# Public meeting in Mott, ND



## MResner (Mar 14, 2002)

I just heard there will be a public meeting held at the Playhouse Theatre, Mott, Monday March 15th, 7:00PM (Mountain Time). The meeting was evidently organized by state Senator Aaron Krauter to discuss the decline of hunters in the Mott area (read decline in commercial hunting profits!) Apparently Roger Rostvet of NDG&F and "members of the hospitality industry" will be present.

It's my guess that much of what we'll be hearing during the fast approaching election campaigns, and much of what we'll face during the next legislative session, will get it's first airing on Monday night.

If any North Dakota resident hunters from the eastern part of the state would like to hear just a little bit of how highly regarded they are by the good folks of the southwestern commercial hunting interests, being in attendence on Monday night should be an extremely enlightening experience.

If anyone has any questions please feel free to contact me. I'm in the phone book.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Now, I can't get to Mott next week, but someone out there needs to let those landowners/businesses/legislators know that part of the reason for the lower number of hunters last year in the Mott area was in part due to:

THE EXPANDED RANGE OF QUALITY PHEASANT HUNTING LAST FALL!

Their complaints of decreased numbers of hunters, though possibly partially related to recent legislation, is not solely tied to that variable.

The fact that the last few years have provided excellent breeding, rearing and growing conditions for pheasants throughout the south and east portions of the state has provided hunters other, perhaps closer, places to do some quality hunting besides Mott and points west.

THIS FACTOR NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

They also need to know that the perception of the Mott area is...there is no place to hunt for resident hunters unless you want to pay thriugh the nose.

Resident hunters just don't feel welcome in that area.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I may be in Bismarck on Monday, and if I make it...I'm going.

They're gonna love me. :lol:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I'd love to sit in that meeting.

March 10-Barnes County Wildlife Federation will host a burger feed for area farmers and NDGF's SE PLOTS specialist Tom Jones to talk about the new PLOTS programs. We encourage sign up for PLOTS. Maybe Mott should do the same.

Barnes County Wildlife Federation ordered and received 2000 "ASK BEFORE YOU ENTER" signs this week. Maybe Mott should do the same. End of problem.


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

I talkled to several pheasant hunters that were from out of state while hunting SE ND.Most mentioned that they usually hunt the SW,and almost all of them said "why drive another 300 miles when you can get your birds here for free".


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

http://www.tonydean.com/issues2.html?sectionid=4803


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Fetch's link from Tony Dean needs to be printed:
Politics in Fish & Wildlife Management

"You can never take the politics out of fish and wildlife management but you must take the politicians out. Politicians, by their nature, will try to sieze control of fish and game agencies, and they succeed wherever sportsmen and environmentalists remain apathetic and unengaged. Usually, the first step is stacking the agency's policy-setting commission, the members of which are generally appointed by the governor and sometimes confirmed by the legislature. When politicians control commissions (and thereby fish and wildlife decision making) they cater to the big money that underwrites their campaigns...large, extractive industries inconvenienced by the needs of fish and wildlife."

Ted Williams 
March, 2004 
Fly Rod & Reel Magazine

Which of course is ND's problem exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DM


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I trully hope some of you well spoken folks from this site can go there. We would all be indebted to you :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

To show tthe degree of confusion resulting from a "no policy" outdoor policy at the state level consider this:

North Dakota Education Association tracked *27 education *related bills in the last session.

United Sportsmen tracked *62 hunting *related bills in the last session.

Put a gag order on NDGF and this is what happens. It's nuts.


----------



## MResner (Mar 14, 2002)

:withstupid: (ME!!!)

I screwed up! Jumped the gun! Mangled the facts! SORRY!

I got the day and time right, but not the DATE... The meeting at Mott is NEXT MONDAY, March 15.

I repeat... next Monday, March 15.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Here is the entire article. It is lengthy but worth the read.

Fish & Game Politics
Why anglers, hunters and environmentalists need to join forces

By TED WILLIAMS

YCAN NEVER TAKE THE POLITICS OUT of fish and wildlife management. But you can and must take the politicians out. Politicians, by their nature, will try to seize control of fish and game agencies, and they succeed wherever sportsmen and environmentalists remain apathetic and unengaged. Usually, the first step is stacking the agency's policy-setting commission, the members of which are generally appointed by the governor and sometimes confirmed by the legislature. When politicians control commissions (and, thereby, fish and wildlife decision making) they cater to the big money that underwrites their campaigns--large, extractive industries inconvenienced by the needs of fish and wildlife.

"One of the big things that has led to politicization of fish and game agencies in the Northwest is the [ESA] listings of salmon and steelhead," says Bert Bowler, who retired as Idaho's salmon biologist last September and continues to defend the resources as native fisheries director for Idaho Rivers United. "The governors said, 'This is bigger than you fish and wildlife agencies. We need to get involved here because our constituents are at risk from the feds.' The sad part of all this is that the states aren't standing tall representing the needs of the fish. Oregon, Washington and Idaho have been neutered. I've never seen it this bad. The fish need strong agencies, and they don't exist."

Rod Sando, former director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game agrees. "It's a generic problem particularly here in the West," he says. "I think it comes down to the transition that's going on from the extractive economy to the new economy of tourism and recreation. In the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and others--Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, to some extent Montana--you see commissioners who are not fish and wildlife advocates so much as advocates for ranching or timber or mining. In Washington the commission isn't bad on resources, but the department is in trouble with the legislature."

Indeed it is. Last February a bill was introduced in the state House of Representatives that would remove budgetary authority from the Fish and Wildlife Commission and let the governor appoint the Fish and Wildlife director. No case study more graphically illustrates what Sando is talking about than his own forced resignation on January 23, 2002. If there's one thing the threatened and endangered salmonids of the Columbia system needed, it was a strong, principled Fish and Game director in Idaho, a leader willing to stand up to the powerful commercial interests preventing recovery. Sando, who had distinguished himself as head of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for eight years, was just such a leader. When he arrived in Idaho on April 1, 2000 he found the department in shambles. The agency was hemorrhaging money; morale was at an all-time low.

The mess had been created and left by Stephen Mealey, a director who displayed no commitment to anything save telling sportsmen, environmentalists, politicians and resource extractors what they wanted to hear. He promised the moon and the stars and the planets, then delivered glow-in-the-dark ceiling decals. Eventually this modus operandi angered the resource extractors, and they had him fired. One of the things he promised was that he wouldn't let the commission come out with a statement of simple biological truth--that the best way to recover Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead was to remove the four lower dams on the Snake River. But at a hearing in May, 1998 overwhelming testimony in favor of dam removal forced the commission to do just that.

The legislature was apoplectic. In retaliation it held hostage a desperately needed license-fee hike, offering to pass it only if the commission reversed itself and proclaimed that salmon and dams could coexist just fine. It tried to strip the department of salmon-management authority and tried to fire the head of the salmonid program and the chief of fisheries. The governor prevailed on the Fish and Game Commission to remove from state hatcheries all displays suggesting that a free-flowing river might be salubrious for salmonids.

"I was at the hearing when our commission made its stand on salmon in 1998," says Bowler. "They didn't say go out and breach the dams. They just reported our science--that if you want to recover the fish, a free-flowing river is the way to do it. The governor's office had brought in all these tobacco scientists to try to counter it. That's how it always was. When we would put out the science, the governor's people would come out with tobacco science in an effort to convince the public that you couldn't trust us or our data: 'Well, gee, we just really don't know if salmon need water.' It got almost that ludicrous. They would counter with: 'No, the dams aren't a problem. They're actually better for the fish.' Idaho took the lead on this in the Northwest because the governor's office seemed so threatened by what these fish might do to the status quo. The status quo in Idaho is water and dams on the lower river for navigation to Lewiston."

To show how much he really loved salmon, Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne set up a September, 1999 photo op at Redfish Lake in which he released hatchery-bred sockeye adults while uttering such banalities as: "There's something spiritual about this. This is exactly what nature intended."

Really? Nature intended more sockeyes to reach their historical spawning habitat via governor than by swimming themselves? Nature intended that the entire natural run of sockeyes that year--the second highest return of the decade--would be seven fish? Nature intended that the lower river be transmogrified to a series of warm, predator-infested, silt-choked deadwaters where humans collect smolts in nets, tote them seaward in barges, and then pretend that it works?

When nature was running the show, the Snake River rose and fell with the seasons, chilled out in tall forests and shaded canyons, rushed and tumbled and breathed in oxygen, picked up and spread gravel and dead wood. In those days the river produced almost half the chinooks spawned in the entire Columbia system. Combined runs of all salmonids are thought to have approached 8 million.

Leaned on by Kempthorne and the legislature, Mealey issued a gag order to department personnel, forbidding them to talk publicly about Snake River salmon recovery. (Immediately thereafter wads of toilet paper appeared in the mouths of all the mounted fish on display at the Boise headquarters.) When reporters asked questions about salmon and were told that it was verboten to speak of such things, First Amendment removal became a bigger story than dam removal.

Mealey had been brought in by Kempthorne's predecessor, Phil Batt, to restrain what Batt perceived to be a rogue agency. Kempthorne found Mealey useful for that purpose, also. But after Mealey's dismissal by the commission, the legislature gave Kempthorne a more reliable device--a new bureaucracy called the Office of Species Conservation that stripped the department of management authority for all threatened and endangered species and placed it with the governor. Kempthorne--who, as a US senator, led Western Republicans in a failed jihad against the Endangered Species Act--is using the Office of Species Conservation not to recover Snake River salmonids, bull trout, wolves and the like, but to filter professional science coming out of the Fish and Game Department so that special interests won't be inconvenienced by the Endangered Species Act. Not only does the office bleed $500,000 a year from the state budget--a huge amount in Idaho--it shortstops federal dollars and decides how Fish and Game will spend them. Running the office is Jim Caswell who, as supervisor of the Clearwater National Forest, presided over the destruction of its fragile soils, forests and trout streams while fighting the roadless initiative offered by his enlightened boss, Mike Dombeck.

SANDO WAS JUST THE PRESCRIPTION fish and wildlife needed--a smart, tough pro who said what he meant, never showed his back in a fight, and stood up for the resource and his fellow biologists. Staff and sportsmen adored him. He rebuilt morale and got the department out of the red and well into the black. It wasn't long, however, before he got crosswise with the legislature and governor. Kempthorne had instructed state employees that, when discussing salmon management, they were to speak with "one voice"--his voice. But, unlike Mealey, Sando couldn't do that. His written mandate was to follow fish and game policy, and the commission, not the governor's office, sets it. Until he heard otherwise from the commission, the department's policy was going to be that a free-flowing Snake River is what salmon needed. Two months before the governor forced him out the commission gave him a raise.

Under Sando the department moved aggressively to protect and restore fisheries resources, both resident and anadromous. His main priority was instream flows. But, although water rights were purchased from willing sellers, this displeased irrigators, particularly the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation. There's a lot of trout habitat in Idaho that has been dried up by irrigators--on the Big Wood River, the Lemhi, the Little Lost, the Pahsimeroi, to mention just a few. Sando wanted to restore dewatered trout habitat, and he would have if he'd had the chance.

