# This Garbage has to stop anyone else sickened by MJ's Post??



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

> Matt Jones wrote:
> You have got to be shytin' me that he did that.
> 
> You should have asked him this...
> ...


 :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :******: :******: :******: :******:

Lets face the fact that all you so called great waterfowlers and great stewards of the land should start turning some of these farmers in. You want your cake and you want to eat it to. You don't want to take the chance of not being able to hunt the field. I don't know how you can post up here for the Grand Forks Delta Banquet and want guys to donate money. Why so your farmer buddies can kill all the birds the money helps raise? :ticked: uke: And just so you know you are withholding information of people breaking the law


----------



## Drew Willemsen (Sep 29, 2003)

> he killed over 400 with his SKS


If I SAW someone doing this I WOULD turn them in, it is differnet than someone bragging that they did, 3 or 4 months later down the road....just thought I would post my opinion, since 40+ other people have read this and not said anything...


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

Post removed by admin.

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/terms.html


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Many laws are being broken if this is happening

1 Wanton Waste
2 Using an improper weapon for hunting geese
3 exceeding the possession limit.
4 taking game out of season

Just to name the obvious violations.

If the person knows of this happening it must be reported, it is our duty to do so. It is also a federal crime. contact the Federal CO.

Bob


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I'm with ya GB3... those farmers more than likely have permission to eradicate the honks anyway so it is not a big deal. If I saw 300 honkers destroying several acres a day of my crop I would probably do the same. The early depredation season opens to late is why the farmer had to take matters into his own hands, and on and on...


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Before thinks get out of hand! I would suggest that those concerned check with the G&F and see what is allowed under the predidation rules for Canada Geese! I am not in favor of wholesale killing of the birds, but coming from the farm I remember well having to drive the windrows shooting at ducks to keep them out of the field!

We where instructed at that time that killing them was not against the law, but retrieving them and using any of them would be!!!!

Unless you have witnessed the massive amount of damage that waterfowl can do to a crop, few can understand why a farmer would do this!!!!!

I do know of a number of farmers who killed a lot of geese since spring! All had permits from the G&F and all also are encouraging anyone to hunt for them on their land! Try and look at it from both sides instead of just coming out and flaming someone!

I may not agree with the practice, I do not like it, but I can and do understand it!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

I hear lots of farmers complain about the damage the geese and pheasants do. Deer do way more, but there damage is spread out over the field not in a small area.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

FYI

Game and Fish to Issue Experimental Canada Goose Depredation Permits (7/3/2002)
The North Dakota Game and Fish Department has received authorization to issue up to 100 permits that allow agricultural producers in North Dakota to use selected lethal control as a deterrent for Canada geese that are destroying crops.
The experimental permits, authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will go to producers who have had chronic crop depredation by Canada geese, and have exhausted other prevention methods prescribed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services, according to Greg Link, assistant chief of wildlife for the game and fish department.
Each permit allows a producer, or persons designated by the producer, to kill up to 20 Canada geese that are damaging agricultural crops during July. Since only 100 permits are available this year, Game and Fish is issuing them to producers who are sustaining the most severe depredation, Link said.
"The intent of the program is to focus on Canada goose depredations associated with agricultural commodity crops, not nuisance geese on golf courses, city parks, or housing developments," Link said.
Other states have used these special permits as a tool in dealing with Canada goose depredation, Link noted. "While we have avoided using this harassment technique in the past, problems with geese have grown to a point where we need to try this on a trial basis. We need to determine its effectiveness when used in combination with other methods already used for minimizing and alleviating crop damage by Canada geese in our state. This program is not a hunting season and is not intended to be a means of population control."
If the permits prove to be a useful tool, Link said, Game and Fish will make them available in future years during May, June and July.

Canada Goose Depredation Assistance Available to Landowners 03/17/04
Landowners interested in learning about special depredation permits and other techniques for preventing crop losses to Canada geese are invited to attend an open house on April 12 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Sargent County Bank in Rutland.
Personnel from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Wildlife Services will provide information about the special permit process, as well as technical assistance regarding egg addling and other treatment options.
For the third consecutive year special permits are available in North Dakota to landowners who have documented Canada goose depredation, and have been working with Wildlife Services to address their situation using non-lethal techniques.
The agencies will continue to emphasize population control with hunting - such as extended Canada goose seasons and liberal bag limits - and non-lethal treatment methods such as propane canons, pyrotechnics and electric fencing. Only when non-lethal methods fail will a special permit be issued. "It is not something we like to do," said Greg Link, game and fish assistant wildlife chief. "The depredation permit is the last tool out of the box and used only with much discretion."
Packets will be sent to landowners with past documented problems by the end of March. The special depredation permit, which is valid from April through July, allows each eligible landowner to kill up to 30 geese and destroy 15 nests.
North Dakota's authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allows for the taking of no more than 6,000 geese and 1,000 nests, including all the eggs.
In 2003, Wildlife Services, with funding provided by game and fish, hired two seasonal field employees to help landowners with Canada goose depredation management. A total of 66 landowners used the special permit, taking 456 Canada geese (285 adults and 171 goslings) and destroying 70 nests under provisions provided by the permit. Canada geese were taken in 19 counties in eastern and northwestern North Dakota.
"Last year's program was considered a success," Link said. "Having two additional personnel in the field dedicated simply to goose damage complaints allowed for a faster response time, thereby giving thorough assistance to individual producers. It is something we will have in place again this year."
Landowners wanting more information about Canada goose depredation assistance can contact the North Dakota Game and Fish Department at 701-328-6300.

http://www.state.nd.us/gnf/ndoutdoors/i ... -sides.pdf


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

> I may not agree with the practice, I do not like it, but I can and do understand it!


Kinda how I'm seeing it, as long as these landowners are not locking up their land in the fall they have a duty to protect their livelihood to some degree.


