# North Dakota Residents - Please Read



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

It's time to start thinking about the '05 legislative session. Really, the
time to start formulating an agenda and getting organized is now. Soon
sportspersons and groups from across the state will be meeting. Several
from this site will be in attendance. We'd like to get as many from this
site involved as early as possible. For those in the East, there'll be a
legislative planning and informational meeting 2/26 at 7:00 at the Elks
(3435 N. Broadway - by Trollwood). We'd like as many people there as possible. For those that can't attend, feel free to PM or email me with your thoughts. Let's get fired up and finish what we started in '05!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This is a good idea Chris...but I would like to see some thoughts people are having as to what to try to do in 2005.This would be a good place to debate the merits of any proposals....especially for those of us who can't get to a meeting like this.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

1.) Raise the cost of NR fishing licenses to be in line with MN. 2.) Do not allow NRs to have fish houses over night on ND Lakes. 3.) If a nonresidents state of residence charges an extra fee for the use of fish houses they will have to purchase a fish house license at the cost of their States fee. 4.) NR fishing license would be good for the same dates as their states game fish seasons.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

1.Non-res. landowners should not be allowed to get gratis licenses.

Non-res. can get only 1% of deer licenses in a unit. In some units guides take 50% and non-res. landowners take the rest.One of the biggest complaints is that friends and family members want to come back to hunt.In some units there are no licenses left.

Plus this would keep non-res. from buying land just for hunting and then getting a free license including some of those tough to get mule deer licenses.


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

Thats what really ****** me off is when they buy land they can hunt muleys... No NR should get a muley tag if I cant get one every damn year!!! :******: :******: :******: :******:


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Can't wait! I'll be there!I hope I will see the rest of you there also!!!!

Mav....


----------



## Skilly62 (Sep 8, 2003)

I think it's great that your spearheading an effort to get more hunters involved in political issues. I have one question/comment : What's happened to create such a negative attitude towards non residents? From blackout dates to pheasant/duck license fees it seems non residents are getting pushed aside. I know theres alot of rumbling back in Minnesota and people are getting frusterated. I'm sure this will also hurt local businesses from hotels to cafes and so on. From a cost standpoint you can get a non resident phesant license in Iowa for $80 and add a duck stamp for $8 without having blackout dates or a two week season. I was wondering if anyone could provide some insight into non resident issues.

I should have prefaced this statement by saying theres no place in this world I'd rather be then sitting over some decoys with my labs on a North Dakota slough!!!! Just wanted some other perspectives on these issues.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

Skilly, If you go back and search some of the past hot topic forum subjects this should give you an idea of whats going on.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I agree with dblkluk. I would like to keep this discussion more open to new ideas and suggestions.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I also think there should be some bills introduced about guiding/outfitting.

The last session was a good start,but more needs to be done.

1.Is it possible to limit the amount of acreage that can be leased by one outfit?

2.Are all fee hunting outfits required to report income to the GNF and Tax dept.?...including day leases.

3. Anyone who charges to hunt should not be able to recieve money from our GNF for depredation....like fencing materials to keep out deer...this bill failed last year...needs to be brought again.

4.There needs to be a version of SB2048 introduced again.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

G/O's should have to have written permission in possesion to guide on land they don't own.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Heavier restrictions on G/O.

Caps on non-residents and to be drawn by lottery, similar to SoDak.

Put the power of science and biology in the G&F depts. hands. Let them do there work and apply it.

First and foremost start getting answers from the governor candidates on the issues that concern us the most, and hold there feet to the fire!! Lets get rid of the deadbeat local representatives and senators that hung us out to dry.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Outstanding post! There is an offer to do a meeting in Minot after the 1st and will forward more info on it soon. Are there interested people in Bis-Man and points west who might do the same? Will see a few tomorrow from that area and visit about it then. Gotta love this web site.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

I'd like to see a bill suggesting a statewide catch and release only bass (largemouth and smallmouth, not white) season from September 31-June 15.

--If you want the reasons why, PM me. If you want more insight into this topic consult the MNDNR or view the Oct-Nov 2003 issue of In-Fisherman (pp.28-34).


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I watched an interesting show on Ice fishing the other day. The crew was filming a show from a golf course. It seems the owners of the course as way to make a little money in the off season actually dug small lakes as their water hazards and stocked with Bluegill and bass. Might be a nice project for the gnf department to to get involved with to help get kids involved in the sport. Especially in some areas of the state with few or no lakes available. I would guess some sort of legislation would be needed to allow the gnf to become involved.


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

Ive already fished Roscreek in the winter for bluegills. Its really fun. :wink: Ive dont evey thing on that golf course.


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

How about sepparating the game&fish dept from the politicians.Is this possible?Or How about the director hired by commitee,or elected by the people with a clause that states non-interference by politicians.Let the biologists do there job!I cannot imagine how frustrating it must be,to work for the G&F,and have your hands tied all of the time.If possible,Change the tax structure for land purchased for hunting,with all procedes going to the county the land is in for road maintanence etc.Just a few ideas thrown out.I dont know if they are possible or not.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Non- residents from Georgia over the age of 50 with bad knees, more than three crazy dogs, not enough hair left to keep their head from getting sunburned should get honorary resident licenses,and at least one free ice cold beer per day. Pull this off and I'll help you cuss Minneasotans


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Bob, how about honorary resident ASSISTANT license.

Bringing the truck and picking up decoys, then cleaning birds.

Waiting in truck then picking up hunters at the end of tree row after shooting a limit of ditch carp, then cleaning birds.

Meanwhile keeping a sharp eye out for any stray 'sotans.

Cleaning truck after previous activities, than recieving TWO free ice cold beers bought by the resident. :beer:

I am going out on a limb and saying DONE DEAL, I will personally see to it this gets ramrodded thru next session. 

All this for our favorite weak-knee'd, crazy, bald 50+ geezer Georgian.

All funnin' aside, folks like you Bob should have a place anywheres to hunt!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ok , Its a deal but I get to listen to the radio!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Only if you're listening to the Twins in October (wishful thinking  )


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Maybe the Twins getting their butts kicked by the Braves :lol:


----------



## smalls (Sep 9, 2003)

Hey Bob, I think we all remember what happened the last time Twinks squared off with the Braves... :lol:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Don't make us bring back doug M. to lift someone off first base and tag him out again!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Doug M?????

That was Hrbeck wasn't it?


----------



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

Yep, Herbie made the play and a good one at that! tagging out Ron Gant, (I still owe Ron a Christmas card):thumb: Best World Series ever! :beer:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

At the rate land is bought up for hunting I'd like to see the provision that only working farms-ranches in the mule deer & elk units get gratis tags. 
That would allow more for the general drawing.

A waterfowl bill that sets the NR #s by habitat conditions like SB2048, and definately a minumum of 5 zones with a random lottery. The lottery could done early, or at least a portion of it, to help our *GUESTS* with scheduling.

ALL NR licenses sold electronicly at NDGF. Vendors could still access through computer. Way too many boys fudged their specified days for hunting pheasants, and electronic application would prevent that.

Zone pheasant hunting into 3 units for NRs. One north of 94, two south, and draw zone by random lottery. Spreads tourist dollars fairly accross the state, slows land purchase for hunting only.

Sell youth license at greatly reduced price. We need more kids in the sport

Hunting season hospitality tax, dedicated to NDGF for habitat in those counties. If they want the tourists, let them foot the bill for access or shut the hell up.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Eliminate NR hunting period. this is the only thing that will stop the land grab process.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

*BOB*, :wink:   :What a novel idea!! :idea:


----------



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

I see Bob is out shopping for residents again! Can't wait for the next BOOK of wisdom to be released. :eyeroll: Either way, a lot better chance for your baseball team's dream to come true than your own. :lame:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I have no idea what "shopping for residents" means. But I have spent a lot of time thinking about this and total restriction of Nrs is the only thing that will work. Its not going to happen so as I said your probably out of luck. The total restriction is not in my best interest but its the only way to stop it and I'm willing to let my ND hunting go if it will help. Your population centers are small enough that you will never see enough pressure from them to eliminate hunting.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I don't know if this is the time and place but here goes. Alot of people seem to be in favor of the government providing public places to hunt. In the states that have a lot of public hunting land alot of it is controlled by outfitters. What is going to stop this from happening in ND if we happen to get, say 30% public owned lands?

