# Regent ND Land Rush



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Some intersting names as land purchasers

Land rush in Regent relies on technology
By LAUREN DONOVAN 
Bismarck Tribune 
REGENT - A land rush in southwestern North Dakota had folks bidding by cell phone and others tracking bids on a laptop spreadsheet.

The technology was beyond imagining when the first land rush for homesteaders with plow shares went down in the early 1900s.

This modern Western North Dakota Land Rush at the Regent Legion hall Saturday was the second ever held, following one in June.

As a pulse on land values in southwestern counties, the sale found a strong beat for some acres, good for some, and weaker for others acres.

Cars and pickup trucks surrounded the hall on a chilly afternoon perfect for flushing pheasants.

About 150 orange-vested hunters, poker-faced investors, ranchers and just plain curious packed inside the hall to watch the action and munch salty potato chips and bison sandwiches.

Seven landowners consigned 17 parcels totaling 3,762 acres in the sale. Fourteen parcels were sold.

When the dust settled and the auctioneer quit calling, some $1.5 million would change hands.

Kevin Pifer, of Fargo, whose auction company conducted the unique consignment sale, called it a good day.

This second land rush wasn't as strong in dollars as the first, when sales averaged $500 an acre.

Saturday's average was around $375, Pifer said. He said this sale included a heavier mix of pasture than the last sale, dropping the bid floor down some.

The sellers' reactions ranged from happy, to satisfied, to disappointed.

On the high end was Alan Honeyman, of rural Regent. His 320 acres were first on the auction block and first in dollars at $780 an acre, causing quite a stir of excitement.

The acres have pheasants thick as grasshoppers and are mostly enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. The buyer was Eugene Nichols, a Republican representative from Cando, whose competition from Indiana, was also patched in by cell phone.

Before the sale, Honeyman figured he'd get about $800 an acre.

"If all these people here don't know what it's worth, no one does," he said.

On the low end was Steven Weigum, of rural Bowman. Some of his 360 acres fetched around $260; some didn't get a bid.

Weigum said he'd hoped for $500 an acre and an opportunity to quit seeing his banker.

"I think I'm just too far away from here," he said, referring to the heart of pheasant country.

On the satisfied scale was Michael Larson, who sold 200 acres in Adams County for from $10 to $35 more an acre than the $500 he'd hoped to get.

The auction got him four times what he originally paid for the land a decade ago and gets him debt-free on his remaining land.

Larson said he uses good conservation methods and invites people to hike and enjoy his property.

William Steidl, of Fargo, paid $530 an acre for a Grant County parcel to go with three quarters he already owns there.

He sharecrops and likes to get on the machinery and work cattle.

"I love nature. My wife and I go out and sit on the land and just enjoy it," Steidl said. "I'd like to live out here."

Gene Kempf, of Alaska, was at the sale to see how it compared to the first land rush, when he paid $550 an acre for 231 acres in deep southern Adams County.

"It's the cheapest land in the country right now," Kempf said. "It's going to appreciate, I'm sure."

He came down from Alaska in September and will eventually head to the Baja Peninsula.

A pilot and retired Alaskan schoolteacher, he's got the money for land. "What do I do with it? I don't blow it in the bars."

He's planting wheat grass, a living snow fence and food plots and figures in three years, it'll be prime for producing pheasants.

"It's nice to walk on your own ground. It's a nice feeling," he said.

Arnold Lesmeister of Wisconsin was at both sales. He bought 160 acres south of Mott for his brother at the June land rush.

"He just saw it for the first time and he loved it," Lesmeister said. "It's all about those goofy little red birds in the wild."

Pifer said topnotch farmland is in demand across the state and interest in pheasant land remains strong.

"It's a myth that they will pay any amount for land," Pifer said. "These are practical investors."

The company plans to hold Western North Dakota Land Rush III in June.

(Reach reporter Lauren Donovan at 1-888-303-5511, or [email protected];westriv.com.)


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Wow... if that don't sink your boat nothing will. Land bought exclusively for hunting by NR's. The more small tract and NR owners we have the more posted land we have, sure if you know them you can get permission but that is a long shot from unposted land free to hunt at your own will.


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

You better get used to it... the wave of the future and all that. :eyeroll:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

No I don't have to get used to it.. I can resist this and you will too unless you want to pay to play. I'm no ***** dog that rolls over easy for a belly scratching.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Hate to say it but I think we need about 5 good North Dakota winters in a row to put some sense back into people. Those "goofy" red birds are making everyone "goofy."


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

As much as I hate to say it I agree the best thing for us is a couple real hard winters to put things back in perspective.


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

buckseye said:


> Wow... if that don't sink your boat nothing will. Land bought exclusively for hunting by NR's.


Check me if I'm wrong but the auction was open to the public and anyone who wanted to buy the land had the opportunity to bid on it. If you don't want NRs to buy it, round up some investors and buy it. It seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Nr's don't live here and don't fully understand the local needs and concerns and very seldom care either is why I wrote that.