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

Please don't get me wrong. If the farmers have the permits then what can you do. However MJ has posted on another site that during the spring snow goose season farmers have told him to shoot all the dark ones as well. Why should I continue to send my 200 bucks to DU and Delta each year, put up hen houses and goose nests if the birds are going to be slaughterred illegally? Something needs to be done in my opinion. But my opinion and 75 cents will get you the local paper.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Early Summer Canada Goose Lottery!



> Each permit allows a producer, *or persons designated by the producer, *to kill up to 20 Canada geese that are damaging agricultural crops during July


Have a lottery, draw tags for historical predation areas, limit them to bag 20 each, and limit the number of lottery winners like they do Elk.

I would apply every year!

Bob


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

PorkChop said:


> And just so you know you are withholding information of people breaking the law


PAlease! Come on Porkchop, you think the G&F don't know they are doing this? Don't be so naive. Why do you think they set the permits up the way they did? Farmers can shoot 20 geese under depradation permits. Yet they are not allowed to pick them up. With no posession on them, who the hell is going to know if they shot 20 or 2000? To the unsuspecting public it looks like they're only shooting 20 but anyone who spends more than a couple days each fall outside the city knows the truth. Don't think for a second the game wardens don't know this is going on.

So why haven't I turned any of them in?
1.) I am not holding back any info the G&F already doesn't have.
2.) It would go over like a fart in church with the farmers in the area and I would never get on a field ever again.
3.) I flat out don't really care.

Even with them shooting them there was no lack of geese. There were lots of geese for me to hunt. I also think it is extremely selfish to put the burden of raising geese on the farmer's expense just so I can have better hunting in the fall. If I had a bunch of geese on my property eating thousands of dollars worth of beans I'd get a permit and shoot the hell out of them too. It's not like they're the only geese in the state....they're still geese EVERYWHERE. So why should we be complaining? My gripe was, that if our problem is we have too many geese then why does the G&F even care about hunters shooting them and hassle a couple guys for no apparent reason.

Delta is about DUCKS. DU is about DUCKS. The programs they initiate are for increasing duck production, news flash; hen houses aren't for raising geese. Being a delta and DU member YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS! Even though some projects might also benefit geese, that really isn't their intent. Let's face it, nowadays geese (both light and dark) are considered a nuisance by the majority of the people from west coast to east coast. Really, the only people that want to see more of them are hunters.

After all your posts last season, almost daily, talking about all the geese you shot....are you really worried there aren't enough? It seems like you had no problem finding lots of them on almost any given day. If farmers need to shoot some to protect their livelihood, we shouldn't mind since there are still more than enough left for us to shoot. If anything, the G&F should raise the limit to 10 so we can help them out more.


----------



## Van Wey (Jul 15, 2005)

I would have to agree with Matt on this one!! Yes, it is wrong and illegal but we know they do it and so does everybody else!!! 
Who's gonna stop em???? I cant!!

And this should have no effect whatsoever on DU and Delta!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bigblackfoot (Mar 12, 2003)

I also agree with Jones on this one.



PorkChop said:


> You want your cake and you want to eat it to. You don't want to take the chance of not being able to hunt the field.


Geez Porkchop, you make it sound like these guys are being selfish. :roll: You want to know what's selfish? You are, by wanting a bunch of poor farmers to have to pay thousands of dollars in crop losses that takes money away from them and their family so you can go shoot more geese for mere recreation. Even after you post up day after day about all the geese you shoot you still want farmers to pay through their teeth so there's more geese out there for you to kill just for fun.

That is pathetic and the definition of being selfish. :eyeroll:


----------



## north14 (Oct 1, 2004)

I agree with you guys also, if it were'nt for the farmers raising these geese on THEIR land there would'nt be any fields to hunt.


----------



## Chris Schulz (Sep 7, 2004)

I'm with Matt on this one also.

Good Post Matt I understood where you were coming from totally.


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

Agreed...when it comes down to it the farmers are graciously allowing us to hunt on their land and if they weren't allowed to protect their investments they might lose their land to someone who might post it up tight and not let anyone hunt it!


----------



## cbass (Sep 9, 2003)

i'm with matt on this one also. He is dead on! It happens everywhere and will continue until the numbers decrease or the damage stops which honestly is not likely. I run a crop consulting business and have seen what they do first hand, in a matter of days, and they can clean out acres in a very short period. The crop is far more valuable then your hunting and mine!!


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

First one to 10 wins


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Matt
I respectfully disagree.

Laws were created for a reason. You know that reason as well as I do. It is not up to you or me or anyone else for that matter to decide which laws we chose to abide by and which ones we chose to ignore for our own convenience or circumstance. If the particular law in question is inappropriate, effort has to be made by all involved parties to have it changed. It is not right that Canada goose depredation is affecting the income of the landowners it is tough enough for some of them to make ends meet under ideal conditions. It is again not right to advocate taking the law into your own hands to conform to an individual circumstance. Do we know with absolute certainty that the NDGF knows this is happening and has chosen to ignore the issue? If that is the case then we have the very people that we have trusted to enforce the laws breaking the laws they are bound to enforce.



> "The North Dakota Game and Fish Department has received authorization to issue up to 100 permits that allow agricultural producers in North Dakota to use selected lethal control as a deterrent for Canada geese that are destroying crops.
> The experimental permits, authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will go to producers who have had chronic crop depredation by Canada geese, and have exhausted other prevention methods prescribed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services"


Have the producers in question "exhausted other prevention methods (non-lethal treatment methods such as propane canons, pyrotechnics and electric fencing) prescribed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services, Only when non-lethal methods fail will a special permit be issued."

Matt wrote



> If I had a bunch of geese on my property eating thousands of dollars worth of beans I'd get a permit and shoot the hell out of them too. It's not like they're the only geese in the state....they're still geese EVERYWHERE. So why should we be complaining? My gripe was, that if our problem is we have too many geese then why does the G&F even care about hunters shooting them and hassle a couple guys for no apparent reason.


