# Letter to ND legislators - Scheels All Sports



## H2OfowlND (Feb 10, 2003)

This is a letter written by Steve Scheel of Scheels All Sports to North Dakota legislators. (This letter does NOT reflect my personal views-H2OfowlND- in anyway. I am just passing on information that should be known)

December 2002
RE: Non-Resident Hunter Issue

I have been working with the managers of our 6 North Dakota stores, trying to get numbers that are close, and today we are confident that our Scheels stores in Bismarck, Minot, Grand Forks and Fargo do in excess of $2,500,000, annually with non-resident hunters and the guide and outfitters that supply them. As you can see, it is a huge amount this number grows each year. We feel the non-resident is 10-15% of our business in Minot, 15-20% of our business in Grand Forks and Fargo, and 30-40% of our hunting and related business in Bismarck. It is not unusual for a group of 4 non-residents to spend $2500 before the hunt, and $500 after the hunt on their way home.

Scheels employs over 700 people in North Dakota and we rely on this non-resident hunter for a significant portion of our business in the fall. I would urge you to support no further restrictions on the non-resident hunters. While we would like unlimited licenses, we can live with the limit of 30,000 on waterfowl and we can understand the early season for residents only, but would urge no further restrictions on the number of hunters or the periods when they are allowed to hunt. Nationally, there are fewer and fewer hunters and the demographics in North Dakota mean less resident hunters every year. We need the revenue from the non-residents just to hold us even.

There are a couple of other points on this issue:
1.	The license fees could be more expensive by at least $50 a license. 50,000 @ $50 = $2,500,000 and this could be used for more habitat. It is a standing joke for many that the license costs less than the booze! These people fly in or drive in, in a $35,000 SUV and $5000 worth of gear. 98% would pay $50 more without blinking. The typical elk hunter pays $650 in Montana and these bird hunters like to hunt birds as much as the elk hunter likes to hunt elk. Raise the fee and plant more habitat.

2.	It would sure help if they had to buy their licenses at a North Dakota retailer. More and more hunters buy their licenses online and this keeps them out of the store in some cases. They spend huge amounts when they get in our stores and they see all we have to offer. This would be a huge boost to retail business throughout the state. Computers would easily allow us to cut license sales off at a pre-determined limit.

Thanks for your time! The 700 North Dakota Scheels associates certainly hope there are no further restrictions on non-resident hunters who help pay their salaries. $2.5 million pays a whole lot of paychecks.

Most Sincerely, 
Steve Scheel
SDS:mjj


----------



## SiouxperDave (Sep 3, 2002)

That's a very good letter.


----------



## GOOSEPIG (Dec 17, 2002)

This letter shows just how much any further restrictions on NR's can hurt us as a State that is losing what we have to offer already.I suppose now some of you will come up with the brilliant idea of boycotting this buissness also. :roll: I believe some people would cut off their own nose to spite their face.What is being said is that we keep pushing our own state into poverty just to satisfy our own needs.Any further restrictions on NR's is only going to hurt us as a state.This is a great letter showing the facts of a buissness that needs our support in helping them keep their doors open by not taking their buissness away for our own greed.WELL SAID STEVE!!!!!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

This only reflects a retailer point of view and I would like to challenge them on the percentage of total business. I fully understand the thought process of writing this letter however it may very well cause Scheels to lose business if the Resident hunter finds someplace else to spend his or her money for shells and guns and fishing lures etc.. We are being told once again that the wildlife of the state should be for sale. I also would be willing to bet that this does not reflect the feeling of his 700 employee's if they could speak without fear of reprisal.

I had a thought in reading the letter, maybe we should leave the licence fee as is but require the nonresident to go to Scheels and buy tags for the birds they shoot and then go back to Scheels and have an employee verify the tags this way Scheels can have them stop coming and going.Use the money from tags to buy or lease habitat and then the state could buy the seed from Scheels for the habitat.

Goosepig this letter shows why Guides, Outfitters and nonresidents need to be limited.Those that are benefiting are not the rural communities when that money is spent in Fargo OR Grand Forks, or Bismarck. Towns like Wing Or Linton Or Kulm or Sheyenne see no benefit. Have a outfitter lease up 100,000 acres around each small town and see how much money will be spent in those towns by freelance hunters. Very little money will come into the local community from guides and their customers. This letter states that guides and outfitters are a big customer, if you think that this will help our rural businesses why are they buying at Scheels, instead of the local Ace Hardware they have access to just about the same line of products that Scheels carry. I have the order books to prove it. Your posts point to greed more than anything else that I have seen on this site. I believe you chose a very self discriptive sceen name.

Look at the amount of money that he claims these hunters are spending. This is not reflective of the freelance hunter, resident or nonresident which is 95% of all hunters. Short of buying a new gun or high end optics I would be surprised to find the majority of hunters spending $2500.00 on gear and shells every year.

SouixperDave I was not sure if you agreed with what was written or just commenting on the letter.

