# Leg tag restrictions and other ideas to improve ND hunting



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ok so a thread next to this began to get off topic, so I'd like to start this new thread to see if we can discuss the NR tag idea...

As a *non-resident*, I can emphatically state that I'm all for leg tags, and further restrictions on NR's. I come to North Dakota to have a fun time, enjoying a quality hunt with friends and family. The number of birds I shoot is irrelevent to me. I'm back home on the prairie having the time of my life watching my dad shoot, the kid's eyes light up, and the dogs wiggling from the excitement of going out again.

Seeing the drastic effect of increased pressure this year, has caused many both R and NR to re-evaluate what an enjoyable, successful, quality ND hunting trip means. I think even some vocal former opponents of further restrictions have now began to reassess their earlier reservations about further restrictions on non resident guests of North Dakota. *This thread is not intended to also suggest that Residents be required to use leg tags. * They live in the state and do not need the same restrictions that need to be implemented to effectively curtail the massive pressure that the non resident hunter influx this state has seen over the past few years. Please do not turn this thread into a R vs NR debate.

If you were to give me 60 legs tags total for waterfowl (20 to use for three 4 day periods), and give me leg tags for roosters, I'd be more than satisfied. If my hunting involves that much shooting where I actually get that many birds, I'm guaranteed of seeing what I come to ND each fall to see.

Here is my idea. I don't need to over harvest the resource. By having OOS hunters come to North Dakota *three* seperate trips, it increases the amount of revenue coming into the state (as it is more expensive to travel back and forth 3 times), reduces the number of birds in total possession limit for one trip, and will reduce pressure by limiting the number of guys who come up 3 times. I know I would only use 2 of those chances max. I would also create 5 waterfowl zones with equal size in the zones for the major waterfowl territory in North Dakota. OOS hunters would be required to declare which zone they are hunting and would not be able to consecutively hunt the same zone back to back weeks or consecutive trips. This would spread out the pressure more effectively.

We'll also see a drop in the shooters..err I mean hunters who come here to shoot day after day after day. * (Then we'll also see how "generous" NR's are by noting the amount of "gifting" they do for the hotel staff, farmers, and food banks)* 

This will also further lessen the guys that come here to try and skirt the law, and maybe they will hunt a different state where things aren't so restrictive. The real hunters who enjoy quality will still come to ND for the right reasons and will be welcomed guests to the state. The guests returning will be extremely satisfied at seeing the overall quality of their hunting rise dramatically.

I keep suggesting this idea as a compromise to all sides. I have yet to see flaws in this logic. This idea would not be difficult to implement logistically, as most of it has been done in similar fashion in recent times.


In summary here is my suggestion on how to solve the current issues in ND:

**Limit the number of days NR's can hunt to three 4 day periods for a total of 12 days. By limiting it to 4 day periods, you will not have NR's pounding the resource for 7 straight days, and it will likely have the effect of having them hunt Friday to Monday, thereby giving the birds much more of a potential 3 day "rest" Tuesday thru Thursday. Birds will return to establishing new feeding fields like they used to during the week in years past.

*Charge $300 for the 12 days to hunt (includes small game, pheasant, swan etc) (this comes to $25 per day which is nothing when compared to a day of golf, attending an amusement park, or a night at a bar back in your hometown)

*Prohibit NR's from plots lands for one week

*Cap NR licenses at 15,000 on dry years, 20,000 in wet years as determined by HPC. Preference point system used for guys failing to draw a lottery license similar to ND Deer hunting lottery.

* A preference point for any former resident of ND who graduated high school in the state. (This will also further reduce the amount of NR's coming here needing guides or reducing access, as most returning native sons already have access through familial and high school relationships)

*3 sets of leg tags (60 total) with dates to be inscribed on tags and/or license, so that only 20 can be used on any given trip.

* Establish 5 waterfowl zones of similar size within the core of ND waterfowl territory. Mandate that the same zone can not be hunted consecutive weeks. This will spread out the pressure amongst all of ND's territory and prevent excessive pressure in one geographical area.

*Use the additional license surcharge to increase the number of ND G&F wardens by 10. The additional enforcement will further reduce the gross violations that seem to be increasing in the state. Station the wardens in high activity waterfowl areas to ensure adequate coverage in the areas where a majority of infractions have historically occurred.

*Enact legislation in the state to tack on a $500 administrative fee to anyone ticketed for an overbag/overpossession or wanton waste infraction to go to a G&F general fund to further subsidize the costs of the additional wardens.

Ryan

*

Ryan


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Ryan,

You are wise beyond your years............ :beer:


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

Something that jumps at me is the number of leg tags. 60 is a ton - I mean, the possession limit is only 10 for ducks (you'd probably need separate tags for snow geese). I hunt pretty darn hard all season long and I don't think I've ever killed 60 ducks in a season by myself (I only shoot mallards though). This wouldn't really do anything to cut down on the guys who just come to get their limit everyday.

Also, I would think having 3 periods to hunt would be counterproductive when you're trying to reduce pressure. Then if you have less hunters, the same ones would probably just come back more during the season since most of them come from MN.

I don't think regs this convoluted would ever pass. You have some good ideas but I think the best/easiest way is just to put a cap on and maybe more zones.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I'm for everything except the preference points for graduates of ND highschools. I've lived in ND for 8 years as an adult. Have I given less to ND than a kid who has lived in ND until they are 18?

You either live in ND or you don't. I'm not a big fan of systems that reward you for having come out of a certain womb.


----------



## loads (Oct 25, 2006)

$300.00?? 

I assume if I don't want to shoot pheasants I don't have to buy that part?
$300.00 for a night out? You must be a rich man!

Again I'll ask: Don't you think the hunter's choice regs will help duck populations? All those hens that get out of us ND hunter's sights each year will add up!

Is chasing away sportsmen willing to give their hard earned $ to ND's economy really necessary? 
How about the zone idea, but instead of making hunters keep moving to areas they don't know, how about capping how many NR's are in each zone?
I truely understand how you want to protect, but if some of you get a little nazi-esque about it IMO.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Thank God your not running the DANG state they would really be out of business, look it is one thing to break up the days, or to have leg tags but if your trying to single handely shut all NR from coming to ND to hunt what you proposed would do the trick. I'd take the leg bands in plastic form and they have to be tagged before they are in the vehicle, otherwise NO DEAL. Ryan I would suggest that maybe you have been drinking or something, because to combine the things your asking for are too great. I have too say that if the state if ND did what you are asking for I would simply drive over the boarder to canada and shoot up there everyday hey I'm only 30miles or so away it would be easy to do and goofing with the BS laws your proposing and I would guess that there would be many more that would do the same as I am suggesting.


----------



## FLOYD (Oct 3, 2003)

I honestly don't feel NR's need to hunt here more than twice a year. If you give them two 4 day periods, that should be sufficient. Otherwise, they are probably going to be out more than most residents. If you give them two periods, they can come once early season, once later, and that's that. If they want to save both for late, they run the risk of being froze out. I also think the part about not hunting the same zone consecutive weeks is good.

You and I both know that if people are given 3 four day periods (3 weekends), which to most people equates to more opportunity than 2 seven day periods, the results are not going to be noticeable. Heck there are only about 5 weekends that NR's can be pretty sure are going to be huntable. 3 out of 5? I am not in favor. 2 out of 5 sounds better.

I also don't think its right to raise the price. that is counterproductive in my opinion, although the money would be nice.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

slough said:


> Something that jumps at me is the number of leg tags. 60 is a ton - I mean, the possession limit is only 10 for ducks (you'd probably need separate tags for snow geese). I hunt pretty darn hard all season long and I don't think I've ever killed 60 ducks in a season by myself (I only shoot mallards though). This wouldn't really do anything to cut down on the guys who just come to get their limit everyday.


I should have broken that down better. I meant to keep all the current possession limits the same as they are now. They would still be confined to a possession limit of 10 per trip.... And ultimately 30 if they hunted all 3 trips. In this way it would be a carrot for a NR hunter to come back to the state on a different date to a different area, and give the state an opportunity to spread out the $$ to other areas of the state with the new NR's visiting new territories.

The 60 number was supposed to be a total number of Ducks and Geese, with a total of 10 Ducks and 10 Dark Geese in possession. This would still give the NR's an opportunity to eat some of their bag while in state.



slough said:


> Also, I would think having 3 periods to hunt would be counterproductive when you're trying to reduce pressure. Then if you have less hunters, the same ones would probably just come back more during the season since most of them come from MN.


I don't believe it would. You will have some who don't travel up more than 1 or 2 of the available periods...due to not being able to afford it. You will have some who choose not to come here as the restrictions are to difficult for them to swallow. You would have many (like me) who travel several thousand miles either by air or driving who wouldn't stay for all 3 periods. Sure you will have some from Minnesota who do come all 3 periods, but that will be offset by many more who will hunt much less.



slough said:


> I don't think regs this convoluted would ever pass. You have some good ideas but I think the best/easiest way is just to put a cap on and maybe more zones.


I disagree. These ideas aren't convoluted at all. In fact many have been previous restrictions that have been modified or eliminated in ND in the last 10 years. Other states have far more complex regs than this. ND has an advantage being the waterfowl mecca that it is. Non resident hunters will still come here and deal with the regulations, as the hunting is still far better for the average Joe than in other states.

Ryan


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan I like everything.....but the cap!

I understand the 60 birds......10 dark geese and 10 ducks. Like you mentioned if they wanted to eat some birds they can....then they will have to use more tags. Less for the next trip. I also agree that 3 time periods is plenty....I would break it up into to 5 day periods....

I agree totally with what Ryan has stated......a NR will only take the one trip. SOme will take two or three (what ever the time period allows). But most can't afford it, can't afford the time off, etc.

CHuck


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

loads said:


> $300.00??
> 
> I assume if I don't want to shoot pheasants I don't have to buy that part?
> $300.00 for a night out? You must be a rich man!


This is for a ND NR waterfowl license. $300 isn't that much when compared to other states NR waterfowl licenses. Go check their costs. Go check out their quality for the average guy. I stated that $25 is not that much of a cost per day. $25 multiplied by 12 days = $300. Also, $300 is not that much money to someone living several thousand miles away in an economy that is better than ND. The majority of NR's coming from distant locales make in excess of $50,000 a year. $300 is not too much to ask for access to a dream hunt that happens once a year.



loads said:


> Again I'll ask: Don't you think the hunter's choice regs will help duck populations? All those hens that get out of us ND hunter's sights each year will add up!


Hunter's choice isn't what this thread is about. It is about how to control an increased # of OOS hunters thru effective legislation. Hunter's choice is a flyway issue by USFWS biologists/waterfowl managers trying to control species harvest. Please start a new thread for that.



loads said:


> Is chasing away sportsmen willing to give their hard earned $ to ND's economy really necessary? How about the zone idea, but instead of making hunters keep moving to areas they don't know, how about capping how many NR's are in each zone? I truely understand how you want to protect, but if some of you get a little nazi-esque about it IMO.


Loads

Yes some form of these changes are really necessary. My zone idea is effective because it will force hunters to spread out, scout, and HUNT a new location. It doesn't restrict your ability to hunt, but rather where that hunting takes place. It is good for all hunters, it is good for other parts of ND's small town economies, and it is good to reduce the effectiveness of guiding and outfitting being able to control the resource. Please try to keep this thread civil and effective to discuss my points without trying to start name calling. Ok? Thanks.

Ryan


----------



## loads (Oct 25, 2006)

jd mn/nd said:


> Thank God your not running the DANG state they would really be out of business, look it is one thing to break up the days, or to have leg tags but if your trying to single handely shut all NR from coming to ND to hunt what you proposed would do the trick. I'd take the leg bands in plastic form and they have to be tagged before they are in the vehicle, otherwise NO DEAL. Ryan I would suggest that maybe you have been drinking or something, because to combine the things your asking for are too great. I have too say that if the state if ND did what you are asking for I would simply drive over the boarder to canada and shoot up there everyday hey I'm only 30miles or so away it would be easy to do and goofing with the BS laws your proposing and I would guess that there would be many more that would do the same as I am suggesting.


 :beer: Exactly!
OR SD... Or NE... There are other places with good hunting.

And how many of you fish in MN? Maybe zones in MN and fish tags are in order... :eyeroll:

I just read the thread about the GA boys. BAN them from hunting in ND!
If you punish these rubes, you'll thin out the bad eggs. Enforcement and appropriate or more than appropriate punishment is necessary!


----------



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

> Limit the number of days NR's can hunt to three 4 day periods for a total of 12 days. By limiting it to 4 day periods, you will not have NR's pounding the resource for 7 straight days,


Ryan, How many days does it take to blast a roost? Or pound the resource? 7? How about 1. I could have hunted the same field for a month until the slough next to it got pounded (one) morning.



> *Charge $300


Ryan, your getting a little pricey, I don't pheasant hunt so why should I pay for it? Plus now it's freelance big money, may as well hire someone for another hundred or two or three and go all out. If I can swing 3 bills 5 is nothing either.



> * Establish 5 waterfowl zones of similar size within the core of ND waterfowl territory. Mandate that the same zone can not be hunted consecutive weeks. This will spread out the pressure amongst all of ND's territory and prevent excessive pressure in one geographical area.


So I actually have a few farms to hunt on and can be left alone to some degree and can only hunt on them for a certain amount of days? Then I need to pack up my sh!t (again) and migrate somewhere else so I can what? get in on a hunt with some strangers who had a field booked in advance? Or run into some other guys on a section that I had permission to be on but they didn't because they were bumped around with their heads cut off hunting wherever land wasn't legally posted? No thanks not my idea of a quality hunting experience and for $300.00 gee I'm not ******.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

gandergrinder said:


> I'm for everything except the preference points for graduates of ND highschools. I've lived in ND for 8 years as an adult. Have I given less to ND than a kid who has lived in ND until they are 18?
> 
> You either live in ND or you don't. I'm not a big fan of systems that reward you for having come out of a certain womb.


Hey Jed

Thanks for the reply... the preference point idea is simply a way to ensure that a portion of NR licenses go to former native sons. I understand what you are saying, however I think the greater benefit comes from having a certain percentage of those NR's will not need to compete with the limited available public land, as they will have some of their own private land secured.

