# 1216 Thank Yous



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The bold type names deserve our thanks!



> MOTION
> SEN. HOLMBERG MOVED that the Senate reconsider its action whereby HB 1216 passed, which motion prevailed on a verification vote.
> 
> SECOND READING OF HOUSE BILL
> ...


Note: Ms. J. Lee is in the Nay column


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

These are the North Dakota Senators who deserve our heartfelt thanks. Please pick your Senators out of the list and let them know you appreciate their effort. For some of them it wasn't easy.

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

One more belated thank you is due.....to Chris Hustad, who makes this all possible. Unfortunately, I drank his gift. :beer:


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

I didn't think of that, now I have a good excuse to have a couple of tall bourbons. :beer: no not beer.


----------



## ndwaterfowler (May 22, 2005)

Dick Monson said:


> The bold type names deserve our thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I saw that as well! Feels great to know that we were able to sway her vote because she was completely for it just two days earlier. I have e-mailed her thanking her for her vote. :beer:


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

ndwaterfowler said:


> I have e-mailed her thanking her for her vote.


Ditto.....


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Now that the legislature is winding down and this issue is settled. I had a couple of questions. Just so everyone understands. I'm asking these 2 questions simply to get an answer on one, and other peoples take on the latter. Not to get in a debate, regardless of what Ron starts in with.

Question one. If my math is correct, 4 legislators that Dick called "political hacks" apparently listened to their constituents concerns and changed their vote. Will Dick make a public appology on here to those individuals?

Question two. This was asked in the thread about this legislation and not one person answered, so I was wondering if anyone will now. If DU or PF or Delta are allowed to buy land for wildlife, or if on their wildlife projects they have here in ND, they fly in some of the head guys from Bennelli or Remington, and film them shooting birds for a show that they in turn sell thousands of dollars of advertising on to these companies, and get thousands more in donations from, is this commercialization of wildlife that everyone seems to comment on.

It will be interesting to get peoples take on this. Thanks


----------



## ndwaterfowler (May 22, 2005)

gst said:


> Now that the legislature is winding down and this issue is settled. I had a couple of questions. Just so everyone understands. I'm asking these 2 questions simply to get an answer on one, and other peoples take on the latter. Not to get in a debate, regardless of what Ron starts in with.
> 
> Question one. If my math is correct, 4 legislators that Dick called "political hacks" apparently listened to their constituents concerns and changed their vote. Will Dick make a public appology on here to those individuals?
> 
> ...


If DU, Delta and even the Game and Fish for that matter are involved in raising money, that money is going back into the habitat, birds, hen houses etc. in some way shpe or form. When those who have been tagged as commercializing wildlife start putting back what they are taking out, then I think they would stand a better chance of shaking that label. It is unfortunate that so many people are out to shoot endless limits of game and yet a lot of them don't give back. THAT more than anything is what irritates me. What is YOUR take on it?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

GST



> Question one. If my math is correct, 4 legislators that Dick called "political hacks" apparently listened to their constituents concerns and changed their vote. Will Dick make a public appology on here to those individuals?


Totally up to Dick, however, In my opinion no apology is necessary. Legislators work for us we do not work for them. If they do not represent us the way we ask them to they deserve to be call out on the carpet.

The options are call them out or work to have them replaced in the next election. Incumbents in ND have a better than even chance of re-election no matter how they vote. Just a fact of ND politics, and one of the reasons we have so many long term legislators, state and federal.



> Question two. This was asked in the thread about this legislation and not one person answered, so I was wondering if anyone will now. If DU or PF or Delta are allowed to buy land for wildlife, or if on their wildlife projects they have here in ND, they fly in some of the head guys from Bennelli or Remington, and film them shooting birds for a show that they in turn sell thousands of dollars of advertising on to these companies, and get thousands more in donations from, is this commercialization of wildlife that everyone seems to comment on.


Yes I would consider this a form of commercilization. I have had my differences with quite a few on my views of commercialization of wildlife through guides and outfitters. I believe ND needs to have some guides and outfitters, just as i believe we need to have some Non profit land purchases. There is and always will be a percentage of the population that wants someone to cater to their needs, Guides and outfitters provide this service. Non Profits often restore habitat to better environmental conditions. I do not think that they should get any special perks from the legislature just because they are in their particular business. Balancing the supply with demand should be the ultimate goal. The give and take aspect of commercilization cannot, or should not be overlooked when Non-profit land purchases or guide and outfitter issues arise.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

DU,PF, and other groups aren't charging for what you are asking.The money they collect are donations.....my $5 donation is counted the same as $1,000.

Also,I can go to the same pothole or field and hunt alongside them.If by commercialized you mean G/O you can't do that w/o paying

So what is your definition of "commercialization?Leased land?.....farmers charging to hunt their land?....Small town businesses that make money off of hunters?.....G/O??


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

ndwaterfowler said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > Now that the legislature is winding down and this issue is settled. I had a couple of questions. Just so everyone understands. I'm asking these 2 questions simply to get an answer on one, and other peoples take on the latter. Not to get in a debate, regardless of what Ron starts in with.
> ...


