# Ducks get a boost



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Ducks get a boost
By RICHARD HINTON 
Bismarck Tribune

Duck populations will get a boost and producers will be able to enroll more wetlands buffers in the Conservation Reserve Program under a new initiative unveiled Thursday by the USDA's Farm Service Agency.

Billed as the Duck Nesting Habitat Initiative, the plan is aimed at key waterfowl breeding habitat throughout this Northern Plains duck-producing factory that's known as the Prairie Pothole Region.

John Johnson, deputy administrator for farm programs for FSA in Washington, D.C., made the announcement at the fourth North American Duck Symposium in Bismarck.

"We hope to increase ducks by 60,000 per year," Johnson said.

Boosting mallard, gadwall, blue-winged teal, northern pintail and northern shoveler numbers will come with the restoration of 100,000 acres of wetlands within the PPR, which encompasses portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Montana and Iowa. North Dakota's portion is 40,000 acres.

"It's good for farmers, hunters and the ducks," Mike Szymanski, a migratory game bird biologist for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, said of the initiative.

It's a tweak on an earlier FSA policy that allowed producers to enroll wetlands and only a narrow buffer area. The new initiative "will be more efficient for farming larger blocks of land with higher productivity," Johnson said.

For land with 25 or more duck pairs per square mile, participants may enroll acreage up to a 10-to-1 upland-to-wetland ratio. This means for every one acre of wetlands, there must be 10 acres of surrounding upland habitat.

For land with fewer than 25 duck pairs per square mile, participants may enroll acreage at a 4-to-1 upland-to-wetland ratio.

Johnson said he had been told by numerous biologists in the PPR, including Ron Reynolds, the U.S. Fish and WIldlife Service's lead waterfowl biologist in Bismarck, that the old policy "wasn't cutting it."

"They were small, cookie-cutter (tracts). Now there is an opportunity to enroll a whole quarter-section," said Scott Stephens, the director of conservation planning for Ducks Unlimited's Great Plains Regional Office in Bismarck.

Sign-up for the continuous initiative will begin Oct. 1 at local FSA offices and will run on a continuous basis until enrollment goals are met or until Dec. 31, 2007.

Duck hunters throughout North America will be beneficiaries, said Reynolds.

"Ducks produced here are harvested in every state in the United States, except Hawaii, all the provinces in Canada and many of the countries in South and Central America," he said. "Waterfowl produced here impact a large area. Anything we can do here to increase production has a large impact on waterfowl everywhere."

Existing CRP, about 8 million acres, in the PPR has helped swell duck populations by 2.1 million annually.

With the new initiative "we may be looking at 50,000 to 100,000 additional ducks," said Reynolds, whose USFWS Habitat and Population Evaluation Team did much of the field work that put numbers on the CRP benefits for ducks.

USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation will offer participants an incentive payment equal to 25 percent of the cost to restore the site's hydrology, an annual rental payment and cost-share assistance of up to 50 percent of eligible practice installation costs.

CRP is a private-lands conservation program that has more than 36 million acres enrolled. Through CRP, farmers and ranchers plant grasses and trees in crop fields and along streams.

CRP offers additional wetlands restoration initiatives targeting 500,000 acres inside the 100-year floodplain, 250,000 acres outside the 100-year floodplain and 1 million acres of previously converted wetlands of less than 40 acres per tract.

The North American Duck Symposium is themed "Integrating Science and Management" and offers forums for scientists, biologists, managers and students interested in the conservation and management of ducks.

"If you hunt ducks, study ducks, eat ducks, look at ducks or think about ducks, you will like what John is going to announce," said Reynolds during his introduction of Johnson during the symposium.

(Reach outdoor writer Richard Hinton at 701-250-8256 or [email protected];bismarcktribune.com.)


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

:thumb:


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

hopefully the state could offer an additional incentives to have it PLOTS or something to have it(or a portion of it) open for public use...


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

NDJ said:


> hopefully the state could offer an additional incentives to have it PLOTS or something to have it(or a portion of it) open for public use...


Good idea! Use the other 49 states money and then campaign to keep NR's off of it!


