# Is ND's rumored budget surplus a result of hunting tourism?



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> I would love to see how the residents of ND will finance things with out the help of the NR


Rumors are floating around that the state's budget will have close to a billion dollar surplus by the next year.

Tail Chaser: Excellent post. Very well written and I agree with all statements.

I too fear the tightness of the public lands. I have heard so many horror stories from buddies in other states. Why follow that same trend when it can be prevented?

Unfortunately as I stated in my first post, this will cause people to do one of two things. Buy land or lease land. I have talked with legislators before on this issue and they refuse to accept the fact that land will eventually be taken away from the farmers here in ND for recreational purposes.

My wife has 950 acres. Right now their are no posters. Anybody can hunt it (both R's and NR's). But if this state goes "pay to play" I am really given no other option but to post it and quite frankly take the land away from the farmer. That means about 850 acres of tillable land not part of his budget anymore.

How many others are going to do that as well?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Rumors are floating around that the state's budget will have close to a billion dollar surplus by the next year.


This maybe true, are you suggesting we go and spend it on hunting???? How much of the surplus was created from money spent in this state by N/R hunters? Live just once think of how much tax revenue alone we collect during the hunting season from the N/R?


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Is this going to end up as another R v. NR thread. IMO that is counter productive, no offense liv2hunt. I just dont see the problem with the general bunch scissorbills and cheeseheads that come to blast some ducks and geese. The ones I have a problem with are the ones that buy land here and thereby cut out general bunch of Rs and NRs. It creates somewhat of a domino effect and in the end everybody is reduced to buying of leasing thier own tiny little piece of recreational land. Ultimately this will reduce till acres and effectively run the acre price for all land through the roof.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I have no problem with NR coming and hunting I do have a problem with them buying up land for hunting. Land that we used to hay , we used to run cattle on ect... Now the land just sits and is some of the cause for the rise in land prices. When land is up for sale they don't mention how many tons of hay they get or how many cattle can be run on it the just mention all the great hunting, meaning the R of ND know where the $$ are. The more land that is bought up by sportsman R and NR the more hunting pressure and access problems for the rest of the sportsman, because it will become posted. But we can not leave the NR or their $$$ out of the access problem. Once again we are stuck arguing instead of moving forward. . Resident , Non Resident in 10 years only the rich of both will be hunting.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> Is this going to end up as another R v. NR thread. IMO that is counter productive, no offense liv2hunt.


Where on this post did I mention anything about NR's? Are you trying to move the post that way, because I surely didn't.



> I just dont see the problem with the general bunch scissorbills and cheeseheads that come to blast some ducks and geese.


Neither do I. I believe they are crucial in terms of management of the waterfowl populations. I have said this time and time again, yet people continue to think I want to put a fence up around the state and not let anyone in.

FOR THE LAST FLIPPING TIME. I have no problems with allowing NR's in this state!!! My best friend lives in SD for cripes sake and we hunt together every chance we get. IMHO the amount of pressure on our game species here in ND should be based on biology and not dollar signs.

g/o said: 


> This maybe true, are you suggesting we go and spend it on hunting????


No.



> How much of the surplus was created from money spent in this state by N/R hunters?


How much was created by resident hunters? So should we spend it on hunting? Maybe some of that surplus should go to adding PLOTS or increasing the payments so both R's and NR's have more places to hunt.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Maybe some of that surplus should go to adding PLOTS or increasing the payments so both R's and NR's have more places to hunt.


Agreed!!!! (how about that)


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> Agreed!!!! (how about that)


Excellent. Now can you give me a "whoop, whoop" cause it is FRIDAY!!

:wink:


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Sorry Live, I meant GO



> How much of the surplus was created from money spent in this state by N/R hunters? Live just once think of how much tax revenue alone we collect during the hunting season from the N/R?


I can see the R v. NR debate on expenditures coming, it always does.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Please don't let this degrade into a residency debate, we have been down that road so many times, I hope we are beyond most of that.

This is about hunters and hunting and trying to find a way to keep land access available and affordable.

Would it matter how many hunted in this state if we had access to good habitat throughout the state to support a greater number of hunters?

Bob


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Very true Bob. This type of business will surely effect those coming into the state that have freelancing.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Ok I'll take the blame for turning it into a R vs the non R or atleast that is how some of you see it, surely not my intent. I'm am trying to foster, contribute solutions and ideas to solve a problem. In case you missed it I did say non r's could hunt all the private land they wanted, I also said they could hunt public land and could help out more by paying more to do so.

G/O sorry but you make it sound as if non r's are the ones responable for the billion dollar surplus? I think you had better put up some numbers to prove it. You said it yourself "just think about how much tax revenue is created by non r's......." No I won't because I have and the numbers don't add up, so I geuss you will need to prove it to me.

Even if it were true then maybe since its the natural resources that belong to residents of the state maybe that billion should go to land dedicated solely to residents?

the whole point of this problem isn't non r's its r's and non r's that lease and buy up land and thus excluding more and more hunters weather they are residents or not.

G/O I have in the past agreed with you on some posts. Obviously by your name you make a living or extra income by providing a service that I'm geussing excludes some hunters from harvesting our states natural resources, am I wrong? Forgive me for asking but do you guide only on your private land or have you leased some? I'm sure you are 100% legit and do everything by the book and by the law, but do you see the point any of us freelance hunters are trying to make?

TC


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Seems this type of constant come backs in a discussion is what turns the threads into resident vs non resident arguments. Also seems to me that G/O's business excludes no one unless it is by a personal choice but I suspect that was already known and not a real question of curiosity. Even I in a very short period of time am aware that he guides on his own land or at least so it seems according to his words in previous posts.