While the department doesn't own or manage much land, it tells federal agencies such as the Forest Service and BLM what they need to do to protect and restore fish and wildlife. For example, cows shouldn't be allowed to wallow in trout streams and rip up their banks as they currently do throughout Owyhee County and on such waters as the East Fork of the Salmon River, the Pahsimeroi, Bear Valley Creek and Marsh Creek, one of the most important spring chinook producers on the Columbia system. The Idaho Cattlemen's Association deeply resented this advice, even when it was ignored.

What also incensed the Idaho Cattlemen's Association, its allies in the legislature and a small but shrill group of elk hunters in the Clearwater country was Sando's alleged softness on predators. In the Clearwater National Forest elk are way down because the winter range can no longer support them. Huge fires in the early 1900s created massive brush fields and, in turn, an explosion in the elk population. But as trees matured, the elk faded away. "A lot of the winter range there is probably on a 500-year [growth-burn] cycle," says Lonn Kuck, Fish and Game's former big-game manager who retired last July after 32 years with the department. "There is an element out there that is convinced that predators are the limiting factor. That element simply can't comprehend that habitat isn't always constant; it thinks that if you kill the predators, we'll have elk coming out of our ears."

Helping me understand what Kuck meant was one Ed Lindahl, board member and past president of the Concerned Sportsmen of Idaho--as far as I can determine, the only hunting-and-fishing outfit that was glad to see Sando go.

"Sando was an embracer of wolves," Lindahl declared. "That put him at odds with us. We're dead set against wolves. What our forefathers did to them should have remained so. Reintroducing wolves was the most extreme of environmentalism. I'm a retired Army officer, and I take the same view of militant Marxism throughout the world."

According to Lindahl, the elk that get away from the wolves are eaten by bears and cougars. Almost as bad as predators are trout fishermen, with their preservationist mindset against clearcutting and roading: "I bump up against the Orvis men of the world who don't want to see the forest opened up," he declared. "You know, the purists who want only wild fish--groups like Trout Unlimited that file knee-jerk appeals and lawsuits on any timber sale that may help elk." And, of course, there's the "extreme environmentalism" pushed by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation which "embraces the roadless initiative that the Clinton administration rammed down the West's throat." Such talk makes eminent good sense to a lot of Idahoans.

Last October a golden ax, in the form of gross "predator coddling" by Sando, fell into the laps of the Concerned Sportsmen of Idaho, the governor, the Idaho Cattlemen's Association, the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation and the legislature. According to the report filed by conservation officer Bob Sellers, this is how the incident went down: The wife of a caretaker at a ranch near Mountain Home, an area where cougars have co-existed with people and livestock for decades, saw a small lioness and her two cubs at one end of a pasture. They seemed to be looking at some horses at the other end--hungrily, she thought. Neither she nor anyone else saw the cats chasing the horses. But guessing what they had in mind, she phoned a local hunter, Bob Corbus. When Corbus arrived the cougars were nowhere to be seen, so he drove around in his truck until he found them, then shot all three. The mother and one cub died quickly. The other cub, unable to move, lived for another day until Corbus got around to shooting it again. In Idaho you can only kill cougars if they're attacking your livestock. So, after getting clearance from his supervisor and the local prosecutor, Sellers cited Corbus for game-law violations. Although Corbus wasn't a member of the Idaho Cattlemen's Association, president-elect Ted Hoffman wrote a letter to Sando, demanding that he fix the ticket.

Sando's response--that he wasn't into fixing tickets, and that it was illegal anyway--was described by the association as "a political move." With that, the association passed a resolution authorizing Hoffman to "cause the Idaho Fish and Game Department to follow the existing law." Scenting blood, the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation proclaimed that Sellers had been "overzealous" and demanded that he "be removed from duty and thoroughly investigated." Sen. Robbi King-Barrutia (R-Glenns Ferry) and Rep. Mike Moyle (R-Star) announced that they would file legislation to enable livestock owners to more easily kill predators. The prosecutor dropped the charges, but that wasn't enough. Corbus filed a six-page complaint with the state, and now Sellers is being investigated by the Attorney General.

A heavy predator-control element in the commission left Sando with only a one-vote margin, and one of his supporters--Nancy Hadley, who had cast the tie-breaking vote for his raise--was coming up for reappointment. Clearly, Sando was toast.

When Sando left the department Kempthorne expressed astonishment. But Don Clower, one of the governor's own appointees to the commission, set the record straight. "I watched on TV as the governor said that neither he nor his staff had anything to do with Rod's forced termination," he told me. "That just wasn't true. They took us into little groups of twos and threes so they didn't violate the open meeting law. They spent 45 minutes telling us all the bad things Rod had done and to go fix the problem." Clower reports that the governor himself showed up for one of the meetings.

KEMPTHORNE SEES CLOWER, whose term is up June 30, as a major mistake. But Clower has built an enormous following among sportsmen, and it's not clear that they'll let the governor replace him. I asked Clower what sportsmen in other states needed to do to keep the politicians out of wildlife decision making. "Get involved," he said. "As a group, we're an apathetic bunch. The only time we rise to anything is when we're directly threatened."

While Idaho hunters, anglers and environmentalists were contemplating their navels the state legislature was eroding the Fish and Game Commission system, doing away with staggered terms and shortening term length from six years to four so that new governors could bring in more new members. Kempthorne, for example, brought in four.

But now that Idaho's sportsmen have lost the director they so badly needed, they've joined with environmentalists in a 22-group coalition and are fighting back. As former US Interior Secretary and former Idaho governor Cecil Andrus aptly puts it, Kempthorne and the legislature "have jabbed an old hibernating bear in the fanny with a stick." The coalition is circulating a petition for a ballot initiative in November that would reduce the number of commissioners from seven to five, strip the Senate of confirmation power and require the governor to appoint members from candidates elected in caucuses around the state.

A good measure of the initiative's worth is the reaction it is eliciting from the governor and Farm Bureau Federation. In March the coalition summarily dismissed a "compromise" offered by Kempthorne in the form of a five-man commission in which sportsmen supplied two members, the Farm Bureau supplied two and the governor appointed the fifth. Andrus accurately defined it as "three to two against wildlife." Showing its first-ever concern for sportsmen, the Farm Bureau refers to the "unholy alliance" between sportsmen and environmentalists and warns that "if true sportsmen go for this ruse, the hunter, fisherman and outfitters will be out of business."

"The current situation is forcing the public to take this kind of action," says Lonn Kuck. He speaks of "this subtle pressure" that made it impossible for him and his fellow professionals to do the work they were hired for. "It was very difficult to make hard decisions," he says. "No one said I couldn't do something, but lots of times my recommendations weren't carried out. If you don't agree with the direction, you're slowly and insidiously ostracized from the decision-making process to where you become ineffective. That happened to me. It reached a point where I didn't even participate in the last round of big-game season-setting."

Maybe the coalition can pull the State of Idaho up by its bootstraps. I doubt that it realizes its own power. "Whenever sportsmen combine with environmentalists, you have 60 to 70 percent of the population, an absolutely irresistible coalition," remarks Chris Potholm, founder of the Potholm Group, a polling and strategic advice company that has engineered 60 environmental referenda victories in 30 states.

I'd hate to think that men like Sando are too good for states like Idaho. Maybe there's a state that deserves Sando now, but he's 60 and tired of directing (or trying to direct) resource agencies. He's flat-out not going to do it anymore.

So what is he going to do? Well, at this writing he's off to a place about as far as you can get from Idaho politicians and Idaho resource extractors--New Zealand. For a full month he's going to fish for non-threatened steelhead.


----------



## MResner (Mar 14, 2002)

Well, the great Senator Krauter informational meeting is in the books. I'm still too fired up to type much of a report tonight, so I'll just touch on a few hi-lites (I'm not going to pay too much attention to my spelling, etc so anyone who thinks it fun to poke fun, have at it).

GNF Deputy Director Roger Rostvet did an exemplary job of presenting data. Cold hard factual data. Data that showed a dramatic shift by both resident and nonresident hunters away from SW ND. 90%+ of the folks at the meeting were commercial hunting interests so they didn't take too well to the facts, and Roger did a wonderful job of keeping his cool as his department was being blamed for enforcing statutes enacted by the legislature! Many of those assembled stated that it should be the GNF's job to fix their 'problem' of reduced hunter numbers in the SW! And nearly all blamed that loss on the 10 day nonresident license exclusively.

There were a couple of real gems -- Pat Candrian of the Cannonball Co. suggested to Roger that the GNF spend ALL of the PLOTS money east river. Now why would he say such a thing? Don't the commercial interests want to compete with any other entity leasing land or what?

The Hettinger/Grant County Economic Development Director asked why when we've seen hunter dollars increases in the range of 25% per year previously; why the GNF doesn't do something to maintain that? Roger nicely explained that we have seen an unprecedented long range increase in game numbers, and those conditions will not last forever.

Several of the "access" sellers flat out stated that hunters from eastern NODAK are not welcome in the SW. Surprise, surprise, surprise! But I was a bit surprised they had the guts to state it in public!

Representative Rod Froelich had the answers when he addressed the crowd. He stated that eight SW counties have only six legislators while Fargo has thirty-something, and you city boys are just really bullyin' us out here! I suppose Mr. Froelich expects that if his Farm Bureau sponsored law suit succeeds in auto-posting that will help out the situation immensely. Yup, that oughter bring 'em like flies, all right!!

I only lost my temper and yelled once throughout the whole ordeal, and I'm rather proud of myself that I managed that much self control.

If anyone has any questions, I'll try to answer them, and after I cool off some, I'll post some of the information passed out by the GNF.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

M, this would almost be funny if not so aggrevating. Thanks for the report and your involvement.

I remember the not too long ago days when the motels and other bus. out there were heavily used by vehicles bearing almost exclusively ND plates (even when I was one of few with MN plates). Many ND residents have come to feel unwlcome out that way and aren't any longer willing to put in the substantial efforts to make what are becoming very difficult access connections.

Even with big bird numbers in the East, this year I still spent 8 of 11 pheasant days in the SW. Worked too hard to establish contacts there and I couldn't think of not being able to spend time with those very gracious folks and also some very good hospitality friends (can't pour yourself one - or more - in just any ol' watering hole  )

Good point to remind some that NR's don't have a monopoly on feeding the core hospitality interests. I spend twice as many nights and days in motels and cafes and the occasional bar as a R than I ever did as a NR. Being a R doesn't mean we always day-trip, often it just gives us an easier jump-off for real trip.

Anyway, bird numbers elsewhere played a large role in a decline of SW hunters numbers, if any. But, if the communities got involved and access was more available, resident hunters who have given up on that area would come back in a very short number of years, in droves.

When you're the only game in town and that game is great, I guess you can cherry pick the fat cats. Over time and varrying habitat conditions and bird numbers, think your most consistant and loyal customers will come from within. Sad, really.

Yeah, Pat's got that exclsusivity thing rollin'. Guess public places to hunt are considered competition. Section lines also raise heck with exclusivity too, right :wink: M knows what I mean.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

MR, thanks again for the report. More detail please? Also for our unenlightened friends would you explain the section line issue in that county? A little something to do with the county commission?


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Resner,

I've been doing some number viewing as of late myself, regarding in-state and out-of-state hunting dollars. So there are a lot of them floating around in my noggin.

But, if you could tell us, what were the increases and decreases in hunter numbers / dollars in the various regions of ND this year?

My guess has been since Dec. that the SE corner of the state has seen a lot, while the west has not. Do you remember any specific percentage or number changes in these regions from last year to this?

