# Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (4 bills)



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

There four bills current that are designed to roll back NR waterfowl and upland restrictions. Same thing as every session since 2001. They are "foot in the door bills" that will only continue to erode hunting opportunities. They all deserve to be defeated now. Far better to kill them in committee than have to fight it out on the floor as was done last session. Remember that fight? It was a squeaker.

HB 1237 - (Representative Kretschmar) - Nonresidents age 55 and older can purchase a nonresident senior citizen small game license for $175 that would allow them to hunt small game and waterfowl statewide for the entire season. HENRC to hear 1/21, 10:30 a.m.

HB 1407 - (Representatives D. Johnson, Hofstad, Weisz; Senators Taylor, Oehlke) - In addition to Richland and Sargent counties, nonresidents would be allowed to hunt in Benson, Ramsey and Towner counties during the early September Canada goose season without counting against their 14-day waterfowl license. Referred to House Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
(This little sucker started out 3 sessions ago for Sargent and Richland counties, with a sunset clause of 2 years.  We were told you have to compromise.   Then the sunset clause was removed to make it permanent.   Now they want to expand it to the most heavily commercialized waterfowl area of the state. What a surprise. If it passes it will probably go statewide next session.)

SB 2225 - (Senators Klein, Erbele, Uglem; Representatives Brandenburg, DeKrey, Weisz) - Provides for a $500 nonresident combination small game and waterfowl license that is valid for the entire season, except for the first week. Referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee.

SB 2235 - (Senators Klein, Andrist, Uglem; Representatives Brandenburg, DeKrey, Weisz) - Establishes a nonresident waterfowl license valid for three four-day periods. Currently the nonresident waterfowl license is valid for 14 consecutive days or two seven-day periods. Referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee.

You will notice that two bills each are coming in on the senate and house side with idea of a shotgun approach to get at least one through. Last session commercializers only tried three bills, which were all defeated. :bop:


----------



## 2boysnbusy (Dec 7, 2010)

Thanks Dick.

People should write, call or e-mail.

Here's a link to the North Dakota Legislative Council's map of districts.

http://web.apps.state.nd.us/hubexplorer ... iewer.html


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> HB 1407 - (Representatives D. Johnson, Hofstad, Weisz; Senators Taylor, Oehlke) - In addition to Richland and Sargent counties, nonresidents would be allowed to hunt in Benson, Ramsey and Towner counties during the early September Canada goose season without counting against their 14-day waterfowl license. Referred to House Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
> (This little sucker started out 3 sessions ago for Sargent and Richland counties, with a sunset clause of 2 years.  We were told you have to compromise.   Then the sunset clause was removed to make it permanent.   Now they want to expand it to the most heavily commercialized waterfowl area of the state. What a surprise. If it passes it will probably go statewide next session.)


Before you jump all over this one this could do with resident geese problems and the need to reduce the flock. There could be some biology behind this one.



> SB 2235 - (Senators Klein, Andrist, Uglem; Representatives Brandenburg, DeKrey, Weisz) - Establishes a nonresident waterfowl license valid for three four-day periods. Currently the nonresident waterfowl license is valid for 14 consecutive days or two seven-day periods. Referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee.


This one is actually cutting the number of days a NR can hunt waterfowl. Before they could hunt 14 days. This one they can only hunt 12. How is this hurting? One arguement that you always here is NR come for 14 days and pound birds. Or they are only here a week and pound birds....With this bill they will only be allowed 12 days if they use them all up in a row or 4 days if you break them up...or 8 days....the max is 12 days in a row. It seems to be taking away from the NR instead of giving.

Now i will contest that it could allow a 3 trips for someone to come back three different times. But isn't that a good thing for the states economy? Isn't that good for the birds....they will only get hunted 4 days in a row and have breaks?

Just something to think about before saying all these bills are reverting back to prior 2001. But yes they may be the "foot in the door" so to speak. Or they could be trying to help out controling resident geese populations and limiting the days for NR to 12 but still making commerce happy in the state by saying that a NR can come back 3 times. Kind of a give and take.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Guess what Dick I disagree with you imagine that. HB 1407 should be changed now to include the whole state, resident hunters are not shooting enough geese so let some people in to help. If not, the Game and Fish should start paying some deperdation money, at $14.00 beans lets see how much you want to pay.    :lol:


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

as far as 1407 goes in Towner Co....really nobody out here hunting(My waterfowl interest dwindles every year so I am not out during early season other than doves so I may be wrong here). If the management #'s aren't being killed, figure out a way to get them killed...


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

What is the reasoning for 1407.Aren't enough geese being killed during the early season???Or is it to allow more non-res into the state??I'm guessing the proponents will say not enough geese are being killed.If that is really the case.....then up the limit to 10 or whatever.

I don't live or hunt up there.....so are there to many geese in those 3 counties?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Brilliant Ken, simply brilliant increase the limit


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The most posted counties in the state can't kill enough geese?????? So they want more hunters from out of state???? Give us a break. Lets compromise and have the guides and outfitters pay compensation. Seems fair.

Nothing eats gosslings like coyotes. Oh yeah, there's a bill for a coyote bounty too. It just gets better all the time.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> Brilliant Ken, simply brilliant increase the limit


Why have a limit at all if there is so much depredation that they need more hunters up there.I'm sure the locals can get it under control w/o more NR.NR can hunt there now in the early season.It just counts as part of their 14 days.The only reason I can see for this bill is to line the G/O pockets. uke:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, I don't see Hettinger, Adams,Bowman and Slope counties in that list do you? Please Dick why should the guides and outfitters have to pay compensation? Please enlighten us Dick    :evil: :wink: :wink: :beer:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> The only reason I can see for this bill is to line the G/O pockets.


Gee Ken more brillance from you, let's see like you said N/R are already able to hunt only difference will be the adding onto the 14 days. Only people this will bring in is N/R free lance hunters (the one's you guy's hate) outfitters seldom have people come more than once in a year. Keep the talking points going boys :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> > The only reason I can see for this bill is to line the G/O pockets.
> 
> 
> Gee Ken more brillance from you, let's see like you said N/R are already able to hunt only difference will be the adding onto the 14 days. Only people this will bring in is N/R free lance hunters (the one's you guy's hate) outfitters seldom have people come more than once in a year. Keep the talking points going boys :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby:


Gee whatever your real name is,you sound like the crybaby to me.Do you have actual facts that prove that NR only come once a year when using a guide?They don't come from out of state to hunt with a guide on weekends more than once???

Again....talk is cheap....show me the figures proving you are'nt just blowing hot air as usual and doing the crying. :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If they want to have more geese killed in those counties up the limit as Ken suggest. Also, take down the posted signs. Those with posted signs should receive no compensation for depredation. 
The proof that this is simply more commercialization is those who are for it. g/o is for it isn't a surprise. g/o is a G= guide O = outfitter. Outfitters and guides will be for what lines their pockets ie. commercialization. The sad part is to line their pockets they must take away from us. It is one of the primary reasons I was against high fence operations. I am against all forms of commercialization of hunting. If you pay to hunt your part of the problem, and part of the reason many will not be able to hunt in the future. Every time you open your wallet you cheat the next generation.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I am against all forms of commercialization of hunting.