I just do not understand the thought process of the retailers thinking that we have unlimited supplies of wildlife and that they should be the ones benefiting from this resource. When did Scheels sponsor a wetland reclamation project. I do know that most of the donations that they do are underwritten by the manufacturer's. Sorry I rambled just a little peeved tonight.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I would NOT advocate a boycott, and Steve's letter does a good job of highlighting the seasonal benefits of nonresident hunters. But, I think as more sportspersons are getting actively involved in this process during the session, it's becomming more and more apparent just how many people have chosen to call ND home in large part because of quality hunting. It's quality hunting that causes us to pass on higher salaries and other neat things elsewhere. If some of us leave or don't move back because we become like Texas where the average person has no real opportunity to access quality hunting, this will also impact ND. Wouldn't take many lost residents (current and future, and their families) and their 365 day spending to offset the seasonal spending (4-6 days) of an aweful lot of nonresidents. Unless you believe that quality hunting kept and drew many of us to ND, you will never see any reason for compromise on these issues.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dan you are right I am not advocating a boycott, what I should have said is let Steve at Scheels know that our wildlife should not be for sale. I am very disturbed by the tone of things in Bismarck and to have one of the states larger employers make these statements unchallenged will have a huge impact on Reps. and Sen. in Bismarck.

I am very passonate on these issues as are many on this site. I try to look at things pragmaticly but emotions run over sometimes. I apologize if I have rambled a bit I wish I had paid more attention in Creative writing.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

I generally dont get into discussion on the hot topics page, but felt I had to respond to GP comments. Setting a limit on NR hunters based on what the resource can handle(such as the HPC) isnt going to push ND into poverty, and if it does then I take pity on rural ND when the next dry cycle comes.

This is one subject that I dont understand hasnt been brought up much, or at least I haven't heard much talk about, the dry cycle. I think it is common sense to anticipate dry years in the future, ND runs on wet and dry cycles.

What happens to the rural communities when there are no ducks around due to lack of water?

Now that ag business cant support rural communities(this is the feeling I am getting from those who oppose a cap), hunters are expected to help small communities survive? That is great, as long as their are ducks. What happens when the next dry cycle arrives? NR hunters wont want to come if their is no resource, resident hunters will be limited due to leasing and outfitters, rural businesses will fold, and everntually ND will be made up of about 50-75 communities. Obviously I am being facetious, but when this period happens, resident money will be the majority of the hunter expenditures in rural communities.

The past has only proven that ND runs on wet and dry cycles, and the number of licenses issued to NR mimics the water levels of ND: when there is water and resource(waterfowl) there is plentiful NR hunters, and vice versa.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

What do they put back for Wildlife & Habitat & to be honest they are not real knowledgeable Hunters. Their into sales & profits more than the outdoors. :roll:

All this wealth & Commercialization of Hunting & Fishing needs to be regulated - with the average family & Resident of ND in mind. (plus the average NR won't have a chance) - You let $$$ be the deciding factor in all this - Then ND will become another Arkansas. With mostly leases & Pay to hunt & overcrowded Public places (that won't be worth hunting).

Like I have said before - Why won't most of our better workers & educated young people - go else where & come back & take advantage of ND for a week or two. Is that true economic development ???

We will waste away & ruin valuable resources - for a few bucks, for a few weeks a year :eyeroll:

Remember those #'s & $$$ are because of current & past laws in ND & the demand is because of the quality & past opportunity - Change everything to favor Guides & Outfitters & pay to hunt NR's (the small minority) Will as many NR Freelance hunters want to come in the future ???

They need to poll their customers & learn who really spends money at their stores - I'd bet it's not the commercial sides of all this like they think :******:


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Shop at Scheels where our motto is: "Screw the resources and resident hunters, show us the money!!!!!" :eyeroll:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

And the fact that no one yet has said a word about the off season....summer, etc. when the residents are spending money on kids soccer shoes, dads basketball shoes, paint at the scheels hardware store, a lawnmower, a snow blower....you get the point. I guess I was really turned off by this letter and although I do not advocate a boycott, I will look for the best deal, where as before I just bought locally. Online is usually cheaper for a lot of this stuff. I won't feel as obliged to buy from them as I have been in the past. I doubt that a multi million dollar corporation will suffer because of my couple of thousand dollars a year loss of business, but I will certainly feel better about giving it to someone else!
I, Muskat have also been spouting about the next dry cycle. Where will all the money come from then.... I think that we will be the ones that will be still tossing money around. Not near as many out of staters will come for only a few ducks....only the hard cores will be back then!!


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

I would have to question Scheel's estimate of NR expenditures at their stores. I have been hunting in North Dakota since 1975 and have stopped at a Scheels store once! That was to buy a snow goose tape a couple of years ago on the way out to Jamestown. I can't believe an average NR would spend anywhere close to what Scheels is claiming. We stock up with all of our stuff at Gander Mountain or Fleet Farm here in the Twin Cities before we go. And, that is mostly ammunition.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

I'm with you Quack.
This letter won't change my shopping habits in the slightest. That place always has been, and will continue to be, the very very very last option.

M.


----------



## ND Gander (Jul 9, 2002)

Perry:
How is it that you alway say you spend so much $ in ND when you make a post that says you stock up on every thing in the Cities. Here I thought the freelancer is such a big impact on the economy. I for one like Scheels and spend my share. Steve has a right to voice his opinion like any one else. Ask any wildlife group on how much Scheel's donates to clubs, DU, PF, etc. and you will find a great company that cares about ND. Scheels is just one of many companys that make money from hunters. Dakota Country is not much different as far as profiting from wildlife.


