# Does ND need a Non Resident Cap



## water_swater

*Does ND need a Non Resident Cap*​
Yes9066.67%No4533.33%


----------



## water_swater

As usual a post that started out fine turned into a pissing contest, lets just count numbers this time!


----------



## mnwatrfwl

Why don't you just quit starting trouble, it is their state let them run how they see fit.

You don't like the NR issues go somewhere else, alberta, LA, Arkansas, etc.

If NR's are allowed or not it is their say. All this does is start a pissing match.

Just my .02


----------



## DJRooster

Can't vote until I know a number!!!


----------



## BurnZ

oh look... here's a new topic. Resident vs. Non-Resident. Don't see that to ofter on this site.

give a rest. :eyeroll:


----------



## sotaman

drop this crap last time I checked we are all americans. But how ever ****** in your weaties this morning must have done a good job of it. I hope you never pull a boat to minnesota then.


----------



## R y a n

OK EVERYONE

Nodak Outdoors, Chris, Myself and all the other MODS here are getting TIRED of babysitting certain forums/people.

:******:

Water swater started a post simply asking if a NR cap is needed. He asked that all the emotion and name calling cease as his last post cascaded down that path.

I fully realize this has been asked in the past. It DOES get old. That being said, he simply asked the question. He wanted a fresh discussion hopefully void of name calling.

Now, on one hand we could look at his question as trying to re-hash and further continue to stir the pot of a beaten up topic. On the other hand he could be trying to foster a new discussion given the large increase in NR's he now perceives. He may not have been trying to cause trouble at all. We don't know for sure. Only he knows his true intentions.

I was PM'd the question about when the NR BS will stop. How do we decide when a thread remains open vs. locked? Posters here have the right to bring up topics. This is the *HOT* *TOPICS *forum. It was SPECIFICALLY created for these types of HOT button issues.

Should Nodak Outdoors have a black and white policy of no new NR topics? I don't think so personally. I'm an NR myself. I realize how important a topic this thread is to the state's resident's.

This kind of stuff SHOULD be talked about. Respectfully. With intelligent arguments.

If you are tired of the Hot topics threads, *don't visit the Hot Topics forum*. There are many other Nodak Outdoors forums that discuss many things hunting/fishing. That is why we created sub-topics in the first place.

This thread will remain open for now... let's see if we can keep the debate civil and on topic.

My $.02

Ryan


----------



## HonkerExpress

That all depends on what area they are going to be hunting, lmao. I guess I see the point for limiting the numbers of NR. I realize NR bring money in to our communitys, in our bars, our stores, our cafes, and what not. I really do enjoy meeting some new people every year. I do personally dread when I have to come across the NR's that think we owe them sometthing because they drove all the way up here to hunt in our state.

--partially edited by Ryan for brevity--

If I could meet people from MN, WI, IL like the ones I hunt with every year, I would really enjoy it. I see the point for limits, but at the same time I see it hurting the small communitees. Just my two cents. I mean crap, we even rent out a house to NR hunters, I really enjoy the company of alot of them. Its nice to catch up with old/new friends you meet every year. Just my :2cents:


----------



## sotaman

HonkerExpress said:


> That all depends on what area they are going to be hunting, lmao. I guess I see the point for limiting the numbers of NR. I realize NR bring money in to our communitys, in our bars, our stores, our cafes, and what not. I really do enjoy meeting some new people every year. I do personally dread when I have to come across the NR's that think we owe them sometthing because they drove all the way up here to hunt in our state.
> 
> Thats the thing, this is "OUR" state, I don't just vacation here. I bust my azz to stay here, I know I don't make as much as you do. But just because you are a NR here for a "vacation", don't tell me I owe you something. Or I should surrender my field to you because you drove 15 hours away. I really don't care, I was born here, raised here, and I will die here. I guess thats my side of the story.


Hokerexpress

You want to talk about a sence of entitlement. A lot of residents or far worse then non.

--partially edited by Ryan--

A smiling face and the nuts to knock on a door goes a long ways. No matter what licence plate you have on your truck


----------



## R y a n

Ok guys you are BOTH off topic.

Stick to the topic or I'll be deleting posts.

Does ND need a NR cap? Yes/No... why or why not?

No individual personal stories please.

Ryan


----------



## nadz_MN

Now were getting somewhere constructive..

--partially edited by Ryan--

I thank the store owners ,the farmers and the locals for giving us NR's a chance to experience these amazing birds..

Good hunting to all, and most of all be safe...

p.s. Sorry Ryan, sending as you sent..

--No problem I pulled it up into your first post-- Regards, Ryan


----------



## N2DUXS

I am a non-resident and I voted "YES", there should be a cap put in place for Non-Resident hunters. If that means that I won't get to enjoy ND EVERY year, so be it. It will make me cherrish each and every time I get to go that much more and the quality of hunting will increase. ND is a unique place to hunt, so why turn it into every other state (except SD) in the Mississippi and Central flyway?


----------



## HonkerExpress

I agree with N2DUXS, very well put. couldn't agree more. :beer:


----------



## jhegg

I vote yes, but only to maintain the quality of hunting in ND.


----------



## Chuck Smith

I believe they don't need a cap.

But once I see numbers saying they need a cap on *ALL* hunters. Then I can see a cap. Something like 80% licsense sales to R and 20% to NR. or what every percentage gets voted on. But I need to see the number in duck populations and what not to warrant a *TOTAL CAP* on hunters.

Chuck.


----------



## Gohon

Wow............ last time I saw someone take it upon themselves to censor public discussion this much he invaded Europe. Get a grip on yourself Ryan. This section you cut from HonkerExpress


> "That's the thing, this is "OUR" state, I don't just vacation here. I bust my azz to stay here, I know I don't make as much as you do. But just because you are a NR here for a "vacation", don't tell me I owe you something. Or I should surrender my field to you because you drove 15 hours away. I really don't care, I was born here, raised here, and I will die here. I guess that's my side of the story"


 is not inflammatory. He merely expressed the reason he feels the way he does and it is helpful at times to know where people are coming from with their posts. I think people on here are educated enough and old enough to sort through this themselves without you deciding what they should or should not read. So much for the First Amendment.


----------



## R y a n

Gohon said:


> Wow............ last time I saw someone take it upon themselves to censor public discussion this much he invaded Europe. Get a grip on yourself Ryan. This section you cut from HonkerExpress
> 
> 
> 
> "That's the thing, this is "OUR" state, I don't just vacation here. I bust my azz to stay here, I know I don't make as much as you do. But just because you are a NR here for a "vacation", don't tell me I owe you something. Or I should surrender my field to you because you drove 15 hours away. I really don't care, I was born here, raised here, and I will die here. I guess that's my side of the story"
> 
> 
> 
> is not inflammatory. He merely expressed the reason he feels the way he does and it is helpful at times to know where people are coming from with their posts. I think people on here are educated enough and old enough to sort through this themselves. So much for the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Gohon

Thanks for your input. If you notice what I typed... I didn't remove it because it was inflammatory, rather I removed it for brevity and to keep the post from getting further off topic than it already was. I had just posted about keeping things on topic and again we had someone go off on a personal story tangent.

Too many topics here on Hot Topics are being hi-jacked lately with guys with personal agendas. I was simply trying to keep the thread specific.

Next time, PM me with this thought. Unless of course you were trying to take a shot at me for everyone to see...

Ryan


----------



## Gohon

No Ryan, what I posted were my thoughts and I suspect I wasn't alone. A personal shot from me would be loud and clear and very unmistakable. You're right, the NR debates do get hot and they do almost always turn into foolish postings and I don't have a dog in that fight so for the most part I stay out of them. But I'll tell you this much........... watching what some of the resident posters put out and to a degree some of what the non-resident posters put out, sure opened my eyes to what type a lot of people that live in North Dakota are. I'll let you figure out which road that runs on but do note I said a lot, not all........ have a nice day.


----------



## jhegg

Chuck,
Your comment is similar to what I see other nr's saying - basically if you are going to cap me, cap yourself also. Then it is "fair". Well, look at it this way:

Back in 1990 or so, there were 5,000 to 10,000 nonresident waterfowl hunters and about 50,000 resident waterfowl hunters. Now, we have about the same (or less) resident waterfowl hunters and upwards of 30,000 nr waterfowl hunters. So I ask you, where is the additional waterfowl hunting pressure coming from? If you can corectly deduce that it is coming from the nr hunter - congrats! You get an "A" for the day.

Are you trying to tell me that we should restrict the resident hunter so the nr hunter can get his "due"? Bull....if you want resident hunter privileges, become a resident. If you are not willing to become a resident, then take what you are offered as a nr or hunt some where else where you are more comfortable with the regulations.


----------



## water_swater

but now I am, but I really dont want to cap Minnesotans or Wisconsonites, I want to cap people who have no respect for North Dakotans, our state, and very often our resource. All too often there is the mentality, I dont care I wont be here tommorrow or next week. Those are the people I want to cap. I have zero problems with those hunters who come to ND and make every attempt to do things right and give respect to landowners and other hunters. I too have friends from out of state who may no be able to come, but everything has trade-offs.
I hunted last weekend with a student from UND, a Minnesotan he was my brothers friend, I have never met him or hunted with him before, he was courteous, asked before doing something, and spent extra time stuffing blinds and doing all the little annoying stuff about field hunting. After the hunt he said wow that was so awesome I havent seen that many ducks in five years of hunting in Minnesota, he truly enjoyed the experience, and that gave me a feeling satisfaction. He did ask,however, when we started setting up in the field WTF we were doing, how we were gonna shoot ducks there. He really did not know you could hunt ducks in fields as I'm sure many other MN dont. I still dont feel sorry for them, if they dont care enough to read and observe about the birds they're hunting, i dont think they have should have the priveledge of hunting my state, they just wanna shoot. What are we going to do make every NR pass a waterfowl test before they come, even if they pass who knows if they'll care.

P.S. he did constantly get ripped on after he asked that question, we thought about going and grabbing a dingy and taking pics of him in the field in the boat with all the ducks in the spread


----------



## HonkerExpress

If someone wants to think less of me for my personal feelings then go right ahead. But I just think everyone should know this. I don't hate NR's, I have alot of friends that come up for there two weekends a year and hunt with me. I have no problem with guys coming over and hunting. I know we are blessed to have the resources we do. So if you want to think I am a bad person becasue of what I say, then you must fall into that catagory of people my last post was edited about.