Yep someday the birds and the abundant water will be gone then we will probably have a chance to purchase these lands at prices beginning farmers can afford.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

some of the highest prices were paid by a R from Cando. I agree that land prices, like wildlife populations, are always changing.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

For a guy who "Doesn't Care" (quoting Buckseye) why is he planting western wheatgrass, tree rows and food plots? Sounds like he is pretty environmentally responsible to me. So he's worked all his life paid his taxes, put away his money, and is now retired and has a place in Alaska, ND, and Baja! Sounds like he has worked hard all his life and planned carefully for the future! Too bad everybody wasn't so hard working and responsible! We should welcome him to ND!


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

buckseye said:


> Wow... if that don't sink your boat nothing will. Land bought exclusively for hunting by NR's. The more small tract and NR owners we have the more posted land we have, sure if you know them you can get permission but that is a long shot from unposted land free to hunt at your own will.


Let's not forget that land was also purchased by residents for the same purpose and not try to make this an exclusive non-resident issue.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

No I don't want this to be an NR issue either I just said that because if you are an absentee land owner thats a bit different than being there. No ill will intended to anyone.

Yes not care, they care plenty for the land but still leave missing links in finding landowners and such. I'm all for each and everyone to live their dream where ever they want. I've always felt the need to try to keep land and farming/ranching within the reach of our young people without sometimes unfair competition. There soon won't be enough young farmer/ranchers out here to keep the darn country going and in my opinion that is a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

AMEN BUCKSEYE......Why cant more people see that?????


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Moving the monetary assets and real estate assets to out-of-state ownership does not seem like a sound business plan for the state. The legislature forbids these transfers to aliens, out-of-state corporations, and non-profit entities, yet intentionally facilitates the same transfer with the current hunting law. Some think if you can afford to buy Missouri River water, then by all means drain the lake. People who don't work hard can drink dust.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Wait till CRP ends....lots of NR landowners will be renting out or selling land.Many G/O will go out of business.

If we had the blizzard and heavy snow in March instead of Oct......bye bye pheasants.

Next drought....potholes dry up.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Look at the big lake and think things will stay the same... then pinch yourself because you are sleeping. The rolling plains have a way of sorting out the weak and rolling them back to where they came from. :lol:


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

I was out in Mott this weekend and my brother in-law was at the auction. $700 an acre for 300 acres of prime pheasant land. My impression of these sales are that people there are really concerned about the future and farmers getting priced out. I make a good living but the price of land out there for pheasants is hard to comprehend.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I agree with redlabel that this should not be a resident/non-resident issue. I live in Bismarck. To be frank, I am no more a resident of Hettinger County as a guy from Minneapolis is.

Let's be honest here... How many of us would buy a 1/2 section or section of land to hunt on if we simply had the resources to do so? I would do it in a heartbeat. In addition, if you made the economic investment to buy a parcel to hunt on, you certainly wouldn't want a group of hunters coming out as you and your family or friends were pulling into the approach for an afternoon of hunting roosters. Therefore, you would likely post it just so you could control access. That's not to say that you wouldn't let anybody in, you would just want the place to yourself if you wanted to hunt with your family or friends on a given day.

My concern is the fact that land values have increased (and will continue to increase) to the point that they are driving farmers and ranchers out of the market. This is unfortunate since we should be making every effort possible to keep young people on the farm. Without young people in rural ND, we are doomed unless we totally want to convert the state to a hunting preserve.

At the same time, the value of hunting land is a reflection of a free economy based on supply and demand. Pheasant hunting land is worth $700 an acre because people are willing to pay $700 an acre. In some parts of MN, good deer land is well over $1000 and acre, far more than it is worth as farmland. How do we control the escalation of land prices without hampering the ability of landowners to freely glean the maximum value from their property?

Why can't we zone land differently that is used solely for hunting and recreation? I think that rural land is either zoned "Agricultural" or "Non-Agricultural", and this designation is made by county zoning boards. However, why can't the legislature pass a law to create a third category? Furthermore, this rural recreational land could have a different property tax structure than agricultural lands.

A higher property tax for recreational land might deter some from buying land soley for this purpose, although it might also push land acquistion to an even more affluent population. We could also use the proceeds from these recreational property taxes to acquire more public hunting areas for sportsmen.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Big D

Although I agree 1000% with the Idea of a "Recreational Land Tax structure" with North Dakotas main economic structure being Agriculture it would be near impossible to designate lands as such unless it was applied only to absentee landowners or landowners charging for hunting access. With the structure that is in place today landowners that charge to hunt and outfit hunters as well as Outfitters themselves are not regulated in any way when it comes to proof of lands used or leased. Absentee landowners quite often buy the land and then rent it out for farming practices. Licensed Outfitters are asked to report leased land amounts but I do not think there is any mandatory requirement for them to report how much is paid to the landowners for the leased land or for that matter weather the money was taxed once it was paid to the farmers. Am I making any sense? IMO the system needs to be refined with checks and balances prior to any legislative action to create a new law regulating land zoning designation. Another question would be who would this effect. Rural Recreational Landowners or would Bars, Clubs, bait shops, sporting goods stores, etc. in cities also be taxed accordingly because of the Recreational aspect of their businesses?