Plainsman, please define comemercialzation of hunting to me, you guys like to throw that out. Are you reffering to just Outfitters and Guides or are others included. I have asked your counterparts several times the same question and none of you can give me an answer. Thank you it would be appreciated.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Again....talk is cheap....show me the figures proving you are'nt just blowing hot air as usual and doing the crying


Ken, pm me your name and address and I will send you those facts, as you know licensed guides and outfitters are required by law to keep a log. :beer:


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Dick you forgot about the zone buster bill that was also passed. Our zones are a joke to start with,look at SD zones. Zone buster is popular in ND. Started in 2005=5,840 of 24,375. 2006=5,823 of 23,120. 2007=6,325 of 23,490.2008=5,099 of 18,967.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

One more. Small game changed from 10 days to 14.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

These four bills need to die now. Period. No compromise. Plain and simple they are bills to privatize wildlife for sale for the benefit of a few, not the many. Bad legislation IMO.

Depredation is only a smoke screen. Crop damage by geese occurs in the spring, not August-Sept. Few farmers swath grain and geese will not land in standing crop. There are multiple avenues available to prevent grazing as every farmer knows. Same bill sponsors as other years trying to sell the same wildlife as other years through the same strategy as other years.

HB 1237 - (Representative Kretschmar) - Nonresidents age 55 and older can purchase a nonresident senior citizen small game license for $175 that would allow them to hunt small game and waterfowl statewide for the entire season. HENRC to hear 1/21, 10:30 a.m.

HB 1407 - (Representatives D. Johnson, Hofstad, Weisz; Senators Taylor, Oehlke) - In addition to Richland and Sargent counties, nonresidents would be allowed to hunt in Benson, Ramsey and Towner counties during the early September Canada goose season without counting against their 14-day waterfowl license. Referred to House Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
(This little sucker started out 3 sessions ago for Sargent and Richland counties, with a sunset clause of 2 years. We were told you have to compromise. Then the sunset clause was removed to make it permanent. Now they want to expand it to the most heavily commercialized waterfowl area of the state. What a surprise. If it passes it will probably go statewide next session.)

SB 2225 - (Senators Klein, Erbele, Uglem; Representatives Brandenburg, DeKrey, Weisz) - Provides for a $500 nonresident combination small game and waterfowl license that is valid for the entire season, except for the first week. Referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee.

SB 2235 - (Senators Klein, Andrist, Uglem; Representatives Brandenburg, DeKrey, Weisz) - Establishes a nonresident waterfowl license valid for three four-day periods. Currently the nonresident waterfowl license is valid for 14 consecutive days or two seven-day periods. Referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee.

If killing geese helps depredation then g/o should open their land to kill as many as possible and not worry about selling the wildlife to the privileged rich that these bills are designed for.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Let's see now, where are most of the ND outfitters?

HB 1237- Kreschmar-venturia

HB 1407- Johnson-Devils Lake
Hofstad-Devils Lake
Weisz-Hurdsfield
Oehlke-Devils Lake
Taylor-Towner

SB-2225- Klien-Fessenden
Erbele-Lehr
Uglem-Northwood
BradenBurg-Edgley
Dekry-Tappen
Weisz- Hurdsfield

SB-2235-Klien-fessenden
Andrist-crosby
Uglem-northwood
Dekray-Tappen
Weisz-Hurdsfield


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> > Again....talk is cheap....show me the figures proving you are'nt just blowing hot air as usual and doing the crying
> 
> 
> Ken, pm me your name and address and I will send you those facts, as you know licensed guides and outfitters are required by law to keep a log. :beer:


Just use the PM and send it to me.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

So much for a quiet session...

To some (same old crowd), enough is never enough...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> > I am against all forms of commercialization of hunting.
> 
> 
> Plainsman, please define comemercialzation of hunting to me, you guys like to throw that out. Are you reffering to just Outfitters and Guides or are others included. I have asked your counterparts several times the same question and none of you can give me an answer. Thank you it would be appreciated.


Well, perhaps I am not against all of it. When people guide on their own land like you do I think I will have to put up with that. As I see it if wildlife belongs to the state (all of it's residents collectively) then why should a single individual be able to charge to hunt any of those animals. As I stated if you raise and release pheasants at your expense then there is nothing wrong with charging. If you want to charge to hunt deer, grouse, coyote etc those belong to ever North Dakota resident reading this. Not even ten percent belongs to a guide or an outfitter.

Charging for guiding is different. Charging for room and meals there is nothing wrong with. All these things are a service that you should be paid for. Your not taking from others doing this, but providing a service to those without enough experience of their own, not enough time to scout, or who want the comforts of home. I have absolutely no problems with that. I think helping others hunt would be very satisfying. I wish you the best of luck with that.

I think Dicks statement actually answers what commercialization is:


> privatize wildlife for sale for the benefit of a few, not the many


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

"The most posted counties in the state can't kill enough geese?????? So they want more hunters from out of state???? Give us a break. Lets compromise and have the guides and outfitters pay compensation. Seems fair."

HB 1407- Johnson-Devils Lake
Hofstad-Devils Lake
Weisz-Hurdsfield
Oehlke-Devils Lake
Taylor-Towner

Boy, ain't this the truth??? Must be nice to have some people "in your pocket" so to speak. I bet the pay to hunt folks around DL are just loving this one!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Savage260 said:


> "The most posted counties in the state can't kill enough geese?????? So they want more hunters from out of state???? Give us a break. Lets compromise and have the guides and outfitters pay compensation. Seems fair."
> 
> HB 1407- Johnson-Devils Lake
> Hofstad-Devils Lake
> ...


Ditto on that Savage. These guides and outfitters have leased up land and posted it, landowners see neighbors getting paid and post in hopes of getting on the gravy train. They are paying to hunt animals that belong to everyone, not for trespass rights. Lets get real who is going to pay to trespass on a fallow field? They caused the problem let them pay for it. Or take it our of Department of Agriculture because it's an agriculture income. 
So if there was no U S Fish and Wildlife and no State Game and Fish what would these farmers do simply eradicate every animal that touched a grain of wheat? The animals were here before them, on the land when they bought it, live with it. No one owes them something every time the gravy doesn't roll in.


----------



## bigblackfoot (Mar 12, 2003)

g/o said:


> Brilliant Ken, simply brilliant increase the limit


Why is he so stupid in saying this? South Dakota did it this year in a few counties with the highest amount of resident geese. I have some friends from watertown(which is in one of the counties) and it worked well. Why not let us shoot more instead of allowing more people to come an area where the posting is *RIDICULOUS*. If this passes...just watch next session or the one after that, there will be a bill to allow NR's to hunt statewide during the early season, and not have it count against the license.

NONE OF THESE BILLS CAN PASS


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O.....what's the matter with raising the limit.Sounds like a good solution to me.But then you being a G/O must want more non-res here,right?Or maybe we should just kill as many as possible in the spring and not raise the limit or let anyone hunt them in the fall????