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

> Scheels is just one of many companys that make money from hunters. Dakota Country is not much different as far as profiting from wildlife.


There is a difference in that Bill Mitzel of Dakota Country spoke at Bismarck about protecting the resource, and Steve S. is writing letters for selling it. So they are on opposite opinions.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I spoke in a previous post that most of the donations from Scheels are done thru teh Mfg. in advertiseing expence and other promotions very little is lost by them in helping DU or Delta or any national organization. This is also true for local outdoor groups and organiztions, the amount of dollars contributed are based on memberships or activity participants.

Steve has the right to speak his piece, but misses the point that they are profiting from a natrual resource without any finacial input to help maintain its numbers or quaility. This letter shows the ignorance of the non-hunting and the finacially well off hunter that has not had to do any one on one request for access. Just write the check and you can have all of the resources you want.

I have also been talking about mother natures role in all of this and the freelance hunter resident and nonresident will be left holding the bag.


----------



## jlang (Oct 20, 2002)

An interesting twist. In my small town, rural ND, there are two sporting goods stores that sell other merchandise too. *BOTH OF THESE SMALL TOWN STORES WROTE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR RESIDENT HUNTERS AND HAVE CONTACTED THEIR LEGISLATORS IN THAT REGARD.* I was spending my money in the right place.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Bill Mitzel (Dakota Country Mag.) spoke in favor at senate hearing on SB2048 HPC.At a risk of looseing advertizers.He is a true friend of the resident hunter.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

ND Gander,

I don't believe that I have ever said that I spend a lot of money in ND on equipment in any of my posts or stories that I have written. I tell about how much I enjoy the experience, not how much money I spend there on supplies. You must have me confused with someone else. All the equipment I have bought has been outside ND, online, or by catalogue.

I don't have any problems with Scheels. They have really nice stores. I was very impressed the one time I went in there. It's just that when we go to North Dakota, we don't have time to go shopping at Scheels on our way there. We are trying to get to our hunting grounds as fast as possible so that we can begin our scouting. If other NRs are like our group, they have their equipment and will not be buying much, if anything, at Scheels.

Now, once we get to our destination, that is another matter. We buy a tank a day of gas, sandwiches, beer and pop, and take our hosts to the restaurant in town one or two nights that we are there. Scheels doesn't get any of that money.


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

Henry Ford's philosophy was to build a car that his employees could afford to buy. I wonder how many Scheels employees could or would be able to afford hunting with a guide or on leased land.

My statistics professor in college used to jest about how numbers and statistics were always thrown around as absolute facts, when in reality they are sometimes pretty objective. I think that a careful review of Steve Scheels numbers would show that $2500/group is probably not close to the average.


----------



## H2OfowlND (Feb 10, 2003)

GOOSEPIG...how long have you been a guide for SHELDON SCHLECT in STREETER, ND??? Just thought that would be a helpful piece of info that some people on this site would like to know about you. No wonder why you don't want any restrictions on non-residents since you already have access to over 100.000 acres of private land already, and you also hunt unposted private land too...hhmmmm...doesn't quite add up does it?? Just my thoughts.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

MRN,

I would hate to guess how much money I have spent at Scheel's on everything from reloading supplies, hockey equipment, guns, shoes, X-landr blinds to Chapstick & jerky seasoning. My policy has been to shop them first, even though I hold a Cabela's Visa. Prior to moving to Nodak, I would hit the one in Sioux Falls whenever possible and that's where I got my Benelli 

Now that I know that Scheel's policy is to support any natural resource policy that appears to help their bottom line (regardless of the impact it has on their resident hunter customer base), I will think twice about where I spend my money. The letter states that $2.5 million pays a lot of salaries. While I have no idea what their annual revenue is, $2.5 million must be a small percentage of their take or they wouldn't be able to afford the super-store they are putting up in Fargo. Gee, wonder where the rest of that revenue comes from . . . . :eyeroll:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Scheels knows that most people are not going to stop buying from them over this letter. There's a convenience factor in buying items right in your own backyard. It shouldn't stop people however, from letting them know they think they should look at the whole picture. I wonder how many of the NRs they are refering to are from MN or specifically Moorhead. After looking through expenditures to Scheels over the last 2 years, Sports shoes and Boots, Waders, Shells and Bullets, Hunting clothes, a blind and camo burlap, Rifle, shotguns, Decoys, Hunting Videos, Fishing, Ice Fising, Electronic caller, Sweatshirts, Socks, Binoculars, Ski's, Wakeboard, Kneeboard, Ropes, Water Tubes, Tennis Racket and balls, Golf Balls, and various gifts purchased for family, friends and farmers, Id like them to know I've contributed to their bottom line in the last two years...to the tune of about $7000.00 (1 person). As a contradiction to one of my previous posts, maybe a trip or two to Cabelas or Walmart might be in order.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

Maybe someone should post a picture of Mr. Scheel's house and that will let you know how bad he is hurting and why we should continue the nr traffic to ND...he is no different than your average guide and outfitter, simply looking after his greedy way. Pad his own pocket at anyone and everyone's expense. You can decide if that is the kind of guy you want to be doing your business with.


