# Report of Leased Acreage



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

This report of leased acres does not include day leasing by outfitters and hunters, does not include leasing by hunters for more than one day, does not include outfitting done on the owners property, etc.

Reported acres leased in ND, 2004, by outfitters is 561,590.
Adams-3780
Barnes-14536
Benson -14390
Billings -940
Botteneau -13000
Bowman -22865
Burke- 0
Burleigh-15010
Cass-0
Cavlier-6160
Dickey-23157
Divide-820
Dunn-25983
Eddy-13348
Emmons -14800
Foster -7264
Golden Valley 13,000
Grand Forks-0
Grant -12,320
Griggs -3083
Hettinger -44,948
Kidder -2,140
Lamoure -4,184
Logan -18,335
McHenry -22,550
McIntosh -320
McKenze -51,794
McLean -18,160
Mercer -320
Mountrail -20,237
Nelson -8,833
Oliver -6,780
Pembina -0
Peirce -2,820
Ramsey- 10,270
Ransom -0Renville -500
Richland-0Rolette -0
Sargent -0
Sheridan -27,860
Sioux -15,680
Slope -25,600
Stark-10,720
Steele -0
Stutsman -29,100
Towner -5,576
Trail - 0
Walsh -1060
Ward -3300
Wells -0
Williams -4,720
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Some counties that reported 0 are rather surprising. So, are you on the ETREE now? Hunting bills are being heard today. Looks like 50+ will be filed and many do not bode you well.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

.....  ..... 

Don't think ND won't go the way of Texas.....guess again. The time is short to check this thing - speak now or don't ***** later.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

And they wonder why business was down in the Mott area this year, Hettinger County 44,000+ acres reported.

I would venture a guess that the actual number of leased acres is closer to double the total listed as it does not include some big catagories like day leasing.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> And they wonder why business was down in the Mott area this year, Hettinger County 44,000+ acres reported.


I hate to say we told you so......but we told you so. This was the first area of the state to be intensly commercialized, and should serve as a test case for those a few years behind. The beginning and middle of the commercialization process is great for mainstreet, the end is pretty rough. When privatization/exclusivity of hunting has run its course, there will less in it for main street than when the whole process began.

Balance it, regulate it, manage it for sustainability for years and years to come, or burn it out for short term gain.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Their hanging themselves with a short rope, and the mess they create will be ours to fix, if we want to. Like all things we need to regulate this for the greater good, just like the wildlife is managed. :roll:


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

Quite alarming. I own land in McHenry County where I knew there was outfitting, but not that much. Total acreage surprised me. Thanks for the good info.

tad


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Do you have the percentage of acres per county and/or the amount of total acres in each county?


----------



## Dave Brandt (Jun 20, 2003)

Here is a link that can get you all kinds of information on ND agriculture.

http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

FH, I do not.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

HETTINGER COUNTY, SOUTHWESTERN NORTH DAKOTA
Founding: Hettinger County was established on March 9, 1883 and organized April 17, 1907 with Mott as the county seat. The territorial legislator, Erastus A. Williams, named the county after his father-in-law, Mathias K. Hettinger (1810-1890) of Freeport, IL. Later, the southern half of the county became Adams County.
Area: 1135 square miles


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Dick, I am assuming this is what the guides and outfitters reported? at the NDWF convention a few years back, I tried to get a resolution passed that would require NDGF to collect that information and the Tax Department to report back on the income received by land owners but never ever heard anything. Considering that the Cannonball website the fall before pheasantgate, reported 80, 000 acres leased in Grant and Hettinger counties and boasting they would have 120,000 acres available for hunters in 2001, I feel the figures are suspect.Considering last year in Grant county, I recall about 1/2 of "leased land" I saw and talked to land owners about in 2004 was day hunting leases being run by land owners or their representatives. If so, then the total for Grant should be about twice its size. I suspect this is true in Hettinger as well.

