# "Pay" to hunt, could it be a good thing?



## griffman (Jan 17, 2004)

With the legislative session in full swing, it appears several issues have not gone the way most on this board would like. It also appears money talks (big surprise there huh!).

There are probably many to blame for our state heading in the direction it is as far as pay to hunt is concerned. The "silent" sportsman, the g/o's, the large corporations ie. Gander Mountain, the legislators who seemingly have their "own" objectives, the hunter/landowner relationship, a poor economy, the list goes on.....

While the average hunter can not compete with the corporations, or even our "average" g/o's in a time when cash is king. Maybe, just maybe we can accomplish, obtain, happiness, for the hunter, landowner, small business owner when our funds are pooled (increased) as a whole.

WHAT IF... The price of a resident hunting license were increased by two fold, three fold, maybe even up to $100 for a resident to hunt pheasants?

Would the economic impact of such an increase solve some/most of the issues the average hunter faces? Could that be enough money for us to compete with the corporations and g/o's that are leasing land at a fairly alarming rate? Could that be enough money to persuade the landowner, who will not let hunters on their land, to change their mind? Could ALL the average hunters combined pay enough money to reverse our problem? Would the average hunter be willing to do so? I know I would.

IF, that would be enough money to persuade landowners to open up more and better land to NDGF, wouldn't the average hunter win the battle? Not only the access battle, but wouldn't the extra cash sweeten the hunter/landowner relationship? Wouldn't it help the small business owners such as those in Mott, simply by the shear numbers of people that would again be willing to frequent that area? Wouldn't the wildlife benefit by simply reducing pressure on certain areas?

Isn't it better for us to pay $100 a year instead of $100 a day at a g/o?

Could this, would this work, and would you be willing to pay the price?

Or am I full of beans and posted a crappy question?!

What's your opinion/solution to our issues?


----------



## The Norseman (Jan 8, 2005)

G,
You have a very interesting idea, but you are putting assumptions into the
equation.
I will say this again, "the one with the most money wins".

I for one do not always have $100 to do some of things I like to do.
But I would find a way to come up with the hunting money.

How would that be regulated? How would you stop the "behind your back
deals"?

I just don't know. I know there are a lot of hunters out there that need a
place to go hunt.

Good suggestion and being proactive, keep the ideas coming. :wink:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

IF they were to increase the prices that high, you would find the "average" hunter would no longer be a hunter. What kind of an impact will that have on thier precious economy when no one can afford to hunt any more?


----------



## griffman (Jan 17, 2004)

*Norseman* I think we could stop the "behind the back" stuff by simply offering more money than the competition. How much money that would take I have no idea. Once a landowner knew he could get more money from NDGF vs. a g/o, it would be a pretty easy choice. Especially if some other safe gaurds were put into place. Like possibly some kind of program to pay for damages to PLOT areas caused by unethical hunters. Maybe a certain amount of $$ put towards the conservation and restoration of the landowners propery, such as stock dams dugout, trees planted, birds released etc.. Basically offer what the others do, just make it a better offer!

As far as regulation, I think the PLOTS program already performs this function on a smaller, less productive scale. I'd vote for NDGF to control the project. NDGF may not be "perfect" but I think they have their heads screwed on better than any other entity that may be interested in running such a project.

*g/o* I have no idea how much money NDGF has or what they do with it. But you stated the point perfectly that "if they want decent land they need to up the price otherwise it will get leased by other interests".

More money paid by ALL would = more and better land for ALL.

*farmerj* I think you miss my point completely. The "average" hunter is being weeded out RIGHT NOW! Hunting as we know it is turning into a "Kings" sport. If changes aren't made, sooner or later, only the wealthy will be able to afford to hunt. The rest of us, small business, landowner, hunter, and wildlife will be the losers in the long run.

Let's face it, most of us will sooner or later have to pay to hunt if we so choose to continue our lifestlye. A well organized group that puts more money in the kitty, could lower the cost per hunt for the average person.

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers! Just a few ideas that may or may not work! If anyone has better options, by all means get the ball rolling!!! Lets hear em!!!


----------



## Boy (Jan 24, 2005)

Every year I buy the Sportmens licence. It's 28 bucks. Plain and simple, if it was 100, I wouldn't buy it. Hunting and fishing is a hobby for me. During 2004, I hunted or fished 21 times. Would havebeen more but I was laid up for 3 months. It cost me $375 for deer processing, 375 for a new portable ice house, and it seems like 50 bucks for gas everytime I turn around. If it gets any more expensive, I will find a new hobby. Plain and simple. I don't go to the bar and pee money away. I do try to fly enough to keep current, but other than huntng or fishing, and the occassional airplane ride, I can't afford to do anything else. And unless I find a job and can make mroe money, I will find new hobbies. And I do not liek paying mroe for a buck tag. Instead of paying the 35 for abuck tag, I will buy two doe tags for 20.

