# residents vs non residents



## eaglehead6 (Nov 6, 2005)

and there is so much written about hunting birds in the promise land of Saskatchewan, sounds a little like a double standard to me. But hey i dont blame you guys i've lived and hunted there myself, give my left arm to do it again now i just have to put up with hunting in manitoba.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

OK I live in ND and this year hunting sucked...I mean it was just bad. The old rumer mill was that going back to the '90 there were a few small dams built just into canada for "flood control." The story I hurd was more or less DU (not trying to bash them, but I know somone will post back about me saying somthing) put the money up for them and did it to keep the birds form leaving canada when they normaly wood. Next thing is the amount of grains that they are now producing making it possible for the birds to jump over ND in one big wind. The only Snows I seen this year (granted the job at the time F'ed things up a bit) were going over at the speed of sound with a wind pushing them. Is this stuff true...well from what I seen it is. I head up manatoba every year in the spring since I was in 7th grade. The trip up there has changed a lot. More farm land now exists up there and different crops are being raised in that area. Now put some water that the birds can stay in boom it keeps them from leaving untill things get bad. The ND G&F posted somthing their web site a while back about back yard feeders and song birds that migrate and how some are staying due to the supply of food, but are not making it though a ND snow storm. Think of this the samething. I know that hunting up in Canada has been realy good and at times the best you will ever see, but they are having a tuff time with the birds adapting to hunting ways up there, just like everyplace else. I guess with the fact of eveyone wanting money talks and BS walks. We'll just have to find a new way of hunting them. And as far as Sak goes, have not hurd all of it but that was one place I was looking at heading up there to hunt this fall but looks like Manatoba bound now.


----------



## eaglehead6 (Nov 6, 2005)

ducks unlimited have done some amazing things here in canada. I used to live around the Estevan SK area and man it was good hunting there , snowgeese and ducks like crazy. The dams you might be talking about are the rafferty and boundry and alameda dams that are just roughly 20 minutes north of the 49th parallel. They have definately been a factor contributing to Saskatchewan holding as many birds as it does now. In Manitoba i have hunted a DU slough for the last few years and it has been a great couple of hunts. I have a question though y do the North Dakota residents resent the non residents that hunt there ? It seems that many of ND come across the line and hunt on Canadian soil and spend X amount of money in Canada. Not that im saying this is a bad thing but it seems like ND have given up on there hunting spots and moved on. Or maybe it is like they say the grass is greener on the other side of the fence? It seems to be a big debate down there Resident vs Non Resident cant figure it out, i have hunted with americans down here , had a great time hunting with them, we can get along with you why cant you guys get along with each other ????


----------



## Madison (Mar 1, 2002)

eaglehead6 said:


> It seems to be a big debate down there Resident vs Non Resident cant figure it out, i have hunted with americans down here , had a great time hunting with them, we can get along with you why cant you guys get along with each other ????


Your asking a very good question that know one seems to have the answer for.. :huh:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

It's brotherly love man, we ain't fighting we are competing. :lol:


----------



## Squeeker (Apr 1, 2004)

Those dams are a double edge sword for you guys, considering they are there for your benefit.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I've emailed Chris a chart I put together that should help explain the frustration of some - it sort of speaks for itself. Nobody I know is "against" or "anti" nonresident, but we're carrying quite a load and it affects the amount of time the birds spend here and how much room there is when they are here. It's also the engine that drives commercialization. Demand for quality hunting drives the exclusivity trends and we're moving along at break-neck speed.

Chris, please paste the pdf or a link to it here:


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

Lets see it Chris!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

eaglehead6.....we go by the laws when hunting in Canada just like non-res. do here.I think you should notice some of the things you can do that we can't as non-res in Canada.
Your resident season opens 2 weeks before we can come up there
Your limit of Canadas is more than ours
The limit on Specks will be more for Canadians than us.
In Sask we have to put leg tags on to limit how many upland birds we take.
Non-res can't hunt pheasants.
You can hunt snows all day from day 1,we can only hunt snows until noon the first half of the season in Manitoba.
Now Sask and Alberta are looking at requireing us to use guides for bird hunting.