I would hope that there would be some mechanism and would like to see an independent collection and review of the data.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Indesport
Say it isn't true!!! You actually think that the outfitters would under report acres leased   

Just messin with you a little :beer: . My guess would be 1 millon + acres state wide total.


----------



## Dave Brandt (Jun 20, 2003)

This should give you a relative idea. Won't include public land or cities, but I hope they are not leasing that anyway. From USDA 2002 Census

North Dakota Land in farms (acres) 39,294,879 
North Dakota\Adams Land in farms (acres) 604,839 
North Dakota\Barnes Land in farms (acres) 856,976 
North Dakota\Benson Land in farms (acres) 732,870 
North Dakota\Billings Land in farms (acres) 810,924 
North Dakota\Bottineau Land in farms (acres) 948,475 
North Dakota\Bowman Land in farms (acres) 759,082 
North Dakota\Burke Land in farms (acres) 600,141 
North Dakota\Burleigh Land in farms (acres) 865,524 
North Dakota\Cass Land in farms (acres) 1,126,851 
North Dakota\Cavalier Land in farms (acres) 818,829 
North Dakota\Dickey Land in farms (acres) 599,450 
North Dakota\Divide Land in farms (acres) 760,699 
North Dakota\Dunn Land in farms (acres) 1,105,912 
North Dakota\Eddy Land in farms (acres) 348,786 
North Dakota\Emmons Land in farms (acres) 838,075 
North Dakota\Foster Land in farms (acres) 382,932 
North Dakota\Golden Valley Land in farms (acres) 580,461 
North Dakota\Grand Forks Land in farms (acres) 755,592 
North Dakota\Grant Land in farms (acres) 1,056,729 
North Dakota\Griggs Land in farms (acres) 379,022 
North Dakota\Hettinger Land in farms (acres) 680,557 
North Dakota\Kidder Land in farms (acres) 794,465 
North Dakota\LaMoure Land in farms (acres) 676,966 
North Dakota\Logan Land in farms (acres) 577,823 
North Dakota\McHenry Land in farms (acres) 1,125,831 
North Dakota\McIntosh Land in farms (acres) 568,544 
North Dakota\McKenzie Land in farms (acres) 1,192,999 
North Dakota\McLean Land in farms (acres) 1,094,748 
North Dakota\Mercer Land in farms (acres) 536,339 
North Dakota\Morton Land in farms (acres) 1,276,269 
North Dakota\Mountrail Land in farms (acres) 1,068,002 
North Dakota\Nelson Land in farms (acres) 531,591 
North Dakota\Oliver Land in farms (acres) 403,619 
North Dakota\Pembina Land in farms (acres) 613,795 
North Dakota\Pierce Land in farms (acres) 530,623 
North Dakota\Ramsey Land in farms (acres) 636,109 
North Dakota\Ransom Land in farms (acres) 500,512 
North Dakota\Renville Land in farms (acres) 527,181 
North Dakota\Richland Land in farms (acres) 891,133 
North Dakota\Rolette Land in farms (acres) 507,658 
North Dakota\Sargent Land in farms (acres) 505,021 
North Dakota\Sheridan Land in farms (acres) 468,745 
North Dakota\Sioux Land in farms (acres) 702,493 
North Dakota\Slope Land in farms (acres) 762,519 
North Dakota\Stark Land in farms (acres) 777,118 
North Dakota\Steele Land in farms (acres) 401,035 
North Dakota\Stutsman Land in farms (acres) 1,215,190 
North Dakota\Towner Land in farms (acres) 548,774 
North Dakota\Traill Land in farms (acres) 529,647 
North Dakota\Walsh Land in farms (acres) 759,381 
North Dakota\Ward Land in farms (acres) 1,108,988 
North Dakota\Wells Land in farms (acres) 668,049 
North Dakota\Williams Land in farms (acres) 1,180,986


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

It is correct that the reported acres are the tip of the iceberg. Kidder-Wells would seem a tad suspect at 2140 acres total between them. It would be an interesting correlation to match outfitter advertising with reported acres. :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

In Hettinger County the total reported acres is 15.12% of all acres. Now we all now that not every acre has wildlife upon it!

