# Alliance Survey Results



## MRN

The ND Sportsmens Alliance has posted a summary of their survey results. This is by far the very best estimate of what ALL ND hunters are thinking. The methodology is impecable. The summary is pretty straight forward (although I prefer "fewer than" to "less than" when talking about people). ;-) Some very good work Bobby.

It sugggests the preferred cap is 10, 500. What does anyone else think?

http://www.ndsportsmen.org/

M.


----------



## cancarver

issues with it, it seems to have been selected at random, all fine and good. however
few things that jump out at me
starting with #8

is leading the answer to yes. When you state a cause and effect in a question, you are leading the answeree to agree by identifing purpose/issue for the survey.

Better worded question
for example
rate your quality of waterfowl hunts in 1993 from 1 to 5
rate your quality of waterfowl hunts last year from 1 to 5

#9 they are combine two game species hunted in 1 question. by me reading that question I would have had two different answers for each type of game.

again 9
1 leading by the use of "more land"
2 leading by the use of the word "harder"
3 leading by using Guides and oufitters"
4 leading agian by the word use "harder"

#10 leading by stating "Over 25,000"

all these questions are leading/implying the problem or issue.

It has been a while since I have taken formal classes on surveys, but this survey doesn't have much validity. The writers had a strong opinion when writing it which "could" have led to skewed survey results. There is a reason why there are organizations like gallup, etc... that perform independent surveys so they have validity.


----------



## prairie hunter

From the ND Sportsmen's Alliance web site:

10. What the NDSA suggests be done:

a. Put a reasonable cap on the number of nonresident hunters.

b. Divide the state into six or more zones for nonresident hunters and allocate a specific number of licenses for each zone.

c. Allow persons who were born in the state who now live elsewhere a preference for hunting license.

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

*Of course I like 10.C. *

Again, for me it is not necessarily about killing a bunch of ducks it is about hunting with friends and family that I grew up with in ND. Although we are very successful at what we pursue.

Now we are hunting with their children. Really do not want to lose that chance and if not licensed in ND as a NR, I may still return this fall to help "guide" these kids and call ducks. On many hunts I do not even raise the barrel until the kids are done shooting or other times I am shooting just to anchor a wounded duck.

As I have stated before - I am a ghost NR. I hunt 95% of the time from a pick-up with ND plates (relative or friend - not a guides). Often hunt on land owned by friends or relatives too.

Maybe my ND birth certificate may be good for something other than proving I am not a Canadian.


----------



## Bobby Cox

Cancarver:

Thanks for taking time from your busy schedule to criticize our survey. I haven't seen any evidence in your post that you have any idea of what you're talking about; until I do, I won't take the time to respond to each of your points. Your posts on this and other boards have made it clear that you are a nonresident hunter who opposes any type of restrictions on nonresident hunters. I suggest that it is the results of the survey that you really dislike, not the way in which it was done. The easiest way to try to make something go away is to try to discredit it ("Guides and outfitters" as leading---that was a good one). If that was your best shot at an attack on the survey, I'll consider it in pretty good shape. I encourage you to do your own survey to test the validity of mine. If you want, I'll even provide you with the HIP database to get you started, which will save you $100. Let me know.


----------



## Guest

Bobby,

I read the survey and agree completely with cancarver. It's not the results that are bothersome it's the manner in which the data was compiled and the questions asked. Question number 8 is completely leading; implicit in the question is a value judgment that non-resident waterfowl hunters are leading to poorer duck hunting. And yes I do know what I'm talking about in terms of conducting an unbiased surveys, I do if for a living along with analyzing data. Let me ask you how can an organization that has already come out against a group of folks conduct a valid survey? :eyeroll:

Question 8: Do you feel that increased numbers of nonresident waterfowl hunters in North Dakota in recent years have diminished the quality of your waterfowl hunting experiences? _____Yes _____ No _____Uncertain

Replies indicated that 49% of resident hunters felt increased numbers of nonresident waterfowl hunters in recent years had diminished the quality of their waterfowl hunting experiences, while 32% did not feel so, and 19% were uncertain. From the confidence intervals, we are 95% confident that the true population response of Yes to this question is between 44 and 53%, while those answering No to this question would be 29-36%.


----------



## Bobby Cox

Full Force Five:

If I had taken the time to respond point-by-pont to Cancarver, I would have conceded that question 8 should have been rewritten as: How have increased numbers of nonresident waterfowl hunters in recent years affected the quality of your waterfowl hunting experiences?, with multiple choice answers of a) they have decreased the quality of my experiences, b) they have not affected the quality of my hunting experiences, or c) they have increased the quality of my hunting experiences. Whether or not this would have made a difference in how people responded, I don't know. Regarding Cancarver's criticisms regarding questions 9 and 10, I totally disagree.

You asked how an organization with a preformed opinion could conduct a valid survey? By bringing in a qualified consultant who has no interest in the outcome, which I did by bringing in Dr. Brian Gray. He reviewed each and every question and made changes to almost all of them before the survey was mailed.

Here's something for everyone to think about: Don't you think it is an absolute travesty that a sportsmen's group had to do a survey like this, instead of the agency that hunters pay to manage the wildlife resources?


----------



## Guest

Bobby

Inquire about a refund. Several of those questions are completely leading, with the answer implicit in the question, blaming the non-resident for a perceived condition. If he did read question 8, why would he not change it to something like: How would you rate your duck hunting experience during the 2000 season 1) good 2) poor 3) etc etc. I asked another friend of mine who works for the largest survey firms in the nation, he just laughed at some of the questions. :eyeroll:

What does this prove, not much. Other than I wouldn't give a plug nickel for the results contained in your "survey" and the NDSA should not be a voice for real sportsman.

Full Force


----------



## MRN

Bobby,
Too bad you have to waste your time arguing here. I was hoping we could generate more discussion of the results and how the results should influence policy. Yes, such a survey, with the same impeccible methodology, should have been done by the G&F.

CC, FFF - question 8 - Leading? Come on, get a grip on reality.
This form of question is possibly the most common used in surveys - agree/disagree with a statement. The statement can be almost anything, and in the psychological literature is often is. This method is the most simple way to get at the information you want. It allows simple binomial statistics, rather than more complex/tedious non-parametric statistics that multiple choice/pseudo Likert scale answers require. I really think you have to go back and read the parts in your "So you want to be professional survey guy" pamplet on the theory/mechanism of leading questions. Having facts, conditional information, values, hypotheticals does not make a leading question. For example, only a theory of social conformity might suggest the following question be predisposed to an affirmative answer: "Most poeple think FFF is totally whack. Do you agree that FFF is whack?". But if we simply ask, " Do you agree with the statement - FFF is whacked and totally out there?", we have not asked a leading question (but we introduced another problem - 2 bonus points if you can identify it). Of course, all this depends on whether the theory of social conformity is correct. Probably different in hunters than in vegans choosing tofu brands.

Questions can always be asked differently, but better is another issue. Therefore, why do you believe this question is leading? What factor, other than the opinion of the respondent, influenced the proportion of responses in each category. The word "diminished" rather than "affected"? Since "improved" isn't a logical option, the use of the word "diminished" actually serves to remove vaguness and increase interpretability of the question - by far the biggest problem in any survey. Perhaps you meant to say that the specific choice of wording can affect the response rate, sure, but that is a different issue than "leading". But the choice of wording belongs to he who does the survey. Perhaps it went by too fast, but consider the likely proportion of responses in the alternate version of the question Bobby posted. You'd be much happier with the question, but much less happy with the responses. That's pretty funny.

Are we to be impressed that you talked to someone in a survey company? Come on, the folks that I know working in such places would love the finish their degree now. These "national" survey companies would be doing very very well to come close to the current study's soundness. No offence if that's where you work, but ....
M.


----------



## Guest

MNR,

I'm not questioning the methodology, I'm questioning the question (s). The point I'm trying to emphasize is the survey and the questions, specifically question 8, is very leading and biased. Question 8 might as well just say, "Have non-residents ruined hunting in North Dakota". . yes, no, indifferent. But of course it's not a leading question with an inherent bias. :eyeroll:

I think this a a record, it only took you a few posts to get personal and attack the person, rather than the facts and/or ideas. Now if you'll excuse me I'll get to work.