I understand this would be one of the more controversial aspects of my plan, however I wanted to throw it out there so people understood the merits of where I was coming from.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

jd mn/nd said:


> Thank God your not running the DANG state they would really be out of business, look it is one thing to break up the days, or to have leg tags but if your trying to single handely shut all NR from coming to ND to hunt what you proposed would do the trick. I'd take the leg bands in plastic form and they have to be tagged before they are in the vehicle, otherwise NO DEAL. Ryan I would suggest that maybe you have been drinking or something, because to combine the things your asking for are too great. I have too say that if the state if ND did what you are asking for I would simply drive over the boarder to canada and shoot up there everyday hey I'm only 30miles or so away it would be easy to do and goofing with the BS laws your proposing and I would guess that there would be many more that would do the same as I am suggesting.


JD

These ideas would certain not harm the state. The NR's (like me) would still certainly come. Remember I would be subject to all of these restrictions. Happily!

I'm also in favor of immediate tagging of your birds. The same way you must immediately tag your harvested deer.

If it would have the effect of reducing overall pressure by 40% I'm all for it. Then it would essentially achieve the Hunter Pressure concept goal by other means...

Ryan


----------



## R Buker (Oct 29, 2005)

I have never hunted ND for waterfowl and don't intend to. I've got good waterfowl hunting right in my own back yard. I say this so as not to come off as sounding like a NR sour grapes kind of guy.

But, I have an enormous problem with your plan in that we are talking about a very Migratory bird. This is not one that ND owns like they do their pheasants that are born, live and die on ND soil. No matter where I hunt I pay for a FEDERAL waterfowl stamp that helps pay for ALL waterfowl. And, I help pay for ALL of the federal land in ND (and MN, IA, etc.) To have any limits place upon me over and above what ND can and should do to protect their own is pure BS. (I'm suggesting that if ND wants to, they can limit NR's from state land and plots but certainly not federal land and certainly not private land as the land owner may want me to hunt there and on a rather frequent basis)

If your plan would be implemented things would get to be a nightmare with borrowed leg tags, multiple licenses bought etc. Enforcement would be nearly impossible and would set off a firestorm of retaliation and bad feelings among sportspeople. We should be trying to build on the brotherhood of sportsmen rather than tearing it apart or putting more restrictions on it.
My 2cents


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> Ryan I like everything.....but the cap!
> 
> I understand the 60 birds......10 dark geese and 10 ducks. Like you mentioned if they wanted to eat some birds they can....then they will have to use more tags. Less for the next trip. I also agree that 3 time periods is plenty....I would break it up into to 5 day periods....
> 
> ...


Hey Chuck

Thanks for posting your thoughts on this issue!

I misstated the 60 birds. They would need to be tagged immediately upon being in the hand. Three 5 day periods is wayyyyy to much. The birds do not get a rest with that idea. I'm trying to get ND back to what it used to be like 15 years ago. The most effective way to achieve that is to give the birds a rest Tuesday through Thursday. It will keep them in the state longer. If anything, I'd even go back to two 4 day periods as has been suggested in a subsequent thread. MAX is 12 days waterfowl hunting. The current two 7 day periods is not working, as guys relentlessly pound the resource for 7 consecutive days constantly harrassing the birds off every field each day. We've seen it this year where multiple guys are clamoring for the same fields because the birds were in there the night before. This compettion needs to be eliminated.

In a totality of circumstances, my ideas are a compromise for both sides...

Ryan


----------



## loads (Oct 25, 2006)

R y a n said:


> This is for a ND NR waterfowl license. $300 isn't that much when compared to other states NR waterfowl licenses. Go check their costs. Go check out their quality for the average guy. I stated that $25 is not that much of a cost per day. $25 multiplied by 12 days = $300. Also, $300 is not that much money to someone living several thousand miles away in an economy that is better than ND. The majority of NR's coming from distant locales make in excess of $50,000 a year. $300 is not too much to ask for access to a dream hunt that happens once a year.


Now what you do is take the working man out of ND and replace them with yuppie hunters. It's just plain greed. Be honest.



R y a n said:


> Hunter's choice isn't what this thread is about. It is about how to control an increased # of OOS hunters thru effective legislation. Hunter's choice is a flyway issue by USFWS biologists/waterfowl managers trying to control species harvest. Please start a new thread for that.


Didn't it say "and other ideas" in the thread title? I just think some of you are going too far. MN's doe permit zones control how many does are taken out of each area, it would also control and spread out the hunting pressure.



R y a n said:


> Yes some form of these changes are really necessary. My zone idea is effective because it will force hunters to spread out, scout, and HUNT a new location. It doesn't restrict your ability to hunt, but rather where that hunting takes place. It is good for all hunters, it is good for other parts of ND's small town economies, and it is good to reduce the effectiveness of guiding and outfitting being able to control the resource.


I'm all for scouting and hunting new locations. I just think this will amount to pushing the NR's to whare the birds aren't or to where the ice is.



R y a n said:


> Please try to keep this thread civil and effective to discuss my points without trying to start name calling. Ok? Thanks.


I have been. If nazi-esque is name calling, then sorry. I call em as I see em. I think this mindset I'm seeing is not only over-reacting, I do think it's nazi-esque. I'm glad I didn't have the displeasure of talking to someone willing to express these views to my face while I was there! It really would have wrecked my wonderful hunt out there. As it turns out, all I talked to were actually concerned about our hunt and told us of places to try the next day even after hearing we filled out that day!

I'm sure some of those guys are on this site to.

If so, to them :beer: thanks!


----------



## Bigdog (Aug 13, 2003)

I usually avoid these discussions but I will take a stab at this in hopes that it stays civil.

Legs tags, fine, as long as there are a few more than my possesion limit in case I get lucky enough to eat some birds when I am hunting (if I manage to get a kitchenette). I would like to take a posession limit home to eat.
Five zones, depends on where they are to see if that would affect me. Currently I don't buy the "zone buster license". 
Prohibit me from plots for a week - that already keeps me away from ND during that week and it would in the future. 
In all likelyhood I could only make two trips during duck season unless it was a warm year and it paid to go out after deer season so 3 time periods makes no difference. 
Lottery system, not sure on that one. I applied for South Dakota this year because of all the stories of how much better it was than North Dakota. Not sure if I would apply for a North Dakota lottery, may just go somewhere else where I was allowed every year. Jury is out on that one.
Raise the license from $85 to $300, that's most likely too much for me, you will have achieved your goal of keeping one NR out of ND.

As I write this I can't help but think if you limit me to 4 days and I have to try new areas I would be more likely to stay with a someone that has land tied up for their guests to increase my chances of succes.

That's one NR's input. For perspective I hunt with 2 other fellows on one trip and by myself on the 2nd trip. I don't gift birds. I visit ND to hunt ducks, sharpies and pheasants.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan.....I ment two 5 day periods.....only 10 days in the feild. I also understand about the tagging imediately. I like that idea.


----------



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

> These ideas would certain not harm the state. The NR's (like me) would still certainly come. Remember I would be subject to all of these restrictions. Happily!


Let me guess, you have a connection or two, a free place to stay, (maybe a relatives) have some frequent flyer miles to burn for your back and forth trips, or maybe an old friend or two live in each of the 5 zones you proposed but just haven't mapped out yet. You pheasant hunt so why not include that in the $300.00. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

All about $$$$$$$$$$$$. So for those who hunt in non pheasant areas, you would be paying $300 for a waterfowl license........ oh and if you only have a set up in one of the five zones you paid $300 for one four day period. Show me the $$$$$$$$$

Last weekend I was riding in the tractor of the landowner where we hunted. It is amazing how him and his farmer buddies who are part of the local wildlife club differ from the vast majority of VOCAL residents on this site regarding res/nr issues.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Goldy's Pal said:


> > Limit the number of days NR's can hunt to three 4 day periods for a total of 12 days. By limiting it to 4 day periods, you will not have NR's pounding the resource for 7 straight days,
> 
> 
> Ryan, How many days does it take to blast a roost? Or pound the resource? 7? How about 1. I could have hunted the same field for a month until the slough next to it got pounded (one) morning.


Hey Goldy

Thanks for replying. Took me awhile to get down this far to you....

I agree if someone blows up that roost no amount of limited days will affect the outcome of your scenario. However, with the reduced pressure, the likelihood of that happening is also lessened. No guarantees, but certainly not the frequency we've been seeing the last few years.


Goldy's Pal said:


> > *Charge $300
> 
> 
> Ryan, your getting a little pricey, I don't pheasant hunt so why should I pay for it? Plus now it's freelance big money, may as well hire someone for another hundred or two or three and go all out. If I can swing 3 bills 5 is nothing either.


This isn't pricey when you consider the breakdown into a per day activity. Hunting ND should be a privledge. If I want basic golf I'll go play some local public course for $18 a day, however if I want quality golf, with nicer greens, cuter cart girls and a goregeous location, I'll pay an extra $35 and go find a great course. North Dakota is a great course for hunting waterfowl and pheasants. I'd sacrifice quantity for quality. If that means I skip a trip one year, or don't get drawn in the lottery, that means I can save my money for the year I do go or get drawn. I'll savor the quality of the experience that much more when I do get there. I'll be careful with each pull of the trigger and make sure each bird I select to shoot is a trophy and worthy of my wait.

Or I'll switch my luck by moving to the state with the best course.



Goldy's Pal said:


> > * Establish 5 waterfowl zones of similar size within the core of ND waterfowl territory. Mandate that the same zone can not be hunted consecutive weeks. This will spread out the pressure amongst all of ND's territory and prevent excessive pressure in one geographical area.
> 
> 
> So I actually have a few farms to hunt on and can be left alone to some degree and can only hunt on them for a certain amount of days? Then I need to pack up my sh!t (again) and migrate somewhere else so I can what? get in on a hunt with some strangers who had a field booked in advance? Or run into some other guys on a section that I had permission to be on but they didn't because they were bumped around with their heads cut off hunting wherever land wasn't legally posted? No thanks not my idea of a quality hunting experience and for $300.00 gee I'm not ticked.


Every NR would encounter the same set of issues. It is doing what is best for everyone right? Heck once again, I'll remind you that I'm subject to my same restrictions. I'm not afraid to go scout a new area, or make connections all across the state. Neither should anyone else. I can tell you that I've hunted 7 different counties in ND over the last few years. 7. My success has been fine. That also means I've contributed to those 7 counties economies in the small towns. How many NR's that come back every year can claim that?

Many guys do that very type of freelance hunting right now. That is the traditional way of finding cool little niches in every county. It forces people to actually hunt, establish relationships, get permission and work for their success. After all isn't that truly what hunting is all about?

Ryan


----------



## Chris Schulz (Sep 7, 2004)

300 dollars     Are you fricken insane??? Lets limit NoDak to the residents and the rich!!! Thanks for looking out for the average guy....


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bigdog said:


> I usually avoid these discussions but I will take a stab at this in hopes that it stays civil.
> 
> Legs tags, fine, as long as there are a few more than my possesion limit in case I get lucky enough to eat some birds when I am hunting (if I manage to get a kitchenette). I would like to take a posession limit home to eat.
> Five zones, depends on where they are to see if that would affect me. Currently I don't buy the "zone buster license".
> ...


Thanks for sharing Bigdog!

I'm definitely going to work to keep this civil. It is a hot topic for sure, however I know the guys here can work to keep the topic on track if they really want to!

In regards to your thoughts...

If the rules needed to be tweaked to allow some small number of birds to not be tagged, I'd be fine with that. It would need to be a very small number (like 1 untagged bird in possession per hunter per day), otherwise you'd have an enforcement nightmare with guys making up excuses as to which birds they were and weren't deciding to tag. I too would want 1 per day to cook up. If we thought of other alternatives to this, it would have to be along the lines of "You have a license from the 15th thru the 19th... so if on the 18th you want a dinner of birds, you'd be able to have 3 untagged birds in your hotel for the 3 valid days your current license allowed. (1 bird untagged per valid legal day in state) That would keep it simple to understand and enforce.

The 5 zones would be basically drawn up based on waterfowl concentrations and geographically the same approx size. There will always be a group of guys who don't like the zones because something falls on the wrong side of a line. That is unavoidable and would need to be understood that flexibility is the key. There is no easy solution to this...

In regards to cost..... I just threw some number out there... what would be a good compromise? If it funded tighter enforcement and made the experience a better quality trip, what would you be willing to pay? Right now it is just simply too low, and many NR's laugh at the cheapness of a trip to ND. The additional $$ would have so many benefits as compared to other crap we get taxed with... I'm open to ideas? Should we have package deals for both waterfowl and pheasants or just one?

If you felt the need to pay for a guide, I guess that will always be a part of the equation. The expense would still be in addition to the license increase, so I find it hard to believe that many will start using guides if they currently can't afford one. Others don't base their success on guaranteed shooting, and would rather have the opportunity to travel around. To each their own..

Thanks so much for taking the time to post on this. It is great to hear from newer guys who haven't posted as much to the forums. Each insight and perspective adds to the discussion.

Regards,

Ryan


----------



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

> I agree if someone blows up that roost no amount of limited days will affect the outcome of your scenario. However, with the reduced pressure, the likelihood of that happening is also lessened.


No it isn't. Reduced pressure? What do you think a roostbuster is? They drive around spot birds on water and it's over. The guys who have to not only pay $300.00 will do this with far less guilt but will seek it even on a more greedy level since they may not know where their next roost will be in a few days in a different zone.



> This isn't pricey when you consider the breakdown into a per day activity. Hunting ND should be a privledge. If I want basic golf I'll go play some local public course for $18 a day, however if I want quality golf, with nicer greens, cuter cart girls and a goregeous location, I'll pay an extra $35 and go find a great course. North Dakota is a great course for hunting waterfowl and pheasants.


Yeah but just for the record I can golf, am good at it, but don't because it's too damn expensive. I spend enough, it's ducks, not bald eagles that I can hunt there so yeah it's good but I've had my share of busts out there just like anywhere else and for a lot less chi ching. Your pushing the cost out of reach for a father son trip to the point a guide would be the way to go for all of that money. Not me, but it will.



> I'm not afraid to go scout a new area, or make connections all across the state. Neither should anyone else. I can tell you that I've hunted 7 different counties in ND over the last few years. 7. My success has been fine. That also means I've contributed to those 7 counties economies in the small towns. How many NR's that come back every year can claim that?