So with these figures not showing day leases and farmer/rancher operations, why hasn't any legislation been drafted to prevent day leasing? Why was there no legislation requiring all land leased for hunting to be posted as such! Or legislation restricting G/O to only land they have listed with the G&F!

While it may not do anything to prevent more leasing it certainly would have made the reported numbers more accurate and informed the people not on this site as to what is happening in their back yard!

Might only be feel good legislation but it would have the affect of stopping the under the table actions that are not being reported!


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ron, you still have 4 days. Find yourself a Senator and get 'er done.....


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

See Dan it seems that issues and idea's put forth on this site the last year kind of feel on deaf ears!


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ron, here's the buzz:

You'll recall through your daily tracking of the primary o/g bill bill last session, HB 1050, that it took quite a long and windy road through the session. It was amended about 6-7 times and some of them were very significant re-writes.

I'd always viewed the acreage reporting as one of THE MOST CRITICAL points of this bill, because if we're going to determine the effect of this industry, knowing what the industry "was" needed to be the starting point. Specualtion about the industry impact at the time was widely varried. Some of us thought, all things considered, it is was in the 1-1.5 MM acres range. Others (ach-em) were pulling numbers out of thin air in the 4-5MM range.

Anyway, the House and Senate version of the bill were very different, and as such, a challenging conference committee process took place, to wrestle with and negotiate the differences in the bill between the two bodies. The House conferees were generally a little more pro o/g, and the Senate conferees a little more R sportsperson sympathetic. At the 11th hour, the version that was almost agreed upon by all, had no acreage reporting - where did it go? - how could that be? Someone who was damn tired of the session by then jumped in and coordinated with some of the conference committee members and told them how vital the acreage reporting was to the whole analysis, even if it meant re-doing things that the conf. comm. had agreed to, at a time very late in the session when legislators don't want to re-do anything previously agreed to.

Under the final bill passed by both bodies and signed by Gov, new Section 20.1-03-36.1.3 was created, which provides, in part: "The acreage must be presented by the county with a list of lessors by county in every application for outfitter liscensure. The annual permit fee for day leasing is two hundred dollars. The acreage day leased by county for the preceding year must be provided to receive a day leasing permit."

Further, under 20.1-03-36.1.4, as to outfitter/landowners who are exempt from licensure, "[t]he director shall determine the number of acres by county exempted from licensure by this subsection and shall publish the results"

Not bad for an 11th hour juke and deke. The regulation under this bill has been daunting for G&F to say the least. They have done a great job of promulgating some rules and procedures for the new massive regulation under 1050, but they have a lot of work left to do to implement the full scope of 1050.

So, there's the law and the history behind it. Could the reporting requirements be tightened up further? Probably. Will the reporting only get better and better and more and more accurate as G&F better digests and regulates under 1050? Certainly. Was tightening down these code sections even further for tighter reporting or other anti-day leasing things you've suggested while G&F was getting up to speed, and with the other pressing issues of the day, in the top 10 of priorities for one group of folks working on legislative agenda items for the '05 session? Definitely not.

First, by requiring all land on which an outfitter operates to be posted as such, will land occasionally but not regularly used by an outfitter be posted for use by the outfitter or not posted at all? If they can't wander off leased land, do more or less acres get leased? And if day lease is prohibited, do total permenat leased acres go up or down? Seems like a lot of back-fires opportunites there.

But, hey, the cool part of the ND legislative process is that legislators are very approachable and grass roots politics is very viable. You want to pin down the reporting or day leasing stuff further, you just need to find a sponsoring Senator and you've got 4 days to do it. Still very doable if you've you've got the slightest of gumption and smallest degree of working relationships with the legislators.

GET 'ER DONE.....