"Yes, such a survey, with the same impeccible methodology, should have been done by the G&F." :lol: :roll: I wonder why? I mean the methodolgy is just flawless. :roll:

Full Force


----------



## Eric Hustad

Hang in there Bobby!!! Survery aside if only a few people were concerned then why was the pheasant opener called off and now limits might be imposed. It's because a lot of resident sportsmen voiced their concerns. However most of us have family/friends living out of state who will be affected by the limits, and it is a very difficult issue. In the end I think the voice of people who live in the state should be heard. Quality of hunting should also be protected and it is great to hear from a lot guys out of state who are also worried about hunting quality. Would you rather have a good chance at a good hunt or a for sure opportunity for a poor hunt. Those of us living here know what a quality hunt is all about. I tip my hat to the guys working to protect a heritage here and sticking their necks out. Your doing what the Game and Fish should be. I worry we are losing sight of what is important and that is to share and pass the hunting experience on to the next generation. I hope I'll be able to pass this on to my little boy someday, and not have to talk about the way things were.


----------



## cancarver

Bobby,

Like I stated, it has been a while that I have take a formal class on surveys. But now that someone else who is qualified, has discredited it maybe you could take some time to resond. Especially that you post it on your site and pass it as a valid survey of ND sportsmans views. If you would like to give away the database, I am sure we could put together a survey. But based on the fact that it is suspect that you were even given the database, I would highly doubt you would give to to me or any other independent survey firm.

BTW If you read my previous posts,

1 I am against outfitters and large leases/commercialization of hunting
2 I accept limits of they are based on the resource
3 In most areas for waterfowl I don't believe their is an overcrowding problem.
4 this is a land rights issue, if you don't own the land you do not have anymore right to hunt or walk on it than any other NR or resident.
5 The open land tresspass in law in ND has been taken advantage of by both residents and NR's
6 I am agianst restrictive zoning because it hurts the freelancer
7 we are all hunters, put your energy into fighting PETA and other anti groups rather than trying to limit fellow hunters
8 with the lower pond counts in the upcoming years you will not see 30,000 NR's


----------



## Bobby Cox

Well Full Force Five, it looks like we have an impasse here. You contend that because some of the survey questions were leading, in your and Cancarver's opinion, you "wouldn't give a plug nickel for the results contained in your "survey" and the NDSA should not be a voice for real sportsman."

In response, let me say first that all studies all flawed. I've been doing research for quite a while, and I haven't seen a perfect study yet. The real question is whether or not the study, given that it wasn't perfect, is good enough to draw valid inferences.

Let's take a moment to examine what we do know about the survey and our current impasse:

1. I can honestly say that the survey was an earnest attempt to estimate how resident hunters of North Dakota felt about nonresident waterfowl hunters and their impacts on the quality of their hunting. Early on in this debate (going back a couple of years or more), those opposing caps tried to portray the support for caps as coming only from a few disgruntled hunters in Jamestown, North Dakota who formed the North Dakota Sportsmen's Alliance. I told the Directors of the Alliance that we should go way out of our way to do the survey as best as we could to find out for ourselves whether resident hunters, as a whole, supported our views. So doing the survey well was just as important for deciding whether or not to continue the battle to restrict nonresident hunters (to a reasonable level) as it was for gathering ammunition to support the Alliance's viewpoint, and defending it against unfounded attacks such as yours. So it was very much in the best interest of the Alliance's efforts to try to measure public sentiment accurately and precisely.

2. A lot of highly qualified researchers think the survey was very well done. A very partial list of these folks includes myself (Ph.D., Wildlife and Fisheries Science from LSU, currently employed as a Wildlife Research Biologist for a federal science center), Dr. Brian Gray (Ph.D., Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi State University, currently employed as the Head of Conservation for a major wildlife conservation organization and who did his Ph.D. with a mail survey such as ours and who has since published at least a dozen papers using mail survey data), Dr. Glen Sargeant (Ph.D., Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point, currently employed as a Statistician at a federal science center), Mr. Terry Shaffer (M.S., Applied Statistics, University of Minnesota at Crookston, currently employed as the Chief of Northern Plains Ecology at a federal science center), and Dr. Mark Nawrot (MRN above [please fill in the educational details here, Mark], who is a Professor of Psychology at a major college and who also teaches a course in Research Methodology).

3. Two anonymous Internet posters, Cancarver from Wisconsin and Full Force Five from Minnesota, think the survey is totally invalid. We know nothing about Cancarver's credentials in reaching this conclusion, but we know that Full Force Five, who agrees entirely with him, stated above that "I know what I'm talking about in terms of conducting an unbiased surveys, I do if for a living along with analyzing data." We also know from Full Force Five's statement above that "I asked another friend of mine who works for the largest survey firms in the nation, he just laughed at some of the questions." We know nothing more about Full Force Five's or his friend's credentials.

4. Both of you and Cancarver took issue primarily with Question 8, even though the NDSA's viewpoint of restricting nonresident hunters was LEAST supported by the results of that question, where less than 50% of respondents answered Yes. All of your suggested changes to Question 8 would have simply allowed one to make an inference as to whether or not hunting quality had changed over time for resident hunters. We all know that quality of hunting could be influenced by a myriad of factors. We wanted to know whether or not residents perceived nonresident hunters as impacting the quality of their hunting experiences, so we asked this question directly. We were very careful throughout the survey to never say that nonresident hunters were "good" or "bad." That's what makes the questions nonleading. I think MRN above addressed quite well your accusations on "leading" questions.

5. Neither you nor Cancarver, nor anyone else for that matter, has any data whatsoever to refute any of the results of the survey. I'll make the same offer to you that I did to Cancarver---if you'd like to do your own survey to test the validity of ours, I'll send you the HIP database free of charge to get you started. The survey itself, if you follow the same accepted methodology that we did, will cost you about $1500 in postage, plus about 300 hours of time for data entry, error-checking, and analysis.

I could go on, but I really don't think it's necessary to convince anyone on this board of whether or not the results of the survey can be trusted. Your clear animosity toward the results of the survey, and for the North Dakota Sportsmen's Alliance, is evident in your statement, "I wouldn't give a plug nickel for the results contained in your "survey" and the NDSA should not be a voice for real sportsman." This statement strongly indicates that your efforts to discredit the survey are motived by your dislike of the results, and their significance in terms of restricting nonresidents' access to come and hunt in North Dakota each and every year they so choose. I think it's time for you to take your rubber knife and "rolling eye smiley faces" and retire from this gunfight. If you'd care to identify yourself, along with your mailing address, I will send you a reprint of the paper after it is published.

Here's something for all nonresidents to consider: Over the last few years, the freelance nonresident hunter who came to North Dakota to hunt waterfowl lost forever what he once had, and that situation has changed forever. The news about the wonderful waterfowl hunting in North Dakota was spread wide to the world via articles in DU and Wildfowl magazines, the Internet, and other sources. More and more and more nonresidents started coming to North Dakota, and hunters who either lived here or had been coming here to hunt as nonresidents for several the years could see the hunting quality deteriorate more and more every year. For wealthy nonresidents who don't mind paying large sums of money to guides or large landowners for exclusive access to hunt, the current situation is not a bad deal, and may even be better than it was in the past. For both the freelance nonresident hunter and the freelance resident hunter, the current situation is much worse than in the past, and our survey makes that clear. The only way nonresidents are going to maintain some semblance of "the way things were" is by restrictions on the number of nonresident hunters allowed. Eric Hustad stated well above that you can support restrictions and have good hunting in half or more of the years, on average, or oppose restrictions and have bad hunting each and every year.

Here's one final point for all resident hunters to consider: There's been some discussion on this board regarding whether or not to form a North Dakota Waterfowler's Association or similar group. Muzzy (who works for NDGF) correctly pointed out that we have a preponderance of small wildlife clubs throughout the state now. I think that the relatively small readership on this board will only add another small club. If you truly are concerned about waterfowl hunting quality and other important wildlife issues, I urge you to join and become active in one of the already established sportsmen's groups. If you don't have the stomach or desire to be labeled as "one of the guys in the black hats," instead of joining the North Dakota Sporsmen's Alliance you could join the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, the United Sportsmen of North Dakota, Cass County Wildlife, or the group up at Grand Forks (forgive me, I couldn't remember the name). If you do, you will discover that all of these groups have been fighting on the same side for some time now, even though it is largely the Sportsmen's Alliance that gets beat up in the press and on Internet talk sites. In fact, there have been several joint resolutions passed by all the major wildlife clubs in the state in the last several months, which included the Sportsmen's Alliance.