----------



## CityHunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Im shocked I grew up down the street from a scheels store and spent more money there than i want to admit and now I read this.I agree that a boycott is a waste of time and let every man make his own decision.I for one are done at scheels.What a shame.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

It won't do any good unless you go in and tell them why.I know the manager at the Minot Scheels and I am going to print off the letter and take it with me the next time I go there.


----------



## HuntnLab (Jan 24, 2003)

I too agree, i don't even want to think about how much I have spent in Scheels. Mr. Scheels really ticked me off even when he took out that big add in the Forum about banning the damn lottery as well, no I read that letter on here I am done shopping there, now when I need any future hunting supplies I think I will spend the extra money and drive to GF and hit Cabelas, or use the catalog or go online. We are but a small percentage of vioces on here but I think if everyone else knew of this letter there would be a far bigger outcry and boycott on Scheels. Hope I am not alone on these feelings.


----------



## SiouxperDave (Sep 3, 2002)

Steve's letter will have no effect on me shopping at Scheels. He's doing what he feels is best for HIS business. I'm guessing every business owner in the U.S. is doing the same. It's no different than Chris letting all of the whining and complaining continue on his website. I'm sure a lot of people are turned off by it and won't join for that reason. He may be losing potential paying members but that's his prerogative.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Chis that would be a letter to send to our elected officals along with the emails of support.

I listen to Eddy everyday[ office choice ]and a very thoughtful concerned listener ask him to do a open forum concerning all the hunting related bills that affect 1 out of 5 people. We need to gather some free air time if possible. I would hope you and Dan or Dick and a number of other MAJORITY posters would be able to participate.

Thank you for a truley uncensored site to share and discuss our views. I thinChis this would be a letter to send to our elected officals along with the emails of support. I listen to Eddy everyday[ office choice ]and a very thoughtful concerned listener ask him to do a open forum concerning all the hunting related bills that affect 1 out of 5 people. We need to gather some free air time if possible. I would hope you and Dan or Dick and a number of other MAJORITY posters would be able to participate.
k that the cost of membership is low in comparison to other expendatures we make in our outdoor pusuits. Those that are guests think about supporting the continuation of free uncensored speech.

Ron


----------



## SiouxperDave (Sep 3, 2002)

Chris, It appears that you didn't take the post the way I meant it. I didn't mean it as an insult, I meant it as a compliment. You own the site and can do whatever you want with it. It that ****** off people, so be it. As you said, it's impossible to keep everyone happy.

I don't always agree with everything that's posted, but I support your effort and desire. If I didn't, I wouldn't have joined.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Jlang,
Please post which stores these are. I am sure many like me will go out of our way to support these folks in return. I don't need anything so badly to support an establishment so antagonistic.

I'll bet these folks won't give me a chorus of forced/ fake "hello" when I walk in either. I'll bet it'll be genuine.

M.


----------



## ND decoy (Feb 1, 2003)

Capital Tool and Hardware in Mandan is one of the stores that we should support. Darren (the owner) has come to G&F meetings and others to voice his support for the residents of this state. He is one of the few that I have seen that has put his money where his mouth is. They also have a better selection of waterfowl hunting gear than scheels does and people there that know what there talking about.


----------



## grandpa (Oct 18, 2002)

I don't make many posts--but I had to respond to this topic.

I only live a block away and have spent thousnands of $ at scheel's over my 50 years of doing business with them.

Fleet Farm looks a lot closer today.

Chris
think we can get the red head to give all of us some time ?


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

The last gun I boughtwas a Beretta ou. I was going to buy one at Scheels. A friend of mine was looking for one also. We called Reeds sporting goods in walker Minn. Their price was 150 less than Scheels and they threw in a case of Fiocchi trap loads If your buying guns give Reeds a call. They are great people. I will buy no more big ticket items from Scheels. If I need a box of fish hooks I will go there. But no more big money spent there.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Yes jlang, I would go out of my way to frequent those stores.... I will do much more "shopping around" than before!!


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Hey Grandpa,

I kinda doubt that we'll get any time with red...feel free to give it a shot though!!!


----------



## HuntnLab (Jan 24, 2003)

Old Hunter, Fleet is even cheeper and just about as good a selection of fish hooks. :lol:


----------



## DAKOTAKID (Oct 20, 2002)

THE REEDS STORE WILL BE AT THE SPORTSMAN SHOW IN 2 WEEKS AT THE FARGO DOME! I WOULD LIKE TO SAVE SOME MONEY SCHEELS IS TO EXPENSIVE I DO ALL MY SHOPPING AT MILLSFLEET FARM.I WOULD BE GLAD TO SPEND MY MONEY IN MN. I THINK THAT SCHEELS WILL DO ANYTHING FOR SALES! I MEAN ANYTHING FOR SALES. MY BEST FRIEND WORKS FOR THE FARGO STORE AND HE SAID:" WE ARE HERE TO SELL SO KISS BUTT AND LIE IF YOU HAVE TOO!" THEY WONT LEAVE A GUY ALONE IN THAT STORE. SALES! SALES! SALES!


