# Victims are not victimized!



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I have read in the papers this past week that there were over 25,000 non-resisident waterfowl liscences sold and over 30,000 upland game liscences sold so that kind of shoots the theory that the increase in fees and the caps have really put a damper on the hunting in North Dakota. Seems like we remain a very popular destination. We must be offering quality hunting for a reasonable price. Just one man's opinion!!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

I may be way off based, and this is an impulse post so I reserve the right to change my opinion (alter is more like it).

All right, let the ranting begin :soapbox:

I think we should be charging a premium for our hunting. Seems to me that the people complaining are ones that used to live here and have moved on to make more money. If my presumption is correct, then they can afford to pay more money to buy a lisence. Once again, I have chosen to stay here to enjoy the lower cost of living and the "simple" pleasures of life (hunting, fishing, recreation sports). I am really sick of justifying the caps/prices that our state has decided to use. In my opinion, we should charge NR's a premium. I have nothing against them personally because I have many friends/family that come back every year and hunt with us.....but I do think they should pay a premium when they come.

Also, it is a bit of supply and demand (obviously). Ever since I can remember I have wanted a corvette, well, I can't afford it so I just accept that I cannot buy it (yet hopefully). I don't call GM and ***** and complain about the price of their auto. I know that was a bad example (apples to ummm monkeys I guess)


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Remmi

My gut tells me the reduction of waterfowl hunters in ND has more to do with access and zone regulations than cost. I think the NR would pay a higher fee if they had to but would we gain all that much from the extra fees? possibly, if there was a mandate to put certain funds into a habitat fund and make sure it is used for habitat improvement, no slush fund for operating expenses.

Would raising the price be the same as implementing a cap structure, or would we be making hunting in ND a sport for the wealthy, which is one of the things we see as wrong when it comes to O/G operations. Would the common man get shut out even more?

Fees will go up just like everything else in todays world, IMO the only real way to even the playing field is to get HPC II passed in the legislature. Wouldn't it be nice to have seasons and limits set using real biology and conversation practices? I am one that believes that HPC should be used for all wildlife of the state deer, upland, and waterfowl at least. One of the reasons that O/G's are fighting HPC is the timing of the decision on license sales, If i am not mistaken the decision would be made in June and they want to book the same clients year to year. if there was a reduction in licenses due to HPC it would directly affect them but it would benefit the resource. A balancing act to say the least.

Bob


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Remmi_&_I said:


> I may be way off based, and this is an impulse post so I reserve the right to change my opinion (alter is more like it).
> 
> All right, let the ranting begin :soapbox:
> 
> I think we should be charging a premium for our hunting. Seems to me that the people complaining are ones that used to live here and have moved on to make more money. If my presumption is correct, then they can afford to pay more money to buy a lisence. Once again, I have chosen to stay here to enjoy the lower cost of living and the "simple" pleasures of life (hunting, fishing, recreation sports). I am really sick of justifying the caps/prices that our state has decided to use. In my opinion, we should charge NR's a premium. I have nothing against them personally because I have many friends/family that come back every year and hunt with us.....but I do think they should pay a premium when they come.


As a non-res, I might support an increase, or premium, if hunting was not restricted to a 10 day period as it is now. But I would argue that the non-res already is paying a premium, already, considering the limited length one can hunt out there. Up the upland game license charge to $150 with no limitations on the number of days and I'd be all for it. Hell, I probably couldn't get away for an extra weekend anyway, but I wouldn't blink an eye in paying for that privilege all the same.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

jamartinmg2 said:


> As a non-res, I might support an increase, or premium, if hunting was not restricted to a 10 day period as it is now.


What is SD's regulation on days? I am not up to date on their policy, but personally I think we should be the same as them.



jamartinmg2 said:


> Up the upland game license charge to $150 with no limitations on the number of days and I'd be all for it. Hell, I probably couldn't get away for an extra weekend anyway, but I wouldn't blink an eye in paying for that privilege all the same.


Ok, if that is true, then $150 would not be enough.

Bob, I do completely agree with you on the seasons/limits/restrictions/caps being set based on biology. I want our resources to be around for hundreds of years and if I have to suffer a lower limit or a shorter season to protect what we have then I will be the first one to give it a HELLYA!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Remmi

South Dakota
Small Game (valid 10 days) 110.00 for 2005
Two 5 day periods you need to choose your dates when you get your license the two 5 day periods can run consecutively. You can bu more than one small game license.
Waterfowl (valid 10 days) 110.00 for 2005
Waterfowl (valid 3 days) 75.00 for 2005

Waterfowl is a Lottery for NR's They 3 zones for the ten day license with one small zone (100A) that is good for the entire season. For the 3 day license there are two small zones. You need to choose your dates just like ND. SD waterfowl licenses also allow you to shoot coyotes, red and gray fox, skunks, prairie dogs and other unprotrected species.