And that's just game birds.....look at big game....
Can't hunt in the agriculture regions of Man. Sask. or Alberta which is almost half the province...res. only
Must have a guide to hunt any big game.

Not critizing,but the point is....whatever the laws we or you pass,non-res. will have to follow.I think the Canadian provinces are being resident friendly just like we are here in ND.There has to be some benefit for living there just like here.Residents come first whether in Canada or here.


----------



## eaglehead6 (Nov 6, 2005)

Ken W you are very well informed , you really did some research there, i guess that is why you are a monitor of this forum or at least one on this site. You are correct on all counts and i agree that being a resident should allow you more rights for hunting. However there is a difference between resident, non-resident (a person who is a Canadian citizen but is not a Manitoba resident) and a non-resident alien(a person who is neither a Canadian citiizen nor a resident of Manitoba). You would be considered a Non resident Alien which entitiles you to purchase a deer tag in Manitoba for 210.00 $ and if say you lived in Saskatchewan and wanted to buy a deer tag in Manitoba it would cost you 150.00$ and if you live in Manitoba and want to buy a deer tag it would cost you 35.00$. Benifits are for the Manitobian, NOn-resident, Non-resident alien in that order. This system is across Canada and also for waterfowl etc. so it restricts to some degree the amount of Non-resident hunters spending the extra money to hunt in another province. Not to mention there probably are other restrictions for non-residents but obviously not as many as Non resident aliens. I have seen alot of discusions on this web sight but have not seen whether you have a system like this set in place or not, I would assume you would for the NON-resident alien , however if this system was in place for non residents then possibly it would also curb the landslide that ND has during the hunting and fishing seasons. By the way i browse this web sight almost every day and it is the best sight i have found on hunting by far. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK CHRIS. I SAY THERE IS NOTHING BETTER THAN LAYING IN A FIELD FULL OF DECOYS AND LETTING THE SNOWGEESE COME TO YOU...


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Dan Bueide said:


> Chris, please paste the pdf or a link to it here:


Traveled to New Hampshire today...playing catchup.

Here ya go:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/media/resnonres.pdf


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Wow that graphic is incredible... a picture does convey a thousand words! Look at the imbalance!

:eyeroll:


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

I agee with Ben a picture is worth a thousand words, ND needs do something about this now, tomorrow maybe to late.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Dan has posted those numbers before, I have posted them, Drakekiller has as well, quite often for the last three years.

The "gaps" that exist in ND waterfowl hunting are increasing in length in many areas. The ND breeding stock and their fledglings get hunted out or decide to move on in large part because of the numbers on that map. The northern migration is arriving later because of favorable weather and food sources above the border.

Now combine the AHM plan where the numbers have dropped from 9+ million birds in the late 90's to the levels of today that hover around 6 million or less and you end up with questionable hunting instead of quality hunting.

SD has a NR lottery, Canada has an International border to cross, ND has no limits to the number of hunters that can participate along with very liberal rules.

Combine all of the above and you have Pressure on the resource that is degrees above neighboring countries and states.

Increase the resource, decrease the hunter pressure, improve access, slow commercial interests, change the weather patterns, or have some neighboring countries and states loosen their regulations.

Deciding what is achievable is pretty straight forward, we all know some of the items in the preceding paragraph will never happen. Getting it done is up to all of us that enjoy the ND waterfowl hunting experience.

:beer:

Bob


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

Well we here in ND have what i would like to say an under average or sucky guy running things here in ND. If we limit the nuber of hunters out there all that will happen is a war.


----------



## Squeeker (Apr 1, 2004)

Just a question about your numbers contained in the pdf:

It seems that you would be comparing apples to oranges a little bit, does it not? You have the Canadian provinces categorized by Canadian hunters vs. non-Canadian hunters, whereas in the Dakotas you have them categorized as resident hunters vs non-resident hunters.

To make this equal, am I to assume that N. Dakota had 26,066 non-resident, non-American hunters...Maybe those Mexicans have caught onto waterfowling too!  I highly doubt it, so you have to subtract the number of Canadian resident hunters (but not from that province) from each of the provinces and add them to the "non-resident" category...