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

It is too bad that some of you don't at least respect Mr. Scheels opinion. He is actually more on your side than alot of people are. His organization actually wants no limits but will compromise on the 30,000. I don't agree with that but I sure am not going to take my ball and go home because he doesn't agree with me!!!!!!!!
He makes a good point about our lessening population base and the need to replace those hunters. Those of you who are going to go out of state or to catalogs for your purchaes because of this letter, don't understand the real world. Those who have threatened to go out of state ( not those who have said they will shop elsewhere in the state ) should really think about what you are saying. If you actually take your dollars out of state you are going to help lower the available sales tax dollars to the state of ND. This will be very counterproductive and hurt your state.
I know for a fact that Scheels does donate thousands and thousands of real dollars to all the sportsmen and women of ND. They are a huge contibutor to the resource of our state and should not be criticized for this at all. Please check your facts on this donation point before commenting any further. Oh, and remeber, they also donate to mostly YOUTH activities and this is one of the arguments I hear most about this issue is the YOUTH. So be careful to call names ect. Hear his and others opinions and state yours. This is America and we can all agree or disagree but by no means should we trash each other over an opinion. 
Why has no one come up with a cure for the $80,000,000 in lost sales we will lose if there is a cap on NR's? That equates to $4,000,000 in lost sales tax revenue to the state!!!! Where will the replacement dollars come from? Sounds like with a cap we will have to pay higher taxes and thus less spendable dollars for our recreations. Might want to re-think the cap issue?????????????? Or is it an access issue as stated earlier from Vermont.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

That is exactly your problem econ 101, as your name indicates, you are more concerned about $$$ than actually protecting the resource. How are we going to make up that money by limiting non-res? By insuring the non-residents will come back year after year and in the long run, you and your money grubbing industry will actually be better off. I know that is asking a lot of you to try to actually look into the future instead of making sure your pocket is as full as possible today.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Econ, I'll actually take a little different approach than Frosty to try and answer your question.

First, where did you get your figure of loosing $80,000,000? If memory serves, the economic impact from expenditures by all nonresident waterfowlers isn't even close to that number? But more important, HPC wouldn't put a road-block up at the border - something like 75-80% of the nonresidents would have hunted this year under HPC. The people pushing hard against caps often paint this issue as black and white, as if reasonable caps will somehow keep ALL nonresidents and ALL of their economic impact out.

And something that hasn't been mentioned much - some in waterfowl commerce (especially up in your area, Econ) complained last year that our licensing system caused a lower functional cap than the actual cap, on the theory that a large percentage of nonresident pheasant hunters bought waterfowl stamps "just in case" they ran into a duck in Hettinger county. I personally don't think that was much of an issue, but it sure was portrayed as one by some last fall. By virtue of splitting the licenses under 1358, commerce can be better assured they will have only true waterfowl hunters buying waterfowl tags. So if the others were right, and I was wrong, commerce will get an automatic bump because the cap number will be filled only by true waterfowlers, not by some who are really only pheasant hunting and just buy a throw-in waterfowl tag for $10. If they're right, we'd have a significant percentage more nonresident waterfowlers with the same number of waterfowl licenses.

Even with this adjustment, yes, HPC will in some years mean less licenses sold than could have been (afterall, that's the point), and a corresponding loss in several millions of dollars of seasonal economic impact. But, at the risk of triggering your standard "pick up your toys and go home" comment, lots of us would not be in ND right now if not because of the quality hunting that existed up to a few short years ago. If ND can no longer keep and draw thousands (even a few thousand) people (remember, not just hunters, but their families too) that have traded more money, better weather, more cultural activities or whatever else to be close to quality hunting, how will that impact the ND economy?

Don't think we'll ever convince you of the fact that many of us wrestled and continue to wrestle with tough decisions on where to live, and that the ND outdoors tipped and will tip the balance. And, if you don't accept that, you'll never fully understand the full value of the hunting asset to ND, and the need to balance fall dollars with year-round dollars. Just as it makes no sense to keep all nonresidents out, it makes no sense to think you can let them all in without consequences to year-round expenditures.

The heritage arguments alone are strong, but even from an economic analysis, there needs to be some balance to get the most out of one of ND's most valuable assets. Not whiney, greedy, juvenile or immature, just fact.

By the way, I don't hold Steve's letter against him. He's got his views on the issue, and mine are a little different. I agree, not the least bit good for ND if ND's send money out of state (also no good for ND to maximize fall dollars at the expense of year-round dollars). Steve's letter won't cause me to send money out of state that I would otherwise spend at his store.


----------



## northwind (Feb 8, 2003)

After seeing these comments I think the hunters and especially those on this web site should continue and even expand their ideas to other projects to help the economy of North Dakota. Since the residents spend so much more than non-residents I think they should use this clout in the following manners.

They should limit the size of any new retail store. Or maybe just limit the number of new retail stores. Or maybe limit the number of out of state customers any retail store may service. This would also result in better access, shorter checkout lines, and improved availability of product. As they become successful in this they can branch out to include limiting the same things for restaurants, manufacturers, bars, and anything else they could regulate.

This sounds silly to hunters but probably not any sillier than limiting non-resident hunters appears to non-hunters which make of the majority of the shrinking population of North Dakota.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

So Northwind (I'm one of the 50 year old-imature hunters) That has hunted all of ND for over 35 years the last 25 anywhere from 30 to 40 days per season.

I'm not so sure you have went back & read how we feel & our ideas towards NR's.

