# 1000 Acres Gone



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Last week when talking to a friend he told me his stepfather leased his land to a Dr and a business owner from Wisconson. They tied it up on a 25 year lease. This was very good hunting ducks, geese, sharptail. It was used by local people and my Minn friends hunted it a lot. They were very good to the landowner( gift certificates,steakhouse and Cabelas) but money talks. It will be posted No Hunting. There were about 20 to 30 hunters that would use this land during the fall now there will maybe 6 or 8. I hardly ever hunted this land so I personally do not loose much upfront. I loose in the end! This is not good for the local economy. It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that there will be less hunters in the bar and restaurant. Good for 2 people of wealth bad for a town and all freelancers. Can you spell LOTTERY


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"less hunters in the bar and restaurant."

I thought you guys hated out of state hunters?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Question is can the "town" spell lottery? Can the displaced hunters spell lottery? Because if the town and the hunters can't get off their a$$ it will just get worse.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Old hunter,

I ran into a similar situation recently. You see, for the last year my roomates friend owned a nice flats boat-- 150 hp motor, poling platform, sweet hull, etc... It fished 4 people comfortably, so most weekends we would be out in the gulf having a good time with good company.

Quite a few people got to enjoy that boat through the months. Never again though. Apparently, the boat owner has recently put the boat up for sale because he is having trouble coming up with the money for tuition this next semester. Someone else is going to buy the boat (it might even be the "evil rich guy"). How dare my roomates friend, right? How dare him, when financially strapped, try to make some money by giving up some of his personal possessions.

Here's my proposal-- make selling used boats illegal. If that were the case, my roomates friend would be up the creek and would have to drop out of school -- but here's the good part -- I would be able to continue benefiting from his stuff without making the sacrifice that he is making.

Brilliant!


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Widg,
Glad to see that you have finally managed to pull your tail out from between your legs. As usual, your idea of what constitutes brilliance is only shared by yourself.


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

Just when you thought he was gone looks who is back with just another example that it should not be Arrogance TX but Ignorant TX. :eyeroll:


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

I'm agreeing with the guy, what's the problem....

Hegg, I always get a good laugh when visiting this site-- the ideas are classic. This one was just too good to pass up.

Thanks for your posts,

widg


----------



## Buck Jones (Apr 16, 2004)

Well maybe the land owner will be able to go out a bit more now to the bars and restuarants locally. Don't condemn a man for trying to support his family after all it is his land.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Widg,

Your analogy only picks up half the equation.

Does Florida owe the boat owner an obligation to allow him to garner top dollar for the boat by, say, increasing demand through making all waters, even certain sensitive ones currently off limits, accessible to all potential buyers?

Just because some _*can *_profit from a public resource (these guys didn't lease the land to pick rocks), doesn't mean we condone it or allow it to continue when the majority interested are hurt. If it were otherwise, inland commercial game fishing and market hunting would still be prevalent today.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

This topic brings up a point.

First: if an out of state person leases land for the purpose of hunting, and arranges for others to hunt with him on the land, is this person not acting as a guide or outfitter for his friends/guests? why do these people not have to pay the fee and take the test that other G/O's have to.

Second: (Dan maybe you can address this) Who is liable for damage, death, fire etc. the original land owner or the lease holder?

Just some food for thought.

Have a good one!


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

I don't have a legal degree and am no expert by any means.....but i do believe once you cross that line and recieve money for goods or services (ie....leasing land to hunting) you have accepted responsibilty for the individuals involved. I would hate to see what would happen if someone were to drown on your land, get shot by another member of his party, or step in a hole and break an ankle....there are many possibilities.

North Dakota however, i believe, has a statute in place protecting landowners from freelance hunters....it always gets complicated though when money gets involved.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> "less hunters in the bar and restaurant."
> 
> I thought you guys hated out of state hunters?


It is not out of state hunters that bothers us as long as the numbers are kept reasonable. But what I and a lot of other people here in ND do hate is rich out of state hunters leasing up land that has traditionally been hunted by a number of people, both resident and non resident alike, so that they can come out here for a week or two and shoot ducks. I think that maybe it should be illegal for a nonresident to lease land for his exclusive hunting use, on second thought, lets make that no one should be able to lease exclusive hunting rights.

huntin1


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Dan,

What is sensitive about this situation?

