# Wake up Call!



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

When the debate over the area to attack at the last leg session came about those that had worked to get the good bills introduced and voted on put in great time and effort. With the filing of this lawsuit by FB I went back and reread some of the debates between myself and others on what was more important Caps of stronger rules on G/O.

The information that was given to me and reflections of others that I spoke with outside of the forums changed my view and I gave all the support that I could in helping the fight.

The one thing that none of us really understood is that we where are are still being set up. I championed greater push for restrictions and rules for G/O and felt the focus should be directed to that areana first and foremost. We chose to pursue the Cap issue harder and try and get all three legs for the stool. Dan you said we got two and came close on three, but this lawsuit points out that we got not.

If there ever was a time past actions all have future effects this is it.

Dan this is not a personal shot at you I respect you and all that you have done and are doing, but I think this is a mighty wake up call to the real deal.

This is political and nothing but. Pressure need to be put in place and fast. We have the numbers we have the means it is time.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Yeah the gentleman -Nice guy approach will get ate up by who we are dealing with. & they have a agenda & follow it with cunning & a plan to use all possible pressure & SPIN they can to get their way.

Plus they now know how incompetant & confused the Legislature is & they have the ear of the Govenor - much more than we do.

& the Director of the G&FD is just riding this out & at least publically not going to be a Leader - & who knows maybe he likes the way things are going.

(Did Dale Henegar write any books) on why & how he accomplished so much during his administration ??? & why & how ND became so unique & different than all other States ??? I do think it was alot the nature & unselfish, trusting, kind of people that made up rural ND - Many hunted & fished & enjoyed the outdoors & loved to see Residents share in what we had. Most knew how special our Outdoors & G&FD was & were proud to be part of something so special. HOW did we lose this ??? Do we want to lose it ??? Why are so many today either blind to it , or never understood it ??? Is it that these good folks no longer make up the leaders in ND ??? Have the angry - selfish self centered - whats in it for me - taken over ??? & the others too busy trying to keep up & save their lifestyle - While the son & daughters - Friends & relatives of these great people have had to move to the cities of ND & maybe the brightest best left the State completely ???

I wonder if the Non farming Residents & even Non Residents (but former Residents) are really aware of how fast & different ND is becoming ??? If they are even looking at the big picture, or the future. Or are they just looking at how, individual things affect them - I doubt most really see how or if it will effect them ??? & Until it does (& many of us know how quickly some areas & attitudes can change) they don't worry about what is happening. But by then, it will be too late to make a stand & join others who want to save ND heritage of being unspoiled & unique - not over crowded & not only for sale to the highest bidders ??? :eyeroll:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I just wanted to give all of you something to think about. While I think that it is great that this website is a place for everyone to get together and discuss issues it is also just that, a place where everyone can see what is going on. Not only can the supporters see but also the people against. Why do you think that the other side always seems to be one step ahead of the game? It may be that they are watching what is goin on. Discussing amongst themselves and making strategies with the information that is available. I know if I had the choice I would like to plan a war or business strategy with the othersides game plan right in front of me. Is it time for this to go groundhog?

This is politics and the other side is playing with closed doors.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I had a conversation with a state legislator last week that is from a rural area, maybe 100 mile s from the devils lake basin. I asked him specifically why he did not vote for HPC and his response was that in his area there never has a problem getting on land. I expalained my views on the HPC(his quote was, "it was a stupid bill") and our conversation led to the topic of guides and outfitters. His quote on that topic was "I could care less if we get rid of all of them". Maybe we went after things the wrong way. It seems to me that there are too many people making a living off the commercialization of our wildlife and if we can limit that somehow or limit the ways it can be done, we would slow or stop this spread of commercialization. I know that the small town ND people will be kicking themselves in the a_ _ when the entire state is like Texas and then the large guides and outfitters are coming to Sams club in Fargo or Bismarck to stock up their supplies, or just importing them from wherever they are from and the small town grocery stores and bars will dry up and blow away. There is economics 101 for you. There is the future economis development for the small town ND!!! uke: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ron, I agree with some of what you've said, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting could have been done differently. Not only what COULD have been done, but what could have actually gotten DONE. Through the legislature, what further g/o restrictions would have been both theorectically available and practically obtainable? Regulation on any subject is a tough sell for a Republican-dominated legislature - kind of goes against one of the basic tenents of the Republican party. As djleye noted, I think the g/o's generally faired poorly from a pr standpoint among legislators this session, though, so some further regulation in this regard will be easier.

I'll stand by our agenda. If we knew we would be forever wet and that we'd never have more than 64,000 total waterfowlers, then yes, something dramatic towards the g/o's would have produced the single biggest impact and bettering of conditions. I don't think the session could have produced anything dramatic along these lines, but if it had, it could have made a big impact if the wet weather cycle continued and hunter numbers didn't increase. However, if we go dry and have comparable hunter numbers or if we stay wet and try to add another 40,000 hunters, an ever-growing g/o industry will still be just one of the problems, not THE problem. Without a ridiculously low cap (ala SD) or an adjustable cap, even a sweeping measure towards the g/o's won't alone do it in the long run. It isn't a g/o, access or pressure problem, it's all of them.

