# Deer rifle license are out



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Five years is the charm I got a buck license. How did everyone else do?


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I didn't get one AGAIN !!!!!! I guess that is what happens when you don't apply.... LOL Id rather bowhunt anyway. Most of the places I used to hunt don't want any more outside hunters (even for small game) for fear they will spook or scare THEIR bucks away. Its a shame that most are not knowledgeable enough to know that it is nearly impossible to permanently move a buck out of its core area.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Most of the places I used to hunt don't want any more outside hunters (even for small game) for fear they will spook or scare THEIR bucks away.


 I feel sorry for the next generation. I don't have an optimistic view of hunting in the future. I think the biggest threat is pay hunting. Once that starts you will only hunt if you own land or are rich. Unfortunately the anti hunters will love it. Politicians respond to votes and it will take little time until we are outnumbered.

We are in a fire danger right now, but many years when we are not a handful of ranchers out west will try stop hunting using the excuse of fire danger. In Montana a road that the Forest Service maintained for over a hundred years has been cut off because it passes through a couple sections of a ranch and that rancher started an outfitter business. He has affectively cut hunters off thousands of acres of public land. Then also ranchers pushed for a new law against corner hoping in Montana. Where land looks like a checkerboard (lets say private is red and public is black) you can't step from the corner of one black section to the corner of another black section even if your feet don't touch red. They say part of your body passes over their property. I debate on another site where a man defends that, but says ranchers and hunters need to work together. What a hypocrite. Most of us want to work together, but they work against us behind their back. Of course it's someone else's fault a bill like this passes. They blame it on the politicians. Are we really so stupid we don't know who is behind the bill? We hunters are between a rock (anti hunters) and a hard place (land owners). I wish the land owners were smart enough to know hunters support them now, and if they destroy hunting they loose support.


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

good post Plainsman


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Didn't put in this year as thought would give others the joy. Son-in-law got his for the first time in 5 years. So that was a long time coming. Let another young man set up stand for bow hunting in an abandoned farmyard. He did get his last year but is dreaming of that elusive big one that has got away for some time. I find it more enjoyable watching these young-uns in pursuit and success anymore. Must be getting lazy. Sad, when I was just starting out you could go to the grocery store and buy your tag. Now you have to wait 5 years. Shouldn't be that way. I guess it makes you appreciate it more though.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Let another young man set up stand for bow hunting in an abandoned farmyard.


 Your a good man north1.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> Then also ranchers pushed for a new law against corner hoping in Montana. Where land looks like a checkerboard (lets say private is red and public is black) you can't step from the corner of one black section to the corner of another black section even if your feet don't touch red. They say part of your body passes over their property.


Wouldn't it be fun to have enough money to helicopter in and out of those spots just to spit in the ranchers face. Too bad they don't have section line access like ND does. I suspect its not only to keep hunter out but is an effort by ranchers to pressure the government to sell those parcels because they want them.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I suspect its not only to keep hunter out but is an effort by ranchers to pressure the government to sell those parcels because they want them.


 That's part of it. Many of them support the American Land Council. Sounds good, but it's just the same old Sagebrush Rebellion. They deny this of course. The armed protest in Oregon was just a group of dung pushing to steal public land. Some old ranchers were paid much more than their land was worth for the area that is now Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Now they want it back. Just like the crap along the Missouri here in North Dakota. One guy south of Bismarck, I think he is on the legislature, is pushing hard for it because he wants much of the public area south of Bismarck back. Nothing less than common thieves, but they don't go to prison. Well the Oregon idiots may.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I thought I would come back and see what is happening here. I drew a mule deer buck tag in 4C. Second time in 10 years. I was the only one in our group of 8 applicants.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Thank you for the kind words Plainsman, but in actuality I don't think I am doing something special. I often hear people complain the younger generation are on their cell phones all the time. There is an explosion in drug use, lethargy, disconnection with where their food comes from, play video games all day, you name it. What could be better than giving a young man or woman the ability to enjoy what God has created and spend time on a worthy endeavor. They learn so many life's lessons while hunting. Patience, respect, weapon safety, biology. The list is endless. Life's petty grievances, discomforts, sorrows and the day to day grind melt away when you are surrounded by the wonders of nature God has created. Makes you feel rather small in the scheme of things.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

north1 said:


> Thank you for the kind words Plainsman, but in actuality I don't think I am doing something special. I often hear people complain the younger generation are on their cell phones all the time. There is an explosion in drug use, lethargy, disconnection with where their food comes from, play video games all day, you name it. What could be better than giving a young man or woman the ability to enjoy what God has created and spend time on a worthy endeavor. They learn so many life's lessons while hunting. Patience, respect, weapon safety, biology. The list is endless. Life's petty grievances, discomforts, sorrows and the day to day grind melt away when you are surrounded by the wonders of nature God has created. Makes you feel rather small in the scheme of things.