To bad there is not a way to do a survey and see how much time and money the g/o putts into habitat. In the last 2 weeks we have planted over 500 trees and put 225 acres into crp. It seems to me the g/o that i have known in SD do more for the habitat than the so called average hunter. But i guess i keep comparing pheasant hunting in Sd To Nd and it sounds like it is a apple to oranges comparison. We have a bunch you dont.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Bob Kellam said:


> I have had my differences with quite a few on my views of commercialization of wildlife through guides and outfitters. I believe ND needs to have some guides and outfitters, just as i believe we need to have some Non profit land purchases.


Just like we need disease and pestilence, zebra muscles and milfoil, mosquitos and roaches. They all have a role, they all serve a purpose. 

***

I think a big thank you should go to Dick. He has the precise qualities of someone who should be in the policy and decision making positions regarding G&F.

M.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> To bad there is not a way to do a survey and see how much time and money the g/o putts into habitat. In the last 2 weeks we have planted over 500 trees and put 225 acres into crp. It seems to me the g/o that i have known in SD do more for the habitat than the so called average hunter. But i guess i keep comparing pheasant hunting in Sd To Nd and it sounds like it is a apple to oranges comparison. We have a bunch you dont.


225 acres? Resident and Non-resident hunters have paid through their license fees to set aside around a Million acres of PLOTS land in ND. Pretty big impact by the average hunter IMO.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

KurtR said:


> To bad there is not a way to do a survey and see how much time and money the g/o putts into habitat. In the last 2 weeks we have planted over 500 trees and put 225 acres into crp. It seems to me the g/o that i have known in SD do more for the habitat than the so called average hunter. But i guess i keep comparing pheasant hunting in Sd To Nd and it sounds like it is a apple to oranges comparison. We have a bunch you dont.


I don't think the local landowners would appreciate it if I started planting trees all over their land. So tell me, what is it you expect from the average hunter? Keep in mind now most of us are not landowners.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The legislators who preserved land acquisition for NDGF and those who dumped HB-1216 desrve the thanks from all sportsmen. They did not take that stand to enrich themselves from the sale of wildlife. When it comes to wildlife legislation there are some legislators who read NodakOutdoors. Apparently enough.

Citizens got involved in this effort. Plain and simple, the ND public spoke up. Credit to each and everyone of them. Fact is, the people won out because the people got involved. Bob Kellam worked tirelessly tracking bills all session during a major flood in his town; and many others too, behind the scenes, worked hard to get the job done. :beer:

There are people who cannot see value in public land, public green space.
They would sooner see a cow pasture or a housing developement. Think about this. The single biggest draw for ND tourism is TRNP ($$$millions$$$). And that park could never be put in place today because of the prejudice against public land. Go figure.


----------



## ndwaterfowler (May 22, 2005)

AdamFisk said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> > To bad there is not a way to do a survey and see how much time and money the g/o putts into habitat. In the last 2 weeks we have planted over 500 trees and put 225 acres into crp. It seems to me the g/o that i have known in SD do more for the habitat than the so called average hunter. But i guess i keep comparing pheasant hunting in Sd To Nd and it sounds like it is a apple to oranges comparison. We have a bunch you dont.
> ...


There are many things you can do. Volunteer your time to your local Delta or DU chapter, put up hen houses, buy an extra Federal duck stamp, every little bit helps and when you get a bunch of people doing it you would be surprised at the impact! :thumb:

Chris


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Bob Kellam said:


> > To bad there is not a way to do a survey and see how much time and money the g/o putts into habitat. In the last 2 weeks we have planted over 500 trees and put 225 acres into crp. It seems to me the g/o that i have known in SD do more for the habitat than the so called average hunter. But i guess i keep comparing pheasant hunting in Sd To Nd and it sounds like it is a apple to oranges comparison. We have a bunch you dont.
> 
> 
> 225 acres? Resident and Non-resident hunters have paid through their license fees to set aside around a Million acres of PLOTS land in ND. Pretty big impact by the average hunter IMO.


Bobby whats nd hold up we have that in just our walk in program, then there is the chaps program that the state enrolls landowners in that have to have a minimum on 1000 acres to start for big game hunting by reservations with the land owner. Then there is the state game production areas that are owned by the state and there is few hundred thousand acres in that program for public hunting. Core land, national grasslands and we have 3 times as many out of state hunters than you guys and still there is public land loaded with birds. So now we have that coverd and were not even talking about that from the start any way.

If you dont own land you can help land owners or help the orgs that were mentioned. And dont think that you deserve to go on anyones land. It is theres and what they decide to do with it is there buisness as long as it legal.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I don't know the answer to these questions so maybe some one can share it. In regards to the dollars sportsmen put into conservation thru license purchases. If a sportsman bought every license avaliable thru a draw or over the counter in ND in one year, how many dollars of that total go toward conservation practices?

On the around a million acres of plots land are there any requirements to develope habitat orconservation practices, or just allow access?