The legislature will continue to be available to provide important oversights and checks on the g/o's, but don't expect to accomplish any sweeping, comprehensive g/o effects through that route. But, it could be done via an initiated measure. Pay hunt in general and the g/o's in particular don't have overwhelming popularity, even in rural areas, as evidenced by the prarie poll that was so often quoted last session. A carefully drafted measure aimed at banning g/o on any land not owned by the g/o, along with the right pr campaign, would have a real chance at passage and would have a large impact on the hunting landscape. Not the end all be all for the hunting issues, but a large impact. It takes about 13,000 sigs to get such a measure on the ballot. I welcome you and others that feel strongly about these issues to take a turn at the plate and make it happen.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Certainly Dan, you are right in that we went about things as we should have and I hope what I said wasn't interpreted wrong. I agree that there is not one solution, such as only caps or only g/o. I was merely suggesting that maybe now there is more anti g/o sentiment than there has been before. I also hope you don't think for one second that all of your hard work is not greatly appreciated!!! I mean it when I say I and all of us owe you a huge debt of gratitude as well as a cool one!! :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

DJ, no problem or under appreciated feeling here. I just feel strongly that we not forget it's a complicated issue with a lot of moving parts and likely no one solution. It's like when someone says "it's all an access issue." This makes my blood boil as it's illogical to think that we could have 200,000 waterfowl hunters even if every square inch of ground in the duck belts was unposted. I would agree that the g/o's have never been more vulnerable, and will add that they likely will never be again either. As the commercialization trend continues, they'll get even better organized and connected and more out of state g/o money will enter. They will rebound and strengthen and become very formidable.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dan you and I have discussed this issue on the past. The point I made at the beginning of the session was that the small business owners and landowners and hunters and even our own game and fish dept saw and are seeing the negitive effects of guides. The portions of 1050 that where stripped could have been held in place if the outlying area's where behind the issue.

I applaud the work you and many others did in getting things as far as they did on 2048 but the feelings of small town ND and landowners was 50/50 at best. The feelings to G/O was alot higher and may have been better supported at the grass roots area. I posted a poll that I did last summer and fall on this site take a look and see if that sentiment was correct.

The law makers have went home for now, and the AG will have to defend us on this issue, I think that making sure that our Gov. and elected officals convey that a vigourus and well thought out defense of this law needs to be done and not roll over as they did on the nonresident guide issue.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Who has the knowledge to write the Referal ??? & has the base of support to get the signatures ??? & promote the campaign ???

& how many issues could be / should be referred ???

I am so afraid this is where alot of this will end up. :eyeroll:

Are we being too patient ??? When & how will these things resolve themselves thru the system & current cast of characters ??? :roll:

Are we missing a opportunity & awareness level (at present) that will be hard to rekindle ??? Or will things just have to get alot worse & then the out cry to do something will be heard ??? Or let the system continue to stumble down the road their on & pizz everyone off & then things will slide back to normal ??? (I'm serious about this) - so many are frustrated & confused on what & why the things that just happened - are happening ??? that - no one but the high roller pay to hunt types & those in persuit of buying & leasing their own part of ND - maybe the only ones who are hoping things -keep going down the confused path they are :roll:

I ended up really frustrated in what the overall Legislature knows & cares about - The Govenor - The Game & Fish Director - the reporting of the Media - The Apathy & selfishness of most Freelance hunters - The misinformation of the effects & potential of Rural ND & Communities & Tourism Dept. to find & do things to really help themselves & Freelance Hunters. & understand all this :eyeroll:

& now the AG ??? What do we know about his views & passions ???


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ron, not trying to pick a fight, but I'm still not sure where you're coming from or what else you feel we would (not "could", "would") have accomplished by focusing on g/o's. Please provide specific g/o items you feel would have been effective and obtainable through the legislature. It's not good enough to make broad conclusions, now, that we sportspersons should have focused more or differently on the g/o's - what specific measures would have been both effective and passable?

One possibility is a combination of a limit on the number of outfitter licenses and an acreage allotment per outfitter license - that way we could have "checked" the industry as a whole to a certain impact, probably comparable to the industry's control today. Long before the session began, which is when you better have your poop in a group with legislation like this (way too late to be thinking about proposed legislation or strategies when the session starts), we did explore the number/acreage approach and there was no support from even friendly legislators. One problem was a lack of solid numbers for today's industry acreage. You think somewhere you've seen something that indicated in excess of 5.3 MM acres. I've seen nor heard anything even close to that number, but don't have any better data other than a compilation of the marketing materials from many of the biggies. Hard enough for legislators to get comfortable with this sort of thing - damn near impossible when you don't have much or any reliable data. The final 1050 will give us this info for the future.