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Dan and Dick,

goes back to my original thought. Dick, was this the G&F figures? Dan and Dick, will I see you at either Bismarck tommorrow or Saturday or at TWS in Feb. to have further discussions?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Inds, I don't know if we've ever met, but I've always wanted to. Can't make the fun tomorrow or over the TWS meeting because of my third job, coaching my son's hockey team. But I will be in Bismarck at some point(s) this session and it would be fun to meet you and others then. Or, when in Fargo, give a hail call for a little advance warning.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dan you are very articulate. I have and do appreciate the time that has been spent in preparing for this session, however issues that many thought where going to be addressed from some of the meetings and ideas put forth here have not been addressed.

Let's move forward but keep in mind that to gain ground information needs to be had. Even if that information gets to those that are opposed to it. Never fear a message that is just or underestimate peoples ability to see that it is just given the time to digest it!


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ron, as to the o/g adjustments you jumped me about, you have known for several months they would not be part of the efforts from us this session - you asked me about them and we specifically discussed them more than once. Accordingly, you could have (and still can) get them going on your own. Lots of ideas, many very good, were offered, but there's only so much time and only so many things any one group can tackle at one time - we evaluated and prioritized differently than you suggested in this respect and you should blame no one other than yourself they aren't on the table now. And, for a variety of reasons, some within our control and some not, tentative agendas change, but the o/g stuff you reference above did not. I'm very ready and excited to all join together and move the agenda forward and get the bad stuff gone - just don't appreciate the nasty, back-handed cheap shots from the peanut gallery. As to what we're doing and working on at any given time, no, there are going to be lots of reasons certain things can't be shared publicly, but we always try to error that way. If you have questions, just ask outside of these forums.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

It is getting really scary now! Worse every year!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

indsport, I won't make the convention in Bis this weekend. We have another big iron in the fire that needs attending early next week. Thank you for the rewrite of my resolution and please vote for it. But we are going to visit in the near future and I will be there for Geist, weather permitting. I hope someone from NDWF will swing by department Hdqts and get the outfitter acreage report for a handout at the convention.

*NUMBER OF OUTFITTERS LICENSED IN EACH COUNTY*
ADAMS- 2
BARNES-3
BENSON-4
BILLINGS-2
BOTTENEAU-5
BOWMAN-3
BURKE-0
BURLEIGH-4
CASS-0
CAVILIER-2
DICKEY-11
DIVIDE-2
DUNN-6
EDDY-6
EMMONS-5
FOSTER-3
GOLDEN VALLEY-3
GRAND FORKS-0
GRANT-4
GRIGGS-3
HETTINGER-9
KIDDER-5
LAMOURE-5
LOGAN-5
MCHENRY-8
MCINTOSH-1
MCKINZIE-12
MCLEAN-7
MERCER-1
MORTON-3
MOUNTRAIL-5
NELSON-3
OLIVER-3
PEMBINA-0
PIERCE-2
RAMSEY-7
RANSOM-0
RENVILLE-1
RICHLAND-0
ROLETTE-0
SARGENT-0
SHERIDAN-3
SIOUX-2
SLOPE-7
STARK-6
STEELE-0
STUTSMAN-5
TOWNER-1
TRAIL-0
WALSH-2
WARD-3
WELLS-1
WILLIAMS-2

These figures are only for outfitter licenses by county. I'd be curious how many outfitters are opperating in each county?

The total licensed outfitters # is 177 if my adding is correct. The # of ND hunting outfitters listed in Dakota Outdoors Magazine/Hunting Directory is 344. Hummmm.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I can guarantee you eight is not the correct number of outfitters in McHenry County, I don't know about the rest of the countys but I bet it's the same all over. This also doesn't include landowners who run o/g operations, there are a lot of them too. 8)


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

g/o, I thought that many of the outfitters listed in the Hunting Directory would perhaps be operating on their own land? And thus not licensed by the state?
I am quite sure that Barnes had more than 3 operating here of those that were not on their own land. Wondered how accurate the # really is? I think there are outfitters slipping through a crack that do not report acreage.