I scout enough, it's a 9 hour haul one way the way it is, I don't care to visit the whole state and don't have the time to. I want to hunt, meaning sit in my blind and watch some birds maybe you like to drive a lot, go ahead, but why should you be the one to tell me what hunting is all about? Sure I like to visit with people there, some new ones too, but I like where I go and can stay out of peoples way for the most part. I like sunrises, sunsets, coffee, birds quacking on their roost as I set up in the field next to them, all that, so don't tell me that I have to visit all over ND to appreciate it and that is what hunting is all about.[/quote]


----------



## loads (Oct 25, 2006)

R y a n said:


> This isn't pricey when you consider the breakdown into a per day activity. Hunting ND should be a privledge. If I want basic golf I'll go play some local public course for $18 a day, however if I want quality golf, with nicer greens, cuter cart girls and a goregeous location, I'll pay an extra $35 and go find a great course. North Dakota is a great course for hunting waterfowl and pheasants. I'd sacrifice quantity for quality. If that means I skip a trip one year, or don't get drawn in the lottery, that means I can save my money for the year I do go or get drawn. I'll savor the quality of the experience that much more when I do get there. I'll be careful with each pull of the trigger and make sure each bird I select to shoot is a trophy and worthy of my wait.


 :eyeroll: It is already too pricey. I go out in an old pop-up camper with a 68 alumacraft 12ft and a 68 evinrude 9.5. I am a working man, and have not got the $ for what you propose, so in my eyes you are trying to weed working rubes like me from ND. :******: I will say again, if ND residents who fish MN had the same scenario, you guys would be livid!

I don't have time for the quantity! I can only hope for a weekend of quality for a fair price. I hope to god that the lawmakers in ND are more sensible than this.

Let's be honest here, this isn't about the duck/goose populations, it's about some ND hunters who view the waterfowl as "theirs". :eyeroll:

That's how I see it.


----------



## Wld Fowl (May 29, 2006)

I am with bigdog I normally do not get into this kind of debate. I am in a great waterfowl area here in VA and let me tell you I get tired of NR coming here and messing up blinds, shooting over the limit and other wise just not respecting the land and laws.

The leg bands I could see being useful but instead of making NR put in for a lottery and getting only a few tags just make them pay for every tag and check your take after your day is done.

Coming from this area and trying to make a living guiding water fowlers I would have to say increasing the license, limiting the area and limiting the amount times they could come and hunt would shut every single one of our guides down.

But I know it is just not the NR's causing all of the problems. My best friends are the game wardens and they tell me that the people who really mess stuff up are the resident hunters.

Your ideas have merit and if implemented maybe one or two but not all at the same time they could work.

I have a friend Minot and hope to one-day get up there and do some hunting.

This is just my humble opinion and from on water fowler to another.

Later,
Ryan Walker


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

loads said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't pricey when you consider the breakdown into a per day activity. Hunting ND should be a privledge. If I want basic golf I'll go play some local public course for $18 a day, however if I want quality golf, with nicer greens, cuter cart girls and a goregeous location, I'll pay an extra $35 and go find a great course. North Dakota is a great course for hunting waterfowl and pheasants. I'd sacrifice quantity for quality. If that means I skip a trip one year, or don't get drawn in the lottery, that means I can save my money for the year I do go or get drawn. I'll savor the quality of the experience that much more when I do get there. I'll be careful with each pull of the trigger and make sure each bird I select to shoot is a trophy and worthy of my wait.
> ...


My ideas were to try and find a compromise to the drastice increase in pressure that many have witnessed this year. I didn't mean to focus strictly on the cost. Let's propose that the cost increases to $150. That is an adequate compromise. Hunting waterfowl in ND is definitely not expensive in the big scheme of things. All of us were forced to pay that much extra recently with the spike in gas prices. I guarantee everyone here paid an extra $200 in gas for a month. I didn't see anyone say they haven't come to ND this year because their bank account is $200 less....

Anyone? So other then complaining about that one detail of my plan, can we focus on the overall idea to find a workable compromise to achieve a better quality experience for everyone?

Loads I understand your point, but your posts are now becoming emotional and not factual. There will always be someone who doesn't like the cost of something. We all need to assess whether or not we can stay in the game based on various factors. It is all about what you are willing to sacrifice and priortize the activities that are most important to you.... Please try to keep the negativity and overt emotion out of this thread.

This will not turn into a Res vs. NR debate. I will delete posts that are inflammatory and don't contribute to a productive discussion.

I strongly believe that you will have your quality awesome hunt in ND if we can get some of these ideas passed into law. I don't want this to turn into a focus on cost though... and if that is the barrier that keeps the discussion from moving forward I'll withdraw the fee increase idea...

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Wld Fowl said:


> I am with bigdog I normally do not get into this kind of debate. I am in a great waterfowl area here in VA and let me tell you I get tired of NR coming here and messing up blinds, shooting over the limit and other wise just not respecting the land and laws.
> 
> Your ideas have merit and if implemented maybe one or two but not all at the same time they could work.
> 
> ...


Thanks Ryan I appreciate the feedback...

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Goldy's Pal said:


> > I agree if someone blows up that roost no amount of limited days will affect the outcome of your scenario. However, with the reduced pressure, the likelihood of that happening is also lessened.
> 
> 
> No it isn't. Reduced pressure? What do you think a roostbuster is? They drive around spot birds on water and it's over. The guys who have to not only pay $300.00 will do this with far less guilt but will seek it even on a more greedy level since they may not know where their next roost will be in a few days in a different zone.


The roostbuster will be much less effective when they have to drive to new locations they are unfamiliar with. They won't have access to get down to the water in as great a frequency as they do now. With the increase in enforcement, there will be much less tolerance for tresspassing. Most roosts are locked up. Also, the amount of $$ they pay for a license doesn't equate with they type of hunter they are. If they are of that mindset in general it doesn't matter if the license is $50 or $300...they'll do it anyway. If you are implying that guys might have not busted roosts before will start suddenly out of spite, I'd suggest they aren't the type of hunter ND is looking for anyway. Chances are those guys won't be coming back to ND in the first place, if they can't effectively hunt here a normal way. They will look elsewhere.

This plan isn't intended to change the behaviors of slobs. I'll leave the roostbuster issue for another thread.



Goldy's Pal said:


> > This isn't pricey when you consider the breakdown into a per day activity. Hunting ND should be a privledge. If I want basic golf I'll go play some local public course for $18 a day, however if I want quality golf, with nicer greens, cuter cart girls and a goregeous location, I'll pay an extra $35 and go find a great course. North Dakota is a great course for hunting waterfowl and pheasants.
> 
> 
> Yeah but just for the record I can golf, am good at it, but don't because it's too damn expensive. I spend enough, it's ducks, not bald eagles that I can hunt there so yeah it's good but I've had my share of busts out there just like anywhere else and for a lot less chi ching. Your pushing the cost out of reach for a father son trip to the point a guide would be the way to go for all of that money. Not me, but it will.


We should golf sometime I get back there Goldy.. I'll even spot you a few shots 

I understand that my cost increase suggestion has overtaken this thread, which definitely was not my intent. How about a compromise for youth hunters? Say half price of an adult increase? I'm open to suggestions, but don't want that to limit the discussion of the overall idea.



Goldy's Pal said:


> > I'm not afraid to go scout a new area, or make connections all across the state. Neither should anyone else. I can tell you that I've hunted 7 different counties in ND over the last few years. 7. My success has been fine. That also means I've contributed to those 7 counties economies in the small towns. How many NR's that come back every year can claim that?
> 
> 
> I scout enough, it's a 9 hour haul one way the way it is, I don't care to visit the whole state and don't have the time to. I want to hunt, meaning sit in my blind and watch some birds maybe you like to drive a lot, go ahead, but why should you be the one to tell me what hunting is all about? Sure I like to visit with people there, some new ones too, but I like where I go and can stay out of peoples way for the most part. I like sunrises, sunsets, coffee, birds quacking on their roost as I set up in the field next to them, all that, so don't tell me that I have to visit all over ND to appreciate it and that is what hunting is all about.


I think with my plan you would still have the ability to do that. I'm just trying to find a way to spread out all the NR hunters, myself included. It would require me to find new places to hunt too...

Ryan


----------



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

> If you are implying that guys might have not busted roosts before will start suddenly out of spite, I'd suggest they aren't the type of hunter ND is looking for anyway. Chances are those guys won't be coming back to ND in the first place, if they can't effectively hunt here a normal way. They will look elsewhere.


What differences does it make if they aren't the type of hunter ND is looking for? This isn't the NFL draft, whether you need 6 punters or not doesn't really matter, they are coming anyway.

This is normal hunting to them and good hunting, effective hunting. They'll be back and with an extra buddy who saved his vacation this year.

Water is water no matter what zone. WPA's are all mapped and for what it's worth will have a few more tire tracks on them as the restrictions tighten. I watched one drive on one this year. Who's gonna stop it? :eyeroll:

I rip on my buddies who golf now, they play a game guys my Dad's age play and play better than them. I figure I may as well play softball for a while instead, Dad gave that up about 50 years ago. :lol:


----------



## averyghg (Oct 16, 2006)

Ryan you're a genius!!! I wish someone woulda thought of this a long time ago. Everything u said makes clear sense to me and i believe its fair. And if u minnesotans want to enforce some fishing laws, BE MY GUEST. Ill just go to devils lake or sakakawea. Ryan just show me the petition and ill sign!!


----------



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

Maybe this doesn't add to constructive conversation but I think this topic has, or soon will, hit a new low point in my book. :roll: Maybe if the NR had to purchase a new single shot 12 guage from the G/F prior to entering the gates at Fargo I could see it but until then these proposals are pretty much Mickey Mouse.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Just to recap

Based off some initial feedback ... I'll restate my current work in progress idea...


In summary here are my UPDATED ideas on how to solve the current issues in ND:

*Limit the number of days NR's can hunt to three 4 day periods for a total of 12 days. By limiting it to 4 day periods, you will not have NR's pounding the resource for 7 straight days, and it will likely have the effect of having them hunt Friday to Monday, thereby giving the birds much more of a potential 3 day "rest" Tuesday thru Thursday. Birds will return to establishing new feeding fields like they used to during the week in years past.

*Charge $150 for the 12 days to hunt (includes small game, pheasant, swan etc) (this comes to $12.50 per day which is nothing when compared to a day of golf, attending an amusement park, or a night at a bar back in your hometown)

*Prohibit NR's from plots lands for one week

*Cap NR licenses at 15,000 on dry years, 20,000 in wet years as determined by HPC. Preference point system used for guys failing to draw a lottery license similar to ND Deer hunting lottery.

* A preference point for any former resident of ND who graduated high school in the state. (This will also further reduce the amount of NR's coming here needing guides or reducing access, as most returning native sons already have access through familial and high school relationships)

*3 sets of leg tags (30 total for Ducks, 30 total for Dark Geese) with dates to be inscribed on tags and/or license, so that only 10 per species can be used on any given trip. Tagging required immediately upon bird being in the hand. 1 Extra non tagged bird per day allowed for consumption during week NR is in state. Does not count towards possession and is intended for a meal.

* Establish 5 waterfowl zones of similar size within the core of ND waterfowl territory. Mandate that the same zone can not be hunted consecutive weeks. This will spread out the pressure amongst all of ND's territory and prevent excessive pressure in one geographical area.

*Use the additional license surcharge to increase the number of ND G&F wardens by 10. The additional enforcement will further reduce the gross violations that seem to be increasing in the state. Station the wardens in high activity waterfowl areas to ensure adequate coverage in the areas where a majority of infractions have historically occurred.

*Enact legislation in the state to tack on a $500 administrative fee to anyone ticketed for an overbag/overpossession or wanton waste infraction to go to a G&F general fund to further subsidize the costs of the additional wardens.

Ryan


So I'm suggesting a more modest increase in the license fee, having reduced it down froma number that was too high earlier.

The extra $$ would be thrown in a general fund to support extra wardens and/or wetlands PLOTS payments.

Anymore thoughts?

Ryan


----------



## loads (Oct 25, 2006)

averyghg said:


> And if u minnesotans want to enforce some fishing laws, BE MY GUEST.


THat just shows your attitude right there. I wouldn't want to make it more difficult for NR to enjoy the resource that GOD gave all of us.

:eyeroll: you guys are not getting it at all, and I think your complaints about hunting pressure are not really what this is all about. 
$$$$$ is all this is about. You're marketing hunting like a used car salesman. How much is enough? Double up for pheasants and waterfoul, raise fees more, then what else can we get? All within a 5 year period?

Isn't the $ that the GFD gets for licenses supposed to go back towards the wildlife and support GFD? I didn't think it should be run like a business, but to support the sport and protect the environment. Show me proof the waterfowl population has been damaged by such pressure and I might be swayed...

I am trying not to be emotional, but this really irks me.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

loads said:


> averyghg said:
> 
> 
> > And if u minnesotans want to enforce some fishing laws, BE MY GUEST.
> ...


Avery he is right. Please keep the emotion and challenges out of your replies.

Loads this is not about $$. Period. I could care less about the $$ issue provided I/We can find a solution to the pressure. My idea for the cost increase is to fund additional enforcement. Currently the ND legislature has not funded the G&F enough for more wardens. They have to beg and scrape for every extra warden they can currently get. I'm intimately familiar with the process.



loads said:


> Isn't the $ that the GFD gets for licenses supposed to go back towards the wildlife and support GFD? I didn't think it should be run like a business, but to support the sport and protect the environment. Show me proof the waterfowl population has been damaged by such pressure and I might be swayed...
> I am trying not to be emotional, but this really irks me.


You are suggesting we divert from this thread topic to prove something to you. I'm assuming you haven't seen what hunting used to be like in the state years ago. Correct? There is no proof I could give you that you'd understand. You'd have to have seen what we have lost, and it is not all quantifiable with numbers. Please start a new thread if you'd like to continue that topic.

The current license fees do go towards funding all G&F programs including enforcement. I'm suggesting a general fund that is _only_ for enforcement.

Once again please try to keep emotion out of the argument. I'll try and keep this topic on focus, and will simply delete certain posts that try and hijack the topic.

Ryan


----------



## DakotaDog72 (Sep 27, 2005)

Everytime I think I've seen it all, then this site pops up.