If you come up and treat me as an equal, I have no problem with you. Because I nor anyone else I hunt with cares what you do for a living, how much more money you make then me, how far you drove to get here and not shoot a duck, that bothers me. I have had one to many NR's try to tell me where they are setting up in the morning, after I have scouted the field days in advance and they role up to it and think its there's because they make more money, have a nicer vehicle, whatever their reason is for being an azz to someone. I really don't care. I am sure this will be edited again, but I just figured I would put it out there.


----------



## R y a n

HonkerExpress said:


> If someone wants to think less of me for my personal feelings then go right ahead. But I just think everyone should know this. I don't hate NR's, I have alot of friends that come up for there two weekends a year and hunt with me. I have no problem with guys coming over and hunting. I know we are blessed to have the resources we do. So if you want to think I am a bad person becasue of what I say, then you must fall into that catagory of people my last post was edited about.
> 
> If you come up and treat me as an equal, I have no problem with you. Because I nor anyone else I hunt with cares what you do for a living, how much more money you make then me, how far you drove to get here and not shoot a duck, that bothers me. I have had one to many NR's try to tell me where they are setting up in the morning, after I have scouted the field days in advance and they role up to it and think its there's because they make more money, have a nicer vehicle, whatever their reason is for being an azz to someone. I really don't care. I am sure this will be edited again, but I just figured I would put it out there.


<sigh>

So what does this have to do with Caps? This has nothing to do with personal feelings. Please keep this chat on topic to the original post like others have managed to do.

Ryan


----------



## gaddyshooter

I am going to have to vote yes on this one. I believe the number should be set as a function of the bird populations and water conditions. I also think that the way the zones spead the presure out would need to continue. Also more than a total cap on NR numbers, I think a cap on hunters allowed each week would work.

Just a question to the residents up there. When I first started coming up there, 1999 I believe was my first year, the NR numbers have came up from somewhere around 10000-15000, to around 30,000 per year now. There wasn't that many posts about too much pressure when numbers were at the 10-15 thousand level, so my question is when did the pressure start bothering you as a hunter? As I and many Nr have stated on here, when we came up, we didn't hardly even see another group hunting, let alone get interfered with by another group, so when did the pressure get to be "too much" in your opinion.?


----------



## DJRooster

Like I said, give me a number or how you will determine the number for a cap. SODAK has a waterfowl cap of 5000. Am I in favor of a number such as this? NO! Do I like the present regulations. Yes, I think it has worked for 15 years of wet. Does it work for a dry year? Well we shall see. I can see our upland game revenues up because the birds are doing well and our waterfowl revenues being down because of the dry conditions. So it goes with changing conditions. If we have 30,000 NR trying to hunt the existing waterfowl there will be pressure in the traditional areas because they are the areas that historically have the water and water and waterfowl go hand in hand. However, these areas always have intense hunting pressure. I think it is very fair in the wet years but I'm not sure about the dry years. Our cap is so liberal that any NR that thinks it is restrictive is a whiner. One man's opinion.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Jhegg....

So you are saying that back in the 1990's there was about 60,000 hunters both R and NR. With that number only 10,000 were NR. Ok now the number is about 30,000 and 30,000.......Where is the added pressure? There is the same amount of hunters?

Now I will answer my own questions....the pressure is coming in about a 3 week period when all of these hunters are in the feild. I understand that. But total pressure on the resource is the same.....60,000 hunters. That is why I don't see a cap helping with total hunting pressure.

I know you would have less hunters those three weeks....but like mentioned....this is all during a wet period! Now with a dry period and 40,000 people in the feild would = about the same pressure. You can give me the stats about how most R hunters hunt on the weekends....but a weekend of constant pressure will move birds out of an area too.

What I have always been saying is limit another week, have rest days, pass a law stating NR can not hunt 14 days in a row, If you wanted to cut the days down to 10 days, etc. I think stuff like this will help the resource more than a cap. I think a cap is a band aid on a gun shot wound of the bigger picture. That is why I say a cap on all hunters. Lets say 60,000 hunters......80% be for R and 20% NR. That 48,000 licsenese availble for the R....that is more than are hunting now. (according to your numbers).

I don't think that the restrictions that are now in place are bad at all. But I just think a cap is not the answer unless you cap all.
_____________________________________________________________

I know everyone mentions SD and the figures I found is that SD has about 90,000 R lisc sales and then the NR cap. Now that is more people hunting ducks than ND. IF I am wrong please someone clariy that for me.

- I was going by R small games sales. The small game lisc gives them the oppurtunity to hunt both.


----------



## KEN W

Chuck Smith said:


> Jhegg....
> 
> So you are saying that back in the 1990's there was about 60,000 hunters both R and NR. With that number only 10,000 were NR. Ok now the number is about 30,000 and 30,000.......Where is the added pressure? There is the same amount of hunters?
> 
> Now I will answer my own questions....the pressure is coming in about a 3 week period when all of these hunters are in the feild. I understand that. But total pressure on the resource is the same.....60,000 hunters. That is why I don't see a cap helping with total hunting pressure.
> 
> I know you would have less hunters those three weeks....but like mentioned....this is all during a wet period! Now with a dry period and 40,000 people in the feild would = about the same pressure. You can give me the stats about how most R hunters hunt on the weekends....but a weekend of constant pressure will move birds out of an area too.
> 
> What I have always been saying is limit another week, have rest days, pass a law stating NR can not hunt 14 days in a row, If you wanted to cut the days down to 10 days, etc. I think stuff like this will help the resource more than a cap. I think a cap is a band aid on a gun shot wound of the bigger picture. You can also use the NR to help fund more programs.....I know many that would favor a rise in lisc price if it went to a certain access program or enforcement.
> 
> I don't think that the restrictions that are now in place are bad at all. But I just think a cap is not the answer.
> _____________________________________________________________
> 
> I know everyone mentions SD and the figures I found is that SD has about 90,000 R lisc sales and then the NR cap. Now that is more people hunting ducks than ND. IF I am wrong please someone clariy that for me.
> 
> - I was going by R small games sales. The small game lisc gives them the oppurtunity to hunt both.


You don't see the difference????

The difference is huge.Those 50,000 resident hunters hunted on Sat and Sun and then went back to work.Now we have 30,000 non-res. ,some of who go home after the weekend,but most are here for a week.....non-stop pressure vs weekend only pressure.

We need less hunting pressure all week.There are 2 ways to do this.

1. A cap

2. Require a book of leg tags so they can't hammer the ducks every day for 6-7 days and eat or give them away to stay under the possesion limit.


----------



## jd mn/nd

I would say that you are going to have a tough time proving the reason seeing as how the NR lisc. sales has been on the decrease the pasts few years for example last year nr waterfowl lisc. was only 18,000 or so not the 30,000 everyone keeps referencing. It has not been at or near 30,000 for at least 4 years now the most ever sold of nr lisc was 4 falls ago and it only went to 24,000. If I am wrong someone I am sure could post up the accurate stats for all to see.


----------



## sotaman

2. Require a book of leg tags so they can't hammer the ducks every day for 6-7 days and eat or give them away to stay under the possesion limit.

Not a bad idea a little more thought would help


----------



## jd mn/nd

Ken you always bring up the leg tag thing, however there are several reasons that it did not work 20+ years ago and it will not work now, one is who in the heck is going to walk around with a pocket full of tags for species that have no possesion limit, like S&B, not mention for all of the small game as well don't you remember how they use to stick them to the back side of lisc. book and and then you would carry them around with you and they would fall off or would not stick when you went to use them, not mention people sharing tags or hey he shot that one, whatever. Nest imagine the cost of printing all of those books of tags just for us NR's holy crap that would hundreds of thousands of dollars, secondly how would they issue them oh by mail, I see now that would generate more expense would'nt it so now lets see stopped the NR from pummelling our resource but we have no money left to secure habitat or take of our leases on the plots etc... It won't happen, seldom if ever does a goverment entity of any kind return to a plan they abandon, that would be having to admit they were wrong, it would generate a crazy amount of money being spent on legislation to undo what they already did and then even more crazy money being spent on implementing the plan again.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ken.....

Jhegg stated that 30,000 R hunt and 30,000 NR, a total of 60,000....just like in the 90's. That is where I don't see.

But if you have 50,000 R hunters and 30,000 that is 20,000 more people....and yes I can see the difference. But the R already has a week of hunting. SO it would be the R second and third week of hunting.

But I like the leg tag idea, but it just needs to be tweeked. And I am not sure how to tweek it. Sorry....

Because I totally agree with you about if a NR or R hunts a week straight and shoots limits everyday, then gives them away so they can shoot more. That is just being a game hog. But if these people eat them I see no problem with it. Just my .02 cents.


----------



## djleye

> I don't think that the restrictions that are now in place are bad at all. But I just think a cap is not the answer unless you cap all.


Yea, right. Tell a ND person that they cannot hunt when a NR gets a license. That will go over like a turd in the punch bowl. Not gonna happen!! :eyeroll:


----------



## jd mn/nd

Ok for the last time someone explain to me why a cap is needed if the number of lisc. being sold to both the NR and the RES are decreasing and have been for the past few years? To me that sounds like less hunters equals less pressure last year was I believe under 60,000 total both res and nr, and 60+% being residents so less than 30% being NR's show me where the pressure is?


----------



## PSDC

Djleye,

The state of ND does it for buck tags correct?


----------



## Chuck Smith

Djleye...

What do you mean???


----------



## jd mn/nd

Nope that is a lottery and the number of NR lisc sold is a percentage of the total of the lottery, second you are now comparing a state only resource to a state and federal resource, there's just a little bit of a difference between a deer and waterfowl as well one runs on four legs and the other fly's with wings over three continents twice a year.


----------



## sotaman

So if so many agree to a cap whats the number?? Why not something like the deer lottery for all. If it is that bad wouldn't we all be willing to sacrifce for the betterment of the sport. How many restrict the pressure they put on the birds ??


----------



## PSDC

Lottery vs. cap. Don't see the difference. Why not install the 
same system for waterfowl?


----------



## jd mn/nd

Because the residents my not be able to all hunt as they will would also be limited by the same restrictions they are trying to put on the NR's, That's why.
Also in case you did not know only some residents draw a deer tag although in the past several years more and more have gotten them vs years ago where they applied for years to get any knid of preference to a buck tag.


----------



## Chuck Smith

The hard part about a lottery is......

The state says there are X amount of deer in the state and Z amout needs to be harvasted.

With waterfowl.......You don't know the number that will be traveling through the state.

That is why a lotto won't work. IMO

I still don't see why a cap on all with percentages won't work.

Everyone is saying that there are more NR hunters than R. Ok take the total amount of lisc sales sold and then uses your percentages to make sure all the R that are hunting now get a license and have room to spare!