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Ditto on that Savage. These guides and outfitters have leased up land and posted it, landowners see neighbors getting paid and post in hopes of getting on the gravy train. They are paying to hunt animals that belong to everyone, not for trespass rights. Lets get real who is going to pay to trespass on a fallow field? They caused the problem let them pay for it. Or take it our of Department of Agriculture because it's an agriculture income.
> So if there was no U S Fish and Wildlife and no State Game and Fish what would these farmers do simply eradicate every animal that touched a grain of wheat? The animals were here before them, on the land when they bought it, live with it. No one owes them something every time the gravy doesn't roll in.


I could careless if people oppose these bills, and have no intention of getting involved in this R/NR debate. And for the record, I do not make a dime off hunting. But I have been accused of pitting farmer/rancher against sportsmen by the very person that makes the above post. And yet take a moment to look at what he writes.

As a "professional biologist" one would think that he would know that when the plains were settled there were not nearly the numbers of resident Canadian geese there are now. There were not nearly the numbers of deer there are now. These two species of wildlife that are involved in depredation issues have been managed for greater numbers soley for the use of us sportsmen whom are only one segment of the public they are held in trust for. Were the greater Canadian geese around in the numbers they are now 50 years ago? If I'm not mistaken, wasn't there a program to specifically increase the numbers of these larger birds back then? What about deer, were there as many at the turn of the century or even 20 years ago as there are now? Why do you suppose this wildlife is being managed for greater numbers?

When talking about this wildlife being held in trust for the public, please remember there are far more than just hunters in this public this wildlife is held in trust for. nonhunters, hunters, farmers/ranchers ect.... So should the consequences of how this wildlife is managed just benefit hunters or ALL the public? When you are argueing this "held in public trust" position stop and think about it for a moment.

But hey what do I know, I even included myself a rancher/farmer as a sportsman  , and comments like plainsmans probably do nothing but strengthen hunter /landowner relationships. I'm sure all the NRs that come hunt in the state are telling the farmers whose land they want to hunt on "tough **** buddy the wildlife was here first so deal with it, I don't owe you anything. Now were the hell can I hunt MY geese." :roll:


----------



## Springerguy (Sep 10, 2003)

It's always interesting to read these posts and watch the hypocrisy build in the debates. So many of the boys from Fargo get upset over the posted land, believing they should have access to land, yet they are first in line to make sure there are limits on nonresidents. The argument seems to be it's our state so we can do we what we want- yet that "like it or hump it" attitude doesn't seem to carry over to a landowners right to post land. The argument to allow early goose hunting into more counties seems to be a problem because there is so much posted land. So what?? Having grown up in Sargent County (some 40+ yrs ago) I realize the landscape has changed with no hunting signs but you better accept that this is the new norm. You can blame nonresidents all you want but if nonresidents weren't outlawed in the state you'd still have posted signs. More importantly to note, my brothers and I have never had a farmer deny permission to hunt early season - not once. Even during the regular waterfowl season we seldom have anyone tell us we can't hunt waterfowl. As far as this concern about privatization of wildlife- if some of you are my spokesman on public ownership of wildlife (i.e. Dick Monson) please don't speak on my behalf. Your agenda has always been to limit access to ND private and public lands to ND residents only. That is certainly your right but don't sell yourself as something you aren't- your agenda is purely focused on rights of ND hunters. Frankly, if I had my way there would be a moratorium on the purchase of all federal public lands until there are consistent federal guidelines that govern public use. Public land access varies widely from state to state and it's time for the federal gov't to become involved with guidelines that take into account state residency (i.e. lotteries) but also allow the hunting of species that is warranted - like snow geese in SD and ND - which are limited to either nonres caps or # of days allowed to hunt.


----------



## Bug Guy (Jul 19, 2009)

NO! on all of these! The reasons have already been presented.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst, I like to hunt elk in Montana, but this year they priced me out of the game. They also limit nonresidents, and most of the elk are on public land. However, I am not going to complain since that is their state. I don't want to overrun them, and if numbers are down because of those darn wolves then as residents they deserve first crack at those license. So you see even though I do think residents deserve an early hunting season I'm not a hypocrite, and I am not anti nonresident.

As for the "greater canada geese". They are not greaters, they are giant canada geese, subspecies (_Branta canadensis maxima_). My first job was with the biologist in charge of restoration. I also knew the guy who had the last original breeding pairs from North Dakota. North Dakota was the breeding epicenter of giant canada geese before they were decimated by unsporting hunters and others. There were far more then than now. However, you do have to go back more than 50 years because the guys who came with plows also had guns and they had killed nearly all of them by 1920. I think eggs were picked from one of the last nests near Streeter, North Dakota in about 1927.

As for deer being new on the scene that applies only to white tail deer. Mule deer were plentiful all the way to the Red River, as well ask elk, and bison roamed by the millions. Bison were just to large, and if the government had not encouraged people to wipe them our in order to starve the natives into submission then the "sod busters" would have wiped them out. Oh, the "sod buster" comment I recently got from a rancher out west. It's still his opinion about farmers today. Odd that farmers in this part of the state support ranchers, but ranchers to the west don't support "eastern sod busters". They think they are spoiled with price supports. I guess they forget the bargain basement price they get on grazing federal land.

I heard on the radio the other day a fellow proposing dropping all agriculture support programs to save money. With attitudes like I see on here I think I could support that. I certainly would support fair lease prices for grazing on federal land. They don't even pay enough to cover administration right now. Push the price up three or four times current price would be fair.


----------



## averyghg (Oct 16, 2006)

raise the limit for residents and limit the number of NRs into the state is the best solution to taking care of resident geese, plain and simple.


----------



## teamflightstoppersND (Feb 20, 2009)

I think we should leave it to the game and fish, these reps dont belong

If your not a resident of ND you should not have a say in this, its our legislature........

If the farmers would get more crops off then maybe more hunters could shoot more birds. The are very few fields in the early season and most of the birds only go to a few of those fields. The guys who actually get in the fields shoot their birds but some guys shoot none because the have to use a back up spot where no birds go. raise the limit and thats the only way to fix it.

Whats really funny is that when deer populatoins were really high you did not see the G&F bringing in NR's to shoot more deer.

These representatives are crooks!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> I heard on the radio the other day a fellow proposing dropping all agriculture support programs to save money. With attitudes like I see on here I think I could support that. I certainly would support fair lease prices for grazing on federal land. They don't even pay enough to cover administration right now. Push the price up three or four times current price would be fair


Plainsman, once again you miss the point. But as usual everytime a farmer or rancher has a post of a differing opinion out comes the "I would be in favor of ending govt support of Ag" line.

I tell you what print out your last 2 posts next fall take them to 5 farmers in the eastern part of the state and 5 ranchers in the western part of the state you have never met and show them these statements you have made and then ask if you can have permission to hunt their land.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, gst, and I will get to hunt in the east. Out west there is enough public land I don't need to ask.

I'll tell you what after that fellow by the name of angus1 or something like that holding hunting hostage and talking about posting if he didn't get his way it did a lot to give me an attitude. Also, your post about landowner rights sound like you think they are all inclusive. They are not. If voters change their mind you will find your rights hang by a thread. My point is many, not the majority, want to make a buck off what does not belong to them. My other point was out west they think everyone east of the Missouri is a "sod buster", and spoiled with government support. I'll bet the guy who told me that would deny it until Hades freezes over in public. The only difference between me and many others is I admit what I am thinking and I am getting sick of the whining. It's a good thing we didn't vote on those ag exemptions on April 16th. Speaking of elections next time we have one that gives more to landowners why don't you go to the election site and tell people about your rights just as they head to the booth. See where that gets you. It works both ways.