Bob


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

I did forget that a guy can buy multiple small game licenses in ND, too. Don't get me wrong, I think NR's should pay more, but sometimes there is a fine line between paying a premium and being gouged. What does a ND res pay per day to hunt pheasants in ND? Gen game license $13 plus $6 for the small game. Divide it out by approx 75 days, and you pay in the 25 cents per day neighborhood. Now take the NR. $95 for 10 days of hunting. That comes out to $9.50 per day. Now I am not saying this is neccesarily too much, in todays world, but I still maintain that the NR is already paying a *premium* to hunt there.

On another note, I would almost think the more you raise prices on the NR's, the more outfitters/guides you will see in the state. Hence, less land access for you resident and non resident hunters in the longrun. I would think that it stands to reason that the more expensive the license, a hunter might turn to a guide or an outfitter in the hopes of getting better land access and the potential to bag more game. Does anyone know how many outfitters there are in SD vs. ND? I would venture to guess, too, that SD residents may have a tougher time accessing land than in ND. I guess my point is that there is most likely a happy medium in what a NR license should cost without the NR having to turn to guides and outfitters, which wouldn't be good for anyone who enjoys hunting out there.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Thanks for the info Bob!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Remmi what many miss is the fact that hunting we think is substandard may be the best they have experienced without using a club or G/O.

In the fall of 03 when the temps where in the 90's and hunting was slow with few ducks in the south central part of the state some friends of mine raved about the hunting we had. They on average saw more ducks and got more shooting in 3 days than they would hunting 20 days on public land in their home state.

Increasing the cost to them would not stop them from coming here. On the other side of the coin raising fee's would hurt the youth and regardless what state they are from the youth are the future protectors of hunting.

The idea that raising the rates on upland, but allowing multiple license would reduce the push for NR to buy land has been proven false also. People with enough disposable income to purchase land will not be put off by having an additional $100.00 to 200.00 dollars in cost each year. Some will simply offset the expense by renting out the house and allowing access to the property to cover it.

Field Hunter can tell you about that around the Kulm area for waterfowl.

Raising fee does put more money into the coffers, but it comes at a price, because it pinches the small guy out and opens the door more to the big money spenders. Without the average Joe hunter coming to the state we will face even more opposition from the small business operators in the state as they tend to be the ones that spend money with them vs the high roller that will seek services like those provided by a G/O.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Many good points made. I tend to think negative publicity (res. distaste for NR's) has also kept some NR's from ND. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of NR licenses. Zones ,time periods, ect. also. I don't think we are out of line with our current regulations. I say that from a res. point of view but look around us. Most states have NR regulations more restrictive or equal to ours. The reason NR's are objecting is understandable as we are probably their last hope for reasonable priced quality hunting. They are fighting to maintain that just as we are. Unfortunately many fail to see or consider that overuse of our resources will lower us to the status of their own and other states. Those NR's with foresight have openly supported our regulations knowing that while it may limit their access the access they will have will be a quality experience. There is a solution but it may take a few failures before the right one is found.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Ron, I am being serious, not sarcastic, so thank you for that post. I loved it, especially the part about the youth.



Ron Gilmore said:


> Increasing the cost to them would not stop them from coming here. On the other side of the coin raising fee's would hurt the youth and regardless what state they are from the youth are the future protectors of hunting.


I try to consider myself youthful (28 y/o) and am thankful I had a father to take me hunting and fishing. I was a late bloomer as far as hunting goes. I have an uncle and cousin that would hunt all the time when I was growing up, and I wanted to be like my older cousing because I thought he was "cool". So, I asked my dad to take me hunting and that Christmas (9th grade) he bought me a shotgun and enrolled us (him and I) in hunters safety. We have been die-hards together ever since.

The reason I share that story is because if my dad wouldn't have taken me hunting, I doubt I ever would have become an advocate for it. I don't give much, but I belong to pheasants forever, du, etc... I also go to the "pheasants for the future" banquet and waste money on raffle tickets (I never win, thus the waste comment). The reason I join those organizations is because I get to enjoy myself at their functions and I know that the money for my membership is going to help preserve things I love.

I take kids I know hunting a couple times a year and they have so much fun. The best part is that I usually don't carry a gun, just a camera! :beer:


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

[[/quote]

I take kids I know hunting a couple times a year and they have so much fun. The best part is that I usually don't carry a gun, just a camera! :beer:[/quote]

Amen to that Remmi! Sometimes we forget that hunting is about getting out and enjoying watching the kids, dogs, wildlife.... whatever. Easy to get caught up in bag limits, NR vs. resident hunters and license fees! Man, I wish times were a bit more simple! :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I am not in favor of raising the fees just to get a drop in NR numbers.It won't do it and will shut out an average guy with kids.The only way I see a price increase as necessary is if our GNF says they need more money.

A lottery based cap is the way to go.

That and a limitation on acreage a G/O can lease.


----------



## smalls (Sep 9, 2003)

Exactlly Ken.

I vehemently oppose any attempt to use price as a restrictor. It is the wrong way address the problem of too many hunters. Hunting has got to remain affordable to keep the interests of the common hunter engaged. Otherwise we do not have the voices to accomplish to protect OUR sport from those with economic advantages (hell, even with common hunters engaged we are struggling to get enough people involved).

Implement HPC (a completely fair means of restricting NR hunters based on biological data) and we have solved many of our problems.


----------