Example.....100,000 Total licenses.....80% goes to R and 20% goes to NR. That means 80,000 licenses to the R. From what people are stating that is almost double the amount of people hunting and puts a 20,000 NR lisc cap! You see you are capping the NR and you are also capping the R. But it does not effect the R hunters at all. IT only effects the NR!!! But this way it seems you are capping all!!!!

But a cap on all is the only way I see a cap working. But I am not a 100% this will work with pressure in dry years. Because in dry years if you have 40,000 R hunting all in the same area.....it will still drive birds out.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Hey chuck tell me the last time that all 40,000 residents hunted the same area, and pushed all of the birds out at the same time? And with your little set up there no one is limited except the NR's so what would be the point of spending more money in legislation just end up with a moot point? Save the cash and spend it on habitat!!!!

And yet again how do you folks think your going to get a cap passed when the NR lisc. sales have decreased the last 4 seasons? No body in the home office is going to buy that garbage!!!! You don't have a point to sell them or convince them with so it won't happen will it?


----------



## Bob Kellam

Here is how the NDGF looks at this.

This is a part of the NDGF strategic plan to 2010.

Goal: 
The goal of the Ducks and Geese Program is to provide maximum, sustained, quality recreational opportunity consistent with the welfare of all resources, laws, treaties, and sustained profitable agriculture. 
Objectives through 2010 are shown below:

Objective 1. Manage Hunter Numbers

Objective IA. Maintain at least 35,000 resident waterfowl hunters and increase the number of resident hunters to 45,000 (30 percent increase from 1980's)

Objective 1B. 
Regulate nonresident hunter numbers to manage total hunting pressure using Hunter Pressure Concept II. HPC II uses the relationship between the abundance of wetlands (types 4, 5, 6p, 6dug and PS) and hunting pressure for 1975 through 2001 to adjust the nonresident hunter numbers annually. The formula is: R + (NR x 1.36) = 33.097 x WI + 31326.

To read the whole Document

Go to this link

http://gf.nd.gov/news/docs/chap1.pdf


----------



## Chuck Smith

Jd,

I am with you. I have never seen all 40,000 residents all out hunting the same time or the same spot....I also have never seen all 30,000 NR hunting the same time or in the same place.

I want to have better stats on "PRESSURE". I have stated in previous posts that it does not matter who pressures the birds. They will move. You may have R's hitting one spot for a long three day weekend....guess what those birds will move. So pressure is pressure no matter who puts it on.

But people keep talking about a cap and the only way I can somewhat rationalize a cap is if you cap all. Plus the cap I am talking about needs to be driven by production and nesting numbers. I know it only limits the NR. That is my point. But nobody has agreed that this type of cap is good. Because they think it is limiting the R too. But this cap I have talked about won't effect the R diddle by the numbers they are posting. (To let you know I am a NR.)

JD did you see the numbers I posted about the R hunting in SD....they have more total R hunters than the whole state of ND has for hunters. And people say birds have less pressure in SD.... I don't see it. :huh: But if someone could show me different numbers I will look at them.


----------



## KEN W

First of all....there were not quite 25,000 non-res waterfowl licenses sold last year.The GNF figures the drop from 30,000 to 25,000 is because of the license split.The waterfowl license cost only $10 four years ago,and they figure the 5,000 drop is that upland hunters are no longer willing to spend $85 instead of 10.So basically the number of non-res. has stayed the same not dropped the past 4-6 years.

The best cap is not a static number.....it should be based on water conditions.There is no reason to put a low number on when water conditions are great.But this year with only 25% of the water available that was here last fall....we should have a lower number....HPC as developed by the ND GNF biologists.

With HPC if the number of resident hunters went down....the number of non-res. licenses available would increase by that number.

There were no leg tags required 20 years ago here in ND.They were required in the 1960's.I know.I was a Minn. resident in high school back then and we had no problem putting them on birds back then and you wouldn't now.It was not as much of a problem as some think.We had to tag the birds when we got back to the vehicle.Same as tagging any other animal.There would be no tags needed for white geese.Only for dark geese and ducks.3 daily limits is all you get.Use them wisely.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Ken, can we just agree to disgree and say that there most likely will never be a cap on NR's.

Secondly There were tags in ND 20 years ago other wise how in the hell would I have known about them and besides I have every lisc. I ever bought saved in a box I will dig them out and get specific years for you so that you can verify it with the state, if you like. Because from the late 70's when I started there to mid 80's they had tags, and back in the day the limit was one dark, five light geese and like 6 or 7 ducks and you had enough tags to tag two days limits and then pack up and go home. I did not then and I do not now, need, nor do I want to fill that many tags for any reason. I could make three days tags last an entire year, with no problem, however if you look at the duck pop back then compared to today, it was not even close it was much lower back in the day, then it is today. Also so is the goose population, so just another reason for no caps if the bird pops are up and the hunter numbers are down how do you think the legislator is going to give you what you want? Need more proof the ducks, & geese are up look at the liberal season's and dates back in the 80's and even the 90s no one could have possibly have dreamed of a spring goose hunt or even a early season goose hunt (sept) now we would all cry in our wheaties if they took them away. look at the limits of geese used to be one per day two in possesion on darks and 5 & 10 on lights now it 3 & 9 on darks and 20 per day with no possesion limit on lights, good luck selling this to the legislators I don't care what county you live in!!!!!

Have a good opener tommorrow and to all of please be safe out there!!!


----------



## KEN W

OK....JD....we can agree to disagree.And never say never.Not when it passed 1 house and came within 1 vote in the other.At some point if the number of non-res. increase beyond tolerance for resident hunters.....who know what will happen.Maybe this fall will be that time.

I would be no different than in the 1960,s when ND hunters got tired of out0of0staters leasing up the best goose hunting land and put in the 10 day license.

I hunted in ND as a non-res. until 1976....no tags required.My brothers and father did and do for 44 years.....no tags required after the late 60's.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Hey Ken W. when I look for the lisc. and locate them I will e-mail you a digital photo of the book of tags and the year of the lisc. Since I was only born in the late 60's and started hunting in ND in the 70's there's onl one way I could know about tags and that's if I personally used them. We used to always stop in Jamestown on the way up at the court house there and buy the lisc. from the lisc. dept.

I do think that it is kind of ironic that you and I are the only one's that remember the tag system and that no one else seems to be able to remember them. I would have thought for sure that many more on here would have recalled having seen and or used them, I know that there are not that many old timers on here but maybe Bob Kellam is old enough to remember them and when they quite using them.

Later J.D.

P.S. has anybody come up with the lisc. stats numbers for the past five years the ones posted up by ND game and fish?


----------



## KEN W

jd mn/nd said:


> Hey Ken W. when I look for the lisc. and locate them I will e-mail you a digital photo of the book of tags and the year of the lisc. Since I was only born in the late 60's and started hunting in ND in the 70's there's onl one way I could know about tags and that's if I personally used them. We used to always stop in Jamestown on the way up at the court house there and buy the lisc. from the lisc. dept.
> 
> I do think that it is kind of ironic that you and I are the only one's that remember the tag system and that no one else seems to be able to remember them. I would have thought for sure that many more on here would have recalled having seen and or used them, I know that there are not that many old timers on here but maybe Bob Kellam is old enough to remember them and when they quite using them.
> 
> Later J.D.
> 
> P.S. has anybody come up with the lisc. stats numbers for the past five years the ones posted up by ND game and fish?


]

Probably because you and I are old enough non-res. to remember them.

I don't know the exact year they were discontinued.I moved here in 1973 after college.

As far as the license stats....the GNF admits they will not be accurate because of the license split after the 2003 session.I believe it was 2002 when the Gov. put a cap on licenses at 30,000.But that was for all bird licenses.They estimate about 5,000 bird hunters bought the $10 waterfowl license just in case but did not actively hunt waterfowl.


----------



## bioman

> P.S. has anybody come up with the lisc. stats numbers for the past five years the ones posted up by ND game and fish?


JD, go to the following link, Figure 1 on page 2:
http://www.madduck.org/pdf/pressure.pdf

"*Figure 1. The number of duck hunters in North Dakota jumped from less 39,800 in 1993 to more than 65,000 in 2001, an increase of 62 percent. Source: North Dakota Fish and Game.*"


----------



## Bob Kellam

> maybe Bob Kellam is old enough to remember them and when they quite using them.


That is the problem, I am old enough to remember them but to old to remember when :lol: :lol: :lol: 

It had to have been between the mid 60's and the early 70's, Sorry I just can not remember or even find the info on the net.

Bob


----------



## Goldy's Pal

I think after being invaded downwind by an Illinoids roostbuster this year a cap is a must IMO. We had a good hunt in the field for about 4 days watching birds filter in and out from the roost/transition daily, picking up a greenhead here and there and just watching the birds work into our small setup was a sight I'll never forget. Bam! bam.. bam bam bam! from down on the water, well that was the end of that for us. I knew the day would probably come and it surely did. I'll say this, if they only could have hunted in the field with us before that and then after, they would sure see the first hand affects of direct pressure and waterfowl behavior. Oh well it was a lot of fun while it lasted I guess. Thanks ND! Your sunrise was sweet, coffee tasted a little better,(for 4 days anyway).. Have a good one.


----------



## Dan Bueide

> [Leg tags] - remember them and when they quite using them.


The first ND license I bought was in 1983 as an NR. I had tags then. I think they were dropped that or the following year.



> P.S. has anybody come up with the lisc. stats numbers for the past five years the ones posted up by ND game and fish?


Year Res NR Total

1975	67,267	6,043	73,310
1976	63,660	8,530	72,190
1977	63,117	7,933	71,050
1978	64,081	9,044	73,125
1979	59,053	8,682	67,735
1980	55,508	8,262	63,770
1981	52,079	6,931	59,010
1982	52,565	7,615	60,180
1983	48,575	7,085	55,660
1984	45,814	7,111	52,925
1985	41,470	6,380	47,850
1986	42,048	7,507	49,555
1987	40,890	7,505	48,395
1988	26,838	4,222	31,060
1989	29,394	5,778	35,172
1990	27,529	5,522	33,051
1991	27,857	5,928	33,785
1992	22,816	8,175	30,991
1993	30,271	9,534	39,805
1994	35,329	10,316	45,645
1995	37,054	11,997	49,051
1996	39,009	13,750	52,759
1997	36,953	15,561	52,514
1998	39,513	19,191	58,704
1999	39,118	21,873	60,991
2000	35,992	25,165	61,157
2001	35,310	30,029	65,339
2002	34,138	29,992	64,130
2003	30,771	26,066	56,837
2004	28,336	24,375	52,711
2005	28,331	25,455	53,786

You can see all of these numbers represented in graph form by a little searching on this site. In the past, I've asked Chris to paste those graphs into a few topics.