----------



## Bobby Cox

Cancarver:

Your latest post wasn't up when I replied to Full Force Five, but I trust my reply to him fulfilled your request for a response as well. Forgive me, but I forgot to add to your impressive list of credentials that you "took some survey methodology courses some while back." Send me your e-mail address and I'll send you the database. Would you care to elaborate on how it was questionable how I received the database? Just so you'll know, anyone could pay the $100 to NDGF and request it.


----------



## bioman

Dear Dr. Cox:

Thanks for coming to this site and sharing your knowledge and information on the survey. I am a former resident who has witnessed the absolute destruction of the true "North Dakota waterfowling experience" by the greed and economic interests of both the State and commercial interests. I am ashamed at both the arrogance and hubris that most NRs espouse about their right to hunt in North Dakota. I am 100% for a cap number on NRs. I feel it should have been lower, and all the whining and *****ing that goes on these sites is a testament to the maturity and values that today's sportsmen espouse, especially NRs.

Keep fighting the good fight! Even though you have moved to the other Dakota.

Cheers!


----------



## Guest

First let me say my primary concern is the resource, in any situation or location.

With that said, I've hunted North Dakota the past several years, around the Oakes area. During that time I have never seen a reason for a cap. Never shared a swamp with another group and rarely hear shooting in the distance. Do I have distain for the NDSA, no not really, other than I think it's embarrassing for an organization to hide behind the slogan of "doing it to preserve the quality of hunting." I would rather you just say "doing it because we are greedy." I will not return to North Dakota, I have a cabin in northern Minnesota, which should be a nice substitute. Where things are simple and I feel welcomed. The hunting for waterfowl is not as good, but the grouse hunting and walleye fishing make up for it.

Now back to the issue at hand. My first impression of your post is that you're back tracking. In an early post you admit that Question 8 should have been reworded "If I had taken the time to respond point-by-pont to Cancarver, I would have conceded that question 8 should have been rewritten as", now you're thumping your chest and flashing your degrees, along with others, trying to prove the validity. I'm not going to spend time "making fine distinctions, splitting hairs or squabbling over this and that." Not because I'm somehow intimidated but because it would prove nothing. I prefer to remain anonymous.

The heart of the matter, this whole resident non-resident business is it's not 1973. Things change, maybe change is slower to come to North Dakota but it's inventible. Does it suck, yes. Does it bother me that they are putting a Wal-Mart near my house, where once was prime deer and wild-turkey habitat, yes. What can I do about it, not much. You can't bring back 1973.

In my estimation other measures should be taken before a cap.
1)	Separate the pheasant and duck license.
2)	More Zones.
3)	Cap the zones
4)	Limit the number of licenses available for outfitters.
5)	Reduce the number of days for NR's from 14 to 7 contiguous days only.

I've wasted enough of my time, I'll just take my rubber knife and "rolling eye smiley faces" and retire from this gunfight :roll: I'm really intimated by you. :roll: Anytime you want to have a discussion about this, Thoreau and why he really went to the woods or any other topic, I'm game. Surveys will always have fundament flaws, agreed. From my perspective based on my education and common sense assessment. . . there is a fundamental bias with this survey.


----------



## prairie hunter

Bobby, nothing wrong with anonymous posters, that is what the internet is about. I am pretty sure there are few people on this site that post both with their name and an anonymous handle.

Bioman, I too believe that something needs to be done to insure that ND maintains quality access. *Hunting success is a function of effort, luck, experience, and many other variables, but if you do not have places to go then you cannot succeed from the start.*

With that said, in the late 1970s, there were well over 50,000 resident waterfowl hunters and may be 10,000 nonresidents. That totals over 60,000 hunters. This number is relatively close to the 60,000 to 70,000 waterfowl hunters in ND last fall. Many people hunt ND when the water levels are high, publicity ultra-high (ND tourism articles in magazines, TV shows, and ND game & fish press releases I might add). The difference now is the level of leasing, etc. Nonresidents at the time were limited to 10 days not 14. Just like now, hunting pressure and competition was often intense on weekends in the late 70s and early 80s but weekdays were open.

The area north and east of Woodworth (around the US F&W research station) was posted heavy in the 1970s and early & 80s. Not posted in '94 or '96, this area is now posted heavy again. *Same posters bright green, orange or red signs. Who is leasing this land residents or NR ?*

I remain highly skepticle that anything done by the ND government will change or impact what is occurring in ND. Mother nature maybe, government we will see. I have been blasted on this site for stating some of my comments earlier in March, but stand by my original beliefs that the outfitters will get what they need to survive and grow from the state of ND. Only severe drought will set them back.

Look at my recent post regarding NR deer hunting. NR landowners get first picks (this law does not distinguish between the retired farmer now living in AZ or the rich banker in California that owns pheasant land in SW ND). The guides get the next share of licenses. If the legislature follows this precendent, Cancarver will get a license, he owns land in ND. Anyone hunting with a guide will get a license next. The guy growing up in ND wanting to return to hunt with friends and family (often on family land not in his name) will fight for what is left.


----------



## Perry Thorvig

There are different ways to interpret the results of the NDSA poll. It all depends on your point of view. I look at it this way.

The recent North Dakota Sportsmen's Alliance poll reveals that half of those North Dakota residents that were surveyed had only hunted for 13 years or less. (I have been hunting in North Dakota for twice that amount of time.) That half has only been hunting since 1988. They are what I would call the new; North Dakota hunter - probably a lot of guys under 30. The ND resident who started in 1988 began his hunting at a time when hunting pressure was the lowest (around 30,000 licenses) that it has been in maybe the last 50 years ; certainly since 1975 when there were 73,310 licenses issued. In the new North Dakota hunters first five years of hunting there was virtually no pressure and not many ducks. Remember how dry it was in those days? A good number of the birds that the new hunter first shot may have been snow geese. We had some real good snow goose shoots in 1987 and 1991. In the last eight or nine years water has increased along with the ducks. The new hunter experienced wonderful duck shooting during this period of ideal conditions. Much to the dismay of some residents, the non-residents found out about the North Dakota increase in ducks and the new resident hunter started to see more non-resident license plates. It is only natural that these new hunters would be a little resentful. On the other hand, the old-timers have seen this kind of hunting pressure before and lived through it.

Despite this growth in non-resident hunters, the North Dakota hunter still got out there to hunt for an average of 10 days according to the poll. That is more than my six days that I hunt in two long weekend trips to North Dakota. They also got 15 birds a piece. That is probably a little better than what I and those in my hunting party do for a season average if the snow geese are not cooperating. So, I conclude that the average resident has done alright despite growing hunting pressure.

The other, almost encouraging, result of the NDSA poll is that only 49% (less than half) of the respondents said they felt that their waterfowl experience was adversely affected by NRs. The other half was not impacted or didn't know. We have a virtual tie. I wonder if the old North Dakota hunter has a different attitude than the new hunter who has only hunted during this recent growth in hunting pressure.

I have had some very good hunts in recent years in North Dakota. The ducks were everywhere. But, overall, I have also been disappointed with the overall hunting experience. However, I know that my disappointment has much more to do with the diminished flight of snow geese than it has with other non-residents crowding me out. It is increasingly difficult to combine snow goose hunting and duck hunting in the same trip to North Dakota. That's why I am disappointed. That used to be what we waited 11 months a year for. Now, it is almost gone.

If I were a resident and had the NDSA survey in front of me, I might be tempted to blame the non-residents for my disappointment over the last few years. I know that if the NDSA gave me a choice on a survey of keeping some folks out of my state, I would probably answer, "yes"; Therefore, that probably explains why there are 66% who want limits but only 49% felt adversely impacted by non-residents.

That's the way I see it. By the way, I can live with a 20,000 something cap. Just keep the licenses out of the hands of the guides and outfitters!!


----------



## MRN

Bobby - your points are all right on, although your style is far too gracious and professional and magnanimous. Haven't you learned anything from Benny? (Is Benny on any boards anymore? ) Being reasonable and saying something could have been worded differently is only useful with similarly reasonable folk. Can I have the database too? I too would like to spend my spare time crunching numbers and taking crap, rather than finishing my boat blind.....