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

aztec said:


> Good idea! Use the other 49 states money and then campaign to keep NR's off of it!


Anyone can move here if they want.

Really now.....PLOTS land is only closed for NR's one week of the entire hunting season. Plus this is a ND Game & Fish program--not federal.


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

No where does it say that the money is coming only from the state of ND to fund this. It is a USDA program, that makes it federal and everyone else's money.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Aztec,
Your thinking baffles me. Under the USDA program the landowner doesn't have to let anyone hunt if they don't want to. You don't seem to complain about not being able to hunt land in a federal program but if ND pitches in for PLOTS on land in a federal program, to open it up for public hunting, then you have a problem.

In the federal case you pay no matter what and still don't have a right for access. If it goes into ND PLOTS program you pay only if you buy a license in ND.

Would you like some cheese with that?


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

Those are some of the most specious and irrelevant arguments I have ever read. In my opinion it is very "North Dakota" for someone to suggest putting "set aside" land paid for with everyone's tax dollars in a program like PLOTS that restricts use by NR's. If its not in PLOTS I have a chance of getting access anytime during the season. In PLOTS, I do not.

I know that it is a difficult concept for some of you to grasp that it is just plain WRONG to make people pay for something that they are restricted from using - but try.

Oh, and by the way, they are MIGRATORY waterfowl. So you don't own them even though your state thinks that they do.


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

So Aztec let me see if I have this right.

You would not be willing to trade one week of access for guaranteed access the rest of the year to land that you might or might not get on otherwise.

The extra money from plots might be the little extra that could bring more land into the program. I guess we could just let all of the USDA money go into say South Dakota where only 4000 of us non-residents could possibly get on the land.

Residents and Non Residents have it good in North Dakota and the more land that farmers are willing to put into this program the better both parties will have it.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

aztec,

Your comments and attitude are the things of which R/NR relations are made. We consider it very "N/R" for people who come from poor bird hunting states to tell us they are entitled to buy their way into everything we choose to be near year-round.

Guess you figure that because some of your tax dollars fund the Interior Dept. you should be able to march into Wyoming and demand an elk tag at the same price/days/periods as a Wyoming R? Think of all the elk on Federally-funded ground, and a lot of them migrate among states too, right?


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

Dan Bueide said:


> aztec,
> 
> Your comments and attitude are the things of which R/NR relations are made. We consider it very "N/R" for people who come from poor bird hunting states to tell us they are entitled to buy their way into everything we choose to be near year-round.
> 
> Guess you figure that because some of your tax dollars fund the Interior Dept. you should be able to march into Wyoming and demand an elk tag at the same price/days/periods as a Wyoming R? Think of all the elk on Federally-funded ground, and a lot of them migrate among states too, right?


Another ignorant argument that ignores the real point.

Never said I was entitled to anything. However, you apparently believe that you are entitled to take peoples money and then legislate them off the land that they helped purchase.

Only asking for the opportunity to gain access. You and your ilk feel justified in denying even that opportunity. Wyoming doesn't deny me the opportunity to apply for the elk tag. There is a differtence - but if it is too subtle for you then.........


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

Another good info thread that is going to be turned into back and forth crap! uke:

Does everything have to be turned into a Res/NR debate???????


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

> Only asking for the opportunity to gain access. You and your ilk feel justified in denying even that opportunity.


You didn't answer me Aztec. You would not be willing to give up one week of access to good crp land to have guaranteed access to it the rest of the year?

Do I have your position correct?


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

Ihuntnfish said:


> > Only asking for the opportunity to gain access. You and your ilk feel justified in denying even that opportunity.
> 
> 
> You didn't answer me Aztec. You would not be willing to give up one week of access to good crp land to have guaranteed access to it the rest of the year?
> ...


As an old saying goes: What does your question have to do with the price of asparagus in Belgium?

I want the ability to legally pursue access to all lands (or land rights) that I have helped purchase during the open NR waterfowl season. Now don't go reading all kinds of things into that statement that aren't there as so many on this site do. Just read the words slowly......


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Would you like some cheese with that?