I wonder if staying privately owned isn't the best way to wage war on the big national outfitters that are in the process of taking over. I say if you don't own (not lease) land in ND you shouldn't be able to offer a guide service. After all the landowner is the one in tune with what happens on their land and should be able to say hunt or no hunt depending on availability of wildlife on their land.

I think MN has a bunch of public land and where has that gotten them? The same with MT, some places you have to have a guide or stay home. Will it be leased to outfitters to manage? I don't know but some of these questions will be answered within a couple years, as the money and rich people decide they need to hunt and ride Harleys like us poor bastards out here on the prarie.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If its public land then you have a recourse the biggest voting block rules!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

If it has to do with voting we are all screwed for sure. :sniper:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Maybe but its our own fault, because of the political stupidity we all exude. When you realize that nothing in our life affects us as much as politics and how stupid the average american is about what his representative does its pitiful. *No other aspect of our life costs us as much as what we pay for government *but most people don't give it as much decision making time or thought as they do making a purchase at Walmart! *Ask your friends who their congressman and senator is and a couple key questions about their positions and you will get an intellingent answer from less than 10% of them! I guarantee it.* We deserve to get screwed.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Yea Ken ...It was, sorry.    I knew that too, I said bring him back and then put down the wrong first basemens name.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

It is already a law on the books that guides may not take clients on public land I believe.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Would someone please explain to me how the allocations of tags work for outfitters? Do we automatically give outfitters so many tags? If this is the case this should not be allowed. All tags should be placed in the lottery.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gandergrinder I have personally watched them doing just that in the area I hunt. Pounding the Plots areas first part of the season when they have large areas next door that they have posted for the rest of us.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Voting on laws would be cool but does not happen often. We vote to elect people that are supposed to do our bidding for us, but it seems all politicians have their own personal agenda.

The last law I voted on was seatbelts, I voted for choice. The whole state voted for freedom of choice three times, guess what, we now have a seatbelt law, so don't think we will ALL be tricked into thinking votes/voting matter.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Bob, fall off a ladder Sunday afternoon? Have a head cold, and you over-administered NyQuil? Or neither, and you've actually gotten hip to fact that restricting non-residents is a necessary part of the solution package? Cool.

We don't need to eliminate all NR's any more than we need to let them all in. Caps that match total hunters to anticipated opportunities, giving preference to res's will work just fine in ND. Keeps total hunter numbers at appropriate levels and has the side-benefit of discouraging investment in exclusivity. In that sense, our problems and potential fixes are different than Texas and the like. As you've noted, ND's demographics and population relative to productive ground mean that ND's alone will never materially affect the exclusivity game. Further, ND sportsperson participation relative to productive ground means there will always be room for significant NR participation. We check demand on NR's a bit (caps), check the o/g industry, and the rest takes care of itself, for the long-term benefit of nearly all.

Jed, I believe the o/g allocations go something like this. NR's get 1% of last year's buck tags, half of which get allocated to the o/g industry, the other half of which go into the general NR lottery. The o/g's draw into a lottery for the o/g-allocated tags.

Hold onto your hats, I will guarantee legislation will be introduced next session to increase the % of buck tags allocated to outfitters, etc. If you're a sportsperson who thinks the '03 session did enough or are otherwise satisfied with the current state of hunting in ND, you will still need to get involved next session, because there will be great efforts by some to legislate further commercialization. In addition to a little more offense, we need to be ready to play some serious D.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Dan I don't get colds, too ornery. :lol: I hope you're right about the NRs purchasing land ect. but if it follows the ways it happened here "clubs" not individuals buy/lease land. So caps will not work effectively because club members will realize its not an every year thing in ND. Certainty of a spot is not necessary. There are already Clubs on the internet doing just this and they have multistate holdings which is the wave of the future. The internet is a double edged sword too much info at everyones fingertips game pops. where to go, ect. Makes it too easy. Join a club thats in several states and put in for a license every year for ND and go when you can. Kind of like going elk hunting in many western states now. The guides and farmers will still have their clientell and they will just say come when you get a tag well have the land waiting for you.......
I guess you can figure out how to prevent this???? I still say keep all the NRs out if you want to preserve this ( I say this painfully  )


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

The idea of giving G&O licenses is absurd. That in effect privatizes a public resource. The legislatively created monopoly of only giving out 1% of the previous years buck tags to nonresidents should benefit the GNF department and not private citizens. Give the monopoly profits to the Game and Fish which use the money to benefit everyone. I would believe you could plead a pretty strong case as the resource is owned by the public and not private citizens.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Wasn't there a bill last session to raise that to 2%?

There also was one to allow landowners to sell their gratis licenses.Great way to increase commercialization.I would expect to see both again next year.

In some units G/O take 50% of the non-res. tags and non-res. landowners take the other 50% or more.I think the law says if a landowner requests a gratis license the GNF must give it to them even if it goes over the 1%.This has to stop...It won't be long before relatives and friends have no chance to come here to hunt unless they hire a G/O.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

If I remember, Curt Wells had a bill in to limit NR archery and it was dead on delivery. It was a good bill.......


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well Dick, Kansas used to resident only deer hunting so it must be doable. Although they did finally follow the money trail and allow non-residents to hunt. Which I guess is your point and mine.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Thats supposed to say " used to have resident only" how come I never see that stuff until after I post it. I guess I need another cup of coffee  
Do you and Dan see my point about how clubs will get around caps? This is why I've come to the conclusion that only total elimination of NR hunting priviledges will work. I realize its probably not going to happen but thats the only thing I think will actually work. And I've spent a lot of time with my great brain noodling on this problem!


----------



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

I have a problem with comparing one states problems to anothers all together. What Texas or Kansas does has nothing to do with N.D or any other state for that matter. Too many different factors come into play.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Problem with it or not its naive to not see the obvious. I know we all wish it wasn't so but.......wishful thinking won't make it go away. And I'm not being sarcastic, I thought the same thing at one time but reality has chased me around the country on this issue and now its come to North Dakota.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Comparing one states problems to another is exactly the point. Kansas's gratis tags are now sold on EBay, and the "hunting rights" usually go with them. The "Gratis Transfer" bill in the last session would have done exactly that here in ND. North Dakota sportsmen acting on a united front killed that bill. United you hunt, divided you golf.


----------



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

All I'm saying Bob, is what is good for one state to do, may or may not work in another, so why talk about it?? I don't think your exactly posting any big news flashes for N.D. or any one else. Don't tell them about santa, I wanted to break the news. HUNTING TRADITION WILL LIVE FOREVER, just say it Bob!! :bop:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If me saying would make it so I would be screaming it. Unfortunately its not my call, hence my depression. I am not glad I'm getting old ( although it beats the alternative :lol: ) but I am thankful that I got to take part in a part of Americana that will soon be gone. You guys in ND need to live up the next 10 years as much as possible, I doubt you have that long. I saw a lot more No Tresspssing signs in the area of ND I hunt where there were none just a few years ago. I wish I could put a positive spin on this but I've seen it all before. Just Damn!


----------



## Gooseman678 (Nov 17, 2003)

Hello, Has anyone heard the latest on what they are going to do for None- Residents that want to hunt upland game. Have live in ND all my life and just moved to Mn. Still would love to hunt those pheasants and ducks in ND though.


----------



## Gooseman678 (Nov 17, 2003)

Hello, I am wondering what the latest on hunting pheasants as a None- res. is now? I have lived in ND all my life and just moved to Mn. Hope i can still use the old pup.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Train old pup to get the newspaper :lol: :lol:


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

I have a couple questions that I know Ken will love! I'll just have to let him catch the biggest LT this year! 

