# North Dakota should raise non-resident hunting licenses



## SloughSlaughter (Mar 5, 2006)

I think that my great state of ND should raise the NR license fees. If you look back at the previous post of the best waterfowl state, ND was mentioned more often than not. This is probably the cheapest state to hunt in in the lower 48 (one of the best too). If the prices were higher than they are for non-residents, that would solve many of the high hunter #'s in ND. It wouldn't hurt the game and fish department thats for sure. What do you fellow residents and non-residents think? :beer:


----------



## hunterboy (Dec 5, 2004)

For the love of God lets not start this again!!!


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

I've got a feeling the numbers will fall naturally by act of Mother Nature.....

it's called "Bird Flu".


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Not to mention an overdue drought which has North Dakota scared enough to try and take Minnesota water to keep its people alive and healthy.

Really, in the grand scheme of things, NR hunter numbers in No Dak is a pretty trivial issue.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> has North Dakota scared enough to try and take Minnesota water to keep its people alive and healthy.


Care to elaborate Bert??


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Everything I've seen is that the Red River cities are looking at Missouri River water....not water from Minn.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

The main fact is that people would still pay more $$$ to hunt and fish this state. I would support a rise in fees. But only a practical one. I also have my own reasons to not like out of state hunters for the most part. There are some that have put a positive mark in by book, but I have my own share of bad happenings with them too. tTat does not mean I am 100% against them. In Co. as I remember form the time I was down there, fishing brought in many millions of $$$ much more then we ever have. Part of this has been the price of fees payed. At the time I was down there instate licences were somthing around the $40 for instate (correct me if I am wrong on that one for it has been 5 years since I was down there). There are many people from out of state that come in to hunt and fish our state, so a jump in price around $10 would bring in alot of $$$ to the G&F then what they have now. I feel that a jump this high would drop just a few people form coming here but most are willing to pay that. (hell MN wants us so bad they are willing to take us to court).

And as far as us wanting your water over there in MN, most of your water on the western part of the state ends up in the red river anyways. And I thought we shared that river.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

As an out of stater that has hunted your great state.....I would have to agree and disagree with the fee hike......

I will Agree:

If you raise the price have that money go directly into access programs, habitat, and enforcement. You can not limit the NR liscensee anymore (shorter seasons, specail openers, etc.). You would have to leave it as is.

I will disagree:

Because you are asking alot of money. This will take away children going with thier fathers to your state. You will be limiting the youth. This will drive kids away from hunting. You need to give the kids sucess and then they will fall in love with the sport or the outdoors. In ND you get sucess and can show the kids how it can be and how rewarding all the bad days can be with one good one or a good trip.

IMO:
I think most NR would agree to an increase if you have that money go directly into habitat and access. But you can not limit the liscensee anymore. But they will want a little break for children....ie have a kids liscence and the child has to be 16 and under. Give that liscense a little break on price. That way the kids will still have the oppurtunity to hunt your great state. again just my 2 pennies.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

ND already only charges resident fees to out of state kids up to 16.That's a BIG break.Since they need hunter safety at 12....they have 4 years to hunt at resident fees and get to love the sport.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

WRONG Ken, That is Mn only, if your from Wisconsin you pay the full amount. We tried to change that a few years ago but the NDWF opposed it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I did not know that they had a break for the kids. That is great.....But then the thing you would have to worry about the fee hike is if you start to change or restrict the NR liscensee any more. You can't raise the price and the lower the benefits. You need to reach a good even mix....right now IMO is a good mix. But I would be willing to add $5-$10 if it went directly to enforcement, access, and habitat.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

WRONG G/O....

From the ND GNF website....

Nonresident youth hunting licenses. A nonresident under age sixteen need only purchase a North Dakota resident fishing, hunting and furbearer certificate and a North Dakota resident general game and habitat license to hunt small game and waterfowl except swans and wild turkeys; provided, that the nonresident's state, or province or territory of Canada, of residence provides a reciprocal licensing agreement for North Dakota residents who are also under age sixteen. (Currently states of Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin qualify.) To be eligible, a nonresident youth may not have turned sixteen before September first of the year for which the license is issued and must possess a certificate of completion for a certified hunter education course. The nonresident youth may only hunt under the supervision of an adult family member or legal guardian who is licensed to hunt small game or waterfowl in this state and is subject to the same regulations as the adult family member or legal guardian


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

live2hunt said:


> > has North Dakota scared enough to try and take Minnesota water to keep its people alive and healthy.
> 
> 
> Care to elaborate Bert??


Fargo and other RRV basin cities have looked at getting water from LOW because it is within the drainage basin of the Red River. One advantage would be in meeting objections of contamination from outside the basin water with MN and Canada. Feasibility of this is another issue. I do believe that is what Bert was referring too!

In regards to raising license fees, I would oppose new increases unless we saw a increase in our resident fees also. I have been and still am a supporter of controls on numbers or time etc, but do not use price simply because times are good right now for huntable game!

Besides a increase solely to NR license will in my opinion fan the flames with MN. We have had enough of that over the last few years and nothing positive has really come of it! We have seen enough" tit for tat" legislation and with all the obstacles that face the outdoors in both states, it is not needed at this time. Let the Legislators work on more important issues instead of prices of our license!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

SORRY Ken, Still only the states that are under the agreement qualify. In my opinion is bull, we should treat everyone equally and for get the agreement. I'm sure you disagree.


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

Jack the fees. If they want to come and play make em pay. i go to Colorado elk hunting and my Co resident friends pay $30 for an elk tag and I pay $495. If you want to play it is going to cost you. As far as the water going to eastern nd find your own water. The only time you look out to Western ND is when you want something. You guys in the east think ND end right after Casselton. Find your own h20


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ken and g/o,

You're both a little right and you're both a little wrong. An NR kids gets R rates so long as the state he/she originates from does the same for visiting ND kids. There are several states to which this applies.  The theory is to encourage other states to be kid-friendly too.

Used to be the same rule for college students, under a compact signed by twenty some states. Now NR college students get R prices even if ND res students don't have the same opportunites. No incentive, now, for other states to join the compact and offer the same benefits to our kids going to college elsewhere.