_Are the out-of-staters going to overharvest the pheasants? _This is virtually impossible when only shooting roosters.

_Are they going to extirpate any natural resource that is owned by the public? _
No, as long as they follow the rules backed by biology.

The landowner did not sell any public property (is he selling dead ducks, or buckets of fish?). He leased some of his private property (access to his land), and hats off to him for making some money.

Access to private land is, and always will be, the property of the landowner. ND fish and game acknowledges that.

If someone claimed exlusive acccess to public land, you're onto something but this is about private land access.

Old Hunter is pizzed because his buds won't be able to hunt the land anymore, not because the "evil rich guys" will abuse the natural resources on the guys land. An important distinction.

The fact is it's not old hunter's land. He never has a "right" to hunt it if the landowner doesn't want him there. Now trying to screw the landowner by passing laws (again, not based on biology but by greed) is a pretty low thing to do. No wonder the landowner sought a new crowd.

If a landowner doesn't want to lease his land, he doesn't have to. If he wants to lease his land, he is able to. That's the beauty of owning something, not relying on handouts from friends and relatives, then stabbing them in the back when they discontinue their kindness.

Bob,

There is insurance that landowners can buy that covers injuries on their land. Here's an example (I am not associated with the company).

http://www.outdoorinsurance.com/programs/leases.html

My tails higher than ever....


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Widg,



> What is sensitive about this situation


It was an analogy, like yours. Opening up sensative waters to increase demand for your buddy's boat might be good for him, but not for the public or its resources. Allowing demand for quality hunting opportunities in ND to outstrip supply might be financially rewarding for some in ND, but is not good for most of those with an interest in those resources.



> Access to private land is, and always will be, the property of the landowner. ND fish and game acknowledges that.


Of course. The landowner is the sole decision maker when it comes to denying, granting or charging for access, as it should be. This concept, however, is independant from condoning licensing policies for public resources that allow for inflated land revenues for some while at the same time harming most others vis-a-vis those resources. The State owes no one the obligation to perpetuate public resource licensing and management policies that are a windfall for some and injure many others.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

widgeon,
I think that you are arguing a different point than most on this board. I agree that the landowner has the right to sell exclusive access to his land. That is part of the bundle of rights included in the ownership of land.

Biologically the lease will probably not be detrimental to the populations of animals on that property, in fact it could possibly help that population if work is done to improve the carrying capacity of that land.

I will not disagree with you on the above.

But I think you are missing the point of some on this board. Rural ND is in dire need of economic development and money. It is dying. Personally I don't think there is much that is going to help that. The real question is whether or not the lease paid to the landowner and the money spent each year by the wisconsin hunters is enough to offset the amount of money that will no longer be spent by the larger numbers of hunters that previously used those acres for hunting.

If the money spent by the wisconsin men for the lease and the money they spend each fall is greater than what was spent by the other hunters who used that land then there is an economic benefit at the expense of enjoyment of the outdoors for others.

However if that is not the case not only has that lease reduced the amount of money entering the state it has also reduced the enjoyment of the outdoors to many individuals.

Now as individuals act in there own self interest it doesn't take long for the hunters who can't afford a lease to decide that hunting is no longer worth it to them. Which means that they are no longer buying licences which help support wildlife management. Then there are the people like me who will just leave the state. So overall the economic development may in fact be negative.

This is not management of publicly owned resources for the benefit of the public. This is the exact opposite.

Now the question remains. Who brings in more money the leasing hunter or the freelancer and average everyday ND resident hunter who can't afford to lease or pay an outfitter?

I would bet your very well educated in the biology and management of wildlife but unfortunately, social and political interests will have a greater effect on the outcome of our wildlife than the science that you and I practice.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

> But what I and a lot of other people here in ND do hate is rich out of state hunters leasing up land that has traditionally been hunted by a number of people


I would agree that the concept of leasing is bad business for freelance guys both resident and non-resident alike. However, your above sentence is not entirely true. * There are LOTS of residents and not all rich that lease LOTS of land in ND.* I can give you a half-dozen locations where it is quite prevalent in ND. Its not anymore "right" or "wrong" than the non-resident leasing.

f


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

gandergrinder,

I know that I see everything from a totally different angle than most on this board. With some of these issues, your benefits are my costs and vice versa.

