# Residennt vs Non-resident spending



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Anyone see the latest report : Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota, 2001-2002?

I'm just starting to get into it, but it seems that non-resident waterfowl and upland hunters spend less than half the amount of residents - $31.7 million vs $66.6 million. We are the cash cow to the folks who oppose us, not the non-residents. Terrible case of mis-perception.

My belief is that he who shouts first and loudest wins - should we be digging into this report and getting all the important information out for legislators? Having folks include this information in their letters to legislators is probably very important.

Should we organize that effort here?

M.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I just sent an email to iverson and pushed that very idea.


----------



## Hotel owner (Jan 10, 2003)

I have just purchased a hotel in Western North Dakota. I live out of state at the current time. For the small business I just purchased the vast majority of clientale come from out of state. By business record the highest utilization is during September, October, and November. Almost entirely nonresident hunters. Capping nonresident licenses for reasons other than for wildlife management directly effects my financial well being. I do not have too much trouble believing that resident hunters (of course the devil is in the details and how you count economic impact), contribute more to state economy then nonresident hunters but to cut one out of the mix lessens the whole. That should not be ignored. The bulk of the views placed on this board place one set of precieved needs above anothers. I wish there was a group of persons who would take a role in identifying win - win strategies. My customers are free lance hunters. They compete on a pretty much even playing field with resident hunters. Their concern, as I think most resident hunters, is access. Capping nonresident llicenses DOES NOT EQUAL BETTER ACCESS. People who are promoting have errors in logic! If the focus became bettering access then I believe a stronger group of farmers, business, sportsman, and state leaders could be developed to get something of real and lasting value done. Unfortunately, just like how most of you would resist laws that made it less likely you could earn a living, most business operaters will resist capping their customer base.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

This just in.

Contact Information:

Arlen Harmoning, ND Game and Fish, 701-328-6329

Dean Bangsund, NDSU, 701-231-7471

F. Larry Leistritz, NDSU, 701-231-7455

Hunter, Angler Expenditure Survey Results Available

Every five years or so, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department surveys hunters and anglers to assess activities and associated spending. Results of the most recent survey, covering the 2001-02 fishing and hunting seasons, are now available.

The Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics at North Dakota State University conducted the survey.

Data obtained from the report allows game and fish department personnel to identify trends in hunting and fishing activities by comparing current information with previous studies, said Dean Hildebrand, game and fish director. "We understand hunting and fishing plays an important role in the state's economy," Hildebrand said, "and we are at a time when sportsmen and women can enjoy abundant fish and wildlife resources."

In the 116-page final report and 24-page summary, authors Dean A. Bangsund and F. Larry Leistritz attribute a combination of more participants, and greater per-person spending to a $106 million increase in total spending related to hunting and fishing in North Dakota in 2001-02, compared to the previous survey period, 1996-97.

The authors state in the report's abstract that total spending by resident hunters and anglers increased by $73 million, or 22 percent, while nonresident spending increased by $33 million, or 101 percent. Hunter expenditures increased by $31 million or 23 percent, while angler expenditures increased by $75 million or 33 percent over the period.

The authors' abstract also states that total spending by hunters and anglers in North Dakota during the 2001-02 season was estimated at $468.5 million, excluding purchases of licenses. Resident hunter and angler expenditures were estimated at $402.7 million, and nonresident hunter and angler expenditures were estimated at $65.9 million. Hunting expenditures were estimated at $166.4 million, and fishing expenditures were estimated at $302.1 million. Total spending in rural areas was estimated at $213.4 million by residents and $48.4 million by nonresidents.

The authors conclude the abstract by writing: "The economic importance of hunting and fishing in North Dakota has continued to increase throughout the 1990s, and continues to be an important source of economic activity in the state. However, policy decisions affecting wildlife management should not be based solely on economic information, and must balance the ever increasing demand for wildlife-related recreation with the supply of wildlife-related resources to ensure the continued economic benefits that abundant hunting and fishing opportunities provide to the state."

A 24-page summary, as well as the full survey report, can be obtained free of charge by writing Carol Jensen, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University, P.O. Box 5636, Fargo, ND 58105-5636; phone 701-231-7441; fax 701-231-7400; or email [email protected]. The documents are also available online at http://agecon.lib.umn.edu. Once the web site is accessed, the report can be found by searching under either author's name.

Motel owner, I think many here would agree on a certain level when it comes to pheasant hunting. But the waterfowl is a different issue. The birds are mobile, and the quality of the hunt for all is being reduced by to much pressure, at least in my opinion. Thus, the only way to limit that impact is to limit that which is creating the impact, expanding numbers of NR waterfowlers.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

This is one issue that I dont understand why no one has brought up. Resident hunters do two things for ND. We generate income for the ND economy and then we reintroduce this income back into the state. Like MRN says, we are the cash cows, and I feel like no one is willing to see the light.


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

Hotel Owner,what city is your hotel in?If your clients are all freelancers,how much land access is open?I would like to comment,but not until I know which area you are in. Thanks.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

MO,

How many NR's do you want to see? When is Full = Full. When do we put out the No Vacancy sign? Your representative organisation has been MIA on this issue. I believe their official position has been "More". Win-win means compromise - where are you going to meet us?

Due to the current circumstaces, you have lost at least 1 resident hunter from the base - I didn't hunt in the west this year. I know of many more. If the hospitality industry were genuine, wouldn't they be just as concerned about the loss of resident hunters as they are in any potential limit on the growth of non-resident hunters?

M.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Any of you guys work in mfg industry.

cash cows get little resources for development or capital dollars for improvement - little respect - take the money and move it elsewhere - you are right they are simply taken for granted.

new ventures get the resources, capital, and high visibility within the company.

How many residents took the time to lobby ND merchants last fall. Chris did you stay in a motel during your December goose hunts. Can not imagine any NRs around at that time. Should have been good PR.

*Move yourself off the cash cow platform.*


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Motel...welcome to nodak outdoors.If your guests are freelancers,are you testifing on the bill to regulate outfitters?Your guests won't have anywhere to hunt if some restrictions aren't put on them.
I stayed in the motel in Elgin 4 weekends= 7 nights.I ate in the rest. in town for every supper.I bought gas at the stations there.Every time I was there at least 1/2 the license plates of hunters were form ND.
The figures above are interesting.The one that jumps out at me is that res. spend 213.4 milion and non-res spend 48.4 million in rural areas.


----------



## Hotel owner (Jan 10, 2003)

The hotel is near the National Grass lands. And, no, win - win does not mean compromise. I use the term in the Steven Covey manner (7 habits guy). The paradigm you have determines the question and the question determines the answer. "How many is enough?" Isn't the question to me. How do we gain adequate public access and insure good habitat is my question. I've read a few posts where someone will offer ideas on how to raise revenues to use to increase access. These ideas don't seem to get much positive remarks and quickly it is back to caps. Why not have an ideal of securing all CRP and other federal land reserve program acres for public access? If that was the ideal then the question is how to secure the money to attach to the leases. If at the time of a farmer signing up their land in these long term leases the state piggybacked a contract to pay for access I believe most farmers would be swayed by a 1 - 2 $ contract over the length of the CRP (or other) contract. I know that CRP lands are not always the land needed for access but I think a model like this may be usable to address other access issues. I also thought the idea concerning changing the law to be more like Canada's where you can not legally lease land for the purpose of hunting was worth more discussion. Maybe tax breaks for farmers who maintain public access? Maybe no guiding on land not owned outright buy the guide?