Fine get your permit to shoot as many as the law allows AFTER you have exhausted all of the above-mentioned solutions. Did the guys you talked to abide by the laws or did they just decide to "vigilante" the situation? As far as the G&F "hassling a couple of guys" seems to me we only heard on side of the story and if they were checking the hunters for the legal limits of the law they were just doing their job. CO's are about the only law enforcement officers that know with certainty that pretty much everyone they stop is armed. I might give them the benefit of a doubt to be a little more assertive.

Matt I think you know where I am coming from and I am not trying to pick a fight. If we decide to stretch the laws in one case how can we enforce them in another case with the same circumstances?

Bob


----------



## faithsdave (Jan 8, 2004)

I agree with Bob all the way. If it is no big deal, why have a law with numbers? Matt, you think G&F knows all about this, why? Do they have some crystal ball I dont know about? How do you think they get info? Maybe from people like you and I letting them know?


----------



## MossyMO (Feb 12, 2004)

I am outnumbered here but I do believe the law, is the law. I agree with Porkchops thinking. NDG&F should follow up with the laws they are protecting and watch the landowners as close as the sportsman.

No unwritten rule of not hassling the landowner should be practiced by the wardens or CO's. Landowners should not post their land if they want less waterfowl grazing. Us sportsman are here to releive their burden of unwanted predators.

Should there be another law that prohibits landowners that post their land and yet shoot predators off of it without authorization?


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

In the area I hunt, geese are being shot on such a large scale that I would find it hard to believe the G&F hasn't caught wind. We're not talking one or two rogue farmers here, but literally hundreds plus other farmers around the state and in MN and SD. To be honest I'm shocked more of you haven't talked to farmers who have mentioned shooting geese out of season. You guys must not talk to farmers other than to quickly ask permission. The other thing is that the permits the G&F issue are literally licenses to poach. They put a number on the license but there's absolutely no way to enforce that only 20 geese are being shot. Do you honestly think the G&F didn't realize this when they made them? Think about it, they are handing out a permit to shoot 20 geese but they have to leave them lay and not have posession of them at any time. Seriously, think about. How is there anyway possible to enforce that? There isn't and the G&F knows this and has known this all along.

As far as turning them in, all I have is hearsay. I have never seen or caught anyone in the act of shooting geese out of season. Hell, let's say hypothetically next spring I see a farmer shooting geese and they have a permit...are they even breaking the law? How am I (or the G&F for that matter) going to know how many geese they've shot under that permit that day, week or month? Plus they can let other people shoot off of that permit! Like I said, it's a permit that is 100% unenforceable. Hmmm, why would the G&F issue a permit that is essentially a license to poach??? Surely, it must be some sort of mistake!!! :roll:

The other thing is that even if I did see a farmer shooting more than his 20 (good luck at that happening :roll: ) I wouldn't turn them in. Would I break the law myself? Of course not. If I saw someone poaching ducks, deer, pheasants, turkey, etc...I would definitely turn them in. For reasons that I listed before I wouldn't turn a farmer in for geese in the spring, one reason because the permit system the G&F set up is unenforceable and most likely nothing would happen other than getting one farmer really ****** off, and the other being that if he can live with his decision, so can I. It's his land, and his livelihood at stake....not mine. Plus there's still tons of geese around to shoot so who am I to complain?

I'll leave this to the G&F to "worry" about. :lol:


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

All I have to say is when you guys start your crying about not seeing the #s you use to I will surely rub this in your face. If they are shooting geese do you think they are not shooting ducks? I wonder how many hens get slatterred in the swafted (sp) fields. I wonder how many $$$ would fill that hen fine jar. It was posted last year in the duck forum about farmers killing the ducks. I doubt it is just a goose issue.

Maybe if some of you nut up and turn these guys in maybe the limits would be raised? It may help identify the problem more. I am not the expert here but I do believe the law is the law. And it may go over like a fart in church but I would gladly and yes I do mean gladly loose access to hunting by turning people in. If I have to loose out so the next generations of waterfowlers can enjoy what we have enjoyed then so be it.

And bigblackfoot I kill for food not for fun. My entire family to include my 3 and 2 year old girls eat it like candy. We can go back and forth on this but I think your being selfish. Your the ones letting birds be slatterred and going to waste so you can have your fun in the farmer's fields. Now thats how did you put it pathetic and selfish! :eyeroll:

If the ND G&F won't do anything about this maybe the Feds will.

And for the record I believe the limit should be raised as well. Honestly I was surprised this year when it was not.


----------



## Van Wey (Jul 15, 2005)

Totally agree with Matt. I cant believe you guys havnt heard of farmers taken game illegally!! I have lived in the Larimore area for awhile and have worked for several farmers throughout the Red River Valley and have heard several farmers talk about killing game because of crop loss!!!

And as far as the special permits go, they would be impossible to enforce, If they were to try to enforce them at all!!!!!!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I doubt many ducks are being shot. Although ducks might devastate some swaths in the fall it's the geese that tear up the fresh small grain sprouts and young beans all spring and summer which is why they get targeted. A couple family groups can take out acres of small grains and bean fields. The other thing is that it's a lot harder to hit a duck with a .223 from the truck window than it is a goose. Sad but true. :eyeroll:

The chances of anyone catching them in the act is so miniscule it's not even funny. Plus, if they have their golden permit to poach from the G&F there is nothing you can do anyway. Posession is 9/10ths of the law and if there is no posession of these geese being shot there's no chance of a citation being written.

The first thing that should be done to alleviate the problem is to push the limit to 10.


----------



## howlplay (Aug 23, 2005)

im neutral, if i had a coyote eating my herd of sheep, I would kill everyone i saw. My profit is in the predators stomach. Same goes for a farmers crop that is getting eaten up by the birds and other game. Although, that number of geese killed is over doing it! And the legal limit should be raised to help the farmers. Im on the farmers side, sorry bird


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

PorkChop said:


> And bigblackfoot I kill for food not for fun.


