sold around here, these guys had lot of the money to pay that price, and with the prices it's going for, chances of it ever being restored to wetlands, is pretty much slim and none, I don't like it, but that's the way it is.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> I still don't get the bashing part either. Please explain on why keeping the current system, that again I repeat the vast majority of resident and NR waterfowlers want the same is bashing.


I understand on keeping the licensing numbers the same. But what is the harm in allowing people to split it up?

Like many NR stated they won't use the second 5 days.


----------



## Chuck Smith

9manfan....

You are 100% correct. Many of the people are purchasing the land with cash. They are farmers who have owned the land or purchased land back when it was $500 - $2000 an acre. 15 years ago. So they have been buying down on that land for years. Now are reaping the benefits of $7 corn.... They are paying off old debt and having cash reserves. So they go and purchase land or even can pay outlandish rents because they owe nothing on other land. So they can spread that profit throughout their operation.

It could get scary again. Just like the 80s. The new gold rush is in the midwest with corn.


----------



## 9manfan

KurtR said:


> quote]
> 
> Well i guess i am wrong. looks like you have 2 options 1. live in the dump that is mn and hunt here for 10 days 2. Move here
> 
> Guess that simple enough


It's not that I hate Mn, heck I like it here, not many duck hunters to compete with, they all go to the Dakota's to hunt.... :beer: ....that's why I was hoping for the split of the 10 day season into 2- 5 day season's....


----------



## Augusta

Chuck Smith said:


> I still don't get the bashing part either. Please explain on why keeping the current system, that again I repeat the vast majority of resident and NR waterfowlers want the same is bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand on keeping the licensing numbers the same. But what is the harm in allowing people to split it up?
> 
> Like many NR stated they won't use the second 5 days.
Click to expand...

So help me understand, if the NR's are not going to use the second 5 days, why the need for two 5 day periods?


----------



## jpallen14

Chuck Smith said:


> I still don't get the bashing part either. Please explain on why keeping the current system, that again I repeat the vast majority of resident and NR waterfowlers want the same is bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand on keeping the licensing numbers the same. But what is the harm in allowing people to split it up?
> 
> Like many NR stated they won't use the second 5 days.
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but nearly 40 representatives, countless state senators, 1,000s of resident & NR waterfowl hunters, and dozens of wildlife orgs. thought each bill in one form or another was harmful to the over all quality of the resource and hunt for resdients and NR alike. Do we need to beat the bush anymore?

Land prices are relative to area. I just went online also and found land for sale in MN for less than $1500 an acre. I know what pieces of land have went for in many portion of SD either beacuse I was at the auction, or friends/family sold or bought ground. I have seen land in the last couple of months in SD go for 10k +/-.


----------



## Augusta

Not to hijack this thread, but can I ask you guys who are seeing ag land being sold for $7,500 to $10,000/ac in MN and SD. tell me which counties you have seen these sales, I just spent the last hour pouring over my MN ag land data and can't find any sales even close to those amounts. Bear in mind, we are talking bare ag land here, not the sale of ag land with a building site or bin site. Just post the counties where the sale took place, I can call and verify the sale with the county assessor. I need this info for research, thanks.


----------



## 9manfan

Honestly, until I read this thread, I had no idea what SD had for rules and reg's for NR waterfowlers, I knew you had to apply in a lottery system, but didn't know there was a 10 day limit, didn't make much difference to me because I really have no intention's of hunting there, I'm not that far from the border and have enough ducks to shoot here when we go out, the only thing that got me irked alittle was telling us NR to spend our money in our own state and get our wetlands back, well I know that's not going to happen( to be like it was years ago), we may save a few but it will never be what it was, if our duck hunter numbers continue to decline in every state, we all are going to be in trouble someday,it's a dieing sport, hope it never happen's, but it could,so with that, Happy Hunting..... :beer: ....