Let me admit I am not sure of the answers to these difficult times. However I do believe that we must work together. The feeling I am getting is that it is an us against them fight and frankly although I want to help ensure good hunting I don't want to support caps at all costs, especially if hurts my family. I will also say I can't believe that the pheasant or the sharptail population suffers from over hunting.

As far as losing the resident hunter, frankly I do not yet know the impact of the resident hunter coming out to western ND to hunt. What I do know is I have a registry full of nonresident hunters who have used our hotel and have them already booking and paying for next falls stay. I have not had a resident hunter call to reserve a room for the fall. The nonresidents I have talked to have stated they have come out for years.

I invested in this hotel largely because I had the opportunity over the last several years to come to North Dakota and hunt. I fell in love with the country and the people and want to have something for me and my family there when I retire. This hotel is the beginning of making this possible. I don't wish to get into a fight with anyone on this page and don't even want you all to know what the hotel is because I do not want a backlash. My point is I would like to find a solution that I can support and that I believe helps solve the problems in a way that meets the majority of interests. Thanks for the chance to express an idea.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Hotel Owner,

Welcome. Although I don't agree with some of of your views, I will say you have some good ideas pertaining to access. Most of these have been discussed at one time or another on this site as well as others. I think you may be mistaken in the attitute of some of the posters on this site however. Even though many resident hunters were not in favor of the early pheasant opener, most have no problem with the vast majority of NRs that visit the state for upland game hunting, especially the freelance hunters that you have staying at your hotel. Somewhere along the way in the last several months the pheasant issues have become entangled with the waterfowl issues. If you are truely from the western ND area, and I don't doubt that you are, then your clientel probably doesn't hunt waterfowl a great deal. As you've seen in ths forum, hopefully, is the majority of the posters aren't advocating a closure of NR hunters. They are just saying enough is enough. There were 30,00 licenses sold for waterfowl hunting last year. Every hotel I called was full in the good waterfowling areas. How many more would be enough, 40,000, 50,000.

If your hotel is full during Oct, Nov and Dec you can bet the rest are also. Where do you advocate all the additional hunters the hospitality association wants to bring in stay? Sorry, but I think it is a legitimate question. I am a resident of the state and I know that if I don't secure lodging a year in advance for the duck, goose, deer and pheasant seasons that my sons and I would be out of luck. I've tried to find hotels during the Fall, it's nealy impossible. How many more hunters can the small town hotels handle? The caps are a concern of the waterfowl hunters not the upland hunters although the influx of big money and the purchase of land by wealthy NR upland hunters is a problem in and of itself.

I do believe that compromise does = a win-win situation. Take the time to look at the hunter Pressure concept if you haven't already done so. It's a starting point....maybe the baseline nummbers need to raised, lets talk about it. Maybe the 30,000 NR hunters there were this year is a good number to start. I'm cetainly not advocating 30,000 NR waterfowlers every year but perhaps it's a good number to keep the hotels filled to near capacity. Maybe 25,000 might be just as good. I do know that there ARE going to be many disappointed NR waterfowlers next Fall if we don't break the drought cycle we are currently in right now. The southern half of the state, at the very least, is very dry and the sloughs HAVE dried up. Only the big water remains in many areas.

Good luck with your venture. Maybe our paths might cross in the future.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Gee MO, I must say you are not exactly who I thought you were. The ideas you have for opening up all that land really would go most all the way to solving all the problems. The problem is, it can will never happen. If you try to pass a Saskatchewan style law in ND, the outcry would sound all the way to Washington, and I dont knwo if it would hold up constitutionally. I hear stories of people recieving 30 $ an acre annually for lease of the best CRP. Not much going to open up for a buck and acre a year in the best areas. SO how do you address it??? One logical thought is to remove some of the users. Might be bad for you, not so bad for the gas station guys???? What about the car salesmen who sell cars to residents staying int he state? Your property taxes??? You get my point. Right now, living here gets you precious little in the form of preference as far as hunting, compared to some states.


----------



## Hotel owner (Jan 10, 2003)

Well I just don't know.

The land that is leased for huntying around my place isn't going for 30 bucks an acre. CRP rates are typically between 22 and 32 an acre. Leases for hunting is typically 1 to 3 bucks an acre.

And to Field hunter you are very correct. I am reacting in part to the recent issues around Pheasant hunting. I actually do favor the HPC because it is based on the resourse.

As best as I can tell, the issue with capping pheasant hunters or limiting the amount of time they can spend hunting has nothing to do with the pressure on the birds.

tosdak yea I realize that I am pretty wishful in addressing access but you have to admit it would not be too hard to double the funding of the PLOTs program just through licensing changes, special access stamps and other actions to increase revenues. Maybe I am a little dense but I think most people interested in these issues would support those measures.

As far as where to put more hunters I would love to expand our 12 room hotel or we have discussed a camp ground addition. We are lucky in part because we have the biking trail close by to pull people in June, July and August.

Having said all I did I can see that the lines are probably drawn and I know that everyone here wants what is best for the sportsman of North Dakota.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Motel Owner welcome to ND. I want to pose a question to you. 
What $$$$$ amount is the Hospitality Industry going to put into access programs? Right now they have their cake and eat it too. I would like to see a few tousand acres of PLOTS sponsered by local small town businesses in each county "That depends on hunter dollars" so much.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Hotel Owner How far back did you look at bookings in the fall ??? I can see the past 5 years being dominated by NR's - But before that many Resident's traveled to Western ND towns to hunt. (I'm from Ray ND originally) & have hunted the entire State. But it is no longer worth the hassles & rejections.
Here is another ND forum that I wrote a plea for NR's to join us in our battles with Guides & Outfitters & misguided commercial / Hospitality people, that have been spooked to believing what we think is good - is bad for them. http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/show ... genumber=1

Are you a member of the Hospitality Assn. & is there not anyone from there, that really hunts & / or understands all this ???

I'd like to run the Tourism Dept. & be able to coordinate & cooperate with the Chambers of commerces & ND G&FD & landowners of communities that want to improve their participation in Fall Hunting opportunities. The possibilities are untaped & almost limitless - But going the route of Pay to hunt is not the best answer. Also having unlimited free for all of NR's is not either.