Do your remember a few years ago we voted on exemptions of state sales tax for famers buying things related to their business? Do you remember what the ag supply stores sold in the past. Have you noticed that now they sell candy, dress clothing, guns, bows, shells, ice fishing shelters, rods and reels etc. Nice. I don't think that's what the voters of North Dakota had in mind.

I don't live in Fargo, but can people give up complaining about them? Good grief, just like the guy out west complaining about "sod busters". Next I suppose it will be the sheep guys and they can start another Johnson county war.

Funny true story: While working on federal land in Wyoming I had a rancher who leased the land tell me not to shoot any coyotes or rattle snakes. My curiosity got the best of me and I asked why. He said cause coyotes eat sheep, and if a guy is really lucky once in a while a snake will get a herder.


----------



## templey_41 (Jul 19, 2008)

Teamflightstopper you are right I have no opinion on this I just have a few questions and or suggestions.

IS there an over abundance of geese in these proposed counties? If so are you as residents going to take care of the issue? I mean the population has gotten out of control. Had you taken care of the geese issue yourself may be there would not be this bill being proposed.

I guess what I am saying is there is an issue that is big enough that the state of ND thinks that they're own resident hunters can't take care of it for various reasons. INstead of complaining about it adding to NR's opportunites in ND go out and kill some CAGOS! How many more hunters do you think will go out to these other counties for early season? It's hard enough getting time off from a job to get out there for regular season.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Also, your post about landowner rights sound like you think they are all inclusive


Plainsman, you have made this claim on more than one occasion. If you would show me where I have ever stated landowner rights are absolute or "all inclusive". You get so wrapped up in this landowner rights/public trust/commercialization deal you miss the point. Blame NR, blame G/O, blame greedy landowners, blame commercialization of hunting, hell blame Bush for more posted land, but never look in the mirror after making statements like what I first pointed out you did in this thread. Condemn some Angus fella for threatening something if he didn;t get what he wanted all the while continueing to threaten voting to cut of "ag exemptions/subsidies/grazing rights, whatever" if you don't get what you want. And the landowner/sportsman gap you complain about widens evermore.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

My attitude is that in this society somehow we are all linked. I truly believe that we all live off one another. In that light we should all be appreciative of one another, but there doesn't ever appear to be enough to satisfy landowners. I should appreciate my doctor, the teachers I had, the deputies that patrol my neighborhood etc., and you gst should appreciate those who serve you. In today's greedy world everyone is out to get everything they can from everyone else. That's the way I see pay hunting, and it makes me look at the whole. I pay at the grocery store, if I look at a percentage about $10 thousand went into agriculture in taxes when my wife and I both worked, and then you want us to pay for the animals we all own? When is enough enough? Would you like a pint of blood to go with my taxes?

You were spouting off about how little I knew about the local goose populations, but never did answer that post. How about some answers gst? You didn't answer my comment about ranchers not likeing grain farmers either. Ya, ya, some do both I know. Most of my relatives do both, but how about those guys out west talking down about farmers in the eastern part of the state? That is all I was pointing out in that one post, but the further you carry this the further I am willing to go. I need to look for that site address again that shows what each farmer takes in. You can type in a guys name and it will show you what he got from the government in the last five years. Some have raked in over a million dollars a year. Some of us will never see that in a lifetime.

The way I see it gst if all landowners thought like you it would make them the aristocrats of Europe that we came to America to escape.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

And Nero fiddles on.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, and I forgot to mention, I am not against non residents. I simply pointed out that those who live in Montana deserve first crack at those elk. Ahead of me.


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

Well, it looks like I'll not be getting my wish of being able to hunt an entire season as a non-resident. That makes me a little sad. 
But as I ponder this (waiting for the Packers vs Bears game to start), I realize there is more that makes me happy. Thanks to the system of government we have in this country, and so aptly demonstrated in North Dakota, everyone gets their say, even though not everyone gets their way. Websites like this one help facilitate that.
So.....the legislative process in North Dakota has acted to carry out "the will of the people". There's nothing better than that.
As my grandkids would say "North Dakota rocks!".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

oldfireguy, I hope you understand your very welcome when you do come. When you are here I wish you a wonderful time.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Sportsmen need to be alert that because a bill gets a "Do Not Pass" from committee, does not mean that it is dead. The bill still gets voted on the floor. There is a chance of amendments to this bill. There is a chance that another unrelated bill could be amended to include the intent of this bill. Not at all uncommon.

About 1407:
*HB 1407 - (Representatives D. Johnson, Hofstad, Weisz; Senators Taylor, Oehlke) - In addition to Richland and Sargent counties, nonresidents would be allowed to hunt in Benson, Ramsey and Towner counties during the early September Canada goose season without counting against their 14-day waterfowl license. Referred to House Energy and Natural Resources Committee.*
This bill has nothing to do with depredation of geese in crops. That is just the fallacious reason being used. Crop damage occurs in spring crops, May and June. There are planting strategies for crops to alleviate goose problems. And geese don't land in standing crops when early season takes place. When did anyone see geese land in standing corn, beans or wheat. :eyeroll: If goose numbers are going to be controlled by hunting it would take total access season long, not just the early season. Good luck with that in Benson, Ramsey and Towner counties. These four bills are about privatizing wildlife plain and simple.


----------



## Springerguy (Sep 10, 2003)

Dick,

It's OK to just go ahead and say that opening up more counties will allow further access to nonresidents and thus create more competition for hunting access - this concern about "privatizing" just doesn't hold water with me. Oh, and I find your quote from Teddy Roosevelt below interesting - and of course I fully agree with Teddy, as a fellow nonresident he understood that wildlife is property of all - those alive today and future generations. If he were alive today he probably would have included a statement that access to public lands and wildlife are not merely the property of individuals based on state residency as well.

"Wild beasts and birds are by right not the property merely of the people who are alive today, but the property of unknown generations whose belongings we have no right to squander."
Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## templey_41 (Jul 19, 2008)

Dick Monson said:


> This bill has nothing to do with depredation of geese in crops. That is just the fallacious reason being used. Crop damage occurs in spring crops, May and June. There are planting strategies for crops to alleviate goose problems. And geese don't land in standing crops when early season takes place. When did anyone see geese land in standing corn, beans or wheat. :eyeroll: If goose numbers are going to be controlled by hunting it would take total access season long, not just the early season. Good luck with that in Benson, Ramsey and Towner counties. These four bills are about privatizing wildlife plain and simple.


I would have to disagree about this statement. 1) Currently there are 500 geese that are landing daily in a standing corn field out by my house....so YES they do land in standing corn.

2) If you don't believe they land in standing crops thats fine but they do land in water and then walk into the field and feast.. Every single farmer we run into out in North Dakota BEG us to shoot geese for them. They see the crop depredation. Especially where fields butte up against sloughs and rearing ponds.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> as a fellow nonresident he understood that wildlife is property of all - those alive today and future generations


.