----------



## 9manfan

Augusta said:


> Not to hijack this thread, but can I ask you guys who are seeing ag land being sold for $7,500 to $10,000/ac in MN and SD. tell me which counties you have seen these sales, I just spent the last hour pouring over my MN ag land data and can't find any sales even close to those amounts. Bear in mind, we are talking bare ag land here, not the sale of ag land with a building site or bin site. Just post the counties where the sale took place, I can call and verify the sale with the county assessor. I need this info for research, thanks.


There was some land south of Tracy mn that sold for big money in the last 2-3 months, it's either Lyon or Murray county, one of them.


----------



## WingedShooter7

Augusta said:


> Chuck Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't get the bashing part either. Please explain on why keeping the current system, that again I repeat the vast majority of resident and NR waterfowlers want the same is bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand on keeping the licensing numbers the same. But what is the harm in allowing people to split it up?
> 
> Like many NR stated they won't use the second 5 days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So help me understand, if the NR's are not going to use the second 5 days, why the need for two 5 day periods?
Click to expand...

Exactly, if most aren't going to use it anyway then what was the point of even trying to get it? Obviously there was some push from somewhere (even though those that presented it were basically clueless) that 2 5 day periods would make SOME NR hunters more happy. It was just a matter of using common sense IMO that 2-5 day periods rather than 1 10 day period would increase everything that has already been stated countless times in this thread.


----------



## 9manfan

Augusta.......the reason I know we will never get our wetlands back......have you ever driven thru SW Mn and seen all of our drainage ditches, these ditches were either butted up to a slough or dug right thru the middle of the slough or shallow lake bottom's, and all the land adjoining these ditches are tiled into the ditch, this was common practice back in the late 50's and 60's, heck, there's still ditches being dug,we might get a few wetlands restored and save the ones we have, but big Ag will never let us have what we had 40-50 years ago, it's just not going to happen.

The high priced corn is taking every abandoned grove, tree lines and fence lines out every day around here, there's no way the farmers are going to put land back into wetlands. I could drive you around for days and show you where all the hot sloughs were years ago, I hope I'm wrong about never getting them back, but I don't think so.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Auction sales in SE MN.... Land went for $7200 an acre in Winona County last week...bare ag land...Look up sales in Olmsted county, Freeborn county, Blue Earth County, Faribult county. Lots of places in Southern MN are selling bare ag land for $5000+ an acre. Most are auction sales. Land in N MN is selling for $1000 an acre...this is woods and swamp. So yes it depends on where you look.

The land I found in SD was in the Eastern part of the state which is typically crop and not bad lands. So my search was refined and it was all ag land.

I am sure where the push came from was from a couple of NR hunters and the tourism of the state. Because if people only use 5-7 days...if you allow them another weekend they might come back. So I am sure the push was from the restaruant, hotel, motel, etc industry.


----------



## WingedShooter7

Chuck Smith said:


> Auction sales in SE MN.... Land went for $7200 an acre in Winona County last week...bare ag land...Look up sales in Olmsted county, Freeborn county, Blue Earth County, Faribult county. Lots of places in Southern MN are selling bare ag land for $5000+ an acre. Most are auction sales. Land in N MN is selling for $1000 an acre...this is woods and swamp. So yes it depends on where you look.
> 
> The land I found in SD was in the Eastern part of the state which is typically crop and not bad lands. So my search was refined and it was all ag land.
> 
> I am sure where the push came from was from a couple of NR hunters and the tourism of the state. Because if people only use 5-7 days...if you allow them another weekend they might come back. So I am sure the push was from the restaruant, hotel, motel, etc industry.


Well obviously those people are going to be supporters for any bill relating to anything that would increase more out of state visitors. The argument that we should increase NR licenses due to that reason alone is a bunch of bull (and this is just a general statement here, not referring to you) I would almost bet that residents that hunt consistently through out a season spend far more money than those NR's that come and hunt for 5-7 days, especially when we're talking about waterfowl hunters.


----------



## 9manfan

Augusta said:


> Not to hijack this thread, but can I ask you guys who are seeing ag land being sold for $7,500 to $10,000/ac in MN and SD. tell me which counties you have seen these sales, I just spent the last hour pouring over my MN ag land data and can't find any sales even close to those amounts. Bear in mind, we are talking bare ag land here, not the sale of ag land with a building site or bin site. Just post the counties where the sale took place, I can call and verify the sale with the county assessor. I need this info for research, thanks.