OF COURSE, Every ND resi is going to love it. Our precious resourse isn't being abused by the evil NR's.

And OF COURSE every NR is going to hate it. I have to pay $300 to shoot 20 birds, how am I going t feed my family.

A $300 only hurts the middle and lower class. The real hunters. The people, much like many on this site who live to hunt and hunt to live. You don't think a guy who is willing to pay $500 to a guide is willing to drop $300 for a license. Or worse yet, drop $100,000 to lock up hundreds of acres for him and his buddies.

Hey, I'm all for leg bands. Limiting the number of hunters. but a more than triple increase in fees.

--edited by Ryan to keep the thread on track and emotion out of it.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

DakotaDog72 said:


> Everytime I think I've seen it all, then this site pops up.
> 
> OF COURSE, Every ND resi is going to love it. Our precious resourse isn't being abused by the evil NR's.
> 
> ...


DakotaDog

I have requested this not turn into a personal issue. I have repeatedly asked to focus on the talking points. I THEN restated my original argument reducing the fee increase.

You STILL decided to come back with this response? I almost deleted your post. What more can I politely ask of you to be decent on this thread?

What should I do to keep this on topic if I can't be polite and allow this?

Is it possible to have any kind of civil discourse and explore hot topics?

Please let me know.

Ryan


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Guys, I've never hunted in ND, but in Canada lots of times, but not since '97. My buddies still go every year, and I think they still get a hunting license for less than $200. They can hunt as long as they want, there is very little pressure (locals don't hunt), and almost every landowner will BEG you to hunt his field when birds are in it. A farmer actually apologized to me in Canada one year because he didn't know we were in his field and scared ducks that were funneling down to us. Why we didn't ask first is a long story, but the point is the farmers appreciate the hunters at harvest time up north.

So I think ND should charge whatever they can get. Just remember you DO have competition, and ducks fly over Canada first, so go ahead and let free enterprise work. This IS America!

From what I've seen on here this isn't as much a NR problem (as far as ND residents are concerned) as it is a MN problem. From my perspective it seems lots of people are wracking their brains trying to find ways to keep MN people east of their border while still letting MN money travel westward. I can't imagine anyone driving from as far away as any other state to kill 20 ducks, but I could be wrong again!


----------



## DakotaDog72 (Sep 27, 2005)

At least I got you attention....And yes it is personal.

As for your update, due to an overactive two-year old. I was not able to finish my post before you change the fee status from $300 to $150(yes it took me 45 minutes to respond, those with children will understand).

I will say that $150 is too much. And to say that because its cheaper than other states is absurd. Do you have stats to back this?

Hunting is a right that belongs to everyone to enjoy. Not just Resi's and Non-resi's, but rich and poor. Again, your idea punishes the middle class and you would have to agree, that is who you would like to most likely appeal to. The hardworking men and women who aren't afraid to drive around for a day, knock on doors, ask politely to hunt a feild holding birds. Not some rich wanna be poser who will drop thousands of dollars to shoot a limit.

As for my other remarks, you are correct, this isn't the time or place. Rest assure and thread will be started to address my statements.

Caps - Agree
Leg bands - equal to possession limits for ducks, geese and pheasants
Fee - $85 (I will not bend here) and no "zone buster"
Zones - Agree
High School preference - let me guess, you graduated from ND. Against
Higher fines for violators - nail them to the wall, your actually too soft
Day limits - Agree

I would also propose a "no hunting after ????? time. Or maybe a no hunting on tuesdays and thursdays clause. For the entire state, resi's and non-resi's


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

DakotaDog72 said:


> At least I got you attention....And yes it is personal.
> 
> As for your update, due to an overactive two-year old. I was not able to finish my post before you change the fee status from $300 to $150(yes it took me 45 minutes to respond, those with children will understand).
> 
> ...


Dakota Dog

Thanks for the reply. Yes you had my attention the entire time. I understand now that you didn't see my updates. Family is always priority over these silly forums.

I definitely am trying to balance keeping this reasonable for the middle class average guy... ND is still much cheaper than other states. Here is a quick synopsis of some fast internet research:

--------------------
South Dakota fees:

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/LicenseFee.htm

Waterfowl Units 100A, 100B-33, 100D. *$110 *
Small Game (10-day-pheasant/grouse/quail/ cottontail/partridge/dove/squirrel/common snipe) *$110*
*Total: $220 +*

----------------------------------
Mississippi Non Resident fees:

http://www.mdwfp.com/level2/license/license_hunting.asp

* 7-Day Small Game Hunting (covers waterfowl) *$30.00* 
* All Game Hunting (Ages 19 and over - does not include Archery/Primitive Weapon, General Crossbow, Spring or Fall Turkey permits, or WMA User Permit)* $300.00*
* 7-Day All Game Hunting (Ages 19 and over - does not include Archery/Primitive Weapon, does not include Archery/Primitive Weapon, General Crossbow, Spring or Fall Turkey permits, or WMA User Permit) *$125.00 *
Small Game (10-day-pheasant/grouse/quail/ cottontail/partridge/dove/squirrel/common snipe) *$110 *
*Total: $330 or $155 + small game =* *$440 or $265*

-----------------------------------
Arkansas Non Resident fees:

http://www.agfc.state.ar.us/license_ol.html

Non-Resident 5-Day All Game License AG5 *$150.00**
Arkansas Non-Resident Waterfowl Stamp DSN *$20.00* June 30
Non-Resident WMA Waterfowl Hunting Permit (5-day trip for each WMA)****** *$ 10.00*
Non-Resident WMA Seasonal Waterfowl Hunting Permit (for each WMA) ****** *$100.00*
*Total: Minimum $180*

----------------------------------------

Heck I'm all for talking about some of your other suggestions, including a mid week rest period for the birds, both for R's and NR's, and not allowing hunting after 2 PM restriction. We used to have the latter in ND for many years.

Ryan


----------



## englishpointer (May 16, 2005)

OK ,residents get ready to Blast me for this .

Here it goes.

I think that we need to charge more for the liscenes but allow NR to hunt all season.

I hunt SD also and what a pain in the [email protected]@ to pick you dates for your second 5 day period.

I have no clue what the weather will do in the future.

Charge more but allow all season for what ever species.
Most will only hunt 5-10 days anyways , purely because of work, family, or expense of being away from home.

I am a big boy so speak up and let me know how out of line i am .


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

englishpointer said:


> OK ,residents get ready to Blast me for this .
> 
> Here it goes.
> 
> ...


So based on the overall intent of this thread to improve the quality of ND hunting for all, how does allowing hunting for the entire season achieve that?

Does it reduce pressure?

Will having no limits on season length cause more problems or less?

Honestly? This sounds like you are trolling to get this thread off topic. Please start a new thread with this question.

Ryan


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I want to qualify my comments here by saying that chances of getting some of these proposals through the legislature will be extremely difficult at best and near impossible as a unit.

Legislators are tired of fighting about outdoor issues during the session simply because they have bigger issues to address that affect all residents of ND including sportsmen.

In the game of politics there are wishes, wants, needs and defense. Lets call them capital. There is a certain amount of capital to expend during the legislative session. The process is the same for any group that brings issues to the table. Time is short and bills are numerous and looking at bill after bill submitted to amend current regulations or to create new regulations to meet the needs of any one group will expend the available capital rapidly.

*Wishes* can be classified as something that we wish we had and a bill is introduced to administer to the particular wish. It is generally not a make or break issue in the overall picture but it would be nice to have. From the list of wishes, selections have to be made to spend the available capital in a way that will achieve the most bang for the buck.

*Wants* can be classified as something we want and should be carefully selected and treated exactly the same as as wishes.

*Needs* can be classified as something that needs to be done. More effort is put into these issues than the previous two and the issue is generally more of a make or break situation.

*Defense* is where a lot of capital is expended trying to keep the status quo.

Believe me there are some members of Nodakoutdoors that work on these legislative issues 12 months of the year and have devoted countless hours to help people understand the issues on the legislative side of the isle and the sportsman's side.

The issue is looked at without personal malice toward anyone. The issues referred to as capital are generally discussed in the context of creating a better quality hunting experience for everyone and how it will affect the resident hunters of North Dakota. Regardless of how the issue is looked at there is always an opposing side that will more often that not have a different interpretation of the bill and the spin begins in earnest.

The capital budget needs to be diverse and and in most cases realistically attainable with unilateral support and understanding of the ultimate goal.

One of the examples that best explains this is HPC it has been debated to death on this site. I will not go into a detailed explanation (google it if you want to know)

HPC was a method of matching hunter numbers with the available resource to create a better quality hunting experience for everyone. 
from the origin of the issue it had no intent to be a resident nonresident issue it was turned into one by those that wanted to see the issue defeated because of some supposed possible loss of income, hunting privileges and opportunity. It was defeated by a very slim margin both times it was introduced. Capital was expended blame was placed on some that supported the issue and it is a very divisive issue that will probably not surface again even though it is still one of the fairest plans I have seen come across the board IMO.

So when looking at an issue we need to get beyond feeling it is designed to somehow punish them and benefit others at their expense. In short we need to stop the resident vs nonresident debate and look at the issues intent and how it pertains to the future of hunting instead of how it will affect a given person in a given situation.

In closing, the days a NR can hunt are already limited, the fees charged by ND for hunting are comparable to neighboring states, the plots restriction is already in place, capping will more than likely be looked at in the same light as HPC, preference points would allow people to leave ND and still have some resident benefit potential, more zones would create enforcement issues that would difficult at best to administer.

Leg tags if administered properly would have an effect on all of the above by themselves, however, they will not stop the killing operations nor will they affect the sportsmen that play by and obey the rules. They will make those that may bend the rules think about the consequences.

These are just my observations and opinions from experience with some of these issues and some of my motive in posting this is because I am sick and tired of residents and nonresidents complaining on this site and dragging the sport that we all care about into the gutter and doing nothing to create a better hunting environment to improve the quality of hunting. How hard would it be to come on this site and instead of complaining thet you hunt was affected by others to ask for or post suggestions on how it could be addressed to benefit all of us

Ryan I am very sorry for the thread hijack I had to get this out of my head.

I challenge all of you to not only think of yourselves in the context of the outdoors when posting but your fellow sportsmen regardless of residency, It is the right thing to do for resident and nonresident alike. Is it capital that is attainable? yes! Is it possible? I think it is. is it realistic? only if we look at the issue as us instead of me and understand the difference.

PEACE!!!!!!

Bob


----------



## ND decoy (Feb 1, 2003)

I believe that fees for non residents and residents are to low, has been for a long time. If I remember right the fees were increased in the last legislative sesion for the first time in a long time. Charging $150 for a waterfowl and $150 for upland for non residents is not asking that much. Maybe they can do a combo license for $250. We should also raise the residents too.

Now for all of the guys that are saying that it's becoming a rich mans sport. I call BS. If you can't afford the increase then you probably can't afford the other parts of the trip. I am not writting this to be harsh. This is just a reality of hunting these days. I keep hearing from the non residents about all the money they spend here well here's a chance to spend some more. Also there should be big discount for youth hunters that come to hunt with the Dad's. Dad buys his licsence at regular price and the kid gets his/hers for 50% less. up to 18 years old.

As don't have a lot of time tonight to go into this at full detail. But the extra money should be ear marked for more plots land and better plots land with better payments to the land owners. If the payments were better I would look at putting some of my land into plots. This issue will defiantly be back in the next legislative session.


----------



## DakotaDog72 (Sep 27, 2005)

Bob,

That was by far the best post I have ever read on this site.....EVER.

You are always welcome in our blind anytime.

Thank You,

Justin


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Thanks for the great reply Bob! I'm glad you contributed to this thread with your wisdom. I never believe you are hijacking a post when you put that much thought behind it. Your posts always carry more weight with me because of all your tireless efforts at representing the average sportsman during the ND Legislative session.

My whole intent with this thread is to get people talking and thinking about ways to create a better higher quality hunting experience. I took some time to come up with what I thought were tweaks in the current law that would address several areas I perceived were needing some adjusting for the betterment of everyone.

Myself being a non resident I hoped would provide a measure of impartiality, as I've been on both sides of the fence, and any new legislation will directly affect me as well.

Bob I appreciate the response. I hope everyone understands where he (and I) are coming from. Sportsmen need to unite with a common voice that we cherish our hunting heritage. Finding and prioritizing legislative bills to address should be a focus of our time. Getting on the horn, using email, and seeking out your legislators should be your #1 goal in the offseason. If you have had a dissatisfying experience this fall you need to let your legislator know you are unhappy and want change.

Hopefully if you have been participating in these and other forums, you can give them some concrete ideas so that they can go to Bismarck with questions they need answering, and solutions they want to deliver on your behalf. They are not mind readers though. They don't have the pulse of the average sportsman unless you give them your pulse.

I'm still personally passionate about seeing some of these changes. The North Dakota legislature needs to know that hunting issues are a top 3 priority in the eyes of the average North Dakota citizen. More than half the population hunts or has relatives that hunt. Other than budget, transportation, and farming issues, hunting should rank right close behind. Seeing as how the legislature does not meet every year in ND, each session is that much more critical.

I shudder to think what hunting in ND will look like in 3 years. We may not have that much time to wait for the next session.

Ryan


----------



## shae1986 (Sep 28, 2006)

Ryan
I am very interested in this, being a NR, i have just a couple of questions, and these are things that if it ever went through would need to be looked at. 
1. What if they only wanted to hunt like a single animal like Pheasants, i use that bc thats what i hunt in ND.

2. Do landowners get preference points or are we just throwing them out.

3. Is there a big fee for this or is it a small fee for applying then you can decide if you want to hunt. Bc with this i would think that a lot of people would apply and decide not to go.

Minor issued that need to be looked at. I really dont mind a cap system but why cap teh pheasant hunters? Just a thought.

A. Shae


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

shae1986 said:


> Ryan
> I am very interested in this, being a NR, i have just a couple of questions, and these are things that if it ever went through would need to be looked at.
> 1. What if they only wanted to hunt like a single animal like Pheasants, i use that bc thats what i hunt in ND.
> 
> ...


Shae

Hmmm those are some interesting points.

1. If you only hunt pheasants (upland), the current regs would still be in force.

2. The lottery system I'm describing is designed for waterfowl hunting. Therefore I'm not sure you would care because you aren't getting a waterfowl license? correct? If you simply wanted to come to ND and hunt your property for pheasants, you'd do exactly as you do now by purchasing an NR small game license. The owner of the property might have landowner exceptions to this rule via the landowner exception hunting his own land only.... you'd have to check into that.