What does it take to be considered a G/O? The reason I ask is that it seems the only restrictions they really have is that they can't hunt on public land. If so, what stops a Resident or NR landowner from buying a small piece of land and then becoming a guide with the sole purpose of trying to get part of the 1% NR deer tags? It seems to me if people are concerned with not being able to have friends and relatives hunt with them this might be an option. Especially if you have private land to hunt on once you're out there.

This would make it easier for family or friends to get NR tags.

If what I'm suggesting is possible then I definitely think this loophole needs to be closed.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Powder-- see http://www.state.nd.us/lr/cencode/t201c01.pdf
Line 24-25 is what you are looking for.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Just a quick correction on the o/g buck tag allocation from someone who knows: "Nonresidents are in the mix for a total of 1% of the available white tail tags. Guide are only allowed 100 tags from this mix, unless the client get one in the lottery. At no time is there any open buck tags for Mule Deer....[o/g] only have a shot at 100 total tags, not 1/2."


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Please re-read Chris' original post. I think we've gotten off track of the thread, I know I have. Back to the ideas. Please!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Field Hunter is absolutely correct....this thread is for ideas about the next legislative session.

The res.-non-res. argueing belongs on the Hot Topics page.


----------



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

Just wondering what happened to the last few posts that were here??? :huh:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I deleted them...they were not condusive to what this topic should be about.

As I stated above....that stuff should be on the Hot Topics forum


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

While the cat's away, the mice will play..... Not a shot, Ken, just a little different managerial style than Chris'.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

In the violation area: 1. Some type of uniformity in penality for violations. 
2. Fraudulent addresses--the current fine is so low that an NR is money ahead if he isn't caught the first year. There was the case of a NR who owned land, licensed an old pickup that sat on blocks behind the mail box and he hired a neighbor to pick up his junk mail. Got away with it for quite some time, just to be assured a waterfowl license.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Here is what it takes to be a G/O...from the GNF newsletter.....

The 2003 North Dakota state legislature established licensing requirements
for hunting guides and outfitters in the state. The requirements must be
completed prior to obtaining a license.

In addition to passing a written exam, qualifications for becoming a guide
include a background check for criminal and game and fish violations;
certification in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and standard first aid; and
employment by or contract with a licensed hunting outfitter.

Hunting outfitter eligibility requirements include the guide qualifications,
as well as an individual must have held a hunting guide license for two
years; and must have proof of liability insurance.

Over the past several months more than 300 individuals have taken the exam.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Yeah Dan...this place won't look the same when he comes back.

By the way he gave us a post on the Mod. Forum yesterday....don't kid yourself,even though he's on his honeymoon,he's still keeping an eye on things.

He say's Florida's great.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Of course he says Florida is great. He's been married a week.

How about an outfitter-client license of $20 a head to go for PLOTS in the outfitters area? Have to have it to use an outfitter.
Since hospitality wants the business so bad how about a tax on those communities for PLOTS in those counties? Put up or shut up.

Maybeeeeeeee those businesses could put a quart jar on the counter for PLOTS donations? :wink:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

How about adding another $20 a head for plots use to non-resident licenses and let us on after opening weekend!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

You guys have to get it through your heads that the PLOTS areas were good the ENTIRE season this year.....One of the big reasons was that after the opening weekend onslaught by the residents(which was no where near the crowds the previous years with the NRs), was that the land rested basically until the next weekend. Also the PLOTS had less pressure over the course of the year because the pheasants have rebonded all over the state. I'd suggest adding 10, 20, or $30 or what ever to the everyones licenses and lets get much more PLOTS, coverlots, Working ground for sportsmen signed up for the future but I have to say keep the resident ony restriction for the 1st week. Our pheasant season goes from early Oct to 1st week in January...It's not going to hurt to get here one week later. I've got relatives with 5000-6000 acreas in central MN that I can hunt but I'd never even think of showing up on opening day with all the neighbors and friends that hunt. Our pheasant hunting just gets better as the season progresses as more and more crops come down. Opening day is over rated as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The biggest threat is the expansion of commercial hunting by the outfitters. While total number of outfitters may be dropping because of the new regs, the size of bigger ones is going to increase. This threat needs to be limited in some way. Any ideas there?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Say Dick....how was the panel discussion you were on?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Field hunter whats the point of "resting the Plots" for a week? Keep the pheasants from migrating. If the Plots were being utilized by Residents that would be fine I wouldn't mind waiting but I rode by Plots land every day of opening week and didn't see a single person on them, not one, from Monday thru Friday. I'm not saying that no one was hunting because obviously I wasn't everywhere but there sure weren't any crowds running off anyone. I don't want to wait another week I can hardly stand waiting all years as it is! :lol: My point is that if it was making a difference I wouldn't mind a bit but most ND residents don't take off the week from work to pheasant hunt because they know they have the whole season.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Ken, I thought it went well. Dan made great points as always. Kyle made his pitch and presented the outfitter side. He is a good spokesman for them. We just don't quite agree. Dean made sure all know he works for governor Hoeven. I wondered if he was sending a message inside a message possibly?

Bob, in my part of the state the PLOTS did get hunted during that first week. And people who had kids really appreciated that opportunity. Season is long and the first week is not too much to ask. We are going to start a job search for you! So what is your idea for limiting expansion of big outfitters?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Guys, my email is down so use a pm.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Dick I think you have read enough of my stuff to know I don't want to hurt free hunting or screw up any kids or residents from hunting but my preference would of been to open the season a week earlier for residents not make me wait another week. I wish opening day was Sept 1. Like I've said in other posts if you really wanted to eliminate crowding for residents pass a law allowing only resident hunting on public land on weekends. Thats when the residents hunt for the most part. 
I don't doubt that there is some residents hunting during the week but not many. And I do hunt in the general area of where you live. I am going hunting opening week and land access is drying up I saw a lot more posted signs this year so if I can't hunt public land you leave me only lease or payhunt options is that where this movement you're supporting is wants to send people? If someone like me ( that does use guides because the principle of it makes him sick) is considering pay hunt options where do you think restrictions like the no hunt on plots is sending people that think pay hunting is the norm? I just think its the wrong direction for all of us. 
Restricting hunting opportunity hurts all of us and helps the guiding business, *I say raise fees significantly (double )and get lots more Plots. I would be in favor of doubling the NR license fee if every nickel of it was for Plots and the 10 day restriction was lifted for upland hunters*. Most upland hunters that buy tags only come for one week and maybe two ( how many guys have anymore vacation time to use than 2 weeks) so there would be a huge net gain in revenue with little additional pressure from Nrs and a lot less resentment if the fee increase provided additional access. I have no idea how many NR upland tags are sold but I bet you do so I ask you if the price was doubled and applied to the Plots program how much aditional land would there be. Could you give me an estimate? I'd really like to know. I think my viewpoint is common to many of the Nrs I know that hunt out west. Do this in combination with no Nr hunting on the weekends and you would realls have a system the everybody could enjoy instead of fight about.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey Dick M...you are so very correct, we need to do something to stop the commercialization of hunting from getting any worse. It's really tuff to fight against greed.

What sucks is most G/O's used to be hunters too, now they are proud of themselves for helping eliminate hunters. Oh well the local G/O's are not well liked and if they have no clients they are out hunting alone.

I have heard the state wants to reduce the total number of outfitters to twelve, I suppose one will be from ND and the rest will be national. That should screw it up satisfactorily for our politicians.

We need to watch this and remove any elected official that takes out of state money for their vote.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Sorry Bob, I'd never vote to repeal the 1st week for residents, you'll have to get some Valium for the first week if you need to hunt that bad. Let me know before the season and I'll get you on more private land than you'll ever know what to do with, in fact you could ask every farmer in the areas and they'd let you hunt. One reason the resident season is good is that the birds REST during the week and are not pounded everyday, I know you realize this because you said it. The next weekend is like another opening weekend for you and the residents because they have RESTED all week and haven't had one group of hunters one after the next harrass them all week long.

Getting off the point. I agree with you (I think) about raising revenue for the payment to GnF to increase public ground. A $20.00 stamp earmarked for the sole purpose of increasing public areas and for ALL sportsmen would be well received well by all.