The "Good Old Boy" network in ND will fight this with everything they have if hunters and outdoorsmen propose anything like this. It will have to come from the State and IMO they will still have an uphill with the brakes on battle on their hands.

Bob


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob,

Thanks for the reply.The main reason why I proposed the recreational tax idea was to spur discussion and to try and get people to brainstorm. I don't know when it happened exactly, but this board has shifted away from a place where people brainstormed about solutions to a place where people air their gripes.

One thing that I truly respect about you is that you normally discusses solutions when you discuss a problem.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Bigdaddy,

I like the angle you take on how you view residency.

In Minnesota, you can and are taxed for recreational land if your property is not classified as agricultural and you do not live on it. The taxes are a great deal higher. I guess Im not sure as to the reasoning of this other than the county fathers must assume that if you can afford to own land for purposes other than farming you must be able to afford higher taxes.
I am fortunate enough to have a farm number and x number of acres of CRP otherwise, I really dont think I could afford to own the land. Had I not purchased it when it was cheap, I wouldnt own it at todays prices either. $2000.00/acre.

I dont know about pushing for higher taxes in an effort to "help" the farmer though. The way I see it, keeping small farmers on small farms making a small income puts them in worse shape than high land values and sales for recreation.

Absentee landowners do tie things up but should they really be penalized for it? I mean, all they did was make enough money to invest in a place of thier own. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I can see where inflated land prices for hunting are good in the short term for the sellers but I can't see where it will be good for local ranchers and farmers in the long term but that is the nature of business. In reality the pheasants are worth more than the land. When they are gone so will the inflated prices. CRP programs control their destiny. You will have a hard time convincing me that $2000+ acre land is good for corn and bean farmers in Minnesota or any other state. Or $600+ acre land is good for a rancher in SW North Dakota. Inflated land prices are only good for the seller. Are they inflated? Not if you are the buyer for you see the value! Most people would never pay that kind of money to shoot a pheasant and then there are the rest of us!


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

DJ

In Corn country Mn. land is $4000.00 an acre for good stuff.

Recreational land in the NW is $2000.00 an acre.

Farm land in NW MN is$800 to $1000

If you own 300 acres and can only farm 200 acres but could sell 100 acres of woods for $2000.00 an acre, you would probably do that if it meant staying on the farm. Otherwise, that 100 acre woodlot doesnt do you much good with $1.75 corn averaging 80 to 100 bushels an acre.

You are right, inflated prices only help the seller.

My $176,000.00 lake home is now worth close to 1/2 million but I am consequently being taxed off the place.

To impose taxes on people with the assumption that they can afford to pay according to the current market value is not always fair. The value and taxes jumped way ahead of any increase in my income.

I guess that is why I think you guys may be inadvertantly punishing some people for owning recreational land and ultimately what will happen is they will be gone and some other guy with more money will take over.

Taxing recreational land will never turn it back into farm land.
That may be a blow to your free recreation but it is unfair to feel like everyone else in the world needs to take it on the chin so that you guys have free recreation.

I hear "stick it to the NRs" because they are ruining our resource
"Stick it to the GOs" for the same reason
"Stick it to the absetee landowner" for the same reason
and...
We love the farmers but they should not sell or lease their land.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Big D

Thanks for the kind words!

Bert

One of the possible benefits that could be derived from the "recreational Land Tax" theory is that it could possibly make land less attractive to absentee landowners for a tax shelter. The result could be that inflated prices now paid would level off to a point where a beginning farmers risk to survive would be diminished somewhat. Without getting into the 1031 exchange and capital gains issues the tax would probably affect only a marginal portion of the sales. The true tax shelters would continue due to the fact that ND land values are a bargain at any price to those that have that kind of sheltering needs. The only benefit I could possibly see in that scenario is the added income to the state from tax collections. If I was younger and could afford the startup costs I would farm our land in a heartbeat, It just doesn't pencil out and I already own the land. Think how it must feel to a beginning farmer looking at his/her future. I would like that young family to stay in ND and to see ND's future for them as bright as the sun but in many areas it is a fine line.