FFF - personal? Without thought, rationale, or solid basis you sought to impugn both the integrity and professionalism of a group of good scientists. However, by way of illustration, did the suggestion that you were whack "lead" you to think - "Hey, I must be whack". Of course not, thereby showing that "leading" questions are a pretty small threat to internal validity (unless you are dealing with feeble minded folk).

However, asking clear questions about a specific topic (that you think might be biased, and Bobby touched on in #4) is a much tougher deal. To wit, lets take a closer look at your suggestion: "How would you rate your duck hunting experience during the 2000 season 1) good 2) poor 3) etc etc" Responses to this question tell us nothing about either the role of non-residents or the quality of waterfowling - the information we are actually seeking. This is about as useless a question as can appear on a survey. And you charge folks???? In the case of the survey used, the question you claim is biased actually contains conditional information which is needed to get to the information sought.

Finally, you fail to understand that people can influence whats happening. if ND wants it to be 1973, then we can make it so. That's exactly what's happening here. We aren't going to be mowed over like you say you are. Fine,you can lay down, but we're not about to.

Bioman - always like your thoughtfulness. Since you're in Sacramento - do you know Mike Riley? He a buddy? (joke to few folks here)

M.


----------



## cancarver

perry good points, I will also add that in NDSA results found that residents hunted 10 days, where in the G&F hand out they claim based on HIP that residents hunt 4 days a year.

bobby as far as my credentials they will never match up to a PhD from LSU. I only have an undergrad in environmental science and a Masters in Resource Analysis. So I quess I am wrong, (arrogance of Phd's) BUt I would be more than happy to post a link to your survey on some of the other sites and see what they think. I could title it either "check this survey out, what do you think" or I could lead them in like some of your questions and say "check out this survey, look at how they are leading the questions, and how can a survey from a org supporting 10,500 NR's produce a valid survey, what do you think?"

I also like the spam at the end of your post. There is a reason I post here and not the other ND site. Because though we may not agree on issues and how to solve them, these people here are not commercial enteprises, they care about ducks and duck hunting. To suggest that a waterfowl organization is not the best idea, is a shameful attempt to promote your own interests. Waterfowl Orgs whether small or not only help the ducks, look at WI and MN very political, and their interests represent ducks, not land greedy shooters. If they can put together a small Waterfowl org that believed in not harming the freelancer, and attempted to control guides, along with all the other benfets of similar orgs I would be one of the first in line to send my membership dues. The org wouldn't have to be big, NDSA is evident of that, 1500 memebers out of what? 70,000 sportsman in the state. Your org seems to be politcal and probably has done some good, but recomending 10,500 NR's, come on.


----------



## prairie hunter

I am not going there no more. Too hot for me.

Go hunting.


----------



## Doug Panchot

Bobby,

Boy has this survey and recommendation strike up some controversy or what? It was nice to see this study done, and knowing MRn and meeting you and seeing some of the work that you guys have done, I do not question the survey or the results. I do wonder if the 10,500 is going to work. This is going to be very hard pressed with the tourism industry and all the "economic inhancement" that they (NR) bring in, or so tourism and others say. We are going to have to meet in the middle on this one.

I'll restate what I said in another post about the Waterfowl Assoc. I feel that it would be beneficial to all waterfowl and waterfowlers of the state if we were to start an organization that focuses primarily on waterfowl issues. I of course wouldn't limit the membership or involvement to just this board or the other boards pertaining to waterfowling in ND. This would be a state wide organization.


----------



## Guest

Mark,

Take a powder. I should have been a professor like my father, then I would have more free time. "I too would like to spend my spare time crunching numbers and taking crap, rather than finishing my boat blind....." I'm guessing your saying this in jest.

"Without thought, rationale, or solid basis" I've never know a professor to be so adversarial, am I getting under your skin? My experience in the past with professors is they hide behind a pile of books, and when they feel threatened and vulnerable they flash their phd's attempting to impress.. Wow,. . . and I'm just a lowly Financial Analyst with a master's degree. I'm done with this topic, for the 10th time. Good luck trying to pass 10,500, I'm sure it'll fly. :roll: After all, tourism is the second leading industry behind agriculture, but ya'll don't want to accept that certainty. You would rather get in your time machine and bring back 1973. How appropriate "The Eagles" played last night at the Excel Energy Center in St. Paul. One minor difference they charged about $150 a seat. I guess even Don Henley's moved on.


----------



## Dr. Bob

Perry -

Good Post

:beer:

Dr. Bob


----------



## MRN

FFF
You're a lowly financial analyst? What a surprise! So are some of the California guys with whom you have a lot in common. Could you be a meek financial analyst? That might help you inherit stuff.

Don't impugn me for trying to impress you with my educational background - I was only trying to educate you on the relevant facts of survey design.

The 10,500 number is the result of a survey. It is the summary number describing a whole bunch of responses. That number probably has, and will continue to exert a whole lot of pressure on the end result, i.e., why is it 22,000 rather than 32,000 or 42,000. Wow, didn't think of that.

Hope the Eagles gave you twice the concert that they gave here Tues, our seats (about the middle) were only $65 each. Guess Joe set the prices here and he doesn't even know what year it is.

M.


----------



## ducksrflyn

My first and only post on this internet BB. I am a duck hunter 30 years and running. I am a graduate of NDSU. I am North Dakotan except for a few years away obtaining a professional degree. *I am a member of the NDSA*. I am a professional lurker.

Good god what a bunch of hens. A low number of 10,500 nonresident hunters will fight the unlimited number proposed by outfitters and ND Tourism Dept. A compromise of 22,000 will enable everyone living inside ND a chance to earn a living and everyone outside ND a chance to hunt here quite often.

Lets launch the personal attacks

Fetch: I have been around every duck site under the sun. Read them, once in awhile I comment. You are a good man, really nothing I can say here.

Prairie Hunter: Understand where you are coming from. ND born may get their priority. Now leave the Hot Topics page like you said you would. Try a national web site for any hot topic issues. Go back to work.

Full Force Five and Cancarver: You two can leave now too. Go to waterfowl.com where you are part of the discussion. This site is for ND people wanting better hunting. No arguments will work here. Note that Dr. Cox is a southern boy who now lives in ND. MRN is a professor at NDSU. They worked together on the survey and will defend it to the bitter end.

MRN: Professor of psychology at NDSU does not stand much above financial analyst in most peoples books. NDSU has a top notch reputation in agriculture, engineering, and chemistry. Psyc. yah right. Your assistance on the survey is commended but Psyc professor at NDSU ?

Dr. Cox: old SPAV poster ? Please say it is not so man ? Way back when, I saw that SPAV thread and sent it across my email distribution list of ND people. Good God don't hurt us now man. Enough said.

NDSA will make positive strides in keeping ND what is has been and should always be.


----------



## prairie hunter

Time to go again? Do not think so.

I try to leave but Fetch brings me back in with his trolling of flashy, fancy lures. oke: Then he hits me on the head when I bite. :bop:

The SPAM for the national site is nice. Been there like it here. 8)

Edited out my earlier post and heading back to ducks, dogs, and devils lake. Will tryyy stick to "other issues" on the hot topics page. Addiction to strong to leave completely. :iroll:

Hovan needs to decide soon. :lost: Need to plan fall trips soon.


----------



## cancarver

ducksflyin

go back to lurking, I get the sense your just another irgnorant, narrowminded person, and I could give a hill of beans of what you think.

Bobby where did you go? done defending your little piece of work?


----------



## Old Hunter

When I first read your your posts I could understand your emotions and your reasoning. Being limited in your hunting activities would not be easy to take. Cancarver you are not helping the situation by spreading misinformation. You posted a thread onthe refuge 6/13 that refered to the number of nr's at 20,000. YOU know the number is around 32,000.You continue on to say that you hope for a no tresspass law. Sour grapes. You may not get what you want so you wish to make things more difficult for everyone including my nonresident friends.CC why dont you start a new topic. Ask how many nonresidents are in favor of a no tresspass law. See what your fellow hunters think of your idea.This has been a tough fight. You started out like a true warrior,its seems you lost a few rounds and now you are starting to bite(Mike Tyson). CC go back to fighting a clean fight. You have the skills. good luck


----------



## Guest

M,

The Eagles concert, although expensive, was worth it. They played for 3 hours, taking a 10 minute break.