Kidder for instance lists 2000+ leased for 5 licenses, Wells lists 0 leased with 1 license, yet it is surprising how many farmers in those counties will tell you honestly that their land is leased. I know a gentleman in Ramsey that farms 15000 acres, and leases out 8000 to a hunt club. Those acres don't show on the report, and it is very common.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Do I believe the acreage number to be correct, hardly. I do have to go along with the oufitter numbers. Anyone other than the people listed by the game and fish would be operating illegally.


You and I agree completely. Soft outfitting, where a individual leases hunting land in return for "client" favors, monitery or otherwise, also falls through this crack. Lots of cracks.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Just a question? I appreciate the effort you guys put in on this but shouldn't there be a way that a state department should be able to generate the amount of guys that are licensed at any given time in the state? If not, there's a problem!


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

There must be some mistakes in the list. For example, they have Cass County having 0 outfitters however Dave Beam is still in business out of W. Fargo?

Do you know what the % is of people who didn't respond?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The ones licensed are tracked and tabulated by the state. 
The legal ones. :lol: And the legal ones bear the burden of the ones that aren't.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

FH, not really your quesation, but think I should explain something.

IMHO, there should some meaningful industry limitation, so they can't become sole-source providers of the ND resources, not to mention ace out rural main street. But a number limit, alone, won't work, as the above stats illustrate - compare numbers of outfitters in various counties to the number of acres leased in those counties. A better example. Someone who's info I trust told me that virtually the entire waterfowl hunting along the texas coastlne was controlled by 3 outfitters. Right or wrong, and supported by the stats above, limits in outfitter numbers alone won't do the trick - we'd still end up with a relatively few, but huge, operators. It has to be through a limit in the number of oufitters and the amount of acreage upon which each outfitter can operate, thus producing an industry-wide limit. Special provisions could be made for the current operators who exceed the stipulated limit.

Why isn't there something like that in the hopper at this point in the session? Falls into the "some things beyond your control" category", and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

What would it take to get that legislation, in some form, at the next leg. session in '07? Will it be too late by that time?

I have been a proponent of the caps in the past and still am...We have to have a limit on the harvest of the resource and use of that resource. I definitely see the need to spread the visiting hunters out through out the state and without the addition of zones, I don't see that happening.....zones need to be set fairly for all involved. Without the zones the HPC limits will be the be the next best thing to spread them out, at least will cut the numbers down to manageable levels. The zoning of one area of the state and then leaving DL alone is interesting, for example. Anyway getting off the subject.

I HOPE the legislation pertaining to the HPC passes as is or is passed with the zones ammended out or down....we NEED that regulation to protect the quality for everyone involved, be they Res. or NR.

Besides the HPC, I wonder why the guiding issue wasn't taken up this session. You make some great points and I agree. The Outfitting industry will run rampant if the number of acreas are not restricted....it won't matter if there's only one or two outfitters in a given area...if they control all the land it won't matter. One would think that the smaller guides and outfitters in the state would also see this as an issue and would be a place for the sportsmen and outfitters to get on baord with each other. Sooner or later with the increase of Outfitters in the state the smaller G/Os as going to be pushed out. (Isn't GM trying to outbid some of the smaller Outfitters in the SE as we speak?)

Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work that many of you have put into this session, just wondering why the outfitting issue wasn't brought forward this session....I can only hope there was a good reason for not bringing it forward at this time.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> One would think that the smaller guides and outfitters in the state would also see this as an issue and would be a place for the sportsmen and outfitters to get on baord with each other. Sooner or later with the increase of Outfitters in the state the smaller G/Os as going to be pushed out


Yeh isn't it funny that the same greed that makes a little outfitter sell deer will make him sell his whole business to anyone with more money!! It's like a snake going in a circle and finding and biteing it's own ***.


----------