If not, no biggie, Im sure they'll be released sooner or later.

Thanks.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

MResner said:


> I only lost my temper and yelled once throughout the whole ordeal, and I'm rather proud of myself that I managed that much self control.


MR,
You did good!
May I assume that public-trust issues were not part of the discussion?

Did these folks reveal many new, full-time, benefit-paying jobs were created down there due to hunting this past year?

M.


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

Were License sales lower last fall?In the SE farmers were saying that there were more pheasant hunters last fall than they have ever seen before.


----------



## MResner (Mar 14, 2002)

Sorry I've been slow getting this info up, but here's some of the main points made by Mr. Rostvet in his presentative of GNF data.

* The number of guides continues to grow. 2002 totals: 444 (56 fishing, 71 combo, 317 hunting) - 2003 totals: 459 (57 fishing, 80 combo, 322 hunting). This growth was in spite of the fact that HB 1050 exempted any person outfitting on land owned or leased by them for ag purposes. 10 NR were licensed as guides in 2003.

* Resident hunters strongly support both the early waterfowl opener for residents and the legislation which prohibits NRs from hunting GNF lands the first week of pheasant season.

* 69% of resident waterfowlers hunted the first week of season.

* 52% of resident hunters who hunted the first week of pheasant season hunted the PLOTS land. (Surprisingly high usage for such a relatively small number of acres!)

* 82% of the residents who hunted the first week of pheasant season favored the NR restriction.

* Although complete license sales numbers are not all in, it appears 45,936 NR hunters were licensed in ND in 2003 vs. 47,681 in 2002. Total of 1745 fewer in 2003, minus 3.6%.

* NR small game licenses (mostly pheasant hunters) for 2003 will be over 28,678. In 2002 NR number was 22,840. (An increase of 5838 licenses- 25%!!!) Roger explained that some of that increase was due to NRs who purchased multiple 10 day licneses and that the only way to find exactly how many NRs bought more than one licnese would be to physically go through each and every paper copy of every license sold at every vendor in ND for all of 2003. A workable estimate of the number of NRs who purchased multiple licenses can be obtained by examination of the GNF survey data. From that survey; only 1.3% of NRs hunted more than 10 days in ND so would have been required to purchase multiple licenses. That 1.3% represents approximately 375 individual NR hunters.

* There was a dramatic shift in where NRs hunted in 2003. In 2002, three of the most hunted counties were in the SW, while in 2003 only one was. "...indicated a shift away from counties where previous NR densities had been greatest."

* "The most significant change in pheasant hunting activity was with resident hunters. There was a significant decrease in the number of residents hunting west river counties. Preliminary data indicates that there was a 22% reduction in the resident hunters who hunted in the southwest. Hettinger County, which had been the long-standing #1 destination for resident hunters dropped to #4."

* Even though the NR small game license changed to ten days, the average number of days a NR spent hunting pheasants in ND changed very little. In 2002 the average for NR was 4.295 days, while in 2003 it was 4.213 days. (A statistically insignificant change.)

* The number of NR hunters who hunted more than 10 days dropped from 4.21% of total to 1.3% of total. (This is a significant % drop, but effected a small number of individuals. 4.2% of 2002 NRs = 959 individuals, while 1.3% of 2003 NRs = 373 individuals.)
Let me make a personal observation here: From the data it can be concluded that the ten day NR resident license did not discourage NR from hunting ND, BUT it evidently did discourage approximately 600 of the long-term NRs from spending as much time in ND. I think we could all agree (with the possible exception of those 600) that the reduction was a good thing for the resource, as those long-term hunters have a disproportionately heavy impact.

* 3996 fewer NR waterfowl licenses were sold in 2003. (2002 - 30000 and 2003 - 26004). Data indicates NR hunter numbers stayed about the same due to the fact that many add-on $10 licenses were purchased in 2002 and those individuals never actively hunted ducks, while that $10 add-on was not available in 2003.

* Minnesotans continue to be the #1 purchaser of NR waterfowl and small game licneses, however their proportion of total sales dropped by about 5% in 2003.

* Mr. Rostvet also presented some data concerning big game licenses, GNF appropriations, some special seasons and regulations, and CWD. None of those issues resulted in much interest or discussion due to the fact this meeting was attended largely by the SW commercial hunting interests, and their only concern was getting hunter dollars back into the SW.

That's a recap of the information presented at the meeting, and I want to state again that Roger Rostvet did an exemplary job.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

One interesting thing jumps out here for 2003

NR Waterfowl............26,004

NR Upland...............28,678


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

Ken, What's next a cap on upland?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Could be although there is kind of a cap with the 10 day restriction in a 90 day season.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Mark, I can see a great letter to the editor here in your report, and also a informatioal release to the legislature. Thank you.


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

Mark, Great post very good information. What I find surprising, well not really, as I always thought the average joe lunchbox working stiff does not spend the full ten days in ND or SD for upland game, is the total number of days stayed, changed so little. 
It would appear the NR regular guy who does not own land in ND, who ends up taking home 12 roosters and maybe a few huns, is paying the price for everyones resentment of the NR landowners, are we just collateral damage. 
If those 959 guys in 2002 shot a limit of roosters everday for the entire season that would be about 130,000 roosters, I think that is exagerated as I have read some of the ND residents only shot a little over a hundred or so during the whole season. 
Biologically speaking I have read that you basically can't shoot to many roosters, as it only takes few to produce many.


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

MResner said:


> * The number of guides continues to grow. 2002 totals: 444 (56 fishing, 71 combo, 317 hunting) - 2003 totals: 459 (57 fishing, 80 combo, 322 hunting). This growth was in spite of the fact that HB 1050 exempted any person outfitting on land owned or leased by them for ag purposes. 10 NR were licensed as guides in 2003.
> 
> A whole10???? And you guys are whining about the NR's!!! :eyeroll: That's funny.  Look at the totals.. Your own people are stealing your resources, not us dreaded NR's!!! It's your very own that are bringing in the multitudes for their own personal gains. I think your crosshairs are on the wrong varmint!!!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

When the gas fire is out of control, shut down the gas. Pretty simple. Our fire, we decide.

Read MR's report again please:


> Pat Candrian of the Cannonball Co. suggested to Roger that the GNF spend ALL of the PLOTS money east river. Now why would he say such a thing? Don't the commercial interests want to compete with any other entity leasing land or what?


Jan article, Bis Tribune concerning Open Fields Program:


> Pat Candrian, the manager of the Cannonball Company in Regent, welcomes the venture.
> 
> "I'm never opposed to acquiring more hunting opportunities in North Dakota," he said Wednesday.
> 
> Candrian said the Cannonball Company doesn't lease land to accommodate his hunters. Instead, the company makes agreements with landowners to hunt their land, and the landowner is paid $17 per harvested bird and keeps control of the hunting rights, Candrian said. He said he didn't know what the going per-acre lease fee was for land in the area.


Is it possible Pat Candrian says one thing to a reporter and something else completly opposite to his fee hunting cronies? How can this be ?
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The PLOT sickens in Hettinger County.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Pretty tough to put a cap on upland when the law says you can buy as many licenses as you want.That would have to be taken out first in order to put any cap on.

Bubba...what does 10 non-res. guides have to do with anything?

And you are exactly right...G/O are stealing the resource that belongs to the people of the state...but who are they selling their ill-gotten gains to?

Limiting non-res. will eventually limit G/O.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

Why are Nonresidents allowed to be G/O's? How about putting a cap on them? I know they pay a substantially higher fee but a limit on them might be a start. How about 1% of all G/O licenses go to NR. It would be similar to deer hunting.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Because of Interstate commerce laws,you can't stop non-res. from guiding.They were ready to sue our GNF.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Dick Monson asked me to post this with a picture for him:

This letter was sent to me at the start of the '03 legislative session. I asked
Chris to post it so readers could view the picture, and maybe get the picture.










Dear Sirs
At the rate that this area in sw ND "pheasant country"is being leased and also
bought up we need all the help from folks like you that we can get! It's hunters
these outfitters bring in that are the very ones buying up any of the good land
that comes up for sale. Heck some isn't even for sale, they just drive up into
the yard shoot the land owner a price that dang near knocks his socks off. And
just like that the sons and or daughters or inlaws or even nieghbors that were
thinking of buying and farming and ranching on the place when the folks retired,
well they are left high and dry. Some buy it before they even leave to go back to
their out-of-state homes. I know a guide that had some guys out and when they
came to this nice looking posted property on the river one of them said "why
don't we hunt here look at all those birds!" my friend explained to him that it
was posted and they didn't have permission to hunt it, but that it was for sale.
Guess what, the guy get's on the cell phone, calls the realty folks in Dickinson,
calls his wife in California and explains to her that there's this little town
called Dickinson nearby and yes, they even have a Wal Mart. Calls the Realty
company back and bought the 2,200 acres, ranch and all right over the phone! Gets
off and says, "let's go hunting on my place!" Very true story!

There is property being bought up at an unbelievable rate around here. Down the
road a ways, I believe they call themselves "Hunting Land Investors", just bought
up a big chunk of prime deer and bird hunting land along the river. A piece of
land that I used to put up a stand on every year and bow hunt. Well now that they
have it neither I nor anyone else will be able to hunt it again. As a matter of
fact they have turned it into a damn fortress, with chains on all the gates.
Laminated no hunting or trespassing signs explaining in detail how they will
prosecute you to the full extent of the law on every other post. And they fenced
off the old established trail that led to some nice state ground with tree rows .
And to top it all off they've installed these solar powered satellite dishes out
in the crp fields that send live images from remote cameras that are placed around
the perimeter of their fortress. These cameras also monitor the road and section
lines. And if they see anything suspicious from their offices "who knows where"
they call our local law enforcement/game warden to go and check it out. It's
crazy! Here's a photo of one of their dishes out in the boonies.
Guess were this group of "hunting land investors was that 2nd morning of deer
season "they got there Fri. night......Yep hunting the state land next to their
fortress, I was watching them with my spotter. As they were looking at us thru
their rifle scopes "I hate that!" as they laid on the ridges overlooking the
river, as the sun rose that morning. They were waiting for all the 30 or so 
hunters that were hunting this small piece of state land to kick the deer into
thier place, and shoot them as they ran into the fortress.
A friend of mine here in town was thinking of leasing his uncles small farm, maybe
1,000 acres but an unbelievable piece of bird and deer hunting ground. He was
thinking of guiding bird hunters fri-sun for a little extra income "I don't blame
him". Some how the word got out and this group from the east coast gives him a
call and this is what they offered him. They want to book four hunters per day
fri-sun for every single weekend this upcoming season! And they said they would
pay him $22,000, and here's the catch they wanted him to sign an agreement with
them so they could be locked into it for 5 yrs and they wanted to pay him up
front! He said they told him they weren't always going to be there and that they
would rebook hunts, "at a profit to them".

My friend had a problem with this whole thing and hasn't done it yet. But if he
doesn't do something soon a doctor from out of state is going to lease it out from
under him, and is offering his uncle a tremendous amount more than he can. This
was after the doctors pleas failed to convince his uncle to just sell the farm to
him "for his hunting lodge". My friend the guide says that he get's calls every
week from out of staters that he took hunting, they want to know if any land has
come up for sale! He's supposed to keep an ear and eye open to spot things like
that before they go public I guess!