What is even sadder is the towns that have tried this - You can tell they really don't have people who know what hunters like & how they think & what they are looking for. We could grow & improve this hunting paradise if folks could work together & do what is Best for all.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I spend a little time each day thinking about the PLOTS program MO, and while it is a wonderful program, pt some real numbers around it. There are over 3.3 million acres of CRP in ND, of which we have 150000 enrolled in the program to date. So, that means we can quadruple the size of the program, maybe by only doubling the budget, maybe tripling, who knows. In a couple of years we might have 1 million acres enrolled. that means 1 in three acres of CRP is open to the public. Just look at what that means. Sure there is more available for the public. But MOST OF THE GROUND IS STILL PRIVATE!!!!! The sheer scope of the issue dictates that most of the land is going to be private for a long long time. This issue is going to have to be addressed from the source side as well as the resource side. I am not saying that the average is 30 dollars an acre, but if there are people paying that, it impacts both other lease rates and the effectiveness of state programs to lease that land. Heck plots pays more than $1 per acres per year. Going to drop out of this for a while before I say something I should not, Tom


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Fetch,

You bring up some very interesting points concerning the tourism in ND and how it COULD relate to hunting. I don't know how many times in the last 10 years I've had to wonder why nobody in several of the small towns we base out of in the Fall don't do anything "special" for the resident as well as NR hunters. I'm sure there are a few events around the state, the Bottineau shootout and the Kenmare goosefest are a few, that do actually sponsor and take advantage of people hunting in the state but there are many communities that seem to welcome the added $$ in the Fall that could do much more to bring the revenue that is needed in the small towns.

Imagine if the Tourism department initiated a program to help the small towns with programs such as dinners for the hunters, hunting contests, duck fests, etc. I can't imagine the $$s that could be brought into a local community that would sponsor a duck fest for instance. Run it for a week every year say in conjunction with a local harvest days. I'd bet the town could pack the hotels as well local homes willing to rent rooms. I recall a conversation I had with a member of a local volunteer fire department about how much money the NR hunters spend in the town, he thought it would be a great idea to have the department sponsor a duck contest that would not only generate NR dollars but resident hunters $$ from outside the community. How much gas, food, and shells would be sold during the course of a week. One of the small towns we frequent in the Fall used to have one of the local churches rent the local hall and charge 8-10.00 for a home cooked meal...the place was packed. Now there is nothing.

I guess I'm trying to say there are ways the Tourism department can promote the state other than bringing in more numbers of hunters. I think they should utilize the people they have here in a better way which could benefit everyone.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

MRN-yes that report has to be combed and presented and used. It is great support for residents arguements as to their dominant economic importance. 
Resident sportsman spending in rural areas is more than 4 to 1 above nonresidents. The best customers of this business already live inside the store. In other words, *everytime a resident sportsman is displaced by a NR there is a 300% dollar loss to the rural area.* Call Mr. Iverson with that one.[/b]


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

", everytime a resident sportsman is displaced by a NR there is a 300% dollar loss to the rural area"

Can you expand on this a little more Dick, how they are displaced that is?


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Come on Dick, that is a stretch. Will agree though that residents are using these hotels, cafes, and gas stations year around rather than just 4 weeks in October.

One difference is NRs probably use the hotels on weekdays and weekends where most residents are just staying Friday and Saturday night.

I grew up in eastern ND and we traveled (often far) and spent a lot of money (well my dad did) hunting in ND ALL FALL LONG. If you did not leave Cass county you spend the day killing time not birds.

Quite a few deer hunters out there spending money during deer season, when at best 1% NRs can participate. Deer hunters outnumber waterfowl hunters (I know many are represented twice) by about 3 to 1.

You also so have resident trappers, archers, turkey hunters, fox hunters, etc... that while each are smaller by themselves, have an accumulative effect on total resident hunter spending.

Resident $$ spending is real. NR $$ are real.


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

I saw that residents spend more than non-residents, but this is a statistic that can NOT but used at I see it being used in the previous arguments. Why? We are talking upland and waterfowl, correct? This $ amount is for ALL hunting. Some types of hunting aren't even open to non-residents are they? How about big game hunting? How do those dollars break down? I bet they are heavily favored to the resident. Thus the numbers that we need to see (and not having looked at the report yet, I don't know if they are available) is expenditures by NR and res BY TYPE OF HUNTING- UPLAND, WATERFOWL, ETC. Please, people, be careful that the statistic you use to make a point is applicable. In this case, this number is not.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

No, it is not comparing apples to apples, but it i s also not comparing apples to elephants. It does include spending on other areas of hunting. But, I think many peoples point is that if things continue as they are, we will see people who live here for the benefits, rather than the pay, leave. This will cause a net losing proposition. One other thing to think about. People always talk about the motels. It is very likely true that me, as a resident sportsman, do little to support hotels in small towns. But, I do dupport the gas stations, the hardware stores, the electric companies, and all the other infrastructure that make those towns tick. I also buy sporting goods in my hometown, which is also a part of ND. Small towns are having a terrible time surviving. Hey I grew up in one, and until 6 months ago lived in one with 1500 people. But service jobs are a piss poor replacement for the ag and manufacturing jobs that are being lost.

The real thing this does is brings to light the real impact resident sportsmen have in total to the sporting economy, and shows the danger some of these business's face if the do significant damage to the resident sportsmen. In that picture, if we REPLACE resident sportsmen with NR, your replace three dollars with one. REalizing that it is not a linear equation of a finite number of sportsmen. Perhaps you can add 50000 more NR's before ND resident hunters give up the sport in droves. What many are saying here is that the number might be 5 more,not 50000. Tom


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

I cant even see why this was brought up, the same can be said for NR's fishing in MN plus I know theres alot of NR's that come over to MN for the deer hunting, but none of this really seems to apply to the main issues at hand.
If I'm wrong, please explain, I would like to understand.

Would still like to know from Dick how a NR displaces a resident.

thanks


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

Dano2,
you cant understand why what was brought up?

My point is this. If you want to use economic reasons for setting NR caps, you have to use the appropriate statistic. Capping NR waterfowl numbers is going to do absolutely NOTHING for your West River deer hunters. The numbers do tell me this, if people think there are too many hunters, the resident hunters are providing the vast majority of the hunter-days, not the NR.

One other point, someone talked about how many additional hunters would it take for residents to pack it in and abandon the sport and alluded it could be closer to 5 than 50,000. I am fairly certain that if access contintues to spiral downhill and license fees go up, NRs will not be coming to your state. They will be gone before the resident hunters stop hunting.

I believe stongly in three things and this is my personal point of view.

1. Raising NR resident fees will only result in the wealthy being able to hunt and the average guy will be out.

2. Access is a major issue and this year's emergency grazing and haying had a HUGE effect on access. PLOTS areas in many areas of the state were absolutely pathetic sources of habitat. I attended the Pheasants Forever National Convention this last weekend and some chap (I forgot his name) from the state of ND said that the increase in PLOTS land this year (over 100,000 acres I believe he said) had little effect on alleviating hunter pressure. Really? Duh, most of the PLOTS that I saw was worthless due to grazing and haying, how do they not account for that?

3. Severely capping NR numbers will in the long run be a bad idea. How far behind will MN be in limiting NR fisherman? Every state will eventually go to this type of system and that is not good for our sport. If it is a major hassle to go out of state, will I continue to support DU? Nope. Will their be lawsuits with regard to Pittman-Robertson funds and the equity of receiving PR dollars and limiting NRs? Yep. It will get ugly.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Your right about the license dollar game.