Like the line from Cool Hand Luke, " I don't like it anymore than you men. Some men you just can't reach. He want's it, well he get's it."


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

I think its a great idea, always have. If you gotta pay $100 per head to lock up a ton of choice ground for the masses, I say go for it. Like you say, it costs $50 to gas up. A $100 bill is nothing, zip, nada. I say that we should all do it, it would raise a ton of dough.

You say you wanna take up another hobby? Have you checked out the price of a season ticket at the golf course lately? Price of a new boat? I've got 2 high school hockey players at home, got any idea what the sticks cost? $150 per. Got any idea how long a stick lasts? Not too dang long, I'll tell you that. Got any idea what the skates cost? Makes the sticks look cheap.

$100 would be a steal, and a helluva investment.

Think about it. What do you pay for anything these days? $100 is chicken feed.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Then before we go jacking up the prices on ourselves or even making the comment that we would be willing to pay an extraordinary fee such as $100 license,

What about making it uncomfortable for the G/O to lock us out. Protect what we have, let's not give it away, which is what I hear everybody talking about.

That includes Delta and their HPC, the QDM group and others, Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited....

These same groups are help promote the same ideas, Yes, they are providing a lot of the work and habitat, but at whose expense? Seems to me, they are promoting alot of the same things.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Delta doesn't have a thing to do with HPC. HPC was devised by the North Dakota Game and Fish. Delta Waterfowl has nothing to do with it. If you want to know what Delta is all about come to a meeting, or go to the website.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Bob Kellam said:


> Delta doesn't have a thing to do with HPC. HPC was devised by the North Dakota Game and Fish. Delta Waterfowl has nothing to do with it. If you want to know what Delta is all about come to a meeting, or go to the website.


Then why do you toute HPC and Delta all the time?


----------



## headhunter (Oct 10, 2002)

tb is right, $100 isn't squat anymore. If a buck tag cost 100 bones big whoop. Pay it or shoot some doe meat. Put it this way, a coveted "Any Antlered" tag should cost a HELL of alot more than a tank of gas for your pickup truck.........Right? RIGHT.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Because Delta Waterfowl is in the Business of *raising ducks *and *improving duck production*. and I enjoy a QUALITY waterfowl hunting experience. Do you have a problem with this concept?


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

I think its BAD. The ony fees you sould have to pay are the costs of your tag/lisence, and the cost of your ammo. Paying guides, or owners for access is stupid. its just another excuse to commercialize hunting
uke:


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Bob Kellam said:


> Because Delta Waterfowl is in the Business of *raising ducks *and *improving duck production*. and I enjoy a QUALITY waterfowl hunting experience. Do you have a problem with this concept?


I have problems with people who think because someone is not in the same economic class, they should not enjoy the same liberties and freedoms of others.

Exoberant license fees and limiting those based on residency is not the way to do it.

By promoting a system that says unless you pay me $XXX / day of hunting is not correct either.

It would seem that you have an issue with anyone that speaks against that as well.

It isn't the first time we have started this way and I will not continue it.

why should one be denied a chance to hunt for a buck just because they don't follow the same philosophy as another that the deer MUST have 4 or more points per side.

And why should a few be able to force that same license be priced out of a persons budget.

The same goes for waterfowl.

It is a PUBLIC RESOURCE, not limited to the upper middle class, higher license fees make it just that.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

You think I am the Upper Middle Class. :lol: I am not even going to go there. You obviously have some sort of problem with me and I refuse participate, Again!


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Bob Kellam said:


> You think I am the Upper Middle Class. :lol: I am not even going to go there. You obviously have some sort of problem with me and I refuse participate, Again!


You are a class act...

I said pricing a license so that the majority cannot afford it is not right.

It's not all about you Bob...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

100.00 is only $8.33 a month anyone can afford that, one less 12 pack a month??? Its less than NRs pay for only 10 days of hunting and no one includng NRs thinks thats too much for us. I think Griffman has a good idea. Everything is money driven the trick will be getting all the money funneled in the direction of the land access program, the usaul slight of hand the Legislator pulls in these situations is to redirect what is currently budgeted and going to the DNR somewhere else as soon as this windfall arrives. Great care will have to be given to making every cent go to Plots ect. Never trust a politician


----------



## griffman (Jan 17, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> I think its BAD. The ony fees you sould have to pay are the costs of your tag/lisence, and the cost of your ammo. Paying guides, or owners for access is stupid. its just another excuse to commercialize hunting
> uke:


mr. trooper- I don't know what kind of public land you hunt in IN, but here in ND, some of the best open areas open to hunting are the PLOTS. This is a program spearheaded by NDGF, they pay landowners X$ per acre in order to open the land for hunting. It has opened up nearly 700,000 acres of land. Not all of it is "prime" hunting land, none the less, it is open to hunt.