The group from out east must have gotten wind of this from our new neighbors from
across the road, yep a group from Conn. that I think spend the entire bird season
here in ND. I saw them driving their big dually truck with the dog kennels in the
back up and down the roads every day. Evidently they couldn't buy a large enough
piece of land and now have to revert to road hunting.
We have "NEW" neighbors on three sides of our place here in sw ND from Conn., CO,
and Minn. These properties have all been purchased for hunting only and are posted
and chained up tight, no one, resident nor nonresident, can hunt on them.There
will no longer be money spent in town for the spring seedings or the fall harvests
of these properties either. It's a terrible thing.

Two of my friends are both young farmers/ranchers and there is no way they can
compete in this land market in these parts and the property taxes are going to
really start getting tough on them in the future. These are young guys in their
late 20's, they are about the only guys their age that stayed here and never moved
away. They are trying their damndest to make a living in these dry tough times,and
as you all know "I hope" it isn't easy right now.
They even had to go as far as to buy land 120 miles away down in nw SD, this was
the only property they could afford to buy and run cattle on! I guess because it
isn't good bird country! Right now they drive down there every day to check on
their herd!
And with this drought it isn't very good cattle country down there either, it
looks like the moon I tell them!
And by the looks of it they will never be able to expand their operation here in
our area, I guess it was a curse to be born in a scenic game rich valley here in
sw ND what a shame.

Like I've said before,only let these nonresidents hunt for 5 days or so the entire
year. I think this would slow the onslaught of these wealthy land mongers, in this
great North Dakota land grab. If they like it here so much they should move here
and really contribute to our small towns with their economic stimulus! And this
deal with SB 2230, this is a very bad one, just look at what has happened in KS
just recentlysince they went to this type of system. We were able to see this
first hand just 3-4 years ago.

We drew the first ever nonresident rifle tags for this unit in southern KS, and we
spoke to a land owner that a friend knew down there before we even applied, and
were granted permission to hunt his property. So that if we were fortunate enough
to draw these coveted tags we would have a place to hunt. Well we drew the tags
and headed down there that fall with very high hopes, when we met up with the land
owner the day before season he had forgotten all about us and had sold his own
"gratis" tags to two bankers from Denver. They had given his whole family plane
and rodeo tickets to the national finals rodeo in Las Vegas, he couldn't let us
hunt. What a heart breaker, there wasn't much we could do. And our attempts to get
permission from other folks along that river valley were fruitless because most
had sold their tags to a very large outfitting operation and leased their property
to them. Go look on ebay in the fall and look at all of the KS deer tags that are
on there up for auction, some go for over $1,000 a piece. Nice program! I could go
on and on, thank goodness we live near states to the west that do have allot of
public land and good management policies.At least my children will have SOME place
to hunt when they grow up! If you think that the local small town economy is bad
now just wait till the resident hunters quit coming to these parts because there
is no place to hunt.Then they'll really see who was their bread and butter, and it
isn't the outfitters believe me!
It's a feeding frenzy and the wealthy hogs are at the trough! 
Good Luck and give 'em hell in Bismarck!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Boys, and you're wondering if $20 for Alliance and NDWF and United Sportsmen is
worthwhile? http://nodakoutdoors.com/members/phpBB/ ... php?t=4922

And make darn sure you sign up for the ETREE at:
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/signup.php Thanks, Dick Monson


----------



## MResner (Mar 14, 2002)

Dick M. - The only section line talk I've heard of in Hettinger County was a couple of years ago, and I have NO, I repeat NO, first-hand knowledge of the situation. All I can relate is that there was some discussion that Pat Candrian and Lester Brackel closed some section lines for David Currier at one of the last county commission meetings before they lost control of the commission. I have never personally read the commission meeting minutes so I can't testify to what was done. But... the interesting part is that both Candrian and Brackel were heavily involved financially with Cannonball. I spoke with a current county commissioner last evening and there has been one section line closure by the current commission.

njs - You asked about movement of hunter $s and #s. The GNF data made it crystal clear that both upland hunters and their dollars went from the SW part of the state to the SE part of the state! From an area of little PLOTS to an area of more PLOTS. From an area of high access fees to an area of low or no access fees. Now, I think those factors played a major role in changing the visitation patterns. I think that the 22% drop in visitation to the SW by resident hunters probably was largely attributable to costs and access, but I guess if the "wildlife sellers" want to delude themselves into thinking it was all because Fargo is out to get them (Representative Rod Froelich's stated view), and the new 10 day NR license, I guess that's up to them.

MRN - There was no discusion of the public trust. The folks at the meeting's only concern was, "Where'd my wildlife $s go? And who's going to get them back for me?"

mallard - NR upland license sales were up CONSIDERABLY FOR 2003!

Rangers - The NR who hunted a typical 4 or 5 days in ND was not appreciably impacted by the change to the ten day license. The ones who were impacted were those few percent of NRs who hunted for extended periods; that very small minority who has a hugely disproportionate impact on the resource.

I hope I answered some of your questions satifactorily.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Chris/Dick- that letter is exactly what happened recently here in Georgia and in Texas when I lived there in my youth. Fortunately Georgia is blessed with some public land. That letter made me feel sick to my stomach remembering all my hunting spots dry up. If you guys don't get totally rid of NR hunting it will happen in ND also. 
There is so much money behind this, I've come to the conclusion its unstoppable without total elimination of NR hunting, furthermore as the population of ND increases ( which I know is going to take a long time but it will happen) your own residents will purchase and close off the land. Thats what happened down here. Ledigislation should be for no non resident hunters allowed period. IF not the above letters description will be the norm for the whole state.
Best Wishes but :eyeroll: little hope 
This is the bigggest reason I feel so strongly about public land.


----------



## dleier (Aug 28, 2002)

PLOTS is a temporary lease.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
NO-MOW IMPLEMENTATION 
HEARING BROCHURE

In the mid-to-late 1970's the North Dakota Department of Transportation ( NDDOT ) began making environmental commitments in highway project environmental documents to create no-mow /managed-mow areas on selected portions of highway right-of- way. These commitments were made because total replacement of impacted wetlands within the right-of-way was not possible and the Federal Regulations in effect at that time virtually prohibited off site wetlands mitigation. The no-mow commitment was an effort to make the remaining wetlands more productive. A total of 8200 acres of highway right-of-way were declared no-mow / managed-mow.

The Fifty-seventh Legislative Assembly in 2001 passed SB- 2224 which directed the NDDOT to submit a plan to the Fifty-eighth Legislative Assembly to eliminate the areas designated as no-mow /managed-mow from the right-of-way adjacent to highways under the DOT's jurisdiction. This legislative action came about because the no-mow program was not well received by many state residents, especially farmers and ranchers who formerly cut hay on the rights-of-way for livestock feed.

The NDDOT, working with the Federal Highway Administration, the natural resource agencies, and the State Land Department (SLD ) submitted a plan, to eliminate no-mow, to the Fifty-eighth Legislative Assembly ( 2003) whereby the NDDOT would purchase 4800 acres of land from the SLD, which they deemed unprofitable, pursuant to chapter 15-09 NDCC, and would enter into an agreement with the North Dakota Game and Fish ( NDGF ) for management of these lands for fish and wildlife production and compatible public uses.

The Legislative Assembly approved the plan and passed HB-1012 which authorized the DOT to acquire land to eliminate no-mow areas adjacent to state's roadways. It also required public hearings in the counties where the land was located if the land being purchased is public land. The purpose of the hearings is to inform the public of the plan, receive comments, and address concerns they may have with the plan.

When the hearings are complete, the NDDOT will make formal application to the Land Board to purchase these lands. The Land Board will have the land appraised and hold a Public Hearing relative to the value and then determine if they will sell the respective tracts of land to the NDDOT.

The benefits of this sale are : 1) It will eliminate the existing no-mow acres and allow for haying an additional 8200 acres; 2) The proceeds from the sale of the unprofitable school lands will be invested in the trust fund and the earnings distributed to the school districts; 3) Provides good wildlife habitat and compatible public use.

You are invited to make written comments and submit them to Mark Gaydos, Design Engineer, North Dakota Department of Transportation, 608 East Boulevard Ave., Bismarck, ND 58505-0700. E-mail : [email protected]- note, "public hearing sale of state land" in the e-mail.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I recall seeing some news stories about some opposition to this project lately. This is an important project, and it should not be assumed implementation is assured. Please see the last full paragraph from Doug's post and email Mr. Gaydos as described - be sure to include "public hearing sale of state land" in the subject line, and be sure to indicate you are a sportsperson in support of the project.


----------



## dleier (Aug 28, 2002)

don't get me wrong PLOTS is a godsend....long term access/habitat/mgmt is twice as nice

The Associated Press - 03/17/2004

MINOT, N.D.

Some landowners near Burlington are protesting a proposal to turn 160 acres of school trust land into a wildlife management area.

The state Transportation Department wants to buy the land as a way to eliminate the need for requiring "no-mow" areas in ditches along highways. The land would be managed by the Game and Fish Department.

Federal rules require the state to have a number of acres of land set aside to enhance wetlands. The state currently uses no-mow areas along some highways to satisfy the federal rules.

The Legislature passed a law last year that created a plan to eliminate no-mow areas by purchasing school trust land.

"The gist of it is that we've got to replace these no-mow areas," said David Leer, a state Transportation Department spokesman.

David Herzig, whose parents own land near the 160 acres considered for sale, said there is already an overabundance of wildlife in the area. He's also worried people will cause problems for adjacent landowners.

"All of a sudden this is being snatched up for perpetuity and we have to deal with the problems," Herzig said.

Steve ****, a conservation supervisor for the Game and Fish Department, said there is a large outpouring of support statewide for more public hunting lands.

Dale Braun, a hunter who lives south of Minot, said he understands the landowners' concerns, but he is in favor of the idea because it is difficult to find land where he can hunt


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Bubba...what does 10 non-res. guides have to do with anything?
> 
> And you are exactly right...G/O are stealing the resource that belongs to the people of the state...but who are they selling their ill-gotten gains to?
> 
> Limiting non-res. will eventually limit G/O.


Exactly my point!! what does 10 non-res. guides have to do with it?
#1) You have a multitude of YOUR OWN STATES RESIDENTS selling the resources for a profit that your tax $ and license fees are paying for
#2) With the problem as out of control as it is, WHY are they letting non-residents come and sell your resources? At least the resident guide has some tax $ etc., stuck into it.
After doing some research, etc. I have come to one conclusion... By looking at what your state brings in financially from non-res. hunters, etc. closing them out completely could result in a small breakdown economically in some areas. And (heres the big one  ), I feel for ya, from what I see and read, it almost looks like you guys MAY be past the point of no return when it comes to your resources, etc. It looks more and more like a Texas situation is swooping down on you faster than you may be able to put a halt to it. :******: I hope thats not true but it sure likes it's snowballing from this side of the fence. Those of you that spend a multitude of time on these forums whining about your lost opportunities etc., need to get off your arses and see that something gets done, NOW!! No disrespect intended toward anyone but if you continue *****in and remain complacent, you're going to have become non-resident hunter yourself. Too many times I read someone posting the question, What about the 2005 session? YOU HAVEN'T GOT TILL 2005!!!  Do you think the G/O's etc. are looking at a computer screen thinking of what to cry about next?  NO, That's why they're winning!!!!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Thank you Bubba! You stated our point exactly.