In general, raising fees to control pressure is a bad idea. First, higher fees may make a lot of people squwak, but doesn't lower numbers. Since the moderate price increases of '03, NR numbers for upland and waterfowl are still trending up. If you raised fess to the point they would actually affect hunter numbers in the long term, you'd attract (mostly) the types of folks that currently have the greatest impact on the ND hunting landcape - those that have pleanty of money to toss around and don't think twice about buying or leasing a few quarters for a few days of use each year or paying some o/g hundreds of dollars/day to shoot.

Raising fees might be a good idea and necessary if it helps G&F with their mission, but not (or only as a last resort) to control pressure.

As far as water is concerned, rest assured if needed, the East will pay. If it comes from MN, ND can't "take it", and MN will extract a price (unless they need to get rid of it). If from other parts of ND, the East will pay, one way or another...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dan....

i never thought of it that way....the increase in price will bring in the rich and they will lease, buy, tie up land. Good point.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

...it won't necessarily bring them in - they're increasingly here anyway - just keep a lot of the rest (a/k/a "joe hunter") out. It would disporortionately affect the common guy (and his kids) and won't do a hoot to adress *one *of our big problems: lockout.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

That is why I mentioned if you raise it have that extra go directly into access programs (WPA's, PLOTS, etc.), enforcement (catch the slobs), and habitat (plots and wpa improvemtns).


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Dan Bueide said:


> Ken and g/o,
> 
> You're both a little right and you're both a little wrong. An NR kids gets R rates so long as the state he/she originates from does the same for visiting ND kids. There are several states to which this applies. The theory is to encourage other states to be kid-friendly too.
> 
> ...


I know Dan....that's why I highlighted it in red.

We just raised the non-res. waterfowl license a couple years ago when it was split into seperate waterfowl and upland.Then the zonebuster went up $40 last year.With the time limitation of 14 days on each....I think that is enough.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ken, I got way-laid after starting my note and was responding to your earlier comment not your later one. I should have gone back and edited my post.

Chuck, lockout and the public's purchase of access to counter lockout is tricky biz. Lockout puts less people on more ground and public access puts more people on less ground (that which has not become subject to lockout). No matter how hard ND tries, it will never be able to acquire enough ground to counter the effects of lockout and provide great hunting opps for an increasing number of hunters. From the very beginning G&F went out of their way to explain that PLOTS was an effort to supplement access and not be the sole source. PLOTS hasn't and won't be able to keep up with our increasing hunter numbers. When the East goes through its next pheasant-less cycle, this will become even more apparent.

Lots of people come to ND from states that have both birds and public ground - they come here because they can't (or won't) get on local locked-out ground and their public (or other accessible) grounds are over-used and/or unproductive. That's the same reason some of us work on our "honey-do lists" and/or go elsewhere to hunt waterfowl during the high use periods in ND.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> You guys in the east think ND end right after Casselton. Find your own h20


Actually, most of think the ND goes all the way to Tower City!!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dan, You won't have to wait long for the next pheasant less cycle. People fail to realize how much land is not going back into CRP. To be offered an extention and taking it are two different things. In my area 90% of the farmers including myself are not taking the extention.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dan....

You are correct. The sucess that you can achieve in ND is why many out of staters go there. in MN the pheasant hunting (in my area) as been slim. The habitat is gone (CRP programs). That puts great pressure on the state land. Also the state land gets pounded by other hunters than bird hunters....pressure from people walking to bow stands still statters birds.

I understand what you are saying about how you need to find that balance of public or accessible ground and private. It is hard. In MN you do not have that good of pheasant ground on stateland or good duck producing ground. Most of the public land is in the Northern part of the state and great for deer and grouse. That is why when I see programs like PLOTS, I wish our state would open there eyes and figure out a program like that.

That is why I know MN's would favor more money for access and habitat...if the jump was not too dramatic and if it went directly to those two issues.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Chuck,

What the heck does the DNR do with all of the money they draw in all the licenses, fees, etc? They obviously are not spending it in the right places.

I mean they charge for just about everything over there and I don't see where the money is going. Most of the lake accesses are gravel with no docks. Hardly any public facilities. What are they spending all the money on? Sounds like a beaurocratic nightmare.

I have always wondered where they spend all the money.

Anyway back to ND's issues, I do not think we should be raising the fees any higher. I don't want hunting to become something that only the rich or privelaged get to enjoy. I know we're probably already there though.

I would really like to see ND go to a limited number of NR licenses that would be issued in a weighted lottery system similiar to our deer licenses. Eliminate the zones, which should never have been implemented in the first place. And maybe limit the legal hunting hours to say 2 pm, close it on Mondays and Thursdays or alternate days and or hours.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Huntnfishnd,

One drain on the MNDNR is the state park system, the only
two parks that are in the black are Itasca and St. Croix. All
the other parks are a huge drain to the MNDNR. To be fair
to the parks, I am sure there are other "money pits" that 
the DNR is forced to earmark.

Go ahead and raise the license fees for both R and NRs
with what ever the inflation rate from the previous year.

Better to have small annual increments than large increases 
every 5-10 years.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

huntnfishnd...

Alot of the money that is earmarked for access is up north....potlach land. It is for the northern forest and access programs there.....Paul Bunyan Trail, Itasca area, etc. Yes they need to work on boat launches, docks at these accesses, land in the Southern part of the state, land in the central part as well. If they can get land in the south and central, this will boost duck and pheasant population. It will also keep some money for outdoors in the state and keep our neighbors a little more happy. oke: .....But yes that is a question I ask my legislative represenatives....where does the money go?

One response I got was that they pasted a bill to shoot predators and night with the aid of lights.....that is good but I think the money should have been spent on access programs and habitat. But that is my .02 cents.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

HUNTNFISHND

Minnesota does not have that same dedicated funding that ND has for the DNR. In ND every dollar spent on licenses is dedicated to the NDGF for access, habitat, etc. The legislature, on occasion will stick their hand in the cookie jar and re-route some of the funding. I think the NDGF does an excellent job for the most part of managing the States wildlife natural resources.