I agree this is more of a social issue than a biological one. One of your biologists is quoted as saying so. The issue doesn't have anything to do with biology, but the outcome certainly does. The value of wildlife habitat in your state depends on how many non-res are allowed to come into North Dakota. Maybe higher, maybe lower-- no one knows for sure. I believe, in looking at many other states, the chances are that wildlife habitat will be valued more if hunter numbers increase.

No one on this site can claim that North Dakota is even near it's potential concerning wildlife habitat.

As for the small towns dying, that was set into motion long before these issues came up. I do not envy the life of some of the North Dakota farmers I know-- the risk of going under for them is very real.

The idea that a dollar that a freelance hunter spends at the gas station, which the attendant then spends at the restaraunt, which the restaraunt owner then spends at the feedstore, which makes the feedstore invest in more efficient equipment that saves the farmer 20 cents is not nearly as powerful as offering the farmer $3/acre for hunting rights on his land. Where that money comes from (the evil rich guy or state game and fish) doesn't matter-- it just needs to come-- and fast.)

Dan,

I know where you are trying to go with the boat analogy, but I think your reasoning is flawed. There are many examples of society choosing the best amount of use for an outdoor activity, with public enjoyment usually measured in utility. In Florida, some springfed rivers (public property) are popular for swimming. A professor recently completed a study that found the number of swimmers should be kept down to a reasonable level by surveying the people on the river.

At 1000 people per day, most swimmers said the experience would be worth $5/day

$5000 total

At 2000 people per day, the swimmers would only pay $2/day because the experience is degraded due to too many people in the river

$4000 total

Given the area is public property and the public should enjoy it to the greatest extent, an entrance fee was initiated by the government to keep the number of people around 1000 per day.

The difference between the springfed river and private hunting land is that the river is public property. Private property rights are a different animal altogether - where the owner should be able to weigh his options with as little governmental regulation as possible. After all, it is his hide on the line more than anyone else in society who stands to gain utility from his land.

Following the boat analogy further, my roomate's friend could help his whole town by offering his boat (private property) to everyone for free use. Others in the society would benefit because they could use his boat and wouldn't have to invest in their own.

Society may "win" at the expense of the boat owner's private property. But he, the one who made the investment for all, may still have to drop out of school. He, not the government, should decide his fate. If the government thinks the boat is a great deal for society as a whole, the boat owner needs to be compensated fairly by the government. enter PLOTS....


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Widgeon,
If the landowners are to be compensated for the access how should the public be compensated for the game animals? Or should only land owners be allowed to hunt? Since they control all the factors of the production of animals.

We still have conflicting "rights" about ownership. We are moving towards a European style of game management where the landowner owns all of the game on the property. My perception is that you believe in this system. Do you believe in that direction of game management? If you truelly believe this then we have nothing more to discuss. I understand your position very clearly.

The market will not operate correctly untill one of the following happens.

1)Either the public owns the game and leasing of hunting "rights" are outlawed. Landowners are still allowed to decide who goes on their property but the right to hunt cannot be sold. Public management.

2) The land and all of its game may be controlled by the landowner how ever they feel. The game is owned by the landowner. Private management.

We cannot have parts of both and expect to get optimum results.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

gg,

Ya'll had a pool for when I'd write again! Wow. Before you declare a winner remember that one person "could" have more than one screen name.

:lol:


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Gandergrinder,

It's funny you should bring up the subject of european game management. Did you know one of the most hated aspects of the system was that some people were forbidden to hunt on their own land--a direction this non-resident garbage is heading today, where a persons right to hunt on his own land is decided not by how many animals are on the land but his residency status.

The noble and wealthy (the north dakota resident in the future?) had exclusive use of the animals, no matter whose land they went to.

Thankfully, the United States will never come close to the European system. High fence operations are the closest thing we have to the european system and even that is more acceptable than some land uses IMO (like pig farming....).

Very few animals live their entire lives on one land-owner's property. Even then, the landowner must follow the state's game laws, and pay the proper fees for tags and licenses, to harvest the animals.