As Ken pointed out, the 2002 and prior years numbers are overstated or the 2003 and later years are understated, depending on how you wish to look at it. We probably had no drop or even a moderate increase in 2003, becasue the license split in 2003 eliminated almost all of the "just in casers" - those who bought NR waterfowl licenses but were not active waterfowlers.

And here is the info g/o has been waiting for and I've finally dug up...

HPC would have produced the following number of NR licenses in the years indicated:

1990 9,197
1991 12,486
1992 14,803
1993 20,991
1994 17,095
1995 22,303
1996 25,358
1997 23,895
1998 25,534
1999 20,506
2000 16,013
2001 21,944
2002 21,908
2003 20,954
2004 18,902
2005 20,436
2006 21,489

As you can see, HPC would have produced more NR licenses than were actually purchased through 1998, and would have served as any sort of effective "cap" beginning only in 1999. The 2003 license split is not accounted for statisticaly within the HPC system, and thus serves to over-inflate licenses available under HPC from and after 2003 (thus favoring those that want more NR licenses).

HPC (at least the one we know today) also only takes into account spring conditions. This Spring, the water index (and thus the number of 2006 NR licenses produced under HPC) was over-inlated, because the water index only counts gross numbers of ponds - and does not qualify the ponds - a pond is a pond is a pond. We had okay numbers of ponds this spring, but their quality was poor and we lost many over the Summer. Only relatively recently has G&F counted late summer ponds. Presuamably, HPC could be refined to adjust (either way) for improved or degraded conditions between the pond counts. HPC was not set up to do so, in part, to set the number early enough to offer NR's more flexibility to apply for licenses and make plans earlier.

HPC was never a perfect system, and was never represented as such. It was, however, a very sound system, designed to take into account changes in water conditions and R use (and thus expected available stadium seats). For all of the nay-sayers, no one has brought forward anything that made more sense. If you believe a cap is neccessary, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better system for one. If you don't believe in a cap, you will find problems with this method or any other one.

If as an NR you think preserving the quality of hunting in ND is important and there should be caps, let our policy makers know. Bob or someone else, can you post up the email addresses to our House and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, Natural Resource Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs, Governor and G&F director?

Chuck, have you made or are you making your _*second *_annual trip to ND this Fall?


----------



## nyduckhntr

Setting aside our negative experiences with nr's in any state. And yes I see it in my state also. Can the state afford financially to turn it's back on revenue because a landowner or other has one or two bad experiences with a bad seed. Is it possible to take it with a grain of salt? Doesn't the positive outweigh the negative? I've heard that our neighbors to the north claim that they own the ducks......does it really roll down hill???


----------



## KYUSS

I drove from Forman to Fairmont on Hwy. 11 today and I swear of about every 10 vehicles 8 were NR's hunters. Yeah, I think we need a cap.


----------



## nyduckhntr

Could you attribute that to today being FRIDAY and most people from ND are working and not hunting causing the ratio to be a bit off?


----------



## R y a n

nyduckhntr said:


> Could you attribute that to today being FRIDAY and most people from ND are working and not hunting causing the ratio to be a bit off?


Not likely at this time of year. A LOT of guys take Friday's off to hunt/scout for the weekend. Plus harvest is going on, so there should be tons of local trucks around going to/from fields, farms, and elevators.

Heck in college I used to arrange my schedule in the fall to only have class 3 days a week! My senior college fall semester I hunted 4 days a week for 6 straight weeks (24 days out of a possible 42). It was pretty common to see lots of guys out during Fridays.....

Ryan


----------



## KYUSS

nyduckhntr said:


> Could you attribute that to today being FRIDAY and most people from ND are working and not hunting causing the ratio to be a bit off?


It's also like this on Saturday's, Sunday's, Monday's, Tuesday's, Wednesday's, and Thursday's. :lol:


----------



## Fossilman

The NR's do alot for our state,see how many leave if all the military bases were pulled out of here.North Dakota would dry up and blow away!!
Get real,NR's help our state,cities and town's out(BIGTIME)/.....
Yes-Military Bases are NR's who hunt our state too....


----------



## scottnd

Wow...and to think that I lived in ND for 50 years, paid taxes there to give you a better life and education. My parents and 3 kids and grandkids still live in ND and now you want to ban me from coming back and hunting with them because I moved from Fargo to Hawley MN. to get closer to the fishing. How are you going to feel if it's one of your relatives that want to come back and hunt with you but can't because cap lottery won't let them have a license?

Sorry, you can take the man out of ND, but you can't take the ND out of the man. Although some of you can make me less proud to have come from ND.


----------



## Bob Kellam

> Bob or someone else, can you post up the email addresses to our House and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, Natural Resource Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs, Governor and G&F director?


*North Dakota Governor John Hoeven*

[email protected]

*North Dakota Game and Fish Director*

[email protected]

*Senate Majority Leader 2005*
Senator Bob Stenehjem
Majority Leader 
Address: 7475 41st Street SE, Bismarck, ND 58504-3200 
Telephone: 701-258-5227 
E-mail: [email protected] 
District: 30 
Party: Republican

*Senate Minority Leader 2005*
Senator David O'Connell
Minority Leader 
Address: 2624 County Road 30, Lansford, ND 58750-9737 
Telephone: 701-784-5441 
E-mail: [email protected] 
District: 6 
Party: Democrat

*Senate Natural Resources Chairman 2005*
Senator Stanley W. Lyson 
Address: 1608 Fourth Avenue West, Williston, ND 58801-4127 
Telephone: 701-570-7025 
E-mail: [email protected] 
District: 1 
Party: Republican

*Senate Natural Resources Vice Chairman 2005*
Senator Ben Tollefson 
Address: 500 24th Street NW, Minot, ND 58703-1864 
Telephone: 701-839-4949 
E-mail: [email protected] 
District: 38 
Party: Republican

*House Majority Leader 2005*
Representative Rick Berg
Majority Leader 
Address: P.O. Box 3024, Fargo, ND 58108-3024 
Telephone: 701-239-5810 
E-mail: [email protected] 
District: 45 
Party: Republican

*House Minority Leader 2005*
Representative Merle Boucher
Minority Leader 
Address: P.O. Box 7, Rolette, ND 58366-0007 
Telephone: 701-550-9098 
E-mail: [email protected] 
District: 9 
Party: Democrat

*House Natural Resources Chairman 2005*
Representative Jon O. Nelson 
Address: 4680 71st Street NE, Wolford, ND 58385-9536 
Telephone: 701-583-2275 
E-mail: [email protected] 
District: 7 
Party: Republican

*House Natural Resources Vice Chairman 2005*
Representative Todd Porter 
Address: 4604 Borden Harbor Drive SE, Mandan, ND 58554-7961 
Telephone: 701-255-0812 
E-mail: [email protected] 
District: 34 
Party: Republican

All Senate and House positions are subject to change for the 2007 Legislative session


----------



## KYUSS

scottnd said:


> I moved from Fargo to Hawley MN. to get closer to the fishing.
> 
> That was your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> scottnd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you can take the man out of ND, but you can't take the ND out of the man.
> 
> You took the man out of ND, not us.
Click to expand...


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

> *House Natural Resources Chairman 2005*
> Representative Jon O. Nelson
> Address: 4680 71st Street NE, Wolford, ND 58385-9536
> Telephone: 701-583-2275
> E-mail: [email protected]
> District: 7
> Party: Republican


This individual may be the largest thorn in the freelancers side among the whole crew. Send him a ton of e-mails and don't let his phone stop ringing. :bop:


----------



## KEN W

He is up for re-election......easy win....better odds trying to get him off the House Nat'l Res. Committee.At least not be chairman. :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W

scottnd said:


> Wow...and to think that I lived in ND for 50 years, paid taxes there to give you a better life and education. My parents and 3 kids and grandkids still live in ND and now you want to ban me from coming back and hunting with them because I moved from Fargo to Hawley MN. to get closer to the fishing. How are you going to feel if it's one of your relatives that want to come back and hunt with you but can't because cap lottery won't let them have a license?
> 
> Sorry, you can take the man out of ND, but you can't take the ND out of the man. Although some of you can make me less proud to have come from ND.


I'm retireing and debating the same move....should I live on the Minn side and be close to fishing or on the ND side and be close to hunting?I've decided to stay on this side of the Red River and have the best bird hunting.


----------



## always_outdoors

scottnd said: 


> Wow...and to think that I lived in ND for 50 years, paid taxes there to give you a better life and education. My parents and 3 kids and grandkids still live in ND and now you want to ban me from coming back and hunting with them because I moved from Fargo to Hawley MN. to get closer to the fishing. How are you going to feel if it's one of your relatives that want to come back and hunt with you but can't because cap lottery won't let them have a license?


You chose to move and many of us have had the opportunity to move only to turn it down because we love our hunting here.

Great "I want my cake and eat it too" mentality Scott. Sorry man, you lost your privileges when you decided to reside in MN. Geeze, it is like we OWE it to you. wow, what arogance.

IMHO licenses should be set based on habitat conditions and wildlife populations. If there is a time when R's need to be even restricted, I would support it. Just as long as the decision is made on biology and not $$$$$$.


----------



## Old Hunter

As this discussion goes on south central ND is getting absolutely pounded. The amount of hunters is unbelievable.Waterfowl and pheasant hunters. They are from every state you can think of. I am working outside doing steel siding and can hear the shooting all directions from town. There not many ducks so lord knows what they are shooting. When a few flights of birds arrive during the night they are hunted hard the next day and are gone. Its a zoo. I would like to do some hunting but will not try it here. jd/mn/nd will you pm me and tell me where you were hunting with no pressure. I got to get the hell out of here.


----------



## drb

None of it makes any difference if the amount of posted land availavble to both residents and non-residents increases at such an alarming rate. Before long only the guides and the rich guys will be hunting in ND.

drb


----------



## KYUSS

drb said:


> None of it makes any difference if the amount of posted land availavble to both residents and non-residents increases at such an alarming rate. Before long only the guides and the rich guys will be hunting in ND.
> 
> drb


Thats why something needs to be done now before its to late.