Back to the issue at hand. . . Yesterday I called the owner of the hotel where I stay in North Dakota. With genuine concern in her voice she said her and others in the service industry contacted the governor several times and expressed their concern. Consider for moment, we are fighting for a hobby; she's fighting for her livelihood. Our battle is trivial compared to hers. So those who are "doing it to preserve the quality of hunting" should consider not doing it for the quality of all life in North Dakota.

Interesting that the Bobby and yourself are about as much ND residents as me. I lived in Fargo for two years, does that count for anything? I wanta take up the battle for "doing it to preserve the quality of hunting." :roll: :roll:


----------



## Eric Hustad

Getting interesting guys. I have to respond to the motel owner thing. The last time that we stayed in Bottineau the lady at the motel said that she missed the groups of guys that used to come up every fall from Fargo and Bismarck. They would come no matter how the hunting was. Now if the hunting is bad a lot of people from out of state cancel rooms so they lose both ways. I thought it was an interesting point she made. I can't blame a guy from Iowa for example not coming up here if the birds aren't down. I also think the 22000 to 25000 cap is a good number for all concerned. My next door neighbor is from a farm near Robinson and he said that the cap number would keep the town full. I think the 10500 just limits too many people, but like my friend Marc Halvorson says "start low and negotiate" I don't want to limit guys like Dr. Bob so I hope a lot of one timers may stay home and the guys that come every year can get a license. To a few others on here, I am really getting sick of you telling us how our state should be run. By living here we should have some say on what we consider quality hunting while at the same time keeping small town interests in mind. I think Minnesota should be catch and release so the fishing can get better, BUT I don't say anything because I live in ND. Lastly job titles don't impress me and at least one of the people isn't an Equities Analyst, then I would have a few more words for ya. I thought the survey was pretty good and credit people who stick their necks out. It sure is easy to sit back and criticize. Fire away Boys.....


----------



## MRN

Any more comments about the survey and the information therein?

As for me, I had no role in the survey, other than reading the output at the end. I defend it because it is proper. If it were improper, it would be the opposite. To see for yourself, compare it to the methodology layed out in something like Dillman's total design method. No short cuts. The folks doing the survey knew exactly what to do. As best as can be measured, the results of the survey represent what all ND waterfowlers think about the issues surveyed.

As for mentioning degrees/titles, it was a brief way for Bobby to illustrate that this thing has been looked at by a whole bunch of folks who do this all the time. If you are going to question credibility, then credentials are important. Research is what PhD's do and know. It's kinda like anyone here trying to explain to Bobby how "they" should study waterfowl, but indeed, he gets that all the time. That tack appears far more effective than my attempt to discuss the mundane WHY and HOW specific questions might be "leading" or not. If you say a question is leading, justify it and explain why and how. If you question the validity, what are the sources of the threats to validity? If you don't like the results, then just say so.

FFF - Yes, it was a great concert. Kinda made you wanna see 1973 again, right? Waterfowling a "hobby"? Are you on the right board? I think these small ND towns should start brothels and meth. labs for solid economic development - but the only folks that agree with me on that frighten me. Nevertheless, a full hotel with 20,000 (1999??) is a full hotel with 50,000 (2003). Enough is enough.

Not sure I understand your residency comment. If you moved back here, and brought your economic development with you, you would undoubtedly be championing the issue. My guess is that waterfowling would be one of the very few advantages for you moving here, or staying here. Imagine how you would respond if that started erroding. It's enough to make some people leave again. Of course, I encourage you to move back, join the fight. Probably the only way we'll ever change your opinion.

M.


----------



## Bobby Cox

Prairie Hunter:

The only private message I received from you apparently was your second one, which effectively said not to respond to your first message and that you didn't care any more. The only other message in my private message box is one from MRN that says "Hey dude, you found this place."

I used to pull up SPAV and look at it periodically for years before other Internet waterfowl talk groups sprung up. The only posts I ever remember making there was to some guy who went by "Biologist at Work," who I felt was representing biologists in a most unprofessional manner by groveling down in the mud with Benny.

If you sent a message to my personal e-mail address listed in my user profile, that doesn't work anymore because I cancelled my Internet service because I'm moving. If whatever you and Ducksrflying remember about my posts on SPAV is too horrible to say here, you can e-mail me privately at [email protected] and I can retrieve it there. I will be sure to respond.

Thanks,

Bobby


----------



## Guest

Eric,

Many lakes in Minnesota are catch and release or have significant restrictions on them, in terms of a slot. The lake where my cabin is on has a gentleman's agreement slot limit, every walleye over 18" gets released.

Mark,

In 1973 I was 3 years old, do I wish it was, no. Waterfowl hunting a hobby, not to me, or those that I hunt with. A day doesn't go by where I don't think about ducks or duck hunting. In terms of economic livelihood and a "hobby" come on. If I move, it's probably going to be around the area where my cabin is located. Decent duck hunting, great walleye, crappie and muskie action, and grouse/woodcock hunting that is extraordinary. No offense, I lived in Fargo for two years while attending Concordia, it's not for me. It's a wonderful city, but I grew up in Minneapolis, a drastic change.

I'm about to check out for the weekend. Have a great one. I'm going muskie fishing in Minneapolis, sounds crazy but there are some awesome muskie lakes 'round here.


----------



## prairie hunter

Bobby,

I will send you another PM. Not even going to discuss this openly. I no longer believe there is any tie to you. So why repeat what I delete.

All you old SPAV readers let it go.

PH


----------



## prairie hunter

Eric,

Lake Mille Lacs with its 14" - 16" slot limit is essentially catch and release. I recommend you get a couple of guys together and spend a few days on this lake.

Boating 20, 50, or more 17" to 24" walleyes is not uncommon and fact it is almost expected by anyone with some basic walleye fishing ability.

Sand, rocks, mud flats, shallow, suspended, deep they are there

Leaches, crawlers, jigs, bobbers, cranks, you can perfect your presentation there.

Smallies, muskie, northerns are there too for those who try.

All within two hours of about 2 or 3 million people.

If you want to keep them then Devils Lake ND may be closer.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

I'm bAAAaaack!

I was out of town the last 4 days, and it took 14 hours to get home from St. Louis yesterday, and my luggage is missing. :******: Not exactly a day I want to remember.

I see this topic has turned a little sour, so I want to touch up on a few things and add my own opinion.

Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but the NDSA took the HIP database, and took a random sample for those to send a survey to. They did not send to the NDSA members....if they did that would be bias. But since they sent to a whole population of resident hunters...I feel it is a fair survey. The ND G & F was having a tough time on the topics at hand, because it all started from opinions and speculations. They really had a major shortage of facts. So hats off to the NDSA for spending the amount of time that they have putting this together. If you don't like the results, that's fine. But attacking the credentials, the people, etc. or those who put it together is a little out of line in my opinion. These guys care about the state and were willing to put the time and make sacrafices to really find out what the population of ND wants. Thanks guys for shedding some new light on the subject and for the time you put into it.


----------



## Fetch

Thanks Ducksrflyin I kinda like me too 

Crazyhorse you put alot of thought in that post did'nt you ???

I'm sending in my $$$ to the Sportsmans Alliance - I want to know more about them. They are going to need all the support they can muster to keep the wolves at bay. Plus all the special interests that THINK :roll: they have a clue how special ND is. But at the same time want to see it become as big of a mess as most other states.

Relationships are & will be the biggest & most important thing in the future for resident hunters. It will never be the same. Locals are tightening up their opportunities for quality hunting. Landowners will not let everyone hunt as freely as they have in the past. Plus many will be angry at alot of the lesser issues that affect them. What is sad is our freedom to hunt such a huge & diverse areas will be lost. Real freelance hunting will slowly be shut down. SHOOTERS will cintinue to come & try to beg or steal or pay to get what we all once shared.

Residents will have to plan & fight for places to stay & to hunt - if they travel to hunt other regions. This is what hurts & bothers me the most. How the idea that NR bring in more money than we do ??? All they have done is replace us & crowd into to few towns, that have services. Making most of us think why bother anymore ???

I will hunt the opener for ducks - then try to find places to hunt sharptails in peace. Then go to Canada while were invaded by NR's & then hunt ND late for waterfowl (after the crowds go home) Just hope the weather cooperates so the late hunting is not terribly affected. Or I may have to become a traveling shooter & go south & meet some of the waterfowlers I have made contacts with. --- Making 2/3's (or more)of my $$$ for hunting leave the state.