There is a great deal of Maybe's and speculation in the above information but it is based on common sense IMO

DJ

It is good in the long term for the sellers as well if they take the proceeds and "pay off the farm" but again as I mentioned above the base price will have been set and will it pencil out for the children of that farmer if they want to take over, expand or start up on their own operation? The only true money making enterprise at $700.00 per acre would be hunting. Example 90 day season times 4 hunters per day times $150.00 per hunter per day equals $54,000.00. That pays for 77 acres of land per year @ $700.00 per acre. You would be hard pressed to find a farmer in that area making a walk away profit of that much every year on that land. (just a rough example)

Bob


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bert

You posted while I was typing so here is an answer to the end of your post.

*Bert Posted*



> I hear "stick it to the NRs" because they are ruining our resource
> "Stick it to the GOs" for the same reason
> "Stick it to the absetee landowner" for the same reason
> and...
> We love the farmers but they should not sell or lease their land.


I think YOU are the only one hearing this. It is apparent that you hear what you want to from what you read. Why do you always seem to throw the blame back on people looking for a solution to a problem or potential problem as being selfish and wanting things for themselves. Tell me IYO how O/G operations, NR absentee land sales etc. are good for ND and her economy compared to resident expendatures and Resident retention?

You seem angry because you feel restricted by ND hunting laws. North Dakota has hunting restrictions just like Minnesota does and South Dakota and Canada and Montana on and on and on. get over it!

You just go ahead and keep pushing your BS with your "Holier than thou" attitude. Many of us feel that eventually some sort of conservation of the resources is going to be required.

I do not think NR are ruining resources in ND alone! Humans seem to do it everywhere they want to go and make something conform to them at their will.

G/O's are Necessary In ND and any other place where hunting is good. I would rather that they go on their shooting sprees with a guide than doing stupid things on their own where I am hunting. O/G's pay the same license fee as you and I plus a little extra for the O/G license and then they are allowed to harvest Many possession limits per week. Plus the number that may become O/G's is unlimited. How is it good for ND to have an industry that is not regulated and required to report taxable income from leasing land. There is no requirement for them to be accountable for income received and paid out for leasing land and little if any enforcement, the good ones do, the good ones often times are judged by the actions of the bad ones that do not follow good business practices. I dislike any broad brush painting of any entity. You seem fond of it!

Absentee landowners, They have every right in the world to purchase anything they wish. in the grand vista of ND's future is it good to promote this process and still think of a viable ND economy in the future?

I do love ND farmers and Landowners I am related to many and I own Land myself. Everyone that I am related to as well as many friends believe there are more important things in life than charging people to hunt wildlife that we all just happen to own per ND State Law. Different situations create different views. I know many old friends that now charge to hunt, they do not do it because they need the money, they do it because they can. Our land as well as other family members land is posted but ANY ONE who asks is allowed to hunt if there is room on the land for them to hunt.

So you just keep being angry and keep feeling restricted and bitter. Some people on here do feel as you put it, very few. Others of us have roots and want to try and see to it that if possible ND may be around to host our grand-children and great-grand-children as we were hosted years ago. I refuse to think twice about my motives for my views.

Just for your Information I do not! and Will not! ever buy any Minnesota Lake property, all of you lakeshore owners feel that you are all squeaky clean when in reality the downward spiral of Minnesota lakes started when the first cabin on the first lake was built. Didn't you blame that on ND Non Residents? ND could learn some lessons from its neighbors if it would just look!

Bob


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Bob,

I do hear "stick it to anybody who infringes on my free recreation".
That is what most of Hot Topics is about (or at least ends up being about)
Explain Lvn2hunt's post/question about wheather or not leasing farmers are GOs and all the other "how can we hookem on a loophole" posts here?
Just an "I wonder" question? Or "how can we jamb up what goes on on private land that keeps us out"?

How about the guys who come right out and say "anything to keep NRs out" and like quotes?

Sure, its not all of you but even those of you who supposedly hunt with NRs every year are all for charging them more and limiting their numbers.
I know several guys around here, good quality sportsmen who, like myself no longer go to NoDak to hunt because of the money, time and principle. It is not just me. Like Bigdaddy said, if you live in a city in NoDak like Bismarck or Fargo or GF and hunt in another part of the state, you really are no more a resident of the area than a guy from Minneapolis and yet 99% of the posts I see here in a huge concerted effort to restrict non residents and dictate the rights of landowners and business people come from those of you who live in the metro areas.

I have never hunted out there with anybody from Fargo or GF. I have hunted out there with guys from around Litchville and Cooperstown and Hannaford... and they would rather have me on their land than some of you guys. ??????????????????????????

My use of lakeshore property was an example of what happens when you tax according to what you think people can afford....you know...land values. The reason why that was brought up here, in my interpretation, had little to do with what is good for farmers but more to do with "if it is owned as recreational land, odds are slim that we will have access to it so lets tax it out of reach".

I am selling my lake place as we speak because of just what you guys are proposing taking place with recreational land in NoDak...IN AN EFFORT TO KEEP IT OPEN FOR YOURSELVES!