I guess I don't understand your reasoning. If you hunt public land, you ARE ALREADY paying to hunt. It is incorportated in the cost of your license, and probably in other taxes too. All I am suggesting is to have those who hunt increase the dollar pool to pay for more and better areas to hunt.

Landowners in ND are struggling, this trend looks like it will continue for a while. If 90% of ND land is privately owned, that means there is A LOT of land out there to potentially hunt. Many landowners are receptive to getting a few dollars to let people hunt on their land. Why not, their neighbors are doing it, its their land, they can basically do what they want with it. In fact, some landowners would rather post land than let people hunt if they are not getting compensated. I can't blame the landowner for trying to make ends meet in this era of economic trouble.

The whole point is, if the "average" sportsman doesn't step up to foot the bill, finacially helping out landowners, then the g/o's and large corporations will. If you think we have access problems now, oh boy, wait till the better portions of prime land are gobbled up both those people!

*farmerj*- The choice is yours. Pay a little now, or a lot later. It's not like you, and more importantly, generations to come, wouldn't be benefitting from something like this. How do you plan on having a place for your grandkids to hunt if you're not willing to pay the price? What is your solution farmerj?


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

I think it is a good idea IF there was a way to make sure that the money that was genterated by the extra license fees was used only for the purpose of opening more land for public access. Unfortunately when government agencies on the state level get involved with running everything, that money will somehow be funnelled and used somewhere else for some other program that needs more money. Good concept, just dont know if there is a way to make it work unfortunately.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

If you believe that the current track we are on is an acceptable one, then the idea of taxing ourselves to open up the access is probably a good one.

But understand that we are taxing ourselves to gain access to our resource. Just because the land is held by a private individual does not mean that he has the right to do whatever he wants with it, anymore than I can do whatever I want to do on mine. The ideas of stewardship have been lost in this country in the name of Private Property Rights.

#1 We must maintain the ability of the average person to have reasonable access to our wildlife.

I wisha few more would have been able to listen to Mr. Geist speak. We all focus on what we can do today to impact the issues that we have right in front of us. Being reactive will mean we will always be behind the curve. As well as thinkiong about what to do today, we need to think about what we can do to impact the direction we are headed. In some ways, the idea of taxing yourself to pay landowners for access only leads into more competion, and that is a contest the average hunter will inevitably lose, IMHO. The battle to me is more about defeating the current "Trophy" mentality, the idea that "If I dont limit the day was a failure". This is more the work of a lifetime, but it needs to be started, or we will spend our hunting careers fighting a losing battle.

Deeper than the original thought maybe, but think about it.


----------



## griffman (Jan 17, 2004)

tsodak said:


> If you believe that the current track we are on is an acceptable one, then the idea of taxing ourselves to open up the access is probably a good one.
> 
> Not "acceptable", but IMO unfortunatly, inevitable. If you believe it is matter of simply being "acceptable" or not acceptable, how do you propose we stop what is not acceptable?
> 
> ...


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Perhaps i miss-uderstood?

i was under the impression that this was a commercialized system. i didnt realize that we were discussing PLOTS? i do like the PLOTS system, and frankly, wish they had something of that sort in Indiana.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

griffman said:


> *farmerj*- The choice is yours. Pay a little now, or a lot later. It's not like you, and more importantly, generations to come, wouldn't be benefiting from something like this. How do you plan on having a place for your grandkids to hunt if you're not willing to pay the price? What is your solution farmerj?


No the choice is not mine, the choice is *ours*. And I don't like what is being served up so I will speak out. Someone else pointed out in another discussion that this is about HUNTING. Not waterfowl, deer, predator or upland game hunting, but HUNTING.

You ask for my idea of a solution... I probably shouldn't have, but most of the morning and while in church I thought of this.

What is at stake is public hunting access VS property rights..and as Griffman pointed out, stewardship.

I do not currently as of yet ask private parties to hunt on their land. After all, it is their property. I have been lucky enough to still be able to find productive PUBLIC land that works out for me. But I see more and more land being closed up with "posted" signs all of the time.

So what is my ideas.....