Come on now, be honest. Are you really hunting to put food on the table? Because if that's the case here's a tip for you; sell your bigfoots, trailer, guns, and save that gas and shell money. That should be enough to feed them for years to come.

You are out there for recreaton just like me and everyone else. Of course getting to eat what we harvest is a nice bonus, but let's not kid ourselves we are out there for the enjoyment of it.


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

I also wonder why if you get the depradation permits why you have to let it go to waste. I agree if you don't have to tag it then who really knows how many you have killed. Integrity is out the window. Do you have to do that with deer when using crop damage permits?

BTW Matt I appreciate you being level headed about this. I honestly admit I am ignorant about a lot of these issues. For the guys on my side and not on my side that have been civil about this thank you! :beer:


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

bigblackfoot wrote:



> a bunch of poor farmers to have to pay thousands of dollars in crop losses that takes money away from them and their family so you can go shoot more geese for mere recreation.


First, let's not generalize them as "poor" farmers...c'mon? Some are and some aren't. If all were, John Deere and Ford would not be so well represented on the ND prairie.

Second, what are the farmers' crops? Would you agree they are investments? Well, finance 101 tells us that with investments come risk...i.e. geese, weather, etc.

As Bob states so well, laws are laws and should be applied across the board. We shouldn't turn our eye in one situation, but chastize in another.

Here is the truth that probably applies to most posts here...the farmer has you by the gonads and you don't want to lose their fields so you take their side. In amost no other situation, would you defend those breaking the law.

Those of you taking shots as PC...until you spend time with him and/or hunt together, don't think you know him. I have not met many people that give $ as he does to DU and other causes. He also has a passion to help provide for ducks and geese that most of you won't ever experience.

The next time one of you complains about not stiff enough penalties for poachers (i.e. last year's famed record deer kill) remember what you posted here. Heck, why not turn your eye then...because that guy doesn't hold your ticket to his fields. And you guys call yourselves outdoorsman...

Last thing...anyone ever see ducks eating in farmers fields? Should the farmers shoot them too? Probably not because they are not over-populated, right? By a clue...


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

No reason not to be civil, it's nice to see everyone having a somewhat pointed discussion and not get too heated with it.

I need to get to bed and I think I've basically exhausted all the points I want to make so I'll leave it at this...

Nobody, including the farmers, want to see geese shot and left to rot. However, if it comes to it they will and I can't blame them for doing so. What needs to be done is for hunting seasons to be opened up so hunters can help them control the population. It doesn't make a lot of sense for farmers to have to shoot all those geese just to save their crop when there's lots of hunters who would Gladly be willing to help. Farmers win, and hunters win...it seems prettly logical. Now if the federal frameworks weren't in the way we'd be set! :lol:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Like i said before, do some checking! You just might learn something! Waterfowl that are causing damage to personal property can be destroyed. You can find this out by going to the Fed web page! The permit issue is just one issue.

Like I said before I am not a fan of this, but I do know that ducks and geese can and have been shot in the fields and it is legal as long as you do not pick up and keep the carcass. One may not like it but the grain crop is considered personal property! The only exception I saw was if that bird is protected under the Endangered species act!

If you have 500 hundred birds eating up the soybeans, do anyone of you think that taking out 20 birds is going to significantly reduce the impact those birds are having on that field?

How many of you have been on a combine with a farmer and watched as the grain stopped pouring into the hopper when you get to an affected area? How many have walked a bean field where the geese where grazing from mid June through August when they start to fly and see the amount of lost acres?

So check it out and find the facts before this debate turns uglier than it has already! By the way what is the value of an acre of beans with rent and seed and chemicals and fuel and machinery expense worth? Close to $350.00 an acre give or take depending on the part of the state. Now multiply that by 50 or 75 acres and maybe some will understand why this takes place! I do not know many farmers who are willing to sacrifice $15,000.00 to geese!

I do know a number of farmers who have losses of 50 acres or more to geese though! They are not happy at all and see geese as a pest. Those pests also fuel some of the urges to drain away those wetlands! It is all connected! Hope this helps a little, as not all farmers have the views of those like Dick Monson who really cares about the wildlife of the state!


----------



## howlplay (Aug 23, 2005)

Comon porkchop you were trying to get people to agree with you, and to can this guy. Man it is hard to post something to this site without someone attacking and turning your topic or reply into an "issue" and getting 6,000 members to agree with you. I say "make it clear that your land is posted and sign it" Mr. Nodak ripper hears: "I look for any possible entrance to posted land" "I cant ask permission" "Posting land is wrong" "I just throw the sign in the dirt and enter" Come on Mr. lets get everyone to agree with me. I know you need only 1000 more posts to be the best, but you gotta go to work.


----------



## quackattack (Sep 27, 2003)

I have to go with Matt on this one. My dad is a farmer and I know for damn sure if we had the same problem that these farmers are facing, legal or not, we'd put an end to the problem. I know some of you may or may not agree with this, but you do what you have to do to survive and it takes money to put food on the table. Now I know that alot of people think that, oh farmers are rich, new pickup every year,nice house, money from the government, they got it made; however for alot of people that is not the case. Anyone who disagrees can come and take a look at my house, its a piece of $hit. And my dad has been in the farming business since he was 15 years old. A few thousand dollars may seem like nothing compared to what it takes to run a farm, but at the same time, a few thousand dollars can make a big diffence. And if it means I have to whack a few geese, then i'd do it without batting an eyelash. And I think by the time we have a problem with a low goose population, everything will be leased up to the point we won't have anywhere to hunt anyways. But porkchop if that day comes in my life where there aren't enough geese left to hunt, I'll let you be the first to rub it in my face. Until then, I think you owe jones an apology. :eyeroll: uke:


----------



## samfitz83 (Aug 2, 2005)

PorkChop said:


> Please don't get me wrong. If the farmers have the permits then what can you do. However MJ has posted on another site that during the spring snow goose season farmers have told him to shoot all the dark ones as well. Why should I continue to send my 200 bucks to DU and Delta each year, put up hen houses and goose nests if the birds are going to be slaughterred illegally? Something needs to be done in my opinion. But my opinion and 75 cents will get you the local paper.


im with you pork chop. I dont care how bad the birds are destroyin farmers crops there are other ways of takin care of the problem then killing hundreds of birds. I sit in Illinois and pay my DU money every year and I also try to help increase bird populations. the migratory bird populations are terrible as far im concerned in illinois anyway, and farmers killing hundreds and thousands of birds sure as hell isnt helpin us either i dont care where it is...