Another one from nw ND:
"...Yes I do have some strong feelings on these topics. Land prices out here that have any sort of hunting or fishing possibilities are going through the roof. Larger tracts of the land are selling for $500 per acre and smaller ones for $1000 per acre. A 500 acre piece down in the Killdeer Mts. sold for $1000 per acre. What I don't understand is why doesn't this new value trickle through the economy? For instance if land is taking on this new value then the land across the fence from it sure should be worth the same. Why don't their taxes reflect the true value of the land. It would really help our schools and children. If they are saying their land has that sort of value then they should be willing to pay taxes accordingly. Also it seems that all the area prime hunting land is no longer selling local because no one can afford it. Wealthy buyers from everywhere are grabbing it and they are becoming small Ted Turner game preserves for only a few to enjoy but yet hold game that many could enjoy but will never get that opportunity. I could go on ......"
Understand now that a high ag value would be $400 an acre in his location.

Just for the sheer rotten hell of it I called the Alliance and NDWF today to see how the memberships are pouring in. Everybody must be waiting for their social security check.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

"2) With the problem as out of control as it is, WHY are they letting non-residents come and sell your resources? At least the resident guide has some tax $ etc., stuck into it."

Can't do anyhting about it.The state would be sued and loose under Interstate Commerce laws.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

The theory that only 1.3% of NR hunters bought more than one license because only 1.3% of NR upland hunters hunted more than 10 days is certainly flawed.

If a NR (say an ex-ND person) decided to hunt a couple of weekends in ND plus say a few days between Christmas and New Years they would also need to buy a second license. Total days hunted could easily be less than 10.

I am one of these people. Hunted pheasants in ND for about 7 days, add another 2 days for sharptails. Two licenses and I hunted under 10 days for upland game in ND.

I would guess I am more the norm than the exception for NR hunters buying more than one license.

Why the ND G&F department did not restrict upland license sales to phone, internet, and Bismarck offices just like they do with waterfowl licenses is beyond me. There is no reason to have over the counter NR upland licenses.

This restriction would have solved the issue of "we do not know because we would have to hand count them" response.

In this case the NDG&F shows pretty damn poor planning. In this era of he said / she said the NDG&F dept lost a great opp to get real data.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

PH said


> Why the ND G&F department did not restrict upland license sales to phone, internet, and Bismarck offices just like they do with waterfowl licenses is beyond me. There is no reason to have over the counter NR upland licenses. This restriction would have solved the issue of "we do not know because we would have to hand count them" response. In this case the NDG&F shows pretty damn poor planning. In this era of he said / she said the NDG&F dept lost a great opp to get real data.


It was not a flaw of NGDF. Absolutely not! John Hoeven has a standing gag order on NDGF for that very reason, to protect the big political contributers from Cannonball. The sportsmen fought hard for electronic licensing, and will again, but the outfitters had the say because too many ND Sportsmen refused to get involved. And too many of our guests were mislead intentionally by the dark side and so fought it.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Dick,
Not exactly sure how they're doing it but some "aquaintances" have already told me how some NRs are abusing the system and purchasing as many licenses as they wish. Something about signing up for the first week and the last week and then calling and getting the license changed for different weeks. I'll have to agree with PH, and we need to really lobby for the change on how NR licenses are purchased. If nothing more than the information that it would generate.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Field Hunter your right there is a way to pull a scam and get more days and have very little chance of getting caught. I dont think it would help matters to explain the method. It is being done.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Sure with enough warped ingenuity someone, somehow will break the system and find loop holes.

The number of NRs abusing the system must be small. It only takes one or two to break the rules and word spreads fast.

Cheap a**holes, you can always purchase another license.

Yes you can change the dates on the upland license after purchased on the net or via phone. Licenses bought over the counter may be difficult to change. This was put into effect for people buying licenses far in advance or have changes in plans (it is called life).

If you make a change on your license, the license can be quickly verified by a warden calling into the computerized databank. Thus if you are hunting on changed and abandoned dates you can be caught.

BUT the probability of getting caught is remote.

I have been only been stopped once in 10 years by a ND G&F warden. He did ask for my license and he did compare it to my drivers license.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Dick,

Not sure why they (CB) would have fought this one. Waterfowl licenses are only available via electronic methods.

Any sap visiting a guide could call Bismarck 24-7 or log onto the web site at the outfitter and get instantly licensed. If you call on the phone - you are good to go by the time you hang up the phone. Easier than over the counter - right?

None the less an opportunity to understand upland hunter dynamics has been lost. Maybe the NDG&F should drop off the paper license copies at the prison and have them sorted and logged - cheaply.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

PH, it's the license vendors that have fought the conversion on the theory you'll buy other things when you stop to buy your license. Fact is, a lot of the NR upland licenses are being sold online now (lots don't want to stop on the way through), and that trend will expand. Nonetheless, I think G&F is looking at some alternatives.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I bet a very low percentage of NR hunters will buy more than one license. The reason is that most NRs only have a couple weeks of vacation and most probably don't use it all hunting. The game department tells you
( they told me at least) to choose the last week as your second week if you don't know which week you will be coming back becasue you can mov it forward far a low fee. I personally think thats reasonable. 
*However this is why I suggested that they would actually get more revenue by doubling the NR liscense fee say $200.00 and forget the 10 Day limitation and the no hunting on plots opening week restriction while at the same time making NR hunting prohibited everywhere on weekends all season.* This would have the effect of creating much *less crowding on weekends when most residents hunt*, and prevent close NR hunters from going every weekend. *IF nrs want to hunt ND *they could travel on the weekends and they would be coming for a week so the would *stay in hotels and eat in local restaraunts*SPEND MONEY IN ND!!!. Very Very few upland hunters will hunt more than 5 consecutive days ( even nuts like me need a break :lol: ). I think if they change the rules this way and applied the extra revenue to Plots ( public permant land would be better) NRs would be happy about it and there would be more Plots available for everyone. 
*The revenue available from NRs would go up by 100% and the actual time that the vast majority of the NR hunters would come would be the about the same because most of us don't have any more than two weeks to devote to trips like this or the money*. The current system of making everyone buy a license in 10 day blocks won't have any affect on the wealthy few that can spend a month and afford to purchase large blocks of land to close out the locals, $100 every 10 days is chump change to them they spend that much having dinner out east in a restaraunt.


----------



## unahunt (Jan 10, 2003)

I would like to see leg tagging of upland game for non-residents. We had this back in the 70's worked beautiful, the reason we quit was because we didn't sell enough non-resident licenses to pay for the printing. Issue 12 tags for pheasants only in booklet for with the license # on the tags, the same as the # on the license issued, these leg tags must be attached immediately upon possesion of the bird, failure to do so $100.00 fine.Leg tags could be printed by Game&Fish without legislature approval just like deer. turkey, ect. This would go along way in helping enforcement.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Leg tagging like most other laws is easy to get around the people that will cheat have no quams about throwing game away ect. Also leg taggin serves no real useful purpose other the one more hassle and more red tape, pheasant hunters supposedly are not able to truly affect pheasant populations. 
Double the fees, use the money for more Plots, elimnate NR hunting on weekends and you have a win win. The limit should also be increased to reflect a full 5 days of hunting which would have the effect of keeping successful NRs spending another day in a hotel and restaraunt. After the first three weeks of the season most hunters would get anymore than the current 12 birds anyway once the pheasants wise up.
AS I see it their are four interested parties in this pissing match resident hunters,non-resident hunters and resident business people that want to profit from both the previous groups, and the game dept. All four have different agendas and if you meet all threes interests you can unite them to make them worthless politicians do want we want.
1)Residents most of which hunt weekends want more quality and less crowding( no NRS hunting on weekends all season).
2)Nrs want less hassle and access ( double their fees and buy more Plots)
let their license be good for the whole season. They will think they got something when in reality they won't hunt more than a couple weeks anyway, but they will benefit from additional Plots revenues purchasing more access and if thats where the monies are spent they won't *****.
3)Hotel owners ect. this might be my ideas weak point but most NRs that come ( and we will still come) would arrive on Sunday and leave on friday night or saturday morning so they would lose maybe one day one the weekend but I think they will gain more people that stay the 5 day work week especially if you make the possesion limit on pheasants 15 to match the 5 day period.
4) Game Dept has more revenue to work with and happy customers. You guys have the weekends to yourselves. We NRs can come and go without worring about planning for certain weeks or feeling guilty about messing up your hunting, and we can feel we are helping the situation by giving up weekends and funding more Plots.
Seems like a win win to me.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Bobm,

You comment that most NRs do not have that much vacation time then you want to take away their 2 weekends too?

Nope do not like your proposal.

Most "long, long-distance" NRs may follow your "plan" but not those from states closer than 500 miles. Many hunt the weekends too - especially if you have kids in tow.

Your plan seems to satisfy the needs of Bobm well - others? not so sure.

Some would also argue that while you can't shoot 'em all, pheasants (just like ducks) respond to hunting pressure - while your plan would keep NRs off plot land on the weekend - that all week pressure may result in most pheasants being pushed to the adjacent private land before that Saturday resident only hunt.

The best hunting (ducks, geese, upland) always occurs when the local population that you are chasing has not been pursued, chased, disturbed (you get the point) for several days or more. The birds establish a pattern and become "lazy" to predator's persuit.

So if your goal is really to improve resident hunting on PLOT land then close PLOTs to all hunters on Thursday and Friday to let game birds resettle the habitat before the Saturday weekend residents hit the fields.

Overall your points make a nice self serving arguement.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

1)Self serving HUH? I'm the one that really has been saying the elimination of NR hunting is the real solution, Last time I checked that would be me. 
2) as for selfserving its the big weekend invasion of Minnesotan's (where do you live Prairie hunter) that causes all the arguing and whose bringing lawsuits? oh yeah I believe its Minnesota again.
3) and who was complaining about cheap ******** oh yeah that was some resident of Minnesota also wasn't it. If you want to hunt ND go stay there for a week and spend some money! help out their economy.
4) NRs can hunt all week now so your pressure on the pheasants argument is also bogus at least I want to give the residents elbow room when they hunt which is on the weekends for most of them. Thats two days a week of time they don't have now. And two days I couldn't hunt and that I'm willing to give up another selfservig idea????
Buying more Plots land with the 100% increase in license fees I'm willing to pay sounds like another selfserving idea to doesn't it???
Your point about kids on weekends is a good one that I hadn't considered but then again the residents of ND have children as well so maybe they should have the ability to take them hunting without a lot of pressure from us another one of my screwy self serving notions I guess.
PH sorry to be so sarcastic but you really brought it on yourself with the selfserving crack, that smarted. I was looking for honest criticism and I do realize that we non-residents will have to give up a good bit to keep the quality of the hunt and the door open, do you? 
At least I'm trying to come up with some constructive ideas instead of the incessant mud throwing that goes on here.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