If my kids leave the state - I may follow --- In the next 20 years when all the folks that have left the country for the small towns , start to die off. I hope all the NR's fill the financial gaps. I used to dream of someday returning to small town ND to retire. I doubt there will be much left to return to. Farmers & their hired help & guides & outfitters for a month in the fall (probably the same farmers & hired hands) will wonder why everyone left. Schools closed & Tax bases dried up - only regional towns remain. Where if someone would of had a better vision on how to keep folks (& what kept folks) living here - maybe their could have been a way, for it not to have happened ??? It seems the biggest group for the future will be the baby boomers retiring. & no one had a vision on what would have kept them, or brought them back. SAD SAD SAD !!!


----------



## cancarver

old hunter, I may be losing my cool here a bit, just because I find some people so set in their ways/opinions and can't for the life of them look outside the box. My post to ducksflying was evident of that for someone who never has posted to ask me to leave, because he doesn't understand or agree with my views, aloud me to pull the trigger on a personal nature late at night. I also tried looking up my post where I said 20,000 but can't find it, if I did it was on honest typo if I intend to refer to last years numbers. I found it, was in reference to additional 20,000 nr's over the early 90's number of 13,000 or so

I can live with 22,000 lics, would have like it to be a little higher, but it sure is better than 10,500 that NDSA wanted. I also stand by my opinions of the survey.

I came to this site with the opinion that no limits were needed, after listening to a few people here, there may be areas with problems, and would agree that in the 7 years of hunting ND amount of leased land has gotten worse in more widespread areas and feel for there concerns. BUt will disagree how that should be controlled and to the extent of the problem

I am not done fighting for my hunting rights, and fighting against commercial leases, and radical groups like NDSA, PETA or the humane society. I don't like being compared to earbiting mike so I will do my best to clean it up.

Bobby, Before I take the database, I called the HIP program at the USFW, they told me that the information is not for sale or to be distrobuted, their supervisor will be calling me back regarding the legality of obtaining the database.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Guys, let the whole "ducksrflyin" thing go. That screen name was actually one of you posing as another. The IP address was a dead giveaway, and I took care of it.

Cancarver, how can you group the NDSA, PETA and the Humane Society together??? That's simply ludicrous.

Remember, nobody likes a taddle tail either...and I'm sure what the NDSA did was legal. Let it go, your crusade won't go anywhere. :eyeroll:


----------



## cancarver

chris,
NDSA wants to limit hunters --->PETA and Humane don't want hunting at all. Similar in my view.

as far as HIP my concern is privacy of info. from junk mail, to being in the hands of an organization like PETA. If NDSA can buy it for $100 bucks so could PETA, knowing them they could start knocking at your doors. Bobby posted the info on HIP database on here, and maybe others, willing to give it away. The legality is in question of whether he had a right to the database, maybe bobby's worried now, as he hasn't posted in a while.


----------



## Fetch

Cancarver - tell me more about the once Great Horicon Marsh ???

Is it still a good place to hunt Canada Geese ??? & why ???


----------



## Bobby Cox

Cancarver:

What's your problem with the NDSA using the HIP database? Do you really think that PETA couldn't compile a list of hunters without it? All they would have to do is request the mailing list for a large sporting goods retailer like Cabela's. Would PETA change your mind about hunting if they showed up at your door? They sure wouldn't change my mind. I contend that you're upset with the HIP database because (1) you don't like the results of the survey, (2) the HIP database is a good sampling frame for selecting hunters to survey, and (3) this is something else you can sit back and throw darts at.

You should be calling NDGF to get the database, if you really want it, because although it is a federal program, it is administered by the states. Regarding my offering you the database, I just wanted to see if you were dumb enough to agree to accept it. If you knew anything about doing surveys, you would never agree to take a database (sampling frame) second hand, because you have no idea if I've changed it from its original form.

You've demonstrated clearly that you know nothing about doing surveys, and also that you don't know the first rule for what to do when someone finds himself in a hole, i.e., stop digging. I'll alert the Chinese that you're on your way by the shortest, but most difficult, route.

Bobby


----------



## muzzy

Cancarver, I am not sure what your laws are in your state, but in ND any information that a state agency has is public information. That goes right down to personal emails, license applications, etc. Any public information has to be given to anyone who requests it. The Game and Fish department has no say in this and must comply with the state rules. You really don't think they are getting rich off of $100 fee a couple of times a year when someone requests a list such as this. The fee is just to offset administrations time that they should spend on department work.


----------



## cancarver

bobby,

again, never said I knew much about surveys, I just have common sense and a little education and feel its leading. Second if you were to break down the numbers more what is the rural vs urban results for all the questions. Basically landowners vs city dwelling non-land owners. would like to see the breakdown, of course just on a hunch. also how is that ND supported 60,000 resident hunters in the 70's with a lot of lesed land, but when the total again reaches 60,000 but half are from other states, it a problem, sounds like an isolationist attitude

Muzzy
in WI the lic and personal info is not availible to the public, something else ND must not feel threatened by. There are records that are open, but it becomes an invasion of privacy when personal info is released. HIP is admistered by the states at the request and direction of USFW. So if USFW didn't want the info released, ND should respect that.


----------



## cancarver

sorry fetch, very popular place to hunt geese, you apply for a permit there and you can't hunt geese outside that zone. Depending on the population size depends on how many geese you can take with your permit. Been that way since I can remember. I am not much of a goose hunter so I haven't applied for a permit in years, do my occasional goose hunting outside the zone.


----------



## Fetch

So does that make the people who had the smarts to manage the area - "like PETA" ??? I see the NDSA just being political like the NRA. While we may not agree with 100% of their thinking. They have to take the opposite extreme to counter other groups opposite extreme views - then lobby & hopefully it is settled in-between (a more moderate final outcome) Win - Win

Imagine if the Horicon Marsh would have continued to allow commercial & freelance hunters with no limits or zones ??? it would have been destroyed long ago. (are there pay to hunt operations there ???) if so what percentage ???

We should be able to manage our waterfowling like the G&FD manages the way they allow Refuge permits for deer (Hint - Hint G&F Director Hildebrand) :roll:


----------



## Guest

Fetch,

Man, it's like you're comparing a banana to a banana popsicle, the Horicon to the entire state of North Dakota, hello!?!? :roll:

For me and other folks with common sense, PETA, NDSA, NRA, Greenpeace etc. are all radical organization with no room for middle ground or compromise. I know the NRA. . . I'm sure I'll be pegged a liberal but what can you expect from this group.


----------



## MRN

Bobby,
I thought you offered the HIP List so that he might actually try to perform a survey - talk about cursing the poor dude to an agonizing death.

CC - what are you going to do with the urban/rural break down? How are you going to make any decision regarding the the two groups being the same or different? I'll save me the time of explaining statistics and you the embarassment of arguing a groundless assertion, there is no difference between rural/urban groups on their opinion of a cap.

I'm sensing a terrible lack of respect for North Dakota - first, your rabid federalist leanings have you arguing against ND's control over resources, and now you show no understanding of, or respect for, ND's open record laws.

If you play around with the letters in NDSA , you can almost make it say NAZI. I think you guys are onto (on?) something......

M.[/i]


----------



## cancarver

Fetch, horicon is mostly all pay to hunt. I should say the farmland surronding the marsh. Lot of farmers have permanent pit blinds in their fields and charge big $$$. You also have to understand that WI is very conservative in setting limits, I think the last two years outside of Horicon zone you could take 1 goose a day. Just south of us in ILL basically same geese you can take 3 a day. I think the horicon permit allows three geese a year. The management of Horicon is similar to you 1pm closing on geese, it had nothing to do with land access, but rather the resource.

Radical groups, Hey if it wasn't for greenpeace rivers might be still flamable in Ohio. The orgs due to some good, NDSA may have some good programs, Do I promote healthy treatment of animals?, of course, but I wont be joining the humane society. Do I have a right to carry a gun? you bet! do I belong to NRA? nope. All the politcial orgs have postives and Benefits most are radical in their ways in order to accomplish things. Look at greenpeace again in the 70's they were a radical environmental group taking stances that were extreme, in 2002 those same stances are considered mainstream, everyday life. That is where I draw my comparison with NDSA and these other groups. I dont feel that way about Delta, I am a memeber.