That is why the dedicated funding for the minuscule tax increase/re-allocation bill in Minnesota is so important. I would like to see the same thing happen in ND this legislative session but tax issues are going to be a powder keg with a short fuse in the upcoming session.

IMO just throwing money at the problems will not solve the bulk of the issues. You can have all of the public and private land in the world open to hunting but without sustainable habitat you still have nothing.

Education about and understanding the nature of diverse ecosystems by a larger percentage of the population is going to be one of the big things that will need to happen in order for the money to be put to the best use.

Bob


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

One plan is to take water from LOW.

Another is to drill a bunch of wells in Ottertail county (Ottertail and Pelican aquifers) and pump it west. 
Thank God they are forcing an EIS before that happens.
If you havent heard about that, you havent been following it very closley.
I have been, but of course, the water in question is under my house.

Yes, Mn and ND share the Red. Fortunatly for the east side of the river, there is resident water.

Point being... as much as the egg heads seem to think this is an issue worthy of doing somthing as drastic as this, perhaps how hard you can stick it to outofstaters hunting in your fine state shouldnt consume so much of your time and energy. For one thing, a drought like that would devistate the hunting for R and NR alike. For another, your game being played, you dont want to find a meter on your tap with prices resembling those at the gas station.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> perhaps how hard you can stick it to outofstaters hunting in your fine state shouldnt consume so much of your time and energy


Bert, I appreciate your view points about conservation and lakeshore development and use. You also provide a useful counter-weight to many of the thoughts on this site.

But, the whole "sticken' it" theme gets really old. I challenge you to find examples of states that offer the potential for premier, unique hunting of a species for the price at which an NR can hunt waterfowl or upland in ND. The closest thing MN has is turkey hunting, and the price of my tag for a one bird, five day hunt would get you 14 days of uplanding in ND (and quite likely 24 pheasants in the freezer).


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Well Dan...

The topic of this thread is raising NR license fees. The last time they got raised, and the time shortened, I stopped hunting in NoDak.
Part of the mindset of people here is that NoDak offers such a great hunting opportunity (which it does) that they should charge premium prices to generate more money. Another group thinks that prices should be raised in order to lessen the number of out of state hunters. 
Regardless of what other states do (I have always said that residents should have priority) the reasoning of group number two is where I come up with the "stick it to the NR" phrase.

Some of the folks here are level headed decent people whom one can talk intellegently with. You seem to be one of them. There is, however that group here who do nothing but alienate NRs and it is to those folks I direct my ill feelings for they are the minority but holler the loudest.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dan,
To mention other states.....Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, etc.

All of these NR lisc cost around $70-$90 and all you need is a federal stamp and buy the state stamp if required. All of these have good upland hunting and good waterfowl hunting and those lisc are the same. You don't have to purchase two separate lisc. (last time I looked).

I am just showing examples of different states. ND does have great hunting...but so does other states.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Montana $160.00 Waterfow and Upland + Fed duck stamp

South Dakota $220.00 Waterfowl and Upland + Fed duck stamp

Minnesota $95.50 Waterfowl and Upland + Fed duck stamp

North Dakota $185.00 Waterfowl and Upland + Fed duck stamp

Better hunting than Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and the cost is also more.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Yes I know there are alot more out their that are more expensive as well. But better hunting.....I am not sure....I have hunted all of those states that I have mentioned and have had great hunts. But again I have not hunted all that Bob mentioned....so I have no comparison. .


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

It was sayed a while back that if we jump the price only the rich will come. As to date I find more NR that have just about everything you can imagin when it comes to hunting. Large tralers full of decs, big $30K+ trucks to pull them boats and the list goes on. I see very few people that dont have big money come into the area I hunt. Pluse they have most of the land just to the north of that area leased up or are going to an outfitter. BS is what I say (sorry if I offend anyone). In the future I see the only land I will beable to hunt is the famly land we have and tank god we have it. Just about every day last year while we were out after ducks and even into deer season the area crawled with MN trucks and SUV's. We had to chace a few guys off the land since we were deer hunting and they were looking for ducks and we did not want them to be there for safty reasons. Would a smart man know enough to leave an area when he sees blaze coming at them or would he just keep putting out the decs and not think of anything of it. Now you all might think of this as a *****ing fest. That I am not trying to do. With hunting, and my point, you have smart people and those who thump their chests and think that just because they are there they have a right to it. Granted enough breth has been used up on arguing about out of staters but there are some of us who have had good and bad experiance with them...for me I have had mostly bad. But the thing that most people are not thinking about is the fact we are talking about price increasing a few bucks like I said before $10. Thats not that bad. We are not talking about keeping our IS fees the same and jacking the NR to $400 that would be unethical and I do feel that many if any people would come in. Granted we would have the state all to our selfs but again a price jump that high would be foolish. I feel that a simple $5-$10 up on the fees would bring in a large amount of money over what they have due to the fact most, 99%, of the people that come in now would not mind it so much. Think of the revinue and possibilities that small increase could do. It would do all of us NR and IS good. So lets all just :beer: and look at what could be done with more $ in the state insted of agruing about how it might be a ploy to keep out the NR or how its only to stick it to the NR. As far as I can see...as much as they might P!ss me off at times we need NR to come into the state...we get more $$$ form you guys anyways :wink:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I don't think raising the price is necessarily a good idea because it will price out some guys and their kids. Which I don't personally like to see.

But I would have to say for most of the people coming to hunt in ND the fees are a very minimal expense. If you are willing to travel to hunt you probably make enough money that a $10 increase in fees will mean very little.

When I was in college I made very little (as most college kids do). During most years I had a license in ND for almost everything you could hunt or fish, waterfowl, upland and fishing in MN and upland in SD. License fees didn't enter the equation. It was open and I wanted to go. Which is the attitude of most traveling hunters.

Licenses are nothing compared to gas and motel rooms.

Hunting is going to be a rich persons sport no matter what happens with license fees. You could lower the license to $0 and I don't think you would see a significantly greater number of people out hunting. Nor would you see significantly fewer hunters if you raised the fee $10.

