# Nonresident issues research



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

I've been busy doing a lit review, and found a few articles that attempt to deal with the problems facing North Dakota today.

A summary article can be found in the journal "Conservation Biology", Vol. 6, No. 3 (Sept. 1992), pp 338-349.

The article is entitled "Economics: Theory versus Practice in Wildlife Management"

A few pertinent clips...

"One of the most controversial issues in wildlife management in North America is the trend towards the commercialization of wildife"

"In Oregon, for example, we have seen fee hunting (an access fee for hunting rights on private land) serve as a powerful incentive for wildlife habitat conservation on farmland"

"Many examples that link financial returns from fee hunting and game ranching to conservation can be found in the literature"

In the Horicon area of wisconsin... "They concluded that existing policies were ineffective and recommended that restoration of a market approach for hunting rights would "improve farmer's attitudes towards wildlife and revive the traditional partnership that existed between farmers, hunters, and wildlife managers"

"Clearly, the overriding objective should be the design of policies that lead to the protection and conservation of wildlife"

"To many, fee hunting, particularly in the United States, is nothing more than a landowner exercising his or her property rights (Benson 1987, Pinceo 1987).

In some instances, it is argued, returns from selling hunting access can lead to a powerful incentive to manage land in a way that protects and enhances wildlife (Leopold 1930)

"There is a growing recognition on the part of wildlife managers of the importance of understanding market economics and the potential alternatives that can be brought to management"

"Economists with a normative bend tend to argue that the market, allowed to operate as closely as possible to the dictates of theory, will result in the best possible allocation of resources. They argue that restrictions placed against the market operating free and unpreterbed lead to inefficiency."

"A particularly challenging task for the wildlife manager in North America is to design incentives for private landowners to manage their land for the benefit of wild animals. Unless properly compensated for the costs associated with raising wildlife, a profit-motivated land manager may be better off reducing or even eliminating all habitat.... the only option available to the landowner may be the commercialization of wildlife. Charging hunters an access fee may be the only method for some to recover the costs of having wildlife on their land."

"Economic theory is, most important, a powerful device for deductive reasoning and as such is useful as a tool for analysis and description. It can be a useful instrument in the wildlife manager's toolbox"

Literature Cited

Benson, E.D. 1987. Holistic ranch management and the ecosystem approach to wildlife conservation. PP 67-69 in Proceedings of the privatization of wildlife and public lands access symposium. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Casper. January.

Leopold, A. 1930. Report to the American game conference on an American game policy. Transactions of the Conference on American Game. 17: 284-309.

Pineo, D. 1987. Characteristics and general requirements for successful recreation enterprises. P 8-12 in R. Rasker and T.E.Bedell, editors. Developing profitable resource based recreation on private land. Proceedings of the 1987 Pacific Range Management Short Course. Oregon State UniversityCooperative Extension Service, Corvallis, Oregon.

Have a good one.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Example- Plots land.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

So most of the readings are pretty dated then. The 30's and 80's were a way different time than the 21 century.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

10-4 gander grinder. The article talks about both CRP and tax incentives as possible options in dealing with the issue.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Brad,

They may not have anything to do with the North Dakota issue today. I thought they did. Maybe I'm way off.

IMO, Leopold will never be outdated. He was way ahead of his time in many respects. Read his book, "A Sand County Almanac" - you will see what I mean.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

The information is still very relevant. They still teach the same stuff in the classes I take right now. There is much to be said about market driven wildlife management.

I believe strongly that Adam Smiths "invisible hand" theory is the best method of allocating resources.

However in the case of wildlife management the problem is blurred because while the land has a bundle of rights. These rights do not include ownership of the wildlife upon that land. That is where we are at today. Battling the issue of ownership. Who has the right to what. Untill this issue is resolved the free market system will not work.

How much are we as a society willing to pay for wildlife? Only time will tell if we are willing to pay more for wildlife than we are for oil in alaska.

Are you willing to pay more for ducks and wetlands than you are for the food grown on drained wetlands?

I agree about Sand County Almanac. Timeless wisdom. You can't really call yourself a conservationist untill you have read that book. It is as relevant today as it was when written. I try and reread it every few months because it always gives me knew insight on the latest issues.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

Economics, Adam Smith, "free market system"... wake up. This isn't the classroom. This is reality, where all the books in the world won't get you permission to hunt.

Having lived and hunted in ND for all my life, I know this stuff will never work. You cannot pass judgement as to what will and won't work unless you are a farmer here.

My family has worked the land since the 1800s. I've heard all the stories. And the really funny thing is that access, wildlife mgmt, etc etc, weren't even issues till 1998. Hmmm.... what happened?