Anyone heard anymore about the Federal program that Conrad was proposing for the increase of public land? I haven't.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fine move the first week a week earlier I don't have any Valium! :lol:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Field hunter and Dick Monson do you see my point about the actual amount of time spent by most NRs? You could raise the fees by double while reinstateing season long licenses and not really effect the amount of pressure from upland hunters while doubling the revenue from us NRs upland hunters . Leave the duckseason the way it is the issues there are much more difficult due to the concentration of waterfowl hunters, I think.( until my dogs start pointing ducks I don't have a dog in that fight :lol: :lol: ) The non-resident hunter would think it was a better deal when in reality the vast majority of them wouldn't come anymore than the current two 5 day periods anyway. Free money for the ND DNR to apply to Plots. Go ahead and milk me but kiss me when you're finished so I don't feel so bad!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Sorry Bob...can't open the pheasant season a week earlier.State law says it opens the Sat. following waterfowl opener...Oct. 2.Our Gov. tried to open it earlier for his G/O buddies and we had "pheasantgate."

I don't think you will see a repeal of that res. only the first week on GNF land because no residents would want it changed and it doesn't affect G/O.

FH makes a good point...we wind up with opening day twice on that land.

Plus their won't be any b****ing by Minn. hunters because it won't happen during their teachers conv. in 2004 like it did in 2003.

So if you are here hunting on Oct 16th you should have less competition for that land.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken isn't this discussion about changing state laws? Also if they were opened on the same date wouldn't it help the waterfowlers because then some of the less dedicated might go pheasant hunting instead? I'm asking not being a wise guy. It seems like there is a lot of angst over crowding among the waterfowlers on this site, maybe this would take a little pressure off them. What about my idea about doubling the license fee and giving us uplanders back the whole season??? That seems like a free moneymaker for you guys( for the reasons stated above) and would probably be easy to sell to NRs( not that our opinion matters anyway :beer


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Evidently you weren't aware of "pheasantgate."

There is absolutely No Way ND will open both Waterfowl and pheasants on the same day.That was argued in the last session and went down big.

When word leaked out that our governor wanted to open it a week earlier he was pretty much forced to have meetings all over the state to let res. put in their .02.The biggest turnouts of any GNF meetings happened everywhere.200-300 people and all against opening it a week earlier except the G/O.So don't look for this to even be considered.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Hope everyone possible will accept Chris' invitation to talk about this stuff Thurday night at the Elks Lodge in Fargo - 7:00 pm - 3435 North Broadway.


----------



## H2OfowlND (Feb 10, 2003)

I'll be there!! who else is going to be there?? Let's get a show of hands...Keep the fires lit boys, it's time to dig in!!

H2OfowlND


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

Sorry if I repeat something that's already been mentioned,  (haven't read all messages) but here's what I've always thought should be common practice; (by the way I'm not a resident of your state (Mn), but what the heck here it is anyway) Why not attempt to get something passed that would require the G/O's to reimburse the state for animals or birds taken by their clients? Their running a private business on YOUR resources. :******: Can any of you sell items privately, that your local stores have on the shelves? Don't think so!!! So why should G/O's be able to sell what the residents of ND own??? Just a thought. Make it high enough, and your problem with the G/O's may be solved if they have to overprice their services to make ends meet...... :beer:


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

I will get to meet the infamous Dan Bueide for the second time!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bubba said:


> Why not attempt to get something passed that would require the G/O's to reimburse the state for animals or birds taken by their clients? Their running a private business on YOUR resources. Can any of you sell items privately, that your local stores have on the shelves? Don't think so!!! So why should G/O's be able to sell what the residents of ND own??? Just a thought. Make it high enough, and your problem with the G/O's may be solved if they have to overprice their service to make ends meet.


I like you bubba. A lot. Let's kick this around a minute. The commodity (wildlife) is owned by the state, (in the century code-no arguement there). The retailer does not currently compensate the owner for the sale of the owners (state's) property. Hummmm. The retailer owes the state money.
Cannonball pays farmers $17 per bird right now. Hummmm.

An initiated measure would require only 300 petitioners (ETREE boys) to get 43 signatures each to put it on the ballot. Take about an hour of time. Hummm.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

HMMMMMMMM!!!!!    Why didn't I think of that??

!! I hope to be there, my daughter has a b-day sleep over that night (West Fargo has no school on Friday) , I would love to get out with 8 screaming 8 year olds in the house but my wife might change the lock if I do!!!


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

I believe the idea has some merit to it. I know in Mn is someone is busted for poaching, etc., they are fined AS WELL as being ordered to make restitution to the State for the animals taken. Why should G/O's be any different? They should have to pay for their "inventory".


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Bubba, your'e in man!! What a thought, this one is going to grow some roots! 8)


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Something worth talking about, but there's danger in such an approach too. Don't pretend to know the details, but I believe Mont. funds much of its public lands programs by issuing special, higher-priced tags to outfitters that are available through direct sales to the "sports" rather than the normal lottery process. This has made the o/g's even more powerful as they now have this license entitlement and have become an integral part of the public lands funding mechanism that Mont. is having a hard time weaning itself from. Several in Mont. now see that including o/g's as part of the solution has actually made matters worse. Without some pretty in depth consideration, I'd be a little careful about structuring any part of the solution based upon a contribution from the o/g's - may backfire in the end.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2004)

Not trying to start any harsh feelings here, but are'nt you guys going a little far??? I mean, WATCH OUT :******: !!! You guys are going to ruin a lot of peoples hunts who would like to shoot birds everytime they go out. I know a lot of families who go hunting once a year with that "special guide" that would probably go under if he had to pay more money for his service.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Yeah, so whats your point? 
Is it #1 waterfowler or #1 shooter? Real hunters do not need guides, :lame: period.
If they go once a year why not go to a game preserve, they are guaranteed to kill there! :wink:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken you're correct I never heard of pheasant gate what is the pros and cons of the argument for opening the seasons on the same day????


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Yep, it needs to be rolled around a little. Look it over. Wasn't thinking about allowing an "alotment" of licenses to go to outfitters like Montana. 
Heaven forbid! That would defeat the purpose. We don't want to interfer in free enterprise.

The public resource is being sold without compensation to the owner. So maybe tack on a dollar amount per individual animal, to be paid by the client who uses the outfitter service. Mr. Outfitter collects the money and sends it in to NDGF who then uses it for PLOTS. $30 per pheasant, etc. but only if the sportsman uses an outfitter. If he didn't send in the money it would be a violation of his outfitter license. Goodbye license.

Outfitters could still lease. Farmers could still sell access. State gets compensated for loss of the public game for private profit. You have to remember that outfitters don't sell hunting, they told us so many times. Let supply and demand call the shots...free markets reign!

If there ever was a year for a hunting initiated measure this one is it. Because hunting in North Dakota is going to be a BIG issue. And folks turn out to vote for national elections. Some pundits thought the constituational measure to guarentee hunting as a right, was a foolish move last time around. It passed by 70%, and passed in every legislative district, and every single county in North Dakota.

And speaking of Montana, the boys in the Montana Wildlife Federation ran a very successfull initiated measure on ranch raised elk (CWD). Of course Montana is being sued by the landowner rights folks. Same old.

The alternative is go through the House Natural Resource Hearings again with individual bills that get chopped up like 2048. Everybody that was there remembers how sweet that was. "I hit the wrong button." ?????


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

We've t'eed this one up before, but has only been briefly touched on lately. If you're going the measure route, why stop at a per-bird tack-on? Why not eliminate all o/g on land on which the o/g does not hold a majority interest? Unlike other areas of these issues where demographics play at least a fair amount into position, polls are pretty consistant among all demographics that the traditional o/g is not particularly popular. Want to make a splash? That's your cannonball.

I for one, at least hypothetically, think some o/g is good for ND. Not my cup of tee, but there's room for more than one kind of hunter and through o/g some folks get to experience ND and ND gets to experience some folks that otherwise would not happen. BUT, if the o/g's as an industry can't see what their expansion means to the overwhelming majority of those interested and proceed on a path to rule the ND hunting world (as seems to be the case), then maybe it's got to be an all or nothing thing?