In the hunting equation the poor guy is going to be riding on the coat tails of the rich guy no matter what in the end anyway. The wealthy will pay the fees to purchase the public land leases and they will also be the guys who own the land.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

That is very true. We see that happening around here already. But some areas the land that was perchused by NR has gone bad for waterfowl. Look at the Tappen area. Not much stops there anymore and look at how many birds use to stop. I do agree also that the little guy is going to get steped on in the coming years by those who have the $$$ to force their way in.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

So are you saying that because a NR purchased land that he or she will be hunting for one week,( because let's be honest. Most NRs don't come to NoDak for months at a time.), the ducks and geese no longer show up? Could it be that the drout-like conditions the midwest has seen for the past few years, combined with an ever changeing flyway have pushed birds to new locations? The fact is with every action, or cause, there must be an effect. There are only two possabilities as I see it. 1: Nodak raises fees to NRs. The NRs continue to show up, and NoDak makes money for it's environment. :beer: 2: NoDak raises fees to NRs. The NRs quit showing up, and NoDak loses money for it's environment. 

Gunny


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> 1: Nodak raises fees to NRs. The NRs continue to show up, and NoDak makes money for it's environment. 2: NoDak raises fees to NRs. The NRs quit showing up, and NoDak loses money for it's environment.


Couldn't disagree with #2 more. ND has lost alot of R hunters because of access issues and because many of us just can't compete with 30,000 NR's. NDSU did the study. Resident sportsmen spend 4 times as much as NR's do. I believe that many will start to pick their guns back up again and fully make up the difference....and IMHO when that happens our out-migration of our youth won't need to be discussed in the "open forum".


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> and IMHO when that happens our out-migration of our youth won't need to be discussed in the "open forum".


My thoughts exactly!!!!!


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

live2hunt,

I promise I'm not being a smart ***. I'm just trying to get a little more informed about this issue. My brain just will not compute the math. Are we talking about Waterfowl/Pheasants? Or hunting/fishing as a whole? As a NR, I pay more for my license, I need more gas to get there, lodging, food, etc. (Which, now that I have this in front of me, makes me think it is not so much the increase in hunting fees, but more the cost of the whole trip that is expensive.) How do I pay less than a R? Also, I would think it a little easier for Rs to gain access to pivitol hunting land, as they have a better idea of the areas of intrest. Yes, Nrs lease up land (which sucks the big one). But I put the blame on the farmer for accepting the cash,as this is a free market society. Also I have many a family member from different areas of NoDak, and have 400 "family" acres in Annamoose, which I havent been to in 2 years because I, as a NR, have limited time in that zone. Lastly you opposed point #2. Last I checked NR licens fees also go to the NDGF. You stated that 30,000 NRs access NoDak for hunting. I would think if say half of those people couldnt afford to hunt within the state, NoDak would feel a huge hit in the funding for it's natural recourses.

Again I'm not trying to be a D!cK. I'm just trying to understand the grand scheme of things.

At any rate, I believe every state has the right to manage it's own recourses. Even on waterfowl. However with the rising cost associated with this lovely game known as waterfowling. You also cannot be supprised when the "little guys" such as myself, feel a little kick to the nuts every time this issue arises.

Thanks for listening to me ramble.

Gunny


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

First the area I am talking about the birds stoped showing up there long before the water started to drop. Second I know a lot of people that stoped hunting due to the fact they dont want to pay to get on land. The tappen area had plenty of outfitters same with the area to the east. There is a trend in those areas that when NR big $$ moved in the ability of R to get on that land or hunt that area became such that alot stoped hunting. I got it on a good note that a few farmers that use to lease the land and found they were they were getting payed very little compaired to what the outfitter was making off of just a few weekend. Other things I have hurd was how to keep other from hunting the area things like pushing the birds off of water, out of feelds, leaving running trucks out in feilds, and posting others land all have been done. Its stuff like this that when people hear of NRvR they tend to disslike the NR. The point is that many people hear of all the bad but with that comes the NR and they begin to corilate NR with the fact hunting for the R has been in decline and been getting harder. Like I have said before I have my own reasons for not liking NR hunters simply for the fact I have very seldom seen or ran into NR that I could look at with respect. But still as far as the $$$$$ goes poeple will come still if a hike of $10 would go though. Thats what a 12 pack of beer, one box of shells, a rub and tug, or some toilit paper?


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Gunny: Anamoose huh? We are probably related. My great grandfather homestead there...more towards Butte.

I don't have the study in front of me, but NDSU conducted a study which showed that overall and after breaking it down, ND sportmen and women spend more in ND than NR's. In fact it was 4 times more than NR's. You have to remember that we live here 365 days a year. You may spend more on a license but we still stay in hotels, eat and drink at the bar, buy my gas at the small town, but I will probably do that 4-5 times in a season for each species that we hunt.

NDSU only broke it down to hunting and fishing. They didn't break it down amongst upland, waterfowl, and big game.

If resident hunters knew that only less NR's were coming, it is my opinion that many of them will go back and bring out the shotguns/rifles and get back into the game....thus covering the NR's money and thensome.

I could be wrong. Maybe those people won't come back. But right now we have hunter education classes maxed out, but it is hard to take a kid out and show them what ND has to offer when you can't access land or you show up early to a WPA or PLOTS land and 4 different rigs show up afterwards and set up on top of you.

Doesn't give the same light of ND that my father showed me 20 years ago. That is why my brother and I have never left this great state.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Couple of points/clarificatrions...

ND provided its residents great QHO (quality hunting opportunities) long before the number and proportion of NR hunters (and their associated license fees) went through the roof. Apparently the G&F funding was at all times adequate before this shift. The increased funding needs and uses have in recent times been tied to securing access (primarily PLOTS) - a need we didn't previously have (or at least very much).