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Squeeker,

Those were the best numbers I could come up with as reported by CWS. I don't think the subtleties would change the overall picture much. At the end of the day, ND carries 125% of the pressure of all of prairie Canada and 175% of the pressure of SD, and ND has been more than gracious with its resources.

Raw numbers are helpful, but graphs help put everything in perspective. I've got a couple more that are pretty telling and that I'll try to get to Chris for posting in the next few days.


----------



## Madison (Mar 1, 2002)

Madison said:


> eaglehead6 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to be a big debate down there Resident vs Non Resident cant figure it out, i have hunted with americans down here , had a great time hunting with them, we can get along with you why cant you guys get along with each other ????
> ...


http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/media/resnonres.pdf

SO this is the reason why residents dont get along with NRs??? :eyeroll:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dan, Just asking a simple question here. How do you obtain the resident number of hunters? Do you use hip registry,duck stamp sales, or game and fish estimates? From where I live I find it hard to beleive its 30k residents.


----------



## Squeeker (Apr 1, 2004)

Dan,

You are correct, this would not change the overall picture. However, if you place this map chart in the context of this debate (residents vs. non-residents), the numbers just don't jive.

You also treat the prairie provinces as one cohesive unit. I would argue that the hunting circumstances in Alberta are far different than that of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. If you lump those provinces together, it is only fair to lump the Dakotas together too. If you do that then you see that the Dakotas are really not that friendly to the NR, given S. Dakota's high number of residents and low number of non-residents.

I am not disputing the fact that N. Dakota does not have a lot of hunting pressure overall. You do have far more than us using a fraction of our land (Saskatchewan's) and you have ten times the national population to put pressure on it.

I personally would put N. Dakota in the middle of the spectrum in terms of NR receptiveness (strictly going by the numbers - percentage of non-resident hunters). S. Dakota is clearly on the snubbish side, whereas Sask. is a doormat (to drastically change though if the SOA gets their wish).


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

eaglehead6....we do not have such a thing as non-res. aliens.Anyone not living in ND is a non-res,whether from another state or another country.I don't see Canadians coming here to hunt except for maybe pheasants.

The fact still is that the Canadian provinces give special treatment to residents,whether from another province or country.We do the same.That's the way it should be.Which is why your statement about us having a double standard bothered me.Because if we do.....then the Canadian provinces do also.....as does every state in the US.

My philosophy is......residents deserve this special treatment.We welcome non-res. to share our bounty.....but when it gets to the point where non-res. are pushing out res.....then we need more restrictions on them,as you will probably need in the future also.

Point is....we make the laws....you abide by them....otherwise you have 2 options...

1.Stay home

2.Move here and contribute to the economy 365 days a year instead of just 7


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The numbers on the map are probably correct for 2003.But have changed quite a bit in the last 2 years.

ND split the waterfowl and upland licnese in 2004....number of non-res. waterfowl hunters closer to 25,000 than 30,000.And from what I have heard about the provinces....their numbers have increased quite a bit the past 2 years.

Still it is what is available now....


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Ken 
The chart showed 30,771 residents and 26,930 NRs. NR waterfowl licenses in 2004 was 24,375, and 2005 was 25,455. NRS bought 5,840 zone buster licenses. 
G/O I believe the resident numbers are HIP numbers from the G&F. Duck stamps can't work because people like me buy extras for collecting.
NR numbers keep going up and resident number of waterfowlers continue to go down. Bad trend for ND. In 1975 we had 67,267 Res and 6,043 NRs. In 1985 Residents 41,470 and 6,380 Nrs. In 1995 resident 37,054 and Nrs 11,997.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

G/O, without a resident duck stamp, the R numbers are the G&F estimate they generate each year and have for ~ 30 years. They have collected the information consistently during that time. Becuase it is generated from sampling, the number could be high, low or dead-on to actual, but since the data has been collected in a consistent manner, it is reliable in terms of trends.

Ken, the split came with the '03 session, and was in place for the '03 season, so the numbers are a very good reflection of NR waterfowlers, without the "just in case" inflationary factor we had before '03. Not much has changed since '03, except we've lost more R's. NR's went down in '04 and then back up in '05 to about '03 levels.