3. The lottery application fee would work the same way it does for ND Deer gun lottery. You send in your license fee. If you get drawn they keep it. If you don't get drawn they refund the license fee amount to you.

I'm not certain we need to cap Pheasant hunters. Even if we wanted to, that is a huge uphill battle, like Bob mentioned noone wants to discuss Caps in the legislature at this moment(as far as legislators). Personally I don't understand why. If enough residents protested and attended National Resource committee meetings in force, they'd make a heckuva impression. Something needs to be done to set a precedent and have some form of hard cap. I'm not sure what that number is, as average resident hunters want it low, and G/O's want it high.

Right now pheasants are in abundance, so noone has problems eeking out a few birds all around different parts of the state. This year saw birds in huntable numbers in counties that never had a rooster crow count prior to this year. Formerly average counties were coming out of their ears with birds. However it hasn't always been that way. I can remember a few years ago when only 20 counties had decent easily huntable populations of birds, and you didn't see any birds north of 94 (except some guy's pen raised birds in his farm yard.) Pheasants are very cyclical. A couple rough blizzards in ND this winter and it could all be over in a hurry. Imagine if we had a huge die off. How many people would be clamoring for a NR pheasant cap?

This is why it is good to keep discussing this stuff in a civil manner so that understandings are established....

Ryan


----------



## Foldem (Jul 29, 2005)

How do you enforce the changing zones? How does a CO know where I hunted last week? What if I hunt in a different zone each of the 4 days, then the next week do I have to hunt zone 5 all week?

BTW I've never hunted ND, just trying to give some food for thought.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Foldem said:


> How do you enforce the changing zones? How does a CO know where I hunted last week? What if I hunt in a different zone each of the 4 days, then the next week do I have to hunt zone 5 all week?
> 
> BTW I've never hunted ND, just trying to give some food for thought.


Hi Foldem

ND currently has zones. We've had them for some time, and they aren't difficult to understand. In fact many states currently have different waterfowl zones to provide better management of the resource.

A warden does not have to know where you were hunting the week before. They only worry about where in the state they find you actively hunting. If they pinch you in a wrong area you are de facto breaking the law.

The zone idea would mandate that you pick 1 zone to hunt in for each week of eligibility. You wouldn't hunt different zones per day.

Ryan


----------



## Bigdog (Aug 13, 2003)

Well, seems civil so far so here goes again...

Ryan replied:

"If you felt the need to pay for a guide, I guess that will always be a part of the equation. The expense would still be in addition to the license increase, so I find it hard to believe that many will start using guides if they currently can't afford one. Others don't base their success on guaranteed shooting, and would rather have the opportunity to travel around. To each their own.. "

To clarify, I did not mean to infer I would hire a guide, unless our definition of guide is "different". I meant that if I only have 4 days at a time to hunt and I have to change areas due to more zones, the 4 days does not allow much time to both scout and hunt new places. In such a case, I would be inclined to find a place to rent that includes land, so I don't have to spend 1/2 my hunting time driving around. Unless your plan allows one to "back to back" the 4 day licenses (which may be a detail you overlooked if you want to eliminate the continuous hunting periods). I prefer hunting alone with my 2 labs and do not want to be guided.

$150 is still expensive. Remember, I don't even pay the extra $45 for the zone buster. I think South Dakota had a $75 and a $125 option, offered just for comparison.

Now here is a question that I really do not have any information on, does North Dakota have an actual problem with staffing enough Game Wardens? I ask because there were a lot of earlier posts by people saying how many times they had been checked. I myself have been checked more in ND than MN. Anyhow, if there is a shortage you should push to fix it regardless of the rest of your proposal. If you want to throw some additional funds towards enforcement - great, but if there is a shortage please work to fix it regardless.

Now a question, do you think that your proposal to reduce NR numbers would result in less posted land? I myself doubt this, in my experience, once posted it stays posted but if there are other oppinons please explain. This leads to the thing that, baring some of what you propose, would keep me out of ND and that is the amount of posted land, which increases every year.

I have limited time to visit and I want to hunt, not drive around scouting and asking permission. Before anyone jumps on me for "not scouting" etc, etc. I will try to clarify. I don't mind looking for spots on my own, that is part of the experience I agree. It's the having to gain permission that turns me away. I come from a state where everything private is posted and the trespass laws do not allow you to access agricultural, CRP or pasture without permission even if not posted. My perception of posted land is that the answer is usually No based on MN experiences, so I only hunt public land in MN. Now I have been able to access land before but I really hate to ask. I feel that I am intruding, interupting, disturbing, etc someones day. I can make converstion with folks on common ground but it bothers me to enter someones yard and knock on a door. Maybe I spend to much time with my dogs and its a territory thing. Anyway, that's my own hang-up, so I look for other places. My point on this ramble is, I would be most interested in a proposal that would reduce the amount of posted land - if that is even possible. Someone smarter than I would have to figure that one out.

For perspective my hunting style is to get out and walk for pheasants and ducks at the same time. I am not much of a field hunter (I have the equipment, lacking a little on knowledge) and although I hunt with a small boat in MN I do not take it to ND.

An additional comment towards the upland license. Raise that and the waterfowl license and I will most certainly stay home, which may be the posters hope. I prefer the upland license to be all season like it used to. Back in 1999 I hunted ND pheasant/sharptail on 4 different occasions in scattered areas of the state. Twice in conjunction with waterfowl and two late season trips. I really enjoyed the Sharptail hunting and started making a Sept trip just for them. When the license changed I decided against hunting sharptail in Sept because I would have had to buy an additional $85 license. Could I afford the license, yes I could make it work, it just wasn't worth it to me. Partly monetary, partly because it made me feel unwelcome - no matter if that was the intended outcome or not.

Specifically to money generated by NR's, ND is not going to loose a whole lot if I stop visiting. I pay for lodging, buy a little gas and maybe a sandwich or two at a gas station. I don't visit the bars and there was only one trip where I splurged on myself and ate a couple meals in resturant's. I don't claim to generate a bunch of income, your towns will certainly survive without me, someone else will take my place.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

R Y A N, lets look at things from a different perspective,



> *Limit the number of days NR's can hunt to three 4 day periods for a total of 12 days. By limiting it to 4 day periods, you will not have NR's pounding the resource for 7 straight days, and it will likely have the effect of having them hunt Friday to Monday, thereby giving the birds much more of a potential 3 day "rest" Tuesday thru Thursday. Birds will return to establishing new feeding fields like they used to during the week in years past


Several flaws in this: One and the main one would be this would only encourage land buying and leasing by N/R. As it is now N/R waterfowl hunters are limited to 2 weekends. With your plan you give them 3. Ever looked at a Calender? Hello October!!



> *Charge $300 for the 12 days to hunt (includes small game, pheasant, swan etc) (this comes to $25 per day which is nothing when compared to a day of golf, attending an amusement park, or a night at a bar back in your hometown)


We charge plenty no need to raise it. I would rather see something on the order of a upland license for N/R. This would be for our neighbors that freelance here. It would limit them to one weekend from the second week in October to Nov 15. They could then come before and after those dates as much as they want.



> Prohibit NR's from plots lands for one week


Ahh one of my favorites, We to eliminate the one week of PLOTS dumbest law ever written . We need to do as South Dakota (geeze where have I heard that before) instead the weekend before the pheasant season the PLOTS would be open for resident hunting only and only PLOTS . The following weekend everyone would be allowed.



> *Cap NR licenses at 15,000 on dry years, 20,000 in wet years as determined by HPC. Preference point system used for guys failing to draw a lottery license similar to ND Deer hunting lottery.


Sorry this makes no sense at all. You would have to do one of 2 things here. Make it 15,000 or 20,000 with HPC on the wet years we get way more than 20k.



> * A preference point for any former resident of ND who graduated high school in the state. (This will also further reduce the amount of NR's coming here needing guides or reducing access, as most returning native sons already have access through familial and high school relationships)


I hope the hell something like this never comes to play. You want resident status, move here!!! I have no idea where you got the idea this would hurt O/G's. The reason most hire us is because of time. They have x amount of days to hunt and want to come enjoy. As we speak I have guys in the air coming from NC and Washington. Hmmm maybe a neighbor of yours.



> 3 sets of leg tags (60 total) with dates to be inscribed on tags and/or license, so that only 20 can be used on any given trip.


Guess what we agree a little on something. I feel leg tags are long over due. I'm not sure about your number it should be a possession limit for each species. I would like to see this go one step farther and do as MN does and sell them in the stores and eliminate the Internet from getting them. Puts people into the merchants of ND hopefully they may buy a thing or two. Problem is the game and fish will fight this and very few people care to challenge the game and fish.



> * Establish 5 waterfowl zones of similar size within the core of ND waterfowl territory. Mandate that the same zone can not be hunted consecutive weeks. This will spread out the pressure amongst all of ND's territory and prevent excessive pressure in one geographical area


I want no zones not more!!



> Use the additional license surcharge to increase the number of ND G&F wardens by 10. The additional enforcement will further reduce the gross violations that seem to be increasing in the state. Station the wardens in high activity waterfowl areas to ensure adequate coverage in the areas where a majority of infractions have historically occurred


I agree we need more wardens, and the game and fish has plenty of $$$$$ . Problem is we need them for only a few months of the year. Somehow maybe we could have college students interested in doing this do there internship for a few months. Just the presence of more will slow down activity.



> *Enact legislation in the state to tack on a $500 administrative fee to anyone ticketed for an overbag/overpossession or wanton waste infraction to go to a G&F general fund to further subsidize the costs of the additional wardens.


 I think this would be very hard to get through, court takes place in local counties.


----------



## HonkerExpress (Sep 23, 2005)

Now, I could be mistaken, but I thought you were leaving the site g/o? Its good to see your back, missed ya buddy, lol. As always your every so helpful with your insights into the R/NR battle. I agree in some of your responces, but I have to totally disagree with you on some of them as well.

I guess we just seem to agree to disagree on certain topics, but its nice to see your back. :beer:


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Like I stated earlier on page one if any of the proposed suggestions that you are offering up on here with the exception of the leg tags makes it through the legislature I will simply buy a Canada Lisc. get up a half hour earlier and drive over the border to hunt on a daily bases for as long as I would like and I know that by driving over the border I will have fewer problems hunting and probably less hassles and only have to give up one day of hunting not two or three and no tags and shooting after a certain time of day and the list goes on and on, then come back to ND stay at my house and repeat the next day, sounds like less problems to me. Then I would have the best of both worlds wouldn't I ? I mean let's face it folks when is enough going to be enough, look this year I spent 7 days straight up there I personally shot 4 geese, one duck, one pheasant, and 3 huns, and one sharpie, I would say that I am obviously not there for the killing, yes I shot a lot so my hit and miss ratio leaves a bit to be desired. So why after I get back from up there and I personally do not see all of the garbage that all of you are talking about happening, does this start up again? Like I said before this must be limited to just ceratain areas of the state, right?

You know Ryan your families farm must be in one of those area's then, that would be my guess, and I am sure that I am not that far off on my guess, am I?

So Ryan if it is so important to you to have the rest days when you go home to hunt are you going to only hunt for four days or are you going to hunt for the whole time you are there? As you should be practicing what you are preaching Right?

As for the locals not hunting as much as the NR's I would say that I am going to have to call that spade!!! Look on here and see how many of the posters are out on the weekends and then sneaking out one or two days a week and then there are others who hunt even more than that because they work nights or have days off during the week so don't try and pedal that garbage to us, especially guys that live around the really well known areas for waterfowl hunting.

This year's liscense sales will be interesting to see how they came out as far as residents vs nr's and small game vs waterfowl. It's to bad they don't make the residents buy two seperate liscense's so that the numbers could really be compared. It would also be interesting to see where the most lisc. sold for NR zones are you know like 10,000 in zone 1 15,000 in zone 2 5,000 in zone three or whatever, it would be nice to see where the majority of the numbers went to.

As for your fees Stuff them up your pants, ND is one of the most expensive as it is, when you consider all of the restrictions put on the lics. sold compared to other states, or even Canada for that matter.

As for the plots program it SUCKS we drove around one day and looked at thousands of acres of pasture land in plots what in the heck are you going to hunt in some idiots pasture? Well I guess he's not the idiot he's getting paid for letting his cattle graze, on non-huntable land. The state of ND leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to the plots program, not once since they started the program three years ago have I ever seen anyone on any of the plots while I was in ND, why you might ask? Because most of the plots that I have seen are a joke there is nothing to hunt on them because there is no cover, no food, or just plain pasture land. The one's that really slay me are the ones that are 50 yards from the guys house and only go down the road 300 yards wide and all within the 440 yards of the guys house TOTALLY ILLEGAL to hunt due to the 440 rule!!! That guy made out like a Bandit.

So go ahead Ryan stir the pot a little more, better yet get a job, and quite stirring things up on here, or go play golf, that sports a joke you pay to hit a little white ball around on mowed grass fields, with holes in them, you wear clothes that make you look like a fruit and drive a flinstones car around while doing it, makes perfect sense to me. Talk about throwing away your money, and they wonder why your willing to pay $300.00 to shoot ducks for 4 day s three times a year?

Like I said in my first post THANK GOD YOU DON'T RUN THE STATE OR HAVE ANY SAY SO IN THE MATTER. The suggestions you have would break the state and the bank.

Later J.D.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Why dont you just go north of the border now jd if its that easy?

I for one thought Ryans ideas were great, some needed a little tweeking, but generally sound. The only one I disagree with is the ND high school graduate license. Move here if you want resident status.
I agree with you jd that we dont need to raise the price of the license, but we DO need to limit the number of NR's.
I would limit NR's to ten days split in two different units. And I am a STRONG advocate of MORE units. We need to spread the pressure out. Some places cant support the numbers of hunters they get, and the hunting suffers for EVERYONE, not just residents.

Lottery system......GOOD!
More units......GOOD!
Reduce number of NR days.......GOOD!
What were doing now.......BAD!