Central and southern states are now beginning to emulate their western counterparts.

Iowa more than doubled the cost of getting a spring turkey permit and the cost of a NR deer license up, up and away.

MT elk - not the average mans sport no more.

Monkey see - monkey do.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

MO

You will find that you don't differ from many offering opinions here. We all want to see small towns and businesses prosper, but we don't want that prosperity to be solely through selling ND's hunting opportunities and heritage - the reason we live here.

As for asking the right question, all of the current events are about "competition for a fixed resource". Indeed, this is the primary source of conflict in the animal world (if you include mating as a fixed resource). The resource isn't limitless and a fixed/shrinking number of opportunities exist. I essentially see two different ways to look at competition for hunting opportunities:

Group 1
- recognize that the resource is fixed and near/exceeding capacity
- attempt to limit growing competition for the resource
- prevent others from monopolizing the resource
- propose equitable distribution of the resource through government programs
- attempt to preserve the resource for kids and grandkids
- stop competeing for the resource (stop hunting)

Group 2
- deny that the resource is limited
- deny that the resource is nearing capacity
- deny that limiting competition is part of the solution
- tie up (lease) the resource to exclude others
- milk the resource for personal monetary gain

Into which group do various organizations fall?

I do agree that we should pursue the Alberta/Sask languge on leasing land for hunting purposed. That does away with some of the group 2 responses to competition for scarce opportunities. TsoDak suggests it might be unconstitutional - I'm not so sure since, like water, game animals are property of the states. I will gladly sign on to any such proposal you make on this issue to legislators.

M.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

You see Dano the point is, they ARE related. If land is leased up by outfitters for Pheasant hunting, driven more proportionaly by NR, then that same land is removed from freelance waterfowling, and deer hunting. Same is true for land being purchased and posted by out of staters as hunting areas. Hunted for 2 weeks, closed for the rest of the seasons. 
And you may be right that the freelance NR will be gone before the residents. But at that point in time, the only ones wealthy enough to pay the access charges to access the land will be the very wealthy people, concentrated in the states larger cities and out of state. So then, landowners feel entitled to payments, and it ALL goes away unlessyou are willign to pay the access fees. Like it or not, this is mainly being driven by influxes of NR, althought here is a notable contingent of resident fee hunters and folks purchasing land. THAT is much mroe difficult to address.

To your point #3, interestingly, there is no longer much resistance legally to SD NR quota. They can still go to MN to Fish I think, and DU has no difficulty spending money in SD on projects to raise ducks that then have the opportunity to get hunted in other states. :beer:


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

I believe there are more than a few people watching to see if the US Supreme court will hear the AZ case. If they do not or if the Appeals Court decision is upheld, I would imagine SD NR waterfowl caps to be challenged rather quickly.

SD Supreme court has made a decision already. No need to waste money on a state court challenge. US Federal decision will decide how the SD guide association or some wealthy NR landowners will respond.

Wrong direction I agree - but ...


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

O.K. now I see your point on how it all ties in, thanks for the response,
Its just harder for the NR freelance hunter to make light of some of these things and maybe become a little defensive, escpecially when a NR is looked at the same way by many, weather they are a freelance hunter or one that uses the guides and outfitters.
Its agravating for me escpecially since I would like to move from Moorhead to fargo but cant, I have explained it before on this forum , so no need to go into detail again, Like i have saud to my wife, its almost like two different countries when it comes to hunting and being a NR,
thats why if you look at my location by my user name, I dont put MN, I have USA :lol:


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

I would like to clarify something I said so someone doesnt take it wrong. I am not against the emergency haying/grazing that was done, only that it negatively impacted the land suitable for hunting. Unless someone can convince me otherwise (I have an open mind), I also feel that they should not be able to collect PLOTS money as well as the haying/grazing benefit. One or the other, but not both.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I wasn't trying to duck you gents, just haven't been up for a while. Addressing the 4:1 spending ratio and displacing residents with NRs; In my feeble mind all these hunting and fishing issues are one issue. It is not waterfowl or upland or big game seperately, but all combined. Like the facets on a diamond, still one stone.

I know nodakers that have hung up the outdoors here, and just spend the money on a trip else where, because the access has shriveled to a shadow due to pressure. Due to an unlimited amount of licenses and saturation marketing for outfitters under the guise of tourism.

I never had a passport until Cannonball poped up and the money I used to spend in SW ND now goes to Mexico where believe it not, the beach is FREE, every swinging square mile of it. What I used to spend on deer hunting, went into snorkel equipment and a underwater camera.

Proponents of commercial hunting are causing a dollar loss to rural areas and also the whole state economy, when that saturation is achieved. What commercial hunting proponents do not understand is that it is the customer, (hunters), that *always* determines value, not the business. Commercial hunting however takes the position of " here is our inventory, take it or leave it", and in the process they lose not only the best customer that already lives inside the store, but they also lose allies for rural North Dakota. Rural folks cannot afford to lose either.

As a side note, you and and I have to call that toll free number and use the email when the Sportsmens Alerts come thru the etree. I just have a feeling too many of us think someone else will carry this fight for us. It depends on you as an individual to get it done. Success or failure will be on your shoulders.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I am posting a copy from RES and DEP topic.

Been reading these posts and fighting with my computer not sending e-mails messages etc.. So I will jump in on the this onemore time. The guides and outfitters are the biggest threat. We will continue to lose land to hunt on if we do not put a stop to the guides etc.. I did a pole this summer and fall and these are the results.

I started asking 6 questions of the people that I met and recorded the basic answers.

#1 Do currently hunt? 55% yes

#2 Does anyone close to you hunt? 85%yes

#3 What do they hunt? deer 80% upland 55% waterfowl 27%

#4.Are you affected financially from non-res hunting? 62% yes

#5 Do you want to see restritions on guides and outfitters?78%

#6 Do you think hunting access has changed due to guides or non-res. hunters? see below

The overall feeling was that 78% of the 236 people I spoke with want to see some controls, but still leave the landowner his rights to do with his property as they see fit.

69% said that hunting had not been affected neg. by non-res. freelance hunters, but 87% said yes by guides and outfitters had.

Ages of people that I spoke with 21-84.

If you limit the # of acres that a guide or outfitter can lease limit the # of guides and outfitters and make sure that if caps on non-res hunters come about that we do not give any of these to the guides and outfitters. This will make for less presure and less leasing.

I spoke with a Sen. from SW ND late last night and was schocked to here that the guides and outfitters where out trying to lease up even more land than ever because they think that what they have will be grandfathered in if any laws are passed. I thaen made some calls this morning and was surprised to learn that the same thing was happening back in my home area south central part of the state.

This issue is not one of access only, but of game management and rural survival. We currently see many acres leased and not open to deer hunting. This increases preasure on ranchers, farmers, over deer and turkeys destroying feed. It also increases insurance rates due to deer, car collisons. We as hunters have to try and understand that rural ND is different than Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismarck.