I'll email Chris a couple of Powerpoint charts that will show some trends. The '05 NR pheasant hunter number is a questimate, based upon what we know so far on NR small game license sale increases.

Squeeker, I must be dense (again) today - I don't understand your points. The numbers, ND to CP's, aren't a perfect match, but close enough in every material way to make the points I'm aiming at - that by looking at the most heavily-used areas of the Northern Central Flyway, ND is getting pounded as compared to its neighbors, and anyone who insinuates that she's being selfish with her waterfowl resources just hasn't done their homework.

Hopefuly the other things I'll ask Chris to post will give some of this better context.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Good discussion, great graph Dan. Just a question about bird numbers in Canada versus ND during season. For years we have heard that cropping practices and habitat differances are holding birds north of the border longer.

Two biologists who do fly-over counts of that area in season told me you can physically see the border between our countries from the air by where the waterfowl hold. Dan's chart shows the deciding factor for the birds. It is not food or water or weather. It is :sniper: When the birds are faced with the gauntlet in ND, they hold back in Cananda.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

This article is somewhat long but it explains the current trend of Duck Hunting Pretty well.

June 7, 2005 
*MOUNTING PRESSURE*
Madduck.org 
By James H. Phillips

_U.S. Air Force Capt. Scott O'Grady was relating his ordeal on late-night 
television. He had been shot down over Bosnia. To avoid capture by enemy 
patrols, he mostly remained in place during daylight hours, hiding in 
dense vegetation while awaiting rescue. 
"What did you eat," his talk-show host asked. 
"Ants," he replied. "And you know what? They got harder to catch." 
* * * _

The words of Capt. Scott O'Grady come to mind frequently these days, especially when listening to waterfowl hunters complain about "pressure" - the current buzzword for all that ails today's hunting. 
All of us are familiar with "pressure." Most hunters and biologists conversationally define it as excessive harassment. Historically, it was attributed to brief periods of voluminous gunfire that frightened away ducks. This was especially true during opening weekends on popular, public marshes where hordes of hunters caused ducks to abandon an area by firing incessantly, often at out-of-range birds. 
But many today are taking a longer view. Pressure is characterized as the intense pursuit of ducks from the first day of hunting on the northern breeding grounds in September to the last day of gunning on the southern wintering grounds in late January. This relentless pressure the length of the continent is blamed for unprecedented changes in duck behavior and viewed as the primary cause of today's poor gunning. 
Is the intensification of hunting pressure a correct analysis? Is it the reason why waterfowlers increasingly express frustration and disappointment after a day in the blind? 
Every veteran waterfowl hunter knows that pressure is not a new problem. In his 1939 classic, A Book on Duck Shooting, the late Van Campen Heilner stated his belief in no uncertain terms: "Ducks do not congregate in large numbers in places where they are heavily shot. No matter how much food there is they will not stand for hard shooting and no one can convince me otherwise." 
Heilner wrote of duck-hunting in the decades prior to World War II, a time when we had more ducks, more habitat and less hunting pressure. But over the past half century

the pressure on ducks has steadily increased due to a combination of factors - primarily more money, more free time and greater mobility by the hunting community. 
Four decades after Heilner wrote his words new pressure-related changes were becoming increasingly evident. Two examples stand out in my memory. One involves an acquaintance who had for years gunned in northern Saskatchewan, a region where hunting pressure was very light. In the early 1980s he reported that ducks in early autumn in this remote area for the first time suddenly began feeding at night - a trait the ducks must have learned on the heavily gunned wintering grounds. 
At the same time, a Michigan diving-duck shooter described how he scouted lakes in his area daily beginning in mid-October to locate the first northern flights of bluebills, canvasbacks and redheads. In earlier times he had let the newly arrived ducks rest for three days to leisurely feed and establish a daily pattern. Then he anchored his layout boat off the flight lanes and steadily killed ducks for days without driving the birds out of the area. By the early '80s this strategy no longer worked. If a northern flight descended on an area lake, he hunted the next morning, knowing this would be his only chance because other hunters also would be on the water targeting the ducks. The newly arrived rafts of ducks no longer had a chance to rest and feed, and were quickly driven from the area. 
These changes gradually occurred over time, and did not raise alarms. But today's abrupt and extraordinarily loud hue and cry over increased "pressure" is fundamentally different. Nothing like it has occurred in the past half-century. It suggests something new is happening. North Dakota illustrates the problem. 
We begin by looking at the recent increase in numbers of North Dakota waterfowl hunters. The year 1993 marks the last year of prairie drought. Water returned to North Dakota in 1994.