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2004)

Right on Dan. I totally agree with you. SOme g/o's are good for bringing in people who would not have come unless invited. granted, I don't agree with some of their ways, but overall, I'd rather see them let others hunt their land they have so locked up.
Redleg, I think it's both man. I've put in a lot more time scouting than I ever have hunting. Time scouting insures successful outings. Successfull outings means full baglimits, something that I am very familiar with. :wink:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bob----you never heard of Pheasantgate? PM me your address, I'll mail the file. Cyber space isn't big enough to send it. I saved the clippings.

Dan, I'm curious. Why is an initiated measure all or nothing? One can be assured there are many bills in the hopper. I remember we voted on Sunday opening at least three times before it passed. Seatbelt law. Even possibly motorcycle helmets?

If a measure is crafted right and supported right and the general issue is on the burner at a state level it may have a good chance. Time enough to talk it over.


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

#1Waterfowler said:


> Right on Dan. I totally agree with you. SOme g/o's are good for bringing in people who would not have come unless invited. granted, I don't agree with some of their ways, but overall, I'd rather see them let others hunt their land they have so locked up.
> Redleg, I think it's both man. I've put in a lot more time scouting than I ever have hunting. Time scouting insures successful outings. Successfull outings means full baglimits, something that I am very familiar with. :wink:


I agree with you on the bringing in different people part, etc. But, if no one hunts the land they have locked up, it's only going to make the surrounding areas better because of reproduction, and normal movement. An area is going to hold only so many animals before they expand and move out. The more business they have selling someone else's products (pheasant, deer, etc.) which they are TAKING for free, the more land they are going to lock up for profit. I'd hate to see the state renamed North Texas. What other business, or people, do you know of sells goods owned by other people without having to first reimburse the owner at least at wholesale pricing. In my personal opinion, the G/O business is akin to theft and pawning.....


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Dick, not making myself very clear - again - sorry. My "all or nothing" comment pertained solely to how I see the alternative to somehow, with or without them, checking the o/g industry at today's level. As I said, I think some o/g is good for the state as a whole. BUT, if sportspersons can't get cooperation from o/g or find another way to make sure the industry doesn't expand any further, then a measure of the sort I described may be sportspersons necessary and appropriate route. If the traditional o/g industry insists on continuing to move towards "all", through more of them and more acres, sportspersons may not have much choice but to try and push them back to "nothing."

For the reasons stated earlier, I agree, a measure in this general area has real legs and would, if necessary, provide a much higher likelihood of success as opposed to legislation if a comprehensive route is necessary.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

I sat in a few outdoor issues hearings the last session, the g/o and hospitality industry had the all or nothing mentality and for the most part kept the politcians in control of the resource.

The resident hunting community was represented very well but tried the approach of give and take. Did not work.

All or nothing-tooth and nail-take the gloves off!! We cannot stay on this course and let them dictate the control. It will no doubt come down to the money, we need other means of leverage involving higher stakes.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

So how do you go after them?

Overwhelm them with many bills and make them fight each one off or

Concentrate on a few good bills and let them chew them up one at a time like last session.

Bob...Some res. feel the pheasant season would be too early and late hatch roosters would not be colored enough to tell.

But the main reason probably is ...Why should res. hunters have to choose which one to hunt?They would be a lot more in favor of putting more restrictions on non-res. so they can keep it the way it is.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken Its ok with me if its staggered I just thought it would take some of the pressure off the waterfowl guys even if its residents only, they seem to be the people most impacted by numbers of hunters. I don't see the crowding everybody else does anyway.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

There is one thing that would resonate to the core of these power hungry politicians. Out-migration.

This should be tied in with our hunting issues plight every time we are attending meetings or hearings, many residents 50 years old and younger struggle with leaving this state on a daily basis for greener pastures. For those that I know and discuss this topic with, the outdoors is what keeps them here. They want better for themselves but are struggling to make the move knowing that hunting as they know it is gone once they go.

I would guarantee a exodus of outdoors people if the quality of hunting is diminished any further.

How many people do you know that have hung up hunting and moved to live somewhere else? Tons.

If you read some of the posts from these younger guys they absolutely love North Dakotas outdoor oppurtunities, strip that and they would toss this state away like a dirty rag. I know I would. There are better places to live and whole lot more oppurtunties.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

I looked up the definition of "crowded". It goes like this, "any PLOTS land in ND south of I-94 on the pheasant opener". It was an older dictionary, last year wasn't sooo bad.

Pre 1998, "crowded" described metropolitan areas. "Desolate" described ND hunting, driving 100's miles in the pheasant belt and never seeing another hunter. Talk about a "world class experience".

That is why native Nodakotans are so relentless in the pursuit of saving our hunting heritage.

Not going to start the whole res vs NR debate AGAIN, but if a state puts NR first, it won't take long before residents pick up ship and MOVE. Why live in ND if you can't enjoy the outdoors??? Is there any other reason to live here?? I sure can't think of any reasons!


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

4curlredleg, I see we are on the same page. I am 23 years young, and can describe in detail what you're talking bout.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Every time we speak out in public this should be tossed out there, its almost like using the race card, keep our back scratched or else. If they don't believe the or else, have them look at the population cencus! :bop:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

How was the informational meeting last night?


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

The meeting was great.


----------



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

Has anyone ever kicked around the thought of having different shifts for waterfowl hunting?? I mean having Nr's hunt till noon and residents hunt from noon till sunset. Swithing these from one day to the next. Really who hunts all day anyways, and the time that you can't hunt spend on scouting or cleaning birds etc.. As an NR I wouldn't mind this proposal as much as a lottery. Still guaranteed an annual hunt, and residents would see less pressure from NR's. Just more looking at the clock this way. Just an idea. :huh:


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

The meeting was great.


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

Yeah we could split it up, Residents hunt from sunup until 12, nrs can hunt from 12 to 3, then we can go back out and hunt.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Goldy...Might work for ducks...won't work for geese...it closes at 1:00.Course we could let non-res. hunt geese from 12:00 till 1:00.

But......You and I could not hunt together then!!!!


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

GB3 might be onto something here. Heck i'd even give NR's 11-3:30, even more time. :thumb: The only problem with your plan Goldy is that it would pose a lot of problems with scouting and such. This is saying that season was open all day. The group that gets to hunt the one night and then the next morning would have to exclude someone from the evening hunt to try and find a place for the next morning and vice versa.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

This has been kicked around b/4, and as many will remember, 2048 was amended at one point last session to shut down all waterfowling at noon on the weekends for everyone. I and many others opposed on the basis that I didn't want my son to have to decide between soccer/church and hunting.

As a justification for not getting down to an appropriate number of total hunters under the current framework, "hours of operation" could be tinkered with. I don't see any shift-splitting likely. More likely would be NR restricted hours for some days or a portion of the season, much like they do in some of the provinces.

Ironically, the tourism folks should be all for this - get those NR's spending early and often.

********************

Actually, I think the amendment imposed a noon closure everyday not just weekends, 'cause as I recall I also thought it was crappy not to let the rural kids jump sloughs after school. The first to go is the mind.........


----------



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

Ken: You can still come along and watch, (maybe you'll learn something)!! :lol: I am always thinking about ducks. Thanks for the time slots, although I wouldn't need that much. But I suppose some need to get there naps in. 8)


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Your're right about the provinces,Dan...I know early in the season Manitoba closes goose hunting at 12:00 every day for non-res,but res. can hunt all day


----------



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

Why does goose have to close at 1:00 ??? :huh: Ya gotta ton of em.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ken, same with Sask. in most units. Alberta?

Goldy, 1:00 closure for geese has existed for many years (25+) and was in recognition that pressure affects how long birds will stick around - long before there was a whole lot of black geese in ND - it was an effort to keep snow geese in ND longer. Same as MN 4:00pm duck deal for the first several weeks.

Hmmmmmmm, pressure affects how long birds will stick around.