NR's outspend R's on a daily basis. The roughly 4/1 _*annual *_R/NR exenditure ratio is in part the result of R's spending more days afield and the fact that we tend to buy much of our equipment in ND.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

NR's outspend R's on a daily basis

Dan, Thanks for posting that, most on this site like to leave that part out. Kudos Dan


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

g/o, refresher time: ( a mistatement unchallenged almost becomes true)

The two page summary can be found here:

Page 1:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/media/Overview1_NDGF.pdf

Page 2:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/media/Overview2_NDGF.pdf

Thanks Nick for typing it up.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick said:a misstatement unchallenged almost becomes true)

I must say Dick of all the people to bring that up. That is the story of your life. Dick we have been down this road before and we can argue the value of residents versus nonresidents all we want. My opinion will never change and that is the non resident hunter is very valuable to this states economy. This battle has gone on for ever, I guess all one has to do is look at the tax dollars non resident hunters bring into this state.

Dick there are many issues facing us as sportsmen and all you want to do is continually gripe about non residents. CRP is going out the window along with PLOTS, there are some things we could do to help save part of this but it would take some effort. Needless to say its easier to come on this site and ***** about things than do something. If we are going to save some of this land we are going to need help with $$ and I have not found many in this state who wants to share. We need out of state help or all will be lost.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

If NRs outspend Rs per/capita and during or involving the time they are allowed to spend hunting...and since ND was doing fine before raising the prices, then the reasoning for a push to raise licenses again must be directed at limiting non residents. Who, then will be most affected? The city hunters (whom most would assume to have the most money to spend and many of you seem to think are the biggest problem regarding etiquette) or the average Joe and his kids?


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I think that it has been fairly well established that the majority of Residents don't want to limit NR by pricing them out of the ball game. Hunting should never become a rich mans game. It needs to affodable (relative to other pursuits) or we will lose numbers so fast it will make your head swim. If/when that happens we will lose all hope of keeping hunting alive in general. If no one is hunting there will be too much apathy to care about farm bills, hunting bills, environment, etc. I am not saying that there doesn't need to be limits, just not by pricing them out of the game.

Certainly the Out of Stater is more valueable to g/o's (all g/o's, not just g/o) than residents are. I would guess that they use g/o's services more than residents do. That is why there will never be a consensus about who is more important to the state.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

Bert said:


> If NRs outspend Rs per/capita and during or involving the time they are allowed to spend hunting...and since ND was doing fine before raising the prices, then the reasoning for a push to raise licenses again must be directed at limiting non residents. Who, then will be most affected? The city hunters (whom most would assume to have the most money to spend and many of you seem to think are the biggest problem regarding etiquette) or the average Joe and his kids?


And you think that its a ploy by us to keep NR from coming in the state. I could say a few things right about now to offend your intelect but I wont. The fact we are talking about a slight increase and not a huge jump. We are talking about oh say a $10 max increase not going to a $100 NR or higher here. Just because the NR think they can own the state and MN took us to court over it does not mean we are trying to keep NR from coming in. Its times like these and words like yours that makes this simple discution get out of hand. Its when I think of the fact I am in the same sport as people who think this stuff up makes me want to uke:

I guess its time for a recap on this post guys, right? What would a slight increase in fees and what others think of it. Its NOT a ploy to keep NR out of the state.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

djleye said: Certainly the Out of Stater is more valuable to g/o's (all g/o's, not just g/o) than residents are. I would guess that they use g/o's services more than residents do. That is why there will never be a consensus about who is more important to the state.

I very disappointed when I read this coming from you. Of course nonresidents are more important to the outfitting industry. I don't get anyone from ND and frankly don't go after that business because it would be a waste of time and advertising dollars. But djleye leave out the outfitting industry, what is the value of the nonresident freelance hunter to this state? This is what I'm talking about, ask Curty what percentage of guests at his motel are from in state versus out of state. I don't care what surveys Dick puts up here I did my own several years back. I had several businesses keep track of the money received on opening pheasant season versus opening of deer season. Pheasant season the majority is non residents, deer season mostly residents. I'm sure even you would agree to that. Only a few hundred dollars difference, so both are a valuable asset to our community. Now the difference the people told me was that after the opener of pheasant it held on for 3 weeks. After Monday on deer it was dead. I would think you would be smart enough to realize this instead of right away pointing your finger at the outfitters. Non resident hunter are a very important part of our economy, let alone what they contribute to PLOTS which they get booted off for a week. djleye come on your smarter than that you know better,


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

First of all.....I don't think the out-migration of youth you can blame NR hunters for or hunting in general......It might make half of 1 percent stay in the state. Economics and wage/job oppurtunities is why youth are leaving the state.

Also I have asked this before....but can anyone tell me the % of NR in a guides book of business? Because what I am betting is that more residents use guides....people from Grand Forks, Bismark, Fargo, etc. I know that NR use guides but I would like to see how many in-state people use guides....The number could scare you.....or it could scare me.

Invector......

Now people leaving trucks running in feilds, scaring birds off, posting others land etc....You are telling me NR are doing this? I find it hard for a NR to put a truck in a feild all night or post someone's land. If they are they are dumb and breaking the law.

I know some people (NR and R) hunters hunt the roost or jump roosts. Those are people that don't feild hunt and have been taught to hunt that way. These people need to be educated on different ways to hunt.

Also Invector....what are your reasons for disliking the NR? I would like to know so if I ever am in your area....I will know what not to do. I would like to be a NR that is welcomed in any part of the great state of ND.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Chuck, Cannonball Co, the humungus pheasant outfitter, gets apx 90% of their clients from NR, primarily corporations. Their words in the Fargo Forum.

I like NR hunters, and they are an economic benifit to ND, and there is room for them. *In moderation.* g/o confuses that with opposition to commercialization. Mistatements from the commercialization crowd are repeated often enough to almost have a ring of truth, even when they ignore the math of economics. But what can you expect from the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

g/o said:


> This is what I'm talking about, ask Curty what percentage of guests at his motel are from in state versus out of state. ,


Well to be honest, only about 5% or less of the hunters who stay here are Residents. The rest Non Resedents. Its not a big secret that we like the Non res. hunters obviously, otherwise I would not have Paid to become a sponsor on a website like this one.
It is true, as soon as deer opener starts were empty. If it were not for the non res hunters I'm not so sure this motel could sustain itself in a small town such as this. Belive me I have the numbers on paper and not afraid to show them to anyone who doubts it.