Do you think it should just be a free for all ??? No management or regulations ???

& we should trust our Legislature (which has even a smaller % of Hunters) than the average of Hunters to Residents. That are constantly being lobbied by for profit folks that could careless about what the laws are now or have been. - That constantly are trying to change the laws & divide & drive a wedge between Residents Hunters & Non-Residents & Landowners & Small towns ??? (It's good SPIN & Politics for them & has been working) Sounds to me you have fell hook line & sinker for their tactics. - But remember they (the commercial for profit guides & outfitters) that promote this kind of politics - cater to less than 5% of the hunters that come to ND.

Most (that other 95%) want to & do Freelance. They are the ones that are welcome & needed & spend the most money in ND. But there has to be management & controls. Ways to spread them out & not let them all come at the same time in unlimited #'s

If you are a thinking person & really like (or love) what ND has - you will see the light & see we are the only ones trying to find win -win ways to keep it as special as it's been.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

Northwind, I dont think that you see the big picture here. We are trying to ensure a quality hunt for both Res and Non-Res alike.

Your post had a bunch of refernces and examples towards economics, with no reference to the resource. A better example would be a Minnesota Vikings football game. The capacity of HHH Metrodome is around 65 thousand. It would be good economics to sell tickets for 100 thousand, wouldnt it? That would create more revenue, but wait, theres a problem! The capacicty of the stadium is only 65 thousand, not unlike the availability of the resource in ND, ITS NOT UNLIMITED. Although many people(commercial interests) would lead everyone to believe that it is an unlimited resource, and that the greedy resident hunters want it all for themselves, this is not the case. More hunters=more pressure=early departure of ducks and geese=not a quality hunt if you plan your trip around the later half of the season.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Northwind, let's try another analogy, and see if it hits home. In the West, water and water rights are a premium. Let's say NM offered to buy some water from CO. For CO, selling that water means that it's unavailable for future residential and commercial development. CO would have to do a cost/benefit analysis to determine if the immediate gains from selling the water exceed the opportunity cost of future development lost, because you can't both sell the water AND have it available for future use.

CO has three choices. 1. Sell the water and know that the resource isn't available for its own economic development. 2. Sell some of the water, because for the foreseeable future, there's enough to sell and support reasonably anticipated development. 3. Keep the all water because it's needed to support in-state development.

You're a "best of both worlds" guy - live some place where you can maximize your earnings, and then sample the outdoors from time to time here and there. Many of us are a "one-world" guys, where the opportunity to take a day off in the middle of the week, play hooky with our kids for a morning shoot, knock off at 2:00 for an afternoon shoot, or otherwise have opportunities for a more-direct, frequent and accessible quality outdoors experience carries value to be traded for other things. As much fun as you've had in ND the past 4 years, you want to continue making return visits. As much fun as I have in ND each fall, I want to be able to live here year-round and continue to trade the quality outdoors connection for other things.

Again, unless you or anyone else believes quality outdoors keeps and draws thousands to our state, you'll never see a reason to sell some of the water but not all. You can't maintain a quality outdoors experience by having a limitless number of hunters, and it's quality outdoors, not the kind many other states have, that causes us to forego other things to be here. You and others keep talking about statewide population stagnation or loss. If ND looses one of her most valuable lifestyle amenities, we'll see a worsening of that trend.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Northwind,

Do you think that we should legalize brothels and crackhouses to pull in additional non-resident money too? Please let us know where we should draw the line.


----------



## northwind (Feb 8, 2003)

It's getting carried away and silly but here goes.

Fetch: What makes you state that the people using guides and outfitters are only 5%. If they are growing as fast and as large as you claim they must make up a larger percentage. I'm sure you have a survey or facts to verify your claim, would you care to share the reference so it can be verified.

Muskat: It would be good economics to sell 100,000 if that is what the market could have born, and if so they would have built a stadium for that. If they had built a stadium for 100,000 I don't think they could have kept it full and ticket prices would have fallen and the team would be more desperate to leave than they now are. You have an owner there that would like to move the team and the baseball team there was almost eliminated a year ago by the Major League baseball owners. Anyway you should address this question to Economics 101 as he could answer it better than I.

Dan: Actually that is a poor analogy as I don't think Colorada is in a position to sell water anymore. The thirsty west has taken so much out of the Colorado River that it no longer reaches the ocean but now ends in the desert. I'm not a best of both world's type of guy, I'm just a guy who works darn hard and has benefitted from all that hard work. That's part of the reason I'm glad I live in America the land of choice and opportunity for those that want to work for it.

Qwack: No I don't think you should resort to anything illegal to attract visitors to your state. I think you should draw the line if an activity is illegal. My second post on this site said that it appeared that this group is in general quite young (apologies to Ken W and Fetch) and inexperienced. 
Qwack you go beyond that and are actually quite ignorant.