Get on the computer, the telephones, the snail mail and let your elected officals know what you want and have all of your freinds do the same.

We need to stop fighting with each other and polarizing the single issue,instead fight for the good of all hunters.

Dick I will e-mail you later if my computer keeps working!


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

The topic says Res vs. NR spending. Now when this whole debate started you couldn't go one thread without hearing from some NR about how many millions they spend and how it didn't even compare to the residents spending as if we didn't matter. Well now it is a proven fact, and I hope that each and every NR that used that high and mighty excuse chokes on it now. Just my $.02


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

Wingmaster-
Although I have never taken that exact path, I dont think it is quite as simple as you are alluding. As I said in an earlier post, these numbers cannot be used in the waterfowl/upland issue. They are for all hunting. Take only the waterfowl/upland dollars and then compare. Mebbe it is still heavily favored to the Res, who knows? Let me ask you this. Who spends more on a per day basis, NR or Res? I gotta believe it is the NR. So, if the Res is still spending so much more, and spends less per day, the pressure on the resource is also coming from the Res. All the access problems that are blamed on the NR are then not true. Anecdotally maybe, but in reality no. In summary, if the NR has little or no economic effect, then they also have little or no access or pressure effect. You can't have one without the other. We (NRs) are both good and bad or we are neither.


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

I am not saying that the NR doesn't have and economic effect on ND because they do, and they should. I am still pumping money into rural ND through ice fishing and coyote hunting.I will continue spending money through winter into the spring, then the summer, and then right into the fall. So on a per day basis the NR doesn't even compare. You can pick this a part all you want, and put it into all the catagories you want and even print it up and laminate it so you can carry it around in your wallet , I don't care. The simple fact is resident hunters and fisherman are spending money all year around.Not just 14 days for waterfowl, and then acting like if it wasn't for them ND would just cease to exsist.


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

I think we have another NR hater hear boys from the other side of the world. I think your exagerating alittle bit there wing,
Would you care to copy and paste some of your examples
here , so I can understand where you get the idea that alot of the Nrs on this forum think "IF IT WASN"T FOR THEM"


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

To further Wingmaster's point: From '93-'97, as a Twin Cities resident, I typically spent 13 days hunting ND, with about 3 nights in motels. From '98-'02, as a ND res, because I can get out more often and I'm that much closer and I have no day restrictions I typically spend 25 days hunting, with 8 nights in motels. Now, even if my per/day rural expenditures are less than the average nonres., under which of the two scenarios am I providing greater economic impact to ND, especially rural ND.

And that doesn't even begin to account for my spending the other 340 days per year. As many of us have said before, there are many of us who made deep trade-offs to stay or move back here - the quality of hunting was just enough to tip the scales. If we don't get it fixed, I'll be back to the 13 day scenario, and how is that good for rural or any other part of ND?


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

Wingmaster, let me clarify one thing you took wrong, I meant on a per day afield basis. The NR spends more per day of hunting than a resident does on average. Hey, I fully think the res does contribute much more to the economy overall, no doubt about it. My point is this, you can't blame the NR for the access issues and the overpressured resources, because the res accounts for so much more. The access and pressure issue is not going to be solved by limiting the NR, that is shortsighted and not using all of the data.


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

First I apologize for my stupid computer, it is not hitting on all 8 cylinders today and posted my last comment 3 times.

Second, are you guys not reading my posts? I NEVER said NRs spend more, quite the opposite in fact. Please go back and re-read them.


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

Well letting unlimited NR into ND isn't going to solve the problem either. The residents should be thought of first in their own state, and the HPC is a good starting point.I am just saying people should look at resident spending also.

Dano2,
I am not exagerating anything.Nor do I have to prove myself to you. When this whole debate started months ago plenty of NRs were using hunter spending as a platform, I can't be the only one who saw this. That is all I was saying. No where in any of this did I say I hate NRs because I don't.So don't go around saying " boys looks like we have another NR hater here". Understand.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Dino:


> My point is this, you can't blame the NR for the access issues and the overpressured resources, because the res accounts for so much more. The access and pressure issue is not going to be solved by limiting the NR, that is shortsighted and not using all of the data.


I can see that as a NR, you and I disagree on everything. The access issues and overpressured resources are a direct result of the NR explosion and the subsequent proliferation of guides and commercialization. MOST residents hunt weekends on traditional hunting areas, and they would never dream of paying a guide to hunt waterfowl. However, the explosion of NRs has brought about the dark side of hunting and that is the shooters. You know the type, the guy that shows up with his brand new Filson hat and jacket, Benelli Super Black Eagle, etc and shows up to shoot not hunt ducks. This guy is too much of a slob to do any type of scouting or contacting landowners, so he hires a guide to do all of the work for him. He pays his $250 a day and gets to shoot his ducks or geese, which the guide calls in for him. At the end of the day, he takes his picture with his harvest and builds a new chapter into his local legend (which all of his fat cat friends will get to hear about for the next year). So this one guy that pays $250 has just displaced xx R and/or NR freelance hunters (you tell me the number because I don't know), because the guide has tied up 10,000 acres for this one shooter.

Now speaking of money, how does the $250 figure into the NR expenditures. Does the guide actually report that income and the $50 tip that Mr. Fat Cat laid on him because he got to shoot (at) his first Canada goose? In most cases, probably not. Does the lease money that the guide paid to the landowner get reported, probably not? Does Mr. Fat Cat stay in a local hotel and go out to dinner, probably not, because he is likely staying at a "Lodge" owned by the guide. The local communities are the ones getting the shaft because they are not ringing in the sale, which generates sales tax. Where do these Mr. Fat Cat expenditures get accounted for in this study? You tell me because I don't know.

So to answer your question, NR expenditures may be higher on a per day basis, but how much of a bias does the commercial side introduce into the study by not accurately depicting how much revenue they actually generate. Once again, you tell me because I don't know. 
[/quote]


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

Bioman, I have to disagree with you that we disagree. I pretty much agree with everything you said. I am coming from a NR freelancer point of view and if you limit NRs, I will be the first that gets the shaft. Mr. Fat Cat will have a licence because the guide will probably get a set %. Hey, I would be all for getting rid of all guides and outfitters :lol: . Maybe we both need to do a little better defining the NR. NR Fat Cat's are no good. NR freelancers do little harm and actually do contribute a lot of $$ to the local economy. :sniper: Fat Cats


----------



## David S Proffitt (Sep 13, 2002)

I think this whole argument is a little misguided. As far as I can tell rural N.D. needs money to be circulated in the local micro economies. Cutting one out does nothing to promote economic growth. Freelance hunters whether they come from internal to ND or from outside the state are good for the economy. My perception is that promoting freelance hunting is positive for the majority of those involved IF THE RESOURCE CAN TOLORATE THE PRESSURE. I also believe that revenue enhancement schemes need to be implemented so that more finances can be applied to securing public access and habitat improvement. With improvements in habitat and public access increases in hunter recreation days will occur and then increase revenues can be secured. It is cyclic. I support the hunter pressure concept because it is focused on the ability of the resource to withstand the number of hunters. I do not support caps on Upland hunters because I have never read anything that states Upland birds can not tolerate increased hunting pressure. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Dino:

Point well taken. My biggest frustration is the misinformation that is being spread amongst the small communities when it comes to the distinction between NRs and NRs that utilize commercial outfits. If they would take the time to acquaint themselves with the issues (aka the commercialization and subsequent destruction of NoDak hunting) by pushing people out of area rather than attracting them, I think you would see more of a backlash to the commercialization of NoDak. With that said, you have to give the commercial guides alot of credit because they have done a damned good job of spreading bogus information and polarizing the small communities. I wish one of the Universities would do a study to show how few people actually use a guide service and also detail the displacement of the R and NR freelance crowd that results in a substantial loss of local revenue. A valid study sure would help this issue.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

> I do not support caps on Upland hunters because I have never read anything that states Upland birds can not tolerate increased hunting pressure.