----------



## dakotashooter2

> Year Res NR Total
> 
> 1975 67,267 6,043 73,310
> 1976 63,660 8,530 72,190
> 1977 63,117 7,933 71,050
> 1978 64,081 9,044 73,125
> 1979 59,053 8,682 67,735
> 1980 55,508 8,262 63,770
> 1981 52,079 6,931 59,010
> 1982 52,565 7,615 60,180
> 1983 48,575 7,085 55,660
> 1984 45,814 7,111 52,925
> 1985 41,470 6,380 47,850
> 1986 42,048 7,507 49,555
> 1987 40,890 7,505 48,395
> 1988 26,838 4,222 31,060
> 1989 29,394 5,778 35,172
> 1990 27,529 5,522 33,051
> 1991 27,857 5,928 33,785
> 1992 22,816 8,175 30,991
> 1993 30,271 9,534 39,805
> 1994 35,329 10,316 45,645
> 1995 37,054 11,997 49,051
> 1996 39,009 13,750 52,759
> 1997 36,953 15,561 52,514
> 1998 39,513 19,191 58,704
> 1999 39,118 21,873 60,991
> 2000 35,992 25,165 61,157
> 2001 35,310 30,029 65,339
> 2002 34,138 29,992 64,130
> 2003 30,771 26,066 56,837
> 2004 28,336 24,375 52,711
> 2005 28,331 25,455 53,786


If you answer the question as it relates to overall hunting pressure the info above shows that it may not be necessary. Except for a 5 years period in the late 80's early 90s the overal pressure has not changed much. Now compare waterfowl numbers during the years at the top of the to those at the bottom and there is NO comparison. In the 70's waterfowl #s were near all time lows or way below average while now they are near all time highs or above average. Keep in mind also that when the resident hunters far outnumbered the resident hunters they didn't just hunt for two weeks. I've said it on many occassions that many here don't know what pressure is.

Canada Goose populations are near 5 million up from just over 1 million in 1975.

The information I could find indicated light geese numbers at near 3 million up from just around 800 thousand in the mid 70's when hunter number were at their peak. Now there is pressure.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

dakotashooter2 said:


> Keep in mind also that when the resident hunters far outnumbered the resident hunters they didn't just hunt for two weeks. I've said it on many occassions that many here don't know what pressure is.


Rephrase the first sentence.

Do you live here? You frankly have no clue to the nuts and bolts as to what is going on here, period.


----------



## R y a n

dakotashooter2 said:


> If you answer the question as it relates to overall hunting pressure the info above shows that it may not be necessary. Except for a 5 years period in the late 80's early 90s the overal pressure has not changed much. Now compare waterfowl numbers during the years at the top of the to those at the bottom and there is NO comparison. In the 70's waterfowl #s were near all time lows or way below average while now they are near all time highs or above average. Keep in mind also that when the resident hunters far outnumbered the resident hunters they didn't just hunt for two weeks. I've said it on many occassions that many here don't know what pressure is.


Dakotashooter

The thing you keep failing to recognize here is something Ken mentioned at the very beginning of this thread. You can throw many of those numbers out the window. The "PRESSURE" is extremely increased because those 50,000 resident hunters hunted on Sat and Sun and then went back to work for the most part. *Now* we have 30,000 non-res., some of who go home after the weekend, however the majority are here for a week, pounding the birds day over day.....non-stop pressure vs weekend only pressure. Plus we have new OOS hunters who have never been to ND before, don't understand about not busting roosts, and pushing the birds off of sanctuary waters in greater and greater frequency. Most arriving newcomers have no idea how to field hunt/pass hunt. All they know is to sit in water on a small boat. This has only worsened when some have arrived to find their favorite honey hole dried up via drought, or frozen over with cold weather patterns, and they want some kind of action so the temptation to "get a piece of the action" for themselves at the cost of others is greatly enhanced.

The birds used to get 3-4 days to rest and re-establish patterns in different fields. Now they are dogged relentlessly and pushed into the air and out of feeding fields day after day after day. If you eventually kept going to a restaurant and were continually pushed out the door and harassed everytime you came near it, wouldn't you move on?

Ryan


----------



## shae1986

I dont know what could be done to get rid of the posted lands. Its a person property. The federal governement sold the land and people own it and are allowed to do what they want with it. Even a cap wouldn't get rid of posted land and allowing everyone on all the land is not plossible.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

> The birds used to get 3-4 days to rest and re-establish patterns in different fields. Now they are dogged relentlessly and pushed into the air and out of feeding fields day after day after day. If you eventually kept going to a restaurant and were continually pushed out the door and harassed everytime you came near it, wouldn't you move on?


Exactly, I have a buddy who owns a nice chunk of land in the middle of NoDak with many wetlands on it. He hunts the fringe sloughs and fields but leaves the roosts. He has birds like there is no tomorrow, every other neighbor is completely void of birds, I mean none. The pressure seven days a week from dawn til dusk has shoved every bird either onto his property of right clean out of state.

If you state there isn't pressue, you either don't live here or don't hunt.


----------



## dakotashooter2

FYI I am a lifelong resident born and raised here.

There are a few things that you are failing to consider also. Hunting tactics were a bit different back then. Busting roosts was the norm back then but the birds still seemed to hang around. And believe me there were plenty of hunters out during the week especially for ducks. We used to do a fair share of duck hunting after school and we were far from alone. Many of the farm kids I knew even got in a couple of hours before school started. Many of the farmers back then carried shotguns in their tractors. Still there is no doubt the pressure was more concentrated on the weekends years ago but on the other hand now weekends are often "travel time" for nonresidents and many more resident hunters have to work on weekends as such I often see remarkably "few" hunters on Sunday and sometimes even on Saturday. Many say that there is more pressure and in a way they are correct but only in that the "pressure" is more concentrated. I live about ten miles from the Red River. In the mid 70's birds filled the sky during migration. Now 30 years later I'm lucky to see a 1/2 dozen flocks fly over. The migration route shifted at least 50 miles to the west and those that hunted this area were forced to move west. 
Very little land was posted back then and all was considered open territory. Now is the opposite which results in areas that the birds can rest undisturbed. Yes people ask and are still able to hunt these areas but in many cases they are decoying and not jump shooting. Decoying does not result in near the pressure that jump shooting does especially when you consider there often used to be 3-4 groups pushing and following a flock relentlessly unhampered by posted land. Often the birds can move on to the next parcel of posted land and be undisterbed for at least a day or so. I guess you just had to be there to understand. The posted land has made it easier in some respects and harder in others. Now it is less likely that freelancers will screw up your setup when you are on posted land but the freelancer used to keep the birds moving resulting in action from sunrise to the end of shooting hours, something not as common now. When those birds were being pushed all day they seemed to decoy much easier. And remember all this was happening with LESS birds. I probably misstated when I said that a lot of guys don't know what pressure is when what I really meant that it really hasn't changed that much over the past 30 years other than the players.


----------



## oldfireguy

I'd support the idea of a NR cap.....may I suggest an adjustable waxed-cotton in a choice of camo patterns? Maybe offer as a promotional for NR that become supporting members?
Sorry, couldn't resist the chance to lighten the discussion.


----------



## jhegg

Chuck,

You must have a very advanced degree in math.

Let's see how your plan would work&#8230;We - according to your plan - do not care how many hunters we have, we only want to make it large enough so that non-residents can have full access to our resources.

So then&#8230;Let's say 50,000 waterfowl hunters is the limit for quality waterfowl hunting in ND. Lets also say that we will allow 20% of the waterfowl licenses to go to non-residents and let's say that we expect 30,000 non-resident applications.

Therefore we should assign the 30,000 non-resident applications to equal 20% of the total waterfowl licenses allowed. Obviously then, that must mean that we will allow 150,000 total waterfowl hunting licenses (with 120,000 of those going to the 45,000 or so residents who hunt waterfowl. Now, we realistically have 30,000 non-resident and 40,000 resident waterfowl hunters&#8230;20,000 more that what we figured we could handle for quality waterfowl hunting in ND.

Do you see the fallacy of your plan, or do I have to discuss this further?

Jim


----------



## Chuck Smith

Jim...

With your example.....

The game and fish decide through nesting habitat and what not only 50,000 hunters/license sales will eqaul a good quality hunt.

That is 50,000 total hunters. So like you stated only 20% of those hunters can be NR that would eqauls 10,000 NR hunters and then 40,000 R hunters.

You see what I mean....you cap the total group! There are no more than 50,000 hunters in the feild!

Then the next year the G/F decides only 40,000 hunters......that would equal 8,000 NR hunters and 32,000 R hunters.

The next year G/F decides 60,000 hunters.....that would be 12,000 NR and then 48,000 R hunters.

For R hunters all they need to do is check the average of R hunters that they have been having the past 5 or so seasons and make that they can get that number with the 80%.

Example:

So if ND has a average of 40,000 R hunters. So they could make the 80% equal or never go below 44,000 R hunters (an extra 4,000 for the R hunters). Now that would mean the yearly cap of total Hunters could not be lower than 55,000 total hunters.

Now that would mean only 11,000 NR Hunters would be allowed. You see you can cap one group by putting a cap on all. And who does it only hurt.....NR's.

-Chuck


----------



## KEN W

No we don't use a percentage.We subract last years total of Res. hunters from the number of total waterfowl hunters the GNF deem right and that is how many non-res. can come.....

50,000 total....32,000 res last year would mean 18,000 non-res.

20,000 res last year would mean 30,000 non-res.
Every resident who wants a license should get one....non-res. make up the difference to what the total is.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ken....

Good idea. It is kinda on the same line of thinking.

Chuck


----------



## KEN W

Chuck....you just agreed with HPC propsed by our GNF.


----------



## goosebusters

Chuck Smith said:


> Ken....
> 
> Good idea. It is kinda on the same line of thinking.
> 
> Chuck


O c'mon chuck I was just starting to like your idea of only 11,000 NRs. Let's use your idea.


----------



## Chuck Smith

That is a good concept.

I have heard people talk about it but have not fully understood HPC.

Chuck


----------



## Bob Kellam

Here is the conceptual idea of HPC from NDGF

_*HPC II uses the relationship between the abundance of wetlands (types 4, 5, 6p, 6dug and PS) and hunting pressure for 1975 through 2001 to adjust the nonresident hunter numbers annually. The formula is: R + (NR x 1.36) = 33.097 x WI + 31326.*_


----------



## jd mn/nd

As I was going back over some of the posts here on this subject, I started thinking about a few things one idea that came to mind was that maybe G & F could set smaller zones and limit the number of hunters to each zones thus forcing the others to spread out and not have such a concentrated amount of of hunters in certain areas, for instance zones 1 & 2 could be split up into two more zones and leave it on the out of staters to stick to the zone they pick however they limit the amount of OOS in each zone. The current zone 3 could be split up into two zones an eastern and a western zone again the OOS have to pick and stick to the zone designated on their lisc.