I know I burn your bacon from time to time. Sorry about that. But if you guys could read some of the stuff written here from the prospective of a sportsman who no longer has a vested interest in coming there to hunt, you would see that although some of your "cause" is noble and justified, much of it is selfish, childish and out of touch with reality.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> if you live in a city in NoDak like Bismarck or Fargo or GF and hunt in another part of the state, you really are no more a resident of the area than a guy from Minneapolis


So our state taxes don't count for anything?? Please enlighten me on this one!!



> I have hunted out there with guys from around Litchville and Cooperstown and Hannaford... and they would rather have me on their land than some of you guys. ??????????????????????????


And I would be able to find as many residents that don't want non residents on their land anymore. The few people you know does not make it a trend. Ask Mallard about the landowner he knows up by Hannaford and how he feels about non residents. But again, not everyone feels the same as a few!! Most landowners are great and don't really care where you are from as long as you are courteous and respect the land!



> prospective of a sportsman who no longer has a vested interest in coming there to hunt, you would see that although some of your "cause" is noble and justified, much of it is selfish, childish and out of touch with reality.


You see you don't really care what happens here because you are so po'd. We, as a group, want to be able to pass our hunting heritage on to our younger generations. I, for one, would be just sick if I look at the landscape in 10 years and tell my son that he cannot hunt because I made no effort to keep that heritage alive for him. "Sorry son, just buy a video game instead, that is the only hunting that we can afford anymore" :eyeroll: :eyeroll: uke:


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Dljeye

What do your state taxes go to pay for that has to do with hunting on private land?


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

My state taxes help pay for road repairs and improvements all over this state. Where did I ssy that my state taxes entitled me to hunt on private land. Point being, you intimated you and I should be on equal footing when hunting this state. That just isn't the case, sorry Bert!! I live here and spend money here and pay taxes here 365, you don't.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

I spend plenty of money in Fargo, gas, clothes, food... way more there than any city in Minnesota. 
That doenst entitle me to anything but the money you spend in outstate ND is probably the same or less. 
This issue isnt about what goes on in Fargo (which is technically NoDak but not where you hunt.)
Some of my taxes get used in NoDak too as well as every other state in the union.
This issue is about freelance hunting on private land...GOs and NRs, taxing landowners in an effort to shape what suits you.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> if you live in a city in NoDak like Bismarck or Fargo or GF and hunt in another part of the state, you really are no more a resident of the area than a guy from Minneapolis


I can understand that way of thinking... it doesn't matter where people are from if you don't know them. As in... a resident of a community or from another community far away in the same state... all the same except for the paperwork. I am not from Fargo (example) so I am not a resident of Fargo, I am a resident of McHenry County and it is my home. Sure you pay ND state taxes but most are not paying property tax where you don't live no matter what state you are from.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Bert:

Not to get away from this post, but what about us guys who buy their eggs from the 4-Her down the road? Or helps put flax bales up in the winter time on private land? 3 months ago I bought a car for my wife from a landowner's son who was just hired on as a salesman and was struggling a little bit (we needed a car badly)

And although some of us live in large towns, we have many friends and family throughout ND in our small towns. We aren't just there during the hunting season.

We could probably have a good list of people here who feed college kids on Sunday nights. Remember that our higher ed institutes are in the big towns and many of our landowner's have children here going to school.

If you aren't aware, ND is the largest producer of many crops. I buy almost every product I can from Dakota Maid products. Whether it is pancake batter, wine, pasta, or jams and jellies. I would venture to guess many of us do. How many of us have our deer processed in our small town butcher shops???

Not everyone can go out and help fix a fence or drive a combine with GPS, so we try and find other ways to help support our farmers here in ND. As far as I am concerned, doesn't matter whether you live in Dickinson, Bottineau, or Fargo...you are still family.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

I have helped on farms out there too. I purchase lots of stuff made in NoDak. (Sunflowerseed junkie) 
Hell, I only live 75 miles away.
Yes, residency is different but if you drive nearly as far as I do to hunt out there (or did) it isnt that much different for the people of the area you hunt.

This is going nowhere, Ill bow out.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

djleye said:


> > if you live in a city in NoDak like Bismarck or Fargo or GF and hunt in another part of the state, you really are no more a resident of the area than a guy from Minneapolis
> 
> 
> So our state taxes don't count for anything?? Please enlighten me on this one!!


I'll take a stab at this one.

The reason you are considered no more a resident of the area than a guy from Minneapolis (and actually probably thought less than) is because while you live in Fargo/West Fargo 365 days a year and pay taxes all year, the people in the small communities only see or hear from you (and the guy from Mpls) during hunting season. Your impact to them is for the same time frame as the non-resident. However, while most of the people from Bismarck return home the guy from Minneapolis often stays in that small town for a week and spends his non-hunting time in the one cafe and one bar in that town. He becomes a friend for that time he is there.

That's why I think the small towns view you as no different.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bert



> Sure, its not all of you but even those of you who supposedly hunt with NRs every year are all for charging them more and limiting their numbers.