 You just convinced me more you are not the average guy. Your special in my book. If your ever in Jamestown it would be my privilege to buy you lunch.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

I really think farm organizations should unite with hunters not some on both sides driving wedges between one another. Farm bureau, farmers union, rancher associations. Start a program with willing landowners to provide FREE hunting opportunities to young hunters. Hunters are important to both farmers and ranchers. They keep wildlife populations under control which helps cut crop losses. They reduce predatory species numbers which in turn helps ranchers during calving. Reduce prairie dog populations which improves grazing. Hunter groups support CRP which benefits farmers with marginal land and ranchers for hay production in drought years. Sure there are problems with programs and give and take between the groups that needs to occur. In truth, however; we have MUCH more in common than the differences between us. Heck, a lot of us are both hunters and farmers and ranchers.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

north1 said:


> I really think farm organizations should unite with hunters not some on both sides driving wedges between one another. Farm bureau, farmers union, rancher associations. Start a program with willing landowners to provide FREE hunting opportunities to young hunters. Hunters are important to both farmers and ranchers. They keep wildlife populations under control which helps cut crop losses. They reduce predatory species numbers which in turn helps ranchers during calving. Reduce prairie dog populations which improves grazing. Hunter groups support CRP which benefits farmers with marginal land and ranchers for hay production in drought years. Sure there are problems with programs and give and take between the groups that needs to occur. In truth, however; we have MUCH more in common than the differences between us. Heck, a lot of us are both hunters and farmers and ranchers.


 Keep on talking north1 you give me hope. I have said it dozens of times and perhaps am repeating it here, but organizations unlike individuals have no soul or conscience. You and I don't see pure black and white and can compromise on things. Organizations like DU can only think ducks, and organizations like NDFB can only see corn. You and I can see ducks and corn. Nothing drives a wedge like an organization trying to improve things for one group while shafting the other group.

For example I know one guy who in the past was an officer for the Cattleman's association. If he could get on here he would be trying to drive a wedge between you and I right now. He only sees cows. Everyone else is a pion to serve him. The guy says he isn't for selling off public land, but in the next breath tells everyone how much better the access would be for hunters and how much better the land would be managed. He supports the American Land Council which is a strong advocate of selling off the public land. Nothing would kill hunting faster. Even a city slicker needs land he can walk across and behold God's creation and get that feeling of freedom.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

What farmers don't realize is as they shut us out they will eventually increase the ranks of non-hunters or anti hunters and eventually even their opportunity to hunt may be at risk.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

For the future of hunting pay attention to the American Land Council. I am betting every one of those radicals in Oregon who wanted land back that they were once paid for belonged to the American Land Council. Here is a statement of their goals:

```
The clear solution to federal mismanagement of our public lands is to transfer some of these lands to willing states so that meaningful, sustainable reforms can be instituted by the people who care about proper management of these lands the most. The United States Constitution (Art 4, Sec 3, Clause 2) grants Congress the Power to transfer public lands to the States.
```
 Here read it for yourself:
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/our_mission

Here is their strategy. Transfer it to the states where they can get their hands on it. Better management to them means they get to post it so you can't hunt it. People are always looking for ways to enhance their own pocketbooks. They can't stand to see the feds leaving a head of grass on public land. They can't stand seeing people hunt it without paying. Their measure of value is the thickness of their wallet. Some would want you to believe they just want to help us out. Supporting them would be like chickens supporting Colonel Sanders.

They talk a good talk because they know what the average citizen wants to hear. Talk to a member once. They will start talking about how states were given land to sell to support schools. Now that may be partially true, but once sold it no longer supports schools. I think the idea was the state keeps the lands they were given and uses the rent to support schools then they have school support forever. I think what happened was it was easier and cheaper to corrupt local and state. Well, perhaps not easier, I would guess U S Senators are much more expensive to get in the pocket.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

This is true Plainsman. One quarter per township was designated as school land. Usually it was the NE 1/4 of section 16. Most of this land was sold a long time ago. I farm one quarter that was so designated. Actually a creek runs through it and so it was traded for quarter in SW1/4 of section 10. A country school was built there in the early 1900's and the rest of that quarter was sold. When the country school closed and the annexed land added to the school in the nearest city they sold the few acres of schoolyard land. So it can be very convuluted.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

north1 I am familiar with what you speak of. I think it was an entire section if I am not mistaken. Actually section 16 and 36 of every township.

Edit: Couldn't type everything and not be late for church.

My point to all of this is that much of the land given to states has already been sold. Millions of acres in Nevada and New Mexico. I think I posted some videos from Randy Newberg on that subject. Now that the land is sold it no longer provides income to the state to support schools. States have a history of selling it off. That leaves the taxpayer to foot the entire bill. I think the strategy of the American Land Council is to get land turned over to the states so that they will sell it. That's not what they say, but the republicans have campaigned on repealing Obama care and we know how that went. Same thing with the American Land Council. Can you see our legislature directing management of the public lands in North Dakota. I don't thin half of them can count their toes. 
We all thought North Dakota was superior to other states when it come to fiscal responsibility in our legislature. Surprise. Wouldn't it be great to have a bunch of federal land to sell to get their dumb *** out of trouble? I think it would only take months before we went down the road of selling of public land. I think that's what the American Land Council is depending on. I believe their stated mission is a façade.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm not sure the states are any more capable of managing it than the federal government. The land council knows this but it is easier for them to convince the states to sell it to private interest than it is for the feds. I don't believe ranches can manage it any better than the government. What's happening right now is a prime example. Because of the wetter years we have had they have build their herds to levels that are unsustainable under normal weather conditions. As a result they are overgrazing their available pastures this year and are begging for hay. They are calling it a drought to get sympathy but for the most part it's just normal moisture conditions for most of the west. The federal lands are probably in the best shape BECAUSE of the restrictions on them, but would have been grazed down to nothing just like the private stuff if it was under private ownership. The ranchers may have squeezed a couple more weeks out of it but that probably would have been it and recovery time would have increased comparable to their own lands.


----------