The number of duck hunters in North Dakota jumped from less 
39,800 in 1993 to more than 65,000 in 2001, an increase of 62 percent. 
Source: North Dakota Fish and Game. 
As you can see, the number of North Dakota waterfowl hunters steadily increased following the return of water in 1994. According to waterfowl biologist Mike Johnson, nonresident hunters account for the most of the increase. In the 1980s, the number of

nonresident waterfowl hunters each autumn averaged between 8,000-9,000. By the late '90s nearly 30,000 nonresidents traveled to North Dakota gun waterfowl.

"We've just kind of been overrun," Johnson said, reflecting a sentiment common to many resident waterfowl hunters. 
Commercial hunting operations sprang up overnight. Two commercial operators today lease as much North Dakota land as the federal government has acquired with duck-stamp funds since 1960, Johnson said. 
Unlike local hunters, who generally shoot on weekend mornings and an occasional weekday evening, nonresidents hunt every day of the week and generally stay in the field all day. Many utilize spinning-wing decoys in stubblefields, where the effectiveness of spinners is many times greater than over water.

How has this affected the kill?

North Dakota's duck kill increased nearly fourfold from 
1993-2002. State harvest data shows the kill jumped from 155,000 in 1993 
to 550,000 in 2003. Source: North Dakota Fish and Game. 
The harvest data tells us the kill has nearly increased four-fold since 1993. According to Johnson, nonresidents account for 70 to 75 percent of the state's duck kill.

The result is predictable.

Local hunters today complain about disappearing "backflights." In years past, these hunters drove about the countryside at dusk to find a slough crammed with roosting fowl. They did not disturb the ducks. The following dawn they watched from a distance as the ducks flew out undisturbed to feed in the stubble. The hunters then walked down to the slough, set out their decoys and awaited a procession of small flocks returning to water - the so-called "backflight." But today the backflight often is scant or nonexistent. One biologist reported witnessing mallards so chary of returning to water after their morning feed that they spent the day resting in stubble - the only place the ducks apparently could find sanctuary. Others report flushing ducks from sloughs at first light without firing - and having none return.

Keep in mind this is on the breeding grounds, a place where ducks once found relative security and fattened up for the flight south. Today's pressure is so intense that South Dakota reports report a major influx of ducks soon after the North Dakota season opens - an escape flight triggered by heavy shooting.

Must we wonder why hunters lower down the Mississippi Flyway find reason to complain? Not only are ducks "educated" before leaving the breeding grounds, the same intensification of hunting is repeated. Arkansas hunters complain about a horrendous increase in commercial hunting operations. They cite the growing use of mud motors and ATVs by everyday hunters who disturb ducks in remote areas. They argue that today there are not only fewer ducks on the wintering grounds, but the diminished numbers increasingly concentrate during the day on waterfowl sanctuaries, waiting until the end of shooting hours to fly out to feed. The result is that many individual hunters kill fewer ducks than in past seasons, and on many days do nothing but stare at empty skies. 
These changes are driven by the liberalization of regulations - early season openers, late-season closures, longer seasons and higher bag limits, coupled with new technologies such as spinning-wing decoys. All were designed primarily to increase the kill. A secondary purpose was to prevent a further loss in numbers of hunters.

We were assured by authorities that the regulatory protocol known as Adaptive Harvest would prevent over-shooting and maintain our breeding stocks. But it only focuses on births (the hatch) and deaths (the harvest). It fails to take into account duck behavior.

