# Savoring Saskatchewan - A Perspective



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

A number of years ago, it was not to difficult to acquire the daily limit of 5 sharptails and l0 hungarian partridge in certain parts of the province. But harsh winters and drought took the upland populations to real lows. Their legislature, receiving strong input from the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation and the Conservation Dept., decided to restrict the nonresident hunter to 6 sharptails and l0 huns as a SEASONAL LIMIT., in 2002. There were NO restrictions on Sask. residents. That decision reflects their feeling that residents ought to get first chance at what they considered a marginal bird population.

Those criticizing North Dakota for their quasi attempts to protect the resource for utilization for residents first, and nonresidents second ought to take note. Is this really any different in context? Saskatchewan sought use of a low population resource for their residents and North Dakota sought to protect their small game resources from being usurped by swelling nonresidents.

The nonresidents or residents castigating those in North Dakota that feel this resource needs regulating should take a closer look at what those around us have decided. Give them credit. They saw the handwriting on the wall. HOW LONG will it take us to make these decisions?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

A common sense approach by our Canadian neighbors. Out of curiosity what does a small game license cost and how long does the season run there ?


----------



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

Dick - Saskachewan's nonresident small game license is $ 127.00 Canadian Funds. Add an additional $ l8.00 for waterfowl. At the present time, the duration of the license is for the entire season. The legislature has elected to restrict/control the resource by means of SEASON LIMITS , and not duration. BUT, there is talk of both restrictions in duration of the license and total numbers issued in the future. The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation (an outspoken advocate for the Saskatchewan sportsperson) is/has proposed legislation in this area.
Also, there does not appear to me any unified effort on the part of the tourism or "economic development" segments of Saskatchewan which would fight the Wildlife Federations desires. The ATTITUDE of appears to be that protecting use of the wildlife resources mainly for their residents, notwithstanding their willingness to share accordingly.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

DLT, the idea of a season limit would have great merit-----are there tags involved or how does it work?

The governors election is 14 months away. I beleive it would prudent this time for the the sportsmen of ND to make our wishes clear to these candidates, and for these candidates to have resident hunting issues as a platform plank. Can you imagine the votes from sportsmen (and their spouses and family members) that this would draw? Two candidates, roughly equal in the race, one with and one without......100,000 + sportsmen in the state......hummm.

The ideas you have shared with us from Canada should go on a list to be presented to these candidates.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Why would you compare what is going on in N.D. to how the country of Canada treats foreiners. The residents of Canada live under strict firearms rules and would like no better than to totally eliminate people from crossing their borders with them. It is actually gun control, nothing more, the fees for each firearm, limiting shells, all cloaked in a package that appears to be protecting the hunting "rights" of it's citizens. Call me paranoid, ask the NRA what they think. With the gun turn-in program that is in effect, hunting will be a thing of the past for Canadian general public hunters, it will be veiwed as an industry nothing more. I doubt that this is what N.D. needs.[/quote]


----------



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

Dick M. - Saskatchewan regulates the season limits on upland game birds by issueing nonresidents tags with their license - - - same as North Dakota used years ago.

Melson - The border existing between the U.S. and Canada does not change the common issue of preserving a quality resource for all hunters.
Canada's gun control regulations did not emanate from the Western provinces, but from Quebec mainly. Those provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta were vehemently opposed to this, and all the Canadian's I have talked with verify this fact. They graciously welcome hunters from the "states", but at the same time are concerned about our increasing numbers affecting their resource.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

JMS, don't have to ask NRA, just ask average joe from Man, Sask, Alb or BC. They HATE the gun control, any of it, even that which applies to us at the crossing. It has been forced upon them from a Federal (as opposed to provincial) perspective, by the populated and less gun-tolerant east. Even had a few just slightly tounge in cheek tell me they'd like to join the States.

The majority of res Sask hunters I spoke with, however, are very appreciative of the provincial controls that are in place to make sure Sask residents get earlier hunting dates, longer shooting hours, certain species/area exclusivity, etc., that helps ensure that their quality of hunting does not overly suffer at the hands of their neighbors to the South.

Their provinces, like our states, have most to say on game management issues. Seems like Sask has things figured out a little on how to balance a great deal of issues for tourism and residents and make sure it will remain a very special place to hunt for all.

Not that much different than what several of the the provinces have done with fishing issues. Lots of folks from the states groused about the lower limits, slots and catch and release rules, but I think the provinces made the conscientious decision to try and make sure the resource would remain first-class and generally accessible for the indefinite future instead of burning the hell out of it for short term excesses.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Very insightful Dan and DLT, but the first move these provinces made was to prohibit "pay hunting" to prevent the commercialization of a publicly own resource. That prevented great numbers of G/O from feeding at the trough in the first place - they don't think they are "owed" or "entitled" something like the G/O's here.

As for gun control, its not just Quebec, but the southern Ontario Liberals behind it as well.

M.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

1) DLT also add the $50 (Canadian) for the gun entry permit.

2) When the upland bird populations are low - changing the limit will have almost no impact since few hunters get close to a limit anyway. How may people shoot 10 huns in ND a year - how many even see 10 anymore? I guess it makes you feel like you are at least accomplishing something - or have some sort of control.

*Habitat, spring nesting season weather patterns, and mild winters are what will help SK upland birds!!!!!!!!!!!!! *

3) Massive urban population dominating the rural population - that is new - not.

Spring black bear hunting was banned in Ontario - did they ever get it back? What is next?