Private game managment would allow the landowner to shoot whatever he wants whenever he wants. I disagree with the idea of private game management.

To say that a landowner in North Dakota claims to own the ducks on his property is pure bull. I've been in your state in December. Good luck trying to keep "your" ducks on your property when the thermometer dips below 0 and the snow starts accumulating.

I am all for public ownership of wildlife. True privatization of wildlife (if and where it can exist) is a bad thing-- but charging for hunt access on free-range animals is not privatization.

In a time when so many land uses threaten the lifeblood of our sport- habitat - I am disappointed that so many North Dakota residents have chosen to exclude perhaps the only user group that will value habitat.

You can have all the access you want, but good luck drawing a bead on a duck if all of the nesting habitat is plowed under. Taking the $ value away from habitat makes the choice easy for farmers who are streched for cash.

Who wins then?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Widgeon,
I understand what you are saying and agree that habitat is the threshold that decides the levels of game.

Try to convince average Joe hunter that its better for him to be priced out of hunting so we can maintain habitat. That is a damn tough sell especially since there is no guarentee that its going to work in the long term.

I would give up hunting tomorrow if you could guarantee me that game would be plentiful for all generations to come and that my kids would always be able to hunt like I have. I've had more and better hunting experiences than most will ever have in their lifetime. But there are no guarantees.

Is it better to have a bigger army fighting for conservation or a smaller one with more wealth? Democracy or Capitalism


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

gg-

I understand the concerns of the average joe hunter-- but very few people anywhere in the country are "priced out" of hunting. They may want a big screen TV instead of a place to hunt, but that's their decision.

On a student's budget (below the poverty level) I have managed to hunt in some of the most populated states of the union. Having good friends and willing to work hard scouting will always benefit hunters in America-- no matter your income level. Many of my landowner friends will never sell or lease their land because they would rather hunt it themselves and allow close friends and relatives to hunt it. That's great, and there is a lot of that attitude in america (isn't there a country song "daddy won't sell the farm?)

I'm not sure what the perfect "conservation army" would be, but I'm sure we wouldn't win too many battles when our guns are aimed at one another instead of the real enemy.

Later,

widg


----------



## magnumhntr (Sep 18, 2002)

The best thing that could happen to the sportsmen of ND is for the duck and goose populations to crash. Most non-residents wouldn't spend the time or money hunting where the game is scarce. The residents would still get thier hunting in, and would still shoot thier share of birds. The G/O would mostly go belly up seeing as thier prospective clients would read all about how terrible the hunting would be in every outdoor publication on a newsstand, and then maybe the only thing left would be the real hunters... the ones who do it for the sport... not the bag count at the end of the day.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

magnumhntr wrote



> The best thing that could happen to the sportsmen of ND is for the duck and goose populations to crash. Most non-residents wouldn't spend the time or money hunting where the game is scarce. The residents would still get thier hunting in, and would still shoot thier share of birds. The G/O would mostly go belly up seeing as thier prospective clients would read all about how terrible the hunting would be in every outdoor publication on a newsstand, and then maybe the only thing left would be the real hunters... the ones who do it for the sport... not the bag count at the end of the day.


...and the bear is on the baitpile....

magnumhntr - I'm assuming you are a male. If you met a girl that you wanted to date would you...

A. Treat her really nice so she might consider dating you?
B. Beat the crap out of her everyday so she is so bruised and ugly that no other man would even consider dating her?

Thanks for your post,

widg


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

just a few thoughts.....

leasing land has been going on big time in south carolina since the 1970s.mostly for dear. can't blame a landowner/farmer for trying to make ends meet.

maybe some of you guys should consider pooling your resources and leasing or purchasing some land of your own. i would think that the locals would rather lease to a local than an outa towner.

it's an open market out there guys. either get in the game or don't cry about the outcome. true the landowner does not own the game but neither do you. he does however own the land that the game traverses on and that's what he renting. he is providing a service just like a farmer does that rents his land to another farmer to be planted or grazed.

i can't believe some of the stuff that i have read here. it would seem that some of you would like to see some sort of law enacted to stop this sort of practice. i would think when too many laws get passed telling a landowner what and when he can do with his property he no longer is an owner but the tenant.

pointer


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2004)

Widg makes a great point, especially here at the end.