More importantly, it is misguided for Adaptive Harvest proponents to dismiss hunters' complaints today as mere manifestations of what we traditionally have viewed as hunting pressure - the incessant boom of shotguns and human disturbance. We know that ducks are not inherently afraid of loud noises, as evidenced by farmers who try to protect swathed grain crops by placing carbide cannons in fields and having them detonate at regular intervals. Ducks still swarm to the fields to feed, ignoring the loud booms. As for human disturbance, all of us know that a week after the season closes ducks emerge from their hiding places. They loaf and preen in flooded, open fields where they have not been seen for weeks, ignoring nearby humans provided the latter remain at a reasonable distance. The sight of a human no longer causes them to erupt in flight. 
This strongly suggests pressure reflects the effect of a larger problem. 
Charles Darwin first observed that virtually all animals "produce more young than can possibly survive." This suggests that all animals, including ducks, have been genetically programmed or conditioned over the eons to accept an as yet undetermined level of loss before changing behavior to emerge triumphant in the struggle for survival.

This acceptance of loss forms the foundation for consistent success at duck clubs where shooting is strictly regulated. As Heilner put it so many years ago, "A pond which you may have leased or which is on your own or your club's property should never be shot more than twice a week. Never shoot into a flock larger than seven or eight. You can't possibly hope to kill them all and you will only frighten away the others for a long time." 
Killing a few ducks here and a few ducks there will not alarm ducks and cause radical behavioral changes. But this inherent acceptance of loss is ignored by waterfowl management that today seeks to optimize the kill far beyond what the ducks view as "acceptable." This suggests today's record harvests are causing today's behavioral changes. 
This argues waterfowl management must focus on more than a ducks-in, ducks-out management model. It must manage for duck behavior as well as breeding population preservation.

Will waterfowl management come to its senses and realize that recent record kills resulting from early opening dates, later closing dates, longer seasons, higher bag limits and technological innovations such as spinning-wing decoys have not alleviated hunter dissatisfaction? Will management realize these changes have had the opposite effect and increased the level of dissatisfaction? Will management abandon its goal of optimizing the kill and impose the necessary restrictions to reduce the harvest? 
Or will ducks, like Capt. Scott O'Grady's ants, become fewer and more elusive? 
Only time will tell.

*If we take care of the ducks, the ducks will take care of us. *


----------



## eaglehead6 (Nov 6, 2005)

Well lets see , a resident of manitoba pays 21.00 for a resident upland game bird license, then must pay an additional fee of 17.00 for his Canada Migratory Game Bird Permit and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stamp. total 38.00 and change. A non resident pays 80.00 for a resident upland game bird license and 17.00 for his Canada Migratory Game Bird Permit and Wildlife Conservation Stamp. total 97.00 and change. That money difference alone is enough to make a Saskatchewan or Ontario hunter not bother to come to Manitoba to hunt birds, then factor in hotels , food , gas , beer , shotgun shells and the wife nagging you about it a year later and you are looking at well over an acceptable limit to spend in another province just to hunt birds. Well that is enough to stop me from going into another province to hunt anyway. Money can be a huge deterrent for people to think twice about going into another province or in your case state to do something that they can do A either closer to home or B in there own state. It sounds like ND is not taking advantage of there resource and not charging enough money to the non residents to help with state land or wetlands payments (enhancements)or they are charging to little so they do not prevent non residents from invading ND and taking over your home state and discourageing resident hunters from hunting there once private duck hole. Charge enough money to make people who are only hardcore waterfowlists want to come to ND thus inevietably lowering your total nonresident totals OR Take advantage of it and have those non residents purchase wildlife lands through there license purchases therefore benifitting all residents of ND . Just a suggestion . THERE IS NOTHING BETTER THAN LAYING IN A FIELD FULL OF DECOYS AND LETTING THE SNOW GEESE COME TO YOU.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> And from what I have heard about the provinces....their numbers have increased quite a bit the past 2 years.


Don't know about '05, but the '04 numbers didn't change much:

http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/harvest/ghd_e.cfm


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I have to take a little issue with an idea that is becoming more and more enshrined into our thinking. The idea of price controlling the market, which I will admit I once was an advocate of, has enough negatives associated with it that I fear this is something we absolutley must fight.