I believe that also, but I think Teddy was talking about commercialization way back then. Resident, nonresident wasn't even anything they thought about, so he never looked at it that way. His idea was exactly what those of us against commercialization have been talking about. Check the historical records on wildlife and licensing at the time of Teddy's life. He would have been speaking against market hunting. Yesterday's market hunters are today's commercial hunting exploiters.

It's not the non resident that bothers me here, it's the mix of exploiters and non residents that cause a problem. However, at the same time I do think that those who live in an area and support the community 365 days out of the year should have some benefits. That isn't against non residents that's simply supporting the locals who support each other all year long. I don't see anything wrong or greedy about that. If, for example, Minnesota wants to open season for their residents a week before they let non residents in I don't think there would be anything unreasonable about that. As a matter of fact you guys deserve first shot at your natural resources. After all you guy your pickups locally, you support your local businesses, you buy your hunting equipment at home, you are linked to the people and the businesses all year while I would only come for a couple of days at most. A campground and a few groceries doesn't compare to what you have spent in the last year. That doesn't include the taxes you pay in your community. In comparison in a week I would not contribute one percent of what you do.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, if you want me to answer a question, simply ask one directly. If you want to post comments about whining farmers and ranchers, and threaten to cut of subsidies or raise Federal grazing rates, or ***** about farmers being on a "gravy train" ect.... that is entirely up to you. You can always continue to blame posted land on NR's, G/Os, greedy farmers, ect..... . I'm done trying to provide another insight. Fortunately most hunters are simply good enough people that could care less what a farmer gets paid from the govt, or demand access to "their animals" because of their tax dollars like a vocal few on these sites. They simply wish for a place to hunt and most times these kind of guys have no problem getting on this posted land because most farmers and ranchers have no problem with guys that aren;t whiney complainers *****ing about access and farm subsidies and to low grazing fees coming on their land to hunt.

On the other note, if you wish to debate how much of your taxdollars go to "subsidize" ag producers please subtract all the non ag programs from the farmbill, divide that amount of the current farm bill by the years it is in effect to get what is paid directly into ag subsidies in one year, divide that number by all the taxes collected in that same year and you will have the percentage of a dollar that goes to subsidize farm producers. Then take what the average person here in the US pays a year in food costs and compare that to any other industrialized nation. Then post those two figures on this site. Then and only then perhaps we can have a basis to start a debate as to why this govt chooses to subsidize agriculture. " But I would guess it would be easier just to go to your website and post waht a particular farmer was paid from the govt in one year.

And I can't help but say I find it a bit ironic that a retired Federal employee critisizes someone else for receiving "their" tax dollars in a subsidy. What exactly funded your paycheck and pension?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> This bill has nothing to do with depredation of geese in crops. That is just the fallacious reason being used. Crop damage occurs in spring crops, May and June. There are planting strategies for crops to alleviate goose problems. And geese don't land in standing crops when early season takes place. When did anyone see geese land in standing corn, beans or wheat. If goose numbers are going to be controlled by hunting it would take total access season long, not just the early season. Good luck with that in Benson, Ramsey and Towner counties. These four bills are about privatizing wildlife plain and simple.


Gee Dick you have a new word now, you have gone from commercilization to privatizing :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 
A pseudo biologist such as yourself is aware that Canada Geese mate and return to the same spot every year fot life. So how is shooting a bunch of geese in the fall not going to help? By the way Dick farmers are killing hundreds of geese all summer long with the game and fish dept.'s blessing.They are a problem in many area's in this state in Barnes county also. Problem with this bill it does not go far enough, it should include the whole state. What should be done the early Goose should be treated like the Spring Snow Season. N/R should be charged $50.00 for a license and be allowed to hunt the early season with nothing counting against the regular season. The state could use the money help pay for some depredation which needs to be done. As a farmer Dick you can understand how much of a loss can occur. Just to make it aware to people how much of loss we are talking 2 neighbors had losses next to me they do not post there land. One lost 20 acres of beans, at a yield of 40 bu per acre which would be 800 bu. you can sell them at the local elevator for $13.22 a bu. come to $10,576.00. The other had 30 acres of wheat cleaned out at 60bu an acre which is $9.37 or a total of $16,866.00. I know this is chump change for you, anyone who could afford to donate $7500.00 to measure 2 I'm sure this is no problem. But to some of us this it is a bunch of $$$$$$$$. Hopefully this bill will take some changes and get passed. :beer: :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

KEN W said:


> g/o said:
> 
> 
> > > Again....talk is cheap....show me the figures proving you are'nt just blowing hot air as usual and doing the crying
> ...












.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> and threaten to cut of subsidies or raise Federal grazing rates


I'm only one person and can do little, but your a great help. 

Actually, I prefer to pay subsidies, because if prices go up everyone gets more money except the farmer. The guy who hauls the grain, the guy who grinds the flower, the guy who bakes the bread, the guy who hauls it to the grocer, and the grocer, but the farmers price stays about the same. As you didn't notice in one of my previous posts I said we should all learn to appreciate one another. With animals that are public property posting land for no good reason, and asking pay for hunting is a slap in the face.

I'm not threatening anything gst, I'm just trying to make you think. If our wallet is open everytime we see you, and an agriculture bill comes up, will anyone feel they owe you anything? As I said we all depend on one another, but it has to work both ways. Especially when your less than 5% of the population. Five guys dumping on 95 guys will not work for long.

As for grazing they should at least pay enough to cover the cost of administration in those federal agencies. They pay a pittance of what the real value is.

As for retirement that is the only thing I have against Reagan. Federal employees paid into their own retirement. It was a private fund. Reagan essentially was a thief when he took that money to save social security. So you see my retirement in private funds was yanked from me to save your social security. I would liked to have retired beholding to no one, but now my retirement is just like your social security. I don't like it either. Those federal employees who started after 1984 get what they save, reduced social security (about 1/2) and less than 5% of their salary. The new Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) would have been ok if the stock market does well. People didn't want to invest 2% of social security in the stock market, but that is where the new federal employees have about 80% of their retirement. When I started working for the government in 1971 it was the number one retirement system. In 1980 it was no longer in the top 500. Today it doesn't even make the charts. I feel sorry for the people today.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Good one Judge Elihu Smails , I am waiting for the info when I get it I will send it on, like I said pm me you name and address.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I mentioned a site where people could look at farm subsidies. This is it: http://farm.ewg.org/

I'm not complaining about this, but people should know. Also, as I feel thankful for what I have I wish some of the guys on here would be thankful for what we contribute to them. We all need to appreciate one another.

I notice one North Dakota farmer pulled in over $8 million dollars. North Dakota pulls in over $11 Billion in farm subsidies. Check it out.

One of the main reasons I brought this up is because in the next few years many things will be cut. Some people have already suggested cutting farm subsidies completely. This will have a huge impact in North Dakota. Do we stick together, or are landowners going to shaft the resident hunters/next door neighbor? All these things need to be taken seriously by all of us. Wildlife exploiters are driving a wedge in the traditional relationship between landowners and hunters. We should not let this happen, and these bills are one wedge.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

And once again, out comes the subsidy website. :roll: Apparently my point sails right overhead. As I said I am done trying to provide a different insight.