Remember to be careful as you win your small battles that you do not lose the war.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Northwind

I wrote this letter to someone else but maybe it fits here also.I believe that limits need to be imposed to protect the wildlife however I do believe that residents do need to come first in those limits. Bill 2048 provides an adjustable scale in balancing the resource against harvest and pressure providing longer opportunities for those pursuing them.With out these restrictions, you will have a a couple banner years but when quality and quainity drop off the nonresident will start going somewhere else. The dollars that you are depending on will be gone.The heritage of hunting as it should be will go with it. We are have few thing as far as entertainment goes in this state for young people, eliminating another will just increase out migration. Jobs paying $30,000 or more will not be created by the proliferation of guides and outfitters, or by the service industries that may have a short term bump with unlimited nonresidents. A select few will profit from the loss of many. 
I would like anyone to explain why they think the nonresident will continue to travel to North Dakota if they have no ducks or water to hunt them.

We are all guilty of forgeting unpleasant things quickly and remebering pleasant things longer . That is why I keep asking about the drought years, for we would be remise if we forget them or think they will not happen again. 
I hope you understand my passion as I returned to the state I could be making more money as could my wife in Mlps, Chicago, Detroit,even Souix Falls, but we stay here because of family and the outdoors. I have lived it.

I believe these numbers came out of reports to the state from the guides and outfitters as to the # of people they served last year. Do you agree that 2% of all hunters should have access to over 12% of all private land and all public land. Allow this trend to grow an you and I will have to apply for a lottery to hunt out of a blind on public ground. Just look what has happened on the coastal marshes,out east and southern part of the U.S. We are fighting to protect your right to hunt without a guide or without paying for more than your normal wants and needs. I want as many people to be able to hunt as the resource will bear, but we have to make some very unpleasant choices to ensure this for all.
Ron


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Ignorant? I surely can be at times (just ask my wife). But I would say that someone who lives on the East coast, has only been to Nodak FOUR times, and has spent a little time reading a website but feels that he understands this complex topic well enough to tell us that we are all wrong is a bit ignorant too. :roll:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Hey, no matter what you say to a couple of the guys here concerning the $$$$ and nonlimited use of a resource it won't matter. This site seems to have many sportsmen that want to see a compromise to the issues at hand. A few don't want to admit they might not understand the issues as well as they think they do. I'd bet someone would find it hard to find a post out of approx. 7000 that advocates an all out ban on NR hunters.


----------



## northwind (Feb 8, 2003)

Hardwaterman: It's easy to explain why people will continue to travel to North Dakota even if there is a drought. It's the people. They are the kindest, friendliest, most accomodating people we have run across anywhere.

Qwack: I owe you an apology, I should have said your post was ignorant, not you. Sorry, about that.

Field Hunter: You are right that no one asks for an all out ban on non-residents. That's like saying nothing is every exactly the same 100% of the time as well. Here's and examplet of a quote on one of the threads by a frequent poster.

"we get to lose access to the millions of acres of private land ......... because they were gobbled up by NR's who either bought them and posted them, leased them and posted them, or paid to use a guide who either bought or leased them and then posted them."

I understand why if seems to be a resident hunter versus landowner. The majority of posters on this site have the prevelant idea that anyone rural with an opposing view is immediately cast as a guide, outfitter, or connected to an outfitter or guide----or if they can't be put in one of those categories then they are just unaware of uninformed.

ie: The editors at the Forum provide additional proof they arn't the brightest bulbs on the tree

I agree that the Forum is one-sided and uninformed . . . . . . the editor is behind much of the anti-resident hunter sentiment and I have cancell my subscription and won't reup.

All this negative stuff is getting . . . . . . . . . & crying wolf is getting old & ignorant

Zelinski, he is so anti resident and well an idiot

And now I see Qwack is going to be moving to South Dakota in a few years. He's decided that he will try a new place to take his ball and go home.

And now you have one of your members saying your hunting brethren are clueless about what is going on.

Maybe people are looking in the wrong direction to find out who does and doesn't know what is going on.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Northwind

When I said clueless only someone who understands the limititations of of the infomation world in the rural setting can relate. I have a computer a library to go to and read all of the major state publications. I am not dependant on the local newspaper that may be published weekly or the radio station who' news director feels another report on France and Iraq is more important than a hunting bill. The use of the internet is limited and considered a luxary as most accesses are a long distant telephone call, or a fee per minute on 800 access. The local dial up has very limit band width and feeds of 26,000pbs or less. These are the reason our brethern are clueless to what is happening. Knowledge is power and limiting knowledge allows the minority to benefit at the expense of the majority.

I will repeat this is not a resident /landowner issue, this is a natrual resource issue that will affect all people of ND and those visiting our state. Making this into anything else is off base.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Northwind - You don't understand as much as you think you do.

I'm glad you try to voice your sides of all this - it just motivates more of us to carry on.

I'm really grateful to the NR's that have seen the light in all this. & thanks to all those that have supported us in this.

It really is better than an unlimited free for all 38,000 max. NR's (based on last years #'s) instead of unlimited- Is a huge relief

- Maybe now the G&FD can step up & provide even more things to Help Manage waterfowling , for all of us. I do feel there was a CRY for Help for them to be more involved. & Not let the Legislature & politics & special interests be the ones managing all this.

There are lots of things that could & should be done to expand & grow ND waterfowling for all.

I'd even dare say with the right management & the right people caring & supporting good practices - That eventually alot more NR's could be welcome in ND. (In Fact I'm sure of it) Just not all at the same time & in just a few areas. This would be excellant economic development.

Get towns & groups to work with landowners to open up their wetlands & fields to Freelance hunters & people will come.