I'll second that emotion!!!!!! What the hell are you thinking Aztec?? Would you not rather have the chance to hunt it for all but one week????? :eyeroll:


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

djleye said:


> > Would you like some cheese with that?
> 
> 
> I'll second that emotion!!!!!! What the hell are you thinking Aztec?? Would you not rather have the chance to hunt it for all but one week????? :eyeroll:


If I helped purchase it or, in this case, access to it (as I did) through NR license fees, why should I be legislated off of it at all? That is the point that none of you can justify so instead you choose to ignore it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

aztec,

I agree with you. Everyone who buys a lisc in ND have a right to hunt plots land. I agree why should the NR be kept off it. They are paying the same price as a R. EVERYONE IS PAYING THE $10 FEE!!!!

But this thread is not about this arguement. It is informing everyone of the CRP bill that is at hand. This will be a great bill. It will help with breeding land for all forms of wildlife. Good job and I hope it sticks and works out!


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

Aztec

I would like you to just answer the one question don't dance around it. It is a Yes or No question.



> You would not be willing to give up one week of access to good crp land to have guaranteed access to it the rest of the year?


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

Ihuntnfish said:


> Aztec
> 
> I would like you to just answer the one question don't dance around it. It is a Yes or No question.
> 
> ...


I am not going to answer your stupid question because it is beside the point. Please have someone look up the word irrelevant in the dictionary for you or, better yet, have someone read my last post and explain it to you.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> If I helped purchase it or, in this case, access to it (as I did) through NR license fees, why should I be legislated off of it at all? That is the point that none of you can justify so instead you choose to ignore it.


You know the rules of ND. If you don't agree with the rules don't pay for the license and you won't have to help purchase access. It's called a user fee. Non-users don't get charged. Become a non-user and you won't be charged.

Your right. We don't own migratory waterfowl but we do have the right to regulate them while they are in ND. :wink: You don't live here so you don't get to make the rules. I don't live in Wisconsin so I don't get to have a say in how Wisconsin regulates wildlife. It's a simple concept. When I hunt in other states I play by the rules that are made by the RESIDENTS of the state I am visiting. If I don't like the rules then I vote with my dollars and don't go.

If you want to come and change legislation and the taking of game in ND then you will just have to move here. That's the way it works.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

If it is something so important to you....MOVE HERE.....problem solved!!!


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

I am sorry you feel the question is irrelevant.

If we can get more land into the program by adding on a plots payment to the farmer. I am all in favor of it. I guess you are not in favor of getting the land into this program this way.

The question is relevant and you are running from it. It is a simple question that is very relevant and you are backed into a corner and are choosing to run away from the question rather than answer it.

Here it is one last time, you can come back with a post and make up more excuses or you can just answer the question!!!



> You would not be willing to give up one week of access to good crp land to have guaranteed access to it the rest of the year?


----------



## HonkerExpress (Sep 23, 2005)

I can sure tell its that time of year again. I really don't understand why some NR's have such issues with hunting in nodak, but they always come up to hunt.

Here's my theory, if NR's think its so hard to hunt in nodak then just stay your azz home. Leaves more birds for the nodak boys to shoot. I have no problem with NR's hunting in nodak, its good for the economy, but instead of complaning about how we don't treat NR's fairly in nodak, why don't you just enjoy your stay, shoot some birds, drink some beer and meet a couple new people. I can understand its hard for some of the NR's to get on good land to hunt here, but let me tell ya what, its not any easier for the residents either.

More and more land is being gobbled up by guides/outfitters that once was very easy to get access too. Now instead of being able to hunt the same fields we did 4 years ago, alot of us are pushed to different locations to be able to enjoy our sport as well. SO, in some sences we as residents don't have it much easier as non-residents do in some aspects. Just my two cents. sorry if that got a bit off subject. lol


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

gandergrinder said:


> > If I helped purchase it or, in this case, access to it (as I did) through NR license fees, why should I be legislated off of it at all? That is the point that none of you can justify so instead you choose to ignore it.
> 
> 
> You know the rules of ND. If you don't agree with the rules don't pay for the license and you won't have to help purchase access. It's called a user fee. Non-users don't get charged. Become a non-user and you won't be charged.
> ...