The march to this being a rich mans game is steady. Every year we have bigger decoy spreads, put more miles on to find the honey hole, use more exotic weapons and shot shells. Along with this we are starting to pay for access, for access programs, and our lisence fees go to public relations campaigns and billboards to make everyone feel good. Heck throw in the sportsmans clubs, DU, Delta, RMEF, and a dozen others, and you can't hardly write the checks out fast enough.

If we exclude everyone from coming to ND to hunt ducks or Montana to hunt Elk who can't afford to spend hundreds of dollars on the licence when that cost bears no reflection of cost but is rather punitive, then those folks will leave hunting as a activity that is unaffordable. They will spend there time, money, and enthusiasm on something else. And unltimatly there are always folks who are on the cusp of having to quit any activity. Farming is no different in this respect from hunting. But in farming we are always attempting to support and lower the bar to continuing the lifestyle that is agriculture. But in our outdoor passions we try incessantly to limit the opportunity for others to take part by "Pricing out the Competition".

Again, numbers of participants are on the downslide, and continuing to raise prices is not helping anywhere. All it is doing is creating State Wildlife Agencies that are dependant more and more on the huge revenues from NR's.

I think Dan's illustration is worth way more than the thousands of words that have been and will be written here. g/o can question the statistics all he wants, but even if the numbers have a 50% margin of error, the conclusion is obvious. And the numbers have a much lower margin of error. This is the best Science the agencies can come up with.

Hate to say it. I wrote to my legislator once in SD to complain about the lottery down there. I could not really see the point.

Now I do. I have seen how perfect the border to SD is in mid october. There is no denying it if you have no other agenda.

In closing, I feel that we really have to reverse this trend of depending on punitive NR fees to fund our agencies. The 1/8% of the sales tax that MO gets is a huge boon to the sportsmen of the state, but equally to non game species and the habitat of the state. If birdwatchers and the general public are going to be concerned about the environment, then on the state level there needs to be a funding mechanism other than licensing. Oil profits would make some sense to me, tourism taxes, there are lots of options. But who is going to step up and grab the traces?

We'll see.

Tom


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bob Kellam said:


> This article is somewhat long but it explains the current trend of Duck Hunting Pretty well.
> 
> June 7, 2005
> MOUNTING PRESSURE
> ...


Wow Bob

Thanks for the great article. I've never read this before, and I must say my mouth dropped open. This article COMPLETELY sums it up. NR hunters who wonder what all the residents ***** about when they talk about pressue are talking about THIS. You can't comprehend what is happening, as all you are seeing is how things currently are. Unless you participated in ND waterfowl hunting priort to the late 90's you have no idea how it used to be.... With all these compelling stories and statistics, I am continually dumbfounded that legislators don't "get it".

Thanks again.

Ryan

.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

As the resident country folk landowners trickle out of NoDak, the void will be filled by leasers and guides and NRs with big bucks and no amount of price jacking is going to change that. 
Who gets bit? Freelancers, R's and NR's alike. Most who post here have a lot more in common with the NR's that are hit the hardest than most believe.
Money isnt going to fix the problem as money doesnt mean much to those who have lots of it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Well said Tom....interesting idea of a 1/8% sales tax in Missouri....what is it spent on and how much is there?


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Dan Bueide said:


> Raw numbers are helpful, but graphs help put everything in perspective. I've got a couple more that are pretty telling and that I'll try to get to Chris for posting in the next few days.


http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/media/rnonres2.pdf


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

eaglehead6

Charging more to hunt fuels exclusivity. I know someone will probably bring up the fact that we are a capitalistic society but this is one case where supply and demand unchecked will eliminate all but the "daddy got rocks" hunters.

The tax idea of being the sole provider for the State Game and Fish has merit. The problem I see with it is that it is in a position where legislative control and or referral measures could alter the funding. I feel that NDGF has the core staff to properly manage the resource. IMO more staff needs to be hired to accent the current management team.

I have brought it up on several different topics and I still feel a "sportsman's tax" on anything to do with the outdoors would be a viable addition to increase funding for necessary projects to increase access, etc.