Maybe the bird population should crash so you guys can find something else to ***** about. I plan on leasing land in NoDak someday, if not owning a ton myself. What I do on that property is my business, I wont need you Resident hunters telling me how to managing MY land!!!

More money you have the more powerful you are. It's common sense. Do you guys really live in the stone ages still??? You guys in NoDak don't like it, move somewhere where the income's a little greater and you can live a little better, let us take over your share. I'd be glad to!!!  I am not working my *** off to becontrolled by a select few who have problems with my "wants" in life. It's the American Dream baby, AND i'LL FULFILL EVERY LAST ONEOF MINE!!! and that'll never die.... FREEDOM!!!!!


----------



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

> More money you have the more powerful you are. It's common sense. Do you guys really live in the stone ages still??? You guys in NoDak don't like it, move somewhere where the income's a little greater and you can live a little better, let us take over your share.


That one's gonna leave a mark. :lol: :stirpot:


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Keep the thread clean.

Thoughtful posts keep the thread civilized, profanity and dribble takes the validity of the thread and throws it out the window.

Forum Terms and Rules


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

Holy cow Saddam, I thought you were in prison?

freedom IS democracy!!!!!


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

By the time I am financially fit to start leasing land the whole waterfowling landscape will probably have changed and ND won't be the paradise place anymore.

Canada, South America, and other places will be getting all of my time and money. The gun still goes bang in other parts of the world and I'd like to go hunt and see other places. Plus you don't have to deal with all the BS that is now associated with ND hunting.


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

#1Waterfowler said:


> Maybe the bird population should crash so you guys can find something else to b#tch about. I plan on leasing land in NoDak someday, if not owning a ton myself. What I do on that property is my business, I wont need you Resident hunters telling me how to managing MY land!!!
> 
> :


Since your planning on owning a "ton" of land it shouldn't be a stretch to pay the $10 membership fee. It's the least you could do since we have to sit and read about your future plans how things should be run.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

:lol: LMFAO


----------



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

I don't think until being a supporting member of the #2 waterfowl sight anyone can possibly claim to be the #1 waterfowler anyway. Not to pick on anyone but when was the contest for that honorary title. :huh: Snubbed again. :eyeroll: I never was one for being a good contestant anyway but I know deep in my heart I'm truly the best. 

"You'll shoot your eye out."


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

Owning or leasing land simply limits your mobility. Plain and simple. What many people forget is, one of the biggest reasons waterfowling in ND is so good, is the ability to move around and find the birds and the land to hunt them on. Most of those who lease land don't realize this. Sure its great to have your own private spot, but things change! What was good last year, can be a wasteland this year. Its just how things work here. Of course you could always tie up some land for yourself and then after you burn it out in a couple of days, you can hunt the open areas (public and private) all around you!! But that never happens... right?? uke:

Waterfowler, How about moving to ND, and becoming a resident. Making a few good landowner contacts and saving that land money for more hunting gear?? After all, every acre of land you buy will get you a dozen new fullbodies, maybe even two dozen!!


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Eric Hustad said:


> #1Waterfowler said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the bird population should crash so you guys can find something else to b#tch about. I plan on leasing land in NoDak someday, if not owning a ton myself. What I do on that property is my business, I wont need you Resident hunters telling me how to managing MY land!!!
> ...


 :beer:


----------



## FLOYD (Oct 3, 2003)

I don't think we even need to take the time to respond to old #1. Think back to some (most) of his posts. He's over-dramatic and hot-headed. ("I'm so f'in mad my buddy bought the same equipment as me.....") Have a little class and at least pay the member fee if your going to consistently comment on everything.


----------



## Ripline (Jan 10, 2003)

Anybody ever think that the farmer leased the land because of the blue plates that were using it? This is someting to watch for in the future if the MN lawsuit discussion revs up again.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

The guy squawks about the Minne's over-crowding and peeing in his sandbox, and now he wants to rule ND. Hmmmm, I don't get it?

Hey Goldy, how does this one fit?