----------



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

Ok, but the 4:00 here is fuhbkjiulkjhjoj up! all the birds do is sit in the closed refuge until 4:05. (when there are a few local birds around.) I'm Not going to get into Minns. regulations compared to N.D, not worth the head ache. But, waterfowl hunting was excellent in this part of Minn. too, 25 years ago!!! HMMMMMMMMM, *Things change.*


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't know when the 1:00 closure became a law...but it was the law when I first started hunting in ND as a teenager back in 1962.

Dan....no one can hunt geese in the afternoon in Sask. until after the third weekend in Oct....then everyone can.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ken, think we were both a little goofed up on Sask. No res/nonres shooting hours difference as in Man., but some zones allow all to shoot whites all day right away. Also Sask. res get a two week head start on the dark geese.

Here's a good spot to check on the migratory regs for the various provinces:

http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publication ... ndex_e.cfm


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

Bob M said:
Restricting hunting opportunity hurts all of us and helps the guiding business, I say raise fees significantly (double )and get lots more Plots. I would be in favor of doubling the NR license fee if every nickel of it was for Plots and the 10 day restriction was lifted for upland hunters.

Or maybe make this an option.
Nr's that come from miles away, can go ahead and pay their $90 and hunt for a week or whatever, and for those of us who live in Moorhead, could pay more to hunt the entire season.

Wish their was resiprocity . Cootkiller, help me with the spelling on that one would ya :lol:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Another item that may need consideration in the legislative mix is tracking the amount of *non-registered unlicensed* fee hunting; that is private leaseing done without an outfitter. The commodity in question (ND game) is a state owned asset and needs to be tracked as to it's disposal and use for efficient regulation.

There are 122 posts and 4200 views at this point, leading me to believe there is high degree of interest in the subject from some of our friends. :wink:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Large outfitters impose zones on all sportsmen by leasing, the leased land being the zone. Zones by money. Large outfitters impose a lottery, by only allowing their own rich clients to harvst the state owned wildlife. Large outfitters impose caps by limiting the number of hunters in the leased area.

Obvisouly large outfitters are in favor of zones, lotteries, and caps. So North Dakota should comply with their wishes and give them zones, lotteries and caps. 
And remove the day lease option besides. Feed 'em what they feed us.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

That's an interesting view Dick...By leasing hundreds of thousands of acres they are putting in zones and only allowing a quota of people to use it.So they must be in favor of zones and caps.


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

complete ban on motorized decoys and lowering the duck limit to 3...

slot limit on DL...no 18-21"'s and one over 21


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

A slot on DL has been needed for years. I'm all for one!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

You know what, Capt Kevin has a great idea. ND uses the same waterfowl regs as South Dakota.


----------



## be_happy (Apr 2, 2004)

Wow, can non North Dakota join this forum ?

I'm from Malaysia.
Can I join your forum N see what's happening in North Dakota ?


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2004)

Hey fetch,good point. Why not bring upsomething else that has you concerned about the way the department of fish and game in NoDak works,or regulates N/R's??? :lol: Just giving you crap. I guess when I used to deer hunt we had a ton of zones in WI. You actually think we could huntlike that for waterfowl? Yeah, maybe we could now, but what happens in 30 years when there's 50 friggin zones???


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Fetch...the zones came from the GNF after our governor asked them to come up with something to spread out the NR hunters instead of using a cap as he did the year before.

For some reason the DL area must have been exempt because of all the political pressure from that area.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

The '03 waterfowl plan was a virtual carbon copy from a bill that was drafted late in the '03 session after 2048 was defeated. It was the creation of a legislator from the extreme NE I was told.

In addition to the ineffective and incomplete zoning, the bill contained a provision removing from statute the ability of the Governor to set caps (guess who didn't want the hot potato any more). We looked at the bill, didn't like it for a number of reasons and kept it from ever being introduced.

It then later resurfaced as the Governor's '03 waterfowl plan. It may have been sold as a G&F plan, but that's not where it got its start and that's not who was behind the stearing wheel.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

A surgeon makes his money doing surgery, what do ya call a Doctor that graduated at the bottom of his class? Doctor

Point being... a title can be very misleading.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Dan is exactly right on the manuvering behind that bill. What really interests me are the suggestions for limiting the role of G/O-Fee hunting. This is what is proposed so far in this topic for G/Os-Fee Hunting, and needs to be distilled down. I may have missed few and some are redundant, but I put one from Dan in *bold* and really like that one. In effect it knocks out leasing for hunting only. I'm not proposing this as a measure, but would make great policy and legislation.

Is it possible to limit the amount of acreage that can be leased by one outfit?

Are all fee hunting outfits required to report income to the GNF and Tax dept.?...including day leases.

Anyone who charges to hunt should not be able to recieve money from our GNF for depredation....like fencing materials to keep out deer...this bill failed last year...needs to be brought again.

G/O's should have to have written permission in possesion to guide on land they don't own.

Change the tax structure (increase taxes) for land purchased for hunting.

Hunting season hospitality tax, dedicated to NDGF for habitat in those counties. If they want the tourists, let them foot the bill for access.

Do we automatically give outfitters so many tags (big game)? If this is the case this should not be allowed. All tags should be placed in the lottery.

We check demand on NR's a bit (caps), check the o/g industry, and the rest takes care of itself, for the long-term benefit of nearly all.

The idea of giving G&O licenses is absurd. That in effect privatizes a public resource. The legislatively created monopoly of only giving out 1% of the previous years buck tags to nonresidents should benefit the GNF department and not private citizens. Give the monopoly profits to the Game and Fish which use the money to benefit everyone. I would believe you could plead a pretty strong case as the resource is owned by the public and not private citizens.

How about an outfitter-client license of $20 a head to go for PLOTS in the outfitters area? Have to have it to use an outfitter. 
Since hospitality wants the business so bad how about a tax on those communities for PLOTS in those counties?

Why not attempt to get something passed that would require the G/O's to reimburse the state for animals or birds taken by their clients? Their running a private business on YOUR resources. Can any of you sell items privately, that your local stores have on the shelves? Don't think so!!! So why should G/O's be able to sell what the residents of ND own??? Just a thought. Make it high enough, and your problem with the G/O's may be solved if they have to overprice their services to make ends meet......

Something worth talking about, but there's danger in such an approach too. Don't pretend to know the details, but I believe Mont. funds much of its public lands programs by issuing special, higher-priced tags to outfitters that are available through direct sales to the "sports" rather than the normal lottery process. This has made the o/g's even more powerful as they now have this license entitlement and have become an integral part of the public lands funding mechanism that Mont. is having a hard time weaning itself from. Several in Mont. now see that including o/g's as part of the solution has actually made matters worse. Without some pretty in depth consideration, I'd be a little careful about structuring any part of the solution based upon a contribution from the o/g's - may backfire in the end.

The public resource is being sold without compensation to the owner. So maybe tack on a dollar amount per individual animal, to be paid by the client who uses the outfitter service. Mr. Outfitter collects the money and sends it in to NDGF who then uses it for PLOTS. $30 per pheasant, etc. but only if the sportsman uses an outfitter. If he didn't send in the money it would be a violation of his outfitter license. Goodbye license.

We've t'eed this one up before, but has only been briefly touched on lately. If you're going the measure route, why stop at a per-bird tack-on? *Why not eliminate all o/g on land on which the o/g does not hold a majority interest? Unlike other areas of these issues where demographics play at least a fair amount into position, polls are pretty consistant among all demographics that the traditional o/g is not particularly popular.* Want to make a splash? That's your cannonball.

Another item that may need consideration in the legislative mix is tracking the amount of non-registered unlicensed fee hunting; that is private leaseing done without an outfitter. The commodity in question (ND game) is a state owned asset and needs to be tracked as to it's disposal and use for efficient regulation.

ZONES are the ANSWER !!! We have it for Deer & it could be easily adapted to NR's for Waterfowl & Upland - Just because a few movers & shakers don't like it - it still needs to be explored & done with what would be good for towns that want more NR's & how too many, all going to, too few areas affects waterfowl & where the better areas are already leased up


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I think there also needs to be a law saying that any land being leased for hunting should be posted that way with the name and phone # of the leasee on the poster.In other words...something like...