As for the aforementioned zones no matter if you have zone buster lisc. or not if you do not pick one of the zones in the current 1 or 2 you do not get hunt waterfowl there. Hence eliminating the need for a zone buster lisc.

Also leave the 14 day lisc. as is and you may pick to hunt in a different zone for one of the two 7 day periods, but no more than one 7day period for OOS in the smaller zones.

My thought here would be lets say that they allow only 300 lisc for OOS in each of the smaller zones no exceptions. Make an early and a late season and allow only the 300 lisc per small zone in the early season, like the early season would end on October 31st, after that open up the whole state with no zones or restrictions on where you can hunt. Since usually the entire state is void of waterfowl and or hunters by that time, the pressure per natural circumstances is already diminished, only the die hards will be out there and they are going to be far fewer than earlier in the season.

Other early season zones could be established as well say around the Grand Forks area, Fargo area, and Devils Lake area, this would also greatly help to spread out the pressure that these areas are receiving.

I see several benfits coming from this, the first that comes to mind is that after a while landowners having not been so greatly pressured will ease up on giving out permission as they to get a great amount of pressure too hunt on their land. Secondly the pressure on the birds will be diminished and give them more areas to rest in, thus letting them stay in the state for longer periods of time to create better hunting for all. Thirdly I believe that with hunters having to find new areas to hunt in it will help out smaller lesser known communities in ND (fiscally that is). Fourth I believe that it would also force outfitters to not need to control so much land in certain areas as they will only be able to have so many clients hence limiting them to what they can actually make in a season shorting up their purse strings leaves them less money to lease up land, and creates more opportunities for free lance hunting. I know that in the area we hunt in there are only two guides there anymore and neither of them according to the local warden lease land anymore, as they can no longer predict or plan for the the comings and goings of the birds, it makes them have to find the fields and set up just like a free lance hunter.

I am not saying that this a great plan or that they should be implamented, just these are a different angle that would allow G&F to allow many hunters into ND and also to spread out the pressure on the resource at the same time. My plan is not perfect and it does need to be tweeked it does I beleive have some merit though, what do the rest of you think about some of my thoughts?

Happy Hunting J.D.


----------



## KEN W

JD....most of us would agree with what you say.This was exactly a bill in the last sesson.8 zones.It was shot down coming out of committee.ALL businesses in zones 1 and 2 are vehemintly opposed to this and were the ones pushing for a zone buster license.To me this was pure selfishness,since our GNF put in zones in the first place to spread out the hunters and the economic impact.

Unfortunately the businesses in zone 3 were so stupid as to go along with it.Even though 5,000 or so non-res. were no longer forced to go to zone 3.I tried to tell our rep. up here that the zone buster would hurt them,but they are so adamantly against any restrictions that they won't even think about it.The blind leading the blind. :eyeroll:


----------



## jd mn/nd

Ken, That's too bad about the legislators not seeing the big picture, also just a quick question who set's the zones? Earlier it was mentioned that the G & F set the zones now you said it was the legislators who did it. Who's Right on that subject? I could see how this would benefit everyone and still allow a no cap situation on the hunting, so that all hunters could hunt with out tripping over each other, and still have plenty of resources too go around.

Again if anyone has a better idea of how to spreadout the pressure and still let all hunters out in the field with limited restrictions VS not being allowed to buy a lisc. tell me what your thoughts are on the subject.


----------



## Bob Kellam

JD

It is in the North Dakota Century Code under Governors proclamations

*Contents of governor's order or proclamation relating to the taking of
big game, small game, fish, and fur-bearers - Special permits.*

1. A gubernatorial order or proclamation under this chapter must prescribe, as to each species of wildlife named therein, the following:
a. In what manner they may be taken.
b. In what numbers they may be taken and possessed and may limit the numbers by sex.
*c. In what places they may be taken.*
d. At what times they may be taken and possessed.

2. The governor in the governor's proclamation or order may determine the number of resident and nonresident big game licenses to be issued for the taking of each species, age, or sex. When a limited number of big game licenses or specialc permits are to be issued, the governor shall by order or proclamation declare the manner of issuance of the licenses and permits. 
The governor may by proclamation or order determine the time period for which a recipient of a big game license or special permit obtained by lottery is ineligible to apply for the same type of license or special permit.

3. In addition to the regular big game hunting licenses, the governor, by order or proclamation, may authorize the issuance of special permits to hunt big game in certain restricted areas. When acting pursuant to this subsection, the governor shall designate in the proclamation:
a. The species of big game which can be hunted.

b. The boundaries of the restricted area.

c. The number of special permits to be issued.

d. The procedure to determine which applicant
should receive the special permits.

e. The manner and times in which the big game may be taken.
Special permits issued under this subsection shall be issued in strict compliance with the governor's proclamation.


----------



## KEN W

JD....Bob is right.The laws say zones are set by the governor .It doesn't say how many or what dimensions they would be.The GNF came up with 3 with a limitation on non-res can only hunt in zone 1 or 2 for 7 days.

As I said above a bill was introduced along with HPC to mandate 8 zones....defeated.


----------



## jd mn/nd

OK so Hoven can set the zones from what I read it said big game it did not say that it was for waterfowl, I guess it must just be assumed that it covers both or all kinds of hunting. So then my question is why don't the sportsmen and women of ND hound him until puts in more zones and limits the number of OOS hunters per zone, why even bother with the legislators or the G & F? Keep calling him with the special interest groups like DU and DW and so on as well community sportmens groups, send out automatice e-mail letters to him everyother day or so. He will get the picture eventually, and he may even act on it, if theres enough pressure put on him.

Also find out what he likes to do and see about putting a damper on his favorite activity. You know if he likes to golf book the whole course for a day that he scheduled play oh and no carts and no under age 70 and no playing through, and everyone has to where a sign on their back about less pressure for the birds and the hunters. You get the picture.

You all better hurry up and get this done before I retire and move up there.

Later J.D.


----------



## KEN W

Unfortunately Hoeven is a Republican ex-banker.Money talks....bringing dollars into ND is more important than what we resident hunters want.

Which is why he figures we can have all the commercial hunting operations and non-res. because he is providing PLOTS for all us free-lancers to hunt on.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Have you ever seen what some land pass for on the PLOTS. What a joke it is one of the biggest farces on the face of the earth!!!! We have seen pasture land, dirt fields, rocks piled up, garbage pits, you name it and most of it any thing but hunting land. Does anybody actually go out and inspect what they are paying the guy for? IF not then I understand what is going on the landowner is laughing all the way to the bank!!!!

Anyway Hoven might be a republican, but at least he isn't jacking your taxes up. And most good republicans like myself understand that it is better to spread out the economic windfalls than to stack them up.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Some good points and ideas JD. I also hear ya on some of the plots around as it is actually funny. I believe someone told me that some of those black fields plots are set aside for decoys hunters, but can't remember where I heard that so don't quote me.


----------



## Bob Kellam

A while back (sorry for the thread hijack) I asked the question about the barren plots land the I saw out in some area of the state.

The answer given was that many of the areas I had questioned were what is called "throw in acres". The example was if a landowner had a piece of ground that qualified to be in the PLOTS program and it was 160 acres of the 640 total the landowner was only paid for the 160 and the balance was thrown in as accessible to hunt.

I agree it looks kind of bad to have PLOTS signs on barren prairie but there is a reason for it in the areas i had questions about.

Back on topic 

Bob


----------



## jd mn/nd

Bob you never Hi-Jack a thread your info is always valuable and appreciated, as for the plots I am talking about there is no 160 near any of the tilled fields and they were never meant to fields open for hunting as they day or two after harvest they were plowed under personally witnessed be me, and company. Some of the rest of the plots like pasture land that is grazed down to the bare nubbs and completly fenced off with cattle in it!!! It was not even legal to hunt in because of the cattle, secondly what if anything would be in a pasture with cattle that you could hunt? The most amazing one we saw was where the landowner made hundreds of rockpiles out in his field like he kept backing up dump trucks and dumping them on the field, once again nothing to hunt there. It is like making a mockery out of a good concept program.

Back to the topic at hand why doesn't anyone keep on the governer to find out why he won't make more zones or to get him to change his mind on the matter? Seems to me that if enough mayors from small town ND would send him letters or e-mails or even a quick phone call, he might start to see the light of day on the subject. Maybe even a few of us OOS's could call him and let him know that it would be alright to add a few more small zones to the map to help spread out the pressure. Just a few thoughts on the matter.

Later J.D.


----------



## Dan Bueide

Zones (spreading pressure out) make great sense in theory. In a perfect world of perfect data, perfect hunting seasons and reasoned people, they would really help things out. In fact, no statutory change is required to have more of them. Current law *requires* the Governor to create zones. His response: let's make a whopping three - two relatively small areas and then the rest of the state. Then the legislature comes in behind the current law and nueters it (bailing out the Gov along the way) through the zone-buster feature. That whole scenario is analagous to setting the speed limit at 75 for public safelty purposes, then allowing someone to drive 90 if they plunk down another $40 with their drivers license app. Huh - wasn't there a reason 75 was picked in the first place? We've begged, pleaded, etc (trust me) to get the governor to exercise greater authority under the current law to do a better job with and create more zones, but no sale. With the zonebuster law, it probably doesn't matter much anymore.

Anyway, here are some other reasons why zones are such a tough sell...

1. O/G's. They hate them - god forbid they wouldn't be able to operate on the other side of some boundary. O/G's are not well liked in the general ND population, but they have sucked up to and have the ear of this Governor and several key legislators and have done a masterful job of over-selling the woes of zones.

2. Tension of interests. If you were a R hunter who primarily hunted in the DL region - would you want more NR tags allocated to that zone or rather send more to some other R hunter's zone? Now, say you were a hotel owner in DL - would you want less tags allocated to that zone, or would you rather get some that might otherwise be allocated to a zone in which another hotel was located. You get my point - sportspersons and commercializers would be pushing/pulling NR tags among zones, depending on their self interests. The only way this could have worked was the way we set it up in the bill from last session - that G&F create zones and allocate licenses into them on a varaible basis each year on a similar method to HPC - wetter areas get more tags than drier areas. That bill including the zones never got a realistic consideration by the legislators who will oppose anything along these lines, and we lost the house by 4 votes.

3. Weather. Let's say you pick a zone in the N/C for the third week of October and we get a whomper of a blizzard just before or during your week and 98% of the waterfowl move out (it happens). How would you feel about being confined to your zone?