"My name's Eddy, but my friends call me The Crusier because I like fast women and fast cars"

"They ought to call him the dork."

not name calling, just drawing analogies and playing a little movie trivia....


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

"My name's Jim, people call me.......Jim."


----------



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

Oh I like these. 

"It don't look the best but it sure eats good."

"Pick me out a winner Bobby."

"I knew I should have quite baseball and become a farmer."


----------



## MOSSBACK (Jun 10, 2004)

"Just when I thought you could'nt be any dumber...... you go and do something like this and TOTALY REDEEEM YOURSELF"

"Where in the hell did you find these guys? They brought their toys for christ sake"


----------



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

"Oh yeah, you can milk anything with nipples."
"I have nipples, could you milk me?"

"Are you a pothead Focker?"


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

You mean to tell us they named you Gay Focher!! 

Can't wait to see "Meet the Fochers"!! :wink:

Not sure how a siding installer could afford to gobble a ton of land anywhere! #1 WHAT! 8)


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Oh I don't know a ton of land is only one scoop in a good sized end loader :lol: not too much money!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

about 30 cents a square yard which is roughly a ton.....hey that kinda computes to about the size of a grave....well I guess we all have a chance at that!!


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

WOW...There is no mercy here is there? :stirpot:


----------



## RWHONKER (Dec 22, 2003)

You guys are commenting about a guy who a few months ago lived in Minnesota and now on his location says thankfully not Minnesota. #1 is a little unstable at best. I am sure you guys have read all his posts, wow!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

We are pretty democratic we make fun of everybody regardless of residency :beer:


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

"It's just a game Focher!"


----------



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

Ohhh that volleyball scene takes the cake. :lol: "If someone could play a little defense." That speedo too. :toofunny:


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

Geez, it only took 2/3 of a page for this topic to get derailed :eyeroll: Too bad aboot the land situation,but I believe if crop prices don't go up pretty soon,more and more farmers are going to go for the almighty $$$$$, and not worry about the guys that want to hunt on their land free of charge.Maybe it's time to get your leases sighed in while they are cheap!!!!!


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

Crop prices is simple supply and demand. The equipment is far more efficient than it ever used to be and there is an oversupply of grains. This coupled with the fact that other countries will sell it cheaper keeps the small grains markets sour.


----------



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

> Geez, it only took 2/3 of a page for this topic to get derailed


I didn't know the new moderator in the Hot Topics was snowflake.

Yep, I better tie up a ton or two before I can't afford it anymore.


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

G.P wrote,

I didn't know the new moderator in the Hot Topics was snowflake.

Yep, I better tie up a ton or two before I can't afford it anymore Now that you are better informed there gp,if I were you,which thakfully I'm not,I'd be slappin down the money if you can while you can.I believe the day of the freeloader in N.D. is on the wane.Pay to Play is just around the corner  :wink: [/quote]


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

Snowflake :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: ..."the day of the freeloader?"......that doesn't make any sense. An example of a freeloader is one who goes out with the boys every night and never buys beer or one who comes to stay with you for 2 days and has been there over 2 weeks and hasn't bought groceries.

I can't remember the last time i decided to pull a camper out on someone's field and spend a few weeks...... :wink:


----------



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

Snowflake; A Freeloader is one thing I am not and because you don't know me, I forgive you. You are thankfull that you aren't me??? Good one. If I were you snowflake I'd melt myself in a dry pot hole and create some habitat and make myself useful. Do you pay to hunt?? If you don't, are you a freeloader??


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

Freeloaders??? Again a person comes on the site, starts name calling, and won't even pay the $10 membership fee. This is so easy.......

Wait a sec....you call us freeloaders yet aren't you freeloading off the site???


----------



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

I took your advice snowflake and signed a huge long term lease on some land. (More than a ton). I think I might be getting the shaft, but anyway I have to chat with the farmer about anything we want, then when he won't take 2 cents for some gas money, I give him a "thankyou" card with a free pizza at his favorite joint for he and his wife and a steak dinner for the two of them at the steakhouse in town. The relationship and welcome mat he offers with the good hunting is a really nice thing that I don't take for granted. Oh yeah, when I need other places to hunt and he comes over to my motel to chat over a PLOTS map, I have to supply the cold beverage. That's my lease. Thanks Snowflake, that was a good idea.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/members/ph ... m.php?a=37

Just pretending??? Silly fella..... Stone Ages?