LEASED LAND

followed by the name and phone #


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Fetch said:


> Dan & I have recently had some private PM's & agreed we disagree with alot
> 
> & I decided to keep our posts public because I do not understand where he is coming from & he certainly does not understand or like where I'm coming from - I think we both have perspectives to offer & appeal to many in our own ways - He thinks I'm hurting the cause :roll: I think he may also be hurting the cause & is playing into what they(commercial sides & misguided Legislators want - compromise - & I worry we are starting from a already compromised position & our private talks just went from bad to worse :eyeroll:
> 
> ...


Do not start this Fetch. If you have disagreements with Dan, KEEP IT PRIVATE. Until you have any idea how much time was spent last session by people like Dan battling in the trenches, I think you should keep quiet because it'll do more harm than good.

You should be thankful that someone like Dan was willing to put in that amount of personal time, for the people of North Dakota to expect nothing in return. Give him _at least _that one ounce of respect.

*This thread has constructive purposes, and it's going to stay that way, so if you have a reply to this make it a pm.*


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

*This thread has constructive purposes, and it's going to stay that way, so if you have a reply to this make it a pm.*


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Fetch
You are clueless! I did not see you in Bismarck. What have you done other than jumping around on web pages acting like you know what's going on. You don't know jack! There are people who have spend countless hours behind the scenes meeting with legislators, sportsmen's groups and others to help save the great hunting in ND. This is all the time I will waste on you, there are more important things I do with my time. Sorry Chris had to be said.


----------



## mfeining (Nov 2, 2002)

Guys, please stop being so hard on Fetch. I think he has a passion for North Dakota's resources and I respect that. I have to admit, he doesn't like compromise, but we need a few like that too. I once got fed up when I was doing my 5 year sentence in Superior, Wisconsin and put a post on Lake Link.com asking Wisconsin residents to try to somehow preserve their fishing resource because the state it is in makes me ill. The webmaster e-mailed me telling me that my post got so many people worked up that it more than doubled any post's replies in the website's history. It eventually got too aggressive and was nixed. I was telling the truth and that caused an uproar. I'm sorry, but with 15,000 lakes, if any common sense is used, fishing has no reason to be anything but excellent there. Anyway, thanks Dick for another informative post. Ken, I think you're onto something with the poster with the info about leasing on it. It would be a huge wakeup call to both residents and nonresidents.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

:toofunny: ever heard of necesary opposition... don't ever leave the game Fetch.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Fetch said:


> Yeah one minute the etree is setting records for sign ups then the next Fetch is the problem :roll: - Thats OK I'm used to the Rodney Dangerfield routine :roll: :lol:


You just can't leave it alone can you. Grow up.



> This thread has constructive purposes, and it's going to stay that way, so if you have a reply to this make it a pm.


 :eyeroll:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

This may have already been done but has anyone put together a list of all of the ideas and tried to get a meeting with Gov. Hoven? Do we have any key legislators on our side and who are they? I am sure that the G/O's are not sitting around wringing their hands wondering what should I do! There are Many good Ideas on this issue, have we ever thought about chipping in a few bucks each, renting a conference room, inviting Game andFish, legislators and Gov. Hoven to a forum to discuss the issues. Maybe I am way off base here, but I feel that I have to do something otherwise hunting and fishing will be a sport for the rich people that can afford to hire an outfitter and write it off as an entertainment expense. Sorry if I have stepped on anyones toes, I joined this group to have a voice of more than one and I disagree with some of the comments on this subject that voting doesn't matter, voting is the only thing that does matter!


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Open Field,

That is exactly what we need. One large meeting centraly located so no one complains about being to far east or west. I am thinking maybe Hurdsfield. Have an open invitation for all politicians, sportsman, landowners and everyone interested in hunting, fishing, hiking and just exploring ND. We can come together and discuss any and all topics that we want.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

IF and I mean IF, you can get it done you better find a very large venue!! dd:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Dick,

Thanks for taking the time to gather the different ideas to curb commercial hunting in ND. It is a good list, and I hope that folks eventually use these to develop a strategy for the upcoming legislative season. This session is going to be heated, and we need an organized, intelligent effort to make any changes.

I think you know where I stand on some of these ideas. If somebody is selling access rights or profiting off of a public resource, the public should be compensated for use of that resource. Therefore, some fee (probably on a per-animal basis) needs to be levied. You did a good job of explaining this concept, and I agree with your logic. This doesn't prevent prohibit commercialization directly, it simply demands fair compensation for use of a resource. The key is to make the fee high enough that it matters, and finding a way to track the number of harvested animals to ensure that people file accurate records.

Second, if a landowner charges for access to his or her property (which is their right), we need to ensure that the money received for this is claimed as income and tax accordingly. Again, tracking of this to ensure accurate records is going to be a challenge. Also, as hunting access fees or hunting lease money reaches a certain level for a landowner, when is that enterprise a commercial business? Should we think about a different zoning requirements and/or commercial business licenses for agricultural lands that start being worth more as hunting property than agricultural uses? These zoning requirements could be linked to a different tax structure.

Neither one of these approaches is a direct restriction on landowner rights. They still give landowners the rights to charge access fees, lease their property to g/o companies, and the like. However, they will require that the public is compensated. Landowners will likely pass these monetary increases onto the leasee or party paying for access, and if we do it right, it should eventually curb commercialization.

You also mentioned an idea of a different tax structure for lands bought solely for hunting. I think we could do this by zoning it appropriately. Even though zoning is usually done at the county level, there could be state-level mandates on how to do so. If I understand my law correctly, a state-level mandate would hold counties to certain guidelines on how they zone property.

Last, many of these ideas are going to hinge on working with appropriate legislators and drafting quality bills. My experience with legislators is that they draft very few bills themselves. Instead they have an affected state agency write a bill for the legislator to carry forward, work off a bill written by a citizen, or have Legislative Counsel write a bill. My question: do we have anybody in Nodak Outdoors with appropriate legal experience to write bill language?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

BigDaddy
do an internet search with the phrase "legislative bill format" and you can learn all you need to know about the subject.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I cannot answer those question specifically yet. And may not be qualified to do so. The following things must be accomplished. In the '03 session there were great strides made in proactive legislation and in organizing hunters. Nodak was a big part of that and the ETREE was just getting off the ground. It has expanded greatly and needs to be developed further. If every hunter could get a couple more members on it we'd make hay. Do not assume that logic, reason, and good legislation will prevail. The legislature is like the twilight zone. Outfitters have the money, we have the votes. They hope you will not exersise your voting choice. But you will.
Commercialization cannot win without our negligance.

We must have a policy from the governor, whoever is elected, that is open and forth right. Who you elect for governor is a major part of the solution. Who you elect for legislators is the second part. The legislative scorecard shows their true colors. Like Dan said the votes must be in our pocket before hand, and to me that means before the election. In writing. Months before the election. Last go round a gentleman from Bismarck ran ads on a sportsman ticket, don't know if he was elected, but we will know *this* time. Some candidates are going to do the duck and dodge. Froelich is doing that, some of the other Fs too right now. We intend to shine a light in the bottom of that barrel. A very bright light.

DU, Delta, REMF, PF, and other clubs are habitat based organizations, more power to them. Habitat is important, but basing the future of hunting for the common man soley on habitat is a mistake now. I liken it to a vegitarian that is having supper with cannibals. He is going to have a hard night of it. Members of these organizations need to get on that ETREE and get involved when the time is right. All of us will need to get in that boat and pull an oar.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Dick Monson said:


> DU, Delta, REMF, PF, and other clubs are habitat based organizations, more power to them. Habitat is important, but basing the future of hunting for the common man soley on habitat is a mistake now. I liken it to a vegitarian that is having supper with cannibals. He is going to have a hard night of it. Members of these organizations need to get on that ETREE and get involved when the time is right. All of us will need to get in that boat and pull an oar.


It is more dangerous to base the future of hunting on access than habitat though. How much game do you find on a piece of PLOTS land that has been completely hayed off.