I've seen the transitions in the landscape firsthand. ND was once a place you could drive around for days and not see another hunter. Nowadays, you'll be lucky if you can hunt in a field by yourself.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Brad Anderson wrote:



> I've seen the transitions in the landscape firsthand. ND was once a place you could drive around for days and not see another hunter. Nowadays, you'll be lucky if you can hunt in a field by yourself.


Why do you think that is? Because it is cheaper to come hunt in ND for a very quality expierience. In other places to get the same thing it costs much more, if it is even available. The influence of the "Invisible Hand".

No testbooks won't get me permission, but I would rather educate myself on why these things are happening than hide in the corner and hope they don't happen.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Gentlemen, I find it hard to accecpt that the wildlife of North Dakota is a "new unclaimed resource" up for grabs by the resource extractors with the most money. Excuse me, the ownership of the wildlife is codeified in our fedral and state laws. It belongs to the state. Period. Not up for debate even if outfitters would have us think otherwise.

Please see MRN's post,* Legislative Abandonment Od the Public Trust Doctrine* at http://nodakoutdoors.com/members/phpBB/ ... t=doctrine


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

Every other state has ruined what they once had (hunting in some states doesn't suck, yet). So now they are going to come here and do the same?? Where will we go when hunting in ND sucks too??

Wildlife mgmt isn't an EXACT science, thus it shouldn't be treated like one. A+B doesn't equal good hunting. There are sooo many indirect variables that affect the quality.

Mother nature, land owners and the legislature dominate wildlife mgmt, not economics.

We had better hope the western mentality doesn't drive east, you would see what I'm talkin bout then.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Gandergrinder-- good points.

Brad,

North Dakota has an advantage in that it is "behind the times" in many ways (I mean that in a good way). We can look at many other states that have dealt with these same issues in the 80's and early 90's, and see which system seems to work best. One thing is for certain-- North Dakota will face new pressures in the coming years.

As for hunting "sucking" in other states, I have to disagree. Sure it is "different" to have gators steal your downed ducks before you can get to them, but it doesn't "suck".

Dick,

I'm not sure about your use of "resource extractors". Aren't we all resource extractors?

And as for the money business, the economic analyses in wildlife management don't always deal in monetary terms. "Utility" is a common measuring stick when making decisions-- the problem is that utility is much more difficult to measure than dollars.

"How much would you pay to see that pheasant flush again, or those ducks decoy again?"

This method of looking at things IS NOT countering your arguments. You think that restricting non-residents will bring more money (and/or utility) into the state of North Dakota. That's great. I think restrictions placed on non-residents do not help society as a whole, and until there is a study comparing the two we will both continue to stand proud on top of our opinions.

I agree that wildlife should always be owned by the government, as do most responsible sportsmen.

I'm coming up to the big NoDak tomorrow. If you see a guy with a tan, it's me.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

"How much would you pay to see that pheasant flush again, or those ducks decoy again?"

I will NEVER PAY A DIME TO HUNT. PAY HUNTING IS SHOOTING, not hunting (not yelling at ya widgy). And this is where we are currently heading. It scares me and all the residents of this great state. When ND ends up like Texas, I will quit hunting, sell all of my equipment and fish FULL TIME.

60,000 NR chase birds each fall in ND. I have one question. How many is enough?? IMO, 60,000 is too many.

On a similar note, how many NR hunt birds in the states neighboring ND?? I bet it doesn't even compare.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

W, I'd pay nothing to see the pheasant flush again, if it involves commercial hunting. My use of resource extractors falls in the catagory of those who mine the public trust for private profit. A decidely unsavory occupation. Your idea was advanced by outfitters last session, that they were doing the public a favor by saving and even increasing wildlife numbers. That idea is incompatable with pubilc use of public owned resources.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

widgeon said:


> North Dakota has an advantage in that it is "behind the times" in many ways (I mean that in a good way). We can look at many other states that have dealt with these same issues in the 80's and early 90's, and see which system seems to work best. One thing is for certain-- North Dakota will face new pressures in the coming years.


It is the things that most people in other parts of the country view as backward, and the beneficial side-affects of same, that actually keep and draw many of us here. ND living certainly isn't for everyone, but most of us have real choices and choose to be here.

And this is where the policy makers in ND must make a choice on the hunting issues. Most other places have other amenities and advantages that draw and keep people there. In ND, hunting is one of the biggies for thousands.

ND is at a cross-roads and must now choose between a continuation of the market approach that will drive us fully into commercialization, or governmental intervention to preserve enough quality to retain hunting as a residency draw. If the choice is the former (or there is no "choice", which will still result in the former), what will ND have gained to offset the lost residency draw?