----------



## Chris Schulz (Sep 7, 2004)

samfitz83 said:


> PorkChop said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't get me wrong. If the farmers have the permits then what can you do. However MJ has posted on another site that during the spring snow goose season farmers have told him to shoot all the dark ones as well. Why should I continue to send my 200 bucks to DU and Delta each year, put up hen houses and goose nests if the birds are going to be slaughterred illegally? Something needs to be done in my opinion. But my opinion and 75 cents will get you the local paper.
> ...


Theres plenty of birds up here. The farmers are not the reason your not seeing birds in your area.


----------



## diver_sniper (Sep 6, 2004)

there are a million arguments on this one and i dont think any one of them will "win". what the ND G&F is doing is wrong, they set a poor example by giving out these permits that cant be enforced. if they want the farmers to kill more than 20, give them a permit for more than 20. by doing that its like saying that i can go shoot five geese on sunday morning, go home, clean them, then shoot five more that night, but when the warden asks me when i shot the five that are cleaned i say i did it on saturday morning. doing that would be wrong too, and i bet most would be very angry if they saw me do it (i of course do not actually do this), but if a loop hole can be abused for one law, then why not another? And i do think that ducks are getting shot, i talked to a guy at a gas station a few days ago saying "get out there and shoot those geese, the farmers will do it if you dont, they have the right to". well wait a minute, it sounds like these farmers arent limiting these goose shoots to the spring, but rather any time they see them, in hope that they wont return next year. so if they are shooting in the late summer/fall, then it is likely that they are swating a few ducks as well. but at the same time the farmers are taking hits, and i, also living on a farm for 18 years, understand that things can be tough, and every penny is needed. what needs to happen is the ND G&F need to re-do this little spring goose idea. the idea that they set it up to make it look good, the farmers are only shooting a few birds, but actually killing a unlimited amount is a bit discourageing. why make rules if they wont be enforced? simply to cover their a$$e$ because there is no way that they can keep both sides happy? well, i think there is, i think the waterfowler is being forgotten in all of this. did the ND G&F forget that we like to give them money for the privelage of killing geese each year? give these farmers permits to allow hunters to hunt geese with the same set of rules as the early fall season during the spring, have these farmers stick up an ad at the local cafe and gas station letting any hunter that passes by the ad know where to go, and that it is ok for them to hunt. not a miracle solution but i think it would be better than birds being wasted and farmers having to spend their time and money snipeing these geese off the fields. i mean most people here seem to be ok with the spring killing, and it doesnt sound the bad while sitting at your computer desk at home or in the office, but imagine being on some back roads next spring and to see four farmers sneaking up on a couple of family groups of young geese with their parents feeding on a sprouting bean field, then watching each farmer unload with his rugger 10/22 with a 30 round clip in each. seeing maybe a half dozen or so of the young birds quickly try to make their way to safety, yet uterly clueless because the parents are twitching on the ground full of lead the surviveing yearlings, doomed to starve to death or get eaten by fox(and do we really need to be donateing to them?). and we all know thats what happens, if a duck is hard to hit with a .223, then a baby goose is just about as hard, and when they pick off both the parents from a few hundred yards that means all those baby birds eventually end up dead too. a more humane approach needs to be taken to this issue. it hardly seems right to let all of this happen the way it does.


----------



## Chris Schulz (Sep 7, 2004)

I think that its a GREAT solution to the problem. It would give the farmers the comfort of knowing that somthing is being done(without them having to do it). It is also being done in a legal way. Farmers are never going to stop shooting geese just like cattle ranchers will never stop killing wolves if they see them on there property, but it would HELP solve the problem in a responsible, legal, etthical manner with no waste. Both sides win!

My .02 diver but i think you have something going here mention it to The NDGF in an email or somthing


----------



## scissorbill (Sep 14, 2003)

Im with pork chop, Some of these guys literally get away with murder. Keep sending your money to DU and keep up all the other work to raise more birds,but make sure you dont ever say anything about the farmers and dont ever speak what you know to be the TRUTH for fear of offending someone or something. Ill bet you think the U of North Dakota should drop that racist Sioux moniker don' you.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Just a little FYI.....

If those folks are willing to allow public access onto their property, there is payment available for goose food plots that are damaged year after year. Your dollars addressing the problem.

Also, it is 100% illegal for said farmers to use rifles in any way shape or form to remove depridating geese. Those permits are specifically written to use shotguns to help in hazing geese, not just killing them indiscriminately.

So if someone is using an SKS to whack a hundred birds, they are way outside the law and the permit process. And that 1 game warden for two counties does not get the same input from farmers as you do, wonder why. They need you r help. Pony up.

Tom


----------



## TANATA (Oct 31, 2003)

There's no reason to be mad at Matt for this, he's saying what he has heard and if it's the truth and it makes you mad that's too bad.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

When I here 300 geese shot I think "maybe an exageration," but there is no question that they can do some damage. However if one farmer is in fact shooting 300 geese I think it deserves some further investigation.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

What about any banded birds that are supposedly being shot by these farmers? Obviously, the data can never be collected. Seems to be a shame...