There are precious few secrets anymore and the word is generally out b/4 the season starts as to which areas will be better than others that particular year. The answer lies in setting an overall reasonable number of tags, and letting the areas with more opportunites absorb them and those willing to work on the fringes to do so, as those opportunities and fringes may evolve during a season.


----------



## g/o

> O/G's are not well liked in the general ND population


Were one notch below the lawyers :lol: Here I thought we were friends Dan :lost:


----------



## Dan Bueide

Touche'...

Just because surveys have shown the industry and pay hunt in general are not well-received by the general ND population doesn't mean that some in the industry, as humans, are not well respected and liked (even though they are flat-out wrong on these issues). :wink:

Happy TG, friend!


----------



## hydro870

The solution for this entire debate has already been put in place and is working great. Just look to South Dakota. All North Dakota needs to do is adopt the SD model for Non Resident waterfowlers. One ten day waterfowl license, four thousand available, lottery, need to apply for the lottery in June. It works great for them, and it will work great for us. Because ND has more water, obviously we could have more licenses available than SD does.

Hydro- who does not believe in reinventing the wheel.


----------



## averyghg

I vote yes. The main reason is because every year there will be more and more NR's coming here because they heard it was a great experience. What happens 5 years down the line when there are more NR's than residents? Its gonna suck, because like a lot of people i know, we don't have the time and money to travel to other states to become NR's ourselves. Also if it is capped, it will put less pressure on birds which will mean better hunting for the people south of the ND border. Just my thoughts, don't take em personally


----------



## Jungda99

Anyone know the numbers on how many ducks R's shoot per year compared to NR's per year? I would be willing to bet that R's shoot a way higher % of birds per year than NR's. NR's can only shoot (14daysX5birds)=98 birds MAX and most don't do that because I can't physically eat that many ducks in that amount of time. It just doesn't make sense to do that.

What about a cap on number of birds one can shoot per year. Some states(wisc) has a tag for geese (for example) that for every bird you shoot you have to slit a hole on the tag before you trasport the bird. Maybe ND could have a tag like that so it could be validated at the end of every hunt.

Maybe ND should allow each hunter to shoot a set number of birds per person say 50 birds. I don't know what the number should be but I am just throwing this out there.


----------



## Dan Bueide

> Anyone know the numbers on how many ducks R's shoot per year compared to NR's per year? I would be willing to bet that R's shoot a way higher % of birds per year than NR's.


You'd be surprised (and lose the bet - I'll take a 24 of Canucks)...

2003 is the last year of G&F data I can get my hands on at the moment, and that year 30,771 R's hunted 112,622 days and bagged 166,111 ducks for a duck/day average of 1.47. 26,066 NR's hunted 79,501 days and bagged 160,641 ducks for a duck/day average of 2.02.


----------



## Jungda99

Dan Bueide said:


> You'd be surprised (and lose the bet - I'll take a 24 of Canucks)...
> 
> 2003 is the last year of G&F data I can get my hands on at the moment, and that year 30,771 R's hunted 112,622 days and bagged 166,111 ducks for a duck/day average of 1.47. 26,066 NR's hunted 79,501 days and bagged 160,641 ducks for a duck/day average of 2.02.


So I guess I was wrong going by those numbers I think I have seen those numbers before in a previous post but the consensous was they are terribly skewed. AVG Rs hunter only hunted 3.66 Times????? Seems Fishy

Just think about it... R's should have a higher precentage of quality hunts because they should be apt to hunting "prime" locations due to hunting private land becuase they know farmer Joe 3 miles over and 1 mile up. They also have more time to develop Roosting/Feeding/trasition paterns

But going by those numbers R's hunted 32,000 more days than NR's but NRs are the ones that creat the "preassure" Hmmmm something isn't adding up.

No I don't think there should be a cap on the # of licenses sold


----------



## Dan Bueide

J,

First you ask for the numbers and say they will prove your point - slam dunk - and then when they don't, the numbers are crap?

If you really want to talk about pressure, it boils down to hours or minutes afield and then how you spend that time afield, not necesarily the days. A day might be a couple of hours in the decoys in the morning (win, loose or draw), or it might be a couple of hours in the decoys in the morning, followed by some mid-day pothole jumping, and then followed further by an evening set. If you're in ND for a few days just to hunt ducks, you probably lean on the resourse just a tad heavier than the average R hunter.

In the end, genreally the greater the effort ("pressure"), the higher the bag. That's what those numbers reflect, and from the 8 or so years of data collected from 85-03, NR's have averaged a 32% higher bird/day bag than R's. Only in relatively recent years, however, has that also translated in something very close to half the total bag as NR numbers become a much, much higer percentage of overal hunter numbers.

Don't like the G&F numbers? Sorry, you'll either have to find a different theory or find some different numbers.


----------



## averyghg

i agree, SLAM DUNK!!!


----------



## jdpete75

I vote no because I believe that if we can open up more land ie: CRP acres and stop the NR and R purchasing of land purely for hunting, we will have more than enough land for everybody. Why turn away someone that wants to come here if we dont absolutely need to?


----------



## averyghg

I disagree with that statement, sorry, but that just means there will be more NR's that come here, either way you look at it the amount of NR's that come to ND is only gonna increase, It will never plateau and i can gurantee that


----------



## Jungda99

I just can't believe how greedy SOME R's have become. It is a migrating bird that flies over ND and many other states. They are nothing like deer or other animals you don't let that one mallard fly for 2-3 years so it can develop more curly tails do you? Deer is a different story. I would be ****** if I let a 10 point buck walk for 3-4 years so it would be a a trophy and then come to find out a NR shot it? But in case you didn't know DUCKS MIGRATE. Not allowing others to hunt so you can have more for yourslef is pretty selfish IMO.


----------



## always_outdoors

Jungda99: And you want the same privileges as those who reside here??

If the answer is "yes", do you post the same thing you just did on the SD websites since they only allow 7,000 NR's in their state while ND has no restrictions here?

Those ducks must be going through SD as well. How come you don't see us north dakotans griping about how "greedy" the SD people are that we can't go down there and hunt waterfowl when we like and how we like.

You guys from MN never fail to amaze me. You want your cake and you want to eat it too, but only under your rules. I have tried to watch the SD forums similar to this one and I have yet to see you MN's trying to push the SD residents around as much as you try to do it to us here.

It is always those pesky ND residents though isn't it??


----------



## hydro870

Also, notice there was no lawsuit against SD. I would say live2hunt's observations are true. ND has never attempted to restrict to the stingy numbers of SD, yet we are getting sued by Minnesota's "almost" governor. It's asinine.

I would be in favor of no NR cap if guiding was completely banned. In fact, if guiding was completely banned, I think we could sell season long waterfowl licenses to NR's.


----------



## Dan Bueide

"Greedy" is one of those convenient terms that can be used by those who won't be happy until they've taken what little is left of something. Don't know what your history is with ND, but for those of us who have hunted many parts of the State for many years (including many NR's who were in on the ground floor), the change in the last several years has been dramatic.

Please see one of my posts on the first page of this thread for the hunter number trends. How much more does ND have to share and not be "greedy." For context, do you realize that only 2/10 of licensed fishermen in your state are NR's?

With more hunters relative to available habitat and a greater percentage of all hunters hunting mid-week and more-intensely, it affects the quality for all. Ducks have options and vote with their wings, and when ND carries significantly more pressure than its neighbors to the North and South, the ducks react.

If trying to maintain quality opportunites for everyone, R's and NR's alike, by getting back to historic overall use levels is "greedy", then I guess I am.


----------



## hydro870

Agree 100%. If anyone has done all the giving over the past 15 years it has been the ND sportsman who now sees fewer hunting opportunities, fewer enjoyable hunting situations, fewer unpressured birds, and fewer reasons to believe his/her children will enjoy the same hunting heritage they once had. The ND sportsman is the victim of greed, not the root of greed. I think we need to advertise North Dakota as a place Non Resident hunters should come, as the last place in the US, to hunt by traditional means. To find a motel, scout your birds, meet the land owners and form a relationship with them, dine at the local restaurants, and enjoy a true freelance hunt. Enjoy true hunting.

Greed, it's an interesting word. Who is taking thousands of acres out of the freelance hunting pool through leases just to turn a buck? Who is working against the freelance hunter at the ND legislature so they can line their pockets? Who is constantly showing up in the newspapers due to a complete disrespect of our game laws? Just look at any outfitter who is selling our heritage, and there you will find the truest form of greed.


----------



## adokken

A friend of mine shot a rooster with a tag on it which said Mouse River outfitters, Check it out, A MN based outfit who care less about us natives.
OUR politicians are wined and dined by these greedy legalized poachers and fall for their wiles. Heard a rumor that some Mchenry County outfitter got caught stealing corn. Thats about the caliber of a lot of them. You can see I have no respect for outfitters. I started hunting over 70 years ago and I am appalled when its apparent that our hunting heritage is a thing of the past. Have some good NR friends that come every season and they
can see how our hunting will be eventually doomed.


----------



## g/o

> A friend of mine shot a rooster with a tag on it which said Mouse River outfitters, Check it out, A MN based outfit who care less about us natives.


Huh??? So what's the problem? Is it illegal to band pheasants when you release them???? If so, then a lot of wildlife clubs are in big trouble. Since when is it illegal to hold a Non Resident guide or outfitters license???????



> Heard a rumor that some Mchenry County outfitter got caught stealing corn. That's about the caliber of a lot of them. You can see I have no respect for outfitters


Good reasoning adokken, let see another attorney from Fargo is trouble again according to the Forum today. Hmmmm must mean all attorneys are bad people. 3rd grade logic, get over your hate for o/g's and try doing something positive for a change.


----------



## adokken

Your rant is about what could be expected from a outfitter. I have been around a long time so I know what it was like before you people and your greed began systematically destroying a way of life here in ND. Personally I own enough land so will always have a place to hunt, And we always have about a dozen deer hunters every year. If an outfitter had this land leased these people would not have a place to hunt. That is what I mean by greed. And don't give any more of your lectures.


----------



## Bobm

heres where it will go, a nice "affordable" hunt

http://www.rockin7ranch.com/upland_bird_hunting.html

look at the rates on the bottom of the page


----------



## adokken

Wonder how many acres of that are leased? In my township some of the best whitetail hunting is already leased. So it is no wonder that residents are having a problem finding areas to hunt. We should have a program encouraging NR to come and freelance but every year there are less acres to feelance on. I make it a point to try and steer NR to areas to hunt waterfowl field shooting but all it would take is an outfitter offering some of the land owners in that area some lease money and it would be gone.