No offence to anyone Im just trying to make a living like anyone else. My views on these boards are sometimes far in between because I have been Pm,d and been called some pretty nasty names, apperantly some people do not like my views. 
I think there is room for everyone, res and non res, We just cant not make it a rich mans sport by raising fees. Not every one who comes here is rich. Some fathers save all year to come here and have a quality time with there children in the great outdoors of North Dakota.

Curty


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dick......Thanks for that info....I would like to see more.....That is just one outfitter. Also isn't cannonball the one that has been getting in trouble or am I mistaken? I only get information in bits and peices so sometimes I get mistaken.....or are they a good outfitter....run a clean/legal opperation.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

live2hunt,

The technical mailing address is Martin, just East of Anamoose. It can be a very small world. :beer:

I understand now about the Rs spending more in-state. It makes sense in the grand scheme of things that Rs will spend more $ than NRs based on time spent in NoDak. But my position is still that NRs bring in alot of funding for the NoDak G&F and overall economy. You stated in a previous post that roughly 30,000 NRs enter the state. Lets just say they each spend $500 (Some will spend less, most will spend more) in NoDak. Thats $15,000,000 by my math, and thats a conservative number. You've shown me that Rs spend more money per year, but some on this site would have people thinking that this onslaught of NRs does nothing for Rs other than cause problems. Those people must be able to see that NR money is also going to there resource. Hense if states continue to raise costs, and hunters (not rich NRs) are not able to afford the cost of the trip, they will not be able to spend their $500 in the waterfowl heaven known as NoDak. Lets just say, for arguments sake, that half of the NRs are not welthy hunters. That just cut funding from NRs by $7,500,000. That is a lot of $$$ left on the table.

My opinion of the NoDak out-migration of it's youth is this:In todays world, with easy access to TV, movies, and the internet, everyone under the age of 25 has pipe dreams of being a rock star or actor or whatever. They want to be in the "MTV crowds" and be "cool". It's rare that a 16 year old cares more about the outdoors when he/she can't wait for the next O.C. to be on, or video game to come out or whatever. At 18 they want to meet girls/boys that they may not have had the oppertunity of meeting in say Anamoose. So they go to Fargo, or GF or the Cities. They learn many different things while there, including their major, which in most cases does not involve the outdoors or farming practices. They study things like buisness, marketing, engineering, etc. Then comes the job hunts for the jobs they spent thousands of dollers on being educated for. I think the oppertunities in a large city, with the expectation of making more money in that type of market dictate the out-migration of the youth in NoDak. Not so much NR hunters.

At any rate this is a topic with many opinions. All of which should be heard. No one has all of the answers, but with intelligent discussions such as this, and the willingness of The People to do whats right for their state/country, hopefully we can come to rational and non-reactive decisions based on whats good for the resources and the state of NoDak.

Gunny


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

G/O,

I did not see where you wrote that it was more important to the states economy, I thought you were talking about yourself in general. And, of course, Curty is going to be busier on hunting openers where there are more NR than residents. It only stands to reason.
That being said, Who did you survey? I would guess you surveyed people that owned businesses in your area and you did it around hunting season. Did you do a survey in the middle of summer and see who was buying the most vehicles in town? Did you ask who was paying the most school taxes in town? Did you ask the local medical clinic who was using their services in March? Did you ask who was buying breakfast in the cafe on a Sunday in April?

I am not discounting the importance of NR money and I think that you know my views well enough to know that I believe that we need NR hunting here. I also do not want the residents importance to go unrecognized. We are here all year paying taxes and buying vehcles and going to medical providers and buying groceries. We should also not be taken for granted!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Djleye......

I agree with you 100%.....I can not stand it when NR's (I am a NR) say that thier $$$ support a town or business. They pat themselves on the back.....It is a drop in the bucket what they spend at a grocery store, bars, cafes, etc......The place where it supports are the hotels (IMO).

But to the other businesses it is a supplimental income......it helps out but supplimental. It does not support these businesses it helps them. The NR dollar is important but not crutial..... It is the local or R that supports these businesses, schools, churches, hospitals, etc. The local or R is there 24/7/365.

But one place where the $$$ is helping to support ND is the sale of liscs....that money goes to the G&F and programs they see fit. That is where the R is benefitting from the NR year round and in the future.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Gunny: Research has shown that if you can show youth the benefits of the outdoors before the age of 16, they WILL stay connected to the outdoors, so I will disagree and agree somewhat to your post on youth and our migration of them out of this state.

There are just too many of us that decided to stay here because of our connection to the outdoors. With maxed out numbers of youth wanting to take hunters safety it is only logical that if we as a state can provide a positive experience for them in the outdoors, they will want to stay....just like I did.

I don't blame NR hunters directly for our out-migration of youth, but the way ND is going we are not providing the resources to these kids like I used to have. If they can't access the resource, no sense in staying here.

Today's youth are our entreupeneurs (sp??). With technology today it wouldn't be hard running a business out of Anamoose and make a darn good living. I believe the youth now and the ones graduating are the ones that could save our small towns in ND and not the nonresident hunter as many legislators believe.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Invector,

What purpose would an increase provide other than to LIMIT the NUMBERS of non resident hunters (not eliminate them all together) if (as someone stated here) NDF&G money as well as the hunting experience was fine for residents w/o an increase?
Tell me you are in financial need.
Tell me you want to bank some for the future? 
Ill believe you. 
However, if you tell me that ALL residents feel that way or look at raising prices for those reasons only, I will call you on it.

That is the problem here, everybody thinks that since their heart is in the right place, that is the same for all.

Deny that some people on this site would like to see the number of NRs drastically reduced if not altogether, and understand that increasing prices is a way to do that (I am living proof).

Furthermore, if you are so ok with NRs but so bent out of shape about leasing, hiring guides and folks with big bucks who can come to NoDak and crap in your cheerios, who do you think is going to go to bat for your cause in the end? The guy with a couple of kids on a budget for 2 weekends or the guy who has the wherwithall to outbid you on land?