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here is a Little INFO from the USFW Web-Site

Subpart D-Control of Depredating Birds
top 
§ 21.41 Depredation permits.
top 
(a) Permit requirement. Except as provided in §§21.42 through 21.46, a depredation permit is required before any person may take, possess, or transport migratory birds for depredation control purposes. No permit is required merely to scare or herd depredating migratory birds other than endangered or threatened species or bald or golden eagles.

(b) Application procedures. Submit application for depredation permits to the appropriate Regional Director (Attention: Migratory bird permit office). You can find addresses for the Regional Directors in 50 CFR 2.2. Each application must contain the general information and certification required in §13.12(a) of this subchapter, and the following additional information:

(1) A description of the area where depredations are occurring;

(2) The nature of the crops or other interests being injured;

(3) The extent of such injury; and

(4) The particular species of migratory birds committing the injury.

(c) Additional permit conditions. Inaddition to the general conditions set forth in part 13 of this subchapter B, depredation permits shall be subject to requires, in this section:

(1) Permittees may not kill migratory birds unless specifically authorized on the permit.

(2) Unless otherwise specifically authorized, when permittees are authorized to kill migratory birds they may do so only with a shotgun not larger than No. 10 gauge fired from the shoulder, and only on or over the threatened area or area described on the permit.

(3) Permittees may not use blinds, pits, or other means of concealment, decoys, duck calls, or other devices to lure or entice birds within gun range.

(*4) All migratory birds killed shall be retrieved by the permittee and turned over to a Bureau representative or his designee for disposition to charitable or other worthy institutions for use as food, or otherwise disposed of as provided by law.*

(5) Only persons named on the permit are authorized to act as agents of the permittee under authority of the permit.

(d) Tenure of permits. The tenure of depredation permits shall be limited to the dates which appear on its face, but in no case shall be longer than one year.

[39 FR 1178, Jan. 4, 1974, as amended at 42 FR 17122, Mar. 31, 1977; 63 FR 52637, Oct. 1, 1998]

§ 21.42 Authority to issue depredating orders to permit the killing of migratory game birds.
top 
Upon the receipt of evidence clearly showing that migratory game birds have accumulated in such numbers in a particular area as to cause or about to cause serious damage to agricultural, horticultural, and fish cultural interests, the Director is authorized to issue by publication in the Federal Register a depredation order to permit the killing of such birds under the following conditions:

(a) That such birds may only be killed by shooting with a shotgun not larger than No. 10 gauge fired from the shoulder, and only on or over the threatened area or areas;

(b) That shooting shall be limited to such time as may be fixed by the Director on the basis of all circumstances involved. If prior to termination of the period fixed for such shooting, the Director receives information that there no longer exists a serious threat to the area or areas involved, he shall without delay cause to be published in the Federal Register an order of revocation;

(c) That such migratory birds as are killed under the provisions of any depredation order may be used for food or donated to public museums or public scientific and educational institutions for exhibition, scientific, or educational purposes, but shall not be sold, offered for sale, bartered, or shipped for purpose of sale or barter, or be wantonly wasted or destroyed: Provided, That any migratory game birds which cannot be so utilized shall be disposed of as prescribed by the Director;

(d) That any order issued pursuant to this section shall not authorize the killing of the designated species of depredating birds contrary to any State laws or regulations. The order shall specify that it is issued as an emergency measure designed to relieve depredations only and shall not be construed as opening, reopening, or extending any open hunting season contrary to any regulations promulgated pursuant to section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Bob


----------



## Troller1 (Oct 15, 2004)

I do see both sides of this debate but I really think some of us should go live on a farm and try to make a living at it. I think our opinions might change. If every one of us "City" people took say 15% of every paycheck year around, bought corn and then went out and spread it around to feed the geese, would we still love the geese so much? Until we walk in the shoes of the farmers, I think we should let them "manage" their farms as best they can. They can't control drought, floods or hail but they can control geese to some extent. I don't mean to issue them a blank check to kill all geese but trust me, most farmers don't have time to go out and "slaughter" geese every day. They are only trying to protect their family income. Maybe if we were not so against farmers charging a small fee to hunt their land to make up for the damage caused by the game we are hunting? Just a thought. Not trying to start a war, just another opinion. BTW, I don't live on a farm anymore and never had a big population of geese on our farm when I did. 
Troller1


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Sounds like some of you guys are really against property rights.

As a land owner that comes from a long line of agricultural land owners, I can say that I would not allow anything or anyone to interfere with my ability to make a profit on my property.

On the whole, agricultural producers make their living on their property with sweat and bone breaking hard work. Office jockeys, you don't understand. When they see a young doe eating a new sapling fruit tree, geese eating grain, or wolves eating sheep, they kill it. Regret it? Sure. But those predators are in direct opposition to the producers ability to feed their babies. Anyone here going to let the neighbor slash the tires on your car to keep you from going to work? Little difference in my opinion.

I have a relative that is a fruit grower. In the fall it's common for the tourist balloon rides to land in his orchard and help themselves to his almost ripe fruit. Now do you fellas that think the geese should be allowed to clean out a field think the fruit grower should run the tourists out of his orchard, or let them continue? If you guys don't mind the geese and tourists harvesting, then what is your level of acceptable harvest or loss, and how did we get to a point where others get to define acceptable losses for property owners?

In my opinion, a property owner should have the relative final decision on what happens on his or her property.


----------



## north14 (Oct 1, 2004)

Well said Artic Plainsman, I own an ag business and have watched geese and ducks take out huge chunks of grain fields reducing yields by as much as 50%. The Farmers around here shoot at them to scare them out and sometimes drop a few but most shots are taken from quite a distance and are intended to scare. If they were my fields and my grain I would be doing the same thing. Remember guys, that is his land and his crop that he is trying to protect. Don't judge him if you hav'nt been in his shoes.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Anyone here going to let the neighbor slash the tires on your car to keep you from going to work? Little difference in my opinion.