Also, does anyone know how many acres of wildlife management areas, refuges, state parks, national parks, national grasslands, waterfowl production areas, DU project acres, ect.. there are in the state of ND?

I'd like to hear some more takes from some of the other people criticizing the commercialization aspect before I answer the couple of questions asked on here. Thanks


----------



## hammerhead (Dec 22, 2004)

the G/O is into improving habitat for themselves and their clients. any improvements they make are for themselves, not for the good of all hunters.


----------



## ndwaterfowler (May 22, 2005)

gst said:


> I'd like to hear some more takes from some of the other people criticizing the commercialization aspect before I answer the couple of questions asked on here. Thanks


I guess I'm not understanding your thought process. Are you calling people out on this one or are you waiting for a bunch of people to post so you can make up your mind?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I actually thought with the number of people talking about the commercialization of wildlife on this site, there would have been more replies. But to answer some questions, heres my take. When orgs. like DU,PF, Delta, ect. do what I gave an example of, to me this is as much a commercialization of wildlife as anything else. They are using the birds as well as the hunting experience of these individuals representing these firearms mfgs. ammunition companies ect... to gain monies thru advertising and donations. Some of these monies go towards conservation, many go towards salaries that are used by these people for whatever purpose they choose. The gun and ammunition mfgs. are using the birds and the hunting experience and these orgs TV show to sell more of what they make to make more of a profit that is used however they choose. How does this differ from a G&O doing the same? These are the "publics resources" that are being shot! The comment was made that someone can hunt beside the DU fellas but not the G&O. If this is the reasoning behind this it simply for many people is not about commercializing the resource, or tradition, but merely about access and opportunity. And the question then becomes should these two things be delt with thru regulation.

If a G&O is raising 500 birds and releasing them, do you suppose they all remain soley on the property he uses. If he plants habitat, food plots and puts out feeders to help birds make it thru the winter, do you suppose it is only the birds his clients shoot the following year that survive? If a G&O decides to leave his cattail sloughs instead of farming them do all the wildlife that may use them stay soley on his property? If A G&O plants thousands of dollars of trees do all the bucks stay only on his properties during the rut? Is it about the resource and conservation, or simply access and opportunity?

To answer one of my own questions, there is no habitat developement or conservation requirement for PLOTS, only access. So lets do some math. there are approximately 1 million acres in plots open to the public. From a site Bob sent me there are approximately 3 million acres of federal and statelands in wildlife habitat, or about 10 % of ND total acres which about 2/3 s are open to public hunting, there are approximately 4 million acres of privately owned wetlands in ND, WITHOUT the CRP,WRP acres, shelter belts, grasslands enrolled in conservation grazing programs, notill farming acres, wetland easements, or other conservation type practices that benefit wildlife, there are approximately 8 or 9 million acres of ND dedicated to and avalible for wildlife habitat and conservation, or approximately 25 to 30% of the entire state of ND. How much is enough. The article Bob forwarded to me from the G&F states that there are far more federal and state lands in western ND than are in the east, so perhaps that is why there appears to be a regional difference in peoples veiws on this site. Or maybe not.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I think there is a difference here based on where you are at. We have discussed that before. Land values and the flyways are also big factors.

It is about access and opportunity. And there is no way that should be taken away. If g/o's are regulated by the state and only the serious g/o's practice in ND I think there is a way to co-exist. As I said earlier commercialization is inevitable, it has to be done right while we have the chance. Staying ahead of the curve is the key and that lies on the legislature. Like KurtR said in SD they seem to have some sort of harmony and we need to get the necessary systems in place first instead of ending up like Texas.

I guess saying it is about access addresses the difference between delta, pf, du, etc and g/o's in the area of commercialization. Although I do believe that DU needs to re-evaluate their development plans to make sure they are not stepping on toes.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

If the difference for many people is simply access, than the question is should this be left to individuals to gain thru establishing relationships, friendships, and simple courtesy and communication as has been the tradition of ND hunters, or should it be provided thru increased regulations? Which method of gaining access will ultimately benefit the heritage and the future of hunting here in ND?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Both,

the increased regs on g/o's to insure the resource and access which will also help good g/o's by keeping the riff raff out.

Hunters doing a better job at landowner relations will insure the access. Hopefully everyone knows they have a responsibility with landowners.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

TK33 said:


> Both,
> 
> the increased regs on g/o's to insure the resource and access which will also help good g/o's by keeping the riff raff out.
> 
> Hunters doing a better job at landowner relations will insure the access. Hopefully everyone knows they have a responsibility with landowners.


You said a mouthful. :thumb:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

The type of actions and regulations I'm talking about aren't necessarily the ones aimed at the G&O industry, but rather the landowner. If you go back thru the last few legislative sessions, for every legislator that introduces bills that "exploit or commercialize" wildlife, there is another that introduces bills to "regulate" hunting opportunity and access. So much so that Terry Stienwand has commented on this change they have seen in expectations and attitudes. I'm simply saying I don't think either of these types of lawmakers or regulations are good for the future of hunting in ND. TK's last comment goes a long ways to determine this not only in one on one relationships but in the legislative arena as well


----------