I have already vowed never to hunt your state again. That bridge was burned and you could give me a free license and I wouldnt show up. I am looking at it from the point of view of all the NRs who are now where I was 5 years ago. Watching some of you hack away at your nose to spite your face is the only sport I have west of the Red anymore.

Keeping up with the cost is one thing but the last time the price jumped...(exuse me) ... doubled ... I said enough is enough.

Next time you read one of my posts and intend to take a run at my intellegence, read back to the posts that I am responding to and or getting ammunition from, take a deep breath and think.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

djleye, Again I'm disappointed in you because you are smarter than what you are posting.

djleye said: I am not discounting the importance of NR money and I think that you know my views well enough to know that I believe that we need NR hunting here. I also do not want the residents importance to go unrecognized. We are here all year paying taxes and buying vehicles and going to medical providers and buying groceries. We should also not be taken for granted!

Yes you are correct here somewhat. But where your theory holds no water like Dicks, is you class residents in to one lump some. Most of us in the rural communities would take issue with that. Again how many of you eastern NoDakers went to the towns you hunt and got your medical care? How many went to the small town all year round to buy you vehicles, Viagra etc. etc. Yes you are a resident of this fine state but when you travel a couple of hundred miles to my community you are no different to me than the guy from Mpls.

I know its hard for you to realize but there is a difference between local and residents. I support my local community as much as possible. I bought 3 cars from the local dealer in the last 2 years. I buy everything I can locally my bill at the local hdwr. store and lumber dealer average a grand a month. I can drive a few miles and buy cheaper but I like to see people in my community as small as it is make money. Now many people hunt in this area resident and nonresident but I support this community 365 days a year. Now on the other hand you support your community 365 days a year also. I'm sure you are an asset to your community as I am to mine. Some would say hunt in Fargo, I'm not that stupid we are all in this together. Just don't go beating on the podium saying we support all year long. Yes you do but not my community.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> Yes you are a resident of this fine state but when you travel a couple of hundred miles to my community you are no different to me than the guy from Mpls.


I'll remember that next time I'm at the booth. :wink:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Because I just finshed up with doing the tax thing a little while ago, I totaled up all of my receipts from hunting/fishing last year(I had an un happy spouse when she saw the total) 

Anyway, My spending was roughly 60/40 with 60% being spent out in the state away from home. I would have guessed that I would have spent more at home and was a little surprised by the result. All of those little trips and long trips out add up.

You all know that my feeling is that we need to have the NR income in the state, without question it is very important to the overall economy. The cold hard facts are that resident waterfowl hunter numbers have declined by over 10,000 in the last few years and many of them have been replaced by NR hunters. The trend continues along the same lines.

When are we going to be at a balance point when everyone is happy? Wish I had the answer.

Bob


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

g/o: I understand what you are saying, but the people in your community are saying the same things that people from Fargo are saying. Turtle Lake residents have the same issues as Watford City resident or LaMoure, or Napoleon, or Mott for that matter. I think we are all saying the same thing, but some want to say it is just the Grand Forks or Fargo people complaining...it isn't. This isn't an east/west issue.

When I am back home visiting, I am still a volunteer fireman in my hometown and it was probably my father who tutored your son so he could pass his class and go onto college (just an example). It may also have been your son whom I bought my last vehicle from. Right now I am working with a young man from Butte in buying a new Honda from him. I still order my hog and our half of beef from a 4-H family. I think many of us sportmen fit into this category and I don't think you give us enough credit for it.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

GG, I'll remember that next time I'm at the booth. 
_________________

As if that would be anythingt new, we vote for the opposits now :lol:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> you are smarter than what you are posting.


 I will ignore this second cheap shot you took at me because I don't agree with you. :roll:



> Yes you are correct here somewhat. But where your theory holds no water like Dicks, is you class residents in to one lump some. Most of us in the rural communities would take issue with that. Again how many of you eastern NoDakers went to the towns you hunt and got your medical care? How many went to the small town all year round to buy you vehicles, Viagra etc. etc. Yes you are a resident of this fine state but when you travel a couple of hundred miles to my community you are no different to me than the guy from Mpls.


WHere did I say that I support your community. I support ND economy with my taxes year round. I support local businesses with my $$ when I am in them in the fall. I never said my money was _*more*_ important, I said my money was _*just as *_important and I don't want the in state hunters $$ to be discounted. Your not one of those guys that only wants _*new*_ money are you??

If I am te same to you as a guy from MSP, how will a guy from MSP help rural ND when there are issues to be voted on that help rural ND???? I don't think it is possible for that to happen!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

djleye, Please except my apology if you felt those were cheap shots  Some of your friends told me you were a very intelligent person I'm sorry if you don't feel that way about yourself. I will not do it again.

djleye said: That being said, Who did you survey? I would guess you surveyed people that owned businesses in your area and you did it around hunting season. Did you do a survey in the middle of summer and see who was buying the most vehicles in town? Did you ask who was paying the most school taxes in town? Did you ask the local medical clinic who was using their services in March? Did you ask who was buying breakfast in the cafe on a Sunday in April?

This why I answered as I did. Its not the resident sportsmen or non resident that support our small town year round now is it. It is the local people, I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference.


----------



## Nate1983 (Mar 15, 2006)

As an out of state hunter from minnesota. I think that if they raise the fees we should hike up our non-resident fishing liscenses for all the anglers that flock to our lakes and see how they like it :beer:


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Lets raise the non resident fees so high that no non residents will ever come to ND. After all, I hunted ducks 13 days in the best duck hunting area of the state last fall and one day saw a party of 4 Minnesotans! No one else at all - not one other hunter!! Now if we could just get rid of that one party of Minnesotans......... Maybe then the kids will leave their computer games and boob tubes and jump right into hunting! 
I did see a few locals hunting pheasants and even a few parties of non residents, but personally was never turned down even once when I asked access permission for pheasants (or waterfowl) and there were hundreds, if not thousands of square miles of pretty good cover out there! But still, if we price out those terrible non residents and stick it to them any way we can, everyone knows that out migration of home grown hunters and fishermen (and guiding, and law breaking, and....)will come to a screeching halt!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

nate1983: You can't compare fishing to hunting because you can stock lakes according to pressure. If you want to compare fishing, we don't regulate how much you want to fish here.