Plainsman I do have one question for you to answer. When pondering why agriuculture is subsidized by govt, please list the other domestic products that this country produces that brings in more revenue (new equity) to this country than agriculture products?

Now answer this,who would it be in the best interests of this country to control this, independent citizens of this country, or global multinational corporations?

You inevitably bring out the subsidy/grazing rights arguement every time. (even predictably posting this website this go around) Yet you claim you have no problem with them. :eyeroll: For some reason I don;t buy that claim. Even though I have repeatedly stated I do not make a dime off hunting or wildlife, and that we post only a portion of land we own and rent and have never received more than a bottle of Pendelton for access on posted land, you want to paint me as the poster child for closed land and pay for access. And yet you can not see the point I am trying to make why some lands may have a posted sign on them. :eyeroll: So continue blaming NR's, G/O's, greedy farmers with their hand out everytime you meet them ect.... as to why things are changing regarding hunting, it is becoming very predictable. (and for the record, another "sportsman" that could care less how much a farmer is subsidized already posted the dollar amt our farm/ranch has received from this website on FBO. :wink: )


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman I spent just a couple minutes on your site. It seems you conveiniently forgot to mention that this 11 billion dollar figure you post is for a time frame from 1995 to 2009, 15 years. You also convieniently forgot to mention that in this time period 1.6 billion of this was CRP paymts. You also conviniently forgot to mention 16% of farmers here in ND do not collect subsidies, the top %10 collected an average of $41,000/year and the bottom %80 collected an average of $1626/ year. (If you wish to talk figures publically on this site, what was your average annual paycheck from the govt tax coffers per year the last 15 years you were employed?)

Now as I said plainsman, if you want to have a serious conversation about why agriculture is subsidized, research and post the dollar amount of the agriculture commodities ND producers raised for consumption and exportation (total ag revenues) over the same time frame from 1995 to 2009. Then compare the subsidy dollar amt to this generation of equity dollar amount for this country. Now stop and think of the consequences of this country not having that equity produced and having to borrow that amount. If you look at this with an unbiased veiwpoint, perhaps you begin to see why this govt has chosen to subsidize ag. For the record there are aspects of the subsidy program that should be changed, but if you take the time to actually research a bit, you may begin to understand the basis behind the program as a whole. If you do wish to start such a debate, you should probably start an new thread so not to sidetrack this one complaining about NR's.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> Good one Judge Elihu Smails , I am waiting for the info when I get it I will send it on, like I said pm me you name and address.


Like I said above....just use the PM here.It's real easy to use. :-D :-D :-D :-D


----------



## templey_41 (Jul 19, 2008)

KEN W said:


> g/o said:
> 
> 
> > Good one Judge Elihu Smails , I am waiting for the info when I get it I will send it on, like I said pm me you name and address.
> ...


yes please PM the guy so I don't have to read a novel here about nothing that pertains to the topic eace: :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It seems you conveiniently forgot


gst, your so full of bull. Conveiniently forgot? Why do you think I included the link? Did it cross your mind so that anyone who wanted could check the whole thing out? Please get real.



> research and post the dollar amount of the agriculture commodities ND producers raised for consumption and exportation


So if a guy sticks a gun in your face and takes everything you have it's ok because he is very productive. This has nothing to do with the problem. One would think if they are raising and exporting that much grain that they would not need to rob the taxpayer. See how that works? With your reasoning gst the more successful they are the more we should subsidize them. Why don't you introduce a bill that gives Bill Gates a couple billion just for being productive? By your reasoning we also need to dump a couple billion in subsidies on Halliburton.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > It seems you conveiniently forgot
> 
> 
> gst, your so full of bull. Conveiniently forgot? Why do you think I included the link? Did it cross your mind so that anyone who wanted could check the whole thing out? Please get real.
> ...


And yet you claim to have no problem with govt subsidies for ag. Ok then. :wink: So you are comparing someone robbing someone with a gun to the govt support of the production of domestic economic equity??????? In your own words, GET REAL :-? It appears rather than starting a new thread and having a serious discussion as to why the Govt created a subsidy program for agricultural products (note in your web site the subsidies are listed by commodity wheat, cotton,sugar, ect.... not by producer) you merely want to rail against producers "robbing the taxpayer" and compare subsidies to a mugging. And yet you claim you have no problem with govt subsidies for ag. :wink: Anyway, at least you have a handful of interesting posts to show to these farmers as you ask permission to hunt their land. A little advise, you might want to leave out the part where you compare them to a mugger robbing the taxpayer at gun point though. :wink: And if my point is not made at this point, it never will be.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So you are comparing someone robbing someone with a gun to the govt support of the production of domestic economic equity???????


Well, to those who support us I am more than happy to support them. To those who say hello when they see you in town I am more than happy to support. As a matter of fact I am happy to support about 95% of them. However, it's that five percent that have no feeling of connection and appreciate nothing that I feel nothing for. To those who think the world owes them something, that they should be paid to hunt deer or ducks, that the crown on their head is a little tight, I wouldn't want to buy them a one way ticket to **&&^%% . It's that five percent who in the end will shaft all their fellow farmers, because they don't have the sense to stop flaunting their arrogance.

As I said I have nothing against nonresidents. This isn't about nonresidents. It also isn't about the average landowner. It's about money grubbers looking to make another buck. You will notice I didn't identify who the money grubbers were. I leave people free to the old cliche "if the shoe fits wear it".

It will be interesting how how you spin this one gst. You spin most of what I say. Is my point made? I am sure it is even though you will not admit it. Mostly I was trying to get it across that we all need to appreciate one another. I don't like people who don't. Do you think you can do that? If not it's futile.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said quote:"[
1. landowners see neighbors getting paid and post in hopes of getting on the gravy train
2.So if there was no U S Fish and Wildlife and no State Game and Fish what would these farmers do simply eradicate every animal that touched a grain of wheat? The animals were here before them, on the land when they bought it, live with it. No one owes them something every time the gravy doesn't roll in.
3.I heard on the radio the other day a fellow proposing dropping all agriculture support programs to save money. With attitudes like I see on here I think I could support that. I certainly would support fair lease prices for grazing on federal land. They don't even pay enough to cover administration right now. Push the price up three or four times current price would be fair
4.My attitude is that in this society somehow we are all linked. I truly believe that we all live off one another. In that light we should all be appreciative of one another, but there doesn't ever appear to be enough to satisfy landowners. 
5. I need to look for that site address again that shows what each farmer takes in. You can type in a guys name and it will show you what he got from the government in the last five years. Some have raked in over a million dollars a year. Some of us will never see that in a lifetime. 
6.So if a guy sticks a gun in your face and takes everything you have it's ok because he is very productive. This has nothing to do with the problem. One would think if they are raising and exporting that much grain that they would not need to rob the taxpayer."]
End quote

Plainsman there is no need to spin what you say. Your own comments in this thread alone spell out very clearly what you think. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

1 Yes, those are the ones I don't like.
2 I think that is a good question. I wonder if we would have any wildlife left without those agencies.
3 Yes, I am getting pushed that way by guys like you. The only reason I don't voice that opinion often is I wouldn't like the collateral damage that would be the people I still like which is most of them.
4 Yes, that's the way I see it.
5 Yes, some take in more in one year than people on a salary will make in a lifetime. Odd too, because it's those people on a salary with no tax shelter that are paying for those subsidies.
6 That comment was born from your attitude. You justified subsidies by productivity. I used a criminal as an example and asked you if a gun in your face and taking your money would be ok if the guy was productive.