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

Yous guys are sooooooooo easy   :stirpot: So I should pay my $10,then I can call y'all names :-? Funny,but I didn't think these Forum pages were about that,I thought that it was about discusions.Freeloaders--Freelancers,same thing in my book.You should never be able to go on anothers property for whatever reason without that persons permission,whether it is some outdated law or not!!Where you live fishook?--if ya got land ,maybe I'll camp there sometime if it's not posted,if ya don't own land then you're just freeloadin--freelansing--whatever.Gp glad ya got the message,glad I could be of service :wink:


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

I could respond, but what for..... :huh: :huh:


----------



## smalls (Sep 9, 2003)

> Freeloaders--Freelancers,same thing in my book.


Dammit, who let Socrates into the site?

Is it still freeloading when I make every effort to contact a land owner? Am I still freeloading when I give a gift to a landowner in appreciation of his generosity? Am I still freeloading if I, as a landowner, readily let others hunt my land? Am I still freeloading when I am creating habitat where I can to benefit wildlife?

The term "freeloading" infers that the landowner is getting nothing in return. I will admit that I have hunted unposted parcels of land in unfamiliars places in this state because I could not find a landowner. But I, and many here, have made relationships mutually beneficial with the landowners whose land we hunt on . I will more than willingly bring a landowner a bag of walleye and perch fillets or some jerky. Many of us don't have a whole lot to give to the landowner, much less to lease 1,000 acre lots for X amount of dollars a year. BUT, we do what we can, we treat the landowner with respect, and in return they are usually more than satisfied.


----------



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




----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

GP,wish I knew how to get that pic in w/my name in the margin--toooo-much :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



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

Whatever works for ya' there snowflake.



> if ya don't own land then you're just freeloadin--freelansing--whatever


 :huh: I think fishhook has the right idea.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

I don't think I will even touch this one, it is going in so many directions my head is spinning.

cootkiller


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2004)

Amazing how long this can go on, you guys are pretty pathetic, just give it up. The residents are "king", bla bla bla. Can't disrupt "your" website, bla bla bla.

I figured since everyone now turns their direction to snowflake, I better pop in and have some more fun too..... :lol: Bring it on boys, I'm waiting!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

#1,
Just what is it that you are waiting for? A #2 perhaps?


----------



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

#: You're not worth the effort it takes to type.

"I triple dog dare ya."


----------



## RWHONKER (Dec 22, 2003)

I agree with Goldy. :beer:


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

Agreed. Man I can't believe the Twins came up short after 18 innings....


----------



## RWHONKER (Dec 22, 2003)

They lost tonight to and the Sox won. I hope they don't slack now that they have a cushion.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2004)

:withstupid: Too bad they lost after such a tough outing. To and one,,, almost there RWHONKER, better hit up the english classes again!!

Anyways, what do ya guys think would've happened if the Super Fox was still hanging around?, or in your guys' terms, Dougy M.???


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

All this talk over 1000 acres. My guess is that this amount of acreage is sold or leased weekly in ND. I feel for you Old Hunter, this same thing has happened to me personally half dozen times or more, I got over it and moved down the road, now I'm a NR hunter in ND, SD, IA and WI.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2004)

Do you mean WI???


----------



## RWHONKER (Dec 22, 2003)

I know #1, you are perfect. I can't believe I am responding to you. uke: uke:


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

#?

Did you finally learn how to spell check or did you just finish that Sally Struthers on-line correspondence Course for your GED? Before you start casting stones about other peoples typing, spelling, etc, I would suggest you go back and edit a LOT of your post's. Stop correcting other people and pull the 'log out of your eye' first.

I too have troubles sometimes but come on, grow up would ya? Stop trying to start stuff with everybody.


----------



## RWHONKER (Dec 22, 2003)

:beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



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

> #?
> 
> Did you finally learn how to spell check or did you just finish that Sally Struthers on-line correspondence Course for your GED?


 :rollin:


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

:jammin:


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Ya, you knew this would happen.

Thread Locked.


----------