David its called commercial hunting, most states are very well acquainted with it. Just look at SoDak, they had to alter the start time to give the birds a break.


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

I would like to see some localized funding to increase habitat and access. How to do that? A couple of ideas. That is what Pheasants Forever is all about. They are experts at it. Rural ND could gain a lot from having more PF chapters. Secondly, as someone else alluded to, local events for hunters that raise money. Contests, breakfasts, dinners, blah, blah, blah.

"Register to win a new Fancy Shotgun, proceeds toward local hunting access". Who wouldn't buy a ticket to that? Heck, I would buy 2 if it were in my area. Sure, one raffle isn't gonna generate much, but you have to start somewhere. Get a PF chapter started. Get the town excited and energized!


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

Bioman and David, I might be able to shed a little light on this, you are both right. David is right because, at least in the case of pheasants, you cannot overhunt them from a biological perspective. Bioman, you are right in that you can have so many hunters vying for access that the resource (resource in this case = land accessible to hunt) cannot support that many hunters, even if the birds could.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Dino:

You are actually wrong, its called local extinction. You have to look no farther than the theory of island biogeography to get the gist of the idea. I won't bore anybody with the details, but overhunting, disease, predation, stochastic events can cause local extinctions.


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

Bioman, we aren't talking theoretical science here. PF has studied this and determined that you cannot overhunt pheasants.


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

David S P,
Well said! 

Wingmaster,
I DO understand your frustration,
and hope you understand mine
as well when it comes to being
defensive to the NR freelance hunter.

I've said itr before so I will just drop it
at this point , that is were I"M coming from.

I pay my out of state fee, spend money on food,
gas, and whatever else comes up.
believe me I spend ALOT on gas, I own a Dodge :lol: 
I dont spend NEAR as much as alot of people do
but I dont need to, Is this a BAD thing?

Again, this has nothing to do with it,
but MN dropped some of their limits
on certain fish, Is there a big deal
brought up on NR's over there?
Haven't heard a thing myself,
go over to the FishingMN forum,
I have never read an argument yet ,
or even ONE word said about NR's,
, Ahhhhh the hell with it :eyeroll:


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Dino: I would love to see the study, because any findings would be based on data applied to theoretical science.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

People stop and think about this.MOre guides and outfitters only place to hunt will be on the land that they have leased up. You will then be equal resident or non resident paying the same to hunt or staying home who cares who spends more. this is an access issue that if we do not pass laws to put in check will end this discusion due to lack of any place to hunt.

So lest all of us get back to the needs of all hunters that is controling the runaway guide train that is happening.

Read my other posts on this website for numbers and idea's and follow Dick Monsons posts as he has new informantion on the increase in guides and outfitters in the state.


----------



## DAKOTAKID (Oct 20, 2002)

I dont have any problem with nr hunting in ND.Its the ball hogs. The big outfitters who buy and lease all this land and then they go and take thier party and hunt on plots land. I could not believe it when I saw it! I think that all boarding states should have first pics this fall. If they put a limit on nr upland game.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

If folks want to argue, (or be stubborn) about specifics, of any or all of this - take it to PM's please. There is a huge difference in Debate & having a chip on your shoulder & sarcasim. If your not sure ask - OK ??? Even I, have to tone down my desire to be Sarcastic & Cynical & Goofball - in order to not offend many. I doubt, if we had heated debates, we are going to change too manys minds, at this point. Better to present points of views & ideas, in hopes of educating some, on what is really important & real at this point. (lets take the high road) If you have been here any lenghth of time. You basically know what most think. Just try not to yank the chain of those people - please (???)


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

Couldn't agree more with the last 3 posts


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Boys let me reinterate the point that I have been trying to get out to everyone.

ACCESS< ACCESS< ACCESS,

We need to realize that if we polarize this issue over who spends more, then the guides and outfitters will have the ear of our elected officals and they will get what they want. Not what is best for all hunters resident or nonresident.

The guides and outfitters have used the media and or own sportmens groups in turning this debate into Res, Non-res and it works. Look at all th sniping back and forth on this site and other sites and it is I spend more so I should have first dibbs. This continued retoric will do nothing to save the state from being mostly pay as you play in the next ten years.

We have room for a lot of hunters in this state but only if they have someplace to go. I will be willing to bet that when things dry up the standing water will all be leased, and freelance hunters will be crowed into public lands or do what happened in the 80's stop hunting and this will lose another generation of hunters, when we have no place for us to take our kids.

I ask everyone please stop sniping over who spends more and help fight for new and tougher laws on guides and outfitters,the real enemy to the freelance hunter .

For nonresidents contact the people where you hunt landowners, hotels bars, cafe's, other stores that you do business with, let them know that if all land is leased that you will not be able to afford to come back because of no place to hunt, thus the local store and gas station will not have your dollars to spend. Then ask them how much money they get from the guide who picks up the client at the airport in Bismarck or Fargo,then stops at Sam's and buys his bulk items take the client to Scheels to get his shells and other items, then to the Lodge where they stay until he takes them back and a new group comes in. Very little new commerce from a outfitter.

The same goes for the Resident hunter,you have the power to influence a lot of people with the right frame of mind but not when we pit hunter againist hunter.

I know that I will offend some but I am very passonate on this and I have done the field research to prove my point of view. Look at my posts on #'s
of my poll.