Some really good things in 1050, but I'm not aware of any feature in any version of the bill that would have kept the industry from growing. 1050 at one time did cap the number of outfitter licenses, to something like 200, but a limit on the number of outfitter licenses, alone, wouldn't have done much of anything. I'm told the entire Texas coastline waterfowl hunting is essentially controlled by 3, yes 3, outfitters. Only 20 like "you know who" from S-C would be an even more drastic impact in ND than we have today. So what was "stripped" from 1050 that would have made any real difference? And don't say the res g/o requirement. States have tried to block just about every form of nonresident business activity from crossing their borders, and it's been consistently held to violate the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Better to acknowledge the issue (especially when there's already a pending suit challenging the residency requirement) and deal with it in 1050 than simply pretend it doesn't exist, get your *** handed to you and then have nothing in place to deal with it.

Again, with no early and little late support for an acreage limitation, what other specific measures would have better dealt with the g/o's, and if you can come up with some, would you have felt confident enough about the likelihood of success that you would have placed all or most of your eggs in that basket and forwent working equally hard on other fronts? I don't mean to be pissy, I just think it's a pretty heavy dose of Monday morning quarterbacking to make a generalization that we'd be in a better position today if we, collectively, had decided on Jan. 1 to work only or focus our attentions on the g/o issues. Actually, I think we'd have ended up about where we did on 1050 and not made progress elsewhere. I know you and others are appreciative of those that waded deep into the trenches, and we've got thick skins, but you've got to back up second guessings like your initial post with something more than generalizations.

And, ironically, I don't see the tie between a heavier form of 1050 and this suit. If 1050 had done whatever you wanted it to do, why wouldn't FB still be filing its suit? The g/o's and FB may be buddies, and if the suit succeeds, the g/o's will more than likely benefit, but aren't they separate issues? Why would a mega version of 1050 not left us dealing with this same suit today? You're going to have to 'splain that one to me.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dan no I am not picking a fight. I fully understand the gravity of this issue, and you are right the lawsuit would have been filed regardless. The issue is support for tougher rules in licence applications fee's high enough to pay for the enforcement personel of our current fedral and state game laws. To limit acreage we need the info that will be garnered from the current legislation. Mandatory reporting of acres leased and a deadline to enroll land for fee hunting proir to the season where all things that where possible. The fact that freindly legislators gave a thumbs down to some of these things may have been the fact that so much give and support was being put into 2048. The feelings in rural ND would have generated support for this had 2048 not been the hot button. Very little was written or discussed in newspapers radio or even the coffee shops about the changes in G/O rules, but lots of air time, print and TV all covered and reported on 2048. 1050 was drasticly changed from the original submission, but did come out with positives.

We did ok last session but we see the head of the snake and we need to cut it off before it posion infects others.

Look at this as a hockey game, we where tied going into overtime and gave up a sudden death goal. THe thing we need to remember is that it is a seven game series and we need to win 4.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

How about a law that restricts guiding on public land? Pretty sure that is the law in Arkansas.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ron, what changed, came out of or wasn't in 1050 that would have made ANY difference on the industry's growth other than the acreage limitation that was never part of the bill in the first place. There is mandatory reporting of acres in the final version, even for the day leasing, which is only one of the two very broad areas it quickly became apparent the could possibly be accomplished in this bill this session - the other being to make sure we don't have perennial game violators acting in this industry, which is also covered pretty well.

The point of all my rantings is my belief and understanding there were was no additional major advancements on the g/o front that were going to get done this session that didn't get done in the final 1050, and I was trying to determine from you if I had missed or forgotten something. It appears I have not and that your initial post came flying out of your *** purely out of frustration and a chance to waggle your finger. I don't much care if the folks working against us don't let facts get in the way of a good argument, but I won't let that stuff slide by those working the same side of the issue as me, because at the end of the day, you usually get hung with stuff preached as gospel that ain't right.

And I'll say it again. If I was a g/o, I would not feel a huge vulnerability for a major impact on my activities through the legislative process, because I know that no Republican-dominated legislature that has to vote publicly is going to ding-up any business, a "small business" no less, real bad (except maybe the legal industry - tort reform). On the other hand, individuals voting within the private confines of a voting booth on a comprehensive initiated measure might scare me a little, especially since even through all of these fights and debates the g/o's don't rate very highly even in the rural areas. And since this is an issue very near and dear to your heart and one in which you are well versed, the sportspersons of ND will be eternally grateful for your time and effort to give it a go.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

So mostly, these things will only be persued thru the Legislature ???

Thats a sacry thought

Otherwise let it go & hope the legislators will remember & pick up where things were left off ??? Another scary thought

If this is all we can do & will do - were screwed :eyeroll:


----------