No, I am not, I am going to let the authorities handle it in a lawful manner. If there are things that need to be changed then lets work on changing the law and not taking it into our own hands. There is a huge difference. A human being knows that it is wrong and against the law to slash tires. A goose, which we helped bring back from extinction, is only doing what it is supposed to do, eat to survive. If we did too good of a job of bringing it back then lets work on finding a way to "thin the herd". Lets try and increase the limits of the early season. Lets get together with land owners and farmers and petition our lawmakers to make the necessary changes.


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

djleye said:


> > Anyone here going to let the neighbor slash the tires on your car to keep you from going to work? Little difference in my opinion.
> 
> 
> No, I am not, I am going to let the authorities handle it in a lawful manner. If there are things that need to be changed then lets work on changing the law and not taking it into our own hands. There is a huge difference. A human being knows that it is wrong and against the law to slash tires. A goose, which we helped bring back from extinction, is only doing what it is supposed to do, eat to survive. If we did too good of a job of bringing it back then lets work on finding a way to "thin the herd". Lets try and increase the limits of the early season. Lets get together with land owners and farmers and petition our lawmakers to make the necessary changes.


Exactly what I am thinking! If there is such a big problem then the farmers should start getting vocal and letting the F&G officials know. If they have then they need to go up the food chain. There has to be a way that all parties (farmers, hunters, and waterfowl) would benefit.

I am curious of the penalties if a farmer was to get caught say killng 100 geese. How much $$$ would he loose in court fees, lawyers, fines, missed time in the field??? Are the penalties high enough or is it like the guys that shoot lead and take their chances with the low fine instead of using non toxic shot?

Also humans know better than landing their hot air ballons and eating the fruit. The geese don't know better. They can't go to the Piggly Wiggly and buy a basket full of grass. :roll:

Its funny though if this thread was about some Hmongs getting caught stealing goose eggs from those same farmer's sloughs all of your hemroids would be in a rage.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Well I hope your wrong about the race issue, although I am a little defensive about agriculture because of my family, and the fact that I just got done eating a sandwich they helped produce. (never bite the hand that feeds you,)

The issue still, (I believe,) is property rights, and as a previous response suggested, should a farmer have to get vocal and let the F&G know about a problem. Imagine a grain grower seeing 10k geese in his maturing field, driving to town, filling out forms in triplicate, stepping up to window A,C,and N to get a permit to go back to the farm he left four hours ago to take care of a problem he or she could have fixed four hours ago, and has only gotten worse since then. And to top it all off, he or she is neglecting their daily duties to perform this paper chase! Goofy.

Ok, having said all this, now I want to say that NO!, no, no, no, no! I am not advocating the slaughter of waterfowl. I want, and I'm sure the ag producers want wildlife to flourish on and off their property. Most farmers I know go to great lengths to provide shelter belts, and other types of wildlife benefit. The only reason I spoke as firmly as I did was to insert the idea that property rights are important, and an ag producers private property is theirs only to control, and that should be respected.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have to disagree with the property rights as some look at it. The landowner may own the land, but he or she is not free of social responsibility. For example: get caught spraying a restricted, or outlawed pesticide like the old DDT. Raise a few poppies and sell some opium and see where it gets you.

Most of my relatives are on farms also, but if farmers get to independent society will change the farm programs at the election booth. Often we are threatened with "if wheat doesn't hit $7 a bushel no one hunts here next year". As a matter of fact there was a field posted with this about ten miles west of Jamestown a couple years ago. I chalk it up to a dumb individual and don't hold it against all farmers. The price of wheat is not something in my control. Punishing me is like me punishing a farmer I don't know.

One bad hunter creates hard feelings with ten landowners, then ten landowners create bad feelings with ten hunters each, and the ball keeps rolling. What ever happened to supporting each other. I will not be blackmailed into supporting agriculture, but so far I do it voluntarily.

Am I disappointed with pay to hunt? Darn right I am. Does it affect how I feel about farmers. Some, but there are good ones left so we can't punish the greedy without punishing the good people also. Do they have a right to charge for hunting? They say they charge for access, but prostitutes do the same thing. Wildlife is a public resource and the geese they shoot are public property. Also, there are not thousands of Canada gees in anybodies field. Not the resident giant canadas anyway, and please don't think I am gullible enough to believe it. I have read the old original books about Branta canadensis maxima that were originally in North Dakota and they are not a species that migrate or stages in large flocks.

All that said I believe someone should check the fields just like they do for hail damage. I don't know if it is still happening, but a few years ago fields were purchased as lure crops and birds were left to keep them out of other fields.

Society should chastise hunters with poor field manners, and farmers should not tolerate dishonesty in their ranks either. None of us need support the bad apples in our groups. We are being driven apart by the greedy and those with poor manners. Society is also to blame. People work so many hours now that it is near impossible to meet landowners on a one on one basis. I still do, but I have friends with their nose to the grindstone so bad they have only a couple week-ends and like to spend it with their family.

So far I have only heard of what we have to do for landowners. Do they owe society anything? Are we the only ones who owe society something? We live in a very good country, do we owe each other? Is there any one group that deserves more than the rest? We all need to take a serious look at each other, and from each others perspective.

Rememver the old cliché about scratching each others back????????


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

Plainsman...very well stated! It is a two-way road. We need to take care of each other.

I view land and crops as investments. We all know with any investment, comes risk, i.e. geese, ducks, weather, etc. Any risk that exists should be mitigated in a legal manner.

Does anyone know of any insurance coverage for crop damage by geese, deer, etc? I know it exists for weather-related damages.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

*arctic plainsman wrote:*



> Sounds like some of you guys are really against property rights.


Please lay out my rights as a property owner. Where can I find a list of my "rights?"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't know about insurance companies taddy 1340, but I will sure try find out as much as I can.