Bobby

Got a call for USFW, No names were mentioned, just the state and a survey. Well your org must be making wave over their in MD cause he knew the "perpatraitor" and the survey, which he refer to as the "loaded survey". He didn't like it one bit, but as muzzy stated its ND law, it was not their intention of allowing that info out, as USFW will not release that same info. He said most state have laws restricting the privacy, but only a court case would change that in ND.


----------



## cancarver

sorry mark, your post wasn't up,

Aren't guys so funny?

It is my feeling, that rural resondents will be less likely to favor a cap, than the city dwelling urbanite who wants ND all to them self. I glad you are so confident, explains the narrowmindness of your views on the situation.

My lack of respect for ND is coming directly from the internet and some of the people that post. My respect and love for the rest of the state hasn't been effected one bit. There are always sour apples.

fedarlist leanings??? The right of privacy, land rights, right to bear arms are issues the rest of the country is concerned about in 2002.


----------



## MRN

The concern you raised is not new. The appropriate statistical test was performed. There is no difference between urban and rural respondents views on caps.

Federalist - as in anti-state's rights, as in not a strict constitutionalist.


----------



## Fetch

Well I don't want our Bannana made into pie & cut up & sold. Just cause it's the best Bananna pie left in the country. Too much supply & demand & it's all of our Banannas - are at work - Dayo Day Day Dayo :lol: Day light comes & me want to go home


----------



## KEN W

Cancarver...I moved to Bottineau in 1976.It was for a time the best snow goose hunting area in the country.There was no leased land,none,zippo.I don't know where you are getting that idea from.Yes,back then there was a lot of resident hunters.But they all hunted geese on weekends.Most would sit along the refuge fenceline and pass shoot,then go out and jump shoot.Hardly anyone used decoys then.We could pretty much go where ever we wanted to.I had relatives come here to hunt with me who stayed for a week and never saw any hunters.All the res. went back to work on monday.There is a huge difference between 60,000 hunters in the 1970's and 60,000 hunters now.Most now are after ducks and stay longer than a weekend.Back in the 70's residents around here wouldn't even leave the pickup except for greenheads.Now even the LBD's get hammered.I have no stastical data so don't ask for any.This is purely my observations.But as I have lived and hunted here for 27 years I think I can make those observations.
This is not an isolationist attitude.Were you here in the 70's to compare the hunting then with todays hunters???


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

By the way Cancarver, I'm going to quote you from waterfowler.com. This was your second post when you tried to stir up the pot there a month back, in case you've forgotten where you posted it.

" I have no problem with a limits based on duck numbers. But that is not what is happening."

The Game & Fish NR limit proposal is to base limits on duck numbers....so what's your problem again???


----------



## Bobby Cox

Cancarver:

I see you're getting bounced around a little bit (much like in a pinball machine) as you merrily dig your way to China. Let's see, first you attacked the survey as being invalid because the questions were leading. Once that myth was dispelled by folks who know something about surveys (versus you who admittedly know nothing), you next attacked the NDSA's use of the HIP database. Once Muzzy and I explained to you that no underhanded deal took place for the NDSA to obtain the database, your next tactic was to inquire whether or not some subgroup of resident North Dakota hunters might be more sympathetic to your "right" to come hunt in North Dakota each and every year, regardless of the long-term consequences for resident and nonresident hunters alike. MRN accurately explained to you that I've already done the statistics to demonstrate that there was no difference in how rural vs. urban hunters felt regarding caps, but he failed to mention that I also did the test to demonstrate that there was no difference in how hunters who own land felt about caps versus those who don't own land. Now you're back to attacking the survey as being leading or "loaded," as supposedly labeled by someone with USFWS in Maryland who does surveys.

Well, I hate to say it, but you're back to the drawing board again. Turns out that I know the guy who called you quite well. It's a pretty small world in waterfowl research, and I actually won an award named after him for banding ducks. In fact, he'll be in Jamestown during the next couple of weeks for me to train him for doing brood surveys. We spoke today and he said that what you wrote isn't what he said at all. Considering the objectives of the survey and our use of a highly qualified external reviewer during development of the survey, he said he didn't see how we could have asked the questions any differently. Man, I guess I'll have to give you an A for persistence, but considering your performance in all other categories, that's really not a good thing.

Bobby


----------



## cancarver

bobby you calling me a liar,well I have proved to this board before I doen;t make stuff up. If the gentleman says that to you, its probaly because you have to work with him. I know what he said, as far as me digging myself into a whole, you can think what ever you would like, I stand by my opinions, and evry time you post I lose more and more respect for you and your Org And could frankly careless what you think, your obviously a arrorant, greedy narrowmind, spiteful person, who is no better that myself.

good day


----------



## Bobby Cox

Cancarver:

As long as you continue to attack the survey, I'm going to defend it. You've made it quite clear that you don't care about me or think much of me, the NDSA, or a lot of other folks who don't think like you do. I, however, don't dislike you, but I do dislike your constant sniping at the survey with whatever ill-founded accusations you can dream up for the given day. You see, I do care deeply about quality waterfowl hunting for current and future generations of people who, unlike you, care enough about it to live in the sparsely populated and usually economically poor areas where it can be found, and in that regard, I care deeply about people's impressions of the validity of the survey. As I've said before, the survey is without a doubt the best information available from any source regarding the opinions and attitudes of resident North Dakota hunters toward nonresident hunters and their impacts on waterfowl hunting quality, and that stands whether you like it or not. If you want to change your tactics and start criticizing me, the NDSA, or other people you don't like, go right ahead and I won't even respond. If you want to continue to snipe at the survey with unfounded accusations in an attempt to cast doubt and dispersion for everyone else here, you'll hear from me again.

Bobby


----------



## Perry Thorvig

Thanks Ken W. for the explanation that 60,000 hunters today is different than 60,000 hunters in 1978. I have been wondering about that. Your explanation helps me understand a little better what is going on and why resident hunters are more steamed about this issue than the total number of hunters now versus 25 years ago would seem to indicate.

By the way, what are LBD's? Is that little brown ducks as in teal?


----------



## KEN W

Nice to hear from you again Perry...Yes LBD's are what people around here call everything except mallard drakes.Little Brown Ducks.If the GNF opens the season a week earlier even mallard drakes will be LBD's.


----------



## Urho

To those who seem down right unfriendly to hunters who'd like to come from another state to enjoy what you enjoy, why to you want to blame us for everything that you perceive as wrong with how things are with hunting in N.D.?

My friends and I try to be good guests to your state and good sportsmen. Most of us are just common guys (and some women :wink: ) who come there for 5-10 days out of the season to enjoy the hunt, spend time with our hunting buddies, see our dogs work, visiting with North Dakota friends we've known for many years and when we leave we have mostly great memories and some birds to take back with us. I don't know what is wrong with that or how that is lessening anyone else's experience.

In my opinion, much of what has affected some hunters plans in recent years is the unusual weather in the fall. Limiting out of state hunters won't change the weather and we don't have an affect on birds up in Canada that stay until a snow storm pushes them through. Please don't roll up the welcome mat at the border.


----------



## Eric Hustad

I don't think I/we are being unfriendly towards people who come from out of state to hunt. In fact we hunted a few times with people from out of state last fall. Please see Chris's letter to the editor to see this. I also am not putting blame on NR's. The facts are there is more leasing and hunter #'s have increased. A lot of us became concerned when there were so many people out last fall. Quality of hunting here has decreased the last few years. If this continues how many people are going to come from out of state if the hunting quality isn't there. The cap #'s in my opinion are to keep the hunting quality high, the small towns filled, and allows most people from out of state to continue to come here to hunt. I don't put any blame on NR's being the problem. I am smart enough to understand the economic importance to the state. However if people come from around the country to hunt here and the hunting is terrible are they going to come back?? Then what....


----------



## Urho

Chris, like I said, I think any changes in the "quality" of hunt or number of birds in any place have more to do with several years of unusually warm fall weather that kept northern ducks and geese later in Canada, followed by sudden cold/snow storms that drove birds down through our states more quickly. Even then, when we were willing to move around to different areas, at different times of October than we were accustomed to, we have had excellent hunting most trips.