I Hunt with a lot of NR through out the hunting season. To a man they all agree that the fees should be higher and more limitations should be added to try and preserve what ND has and to prevent what YOU have allowed to happen in Minnesota. Want Names PM me I will be glad to put you in touch.



> I have never hunted out there with anybody from Fargo or GF. I have hunted out there with guys from around Litchville and Cooperstown and Hannaford... and they would rather have me on their land than some of you guys. ??????????????????????????


Never hunted with any of us big city boys huh? by choice or from the opinion of others. Many of us big city boys just happen to be from Litchville and Cooperstown and Hannaford, not to many native Fargoans in Fargo any more. Seems to me I invited you but, You had a few different excuses.

I could give a rats a$$ if someone would rather have you on their land than me. it is their land and their choice. If they want to live in their little closed mind world so be it. Why do you chose to keep posting things like that to boost your own ego or to stir the pot.



> My use of lakeshore property was an example of what happens when you tax according to what you think people can afford....you know...land values. The reason why that was brought up here, in my interpretation, had little to do with what is good for farmers but more to do with "if it is owned as recreational land, odds are slim that we will have access to it so lets tax it out of reach".


Get a clue. the majority of people that can afford "recreational land" pay more taxes on their permanent home than they ever will on land in ND, Just like you. Why should ND not be able to add to its coffers just like MN is doing as we speak?



> I am selling my lake place as we speak because of just what you guys are proposing taking place with recreational land in NoDak...IN AN EFFORT TO KEEP IT OPEN FOR YOURSELVES!


You are making a big assumption that the land is already open and available to hunt for the asking and will be closed and not available to hunt if it is purchased for recreational purposes.


> KEEP IT OPEN FOR YOURSELVES!


 More like keep it open for anyone that asks to hunt, and oh BYW that includes you! If you are selling your lake place because taxes are to high then the "recreational tax" theory for ND land may follow the trend and keep the land in a resident farmers hands. I am guessing you are not to broken hearted about the profit you will make from the sale.



> from the prospective of a sportsman who no longer has a vested interest in coming there to hunt,


Your Choice not mine. I don't have to hunt MN, SD, MT or any other place but I do and I never have considered it a a vested interest to hunt in neighboring states, it is a Privilege that I am thankful for instead of feeling bitter and restricted.

You don't burn my bacon at all Bert. I just want to stop the generalizations that everyone has been stereotyped with that we are all a bunch of big city jerks that feel NR's suck and we should have it all to ourselves. Few if any are like that Most are not.

Bob


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> I'll take a stab at this one.
> 
> The reason you are considered no more a resident of the area than a guy from Minneapolis (and actually probably thought less than) is because while you live in Fargo/West Fargo 365 days a year and pay taxes all year, the people in the small communities only see or hear from you (and the guy from Mpls) during hunting season. Your impact to them is for the same time frame as the non-resident. However, while most of the people from Bismarck return home the guy from Minneapolis often stays in that small town for a week and spends his non-hunting time in the one cafe and one bar in that town. He becomes a friend for that time he is there.
> 
> That's why I think the small towns view you as no different.


So, Now you know me and my hunting habits and where I stay and for how long when I hunt. You also assume I never head west except to hunt. I was just wondering where you got your information RedLabel. There are many landowners that thank us when we are there so how do you know how the people in small communities see "us". You assume too much Red Label and you know nothing about me so please don't assume anything about me. You know what they say about when you assume and it ain't on me this time!!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: 
As Bert said, this is going nowhere, I am done with this thread!!!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Nice post Bob and very well said.

Bert. Anytime you want to compare receipts, I would be glad to share them with you. No way on God's green earth you spend more money on ND than I do.

Nope, I aint rich either. Modest income for a 31 year old in a professional occupation.

Remember I am here just about 365 days a year.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Bert, there you gone and done it again. Ruined a perfectly good NR, g/o, landowner skewering thread.

Must be the devil in ya' playing the advocate!! :lol:


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

djleye said:


> > I'll take a stab at this one.
> >
> > The reason you are considered no more a resident of the area than a guy from Minneapolis (and actually probably thought less than) is because while you live in Fargo/West Fargo 365 days a year and pay taxes all year, the people in the small communities only see or hear from you (and the guy from Mpls) during hunting season. Your impact to them is for the same time frame as the non-resident. However, while most of the people from Bismarck return home the guy from Minneapolis often stays in that small town for a week and spends his non-hunting time in the one cafe and one bar in that town. He becomes a friend for that time he is there.
> >
> ...


I was actually speaking about hunters in general and the perception many of the people in small towns have, not you in particular.

Sometimes one puts blinders on and can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Redlable wrote



> the people from Bismarck return home the guy from Minneapolis often stays in that small town for a week and spends his non-hunting time in the one cafe and one bar in that town. He becomes a friend for that time he is there.
> 
> That's why I think the small towns view you as no different.