PH is right Bob...it is easy to say no non-res. on weekends when you live 1500 miles away.You think there is screaming now from Minn...just pass a law that won't allow them to hunt on weekends.That has no chance of going anywhere. :eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well Ken my suggestions were not "easy to make"! I don't want to give up weekends either. I don't want to pay twice as much for a license either. 
But if you analyze where most of the NR pressure comes from its weekend hunters primarily from Minn. You guys engage in a endless pissing match with Minn residents about this and I still think my suggestions would be sound. How else do you intend to spread the pressure out and provide a quality hunting experience if you don't put limits on us? Supposedly the state doesn't like caps idea ( probably because they like the fees they get from each license sold so the number of NRS will steadily increase. I'm just trying to keep the pressure at a tolerable level so that ND doesn't end up like Georgia. 
Maybe my ideas have flaws but the inescapable fact is most of pressure is from Minn and other bordering states so thats where the solution has to lie as well. I don't have any ax to grind with PH or anyone else in Minn I happen to think Minneasotans are some of the highest quality and nicest most decent people in this country and I know this after spending the last 25 years of my life as a salesman calling on them. 
"local NRs" want to have their cake and eat it to, they want the better economic benefits of Minn with the unfettered ability to use ND as their unrestricted playground and I don't blame them Iv'e considered moving to Minn myself for that very reason.
Thus we are right back to the original position that there is no logical reason that "local non-residents" should have any priviledge that " long distance" nrs don't have, if your not a resident not contributing to the tax base then you don't have anymore claim on ND as a "close NR" than a "long distance nr" neither one of us contributes a nickel to your taxes . I'm sorry but thats the cold hard facts , under my suggestion we all could travel to ND rent a room and stay for 4-5 days just like I do and still have a quality experience while at the same time giving up the weekends to residents so their experience would improve as well. 
And Ken every other post on this matter including some of yours indicates that you're indignant that Minn would think they should decide policy in the state of ND so why the sudden concern about how loud they would scream? Could it be your friendship with PH is creating some bias? I'm sure Ph is one great guy anyone concerned enough to take his kids hunting is obviously decent but we are all going to have to give up something or your experience and ours is going to continue to decline. 
For selfish reasons I want NRs to be welcome in ND and if NRs are paying twice what they are currently in license fees ( devoted to Plots preferably) and if they are forced to come for blocks of 5 days instead of a quickie weekend hunt they will spend more money thus becoming more valuable to the ND economy. And an added benefit from the no Nrs on the weekends idea that I want is that it will reduce resentment of NRS due to competition and discourage leasing and purchasing of hunting lands by "local NRs". Which is supposedly a goal Ken that you have shown support for.
PH and everybody else can wait till thankgiving break and Christmas break and take their kids then just like the rest of us do or hunt with them in their home states on the weekends that they couldn't hunt ND, nothing personal but if they want the priviledge of residents than they should become one. 
You guys really just think you know where this thing is going I have lived through it in two states and believe me its not pretty. If you don't do something quick Ken neither you, I or PH will have a place to hunt that doesn't have have an exorbitant price tag on it. 
And the "easy" and "selfserving" comments are out of line, its not my intention to harm or take advantage of anyone.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bob...you make a good arguement....but it will never go here.Our hospitality people would never go for it...and I don't think most res hunters including me want to eliminate all non-res. from hunting weekends.And I don't think it is necessary to go to that point.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well Ken I'm trying desperately to come up with some ideas that will be an improvement over the current situation :lol: What other way is there to spread the hunter pressure without a lot of red tape. All this taggin ect type stuff is too easy to cheat on and a hassle to keep track of both for the hunters and the Game dept. I want the system to be set up so North Dakotans keep greeting Ol Bob with a smile.
The problem is really Impossible to solve without stepping on someones toes and I do think as a guest I should be willing to give up some things before you guys have to.
I don't want to see posting laws changed its too time consuming for me to find owners. My favorite thing about hunting ND is roaming around looking for new spots and giving them a try if they aren't posted.
I do want to contribute more money but only if it goes for Plots expansion not some general fund for some politician to buy votes for with some pork barrel ledgislation. I especially don't want to let the leasing thing expand which I really think no NRs hunting on weekends would help curtail leasing. 
I do think that there will never be a shortage of hunters coming to stay in ND hotels if the Plots program continues to grow. There really isn't anywhere else left in the lower forty eight that has the upland game and freedom of access you have in ND so the hospitality people will never be wanting. I could come up with a slogan for them " come spend five days in Gods country". Not a day goes by that I don't visualize the prairie, Man you guys are blessed!


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Bobm,

I am North Dakotan. My job, my wife, and my kids keep me in MN for the time being. I was born in ND, raised in ND, and completed college in ND.

I spend more weekends and vacation days in ND not hunting than hunting!

I return HOME to ND to hunt each fall with family and friends. As a NR, I hunt weekends in ND because my ND raised nephews do not have school then.

By the way I did hunt pheasants in ND during the first week. Between the WPAs and private land I had an excellent time. Great because my son was along. Did I complain about not getting on PLOT land - no - I made due with what I could hunt. Dog, son, and I did well and had fun. Invasion - no - it was light pressure at best.

I have never worried about the 12 bird limit or 15 bird possession limit. In fact would have no problem returning to a six or nine bird possession limit. It is the SW G/Os that have brought that wack'm and stack'm attitude into the state.

My second favorite college team is the Souix. I am probably the only person on the face of this earth that can actually say he likes both teams. (sorry - that was one damn good hockey game).


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

PH...your'e not the only one...I grew up in Minn and moved here 30 years ago....

St. Cloud #1........I graduated from here

Gophers #2

Sioux #3


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ph you were North Dakotan, technically you're Minn right now I knew that, which is why I was kidding Ken about protecting you. I was raised in Wisconsin and have family there but I'm working and paying taxes in Georgia. I made a choice to live in a place that has a more favorable economic environment and have the same issues with my wife and kids or my address would be ND also so I can relate to your feelings.
If you're not willing to help stem the pressure that comes from outside the state your nephews and friends that are current residents quality of hunting will decline, in fact it already has you hear about it constantly on this web site. My ideas are not an attack on you or other " local NRS " they are an attempt to create some balance and provide incentives to all interested parties Hospitality VS resident VS. Non- resident 
1)The increase in limit idea is intended to create an environment to keep hunters in the hotel an extra day spending extra money in the state and get them mentally to accept the 5 day blocks of time in my plan. 
2)If ND took the increase in fees I'm recommending for NRs and spent it on additional plots and habitat improvment while at the same time eliminating the 10 day license idea it would be a better value for them ( NRs) and the state would have alot more money and probably very little extra pressure again because the "Local nrs" would be limited to hunting on their vacations instead of dashing across the borders every weekend. 
3) You're in this discussion enough to know full well I'm correct the real problems are leasing/purchasing of hunting by non- residents combined with a swarm of Local Non-resident hunters coming over every weekend and crowding out the local residents and *if ND doesn't come up with a plan which has disincentives for leasing it will accelerate at a pace you have to see to believe. Its a path of no return.* 
I do like the opportunity to hunt and kill birds in front of my dogs and if I can hunt for 5 days I think its reasonable to not be restricted to a four day limit although after the first couple weeks of season it probaly wouldn't matter to most hunters. If I thought it was detrimental to the pheasant populations I would feel differently. I only got to hunt 4 days last season because of the 4 day posession limit rule and business commitments which is my own self inflicted loss. Everything I've ever read about pheasant management claims that hunting has a rather limited impact on their populations and I've hunted Kansas for years and they have a 15 bird limit an plenty of birds when other conditions are favorable, weather is the big determining factor.
IF you have a 5 day limit, coupled with no NRs on the weekends double NRS license fees and spend it expanding their access and promoted it right ND could have a good econmic situation while giving the current residents a better quality hunt. And I still think that the no NRS on the weekend would have a big effect in limiting leasing/purchasing of hunting land. 
PH your either part of the problem or part of the solution if you really don't care about bagging birds as you claim ( and I do take you at your word) than you could still work your dog and let your nephews do the shooting you really won't be giving up that much. Maybe there could be an exemption for kids still in High school so your kids could hunt with your nephews I'm open to suggestion. We NRs all will have to give up something to solve these issues money and time are really all NRs have to give we don't have any political impact!


----------



## coop0157 (Mar 16, 2004)

In reading this forum, it seems like a situation of the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to discussions of SW ND. From the tone of the discussion, I'm guessing few are from that part of the state. Well, I am, and it sounds like easterners are outraged by the tactics of some Mott-area landowners who are attempting to confine and exploit their resource-based opportunities, but you're also outraged that MN is suing ND because it similarly chose to limit use of its resources to the benefit of its own.

I think it's true that easterners have always been a little unwelcome in the west, but why should you be surprised? I remember going hunting as a kid and not seeing another vehicle for hours and even then, only local vehicles. After a while, there were more and more brand new pickups - with ND plates, but eastern dealership logos - and I recall feeling slightly indignant - like the pheasants and the mule deer were "ours" somehow because we chose to live over in this part of the state - the part with far fewer economic opportunities. Now, the eastern ND hunters are getting a feel for this vis a vis the new unwelcome visitor - Minnesotans.

I think the bigger threat is non-residents in general (particularly the land purchasers from out-of-state), not the Cannonball Company or guides or landowners who post and charge a fee in particular (and I'm glad that this forum wandered back in the direction of how to limit NRs). These guys are just farmers, many of whom aren't doing much more than breaking even, who are using their resources to their advantage and they don't really like non-residents either, but tolerate them for the income. I don't think we can resent that.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Coop, 
Please don't put words into the "easterners" mouth's. The "new unwlecome visitor - Minnesotan's", "and don't really like non-residents either". Sorry, it's just not the view of the majority of residents that visit this site.


----------



## coop0157 (Mar 16, 2004)

You mean its not the view of residents that they should be preferred over nonresidents if a limit must be imposed? I know it's everyone's hope that there would be enough to go around, but we all seem to recognize that competition exists and it's just a matter of deciding where to place limits. From what I gather, that's what most of these discussions center on - the fair way to restrict access.
And let me clarify: I don't mean unwelcome in terms of hospitality - maybe I used too colorful of terms. One-on-one we can't help ourselves from being friendly - it's ND. If you've obtained a license, we recognize your right to be here. But in terms of the bigger picture, which is most definitely a numbers game, residency is the line _everyone _draws and it says something.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Really most of us from the east could care less about hunting in the SW...(not everyone I'm sure) just the way things have evolved over the last 10 years or so. The main reason the people from the east have been replaced by the NR hunter...and it's not the freelance NR hunter.... is the money issue. I can fully understand how tuff it is in the SW to make a living and I don't begrudge the farmers out there charging to hunt. What gets me a lot is the businesses that are bringing in the NR big $$$ guys. Many here would disagree with me but I'd say if the farmers charged say $25.00 - $50.00 per hunter there would be many more of us from the east using what the SW has to offer in terms of the restuarants, bars, hotels, gas stations, etc. It's just too expensive for the average guy to visit the SW. And, quite frankly, just too damn hard to find places to hunt. After hearing some of the discussions last week at the meeting of GnF and SW landowners and outfitters, I'm sure there was a further wedge driven between the West and East. The game and fish should spend all the PLOTS money east of the river and the GnF department s ruining our huntng out here in the West. Is there any reason there is animosity between the dirfferent areas. Unfortunately since the SW is catering to the big $$$'s there are less areas in the rest of the state, ie PLOTS lands, for the average resident and NR hunter and it creates crowding and some of the problems that are arrising now.