My comments are clear, but misunderstood by those who don't comprehend well, or wish to misinterpret so they can cry.

Sorry I can't play with you much today gst. You worship your money, I have to help plan a funeral for a loved one.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Been awhile since I got on the old ND legislature discussions. 6 - 8 years ago was helping lead the charge to kill HPC2 and we succeeded.

That said there is a good compromise that has occurred regarding NR ND waterfowl hunting. The total number of NR waterfowl hunters has been running between 18K and 24K over the past 6 years. Anyone that wants to try ND gets to visit. The fact that 25% of the licenses are zone buster licenses should not be of a concern to anyone.

I argue that it is lodging that controls much of the nonresident pressure in ND. Certain areas covered in PLOT land in SE ND are crowded because of the available lodgine in nearby Jamestown, Edgely, etc... DL region has abundant lodging. Move away from these areas and you find less pressure.

I hunted in ND 10-12 days last year including YW. We never had anyone near us field or water. Not every day were limits, but each days experiences was fun. Most days we never heard another hunter's shot and occassionally saw hunters out and about.

Since someone keeps bringing up SD ... here is some info:
SD has an early Canada Goose season limit of 8 geese. They also have a special $45 license. There are no limits to the number of licenses sold.

SD has a STATEWIDE licenses that allows hunters everywhere but two small areas of southern SD. The issue is the number of licenses is limited to 3700

SD has a season long NR hunting licenses for far SE SD.

SD has a 3 day licenses for NE SD.

SD has over 100,000 nonresident pheasant hunters and the G/O industry is extensive. It is not an absolute waterfowl nirvana.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

The 3 split - 4 day (12 total) license is a nice idea from a NR perspective. I suggest that a license offering three 5 day seasons with one season to be used November 1 or later would be less intrusive.

The 3 counties in NE ND are trying to get more NR hunters. With ND opening on August 15 - you have plenty of trailer hauling MN hunters drooling over the idea they could hunt ND for 20 days before the early MN season opens.

If this passes - anyone that visits these 3 counties for early Canada geese should be required to apply for a free or low cost licenses so the real number of visitors is determined.

The season long license for 55 year old NRs would create too many 160 acre hunting patches. These early retirees have time and money. Bad idea. How about creating a senior license for those 65 an older at reduced fee of say $50, but they have to follow the same time lines.

*Finally the $500 season long NR license will destroy ND hunting as we know it. It will open the door to rampant leasing. This is the most potentially damaging bill to be introduced into ND since NODAK Outdoors began.*


----------



## kingcanada (Sep 19, 2009)

Well, as usual, it seems that Plainsman is the voice of reason here. Pay at the grocery store? What about the guys who raise pheasants on the CRP we paid for and the charge people to hunt? All the while justifying it by saying that their land raised those birds? oke: I once wanted to be an outfitter (waterfowl), but I decided that I didn't have the right to bribe land access away from others who deserved it as much as I did. Making a living by taking something away from the public is unethical. A person should be an outfitter or guide because they are the best at what they do, not because they can buy the game access away from the rest of the sportsman. Paying for a man's talent and hard work is one thing, paying for access is another. I agree with Ken about posted land being non-eligible for goose (or deer) depredation compensation. 
Dick, you and I get along pretty well and I think that I have said that you are welcome to come hunt sage grouse in Wyoming, but this post about defeating bills that makes life ever so slightly easier on N/R's kind of makes me feel a little unwelcome. I am sure that will delight some folks out there, but I always thought Dick was above that.
Why would anyone be against cutting senior citizens a break? Anyone who can still chase ditch parrots (pheasants) or set out a huge snow goose spread at 3 am when they are over 55 deserves a little credit. If I were a North Dakota resident (came real close to being one several times) I would support that bill.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

kc, I am not opposed to nr hunting here in ND and wish them a good time when they do so. The intention behind these bills is to sell the wildlife to the chosen few who control access and the CVB type businesses. My nr friends hunt here and I hunt other states; I don't request a better deal from them, I'm just happy to go. Because they should set the rules that are best for them in their states.

I see no bills from resident sportsmen trying to change the status quo. Every session I see many bills trying to change the law to put dollars in the pockets of the privatizers. They want to sell more beds and beers and burgers and leases and guided hunts and they don't care a fig about the resource or the future of hunting or the quality of hunting. I do. So do many others who oppose these bills.

Most senior citizens, and I am one, don't need a break. We have been hunting 40-50-or more years. We had our time in the sunshine. I think it selfish of us as seniors to ask for a break on anything. I am far more worried about the kids who have to compete with $$$$ that is driving these kind of bills. Kids can't compete with leasing and land purchases for private hunting, nor the commercialization that is becoming prevalent. And so they do something else instead and hunting dies.

These 4 bills are about converting wildlife into dollars, plain and simple. They do not deserve anyone's support.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Could not agree with you more. Hunting for the common man is slowly dieing. The only youth that will be hunting in the future will be from wealthy families. I have been hunting waterfowl in ND for 40 years. It is sad to see what is happening here. We are not selfish about our States great wildlife resourses,we just want to keep them great. Quaility of the hunting is going down hill period. Why is ND popular with NRs? It is the quality. The only way to keep the quality is to reduce the pressure. If we do not, it will end up like waterfowl hunting in MN.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The only way to keep the quality is to reduce the pressure. If we do not, it will end up like waterfowl hunting in MN.


Sorry the reason why quality is down in MN has nothing to do with pressure and all to do with habitat! So with loss of habitat you will have the people who are hunting all in an area. So then pressure increases. That is one of the main things ND should look at is loss of the habitat. CRP, WRP, Wetland drainage, etc. This year with the snow totals should be plenty of nesting cover and good habitat. In MN you we don't have the nesting cover. Many field are tiled for drainage and we lose all that habitat.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

And Nero fiddles on.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

While raising limits sounds like a viable solution it is not as effective as one would think. Look at the harvest reports at the end of the season. The average number of birds (of any type) harvested is generally less than half of the allowed limit. How many here have filled their limit every time they went out or even 1/2 the times they went out? I suspect that number is less than 5% of the hunters. If the current limit can't be consistently filled how is increasing the limit going to have a significant impact? Increasing the number of hunters has a better chance If that number is significant. While some areas are woefully overcrowded many if not most areas are just the opposite. The times I went out in early season I rarely heard another shot or saw another hunter and the area I was working could have easily supported another 1/2 doz parties without stepping on each other. Local interest in the early season just isn't that great. August/ September is a time local people are squeezing in their vacations before school starts, starting or preparing for harvest,training for fall sports and the likes. Not to mention many just don't want to deal with the heat and bugs. 
I also suspect that raising limits will have to fit within Federal guidelines.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't believe there are any federal guidelines on limits for the early season.The feds only say when the season can start and when it has to end to protect the Lessers that come through.I believe SD allows either 7 or 8 for a daily limit.So ND could increase the daily limit.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Ken,
The feds do have guidelines and a say in limits during the early seasons but I doubt they'd block an increase if the State asked.