Hugger: Tell us how you really feel..... :roll:


----------



## Nate1983 (Mar 15, 2006)

live2hunt said:


> nate1983: You can't compare fishing to hunting because you can stock lakes according to pressure. If you want to compare fishing, we don't regulate how much you want to fish here.
> 
> How do you figure you can't compare???? Our lakes our stocked meaning there here to stay in our Minnesota lakes. Us tax payers are paying our DNR to stock them.Your ducks on the other hand are a migratory bird.


----------



## hunterboy (Dec 5, 2004)

I"ve said it once and I"ll say it again, for the love of God is this ever going to end???


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Nate, How close can you fish to someone and still be successful and safe.......How close can you hunt to someone and still be successful and safe??????? :eyeroll: Fishing and hunting cannot be compared !!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

nate: You can stock fish according to pressure. Let's just take Mil Lacs lake for example. If you know the fishing pressure is continuing in that lake, you can do a number of things to help make sure an adequate population of healthy walleye are maintained. Some of those include: limit regulations, size regulations, and you could increase stocking numbers.

You pretty much answered your own question. How do we stock ducks for high pressure areas or pheasants in high pressure areas? You can't. Hence why you really can't compare fishing to hunting.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Djleye,

Wrong, fishing and hunting can be compared, when the focus
is on the impact of the non-resident dollars to each respective
state's revenue for license sales.

Question, was the NDSU study include money spent on boats
and vehicles when it came to resident spending?

Thanks


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> You pretty much answered your own question. How do we stock ducks for high pressure areas or pheasants in high pressure areas? You can't. Hence why you really can't compare fishing to hunting.


enuff said!!



> Question, was the NDSU study include money spent on boats
> and vehicles when it came to resident spending?


Why wouldn't it?? Besides, ND residents don't use boats!! :lol: (just kidding, I know that some do!!)


----------



## Nate1983 (Mar 15, 2006)

To be honest I could really careless I just think its funny how serious you guys get about this. There's nothing you or I can do about it. Hey were all fellow hunters here who need to stick together :lol:

we are lawabiding non-resident hunters who like to hunt and support the little towns with our bussiness. By the way we hunt near leeds on private land and some public land, but we rarely see another hunter. So maybe you should find a new area to hunt then if there are all these hunters you speak of


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Question, was the NDSU study include money spent on boats
> and vehicles when it came to resident spending?


No. Nor tires, auto parts, mechanical work, or insurance.


----------



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

live2hunt said:


> Couldn't disagree with #2 more. ND has lost alot of R hunters because of access issues and because many of us just can't compete with 30,000 NR's. NDSU did the study. Resident sportsmen spend 4 times as much as NR's do. I believe that many will start to pick their guns back up again and fully make up the difference....*and IMHO when that happens our out-migration of our youth won't need to be discussed in the "open forum"*.


You are implying that every youth who leaves the state hunts.... far from the reality...


----------



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

Nate1983 said:


> As an out of state hunter from minnesota. I think that if they raise the fees we should hike up our non-resident fishing liscenses for all the anglers that flock to our lakes and see how they like it :beer:


Hey I've always said "PLEASE DO!"

You see Nate... the only ND residents (for the most part) that fish in Minnesota are located in Fargo and/or have a cabin on a Minn. lake. Understand Nate that MOST fisherman in North Dakota laugh at Minnesota fishing, and NEVER enter the state to fish. We just suffer having to fish Devils Lake, the Missouri River, and Lake Darling/Sakawea for those damn annoying 8lb walleyes that won't leave our bait alone! 

I'll make a deal with you Nate. You can either jack up your rates for a fishing license or ban NR fishing, if North Dakota can do the same in turn for NR hunting rules? Sound like a fair trade?

You see Nate, as others have said you can't (even though many idiots still do) compare hunting to fishing. Hunting is all about access and pressure. Fishing is only about location and presentation. We can both float over the same point, sandbar, tree stump, etc fishing and never affect the other's success... however we can NOT hunt the same birds, slough, duck pass, etc as the birds will move away from the pressure. There is only so much prime waterfowl hunting access.... There are tens of millions of acre feet of water to fish.

Just remember that noone cares about your "fishing" on 10,000 resort properties... er I mean lakes... enjoy fishing them... just make sure to watch out that you don't get run over by all the jet ski's and pleasure boats!


----------



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

live2hunt said:


> I don't blame NR hunters directly for our out-migration of youth, but the way ND is going we are not providing the resources to these kids like I used to have. If they can't access the resource, no sense in staying here.


This is a major reason why I moved out of state.



live2hunt said:


> Today's youth are our entreupeneurs (sp??). With technology today it wouldn't be hard running a business out of Anamoose and make a darn good living. I believe the youth now and the ones graduating are the ones that could save our small towns in ND and not the nonresident hunter as many legislators believe.


Even with technology advances, it is still difficult to run a technology business out of a small town in ND. I own my Technology consulting company, and there is no way that I could live in North Dakota. The extra costs of needing to fly onsite to customers via Fargo->Mpls->final destination or from Bismarck->Denver->final destination is too much of an additional cost to make it feasible.

To keep the youth around, you will need more than just a fast internet connection and low cost of living. The things you'll need were covered in my Open Forum post ....

Ryan


----------



## Nate1983 (Mar 15, 2006)

Ben Elli maybe you should write a letter with all your ideas to your legislaters and quit whining and crying about it on here :lol:
I normally dont go on the Hot Topic type forums because its like a bunch of girls crying about something :eyeroll: like this


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

I'm uke: that you guys are still arguing about this. And to think that someone out there thinks its just a ploy to get NR out of the state...let me ask this...what if it was someone form out of state that had posted it? Would you guys not be crying and arguing 3 pages into this?


----------