I disagree with you no the number of residents "sneaking" out during the week. Ya, some do, but not NEARLY as many as the NR's blasting all week long.
And yes, every single thread on this topic state, not all parts of the state are over pressured, there are maybe half a dozen areas in the state that see wayyyyy to many hunters, we need to protect these areas.
Thats great you found an area where you dont have to put up with this garbage, I for one, and many others, arent that fortunate. Every weekend this year I have had to put up with NR's (and in one case a resident) sitting in my lap, ditch whoring, skybusting, and trespassing. In fact, on only one hunt so far this year, have we had the immediate area to ourselves. Hell, last weekend we had TWO other groups in the same field.
So DONT try to tell me that we dont need a change.


----------



## shae1986 (Sep 28, 2006)

I like Ryans idea. I wouldn't mind seeing them implemented. In wet years we wouldn't be talking about this but in dry years we will every time. But these laws would help both in all years. I like them. I think that it was well thought out. Even if non res dont get preference points, it was just something that probably had to be looked at. This is the best idea for a cap that i have heard in a long time, oh well, EVER.

A. Shae


----------



## HonkerExpress (Sep 23, 2005)

My three Step Problem Solver.

1. Increase the $'s for Out of Staters
2. Add More Zones to keep the pressure Regulated.
3. Leg Tags, -awesome idea. Once you shoot your fill, you go home.

I would love to see this take place. Don't get me wrong, I have alot of friends that come from Minnesota, Wisconsin, you name it. But something has to be done. Its getting just a little crazy. We hunted a Corn Field last weekend. We had permission, there was 5 other vehicles there watching the birds. The next morning, there was 5 different spreads out in every field that wasn't posted within 2 miles of the field we were in. Granted not all were out of staters, but its been very very hectic around my area and the birds just don't get a break. When they are hunted every day of the week, but X number of guys, I don't blame them for not staying here. I wouldn't want to sit around and get my azz kicked every day, I would move out to less pressure as well. Just my two cents.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Ryan Wrote*



> I'm not certain we need to cap Pheasant hunters. Even if we wanted to, that is a huge uphill battle, like Bob mentioned noone wants to discuss Caps in the legislature at this moment(as far as legislators). *Personally I don't understand why*.


Legislators in ND for the most part come from rural ND (even some from the cities are transplants) they listen to their rural communities concerns and complaints about not getting to see revenue from many hunters and if they were to implement a strict cap they would most likely not be looked upon in a favorable light.

Unless and until some system is devised to show hunters that there is huntable waterfowl, good hunting and access in Upham and Crosby and Williston and on and on and on they will go to where they know waterfowl will be, Gackle, Napoleon, Harvey, Devils Lake, Rock Lake and on and on and on.

You have a proposal for zones and I honestly don't think zones are the answer, Forcing anyone to do something that they don't want to do will always bring on a degree of resistance, Plus you would have to repeal the amendment to the law created in 2005 that created the so called "Zone Buster" license, That would be a very, very difficult sell.

So how do you spread people out into areas of good to excellent hunting that is currently under used? Find an incentive. The possibilities are numerous. ND has a PLOTS program that is relatively unheard of "Community PLOTS" where towns can raise money to up the payment for PLOTS land for a better quality of ground. All they have to do is talk with landowners, secure some hunting ground raise some money within the community and work with NDGF to get it into the system. If they do this and raise more than 50% of the money they can open it to Nonresident hunters for the first week when they are previously limited. It is a no-brainer to me but again there is no guarantee it will bring anyone out there.

Another possible incentive would be to lower the license fee for those out of the way areas. $50.00 for 7 days in Crosby or Trenton (You may not believe there is good waterfowl hunting in these areas but there is, I have been there and done that)

So now that I have given up some of my secret spots :lol: will any of this in itself decrease the "pocket pressure" in certain popular areas probably not unless hunters are willing to listen and learn and then understand the State of ND and how it lays out with regard to hunting. One thing I have learned is that confrontation and heated debate are not a good learning environment, Seems to be the way this site wants to go sometimes and it is a benefit to not a single soul.

Keep brainstorming I like the Ideas and mostly positive comments being posted.

PEACE!!!

Bob


----------



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

Is it possible to close WPA's during certain and different lengths of the season? Maybe have a red colored sign for WPA's closed from OCT. 1 through the 15th. At the same time you could have a nearby WPA colored pink  open during this stretch. Color code the signs to the time frames and do the same on the plots map and send them out with the NR licenses. This gives birds places to go to avoid pressures, and sort of cuts back on leasing around them because for some of the time the water will be open to all. I donno just a thought.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Hey G/O

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply to this thread. I really appreciate your participation and willingness to chat about some of these things.

I'll try to address my thoughts to them in order....



g/o said:


> R Y A N, lets look at things from a different perspective,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've considered this when thinking of the idea. It won't happen in my estimation because you can only hunt 1 zone every 3 weeks. For example, in my plan, you'd only be able to hunt zone 5 let's say for 4 days, then you'd need to choose a new zone for a different trip. You wouldn't be able to go back to zone 5 for 3 weeks. At most this would allow you to hunt your property for 8 days a year in zone 5. I don't believe that will increase NR ownership of property. In fact it will do the opposite... as less OOS guys will be willing to buy property if they can only hunt it for 8 days a year for waterfowl.

This will affect the pheasant hunter much less. I'm not looking to address that issue with these new ideas....



g/o said:


> > *Charge $300 for the 12 days to hunt (includes small game, pheasant, swan etc) (this comes to $25 per day which is nothing when compared to a day of golf, attending an amusement park, or a night at a bar back in your hometown)
> 
> 
> We charge plenty no need to raise it. I would rather see something on the order of a upland license for N/R. This would be for our neighbors that freelance here. It would limit them to one weekend from the second week in October to Nov 15. They could then come before and after those dates as much as they want.


I'm not certain our fees are inline with other states. However I don't want this point to override the others. I'm all for an upland license. I guess I don't understand why one doesnt currently exist? You would think that would be a no brainer?

G/O I LOVE this idea about having a limited license like you suggest. It would limit that license to one hot weekend, and encourage guys to take a trip back up later in the season when pressure is lighter.



g/o said:


> > Prohibit NR's from plots lands for one week
> 
> 
> Ahh one of my favorites, We to eliminate the one week of PLOTS dumbest law ever written . We need to do as South Dakota (geeze where have I heard that before) instead the weekend before the pheasant season the PLOTS would be open for resident hunting only and only PLOTS . The following weekend everyone would be allowed.


I'm for a change in this too as it seems to just juggle the dates around. I'd rather see the overall season pushed back one week overall. Moving the resident weekend one week sooner would be more problematic, as we currently have roosters that haven't plumed out yet as it is without moving the season up another week. Some of the late pheasants will only have learned to fly within 2 weeks of the season starting. Isn't that true?



g/o said:


> > *Cap NR licenses at 15,000 on dry years, 20,000 in wet years as determined by HPC. Preference point system used for guys failing to draw a lottery license similar to ND Deer hunting lottery.
> 
> 
> Sorry this makes no sense at all. You would have to do one of 2 things here. Make it 15,000 or 20,000 with HPC on the wet years we get way more than 20k.


I like that limit, as it returns ND to what it used to be prior to the huge influx. I'm willing to take a chance on not having a license every year, as a tradeoff to having less pressure when I actually do get lucky enough to draw one. To put this in perspective, I'm trying to do this for the betterment of everyone. I don't have as many issues with access and action packed hunts as most on here... But I don't like seeing all the secondary effects of resentful guys intentionally causing issues....



g/o said:


> > * A preference point for any former resident of ND who graduated high school in the state. (This will also further reduce the amount of NR's coming here needing guides or reducing access, as most returning native sons already have access through familial and high school relationships)
> 
> 
> I hope the hell something like this never comes to play. You want resident status, move here!!! I have no idea where you got the idea this would hurt O/G's. The reason most hire us is because of time. They have x amount of days to hunt and want to come enjoy. As we speak I have guys in the air coming from NC and Washington. Hmmm maybe a neighbor of yours.


I will be moving back to ND one day. Not sure how soon, maybe as soon as 4 months, maybe as long as 10 years. Many factors involved.

I don't want "resident status". I'm looking for a "native son" preference point added to the lottery. If successfully drawn, I'd still be subject to NR license fees, rules and limitations. I'd just like an edge on drawing a NR license, as I have more of a familial/hometown attachment to the ND compared to your typical NR. This really isn't that much of an advantage in the big scheme of things, however if will help out current residents if more former ND boys come home and draw a OOS license each year, as it they don't compete to hunt on public lands in as high a percentage as an average NR. This would help out both residents and the rest of the NR's that draw a license, as it will reduce pressure on public lands...



g/o said:


> > 3 sets of leg tags (60 total) with dates to be inscribed on tags and/or license, so that only 20 can be used on any given trip.
> 
> 
> Guess what we agree a little on something. I feel leg tags are long over due. I'm not sure about your number it should be a possession limit for each species. I would like to see this go one step farther and do as MN does and sell them in the stores and eliminate the Internet from getting them. Puts people into the merchants of ND hopefully they may buy a thing or two. Problem is the game and fish will fight this and very few people care to challenge the game and fish.


I'm not sure about my number too.... I was just throwing it out as a starting point to try and address several factors. The factors that I see needing ironing out have to do with

1. # of tags. Do you have people tag birds per day, and hand out X number of tags times total number of possible days? E.g , for ducks, if you have 5 tags a day and with a license being 14 days, you get 5 X 14= 70 duck tags?

2. The eating of birds during season. With tags the idea is that it wont effect total bag correct? You eat one of your birds while in state, you eat a tagged bird. Correct?

I've never heard of over the counter tags in MN. I'm pretty sure this would be a tough sell to the G&F too, as they want to control any attempts at circumventing or cheating tags...especially early on in the new system.

I'd love to put more feet in small town vendors stores too... if the details could be worked out.

I haven't thought this out in depth... please bear with my not having a complete idea here...



g/o said:


> > * Establish 5 waterfowl zones of similar size within the core of ND waterfowl territory. Mandate that the same zone can not be hunted consecutive weeks. This will spread out the pressure amongst all of ND's territory and prevent excessive pressure in one geographical area
> 
> 
> I want no zones not more!!


I guess we'll have to respectfull disagree on this one. We need zones to spread out the concentrations. I personally hate zones. It limits me too... But I can see no other way around them. I realize the legislature created a zone buster license. We need to tweak it to be much more expensive. It will still provide an out, however less guys will use it unless they have a compelling reason such as property, extreme need to hunt 2 different zones because of proximity to zone boundaries etc..



g/o said:


> > Use the additional license surcharge to increase the number of ND G&F wardens by 10. The additional enforcement will further reduce the gross violations that seem to be increasing in the state. Station the wardens in high activity waterfowl areas to ensure adequate coverage in the areas where a majority of infractions have historically occurred
> 
> 
> I agree we need more wardens, and the game and fish has plenty of $$$$$ . Problem is we need them for only a few months of the year. Somehow maybe we could have college students interested in doing this do there internship for a few months. Just the presence of more will slow down activity.


The Game and Fish does not have plenty of money. I've seen the enforcement budget and how it is allocated. Enforcement is under funded, due to adminstrative structure of their funding both as an overall department and as a sub-unit within the Department. That is why I'm suggesting a specifically targeted fund for the enforcement department.

I've been through the warden process several times and can tell you exactly how it works. I've tested #1 or #2, twice on the test, gone thru the hiring process and understand the requirements to be a warden.

You cannot have internships in enforcement due to the ND peace officer regulations. Enforcement needs sworn ND peace officers by state statute, and you can't have interns driving around doing those kinds of activities.



g/o said:


> > *Enact legislation in the state to tack on a $500 administrative fee to anyone ticketed for an overbag/overpossession or wanton waste infraction to go to a G&F general fund to further subsidize the costs of the additional wardens.
> 
> 
> I think this would be very hard to get through, court takes place in local counties.


Hmm... I guess I was thinking more along the lines of an additional mandated fine for that type of infraction. Once it is in the law books, judges must impose the fine, even if adjudicated locally.

I'll reply more in a bit to everyone else too... I gotta run and traffic is crazy today!

Thanks G/O ! I really appreciate you coming back to offer your insight!

Ryan


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

One thing I really hate is so many laws that really serve no purpose...other than make average hunters violators.....of some zone law or whatever the case may be.

Raise this,lower that,make them hunt here,then there,no over there. In the end it is just a bunch of junk laws that do nothing to solve any problems.

If the problem is to many non-residents? Just have a cap. All these laws you are proposing are only aimed at reducing the number of non-residents anyways.

Why not have one law (a non-resident cap) than a bunch of bs laws that are only there to reduce NR numbers? Thats what its really about anyways!

Obviously I am a non-resident. But....I feel for the resident hunters in ND. You have great hunting and a trespass law that is wonderful. Now....that is being taken away from you. I don't believe that just because a bird is migratory that the states should not be allowed to restrict who hunts them.

I am in favor of a cap. I think 20,000 is a good number. Dry or wet. I would even support a 10,000 cap. I don't hunt there in the fall much....but if I did get drawn....at least there would be places to hunt.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

JD you are complaining about too many restrictions in ND and think it is better in Canada.Obviously you haven't hunted there and haven't looked at the laws.....I have hunted in both Manitoba and Sask.Here are some....

Manitoba.....
Season opens for res. only 3 weeks earlier than for non-res
Residents only can hunt in the afternoons.non-res only till noon
No hunting on Sundays

Sask.....
Season for res only 2 weeks earlier than non-res.
leg tags required for all upland for non-res.
res. only can hunt pheasants
No hunting on Sundays

Alberta is going to a 6 day non-res license next year....Sask and Man. will probably soon follow.You won't be able to hunt on a daily basis like you think.

And let's not forget....you have to register your guns and pay a $50 fee once a year when you cross the border.

And they are seriously considering requireing a G/O for all bird hunting....hasn't passed yet,but Sask did a phone survey this past summer and it could very easily come to pass.



> "As for your fees Stuff them up your pants, ND is one of the most expensive as it is, when you consider all of the restrictions put on the lics. sold compared to other states, or even Canada for that matter."


Once again you are wrong....Licenses are $127 in Man. and Sask.....both more than here in ND.Add on the $50 for getting across the border and they are clearly more expensive than here.

the only reason I go there is to hunt snow geese.Everything else is as good or better here.And we are less restrictive.

Now the big question....why are they more restrictive and getting more restrictive??????