The often touted 'brain drain". How many ND's do we loose because of not enough opportunites to profit from wildlife? How many will we loose if
profiting from wildlife becomes the ND pardigm?

Unfortunately, this WILL all boil down to economics (not tradition, or heritage or the like). I would argue, however, it's a sucker's bet for ND policy makers to lay their money down on commercialized hunting.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

This entire issue is something I struggle with personally all the time. Not from a pay to hunt perspective, I simply cant imagine the day when I have to do that. What I am talking about is the entire issue of stewardship verses profit developement.

On a personal basis, I believe part of what we are put here to do is to make a positive impact on our environment, not simply exploit it for our personal gain. I can do this in a number of ways, from serving on a church board, to cleaning up road ditches. As an ag producer I viewed it as tithing a certain amount of my time, effort, and resources to conserve and enhance what was happening on our farm.

Any yet every day, the largest percentage of positive changes in the long term health and productivity of of our resources is driven by the dollar. From easements to in all honesty an awful lot of our PLOTS, a huge amount is driven by how many dollars per acre I can generate. Much more is done, but that is not as easily seen from my perspective. Few ag producers will leave food plots stand, wetlands idle, trees in place unless they view it as a positive increase in their bottom line. Sad but true.

One of the prime ways that is happening right now is fee hunting. Farmers are paid to raise a crop, and they do it. A crop of birds which are then harvested by hunters instead of a combine. Do I agree with it??? Not really, but do deny that on some level the impact they make is real is naive. My main fear is that it is all artificial. What happens when the profit motive goes away, which it invariably does? Some new fad comes along and the corporate types head there boys there instead, and there is suddenly more supply than demand. Guess what, those practices used to grow those birds are suddenly gone, and the birds go with it. There is no moral mission to it, just money.

To me what is missing in America today is a sense of stewardship. Everything si subjected to the almighty dollar. It may take 200 more years, but I really believe that will be what makes this country great, and then destroys it.

If that is rambling I apologize, its been a long day.

Tom


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

I have said it on here and have to say it again. I sure hope that whatever the lawmakers do up there, they come up with a good solution to keep the hunting the way it is now. I totally envy you guys that the idea of paying to hunt is still something that is offensive to you. Unfortunately, not all are lucky enough to have it like that. Where I live, you either pay for pheasant hunting, or you don't go pheasant hunting. Duck hunting is decent here, but nothing compared to the hunting that I have experienced up there. I know a lot of you say that you would never pay to go hunting, but it is not that easy of a choice to make.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

Last fall I hunted almost every other day, if not everyday. That being said, if it comes down to paying to hunt or not hunting, I think I've hunted enough to last 10 lifetimes.

It will never get that bad though. I know enough landowners that I will always be able to hunt something. It also helps when your family owns land.

I think people are being to see where lifelong residents of ND are coming from. This is our heritage. I can't even tell you how many of my relatives have hunted in ND their whole lives. At one point they used the game to feed themselves. Nowadays, hunting is more of a sport than feeding your family. Either way I hope a solution is found to ensure quality hunting in ND.

PS. I might be alone on this, but I think the NDGF has done a pretty good job up to this point. With people like Tom Jones working to ensure quality hunting, there is HOPE.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

You are one of the fortunate ones Brad, and I too hope that the problem gets resolved and the heritage is preserved. I unfortunately have not been able to hunt nearly enough for half of a lifetime. I get to go pheasant hunting maybe 2-3 times each year at one of the State Parks ran by the Department of Natural Resources. For 20 dollars you get the chance to shoot two pheasants. They only allow so many people a day to participate, and you have to calll ahead of time and make a reservation. Just a little different that what you are used to, huh? Yes I know it sucks, but for me and whole bunch of other people it is better than not going at all.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

I haven't had a job in over 3 years. It gives a guy plenty of time to do what he truely enjoys, THE OUTDOORS.

All good things come to an end. But when it is all said and done, I have absolutely no REGRETS about any of it.

Once you die, all the money and material possessions in the world don't mean a thing. It is the memories and experiences you take with you. That is what counts in my book!! :beer:


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

> Once you die, all the money and material possessions in the world don't mean a thing. It is the memories and experiences you take with you. That is what counts in my book!! :beer:


I've got that same book I think. To Dad and myself our season for ducks is ND period. I would hate to see ND turn into Minn. duck hunting. We've had enough fresh air outings to last both of our lifetimes around here. It's Just nice to see birds in ND for us two. That's what we come there for and hopefully it can stay that way for my kids as well.

:beer:


----------