The outdoor industry in ND has a one billion-dollar plus economic impact on our state. One quarter or even one eight's percent tax on outdoor purchases could add and improve a fair amount of habitat and access.

Bob


----------



## Madison (Mar 1, 2002)

Chris Hustad said:


> Dan Bueide said:
> 
> 
> > Raw numbers are helpful, but graphs help put everything in perspective. I've got a couple more that are pretty telling and that I'll try to get to Chris for posting in the next few days.
> ...


OK I cant help it anymore.. This whole thread was started on a "why do Residents not get along with nonresidents???

All I have to say its not the non residents that are impacting the hunting quality in this state.. Its the legislature and Govt. that allow for the 30K hunters.. Why is there no blame on these people??

Isnt it the states legislature to blame for the all of the over harvesting and allowing for out of control hunter pressure?? :huh: and not the non-residents??

If you offer 30K licenses you better believe there gonna get sold. If you build it people will come!

So I guess I would like to know why there is so much negativity focused on the non-resident?? or is there really none and just using the non-resident becuase there non-resident??


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Madison Wrote*



> All I have to say its not the non residents that are impacting the hunting quality in this state.. Its the legislature and Govt. that allow for the 30K hunters.. Why is there no blame on these people??


I think the rhetoric about NR being the "whippin boys" has tamed down a great deal because some of them probably feel as you do. I really don't know.

I am not going to agree with you though about putting the total blame on legislators and the Governor.

There are a few of them that could care less about outdoor issues, there are others that have a passion for outdoor issues. ND does have some pretty important issues to address during the short time they meet every couple of years. Some of us push hard for what we want, others push for their priorities in the non-outdoor sector.

In my experience dealing with the legislative issues in the public arena, I have learned from my mentors and the legislators themselves that most of them and the Governor vote and support issues the way their constituents want them to ie. the squeaky wheel principal. Sportsmen of ND seem complacent about hunting issues and the other end of the spectrum is very very active! So really what are they supposed to do? vote against the majority of their constituents or on the side of a few of the dedicated sportsmen that contact them.

So if you are looking for whom to lay the blame with it should be the sportsmen/women of ND that would rather have someone carry their water for them.

I know for a fact that some legislators only received a handful of replies from etree messages. I am not trying to be mean to anyone I am just stating some information that I know is factual.

So IMO it is not NR or R or The Legislators or the Governor or the regulations or the commercial interests. It is a combination of all of the above, fueled by the revenue produced.

This site has some of the most "hard core" resident and nonresident hunters around. We spend more time afield than anyone else without question. I was a little short of 50 days of hunting last year and I know a bunch of guys that were out there just as much if not more, you do too. We are afforded the ability to see what the season is like from beginning to end. The one or two weekend a year hunters get their birds and go home no real problems or complaints. We see the rest of the story.

I am not afraid to admit that I live in ND because of the outdoor opportunities and I consider myself fortunate because I get to experience things every day of the season that some people will never experience in their state in their lifetime. I really do hope that they get to experience ND hunting at least once in their lives, but don't get angry if there are rules in place to try and preserve what we have for future generations and have a distinct benefit for resident hunters.

Bob


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Right On Bob. I like your signature too


----------



## Madison (Mar 1, 2002)

Bob Kellam said:


> So if you are looking for whom to lay the blame with it should be the sportsmen/women of ND that would rather have someone carry their water for them.
> 
> I know for a fact that some legislators only received a handful of replies from etree messages. I am not trying to be mean to anyone I am just stating some information that I know is factual.
> 
> ...


Good Post Bob.. This is what I needed, a little education as I am pretty ignorant to the whole politiical side of ND issues.. I moved to this state for same reasons you stated above, Basically the love for the outdoors as well..

Being I am in this state I have now been exposed both view points on each side of the fence first hand. This is the first time I have ever posted in on a NR vs. R debate and most likely my last.

Good to know that there are people out there who are thinking outside the box and putting this whole resident disliking NR's aside and moving on to what the REAL issues are.

Keeeep it Reeeel


----------