Lets have as large of turn out at the hearings as we can. I am sure that most of us have fifteen minutes to call our officals and leave a message, write a letter send a e-mail.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

HWM, many of us who have sliced and diced these issues sevens ways of Sunday for a few years have pretty well decided there's no magic bullet, but look at the fix as a three-legged stool. Guides and outfitters, yes they probably represent the largest factor, but we won't be able to put the genie back in the bottle on that one. Might be able to keep it from getting any worse, but can't make it go backwards. Waterfowl, need to loose hunter days, period. Access to allow more pressure will cause premature outmigration (remember just across the border, tens of thousands less hunters) and force the birds into the refuges and mid-day feeding habits earlier. Upland, we need to loose hunter days and increase access in the right and heavily used areas. Can't get enough access alone to deal with the issue and only a day limitation (and one license) on nonres upland hunters will ease the buying and leasing and provide some relief as to the ever shrinking nonpay lands. Wish it were simpler than that, but this isn't a simple problem. We need to work on all three fronts.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I would like to know how the limit on non-residents will help if we do not limit the leasing that the guides are doing. The arguement that if you reduce the # of nonresidents will reduce the # of people using guides is very inaccurate. The reasoning that more land will be open to residents when nonresidents are not hunting won't open up any leased land,it will just give the guide reason to charge more.This will increase the leasing of land and close more acres to free lance hunters because you can charge more thus you have more to spend on land etc..This will cause the businesses that are in the small rural communities to lose economic opportunity from freelance hunters resident and nonresident. I agree on limits for biological reasons with the resident getting preference but not otherwise for this will cause the landowners to not support hunters. Look at my post on the poll #'s this was very enlightening as to what different people think that do not hunt. We have only 1 in 6 of all people in the state that hunt. We need to have the help of the landowners and the business man to help keep access open. I am afraid that if we keep pushing for caps on nonresidents only and not on the guides this will just be a lost legilative session.

I can tell you that the support for caps in the area's outside of Fargo is very small unless it has to do with the resourse. Most farmers view waterfowl as a potential crop predator. Most business people do not want caps for economic reasons, but do want controls and caps on guides becasue they see what happens when the freelance hunter does not have a place to hunt. We need to fight all encroachment on access but we need to stop the fastest, largest ,and most dangerous first.

GRIZZLY= GUIDES AND OUTFITTERS

COYOTES=LAND PURCHASED BY NONRESIDENTS

WHICH OF THESE WOULD YOU SHOOT FIRST IF THEY WHERE CHARGING YOU ?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

HWM, we may (or may not) be largely saying the same thing. The reality with guides is they very disproportionately affect the issue because under their model you have less hunters using more land. That said, there is going to be next to nil support to put any of them out of business - again, the most we can hope to accomplish this session (or the next, if necessary) is to essentially freeze the industry by configuring the number of outfitter licenses and an acreage limitation per outfitter such that the industry as a whole controls no more ground than today. Because of the very lax statutes we have today, however, it's very hard to know what the industry presently controls, but we're guessing somewhere in the 1.6MM range.

Getting control of the outfitters by an acreage limitation will take away the "creep" that will inevitably occur if we focus only on raw outfitter numbers. As someone recently pointed out to me, only three outfitters largely control the entire Texas coastline, so limiting the number of outfitter licenses will do little in the long-run without something more. But again, realistically, the best we can hope for is to maintain status quo, and as the recent eTree notices have indicated, we should encourage our legislators to incorporate an acreage cap into HB 1050, the outfitter bill heard by HNRC last week. A subcommittee was formed to look at the bill and possible amendments further, and Porter, Hunskor and DeKrey should be contacted further on this.

In addition to the outfitter crunch, most waterfowlers (and uplanders) I know feel we've also entered the realm of intolerable pressure from freelancers, resident and nonresident alike. For waterfowl, we're now much more species-orientated than in the past. Ducks are taking the brunt of pressure now, whereas in the past the pressure was aimed a little more evenly between ducks and geese, maybe even more to the latter. Now, ducks in the morning, ducks at lunch, ducks in the evening, ducks in pot holes, ducks on the big water, ducks in the fields, ducks, ducks, ducks......!!! I know I'm over-generalizing, but ducks today are the main target and you just can't hammer them and expect them to stay when they've got everything they need and a whole lot less pressure just a tad south.

The HPC sets an appropriate number of total hunters - it is designed to determine the number of seats in the hypothetical stadium such that everyone has a relatively good view, i.e. a relatively quality hunt. It does not care if the hunter fee hunts or not, and if it did, nonresident numbers would have to drop further to take into account the important outfitter areas available to a relatively few. It is not a bird conservation tool, but rather a quality hunting opportunity conservation tool, designed to maintain quality hunting for res and nonres alike, who today are largely freelancers.

The HPC was never about curbing the outfitter industry, but how will less hunters encourage a growth of that industry? Why did the guide numbers balloon with (and actually outpace) the nonres increases? Don't think that correlation is a coincidence. Anything otherwise runs contra to what little I remember from freshman econ. The key will be to fight, as we must, any sort of outfitter allocation of licenses.

Do not sell support for the HPC short. Legislators are receiving heavy contact from what I hear (we must keep it up), and it is largely pro HPC. More people are beginning to understand that it is vital to the ND economy to maintain a quality hunting resource, and that we need to balance the benefits to tourism with the retention and attraction value it brings for current and prospective residents, and more people are beginning to understand the HPC will strike that balance.

I'm with you, the guides hurt everyone, res and nonres hunters, small town businesses (how can a model based on less people on more ground mean more money for the general economy?), etc. But as I said in my earlier post, we're fooling ourselves if we think this is the only problem and that we don't also need to work on the other two legs.

I'm going to work on the griz, cape buffalo and the rhino - don't see any 'yotes in my territory.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

My point was more too the fact that support for limits on noresidents is very popular with sportmen, but unforunatelty not with rural North Dakota.
I support limits that have biological roots and most of the rural community does also. We need this type of legislation but we have to be careful not to make this look like a nonresident cap bill only. We also have to craft this bill to protect hunting as a whole.We need to becareful that we also do not give PETA a law that could shut waterfowl hunting down in the state or restrict resident hunters from hunting.

EXAMPLE

Drought conditions less than 5000 hunters should hunt so you have to apply for a licence thru a lottery.

Waterfowl numbers down PETA sues using our own law to stop the hunting of ducks in the state because of harvest #'s, nation wide.

These are not that far fetched and my biggest concern of this kind of bill. I due support biological limits as I said before and the law if passed needs to address the above issues to recieve across the board support.

What this legislation has on the surface looks very good but wanting quaility hunting as a reason for this bill will give the proponents the stepping stone that resident hunters are greedy. I will say again we lose when we fight the majority opinion if we look as if we are hurting economic devleopment in the state, with a me only mentality, even when I know that this is not the case with most of the readers of this forum.

I am afraid that this legislation will lead to a lottery system for upland and waterfowl for all hunters. I may be off base on this and hope I am.We are not that far apart on what we want I think we are just maybe on different roads to the same destination.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

"My point was more too the fact that support for limits on noresidents is very popular with sportmen, but unforunatelty not with rural North Dakota. "

Please cite some reasonable evidence of this "fact". I believe you are being swayed by the shills for the guiding/hospitality industry - a group that claims to speak for all rural ND (much the way Rev. Sharpton speaks for everyone too). What support do you have to make such a broad claim? "The priaire poll? - see the thing about shill above. In fact, most of these folks comprise the minority group of sportsmen - they hunt and have hip numbers.

Any other evidence of this fact?

The only other thing I know of is the NDSA survey where rural and urban sportsmen were no different in their strong support for preserving ND. Reasonably assuming that non-sporting freinds and family of these folks do not hold antagonistic views, we have no evidence of some ground swell of opposition in "rural ND".