The mission of orgaanizations like DU, Delta, RMEF, PF, and others is to ensure the future of elk, ducks, pheasants and other wildlife and their habitat. Being able to increase huntable populations of game is a benefit of their actions, not the reason they exist. Many of their contributors are non-hunters and enjoy the game for another reason.

If the CRP changes dramatically when the current contracts expire you'll probably see an increase in access in a great number of areas. The only problem will be those areas won't have much game on them anymore, no one will hunt them, so there will be no need to control access.

I lived in Dickinson in the 1980's and there was awfully good pheasant hunting in selected areas then, but nothing like it is now. The reason for the difference is due to the increase in habitat (CRP mainly) and a cooperating Mother Nature.

Work on the access yes, but always be thinking HABITAT, HABITAT, HABITAT! I know you do but others need to understand that message as well.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

rl, habitat is very important, extremely important. But for hunters to believe that attending a banquet is enough involvement in hunting issues to secure the future of that heritage is a big mistake. They will be like early Christians in the arena. When CRP comes up in '07 1/3 of the acres in ND are set to expire. Another 1/3 goes out soon after. With the record deficet I doubt very much the funding will be there for re-enrollment. In the last signup almost nothing went in. Pull out that first million acres and competition will only get more fierce for access. What is the worst case that would come from involement? The matching of predation (human) with the resource.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

BigDaddy said:


> Second, if a landowner charges for access to his or her property (which is their right), we need to ensure that the money received for this is claimed as income and tax accordingly. Again, tracking of this to ensure accurate records is going to be a challenge.
> 
> 
> > This is a real pet peeve with me, especially as a retailer, and I would like to see it expanded to include the sales tax not payed by people that shop on the internet or by catalog. We should station state tax people at UPS and the Post Office to collect the tax that people are not paying or check their income tax forms to see if it is included there.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

rl, I must respectfully disagree that more habitat, while very important, will correct the situation we are now in. With CRP acres set for release habitat is poised to crumble. There will only be a stronger incentive for commercials to gobble up remaining parcels by leasing. The more productive the habitat, the more likely commercials will have it, or saturate the market around it. Our habitat may be the best it has ever been right now, and there is less access than ever before due to more posting caused by increased hunter pressure. I have never met a farmer who posted his land because there were too few hunters.

Nor will access alone solve the problems of overcrowding. A finely tuned effort of involvement in the issues, a preemptive effort is needed now. We sportsmen have neglected our politcal power. Time to exercise those muscles. Also Dan's statement of prepareing strong defense efforts this next session is extremely important. The opposition is not sitting still.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Dick,

I did not mean to say that more habitat would correct the present situation and sorry if I wasn't clear in my message.

What I meant to say was ,that while increasing access is important, I believe that increasing habitat is more important to the overall equation when wanting to have game to hunt.

You're right about habitat and the commercial interests. I had a piece of property that I diligently worked to improve tha habitat. I did such a good job imporving game in the area that a neighboring landowner opened a pay to hunt operation. The property was only 1/2 section, but very productive and secluded, and I did not get to it as often as I thought I would. To make a long story short I finally sold the property to the SOB because I couldn't keep him and his paying guests off the property to make use of it for myself. Nothing worse than driving up to your own property and being told by 4 guys that you can't hunt here because they had already paid Rancher Smith to hunt there that day.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

rl, I understand you now. Little slow on my part. The tragedity is that if Mr Smith was a commercial outfitter, his license would be pulled for that infraction. If he is outfitting on his own land it is only trespass violation by using your property. There is no leverage on him. The trespass fine would be far smaller than the income from his guided hunts. It pays for him to break the law. Would you support the proposal limiting all outfitters to property where they have a majority interest?


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Dick,

It happended several years ago before all the electronic conveniences we have today and was too much of a hassle to deal with so it was easier to eliminate the problem and move on.

I don't know if the entrepreneur in me would be able to support limiting someone in a capitalistic endeavor. Although that is the typical method of dealing with it, government control and regulation.

I would probably be able to support limiting new outfitters but don't think it is fair to change the game after people started. I think that would be like telling Walmart that they can only sell items from companies they own after they built a new store.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

I am a natural born North Dakotan, lived here all my life and now have just finished graduate school. I was lucky enough to land a job with the State and will luckily be able to stay here (for awhile) and enjoy the great multitude of hunitng opportunities that we take advantage of here year in and year out. 
But noticeably since I have grown up there has been a huge reduction in the amount of land that is now open to not just non-resident hunters, but resident hunters. I have watched as many of our old haunts are being bought up or leased out to people from all over the state and the nation. I am lucky enough to have relatives that own land and grace me with the use of their land in the Fall in return for a few hard-labored weekends of work. 
My point here is that we seem to be so worried about who's rights are being violated that as hunters and landowners we are countinually at odds. This continued pushing has allowed both sides to both gain and lose at the same time. It is time for us all to begin to work together and pass legislation that will be a win-win situation so that we can continue the heritage that was passed to me by my father and you from yours. This includes also your great heritage (landowners) that in some cases has spanned multiple generations. 
Specifically we need to find a way to keep farmers from being lured into contracts to where they lose control of their lands and its rights by outside investors. This not only drives up legitimate farmers land prices forcing them to buy land that is outragously over-priced to sustain their business but it allows people who do not understand this delicate balance to disrupt it and cause greater financial problems. 
There must be a way to offset this by increasing liscense fees for out of state hunting or another form of financing. Can any non-resident not feal embarressed by arguing that it is dirt cheap to hunt in North Dakota. If they would I would tell them, please move here and contribute to this great state and earn the right to harvest its game. 
These though are just a few thoughts of a young man that knows not a thing except that what we have is being lost, and at the cost of those that appreciate it and earn the right to have it by supporting this state through work and taxes. I do not exclude the farmers who have helped to create and maintain the lands we use, they may deserve the most credit of all.

A Kid


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

ndk, anyone who can write like that is not a kid. Would make a good letter to the editor. http://newslink.org/ndnews.html 
All sportsmen who were in the battle last session went with a genuine intent to compromise. The commercial hunting boys however, thought that a compromise was to dip us in gas and light us on fire. :******: We learned a lot. The battle is fought before you get there. Get the politicans educated before hand. Businessmen and the public too. Have bills written with support and appeal in mind. Get involved. Get on the ETREE. Are you on the ERTEE by the way?


----------



## Griz (Sep 24, 2003)

If I were a resident hunter in North Dakota I would focus my political energies on limiting the growth of guiding and outfitting within the state. This "industry" is a far greater threat to your hunting traditions than any feral NR you have encountered afield. Why you ask? Because it is motivated by profit, pure and simple. Nothing wrong with capitalism, but it tends to interfere with the intrinsic values we treasure in waterfowling and hunting in general. I have spent most of my life in Okla/Texas and watched the opportunities for Res/Non-res hunters become increasingly limited by big operations that have gobbled up vast private acreages and run roughshod over public lands. It has poisoned many locals against hunters altogether and run the average joe out of the market where he can't even think about taking his boy out for a day of hunting for less than $300. Like any business, 80% of the "companies" are legit, but the other 20% could give a tinker's damn about reputation or repeat business. At the end of the day, they are paid to produce and when they charge serious coin for a day's hunt, the client expects to kill (even if he can't shoot).
The offshoot of all this is that the wealthier folks are buying up the last best places either individually or through partnerships and locking out everyone that isn't a blood relative or toting a big checkbook. The remaining public opportunities are overcrowded/overhunted and just plain unenjoyable in many cases.
Growing up in Oklahoma 30 years ago, I never thought this would have happened as you could knock on doors and get all the free access you wanted if you were courteous and respectful. I felt like I had gone back in time last year when I hunted NoDak for the first time and I thank all of you for your hospitality. I also told my buddy that it wasn't going to last much longer after we ran into a local "guide" with a group from Chicago in tow who was grilling me for info on where we hunted that day. I could see in his face something I had seen years ago in the rice country of Texas before it too was ruined by commercial operators.

I hope for your sake that I am wrong - the financial promise that guides will provide small communities is short-lived and can not be undone once the process starts to unfold.


----------