It's not a question whether you as North Dakotans have the right to change the laws to benefit you more. Of course you do. I just don't think that limiting our ability to come hunt in North Dakota is going to address the problems that have been described here. And unfortunately, if this happens, many neighboring states will likely call for similar restrictions on hunting and fishing in their respective states for non-residents. I won't, because I welcome people from other states to come here to hunt and fish, if they so choose.

I think the answer is to influence our representatives to enact policies that increase nesting areas and habitat, which will benefit us all.

I'm just one person voicing my opinion.


----------



## Field Hunter

Had to post a reply to the people who are claiming that there is no difference to the amount of people who are hunting in ND in the 70's vs today.

In the 70's the ND hunter was after the snow geese and some ducks but the ducks were mostly jumped from the sloughs. I agree totally that most residents hunted the weekends most of us still do that. The NR hunter was also after the geese and the ducks but they stayed longer. The laws on the amount of time, 14 days, were enacted because many non-residents felt that they had to lease large areas of land. I have no real idea of the exact numbers of NRs then vs now but I think the numbers of NRs have gone up sharply and the numbers of residents have gone down sharply. Relatively speaking with the same numbers of hunters but more non-residents staying a longer period of time and more of them leasing and buying land it only stands to reason there is much more pressure. Iv'e seen all this happen over time as I've been a resident and hunted every year for 33 years.

In speaking about surrounding states limiting ND residents....they've already done this. Try to find areas to hunt the early canada goose season in west-central MN. Ive tried, it's either tied up with guides or the relatives hunting them. Try to get on private land in the pheasant belts in MN....Virtually impossible unlesss you hunt the limited public areas or are a relative or friend of a relative. I know this as I have hunted pheasants in MN off and on for 10 years. SD. Sorry, only 4,000 NR waterfowl permits each year.....almost all through outfitters. Pheasants ... everyone knows there is no freelancing here. Pay to hunt is statewide. Montana...almost all pay hunting waterfowl, pheasant, and deer.

By the way the unusually warm weather isn't what's keeping the duck and geese in Canada later. Its the fact that since the Canadian farmer is producing dry edible peas and large areas of wheat and barley. There is no reason for the geese to leave and the northern ducks follow them for the most part. I've been huntiing in Saskatchewan a number of years cold and warm. The huntng pressure drives the waterfowl from an area way more than any warm or cold weather. Hunt the roosts in Canada like many hunters have started to do in the US and the snow geese and ducks won't stick around for long.

The ND resident hunter doesn't want to keep the NR out but we want to preserve the quality of hunting. We need caps and zoning to accomplish this in my opinion. When you're here visisting and enjoying the state don't feel the need to buy or lease land. As I said I've hunted fairly successfully for 33 years and have never leased or paid to hunt. Put the time in that is necessary for scouting and you won't need to worry about any places to hunt.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Sorry Urho, you were speaking to the wrong person, that was Eric on the last post....

I will agree also with Field Hunter that we are limited in other states. For years I could only watch as MN residents were spear fishing all winter. It looked like a ton of fun, but as a nonresident of MN...I wasn't allowed. I didn't feel the need to gripe everywhere, it was just a law and I'm sure there was a reason for it.

Sometimes drastic measures must be taken to protect the resources. My off the wall guess is that 95% of NR don't lease or buy one acre...it's the other 5% that is causing all of the problems. Can we separate them? No, but this is the next best thing to cure the problem.

And you're right about the state needing more public land and habitat. At the Advisory Board Meetings, they stated that the state is grossly short of public land. Many say we have a ton...but they just can't sustain 70,000 hunters.


----------



## KEN W

I agree Field Hunter.You are echoing my thoughts.I started hunting in ND in 1962 when my dad brought me out here.I am originally from Mn. and Grad from St.Cloud State.There was a huge difference between hunting in the 60's and 70's and hunting now.I have lived here in ND for 30 years,and have seen many changes.


----------



## prairie hunter

I thought we already had the discussion on waterfowl then vs now back about 2 or three months ago.

I can link my previous post but to sum it up. Yep

The average ND resident is pursuing hunt ducks and Canada geese more because the snows do not show up until late and they don't stay long. They hunt ducks more often and more effectively. * Read Michael Furtman's book "On the Wings of a North Wind". His chapter on ND was pretty true back then and goes along with Ken. Jump shooting mallards was what it was about.*
Long ago most nonresidents traveled to ND for snow geese. Especially true in the 70s and 80s. Now they come here for ducks. These duck hunters probably would not matter to the average ND hunter if the snows still hit the ND prairie like they used too. They are not coming back.


----------



## Urho

I don't agree that you can't separate the 5% you say are causing all the problems from the other 95%. But your comment reinforces my view that the measures being considered are far too broad. And if it is certain zones of N.D. that are being hunted too heavily, then why not limit the number of hunting licenses in those zones only?

I was just thinking of this. For well over 200 years people have been able to come and go and freely hunt a shared resource. You are now part of a movement that will likely change that forever. I don't see that as progress. Sorry.

And to the person who suggested I was "griping", when I was just expressing my view about proposed restrictions on an activity I love, I thought we still had freedom to express our views. Or is that too only if you live in a certain state?


----------



## Field Hunter

Yes it would be great if we could all hunt and share a resource but that's just wishful thinking. As Chris said above, it sure woould be great to share in the resource of large northern pike in MN through the sport of spearing. As I said before most of the residents welcome the NR and if you would like I'd help you to get into some great spots but we just don't need the amount of NR's coming to the state that have been coming in the recent years.

I have to agree with you somewhat that we can seperate the 5% out. But that is only going to be done by limiting the time they can be here either pheasant or waterfowling. That will eliminate the purchase and lease of some land.


----------



## cancarver

Urho,

a few of us here have tried to explain our opinions regarding this issue, but has gotten nowhere. I have been called a liar, and been accused of making things up and if anyone really knew me they would know I am not that type of person, but because I have different views I am told I don't care about the resource, I am a shooter not a true hunter, and I am wrong. Believe it or not most of these guys are moderate, and do help and like freelancing NR's.

now what I see happening is the Gov will recomened 25,000-30,000 lics, this won't sit well with a lot of folks. As a result the Leg will have bills regarding the tresspass law, and Caps. the guides and will get an allotment of lics when limits are placed. and unless we all fight togther, guides and leases will win out.

Its in my opinion they are fighting the wrong battle, by attempting to cap NR's they they have caused a stir, amognst land owners, tourism, and business's. IF the fight would have focused on the problem, GUides and lease's The only group in oppostition would have been the guides and some landowners. But what is done is done. Once the fight turn towards guides and large leases I will be there.


----------



## prairie hunter

OK Fetch I am a broken record, a broken record, a broken record, but,

Everyone take a look at my post on nonresident ND deer licenses. Guides and NR landowners (not just your retired ND farmer) get priority.

When you guys push for zones, caps, etc.... in 2003.

Do not allow guides to get licenses allocated to them. Hunters with guides should have no advantage in obtaining licenses.

ND landowners should not get an advantage either unless you can figure out how retired farmers can get a license and not wealthy new owners or groups buying land just to hunt on.

If either or both occur much of the access issues will not be resolved and could actually become worse in hot waterfowl hunting regions of ND.


----------



## Urho

Thanks cancarver, those were some of the points I was trying to make in a couple of posts. Maybe I wasn't very clear.

On the posts by Chris and one other person concerning Minnesota's restriction of spearing to residents only. I'm afraid gentlemen that is a red herring. The number of spearers in MN is extremely small and is very limited in what and how even residents can spear (i.e. rough fish and northerns). I've never even met a Minnesotan in 47 years who spears fish here. So I'd say it's not comparing apples to apples. We do not put ceilings on the number of licenses for angling, waterfowl, upland game, bear, deer, etc. for non-residents.

I've probably said more than I need to. And I am just a "guest" at this site, too. So, I'll try to do more reading and less talking. :wink:

I see the N.D. government has made some recommendations today. It'll be sorted one way or another I'm sure.


----------



## KEN W

I have been saying what you have said for a long time.Outfitters must not get preference.In fact I made that post at Angler Pal awhile ago and they refused to put it up...surprise,surprise.
The only way we can stop it at the next legs. is for all NON-RES hunters who stay here and don't use one,to tell the motel,rest,gas staion etc. people to keep that from happening.They will have a loud voice at the next legs. and they always side with the guides and outfitters.


----------