I see you're a landowner. I have access to more land than I can get to in any two years, so this statement is from the heart. I am grateful every day for landowners like yourself that see landowners, farmers, and sportsmen as allies. It will be a far less rewarding life without each other. I get strong in my statements sometimes, but I do it to alarm both sides to the pitfalls that await us without each other. I am thankful for your agreement with me. Best Wishes.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

G&F have heard about this many times, they have to follow federal guidelines to set seasons special or otherwise. They are allowed only so many days to let us hunt from what I understand. I think the way it is now is pleasing to the greater majority of hunters for reasons I don't know. Maybe they could split up early season so we could shoot honks earlier when they start hurting the fields.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Hey Taddy,

Your list of property rights start with our Constitution. The 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment to the Constitution are good starters, and I really like the 9th amendment, which I believe grants other rights not enumerated in the amendments.

I believe property paid for by yourself is supposed to be yours to pay taxes on, authorize tresspass at your convienience, manage as you see fit, and not to be easily controled or managed by others, including the govt.

Sure, we have a moral or social obligation to be good neighbors, stewards of the land etc,... but not a legal one. No, I don't think we have to do anything for the land owners, other than oblige their right to liberty, just like the rest of us.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

taddy1340 said:


> Please lay out my rights as a property owner. Where can I find a list of my "rights?"


What part of the state do you own land? Is it farmland, prairie, woods, what?


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

*4CurlRedleg wrote:*



> What part of the state do you own land? Is it farmland, prairie, woods, what?


My ND land is in McHenry County...consisits mostly of woods and limited grazing...no agricultural crops. My land in WI is mostly wooded with some of it in crop.

Why do you ask?


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Just trying to get feel where you are coming from, I know you are in Leos corner on this. I am in niether or maybe both. Killing a truckload of geese that used to be cherished by the state not so long ago does not sit well with me either, but there a still a "few" smaller farmers that cannot afford to get hit with any type losses no matter what they are.

If it came down to livlihood or depredation from huntable wildlife I'd have to choose livlihood.

This is an age old problem, I remember when I was a young teenager growing up in Garrison there was herd of 21 antelope near Coleharbor. They were in a farmers maturing grain field for 2 days and doing some damage, the third day he and some neighbors converged on this herd and slaughtered everyone of them. They laid there until he harvested that field. The sporting public complained something fierce and the G&F didn't lift a finger. 
I would say the same applies here.

Taddy, is your land something you gain from or is it purely recreational?
Not that it matters, might shed some light on where your coming from though.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

*4CurlRedleg wrote
*



> Taddy, is your land something you gain from or is it purely recreational?
> Not that it matters, might shed some light on where your coming from though.


My land is recreational/investment. No immediate financial gain coming from any of it. If you are attempting to imply that because I don't have thousands of dollars of crops invested my view would be different, you are mistaken. IMO, the law is the law and all legal means need to be exhausted.

As I continue to point out, land and the crops on it are investments. With investment comes risk, i.e. the weather, geese, etc. Financial basics tell us that one must assume the risks to reap the rewards. As far as reducing risks in investments, again legal measures need to be followed.

Don't get me wrong, I truly understand the frustrations of farmers. I grew up on a 2k acre, 300 head dairy farm. I have a good understanding of the problems farmers face. We had a lot of crop damage caused be deer over-population in the mid 1990s. However, not once did I or anyone I know shoot deer out of season to protect the crops. That is why WI had special permits set up for recourse.

Every citizen in America freely chooses their occupation and assumes all risks involved. In no other occupation are you allowed to take the law in your own hands to gain financially...I see no difference here. Landowners are mostly great people that do great things for wildlife, but they are not above the law.

That is unfortunate story about the antelope...

Good hunting :beer:

Mike


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

The problem is that it is not being addressed, wouldn't you say?

I agree that farmers have a heck of a time keeping geese out of their crop. They understand that there is going to be some damage, but we all know or have known someone that was eaten out of house and home by larger flocks of locals. This is the exception.

The problem is that the game and fish have a hard time deciding how to handle this. Could you imagine how uncooperative farmers would become with the G&F officials if they started busting them for keeping geese off their fields in the spring and fall before harvest? It would be a PR nightmare. But at the same token they can not have absolute free rein on how each individual can handle this problem. With no guidence and no punishable laws through a permit, their would be absolutely no order.

I to know farmers that shoot way more than 20 geese and yes they ahve been advised by the G&F that they need to cool it and stick within the Laws. The farmer pushes back and explains that he is doing it to save a crop and does not enjoy the fact that he has to waste animals and his time keeping them out. THe G&F backed off, but the farmer knew that he was protecting what was his and also that the G&F would be watching, so he could not abuse it beyond what was needed.

Really, what I would say this law does is create a buffer between the farmer and the Official to find a common ground of understanding and to improve cooperation, hopefully, in a very sensitive area.

Is it right for a farmer to protect his livelyhood? Yes Is it the G&F's right to protect the State's economic, enviornmental and legal livelyhood, absolutely.

So whether you are on either side of the fence you ahve to realize that this "relationship" between the G&F and the Landowner is a fragile one, and that to ensure future cooperation both sides need to tread lightly and remain within their moral and legal bounds. Many of Us have had first hand experience when the two clash, then no one wins..the geese, the G&F, the farmer.....the hunter.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

As far as risk goes, if you look at classic economics what happens if you increase the risk of an investment? You also must factor that into the reward or no one will choose to take on that risk. Thus if you increase risk(by not allowing depridation protection) you also must increase the rewards(costs go up in order to offset the risk-to-reward). We all understand the firestorm of agricutural legal standards and as you make it harder to comply and reap benefits, you will attract less people into competing in this market. 
Is this a big step towards that...no....but with a mentality of increasing risks it is definately in that direction.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Somebody should elect Northdakotakid.

You are right on Sir!!!!


----------