Western provinces may also suffer further restrictions on gun ownership or hunting as the eastern provinces change and/or influence the rules.

4) MRN we do not agree to often - but it would be nice if the G/O bill started last session actually put limits on number of G/O, land leased, ...
The post on the other thread regarding KB on DL area land was an eye opener if true.

5) *Obviously, Canada does not have enough country music (twain left) nor do they have enough ********. * :lol:


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

First of all, you can't compare non-migratory birds to migratory birds. Who goes to Sask to hunt huns and sharptails? The limitations on non-resident waterfowl hunters are not that restrictive. And secondly, if Sask is so resident friendly how come no one can hunt on Sundays? Seems to me that the weekend is when most resident's would have the opportunity to hunt with out taking time off work. Why limit them to one day a week? This schedule benefits NR becasue they are already taking a week off. That one extra day doesn't matter to NR eitherway.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

You see, the rules on 10 huns aren't there to guard against those that never shoot 10 huns, it is there to protect them from the people that do. I would venture to bet that there are a ton of people that live in the right places that could shoot 10 huns a day for a long time if they had the inclination to do so. They would not be the people in the red river valley but I would bet there are some areas that it could happen.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Powder, I hope MRN jumps back in on this one and has some insight, but I suspect the Sunday thing has some religous overtones - day of rest - for humans and critters. Everytime I hear a comment like "what pressure, we didn't hear another shot all day" I think to myself "thank God", hopefully a few birds got some rest somewhere at least for a while. Under-pressured birds aren't a lost opportunity, they're what make opportunities. MRN, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect the Sunday thing (a day of likely heavy pressure following a day of sure heavy pressure) was designed for the hunted and not the hunter.

This may not be the most resident-friendly provision, but a week or two res only on blacks and ducks, all day shooting for whites exclusive in some areas), res-only in the prime whitetail areas, restrictions on upland, etc are greatly appreciated by the hunters up there.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Dan,

you're right - my belief is that it started as a Blue Law but quickly became a useful pressure management tool. To me was normal until I started hunting in the US. West Virginia just got rid of their prohibition on Sunday hunting - so its not an uncommon idea.

The population is denser in Alberta than here in ND - the rural folks there whine about the urban weekend warriors too. The saturday pressure is intense. They are opening more and more mangement units - far away from urban centers - for Sunday hunting. White geese are open for Sunday hunting also.

Another theory is that it's the G/O's in cahoots with the airlines about that saturday night stay thing....

The "common" folk up there are also looking for ways to reduce NR pressure on waterfowl. The Alberta Game and Fish Association (like our wildlife federation) had a resolution to give the G/O an allotment such that NR's accounted for no more than 10% of the waterfowl harvest. So folks there see the trouble brewing...

M.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

I'm pretty sure that Virgina, North Carolina, Maryland and a few other east coast states still have the no Sunday hunting law. In a lot of areas in Hawaii, the locals wanted to restrict NRs from hunting so they passed a law that makes hunting legal only on Saturday and Sunday (the days the locals don't have to work).


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Upland vs waterfowl in western Canada is an apples and oranges thing.

Many SK "management zone / units" restrict hunting of upland game birds to residents only. Now they have placed season limits.

SK people likely have a strong affinity for upland because they live there year around. Looking across a cold January snowscape and seeing a flock of Huns is a pleasant scene.

Still if the population is depressed ... even the bigtime hunter with dogs will not find limits on a daily basis. SK must address habitat issues if they really want to build bird numbers.

*SK farmers hate waterfowl. *Some ag practices of swathing small grain crops are still used in Canada (ND farmers combine directly). Plus the migration comes to Canada earlier and often (especially with a late harvest) the migration meets the grain crops head on. Many a SK farmer will tell hunters to leave birds in fully harvested fields alone. Hunt my swathed barley instead.

Canada often sees more pressure by dog trialers than hunters. Many southern field trialers travel to AB/SK/MB to run dogs all August. They leave before the cap is popped.


----------



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

The comments have wandered far afield from the intent of the original post. Granted, there are a multiple of related "side" issues concerning hunting in Canada. But, the intent of the post was not to promote Saskatchewan. or discuss license and other fees. nor debate the Federal gun control legislation. It also did not endorse their institution of restrictions as an answer to the low upland populations. The point of the post was that Canada's ATTIDUDE toward use of their wildlife resources by residents first, and then sharing with the nonresident secondly differs greatly in our approach in North Dakota. They obviously feel that their residents (not even other Canadian residents) deserve a preference in the harvest of their game resources. Selfish? I don't think so. They are not unwilling to share the resource; only giving their own first opportunities. In North Dakota, we tend to take a different approach. The way the situation is now, the state favors no restrictions on the nonresident, and the resident is left to fend for himself. (notwithstanding the recent legislative changes). Therefore, the question remains from my original post; HOW LONG will it take us to form like policies here?????


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This argument goes round and round. Prairie hunter nailed it with the apples to oranges comment. The Canadians just passed a bunch of laws that felt good but had no real effect on the Hun population Its like closing ruffed grouse season when they are down, its won't change things much. Game populations ebb and flow and for the most part no one can control it. What happens when we encourage our politicians to pass feel good illogical kneee jerk reaction laws is that you have already strenthen th G/O's position in ND which is the real source of the loss of access everyone is *****ing about. Without more public land North Dakotans are all going to be out of a spot to hunt.


----------