----------



## Goldy's Pal

adokken, I hear you. 5 years ago you would have never made me believe that "pressure" was an issue out there. Since then though a different story

Indirect pressure example: Had a slough that had 2 days of gadwall limit shooting one year that dried up the next, and then found boot tracks on the mud flats with empty shell casings the year after that. Not pressure next to you as you hunt but not a bird on that slough that year we found the signs of pressure on the birds.

Direct pressure example: Last year had a WPA with mallards pouring into it nightly as we field hunted next to that. For 4 days we observed this bird watch activity in the most respectful way taking a few from the field here and there and then the roost was blasted and it was all done. Totally ruinned the hunts there from then on as the birds reacted to the "direct pressure" and shifted. Really a shame when I think about it, it's like almost watching a fawn grow up and then getting butchered by meat hunters. When I can't dream about bringing my kids out there to Nodak to experience the hunt, fine people, beautiful sunrise, small town way of life values, etc. then stick a fork in me cause I'm done. Freelance fight forever is where we need to come together and protect what you still have there.
:beer:


----------



## Plainsman

I'm with you addoken. Run them all off a cliff with the lemmings. In the end the farmers will be hurt as bad as the hunters. Outfitters and guides are driving the wedge now. The wedge is green and has presidents faces on it. Farmers will gain slightly with leasing, but loose support in the future when hunters have no reason to support agriculture. It looks like they are both doomed.

I was listening to a song today, I don't know who the artist is, but it reminded me of how things are going. The words were; "Its just a piece of paper that says in God we trust. A little sure feels good, a lot is not enough". The last part makes me think of outfitters and guides.


----------



## Jungda99

I could not agree more with the statements about outfitters leasing the land. It is extremly dissapointing for me (and I am sure for you) to be scouting for hours only to find that the birds are landing in leased fields. I can see however as a landowner it is a no lose situation. Lets face it. it is a very touchy subject that has its pro/cons for both sides. I however do not feel that caping the NRs is the way to go. I feel there are better ways to manage the "Pressure". I do feel that capping the NRs could increase the pressure becuase If I know that I might not get drawn next year or the year after that I would be more apt to take full advantage of the time I am allowed to hunt because I might not be able to go back for a few years. I might take an entire week off as apposed to now when I only go for a long weekend. I don't think I would waste 10 days of my license like I do now. My 2 cents


----------



## adokken

Cap the outfitters reroactively back twenty years. Then there will be room for NR and Residents to hunt.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

g/o wrote:


> try doing something positive for a change


Look in the mirror bud!

And don't tell me how you allow young hunters on your land for nothing. The only reason you do that is you hope some of them will come back as adults and pay! uke:


----------



## hydro870

> try doing something positive for a change


Ya, like destroying North Dakota's heritage so you can charge the following:

Upland Bird Hunt #1 --- 2days/3nights--Sept. 15-Oct.1 and Oct.15-Nov.30	$1,400.00
Upland Bird Hunt #2 --- 3days/4nights--Sept. 15-Oct.1 and Oct.15-Nov.30	$2,100.00
Upland Bird Hunt #3 --- 4days/5nights--Sept. 15-Oct.1 and Oct.15-Nov.30	$2,800.00


----------



## g/o

> Look in the mirror bud!
> 
> And don't tell me how you allow young hunters on your land for nothing. The only reason you do that is you hope some of them will come back as adults and pay!


You know I have to agree with you. Next year instead of a sign declaring the area as a Youth Hunting Area. I'm going to put up a new one that says it's closed thanks to boys on Nodak Outdoors.


----------



## Plainsman

That sounds like; let me sell the public resource without a fuss, or I will shut down the youth season and blame you. Ever hear of blackmail? That speaks volumes. It also says you were not doing it for the youth.

Someone on nodak doesn't agree with you, punish the youth. If you post it for everyone, I would guess you were planning on doing it anyway, but this is a good way to create enemies for those who don't roll over for you.

I always suspected, like others have mentioned, that guides or outfitters putting on a youth season was public relations, and an attempt to get them hooked as future customers. Not any particular guided or outfitter, all of them. If business of any kind gives a freebee it is done for a purpose. I don't believe that a youth season on a guides or outfitters land is done from the heart any more than a free TV with a new car is done from the heart.


----------



## g/o

> That sounds like; let me sell the public resource without a fuss, or I will shut down the youth season and blame you. Ever hear of blackmail? That speaks volumes. It also says you were not doing it for the youth.


I'm only agreeing with you guys. You say the only reason we do this is to train them to be paying customers when they get older. I agree you are correct so the first thing I need to do is take the signs down. Second I think they need to know the reason its gone when they come back. That is where they should be told that I learned about this on Nodak Outdoors. You should be proud Plainsman


----------



## Plainsman

So you want to take the kids bat and ball, send them home, and blame it on us for not being taken in? Just as I suspected. We don't crumble so you punish someone in hopes they will retaliate against those trying to stop you from selling a public resource. It simply tells me you didn't really care about the kids once the scam was exposed.

I would guess the guides and outfitters like you on here attempting to protect their business. I like you on here because every once in a while you showcase the guide and outfitter mentality. Thanks.

Maybe it should be called outfitters, guides, and holding children hostage association.


----------



## Jiffy

Plainsman said:


> Maybe it should be called outfitters, guides, and holding children hostage association.


 :lol:

Be careful g/o your true colors are starting to show. How does that saying go? "Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself."


----------



## g/o

> So you want to take the kids bat and ball, send them home


No you got that wrong Plainsman. I gave them the bat and ball out of the goodness of my heart. Yet after I did this you are the one who said I must take them away. So Plainsman being I did this for several years why don't you do a youth hunting area in your area? Mine is being closed because as you say its not good for the kids. Maybe Nodak outdoors should do one


----------



## dosch

G/O you should close it. It's just a feel good story for yourself anyway...probably helps you get to bed at night. Your true colors have shown Thank You!


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

g/o said:


> I'm going to put up a new one that says it's closed thanks to boys on Nodak Outdoors.


Don't use this place as a scapegoat please. The opinions are of the individuals NOT Nodak Outdoors. If this doesn't make sense, read the forum rules again.


----------



## Plainsman

> No you got that wrong Plainsman. I gave them the bat and ball out of the goodness of my heart.


I got some swamp land (err, I mean ocean side property) for sale. I'm always amazed at how many guides and outfitters love our children so much. 
As soon as my acid reflux calms down I am going to have to go to work, but you and Mother Teresa have a good day.

Also, blaming Nodak Outdoors for what any of us say on here is a cheap shot. Do you find any of us saying open up your land or we are going to tell everyone it's Nodak Outdoors fault. That is unbelievable. Arn't the children enough for hostages?


----------



## g/o

> Don't use this place as a scapegoat please. The opinions are of the individuals NOT Nodak Outdoors. If this doesn't make sense, read the forum rules again


I'm not using this as a scapegoat.. I hope this is NOT the feeling of Nodak Outdoors. Just agreeing with the good old boys here


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

> You say the only reason we do this is to train them to be paying customers when they get older. I agree you are correct





> I gave them the bat and ball out of the goodness of my heart


So which is it g/o? Your heart must be connected to your wallet huh?


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

g/o said:


> I'm not using this as a scapegoat.. I hope this is NOT the feeling of Nodak Outdoors.


What is THIS you're referring to? Please leave me out.


----------



## g/o

Like always things seem to get out of hand. May I say to Chris that I am sorry for saying I would use Nodak Outdoors on a sign.. Like you say this is not the feelings of Nodak outdoors. I have 160 acres of CRP that is open to anyone under the age of 18 to hunt anytime they want as long as they are accompanied by a parent or guardian. It will stay as such and for you guys that think the only reason this is done is because of subliminal reason your mistaken. So go ahead and blast me some more for doing things like this.


----------



## woodpecker

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Maverick

G/O, You yourself are lumping all into one. I have said many times that I respect things about your outfit (the land you have for the youth especially). Many have said the same. I believe some have even used your outfit as a reference of what they should be run like. If half the outfitters did something like you (donating land for the future of hunting), I am sure that your profession would be looked at differently! Well atleast I would!!!


----------



## hydro870

If I tie up 5,000 acres so that nobody can hunt those acres except for my paying customers, and in return post 160 acres for youth only, will you consider me a savior of the North Dakota hunting tradition? Ya, I would be a real big hero.

No matter how you slice it, wildlife prostitution, is still just that. It's about time sportsman wake up. This practice needs to end. It won't be long, and our sons will not have the opportunities once available to us. I'm not sure what would keep me in ND if I could not freelance hunt, the winters?


----------



## averyghg

this thread got hi-jacked..........lets keep talking about why we SHOULD put a cap on NR's. I like that issue way better!


----------



## Bob Kellam

Many of you including g/o will probably get angry at me for posting this but this thread has digressed into another bash fest and I am sick of it!!!!!!!!

g/o owns a bunch of land on that land he has an old farm house that he rents out to hunters. HE RAISES HIS OWN BIRDS AND RELEASES THEM FOR PEOPLE TO HUNT ON HIS OWN LAND. It is called a shooting preserve and it is completely within the current brace of laws ND has on the books.

He has a youth area that is open to all youth free of charge to hunt birds he raised and released.

One of the big problems in ND is that every O/G operation in ND gets painted with a broad brush because of some of the outlaw outfitters like Sheldon and the Mertz boys to name a few. The very same thing happens when some jerk-off shoots up a posted sign, all hunters get a black eye. Do we deserve it??????????? the answer is no. Do all O/G operations deserve to get lumped into one category???

People don't get me wrong, I don't like what is happening in ND with the expansion of commercialization but trashing and lumping every O/G together is only expanding the rift that is already in place. If and I mean IF we are to ever get to the point of working together to create regulations that benefit all of us we hunters and O/G's need to show a little respect. *The O/G industry in ND is doing business in our state because the Legislature created laws to allow this practice. Bottom line is that not enough of the B-I-T-C-H-E-R-S on this site cared enough to contact their legislators and object. *

I consider g/o a friend. He has done a lot for youth and hunting that many of you will never know, we are good enough friends to respect each others view and we disagree on just about every outdoor issue that we discuss. I will not quit trying to keep a dialog open IMO it is worth the effort and may some day pay dividends for all involved.

Bob


----------



## averyghg

guys guys guys, the topic is supposed to be about caping the NR's. Lets stick to the subject


----------



## Mr. Lee

Bump


----------



## Wisconsin_mom

Shucks, SD would probably love a cap on NR in ND...more birds to fly south. PS. This is humor, not a comment to pick apart.


----------