If you've been around for a while it's not just the huntng issues that have come out between the East and the West. Ever hear the saying, Imperial Cass County" its been around decades. And in reading the Forum yesterday, I noticed that the western school administrators held a meeting this week and voted 10-6 to never hold the Class B Basketball tournament in Fargo again. The last time I checked there are as many class B schools in the east as the west. There are always going to be a few from each area that are jealous about what the other has, its human nature.

I'd really enjoy getting back to the western part of the state to hunt pheasants, they have a great resource. Give me a reason to travel 300 miles one way on a weekend. Is really that hard for the business leaders in Mott, Hettinger, Regent, New England for instance, to get together to open some land to the average guy. We do spend money when there is a reason to travel but I'm sorry, you're not going to see many of us when the price is $200.00 - $300.00 per day per gun to hunt....especially when the pheasants are 60 miles from Fargo these days.

I can only see the divisions betwen the east and west getting worse in the coming years. I hope the people in charge can find some sort of middle ground but it looks unlikely as things stand now.


----------



## coop0157 (Mar 16, 2004)

Field Hunter, 
I guess I didn't put my thoughts too well (after re-reading, I see my tone was a bit harsh), probably because I'm from the SW and a little defensive, but I absolutely agree that the east-west animosity is a bad thing. For us in ND, I think it's harder to fight a war on two fronts than one (again, far too colorful of wording, but you know what I mean) and I guess my point was not to target ND farmers who are just doing the rational thing, even what they're doing is appropriately unpopular. I'm not suggesting we support their efforts, just not to pick at them specifically. If our emphasis is on broad resource protection, we can hope to garner more support, or at least less criticism.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Both of you make good points...but coop,I would substitute 1 word in this quote from you...

"I guess my point was not to target ND farmers who are just doing the rational thing."

Substitute hunters in place of farmers.

As FH says...it's not rational for ND hunters to go to the SW and pay....minumum $100 a day when the same hunting can be had much closer with tons more public land in PLOTS and Federal WPA's.


----------



## coop0157 (Mar 16, 2004)

Yes, I definitely agree that it wouldn't make sense for you to pay to hunt out there. And I didn't mean to suggest that. I was just getting at the irony - let me just substitute as well:

"I guess my point was not to target MN hunters who are just doing the rational thing." (by using the courts to try to influence, even direct, how hunting is regulated in ND)

Well, certainly that's not my point, right? It's the converse - that we _can_ target them for trying to tell us what to do - in the same way SW ND sometimes feels like its resources are being managed by eastern interests. Just thought the MN situation might foster some empathy for that part of the state, but as you pointed out earlier, these conflicts seem to result only in hostility and that really is too bad.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Here is a thought on your observations Coop. I have heard over and over be it deer hunting or upland or waterfowl that when people in a particular area see a non local dealer logo on a truck or car that person is viewed as an outsider. Be it Elgin or Edgeley. I listened for years t o complaints aobut Fargo and Jamestown hunters etc. But that begin to change when we became more mobile.

I can remember growing up that it was a big deal for someone to travel to Fargo for other than a medical reason. Today people travel to Fargo and Bismarck from my home area out of nessisity and economics.

Hunters do the same thing in reverse. Many of us have a fall budget for our hunting expeditions. For me I would rather hunt 6 more days than spend that money for a fee access for two. Thus hunting west of Bismarck has little appeal anymore.

The farmers and ranchers are hoping on the come that wildlife will give them a boost of economic impact but can never be controled if left to nature to be considered economic development. I have talked to a number of guys that are telling me that Pheasants took some serious losses the farther north of I-94 you go. This may result in those area's next fall seeing less visitors and more in area's south.

Will this cause the farmers in the affected regions to feel tageted and mad at eastern residents because of mother nature? Lack of access caused many birds to be lost from overcrowding and starvation because the roosters drive the hens away from food. THis will result in lower egg numbers in the nests and a lwer population next fall. THe more fit a hen comes through the season the higher the nesting success. Are these the fault of eastern ND hunters?

With a reasonable attitude more roosters could have been harvested and more hens would have survived the winter to help replenish the losses sustained this winter. Few will travel the distance we face only to find access unafforadable or unattainable. This reflects back upon the mindset you presented. I have shared the cycyle of a pheasnt with many landowers over the years. I have informed and changed a number of them from taking the view that you can stock pile birds. Cannonball contributes to the problem by reducing access and this encouraged non aga interests in seeking there own piece of the pie. This results in lost wildlife resources. Only restrictions that discourage this practice and allow hens to surive can prevent the deep dips in population.

A area that can winter 100 birds should have the make up come Dec of being predominatly hens. Instead many area's faced an over abundance of unharvested roosters which may survive but forced the loss of more hens. Last time I checked roosters do not lay eggs.


----------



## coop0157 (Mar 16, 2004)

I don't doubt that your account of pheasant population dynamics is probably accurate. I say probably because access has been more and more restricted each year, but there are still pheasants everywhere. To be honest with you, I know a few people who aren't even that interested in the pheasants anymore because limiting out every day by 10 am isn't as much fun as it initially sounds. I think that there is probably more than enough to go around and that a sound game management strategy would be to encourage a higher harvest. With the population as it is, residents should be hunting SW ND.
However, you call for a more "reasonable attitude," and my question is: what does that really mean? Does it mean not advocating regulations that serve your economic interests over the interests of local sportsmen? I don't think we can expect people to adopt that strategy. 
For those of you that do want to hunt that part of the state, I think the huge challenge here is to somehow find a way to accomodate both those that benefit economically and those that benefit non-economically, especially in times of high bird numbers when it only makes sense to increase access. Maybe the answer is some type of resident-only period, but at the end of the season. I know of some people who charge for NRs during the first weeks, then let up for anyone when the colder weather sets in, but that's the type of arrangement that requires a friendly discourse between landowners and hunter. Or maybe it involves a group of residents getting together and booking for the season at a discount, like a time-share. I cringe at the idea of paying to hunt, but I think if anything, outfits like Cannonball will only grow. 
I just don't know. Of course, if I had the answer, I'd definitely let you in on it. At the same time, I think the answer must involve some compromise (which is why I thought it important to bring another viewpoint to this forum).


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Coop the discusion is good and thoughtful. What you point out is the attitude that I am refering to. Others here and myself have made contacts to Cannonball about access later in the year. I would not consider going into that area the first couple of weeks of season to gain access without a deep pocket full of cash. I was really miffed when we made some contacts in the first week of Dec and where told let'm freeze if you are not willing to pay full price. That makes me think limit NR for upland and screw that area. Now I will not take that approach but I hope you understand how many could get a bitter taste from that type of treatment.

I feel for the young ranchers in the area along the Cannonball as they are getting squeezed out by the actions of the area's embracement of commerial hunting. Now it has come back and bit them hard this past year and they cry foul.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron I don't think limiting the NRs is the solution my plan above would make available and additional 3 million dollars which if devoted to the purchase of Plots land would provide a heck of a lot of addtional Plots land funded by NRS. This Plots land which is free to hunt would then compete with the Leasing industry driving down their attractivness and thus profit margins. The select group of "Fat Cats" that prefer a catered hunt are going to get it no matter what, the only thing thats going to stop them is total elimination of NR hunting and I don't think thats doable politically or necessary. Many of the NRs that go for the guided hunts do so becassue they fear that if they freelance they will not find access on decent hunting lands. 
What I'm saying is you're in a economic war and the solution is economic, if you provide a product ( PLots) at a lower cost(free) than Cannonballs product (Leased land) , and at the same time make Nrs aware of the availability of the free hunting access many of the average Joes that save up to go on the pay hunts will start to freelance, supply and demand works every time its applied. 
The additional obvious benefit of my plan will be that residents will also have access to these Plots land at no addtional cost to them with no competition from us on the weekends. Addtional plots payments should help get farmers on board especially if its concetrated east of the river where they don't benefit from the mass numbers of pheasants around SW ND. And if the Plots land was concentrated east of the river many of the small town hotel owners and store owners ect. should support it as well. With additional land you probalby could suppot even larger numbers of hunter and more revenue for even more addtional Plots each year until there was a true capacity issue then and only then apply caps if necessary which it may never be.
*Ron or Dick or anyone that knows how much does a farmer get payed for the Plots program?* I just don't think you will ever have the Political support to get rid of leasing but I do think you could compete with them and maybe stop the spreading of it. Lastly if evergone had to contribute a Plots charge this program would beeven more successfull Residents down here pay a fee to hunt the public lands its called a WMA stamp, ND residents over 18 could afford $25.00 toward this program....you always have to follow the money trail. Please post what Farmer get for Plots I'm curious.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I based the $3 million dollars figure above on thirty thousand Nrs which i think I saw in one of the posts. $100 a piece added to the current NR license fee.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob,
You make some good points, except...1. We would never push to eliminate weekend hunting by NR's. It's easy for you to advocate this as you are in Georgia but many of our friends come over to hunt with us on weekends and many NEVER hunt during the week....it'll never work. 
and 2. Putting all the PLOTS land east of the missouri river would sooner or later be not a good idea. When we get a blizzard like we had in the state in '93 and '96 - '97 and it essentially wipes out ALL the pheasants in the east, it won't matter how many PLOTS lands there are. And let me say that when we get this bad winter there will be many unhappy NRs that come to hunt and can't find access that they don't have to pay, as the majority of the pheasant hunting will be in the west again. Keep up the ideas. I think added stamp revenue would be a good idea to help build the PLOTs program. In talking with tsodak this week, on this site, it sounds as if the gnf is doing a good job in continuing to line up land. I'm sure many of you are doing this already but for those that aren't, let the gnf know of any areas that have land that might be good PLOTS acres.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

IF you think I want elimination of hunting anytime for Nrs check my address again I'm just trying to get something going that will get a lot of support and I here a ton of *****ing about nrs crowding you guys. If you want us to hunt on weekends great. I still contend that $100 extra for Nrs( all devote to Plots would have the affects I've outlined, and $25.00 each from you guys would be reasonable as well. 
So what if am occasional blizzard scews things up I think all hunters realize thats just one of those things thats going to happen once in a while and there is nothing stopping The Game Deptment from offering to Plant cover on Plots lands to help mitigate the losses with some of the monies.
*Field hunter how much does Plots cost per acre????? *
And if you get back to my original point of long ago maybe some of the monies could be used to actually purchase strips of land that could be planted in some type of permanent cover that would help pheasant populations survive especially hard winters if that type of cover is growable up there. *Is it?*


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Good points Bob...I agree,we need to make this an economic battle.The habitat fee went up to $10 during the last session for both res. and non-res.It needs to increase another $10-15 next year.

Also...there needs to be a tax on G/O per bird or per hunter,since the people of the state own the wildlife....with that going toward more PLOTS.They will just add it onto their charge for hunting anyway.