Same as here.....to many hunters shooting to many birds....and ND issues more non-res. licenses than Alberta,Manitoba,and Saskatchewan combined.But they feel there is a need to put on more restrictions than here.Which means your threat to go to Canada because of less restrictions just doesn't hold water. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

HPC and leg tags would go a long way to cure what ails us and I also agree with GG that no favorite sond law. You are either a R or a NR. Not that either one is better but you made the choice if you moved away.


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

this is what I'd like to see...Again, I'm not in favor of more confusing regulations...

1 week resident only duck
1 week resident only pheasant
remove Plots restrictions(if resident only pheasant conflicts with MEA, too bad..)
No favorite son regulations
adding a fee to all hunting certficates for commercial enforcement...

creating some type of program that rewards landowners for prohibiting water hunting, also creating refuge/rest areas...

I'd be for a working HPC...


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

Migratory Birds are a Federal resource. We all share in the cost of protecting these birds and their habitats. We should all share in the opportunity to hunt them. A cut in NR access with no cut in R access is inappropriate.

I apply this only to migratory animals that are federally regulated. A state should have full control over how to manage the hunting of wild game that are by and large contained within its borders. Waterfowl hunting requires different management based on their migratory nature.

I would recommend an overall reduction in bag limits. This would reduce the pressure that all hunters would place on the birds. In general, people that are not as serious about waterfowling will be less likely to go hunting because of the proportion of work required to the number of birds they can shoot. That goes for both R and NR.

Turning away the conscientious NR would ultimately hurt the status of North Dakota hunting.

There should be a more extensive network of safe roosting areas. Evenly dispersed across the state, this would reduce hunter concentrations and prevent some of the problems caused by roost busting. Then it would be at the discretion of the landowner as to who can hunt their land. This would include the State of North Dakota. As a landowner they would be fully justified to restrict NR in any it pleases. State lands are paid for by the residents of the State.

Regulations for waterfowl and pheasants should be kept seperate from each other as waterfowl are migratory and ultimately under the jurisdiction of the USFWS.

I do not oppose a greater fee placed on NR or restricting them from hunting state lands. The opposition comes when an uneven distribution of the opportunity to hunt them is given to one group or another. This isn't just a ND issue, it is an issue in all of the flyways.

No one state has the right to place overbearing restrictions on any one group of hunters when it comes to migratory species. If a state is going to cut access to a Federal resource, the burden of this should be more evenly distributed than simply cutting one groups access.

For the good of hunting in North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, Arkansas, California, Maine, which ever state you wish to list, waterfowlers who are concerned with the longterm vitality of the species and the viability of hunting need to look at regulations beyond restricting NR hunters from their state. This needs to be looked at in the big picture, not just waterfowling in ND.

North Dakota is one of the most important places in the US as far as producing and protecting waterfowl. If the State becomes too restrictive of NR, critical funding that benefits the waterfowl that are produced or migrate through the state may be redirected. There would be less incentive for programs that largely benefit North Dakota. Whether right or not, this is a reality. The general hunting population throughout the US will be less concerned with conserving and preserving habitat within North Dakota if they are heavily restricted in regards to hunting their. This would reduce the funding to one of the key production areas in North America.

Let's not get greedy with the distribution of the hunting opportunites on a migratory species that needs the cooperation of many regulatory agencies to maintain a healthy and vibrant population. It will end up hurting all waterfowlers in the end. Waterfowlers are a small percentage of the population and are one of few groups interested in preserving the various species. We need to cooperate and share both the resposibilities and the opportunities.


----------



## water_swater (Sep 19, 2006)

The easiest to understand and the most cost effectivesolution is to just cap it, have some adjustment based on water levels but never more than 15,000. There is one thing I rarely see when scouting anymore, kids. I think there should be an allowance for kids, after all those are the people we want to come to ND in the future old rich white guys die!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ADN

Federal regulations do provide for in-state management, as long as they are not in excess of the federal statutes

[CITE: 50CFR20.2]

[Page 35]

TITLE 50--WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

CHAPTER I--UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR--(Continued)

PART 20--MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING--Table of Contents

Subpart A--Introduction

Sec. 20.2 Relation to other provisions.

(a) Migratory bird permits. The provisions of this part shall not be 
construed to alter the terms of any permit or other authorization issued 
pursuant to part 21 of this subchapter.
(b) Migratory bird hunting stamps. The provisions of this part are 
in addition to the provisions of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 
1934 (48 Stat. 451, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 718a).
(c) National wildlife refuges. The provisions of this part are in 
addition to, and are not in lieu of, any other provision of law 
respecting migratory game birds under the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Administration Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 927, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 
668dd) or any regulation made pursuant thereto.
*(d) State Laws for the protection of migratory birds. No statute or 
regulation of any State shall be construed to relieve a person from the 
restrictions, conditions, and requirements contained in this part, 
however, nothing in this part shall be construed to prevent the several 
States from making and enforcing laws or regulations not inconsistent 
with these regulations and the conventions between the United States and 
any foreign country for the protection of migratory birds or with the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or which shall give further protection to 
migratory game birds.*


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

Any state can regulate its season within the bounds of the Federal framework. However, it still remains a federal resource. An individual state can only set its season after the Feds. I am not of the belief that a state should be able to disproportionately regulate the access of one hunting group and not another when it comes to a Federal resource.


----------



## shae1986 (Sep 28, 2006)

The access will still be there, its like an elk lottery in other states. Each state these days are suppose to have available license for NR and that was a case in Arizona.

I think that a cap is something that needs to be looked at. They aren't regulating that NR cannot shoot ducks and geese in ND, they are resticting the access of so many people. Now heres how i look at it, take the number of NR now and cut it down by 40 percent, that would leave you with roughly 15000 NR licenses. Now even though that cuts funding, it makes the bird hunting better allowing for more people to have "BETTER" hunts. This here will help keep people coming back. The problem will that if people dont get drawn years after years, (preference points will help this) they wont try anymore. Still for years to come ND will sell all there NR licenses. The major problem i see with this is lets say a family of 4 all apply, what if only two of them get drawn. Now lets say the two adults get drawn and the two, well use my age, 20 year olds dont. Pretty tough. Now maybe you say will tough luck better luck next time, but is that fair? Its the experiance, being with friends and family out there. Its not always about the hunt. I know that if they did this and lets say my dad got drawn and i didn't, i know he wouldn't go even if i told him too. Just another thing to think about

A. Shae


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ADN



> I am not of the belief that a state should be able to disproportionately regulate the access of one hunting group and not another when it comes to a Federal resource.


Isn't that the issue that was raised and ruled upon when Minnesota sued ND over duck hunting.

Last I heard the lawsuit was dismissed because of a Federal Law that was enacted that allows states to regulate hunting as they see fit within their borders.

You don't have to like it or believe in it but it is current law.

Bob


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

I am not saying that the State should not be allowed to restrict the hunting of waterfowl within reason. The concern is if the restriction of access is placed unequitably upon NR. This will fuel a break down in cooperation between various organizations and governmental agencies.

If you read the posts on all topics regarding hunting pressure, I have yet to see (although there very well might be) a post by a resident asking to restrict resident access as well as non-resident. What is at issue here is that residents want to restrict hunting without seeing themselves restricted.

We are not talking about deer which primarily are born, feed, reproduce, and winter within the same state. We are talking about a Federal resource that is in existence due to the efforts of people from both within and without the borders of North Dakota. I hope the general population of North Dakota never supports the measures you are proposing. Propose something more reasonable that spreads the limitations evenly between all parties.

What you sow, you may also reap. Residents aren't the only ones who have sown the seeds to bring ducks and geese to their state.


----------



## shae1986 (Sep 28, 2006)

ADN
They are not asking for total restriction, which they could but would never happen, they want a number restriction. Now do i want to see a cap, not really, but does there probably need to be one, espcially in years like this, yes. There isn't even much of a restiction for ND deer hunting, but thats off topic so i wll stay away from that.

Restriction on waterfowl makes sence becuase when there aren't many places for the ducks and geese to roost on a dry year then they get concentrated. What happens when the birds concentrate, the hunters concentrate as well. Taking ten thousand hunters out of the equation, especially for opening weekend and during this main flight, will hlep take some of the pressure of the roosts. Now there are Residents that bust roost too, again something im not going to get into, but NR looking for a good hunt are more apt too, but many that understand will not.

In wet years is there as much as a problem with number of NR, not as much, but htere are still a lot of hunters around.

Now the birds are a federal resource but still the states govern there seasons within the federal regulations. If the states feel like there hunting is not up to par with what it could be with a few regulations or population caps, they really need to do it. If for some insane reason it happened in MN to fishing i would like to see it done here too, yet another thing im not getting into, but i dont see that happeining.

Will a cap ever happen, maybe, i dont know, haven't heard. If it gets pushed hard enough, not just by hunters, but G&F then maybe its a possibility.

A. Shae


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

shae1986 said:


> There isn't even much of a restiction for ND deer hunting, but thats off topic so i wll stay away from that.


Yes there is!  They limit the total number of NR licenses to 1%? I think of total available licenses per unit. I got denied for the 3rd year in a row that has over 98% drawing gurantee success for residents ( for a buck license....)

In fact I've *yet* to get drawn for a buck tag since leaving ND in 2003!

I'm currently lurking watching the rest of the thoughts... I'll take some time another day to address them..

:wink:

Ryan


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

I am not opposing any restriction either. I am just stating that if pressure is a concern then to some degree both R and NR should be restricted. Both the State and the Country have invested in this resource. Likewise the hunting of these birds while in North Dakota should be shared to the same extent.

I don't see anywhere that I argue pressure isn't too heavy or that there shouldn't be restrictions on the number of hunters. What is at issue is how access to a Federal resource is administered. I have yet to see justification for why there would be no cap or restrcition placed upon resident hunters.

What share of the responsibilty for protecting these birds found in North Dakota and funding their habitat was the State's and what was the Federal's? If it was 60/40 then the hunting opportunities should be allowed 60/40. 60/40 is an arbitrary number, I make no claim that this is what each entity has put forth.

However, whatever the ratio is, so should the opportunity be divided.


----------



## shae1986 (Sep 28, 2006)

ADN
If something like that ever went through they would be looking at that for all sorts of game animals. I prefer to be able to hunt my own state, MN, and know i can hunt year after year rather than have to work to even hunt my own state. I dont see why ND should have restrictions on there resident hunters. Its fair to put a cap on NR and just dont see the point of capping Residents, plus, there would be some real mad residents that didnt get a license that year. Not good for the State of ND if a farmer that enjoys hunting doesn't get a license. He gets mad drains the sloughs, plows them under, burns them. I can see a lot of things that can go wrong here.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

ADN said:


> I am not opposing any restriction either. I am just stating that if pressure is a concern then to some degree both R and NR should be restricted. Both the State and the Country have invested in this resource. Likewise the hunting of these birds while in North Dakota should be shared to the same extent.
> 
> I don't see anywhere that I argue pressure isn't too heavy or that there shouldn't be restrictions on the number of hunters. What is at issue is how access to a Federal resource is administered. I have yet to see justification for why there would be no cap or restrcition placed upon resident hunters.
> 
> ...


Sorry but we as residents come first.Non-res. are second.No restrictions on residents until all avenues of non-res restrictions are taken first.And that's for all states and provinces....not just ND.


----------



## shae1986 (Sep 28, 2006)

:withstupid:


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

Then pressure would be placed to divert Federal funding from projects within North Dakota and the largely aide North Dakota waterfowling. This funding would be then dispersed amongst the other states.

Is that a good thing? No, but it is what will happen. Members of organizations outside of North Dakota will have much less incentive to push for funding of projects in North Dakota. This hurts everybody. You can argue it is your state all you want but MIGRATORY WATERFOWL are a shared resource. Everyone puts forth effort and funding to insure the well being of the species. It has been and will be a cooperative effort to protect and enhance their habitat. There then should be a cooperative effort in providing hunting access. If this is not done, funding will either diminish or be diverted. This would hurt waterfowl hunting everywhere, including in North Dakota.

The waterfowl in North Dakota are not soley of its creation. Therefore, it should not be able to claim sole discretion in administering hunting priveledges within its bounds. Even if it is lawful for the State to restrict NR without any restriction of R hunters, it will only have a negative effect in the longterm effort to protect and enhance habitat. This ultimately benefits no one.

Find a better solution that does not involve the Me First attitude.

The more we can avoid a Me First point of view, the better off all hunters and waterfowl will be. As a migratory species, waterfowl require the cooperation of a multitude of agencies, organizations, and individuals. Let's continue that spirit, not destroy it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

What federal funding projects could we not do w/o?????

DU and Delta could disappear and no one would notice.The federal farm policies are just that.....farm policies.Wildlife is secondary.5,000 or less non-res. and no national funding,no DU,no Delta like back in the 60's,70's and early 80's would be preferable to what it is now.

And "other" states,especially south of here benefit a huge amount when we produce more ducks and geese so would they really stop sending money here???????NOT


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken....

People keep talking about the 60's, 70's and 80's......FARMING PRACTICES HAVE CHANGED! So the habitat that was available in the 60's-80's will now become crop land. Every state will need help from DU, Fed's, State Agency's, Delta's, PF's, etc. to help conserve habitat.

If you don't believe that the marginal land will now be farmed more frequently you are looking at this issue with blinders on. The proof is right infront of everyone. Look at the equipment that farmers use now. The size of tractors, planters, plows, etc. Add the fact that most bigger farmers now have thier own semi's to haul the crop to the elevators and/or grain stations. The days of a farmer hauling the one wagon to the elevator are fading.

Farmers now are being able to make some money on marginal land. Now if you add the fact that the goverment is pushing biodisel and ethanol into the mix.....look out!!!!

Like ADN has stated. If states that are losing R (nd out migration) and start to limit the NR hunters numbers....funding from special intrest groups will dwindle. That will = loss of habitat. Then add the loss of special intrest groups and the loss of the NR dollar more habitat loss!

Everyone points to SD when they talk about this....but SD gets over 90,000 NR pheasant hunters. They make up alot of revenue there. Then you add the programs the PF has added plus some DU and delta programs. Plus farmers in SD also try to breed pheasants for thier $100 per gun ventures. All of this good pheasant habiat = good DUCK HABITAT!