> I was actually speaking about hunters in general and the perception many of the people in small towns have, not you in particular.
> 
> Sometimes one puts blinders on and can't see the forest for the trees.


I guess it is somwhat related to your own particular situation, and the community involved. I just returned from SD where I hunted for a few days. Hospitality was very good but no one was oozing over us like their long lost rich uncle, everyone was treated pretty much the same. On the other hand when I go home for a long weekend I can't help but notice the difference in treatment sometimes. Ya the people know us but when the waitress is serving coffee to all of the boys in town that look like they just knocked over a Cabelas store and while she is visiting I end up having to go get the coffee pot from behind the counter to pour coffee for the guys at our table it is not hard to notice the different treatment. And no it does not make me angry! I grew up with those people I have eaten at their homes and hunted with their fathers brothers, sons and daughters, and I even married one of them. (i know what your thinking! it was a daughter!!) My point in all of this is that ND residents are at times taken for granted because in todays hunting climate out of state hunting has become a vacation to many and when people go on vacation they relax, enjoy, drink to much, gamble to much and generally are not worried about how much money they spend. On the flip side from my experience of growing up in ND with her vast resources i am blessed with the ability to hunt the entire season, and I do not spend all of my time in one area or state for that matter simply because I have been conditioned from a young age to think that from September to January of every year I get to go on a lot of mini vacations and spend my get away time in small parcels. the facts are there Residents out spend NR's by a wide margin on hunting related expendatures alone and still people feel that NR's should be on equal footing when it comes to ND hunting. I may be all wrong here and if the hunting opportunity for NR's was equal to residents and the hunting quality did not diminish I would be the first to admit I was wrong but the current facts and trends say I am not wrong, sorry if you feel that is selfish but I do not think that I should take a back seat to anyone when it comes to the ability to hunt in the state I have chosen to make my home and raise my family. ND needs NR hunters there is no arguement from me there and there never will be, there are simply not enough Resident hunters left to fuel the engine that has been created. I think you would be hard pressed to find many ND hunters that do not have friends that have moved away and are now NR's themselves. From my personal experience the ones I hunt with feel much the same as I do.

I am not complaining, griping, PO'd, upset, unhappy or anything else. I am just stating how I feel about a problem as I see it. Is there a solution to the problem? Yes. IMO people should accept the opportunities ND offers them and ask no more or no less than what ND decides those opportunities should be.

Bob


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Another good post Bob, I sure hope ND makes the right decisions. :beer:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

North Dakota needs to go carefully here. I agree with Bert on many of the things he has said. I do believe a recreation tax would be a good thing if implemented properly. There needs to be a distinction between ag land and recreational land but that distiction needs to be made by local people. What Bert says is true about woods selling for more than farm land in Northern Minnesota. When I first found out about it I was baffled. What Bert is going through with his home is very unfortunate and hard to believe. It has been discussed here about saving CRP if such a tax was implemented wrong we will loose it for sure. Example right now I could get 15 to 20 dollars more if I rented my land for crop than CRP. With the maintence factor into this it would be an extra 10 bucks an acre. Now if land prices continue to soar as they have taxes with also increase. Let me tell you there will be not much left. Much of the land is retirement for olders farmers and retired farmers and they will look to the bottom line. So CRP will go bye bye for these individuals. On the other had when Geno paid 750 an acre for that at Mott its no big deal his pockets are deep and the same with many of these other guys. They will keep it in CRP but what will the freelance hunter gain by this?

Bob, You and I have discussed this resident vs Non resident many times. You and both agree if you lived in Fargo and went hunting by Lidgerwood for the day you would more than likely go home at night than stay at Curty's. As far as you getting treated as you do at home is human nature. When I go into the resturant by myself the waitress either flips me off or throws something at me. When I come in with 10 clients its a different story. They roll out the red carpet,lets face Bob these gals know us and how we tip etc. but ask any waitress and they all talk about the big tips they get from nr hunters.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

g/o said:


> but ask any waitress and they all talk about the big tips they get from nr hunters.


Yeah, and it isn't the tips from the wallets either!! 

It gets awfully slim pickens in them there small towns as far as men go, you know..... :lol:

If you have any communication skills at all you will make a friend in any town, they are looking for someone to talk to.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o



> has been discussed here about saving CRP if such a tax was implemented wrong we will loose it for sure. Example right now I could get 15 to 20 dollars more if I rented my land for crop than CRP.


On a cash rent basis maybe, on a per hunter basis you have to admit it would probably be more profitable.

The tax Idea although it has its positive points there are an equal number of negative aspects as well. ND landowners have a long strong history of voting booth kills when tax issues are proposed and rightly so. This tax as it has been tossed around would have to be studied hard.