You still ignore the point that your rules favor some payers at the expense of others. We don't do that in Wisconsin. Most places, if you pay for something, you get to use it the same as everyone else who pays.

This discussion started because NDJ suggested putting more CRP land in PLOTS. As I said, this is typical of the ND attitude of wanting to take everyone's money and then restricting use by the people that paid for it. Very clever, I guess, because you seem to be getting away with this larceny. I'm just here to point out what bandits you are.


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

Ihuntnfish said:


> I am sorry you feel the question is irrelevant.
> 
> If we can get more land into the program by adding on a plots payment to the farmer. I am all in favor of it. I guess you are not in favor of getting the land into this program this way.
> 
> ...


I'll try to make it simple for you.

You pay, I pay. You have no access restrictions to PLOTS. I do.

Stealing will get you locked up in most states. In your state, its policy.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Someone can't answer a quetion can they?

You are a joke AZTEC!!!Move here problem solved!
How can you consider it stealing when you are paying the money(were not taking it from you unless you fork it over). If you don't like it don't pay. Simple concept.

You better go back and read MR. Webster def. of stealing.


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

Maverick said:


> Someone can't answer a quetion can they!
> 
> You are a joke AZTEC!!!Move here problem solved!
> How can you consider it stealing when you are paying the money(were not taking it form you unless you fork it over). If you don't like it don't pay. Simple concept.
> ...


The question is meaningless and a smoke screen for justifying taking people's money under false pretenses. Why should NR's accept any restriction when we pay the same amount for PLOTS purchase that residents do?

Reduce the NR license fee by $10 and the larceny is over. Or keep doing what you're doing and take the heat.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Your statements are meaningless because you are a N/R, and the fact that you are whinning about $10 that helps out the same birds you are trying to chase in our state is a crying shame. Ignorance is bliss though!!!!
So I ask you


> You would not be willing to give up one week of access to good crp land to have guaranteed access to it the rest of the year?


.
What's the answer? 7 days compared to a season? Which is better in your eyes?


----------



## HonkerExpress (Sep 23, 2005)

Heres another option, stay at home and then you can keep your 10 bucks and then we don't have to listen to crap like this. N/R like you just keep giving the good N/R a bad name. Just to make this really simple, stay home and protest how its not fair for you. I am sure the residents won't complain if they don't see one more out-of-state plate this hunting season, I know it won't bother me.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

aztec said:


> ...Why should NR's accept any restriction when we pay the same amount for PLOTS purchase that residents do?


I think you answered your own question--because your a non-resident.

We don't have to justify the rules in our own state...that's just the way it is because we as RESIDENTS made that decision. You certainly have the option of not buying a license.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> You still ignore the point that your rules favor some payers at the expense of others. We don't do that in Wisconsin. Most places, if you pay for something, you get to use it the same as everyone else who pays.


No. I fully acknowledge that our rules favor some payers.

This type of thing happens all the time when we talk about wildlife use by non-residents. If I go to Wisconsin to hunt small game I pay $85 and you pay $18. Shouldn't I get to hunt more because I paid more? I pay a greater portion of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources budget than you do if I hunt in Wisconsin. Shouldn't I get to hunt small game in Wisconsin more than you?

Your argument holds no water.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Aztec, I just wanted you to know that I agree with you. The week only in my opinion is a sham. Unfortunately it is the law and we have to abide by it like it or not. I will would like to inform you that under PLOTS enrolled under Community Match Program there are no restrictions. Hopefully we can get more of these in the future.


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

gandergrinder said:


> > You still ignore the point that your rules favor some payers at the expense of others. We don't do that in Wisconsin. Most places, if you pay for something, you get to use it the same as everyone else who pays.
> 
> 
> No. I fully acknowledge that our rules favor some payers.
> ...


I love that logic. And ND charges what for NR's to hunt as compared to residents? So I should get more than you in ND by your logic.