----------



## teamflightstoppersND (Feb 20, 2009)

In the early season we would either limit out or we would not shoot any birds at all. The reason we did not shoot any was because the best fields were taken or the fields were posted. Sometimes the fields were just not available, but 4/6 times we limited out. If the limit would have been higher we could have easily taken more birds because the flocks kept coming. We had better luck with limiting out during the early season than the regular season.



dakotashooter2 said:


> While raising limits sounds like a viable solution it is not as effective as one would think. Look at the harvest reports at the end of the season. The average number of birds (of any type) harvested is generally less than half of the allowed limit. How many here have filled their limit every time they went out or even 1/2 the times they went out? I suspect that number is less than 5% of the hunters. If the current limit can't be consistently filled how is increasing the limit going to have a significant impact? Increasing the number of hunters has a better chance If that number is significant. While some areas are woefully overcrowded many if not most areas are just the opposite. The times I went out in early season I rarely heard another shot or saw another hunter and the area I was working could have easily supported another 1/2 doz parties without stepping on each other. Local interest in the early season just isn't that great. August/ September is a time local people are squeezing in their vacations before school starts, starting or preparing for harvest,training for fall sports and the likes. Not to mention many just don't want to deal with the heat and bugs.
> I also suspect that raising limits will have to fit within Federal guidelines.


----------



## Ima870man (Oct 29, 2003)

What about a split limit season. Maybe the limit could be raised to 10 until the Missouri River Zone closes. It then could be brought back down to five for the rest of the early season. Approximately two thirds of the season would then have an increased limit to reduce the population. Moreover, this way it will be lower the limit when the lessers start to show up. It is not illeagal to shoot the lessers, but I sure would not brag about it because the season was shortened by a week or so because of the lessor harvest in the early season several years back. However, now the season has been extended because of the August starting dates. Just a thought. :thumb:

Residents contact your legislators concerning these bills and ask for their support of a DO NOT PASS.

Ima870man :beer: 
Jeff


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

Drakekiller said:


> Could not agree with you more. Hunting for the common man is slowly dieing. The only youth that will be hunting in the future will be from wealthy families. I have been hunting waterfowl in ND for 40 years. It is sad to see what is happening here. We are not selfish about our States great wildlife resourses,we just want to keep them great. Quaility of the hunting is going down hill period. Why is ND popular with NRs? It is the quality.


DING! DING! DING!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

How come nobody is worried about the loss of habitat and should contact your representation about these issues.

With $6+ corn and $13+ beans you will see many acres getting plowed under for crops. How can CRP payments and PLOTS payments make up for $6+ corn and $13+ beans! You want to see quality of hunting go down hill....just wait until spring when many cattails and grass land gets plowed under. I hope I am wrong in this forcasting but i don't think so.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

> How come nobody is worried about the loss of habitat and should contact your representation about these issues.
> 
> With $6+ corn and $13+ beans you will see many acres getting plowed under for crops. How can CRP payments and PLOTS payments make up for $6+ corn and $13+ beans! You want to see quality of hunting go down hill....just wait until spring when many cattails and grass land gets plowed under. I hope I am wrong in this forcasting but i don't think so.


Chuck, you are making a big Assumption here. You seem to make that claim every once in a while as if it is fact, but you are wrong. Many people are concerned with habitat also, but this thread is about a bill brought forward to the senate and that is what is being discussed here. It is unfortunate that we haven't seen anything pertaining to habitat come forward, but it seems to fall on deaf ears in my opinion.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> How come nobody is worried about the loss of habitat and should contact your representation about these issues.
> 
> With $6+ corn and $13+ beans you will see many acres getting plowed under for crops. How can CRP payments and PLOTS payments make up for $6+ corn and $13+ beans! You want to see quality of hunting go down hill....just wait until spring when many cattails and grass land gets plowed under. I hope I am wrong in this forcasting but i don't think so.


What do you suggest our STATE does?????The problem about habitat is federal. :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The problem with habitat can also be state to state. Some states passed a small tax increase to go towards wildlife funding. Some do it with lotto. So do it other ways.

I know it falls on deaf ears. But this is something that needs to be done. People assume that MN has poor hunting because of pressure....NOT AT ALL. MN has poor hunting because habitat was lost. ND had good hunting because of habitat. Now I see that with high comodities habitat will get lost. Just like in MN. You will see more ground getting plowed under. Once it is lost it is almost impossible to get back.


----------



## kingcanada (Sep 19, 2009)

Dick Monson said:


> kc, I am not opposed to nr hunting here in ND and wish them a good time when they do so. The intention behind these bills is to sell the wildlife to the chosen few who control access and the CVB type businesses. My nr friends hunt here and I hunt other states; I don't request a better deal from them, I'm just happy to go. Because they should set the rules that are best for them in their states.
> 
> I see no bills from resident sportsmen trying to change the status quo. Every session I see many bills trying to change the law to put dollars in the pockets of the privatizers. They want to sell more beds and beers and burgers and leases and guided hunts and they don't care a fig about the resource or the future of hunting or the quality of hunting. I do. So do many others who oppose these bills.
> 
> ...


 Well, from that perspective I can understand your opposition. I this really is about converting wildlife into cash, then I would look at the two most notorious states: South Dakota and Texas. Pay real close attention to how things have taken place there. I will say that the "new" South Dakota style licensing for NR's actually encourages it. It helps weed out stubborn freelancers like myself and encourages more wealthy hunters who are more likely to go with a commercial hunt or lease land. Those guys don't like competition from guys like me. I do my homework and hunt hard. Another rationale that people coming from out of state is "As much as the trip and license cost, I had better hire an outfitter to make sure I get all the birds I am paying for". I have even seen that advice in print in national magazines. If a fellow doesn't pay out the nose, he is less worried about the kill tally and more likely to just relax and take what comes.
Now to really stir up a hornet's nest: if you want to stop turning wildlife into cash or opportunities for the select few, outlaw the leasing of recreational rights like Canada did. Then outfitters and guides have to work strictly on their talents and knowledge, instead of their checkbooks.
For that matter, if it is going to cost as much to hunt North Dakota as Saskatchewan, why not just go to Canada? The difference is shrinking every year. Then what happens to all of those NR dollars being used to fund so many projects? Projects that provide equal or greater benefit to those who are residents? What about the money going to the economy?
Just a little food for thought.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Outlaw rec leasing?
Two comments:First do you really believe thats constitutional?Second,while you're creating your commie State,why not just take the land away entirely and redistribute it?


----------



## kingcanada (Sep 19, 2009)

Of course it's not constitutional, but neither is Obamacare. I am sure that Obama is already looking at redistribution of property! :lol: Actually I am not so sure that the second comment is that far from the truth, he is already redistributing wealth. I make the statement to put the entire issue in perspective: greed by one group or other is behind this whole thing. Selfish motives always have a negative impact on our sport, just look at Jeff Foiles.


----------