We all have to get away from the Me Me Me & think of positive ways to expand & influence the concept of Freelance Hunting- It is what is so unique about ND. & has the potential to help & save & even let communities prosper. (At Least those that have a vision & understand the real economics & potential in all this)

I still say we need a ND Waterfowlers Assn. to work on & continue to brainstorm & use the internet to come to concensous & be proactive in bettering ND Waterfowling.

I LOVE all you guys today :wink:

even you Northwind (even if I was thinking the 1st 3 words to your signature were starting to fit your messages) :roll: :wink:  :beer:


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Northwind,

Just to clarify, was the "crying wolf" comment above directed towards me? I'm trying to keep up with all the charges you have made against me and I want to be sure I have an accurate list. Thanks.


----------



## Austin Bachmeier (Feb 27, 2002)

Fetch.......  LMAO!!!!!


----------



## northwind (Feb 8, 2003)

Qwack: I thought you and the rest of your narrow minded buddies had denied me access to this because of my non-conforming viewpoint.

I don't know if that was you or not. Do you look into the stool everytime you have a bowel movement?


----------



## administrator (Feb 13, 2002)

> Qwack: I thought you and the rest of your narrow minded buddies had denied me access to this because of my non-conforming viewpoint.
> 
> I don't know if that was you or not. Do you look into the stool everytime you have a bowel movement?


It was the web hosting company. I honestly don't know where you're going with your stools, but best of luck to you.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Northwind:

Great to see that you resorted to analogies about bowel movements :eyeroll: I, among everyone else that visits this site, is actually allowed to see who you are and what you represent.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Come on Northwind, do you really think I would deny myself the pleasure of arguing with you and your non-conforming viewpoint on this forum? Seeing a response from you to one of my posts can be the highlight of my day!

Not sure why you are interested in my BMs. Must be an East Coast thing.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Northwind & BM in NoDak


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Fetch we have waste disposal laws in this state where is the pooper scooper?


----------



## fleetfarmcustomer (Mar 7, 2003)

Hi just felt this needs another reminder


----------



## ndsnobuni (Feb 16, 2003)

Would someone "define" quality hunting to me? Just wondering!
Thank you


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I take it you were at the Committee hearing yesterday?


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

ndsnobuni--
beings you are from Devils Lake, you should ask Kyle Blanchfield. Quality hunting is what all guides and outfitters want for their paying clients to ensure a good experience so they will continue to come back to their guide service. Obviously that is why a guy like Sheldon Schlect leases 150,000 acres (probably more), so he can make sure to eliminate heavy hunting pressure to ensure quality for 'his" clients. But Mr. Schlect says there isn't any pressure, so why would he go through the trouble of leasing so much ground if there isn't any pressure to compete with? The guides and outfitters already have hunter restrictions, but think sportsmen are selfish when they want to accomplish the same thing? Now those "selfish" sportsmen of our state actually have the audacity to try and do the same thing to protect the future of waterfowl hunting for future generations. Can you believe those "zellots?"


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Hey theres a compromise ??? What if we drop the HPC & the guides give up leasing & posting any other lands but their own ???

& then give the G&FD un-harassed ability to do their jobs - & if they don't keep up & do the right things, they have to answer to the Natural Resources Committee ??? (Not the Gov.) & be sure the NRC is equally represented by Dems. & Reps. ( & if they have not hunted -bought a license - in the last say 5 years) they can not qualify to be on the committee ??? & have them nominated by district game wardens - & voted on by all Resident License holders ??? I think then we would see some much better public service & representation for the 95 % (maybe higher) that are Freelance Hunters.


----------



## jlang (Oct 20, 2002)

No way in hell. Never. Right now the outfitters run the House Natural Resources chairman. He is their puppy on a leash. Put him in charge of NDGF? I don't think so Fetch. Put NDGF in charge of NDGF. Try this. Dump this outfitter governor. Appoint Todd Porter chairman of HNRC. Porter should have had it in the first place but Berg did it to screw us.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

jlang,

Nice to see the respect you show to an elected official. Slamming 3 in one small paragraph. Good to see everyone's opinion is worth something.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I saw in yesterdays paper that the Democratic Party is trying to convince Ed Schultz to be their candidate for governor in 2004.Wouldn't that make a great choice for us!


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I listened the few days Heiti sat in for Ed - & I doubt he could beat her in any contest.

Although I never have really heard how she stands on all this ??? Has anyone else ???

jlang that is the cool part of doing whats right - is listening to all ideas & then improve on them & ultimately do the right thing. & not be afraid to try new things - But then admidt when they don't work & try something else - (As if a politician will do that ) :roll: Most of us learned most of what we know trial & error - It's just many don't learn from mistakes or won't admidt it. :eyeroll:

Fast Eddy does not fit the mold -

Porter needs to move up many notches & in ND (at least in the past) the cream has always had a way to come to the top.

But we all have to be more careful on who we send to the show - & some have been there way too long.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Does Heidi want to make another run??


----------



## slanman (Mar 20, 2003)

I'm apalled by this letter. I've been shopping at scheels since I can remember, and really can't believe that my money doesn't matter. At least thats what I get from it. Looks like I'll be doing more shopping on the internet!


----------