License fees are not relevant and of course all of you keep coming up with your irelevant arguments because you cannot actually justify the position that your state has taken. The $10 add on for PLOTS is the sole funding of that program. I pay it the same as you but then you try to keep me off of it. The funding of your game and fish department or our miserable DNR is a different thing altogether.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

What is the hunting like in Wisconsin anyways? Bout the same as Sota I'm thinking.
Come here to hunt after the week of PROHIBITION and then the $10 for access is justified. It's all yours.
If not, move here, pay taxes here and make your life here and have what it is your are *****ing about when you want it, otherwise your best option is staying in Wisconsin and have a grand ole time hunting ducks there. 8)


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

aztec

ND hunting regulations are not perfect neither are any of the other States regulations. The regulations are what they are and they are not likely to change. If the legislature does try to change the PLOTS regulations I will fight to keep them the way they are. Not trying to poke a stick in your eye, it is just the way I see the picture in the frame.

I do not know the regulations of WI but I do know that very few states have any programs that are even similar to PLOTS. Wyoming and Kansas are two that come to mind. Some funding, Not all is from license fees. And yes they both restrict NR's in one way or another. In ND the NDGF is funded entirely by license fees and sportsman's purchases, little if any General Fund money is infused into the G&F system

ND has a program in its infancy that will allow NR's to hunt plots if the local communities have enough interest to raise money and coordinate with landowners, NDGF will match the amount. Unfortunately there has been little interest and only one contract has been drawn up Statewide (at least that I know of)

You may feel like you are being ripped off, Nothing I can do about that at all except invite you out on opener and show you that hunting PLOTS is not the best or easiest hunting in the state. That will not change the fact that you paid your 10 bucks to help promote a program that is unique in most aspects of hunter/wildlife management and is used to help keep populations viable for all sportsmen, Thank You for your contribution. ND has a great many hunters that come from all corners of the country because we do have the wildlife numbers and habitat.

ND has a total area of 70,704 square miles of land and 1,710 surface square miles of water, that is a total of 46,344,960 acres of land of which 800,000 are PLOTS that is .017 of the total land mass. If I dug a little I could probably give you a breakdown of prime waterfowl hunting and prime upland hunting PLOTS Land, it is however, a minute fractional amount of the total.

Sorry you feel the way you do about donating a few dollars/ days of hunting to ND residents. All I can do is tell you that the law's of our state allow you to come to ND and hunt and enjoy yourself as long as you follow the rules. The program is there for you to engage and get the PLOTS land lined up for NR's if you feel it is that important to you, talk to the landowners where you hunt and ask them if they want to do get involved. Complaining on an Internet chat site is not going to solve anything.

If you chose to come and hunt ND, Welcome and enjoy your stay. 
*************************************************************
Back on topic. Ducks get a Boost!

This is a good program "On Paper". I really hope they can get it done. I am a little skeptical though. Just like Hunters Choice I will have to see how it all shakes out. The aging process tends to migrate one toward the experience and away from the limits, which in my view are a bonus and not a mandatory requirement

Enjoy the sounds, smells and experiences this fall.

:beer:

Bob


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Bob Kellam said:


> Enjoy the sounds, smells and experiences this fall.


Right on Bob.
Ain't nothing like the smell of Jimmy Dean sausage and burned gun powder... just can't duplicate that in the kitchen....

As for the Aztec dude, how about we take up a collection just refund him a dollar for that week? If the money is so important... (especially if you miss your first 3 shots with Hevishot???)

M.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> This is a good program "On Paper". I really hope they can get it done. I am a little skeptical though.


Bob, I agree



> Boosting mallard, gadwall, blue-winged teal, northern pintail and northern shoveler numbers will come with the restoration of 100,000 acres of wetlands within the PPR, which encompasses portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Montana and Iowa. North Dakota's portion is 40,000 acres


40,000 acres isn't very much land considering the size of ND


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> I love that logic. And ND charges what for NR's to hunt as compared to residents? So I should get more than you in ND by your logic.
> 
> License fees are not relevant and of course all of you keep coming up with your irelevant arguments because you cannot actually justify the position that your state has taken. The $10 add on for PLOTS is the sole funding of that program. I pay it the same as you but then you try to keep me off of it. The funding of your game and fish department or our miserable DNR is a different thing altogether.