> getting treated as you do at home is human nature


I know it is. Sometimes it is also payback  I do kinda say how I feel freely and some people don't much care for that. An old friend tells me the wealthiest (from her perspective) are the worst tippers, and the hung-over guys are the best. 

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob, Guess what of course I disagree with you. Yes some will come out ahead on a per gun but not that many. I'm looking at the big picture here all of the CRP not isolated areas.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Guess what I agree I did not do a very good job of structuring my answer.

You do have to admit though. those that can afford to do it will lease/buy/rent what ever they can to hunt their particular favorite species.

My wish list for CRP would be if there is a decrease in acreage, prior to the decrease I would sure like to see some of the sensative areas within areas go into conservation easements. A little 5 acre area can support a fair amount of biotic diversity. Would a tax break for conservation easements be any incentive?

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob, I agree, I have watched and done it myself that is to clean up an old farmstead. Dozed the trees out and buried everything and picked up another 3 acres. The cost involved well it looks nice. I often wondered if there was a programn that offered a person some pretty good money to leave that how much would stay?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I mentioned in a post earlier this year that when I did some fall scouting it was hard not to notice the small areas in fields that constantly drown out in some fields yet the landowners continue to seed, fertilize, cultivate and till these areas. I see it as a waste of time effort and resources to continue to farm those areas but that is just from my point of view. The one thing I did notice is a lot of the areas that were flooded were end-points to tile systems in the valley region. Not much can be done with that but the natural depressions that start on the valley ridge seem to be consistant in having dwarfed/stunted crops within them and can not be a long term profitable venture.

Bob


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Bob every year can be different, it just so happens we have had a fairly steady amount of moisture for quite a few years in a row now. The slews are planted in hopes of a crop, if it gets real dry they are the only crop so the farmers risk that every year. They are compensated thru PP for their losses.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I know from personal experience on our farm that when we quit farming those"damn low spots"as Dad used to put it we saw a great deal of increased wildlife, and that was prior to the CRP program. To this day those areas are left as is and the land has not been farmed for years. I know exactly where to go if I wnat to get some wing shooting and horns though :wink:

Everyone in the family (all generations) agree that the land will stay in the family as is weather there is a CRP program or not. Taxes are taxes and that is our only real expense.

Bob


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Good Lord you folks make for interesting reading. I just read this thing at work and wished I was at home with a bowl of popcorn and my feet propped up while reading this.

I was station out in Dickinson for a few years and had the privilage of being able to hunt a lot of this area. My ex-inlaw folks out that way had a lot of land tied up for hunting that they bought with other folks of the same cloth just for hunting.

If I had the money I would have done it too. The good Lord didn't see fit to make me a millionaire (yet  ) so we'll see what the future holds. I don't care who is buying the land. Whether they are from AK, AZ, FL, MN or Mars. If they are buying it for hunting and personal use then so be it. If they are buying it for farming, then farm. I guess I am just of the mind set that it is their land and where they come from, be damned, they can do with it as they please as long as it doesn't effect other folks in the neighborhood.

Tax'in the land for different amounts for different usage's makes sense to me. That's the way it is. I just bought a 250,000. home on the edge of a city that is huge but if I was to buy a home for the same price on my imagined deep, cool, blue lake in N.Minn, it wouldn't buy a pump house shack. The tax's are two totally different animals. (By the way, in about 9 years if anyone want's to trade their lake place for my home, call me!)

Everything in Nature has a way of swaying from one extream to the other and then back again over time with reards to land and prices and the usage thereof. Remember a place called Pig's Eye Minnesota, or a place called Sutter's Mill in CA?

Let the pendilum swing.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

SFC.

There is iron in your words...

The deal with taxes in Minnesota, is that they want to equalize the tax value with the resale value. Well, since property values have gone through the roof and you dont get a break with the tax values, it makes things suck. Sure, one can sell, and clear a lot of money but what then will you do? Move to town and keep your shades pulled down? Once you move, you can never go back.
My taxes went up 21% this year and will do so for the next seven years. My neighbors taxes went up 50%. 
What was affordable (barely) is no longer.
I dont feel like I "deserve" to live on a lake because of anything other than hard work and some smart moves. It does however hurt me to think that because the property got valuable, I have to leave.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Bert,

I do agree with you on this. It is one's hard work and dedication that enables them to live where they _choose_ and not where they _have_ to. It is a shame that someone might have to leave what they have worked their life for because it has gotten to the point where they can no longer afford to live. The area has 'out grown' them ecconomically. Shame on us for letting this happen. Another instance where we moan and grown and sniff our noses at the issue but what is there to do?

What you describe is a bon-a-fide fact and one my wife brings up when we day dream about this. With the prices sky-rocketing out of control and tax's taxing you right out of a place, it makes you think twice about striving to reach your goal. You might obtain it but for how long?

It is still my perverbial carrot on a stck though in my mind's eye. But then hey, I wanted to be a General when I was young too.


----------