----------



## yotetracker (Oct 13, 2007)

this really doesnt effect me as much yall out west we dont have leasing in indiana but it still ****** me off sorry for the trouble yall are gonna have over this.... and i believe ill close my account at fargo as well


----------



## The Norseman (Jan 8, 2005)

Here's a different perspective to the end of hunting, that has nothing on paid hunters.
and GFP or hunters can never make up for.

My brother did some figuring the other day. With the current Wheat prices and 
using the acreage we have in CRP, and some acreage in rent, we would have made
approximately $100,000 (this year). This is a far cry from what CRP pays.

We have no machinery so we would have to contract the Plowing/disking, Planting,
Spraying, and Custom combining. We would also purchase Crop Insurance.
Most of this would be paid up front, gambling a very good Harvest.

Figuring good Weather and Gambling (farming is a gamble, I don't care what you
say, city folk don't understand this) on the very good Wheat Crop, and figuring
what ifs, we would have made approximately plus $60, 000 (which would have
been fine with us). CRP only made us $4500 (after spraying for weeds).

We made the unfortunate mistake of signing up for CRP another 5-7 years.
We will have loss approximately plus $400,000 (most would have been put into
savings compounding interest) in that short time frame.

That is a huge lost for us. No way is CRP or hunters ever going to make that up.
By the way, we have never charged Hunter for hunting there.

We are not contracting CRP again. Looking back at it, it is a scam for what
you get out of it. If we broke the CRP contract we could not recover from the
penalty we would incur. We could have made more renting that land for crop use.

So before you enter into any contract, think long and hard what you want to do.
Remember this The Land Owner has the right to do what ever he/she wants to
do with their land.

I bet other farmers that have contracted CRP are kicking themselves.


----------



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

I split these thoughts off into their own thread. Wasn't sure of the perfect title, but it seemed these threads were turning the previous "The ending of hunting as we once knew" thread off track...

Thanks for understanding...

Carry on...

Ryan


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

And once everybody has broken up the CRP and planted it there will be huge surpluses. Therefore the crops that are raised will be basically worthless. Its simple economics 101, supply and demand. And then the vicious cycle will begin again.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

If you have a thread with a topic about the end of hunting by a operation of a person that has started a business of leasing land to NR's and the NR equation is injected then it is still on topic. Especially if it simply broadens the topic a little and doesn't spin off into complete NR bickering which this one did not. Now you have a thread that is full of partial NR comments but is titled about GO's. Not only that but the very post states "Tail Chaser: Excellent post" but there is no post to reference to. In all the years of being a member of forums, visiting forums, or even in moderated news groups I've never seen this done. Seems to me it creates more confusion than anything else, not to mention it is simply just irritating.


----------



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

cwoparson said:


> If you have a thread with a topic about the end of hunting by a operation of a person that has started a business of leasing land to NR's and the NR equation is injected then it is still on topic. Especially if it simply broadens the topic a little and doesn't spin off into complete NR bickering which this one did not. Now you have a thread that is full of partial NR comments but is titled about GO's. Not only that but the very post states "Tail Chaser: Excellent post" but there is no post to reference to. In all the years of being a member of forums, visiting forums, or even in moderated news groups I've never seen this done. Seems to me it creates more confusion than anything else, not to mention it is simply just irritating.


I could have indeed removed irrelevent lines from the Dan's first post of this new thread. I chose to leave them in there... the splitting of the post was meant to allow those who had been replying here to continue. Those who had been going down this path know the bullet points of the other thread, and they know how it was going down this side street about a surplus...

Thanks for your moderating advice cwoparson.. I never knew you were such a forum or computer guru with years of posting experience?

On the old thread I did leave the posts referencing whether that kid should be registered as a guide in ND. That part is indeed on topic and remained... however these threads started going further astray, and I wanted to keep the original integrity of the first important thread. I won't allow those types of important threads to stray...

Especially when it is a thread I started...

If you are having a problem understanding the point of this new thread, I might offer that maybe these posts shouldn't have been entered into the original one either, as either they are weak attempts at making correlations, or have no merit to begin with.

Ryan


----------



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

I adjusted the title ..... hopefully this one works better..


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Thanks for your moderating advice cwoparson.. I never knew you were such a forum or computer guru with years of posting experience?


You're welcome Mr. moderator and actually I do have years of experience as a moderator so how could you possible assume you knew. But, unlike you I'm aware of what moderator means. Also unlike you I won't stoop to sophomoric comments to you in public and then send a PM with self serving intent, something I noticed as a MO around here. Your PM was answered Mr. Ryan. I consider that the end of the subject.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

cwoparson said:


> > Thanks for your moderating advice cwoparson.. I never knew you were such a forum or computer guru with years of posting experience?
> 
> 
> You're welcome Mr. moderator and actually I do have years of experience as a moderator so how could you possible assume you knew. But, unlike you I'm aware of what moderator means. Also unlike you I won't stoop to sophomoric comments to you in public and then send a PM with self serving intent, something I noticed as a MO around here. Your PM was answered Mr. Ryan. I consider that the end of the subject.


That's just what you have done. :eyeroll:


----------



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

Replying to you obviously is a waste of my time. I'll not bother justifying my logic to you any longer.

Nice to see after 50 posts that you start coming here with attitude feeling you can call me out for making a moderating decision to split a post. I sent you a PM to take this offline. Self serving? Get a life...

I could truly care less about your moderating experience buddy. The point is, you chose to join this forum, and you'll show respect to any of the members including the moderators & admins on this forum while visiting here.

If you don't, you'll no longer be participating in this sewing circle.

You are correct. That will be the end of this subject.

Ryan


----------