And you banter is irrelevant as long as you are NR!

I ask you again?


> You would not be willing to give up one week of access to good crp land to have guaranteed access to it the rest of the year?


If you can't afford $10 you shouldn't be hunting! Hell you pay more for the internet connection you are using to write this. STAY HOME...We don't want whinners in this state.
It's the rules weather you like it or not. If you don't follow them you are the crook! Bottom line!!


----------



## rooster cogburn (Jul 15, 2004)

Here Here!!! Maverick :beer:


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

Guess I didn't think PLOTS was a sore subject with a few...anyway my point was more along the line that most of the current PLOTS stuff is marginal at best for waterfowl, I would like to see more area that have water available & and open for public use(& it doesn't have to be PLOTS)


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

NDJ,

Everything is a sore subject with a few people. That is just the way it is I guess. I have friends that do not live in this state but hunt this state that think plots is a very good program. They don't wine about the one week but enjoy it the rest of the season. Aztec is in the minority.

Now to the main point, anything we can do to increase the habitat while keeping the farmer, the hunter and other citizens of ND happy is a very good program and this falls into that and I feel it should be supported.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I have a question for all of the Residents that are bashing Aztec....

Would you give up your one week of Hunting PLOTS for a $5 increase in the plots fee for NR's?

Because if you did that you would roughly make about another $150,000 dollars for that program just in pheasant lisc sales. That would equal about another 5000 acres of land (if farmers enrolled). Then with the waterfowl lisc sales about another $100,000 (some buy both lisc and only pay one PLOTS fee). Then that would be about another 3000 acres. So in total the PLOTS program would gain about 8000 acres into the program. So this is good for all! More habitat for the resource and more access for all! Now this is based on a $30 payment per acre.....I am not sure if that is high or low.

So again I ask......Would residents give up the one week of PLOTS hunting for a $5 increase in the NR PLOTS fee?


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

Yes I would, lots of other land to hunt that one week


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Yes. If it means more public hunting I would. But I don't think we want to charge the NR to death so we can have more public hunting.

With each increase in the price of a license we reduce those NR's on the margin. These people have the fewest resources and I'm not an advocate of charging them out of the game.

The resident week on PLOTS is great for the resident who would like to go out and hunt on opener as a tradition with family without all the hassle. They probably don't hunt much after opening weekend. We need these people to be out hunting and buying licenses.

The hardcore guys are going to find a place to hunt no matter but when times get tougher and the frustration level rises the guys who hunt one weekend for tradition and family time will hang it up.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Yes I would. Opener is Opener(it's all just a date)! I would still be the first to the field, and I can tell you I wouldn't ***** about it if we are putting more land into CRP.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

IMO.....I don't think many NR's would get too pi$$ed at a $5 increase if it went directly into the PLOTS program.

I know everyone I have talked with is in favor of this.....but the state would need to lift the restriction of the one week. Also the people I have talked with also don't care if the Residents have a resident only opener like with they do with the ducks. They way I look at it that is a privilege for living in the state. To have a resident only opener!


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

That's a good idea actually, just open the NR pheasant season one week later then the R opener. Charge NR an extra $5 for the plots program and they can hunt anywhere during their opener too.

It's a win/win situation, R get to hunt a week earlier, NR get to hunt anywhere, and there is some extra PLOTS money to go around!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This will most likely not change.At the time it passed there was basically no opposition.Because resident hunters love it.G/O don't care.....it probably gives them more clients.And non-res don't get to vote here.


----------



## HonkerExpress (Sep 23, 2005)

I would give it up, I haven't ever hunted plots land. I can find someplace else to hunt and I have been finding other places to hunt for the last 8 years. If it would help out with better/more plots land, then go for it. I can't speak for everyone, but I know up in my neck of the woods the only guys I ever see hunting in the plots land is N/R license plates? I personally don't see the difference, but like I said, I have never hunted plots land for waterfowl. I would rather put some dekes out on a nice barley/wheat field and hammer down. Most of the plots land in my area would be good for slough hunting and thats about it, and I personally don't like to roost bust, so that would also clarify that awnser.


----------