M.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

HWM, I going to take one last shot at this, and then I think we'll need to agree to disagree.

I would encourage you to study the HPC, the model and underlying data upon which the model is based. The model will never produce total hunters less than 5,000. Residents will be what they are (no limitations), and under an amendment offered Thursday, nonresidents can never be less than 6,000, no matter how dry and how many residents hunt. For historical reference, nonres numbers were in the 5,000's in the dry years of late '80's and early '90's.

I've always been a big proponent of calling a horse a horse. The HPC is a capping system designed to preserve and provide quality hunting opportunities for res and nonres. Agree or not, many of us think that is a very important model for the entire ND economy, to balance tourism benefits with one of ND's very few assets on which she can distinguish herself and keep/draw residents. Based upon the effects of commercialization of hunting in Texas and other states, it is also the only model that ensures the average guy and his two kids (from whatever zip code) will have a crack at a quality hunt.

We've been labled greedy by some for quite a while, so don't worry about that first arising now. Greed could be argued if we were promoting the type of cap numbers that the NDSA and G&F surveys showed most resident waterfowlers want. HPC is compromise. As such, it has taken months and months of work to prepare for this session and reach consensus among sportspersons that this is the appropriate approach.

Your other concerns, while theorectical I guess, seem highly unlikely. Hey, the very purpose of this forum is present and discuss different ideas. But, let's not lose momentum or focus by worrying about what could be instead of dealing with what is. Not trying to invalidate your concerns, it's just that we could wrestle with a bunch of what if's that would undermine a lot of work by a lot of people to date. Yes, the HPC will lower hunter numbers to something more like historical levels - levels that have sustained the quality hunting resource (even in the lean years on a relative basis) for many decades. I'll take my chances with PETA, because if we don't get this thing fixed, they'll have nothing to take away from me.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dan we do agree I think more than you realize, and I won't get into this anymore I will only say that make sure and show support and get involved.

I have a felling that with the Supreme court ruling in AZ this bill along with any other bill limiting nonresients will be made mute. That is why I have been pushing for caps on guides and outfitters, and the amount of acres that they control.

Keep talking and promoting the outdoors so that those that chose not to particpaite understand why we are so pasionate about these issues.


----------



## JackB (Jan 22, 2003)

I moved out of ND in '91 after grad from NDSU. I was a SOTA (Student Older Than Average) at the ripe young age of 35. Moved to Ne. with my 2 kids and wife after landing a job. None available in ND at the time let alone the money.

I used to have so much fun hunting and fishing even around Fargo. You would never believe the wildlife available even in flat barren eatern ND if you hadn't ever lived and hunted there. Fox were one of my favorites.

Someday, I'd like to come back and hunt on some land we have almost paid for (3 quarters). I have never posted it because, what is the point. Never even thought about it, cause I always hunted by driving around looking for stuff, finding where it was, jumping it, to late morning, then walking good stuff in the areas I found them. Usually, in the 80's in Eastern ND, maybe out 60 miles west from MN, there was posted land 30-40% of the time. Sometimes I asked permission, but sometimes I just hunted because you couldn't depend on the things you just flushed to stay there until you came back from attempting to get permission. I never littered, stayed away from houses, etc.

When I read all the concerns about NR hunters, I have to go back to my earlier times in ND when I too complained about them. Now when I want to go back, I see all the resistance and wonder if its worth it. I just bought my boy his first shotgun for spring season snow hunting here in NE. cause that is the easiest thing to hunt for persmission anyway. But even on Ne. Game and Parks website forum, I see hunters complaining about NR hunters screwing up their sneaks etc.

I have never really felt like a Nebraskan, don't even like their football team cause they and too nuts about it down here. So when I go back to ND each year to fish Sak, sometimes I don't even realize I have NE plates when people are staring at me out along the lakeshore where I am parked.

You see, its still my home. I even own some land along with my wife near her hometown. So am I another one of these NRs everyone seems to be against? Will I get dirty looks a few years from now when my kids are away from home and I have more money to run up there and hunt?

Geezz I hope not. But it doesn't sound good. I am a cheap hunter. I try to do everything cheap. I like wild meat, especially when I get into a load of animals and make my trip more affordable in my view, because I got something more for it than just walking around. But I still enjoy the views, the air, and everything else that goes with the hunt or fish. If I come up there and make it a regular deal, I may stay in a hotel, purchase gas, eat, buy shells, fish stuff etc. Same thing I did when I was a resident (but the hotel stays would be less frequent as a resident). Question is: How will I get treated?

Don't always assume someone with NR plates is totally NR. They could be coming back just like me. And they could be NRs that pay taxes on land they own, or even income taxes on the land they rent, just like me. Without even stepping foot in the state more than twice a year. Seems to me, there ought to be another class of NRs or Residents, like Temp NRs or "longing to get back NRs."

Well, enough rambling. Not sure this had much to do with the thread, but after reading for an hour last night, I just had to say something. I couldn't believe all this was going on in my beloved home state. Not sure if it will ever get better for guys like me unless I get rich and buy more of my own ground for retirement hunting, and post the crap out of it. Oh well, I;m off to buy a powerball ticket.

See you all.

Jack


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Welcome (???)

Jack who said we don't like NR's ??? ( you have been listening to the Darkside :-? )

Apply early & I doubt you will have problems

If it ever goes lottery ??? It would be no different than Deer Hunting.

Many of us wish there were a preference for NR's like yourself.

Please take some time & check out past posts on many of these things :beer:


----------



## JackB (Jan 22, 2003)

I didn't read all the posts cause there were a lot of them, just some to give me a flavor. I am sure I missed some good stuff.

By the way, this is a great website. Anxiously watching the fishing reports cause I still have a fish license from this summer and thinking about an Ashtabula trip for perch. Old stomping grounds. Used to slaughter the perch by Ashtabula crossing. Now I hear all the flooding several years ago put perch in a buch of those I-94 sloughs.

Here is an idea. How about a lifetime permit. If you leave the state, it is still good even as a NR, then give us "Former 'R" NR" plates! 

Ne. has a similar site with a forum like this. Some guys live on it.

Jack


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

Jack, 
Some of us here are trying to save the ND hunting heritage and experience, so your family and mine can hunt in ND without paying $150 a day and having to fight through crowds just to get a chance at some crappy public land that has already been walked and hunted a hundred times before. But some others would just rather let unlimited numbers of people hunt, and by doing that our economy will just skyrocket( yeah right) and our heritage will evaporate to nothing. Unfortunately we can't just let unlimited numbers of people hunt here, and expect there to be good or even decent hunting.Right now there are many bills being presented in legislature that will help to save and preserve the hunting we have come to love in ND for both residents and non-residents alike. So all of these things that are going on in your beloved state and mine need all the support we can get to help ensure that ND hunting can remain a constant and not a memory.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Jack 
Click on Dick Monsons name and you will get a listing of his posts.I think that he has done a lot of research and provided thoughtful insight into the issues at hand.This will let you get up to speed and how to participate at the local and state level.


----------