Listening to the farm report coming to work this morning, a realator was saying that three 80 acre parcels in the Marshall area sold for around 9000.00 lately, which would be in Lyon Cty., not all land is bringing this much but the lower end stuff is still high.


----------



## Chuck Smith

These prices $5000+ an acre are just starting to pop up. It will be a trend that will happen all year. One person hears what someone else sold the land and they will think they can get it....and then it will snow ball!

I agree about the R spend more money. I have never said they don't. Residents of the town (not a person from Souix Falls going to De Smet for a day) make a town float....but a person living in that town. I have always said that. But when it comes to Hotels, Motels.....many residents drive the 1 + hour to hunt. I know I do in my area. I typically don't get a hotel or motel when I know my bed is only 1 hour away. So I am sure they are crying for the increase in licenses. But the split to me is away to appease them. Something like.....look we won't increase the amount of days or the amount of sales. But we could give the people an option to split. That way the would think someone could come back for a second weekend. Which some will.

But again my argument is that many people only hunt 5-7 days. Because the fall is short and in peoples home state they have waterfowl hunting, deer hunting, pheasant/grouse hunting, fall fishing, etc. There are not enough weekends in a fall. The ones who would use it are the people with family in SD. They will save one of the splits for thanksgiving or some other time they will be back to visit family. That is just my opinion.


----------



## Gunny

KurtR wrote: Well i guess i am wrong. Blah, Blah, Blah, live in the dump that is mn blah, blah, blah...Guess that simple enough.

Thanks for doin' all that mathmatin' for us stupid city folk... :roll:

Bash away sir... Unlike some, we have thick skin. :thumb:

Typically people that want to fish come to this "dump that is mn". :eyeroll: People that want to hunt birds go to the Dakotas, and people that want to see Mickey Mouse go to Disney World/Land. That will not change any time soon.

I see it like this. The *PEOPLE* of South Dakota are the *ONLY* ones that should make *ANY* decisions regaurding *THEIR* state. They are still part of the Free World last time I checked. They elected officials to represent what is best for the people of SoDak and *THEIR* habitat. Yes the birds are not theirs but the land you will be walking/driving/hunting on is... If it makes you mad enough, don't hunt SoDak. Go to Arkinsas, or Nebraska, or Texas, or Wisconsin, or etc... Contrary to popular belief, the birds do congrigate in other states.

On a seperate note, The fishing here has been good latley and I would love to see more NRs on the lakes. Thats one of many factors that tells us "citiots" that their is plenty of good fishing opertunities around the state. You also helps us with re-stocking programs. (something that can't be done with birds).

By the way, I'm still looking for the keys to my Rolls. I have to get the ice house off the lake before it sinks...


----------



## KurtR

You would have to have thick skin with the twins and vikes playing there


----------



## 9manfan

KurtR said:


> You would have to have thick skin with the twins and vikes playing there


 :rollin: ....it has been a couple tough years.....


----------



## Gunny

Good one :thumb:

You're preaching to the choir.

Went to the shrink.
He asked me if I was a Vikings fan.
I said I was.
He stood up, got his appointment book, and started writing.
I said whatcha writing.
He said "It's gonna' take way more then 1 session to take care of your problems..." :lol:

I think it's like NASCAR. Nobody watches for the driving... We watch for the crashes. (anyone that disagrees isn't drunk enough.) :beer: 
Or maybe it's wasted hope and the longing to actually see the impossible happen that makes me watch. But I'm loyal... to a fault.

The Twins on the other hand are the only one of "my teams" I have witnessed win a professional championship...

Sad really... 

(And the Lynx do *NOT* count...)


----------



## KurtR

I still hear the 12 men in the hudle call when i shut my eyes at night.


----------



## Gunny

Could be worse...

I still see Childresses moustache...


----------