There also needs to be a tax of some kind on the hospitality industry...they put nothing in and expect everything out...again it would probably be paid by the people using the services.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken taxes are always disincentives and I would point out that the Hospitality sector would be better as an ally to sportsman so maybe that segment should not be taxed. The taxes on the guides would be OK because thats where we want to create disincentives although how would you know how many birds were taken? It would be better to just make an additional flat fee tax that was based maybe on possesion limit like $10 per bird times 12 birds for guided hunters. I would suggest that these guide taxes come after the other ideas because the principle of incrementally getting to where we want to be would be simpler if we take smaller steps. I wouldn't do anything that would alienate local business owners we will need them on our side.
*Field hunter again I would like to point out that NRs not hunting on weekends is not easy for me *( that ****** me off) I'm trying to get some doable ideas up here so please quit with the insinuations ( or save them for my political thread :lol: ) . I would like to point out that your friends are welcome but Nrs that are someone elses friends are considered as interlopers on "your" hunting grounds. I don't mean specifically you personally I'm just making the point that one guys NR friends are the next residents competition and NRS giving up the weekends and coming during the week is a small price to pay to keep the welcome mat out. *If* the real problem is large numbers of local NRs coming over and crowding you guys every weekend. IF its not a problem why is there so much discussion about it. 
I don't want to limit anyones hunting but I do want to come up with some real ideas that will get a wide base of support so we all can maximize our hunting opportunities, and make all NRS welcome in ND again( not just friends). And where a NR lives has not much to do with it as Ive made the point in my previous posts Minn or Georgia neither one of us pays taxes in ND. The no Nrs on the weekends would really be beneficial to you waterfowlers that ,at least my impression is suffer the most from over crowding , pheasant hunters have a lot more area to spread out in. All of us NRs should be willing to make some sacrifices to stay welcome. And lastly I'm not planning in staying in GA if I get my way I will either be a resident or on of those "Local NRs" pretty soon


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

They could go to a tag system per bird & just like other businesses have to keep books (reciepts) & pay taxes


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fetch do you have any idea what that would cost?Neither do I. :lol: But every cent it cost would be money not available for additional Plots plus its just more beureacracy I hate paperwork :roll: Also if you came repeatley over the season which is admittedly the case with local NRs they would have to have some means of getting more tags each visit which would be a pain for them. I just think tagging birds or deer is a waste of time when you consider most hunters aren't violators. We don't even tag deer here in georgia anymore, recognizing the few bad guys will always find a way to cheat they decided to save the money for more worthwile stuff.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fetch everyone else is ignoring my question maybe you can tell me, how much does a farmer get per acre to be in the Plots program?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bob...the only one I know here that can answer that question is tsodak...he runs Plots program in part of the state.Send him a PM

As far as tags goes...you would recieve 1 book with a set number of tags with your waterfowl and 1 book with upland...when the waterfowl tags are gone...you are done hunting till next year.

Upland...you would get a new book with each new license.

Sask. started doing this in 2003 for upland.

ND did this in the 60's.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken, On the waterfowl I can see where it would be effective at limiting the number of trips to whatever number of ducks is decided. Do they want to not allow repeat trips by local Nr Duck hunters? I have a couple more questions.
1)DO they just give the waterfowl hunters one possession limit or what?
2)Do you think the expense of printing the tags for upland hunters and the beauracracy of running it is worth it if they give you a possesion limit every time? Or do your think the money would be better spent for extra Plots?
3) If you double the Nr license fee and give them the whole season wouldn't you actually get more revenue? (based on the idea that most Nr hunters don't hunt more than one week anyway and certainly not more than four 5 day periods which is what double the Nr fee will buy a NR now )


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

1.It's been almost 40 years ago...don't remember exactly.It was more than a possession limit...we took a possession limit home and came back a second time.This was ducks not geese...I think 2 possession limits....Daily limit of 5...20 tags.If the daily limit dropped to 3...12 tags.

Geese would be more of a problem...snows...20 a day...but Canadas only 3...there would probably have to be seperate tags.

2.I really can't say about what it would cost.All licenses would probably have to come directly from the GNF...not sure how you would get your tags if you wanted to hunt the next day.

3.yes you would get more revenue if you doubled the fee.BUT that may be cancelled out with a lot less willing to pay $185 to hunt pheasants.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

1. They were still applicable at least to waterfowl until the early 80's - I carried them. Think you got 2x possession (i.e., two trips). Could be species-specific - maybe no tags for the snows, since fall snow hunting in ND is a shell of its former self.

2. Cost? I can't imagine a whole lot in the grand scheme. Getting licensed only a short time b/4 the hunt? Have tag packets at license vendors where tag numbers and license numbers could be cross-identified. Would make the vendors happy too.

3. Bob, raising the license fees may not be prohibitive for you. For many others (especially Dad who may be footing the bill for a couple of kids), yes. Some NR's squak about the res-only week, some squak about the 10/14 days, and some squak about the fee increases. Any change is going to generate some squaking, but the general goal here, in all of this, is not to price AJ out of ND hunting, whether he hails from ND or not.

Funding any long-term competition-access mitigation programs heavily on the backs of NR's can turn out to be something counter-productive and difficult to wean from - ask Mont.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

They had them in Sask. But I never used them - shot at some sharptails & missed up there & then found out later we were on the wrong side of the road & wrong zone  But if i were really hunting them - upland - :huh: I would have concentrated & figured it out better :roll:

It is alot to remember & time is short & a guy has to eat :beer: & scout to ya know :homer:

But Ihad no anomosity towards Sask. for their rules & will go back as long as I can afford it & there is hassle free hunting  & unspoiled Resources & don't be baiting me into a NR lovefest eace:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Dan...I think you are right about cross-referencing at a vendor.Doesn't Minn use a machine to issue fishing licenses at vendors?They are hooked up to the state DNR.It would be easy to show the vendor your electronic license issued through the GNF...then punch in the numbers on the vendor's machine and issue the tags needed.There would be no double dipping since all licenses would come through the GNF and once you punch in the numbers that license would not be able to get anymore tags.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ken, yeah, the ELS (?) used in MN would be the best of all worlds for a lot of different reasons, but the tags could be done in a very low-tech manner too. Get your license and tags from mother ship, it's so noted on your license. Get your license but no tags from mother ship, stop by a vendor who was earlier distributed tags and who will then punch and mark the physical license with the tag booklet number and also enter the license number into the ledger for tag booklets. Tags given a "series A" and a "series B" designation to coincide with the two periods for each license.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Just logged on and saw this. I will do my best to answer you rquestions Bob.

But first an observation???

I appreciate the faith you all are putting in PLOTS, and believe me it makes me feel good. I feel I am doing a good thing, and we are being succesful at it. But I really think you have to be hesitant just throwing money at this problem. Once we really get rolling down the leasing trail, it is going to be VERY difficult to get off. For pheasants I think an access program like this can be very effective, but we are disregarding waterfowl in this conversation. If we fund our access on the backs of NR pheasants, what happens when the winter cleans them out. I appreciate your habitat comments, and we always work that direction, but that is a 100 million dollar a year venture, not 3. Every little bit helps, but in ND we will ALWAYS be one storm away from disaster for pheasants. That danger is less than it was 20 years ago, but we will never remove it altogether. If CRP goes, the pheasants will rapidly trend to follow. WHat will happen to the program then? Deer hunting access? Waterfowl access? It is all linked. That is what makes this such a challenge. Nothing changes in isolation.

PLOTS can make a real difference, but NEVER think that it is going to provide everyone a place to hunt. ANd that includes NR's. It can have an impact in areas with a lot of leasing, but we cant compete with the big money. If I try to bid, I will lose.People need to be willing to work to establish relationships, and I believe some resonable restrictions may be needed along with PLOTS.

If you think just allowing unlimited NR's will allow funding for a giant program, try thislittle stat on for size. SD founded the first program like PLOTS in the country to my knowledge, and theyrapidly expanded there NR pheasant hunters from 50000 a year up to last years 81000 a year at $100 a head. This last week saw an initiative to expand the 1 million acre program in SD more into the eastern part of the state with a budget expansion from 1 million a year to 2. Know what ND PLOTS has for an annual budget now? About 4 million. Much more of that goes to habitat than in SD, and that is expensive, but the point here is that they added that three million in revenue, and only added 1 million to one of the pioneering programs in the nation. To me a lisence increase hurts guys with kids coming out to hunt for a short time, not the guys who can afford to lease stuff up. And those guys will be the first to blow this popsickle stand when something bad happens. The dads and sons will keep coming.

I am rambling on.

Cost of PLOTS is a very difficult question to answer. We work on annual contracts, three year leases, 10 year CRP contract, and 30 year easements. So what does an average acre cost??? It would fall somewhere in the realm of between$2.00 and $4.00 per acre per year, I estimate. But again some is paid annually, some has already been paid for the next 30 years. So a budget of 4 million does not mean a million acres at $4.00 per. I firmly believe that we will reach the million acre goal way ahead of schedule, although a lot of that depends upon the rules for CRP when 1.5 million acres expire in 2007.

Any other wuestions ask away. Glad to try and answer them.

Tom


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Ts, 
You make a great point. What if the CRP becomes an obsolete farm program? There were actually some fence rows and many more marshes pre-CRP than there are now. Many of us, resident and NR, will be about done pheasant hunting. Many guides will also go out of business but there will be enough to lease the remaining habitat. I can remember pre-CRP. Pheasant season opened around the 3rd or 4th weekend in October. (different every year depending on crowing counts in the Spring) Many years the limit was 2 per day and either 4 or 6 in possession. There was little or no habitat, so when bad winters occured the pheasants really took it hard. There were many hunters forced into a little amount of huntable acres even back then. WPAs were the only winter cover. I'm planning on having a good time in the coming years huntng the CRP but it's not going to last for ever. I wonder what if anything the gnf would be able to do if that happens. Remember, CRP payments to the farmers are, I believe, about 30.00 - 35.00/acre and the PLOTS payments are just extra income. If the CRP goes, so does the PLOTS payment.

Anyway, Good Job Tom.....we appreciate your efforts!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Thanks for all the info I just looged on and I'm still digesting it. I have 5 kids and take them hunting so I'm not some millionaire thats not sensitive to pricing on licenses but...there are some things I'd like to know.
1) what percentage of Nr licenses are for kids probably less than 10-15% be and why couldn't there be a cheaper license for kids under 18 ( I make my 18 years old buy his own :lol: he has a job and its miportant to instill the fact that there is no free ride).
2) If you earned an extra 3 million on licenses and actually purchased land
for habitat development could it be enough land to make a difference over a 10 year period? If there was a bad year for pheasants just don' buy land that year...by the way I don't think that there will be a dip in numbers of hunters due to a $100.00 increase in fees for adults the only thing that will kill participation is game pops being down. 
3)the variablity of programs like CRP ect. is the reason I like public aquisition of land because these programs are going to change or end sooner or later and if ND doesn't have Wildlife management areas or something like them that is hunter financed hunters will be out in the cold so to speak. 
4)If I understand you correctly You state that only roughly25% of the funds go into land aquistion for Plots ( I may be misundertanding you) but if this is true where is the rest going? Couldn't the additional funds be earmadked expressly for land aquistions and habitat improvement I realize the Politicians would be drooling over more revenue but keep it away from them.
5) Duck hunters are facing an ever increasing amount of competition and it is a hopeless battle IMO because we will be outbid eventually. I know this ticks you guys off but I've seen it happen everywhere else and have no confidence that it will change the only land thats available to the average guys in the rest of the country is public land.
6)Point 5 above was made because I understand the idea of tags to limit numbers of hunters but I have to ask what do tags accomplish with reguard to upland hunters if you will offer a possession limit every time the come anyway, even if they dont cost much as Tom says every little bit extra the Gane Dept has to work with is helpful?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I have to apoligize for the above post it has to be my record for typographical errors hopefully you guys can read between the lines.....


----------