IMO if SD did not have the good pheasant hunting that it is know for you would not see a cap on NR waterfowl hunting. Because they would need that revenue to help support wildlife habitat with in its state. Farmers would opperate differently.

I know of farmers that plug a spot on the planter so come fall hunters have a lane to walk in. I know farmers that leave crops in longer just to hold pheasants. I know a farmer that kept a portion of his land in CRP even though he could farm it for more money than the crp payment. But he kept it in CRP to run his pheasant hunting operation.

So again.....I agree limit the NR by number of days, fee's, etc. But a cap would only hurt in the long run. I also agree that if the possession limit was dropped to 4 ducks a day. You would lose some NR hunters. You would lose the shooters not the hunters.

CHuck


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> Find a better solution that does not involve the Me First attitude.


As apposed to the MN attitude of "We want our cake AND eat it too" attitude?

Come on. That is such a crock. Here we are trying to protect the environmental adaptation of ducks leaving ND early because of pressure, protecting our farmers from NR's buying up land away from them, and trying to make sure hunting isn't a rich man's hobby and you come back with "me first attitude".

It is bullying tactic at the most. You want the privileges, then move here. What is stopping you? Why don't you move here ADN?


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

I am not going to turn this into a debate on why people chose to live certain places. That is not the issue.

It is a shared resource that has taken a cooperative effort on various fronts to maintain and enhance. Therefore the administering of the hunting opportunities must be looked at from the same viewpoint. If not, it will cause a breakdown in the cooperative management and habitat enhancement.

Residents of North Dakota are not solely responsible for the status of waterfowl within their state. Therefore, they should not have total preference. Residents should be allowed some preference, but not all.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

This isn't a debate about where you choose to live. I am merely asking why you are choosing to live in MN when you can the riches of ND hunting?

I don't expect to run up to Manitoba and have the same priveleges as someone that lives there, why should you have those expections when coming here?

These same ducks go through SD, Nebraska, and Kansas. Are you putting these same kind of posts on their outdoor forums?



> Residents should be allowed some preference, but not all.


So we should base those preferences on what MN resident states it should be? How about a SD resident? Iowa resident?


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Residents of North Dakota are not solely responsible for the status of waterfowl within their state. Therefore, they should not have total preference. Residents should be allowed some preference, but not all.


No, but past/present/future residents have 99% to do with it! Who maintains it all. Who replants it all. Who does the work? NR? I don't think so. Just by donating a few dollars doesn't make you a resident!
And I ask you what is your definition of ALL, because I am reading a ME first attitude or what about me, when in fact 90% of NR do nothing to help better our opportunity other than buying a liscense or donate money!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I have always thought that leg tags were an excellent way to maintain accountability and would really be an asset from an enforcement perspective. A little bit of a hassle but not so much that it could not be do able.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

ADN said:


> Residents of North Dakota are not solely responsible for the status of waterfowl within their state. Therefore, they should not have total preference. Residents should be allowed some preference, but not all.


OK everyone time to get the thread back on topic.

ADN thanks for the thoughts. Your thoughts are not entirely correct however. The funding would not be diverted as you believe. Your comments almost seem like a passive agressive blackmail threat that ND residents need to bow to OOS interests else they have $$ taken from them.

I'm sorry that just doesn't hold water. Everyone knows that ND is the primary state in the US for duck production, and Canada is mis-appropriating huge amounts of funding. ND will never have it's funding removed in the manner you suggest, else sportsmen all across the Flyway will be shooting off their own foot. Sorry.

Thanks for the insight, however I'd like to keep this thread on track.

1. Fact. ND has the ability to regulate it's own state laws to control hunting as it sees fit. The argument is weak that it is a federal species therefore state restrictions on NR's shouldn't apply. As has been earlier discussed, there is legal precedent otherwise. You cannot change that fact, so please quite grousing about it. If you'd like to continue down this path, please start your own thread in Hot Topics. Thanks.

2. Fact. Every state in the union makes it easier for it's in-state residents both in availability and in cost.

3. There is no requirement, perception, belief, standard or argument by anyone other than you that a state should cap it's own residents in addition to capping NR's. I've never heard, read, seen this ever suggested by anyone on any forum ever. This is your sole belief, you've stated your opinion on it. It's another new topic point that deserves it's own thread. Please start a new thread on the topic in Hot Topics if you'd like to continue this angle.



Chuck said:


> So again.....I agree limit the NR by number of days, fee's, etc. But a cap would only hurt in the long run. I also agree that if the possession limit was dropped to 4 ducks a day. You would lose some NR hunters. You would lose the shooters not the hunters.


Hi Chuck

Thanks for the thoughts. You've commented on caps before in other threads. I appreciate your post here but don't want this thread to get started down the wrong path...

All things you suggest are currently in place and not working to reduce the vast increase in pressure ND is currently seeing. Therefore, unless ND gets drastic on some of your above suggestions, the pressure will still exist. The question becomes, if we don't have a cap, but need to reduce pressure DRASTICALLY how can we do that? A cap provides a number certain of hunters. Your methodology allows an un-determinable number of hunters that can't be managed to a certainty.

Your idea while plausible will never happen, because you'll never get the state to reduce the bag limit to 3 daily during average/good years. If that _were_ to actually be a possibility *and* we had leg tags with a total possession limit of 42 birds (14 multiplied by 3 birds= 42), THEN you'd see a reduction in NR hunters.

That drastic limitation is the only way that you will reduce hunter numbers and therefore reduce pressure by the same magnitude as a hard cap.

Guys let's please keep the thread on topic.

Thanks

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

live2hunt said:


> > Find a better solution that does not involve the Me First attitude.
> 
> 
> Here we are trying to protect the environmental adaptation of ducks leaving ND early because of pressure, protecting our farmers from NR's buying up land away from them, and trying to make sure hunting isn't a rich man's hobby and you come back with "me first attitude".
> ...


Spot on assessment of what this thread is trying to accomplish...

Thanks Dan


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan......I agree.

I agree with leg tags. But to help the population you need both R and NR use leg tags. You need a set amount for both. Like I have mentioned the R leg tags could be a huge number like 500 or what ever and the NR can be like you mentioned 42 or what ever. But both need to use leg tags to enforce the law correctly.

Chuck


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

Ryan, I like your idea, obviously it could use tweeking here and there, but it is the best solution i've heard, and why is the only *****ing coming from NR's???


----------



## shae1986 (Sep 28, 2006)

Triple B i am a NR and i havent been complaining, im all for it.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Triple B said:


> Ryan, I like your idea, obviously it could use tweeking here and there, but it is the best solution i've heard, and why is the only b*tching coming from NR's???


Thanks Triple B for the support. I'm glad to hear that I have both a combination of residents and Non-resident sportsmen who feel this is the start to a good compromise. Both sides have to feel they aren't losing too much, and both sides have to see that they potentially stand to gain some things by giving the other side some concessions....

I'm a NR too... regretfully so.. but I just want to work with both sides to find some common ground. Enough other threads exist that take shots at both sides, and like many others I'm tired of reading the venom.

Ryan


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Why give Res. such a huge number they can't use them all anyway????

Non-res tags should not be a static number.The reason to use them is to cut down on overshooting and giving them away to stay within the possession limit.

The number of tags should be a multiplier of the daily limit.....2 times,3 times,4 times whatever.....3-4 days limit is sufficient to get some good hunting,eat some,or give some to friends.Then hunt something else.

This year a non-res would get 15-20 duck tags and 9-12 dark goose tags.No tags for white geese.

Would be for waterfowl only.....since you can buy as many upland licenses as you want.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

That is kinda what I have stated. Pick a number based on the daily limit.

What would be the leg tag reg for a R hunter? How many tags would they get?

Because some have stated that they dont want tags for R hunters....just NR hunters.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> That is kinda what I have stated. Pick a number based on the daily limit.
> 
> What would be the leg tag reg for a R hunter? How many tags would they get?
> 
> Because some have stated that they dont want tags for R hunters....just NR hunters.


Chuck

Like Ken mentioned tags for R's are simply not in the equation. Period.

There is no way to make this happen. It's not on the table in any circles. Think about the nightmare of trying to impose such a rule. Like Ken said, are you suggesting we give residents hundreds of tags? Because the potential for a resident who hunts every day means the G&F would be sending out over 360 tags per resident. THAT is a nightmare scenario for the G&F, the wardens doing checking, the residents needing to find their appropriate tags, etc.

Or are you instead suggesting that R's start having a maximum weekly limit of ducks scenario, whereby they have a set number of tags for example on a per week basis.... Let's say they can have 3 daily limits per week, or 18 ducks per week (3 days times 6 per day). You are saying that the G&F should issue 18 tags for each week of the resident season?

Once again either scenario is not really a valid debate. That scenario would never even make it to a committee discussion. The legislators would be hung on the capital steps by the residents.

Ryan


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> That is kinda what I have stated. Pick a number based on the daily limit.
> 
> What would be the leg tag reg for a R hunter? How many tags would they get?
> 
> Because some have stated that they dont want tags for R hunters....just NR hunters.


If this were to become a law....you would not pick a number.The wording would have to say X times the daily limit for each.....whatever that is.If the limit were 2-3 then 15-20 would be to many.If the limit is 6 then 10 wouldn't be enough.

Kind of like a static number for a cap.....set it according to water conditions....last year 25,000 was probably OK.....this year to many.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken and Ryan..... I understand what you are saying.

I agree with tags. But I think enforcement would be difficult unless all (R and NR) has to use a tagging system. Unless I am missing understanding something.

CHuck


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

R y a n said:


> ...so I'd like to start this new thread to see if we can discuss the NR tag idea...
> 
> As a *non-resident*, I can emphatically state that I'm all for leg tags, and further restrictions on NR's. I come to North Dakota to have a fun time, enjoying a quality hunt with friends and family. The number of birds I shoot is irrelevent to me. I'm back home on the prairie having the time of my life watching my dad shoot, the kid's eyes light up, and the dogs wiggling from the excitement of going out again.
> 
> ...


I haven't taken this off track at all. All I am stating is that if there is going to be anything aimed at restricting one demographic, there should be equitable restrictions placed on the other. I don't know how you take what I said to be a veiled threat. It is a simple reality that outdoorsmen from other states will have less incentive to push for projects that have a greater impact on North Dakota than their own state.

DU and Delta are not the only "outside" contributers to the state. (I know, many residents of ND are involved in these organizations...) There is Federal funding for projects and management that is spent within the state. Think Arrowwood, Audobon, etc.

I support restrictions, leg tags, whatever they may be, if doled out equitably.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Help me understand tags more.......

Lets say a NR gets 20 leg tags. Can that NR shoot all 20 in one day?


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

No, the daily limit would remain the same. That is why Ken has suggested that the leg tags be a multiplier of the daily limit.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> Help me understand tags more.......
> 
> Lets say a NR gets 20 leg tags. Can that NR shoot all 20 in one day?


No. They can only shoot their daily limit for each day. If the limit is 6 daily and 20 in possession, they can only shoot 6 ducks each day. Once they reach their possession limit they must stop shooting unless they reduce their possession limit by eating or gifting the birds. They may only transport a possession limit home with them.

There is a group of NR's that have been cheating the system by "getting rid of" birds in possession thru "donation" or "being generous and cooking a large meal for everyone in town" in order to reduce their possession and allow them to go out and continue pounding the resource.

The problem ND currently has is OOS guys who come here for 7 straight days to bang away. The OOS guys hit their possession limit a few days into their hunt and need to find a way to dump their birds in some fashion to continue shooting.

This is just one small part of the issue I'm trying to address. Some of my earlier suggestions are an attempt at combating NR's trying to circumvent the current regs...

Ryan


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

As Ryan simply stated.....res hunters would never go along with tags.And legislators aren't stupid enough to force them down our throats.Sure there would be some grumbling from legislators who only care about bringing in the almighty $$$$ and want no restrictions at all.But once word got out that tags would be required for res.....the proverbial crap would hit the fan as Ryan stated.

To me....tags would be a better option than a cap.It would allow everyone that wants to come to come and participate.....yet not put on so much pressure as to move out the birds.

Other options would be to limit non-res to morning only hunting like Manitoba does.Or lower daily limits for non-residents like Manitoba and Sask. both do on some dark geese.

This sounds anti-non-res. but there has to be a way to lower constant DAILY pressure on waterfowl put on mainly by non-res. hunters.Most of us hunt only on weekends.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

OK.

Thanks for clarifying the tagging system.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Tags help keep honest people honest and dishonest people a little more honest and if you are a flat out crook it really doesn't matter what system you have it ain't going to matter for a crook!! In my opinion they can work for upland game if they are X times the daily limit. Simple to use and simple to comply with and you have accountability for enforcement purposes. If you harvest game you are required to immediately use a tag and you don't use your tag well its easy to see you are guilty. What sportsman would not be in favor of a tag system. It is no different than a deer tag except you would have more tags. It would allow law enforcement to see the number of birds harvested, by which hunter and on which date they were harvested. Those are great things to have in a court of law if it comes to that point in time.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> It is a simple reality that outdoorsmen from other states will have less incentive to push for projects that have a greater impact on North Dakota than their own state.


Isn't that what it is all about! States regulating their own problems. I know what you are saying( ND won't get as much funding), but wouldn't you like your state to have more of what we have.

Put more land in your state into huntable acres and ND will see less pressure!!!



> Tags help keep honest people honest and dishonest people a little more honest and if you are a flat out crook it really doesn't matter what system you have it ain't going to matter for a crook!!


Bingo Bango!!! :beer:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Tags can work for NR but believe me there are resident hunters that need a tag system, too! It is probably not practical for resident hunters as was stated in an earlier post.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken......to let you know the noon closure is only in certain area's and end Oct 15th. It also is only for geese in Manitoba.

But something along that line would be a great idea!

Also it was my misunderstanding of the leg tags is why I thought it would be a nightmare to enforce. But now I understand that the NR would still have to stay with in the daily possession limit. Again my mistake.

Chuck


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> Ken......to let you know the noon closure is only in certain area's and end Oct 15th. It also is only for geese in Manitoba.
> 
> But something along that line would be a great idea!
> 
> ...


The noon closure is basically for the entire southern goose zone,where most people hunt.And the season is pretty close to over by Oct. 15 up there.Look at this year.The first 3 weeks of the season it closes at noon.


----------