Outlaw road hunting. These characters give us a bigger black eye than anyone...We need to police ourselves. So lets get rid of the black eye. If your within 50 yds of a secondary or better road and killing game, you are poaching.[/*]
Land owners can lease all the land they want to a G/O outfitter they want. It is after all , "Their Land". But they lease it with a couple of Quid Quo Pro,
they will not be eligible for federal CRP or state PLOTS money. [/*]
 The G/O income would also be taxed at the 28% federal tax bracket. This money would go straight to the state PLOTS and WMA coffers.[/*]
[/*]
IF a land owner does receive CRP or PLOTS funding.
All program land is open to public WALK-IN ACCESS ONLY.
Any land with in 440yds (1/4 mile) of the primary residence would be exempted.[/*]
Agricultural land that is in current production use, to include pastures and crop fields would not automatically be opened. It would be the land owners choice if they are. Basically, common sense should prevail here. If there is a crop or livestock in the field, stay out.[/*]
[/*]
Landowner will be eligible for a tax break. To prevent the local economy from being hit by this tax break, the state will provide the difference to the county tax coffers.[/*]
[/*]
GNF moneys for public hunting land becomes off limits to anything else but that...PLOTS and WMA programs.
[/*]

So that it isn't just the land owners that are providing for public access, Figuring that there are some 140,000+ resident licenses sold in the state, (combines total of upland, big game and waterfowl.) The general habitat license could be raised $10 per license. This alone would provide an annual $1.4+ million to the PLOTS/WMA coffer.

With this additional money, the state should also be able to provide a larger and stronger enforcement division. one would think at a rate of 15-20 officers annually until we reach the necessary goal. 2 per county I would think would be the optimal goal. This would be a total of 106 conservation enforcement officers. The current structure would remain to provide the supervisor structure. While these could and should be strictly conservation enforcement, the possibility that they could be include to county sheriff roles could be studied. Figuring a cost of $50,000 annually per officer, for equipment, salary, training and benefits. This would take $530,000 out of the state budget. It would still leave approximately $900,000 in the PLOTS/WMA coffers.

The current process of limiting the amount of TIME in the state hunting, seems to be a better option than the NUMBER of hunters. Both are a means to an end and in their own ways produce the same result; a reduced amount of hunting pressure.

Without going into the state budget and tearing it apart along with the property rights issues, this is the best I can come up with in a 3 hour personal brain storming session.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Today, we have generally fair access to property for hunting. "Fair" to me does not mean that everyone can access the very best areas. There are always going to be folks who can invest in there own property, I hope to be one again soon.

Oddly, I took the comment about Genghis Khans politics the exact opposite way. "Slightly to the right of Genghis Khan" syas to me they are extremely conservative, and it should be easier to get it done in the states than in Alberta.

I dont pretend to have any answers. But I do think that we are not asking the right questions yet.

Suggestions???

First, a program to certify magazines, pictures, TV SHows, trophies and publications as being fair chase, unfenced, how ever you shoose to say it.

Certify that what we are looking at as ideals are something we should be idolizing.

Raise our expectations of hunting ethics, ban canned hunts and game farming outright. The reasons are there, we need to get the word out and get it done.

End the leasing of hunting rights. If you can afford it, buy it. If you cant, compete along with all else. Land owners certainly can control the access to there property, I even condone a trespass law, but the CANNOT PROFIT FROM IT.

These are a few of my thoughts. They go far beyond what we will get done in the next 10 years.

Tom


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## headhunter (Oct 10, 2002)

FarmerJ , I agree on the roadhunting. But this is a fact to consider, some of you will not like it, but I believe it as complete fact.

"the only way to outlaw roadhunting is to completely get rid of all section lines. No hunting on section lines. If you even LOOK at a section line you get 50 years in the pen." Sorry, a little wacko there but we need to get harsh on the usage of section lines. Its the only way to destroy roadhunting for good. :******:


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

g/o said:


> farmerj, You should have listened in church you would have been better off. It is clear that your title here farmer has nothing to do with you. If you had any idea of landowners right and farm programs such as CRP, and or the plots you could never have come up with such ridiculous ideas.Please pay attention in church from now on.
> 
> tsodak, Did I read here recently that you are going to be working with wetlands and farmers for the USFWS? You better change your attitude or it will be a rough road ahead. Get serious telling some one they can't lease there land. There are things that can be accomplished and you may have a chance at getting them through but none of these will fly.


And you have better....

You are starting to sound like militant tiger...

The basic premise of the idea is to make the CRP and PLOTS programs more attractive to the land owner and allow public access than to lease the land to a G/O....

If you have isues with that, then your name precedes you.


----------



## Ryan.Anderson (Oct 12, 2004)

It's a comfort to know that the internet hunters are still bickering amongst themselves about "pay to hunt" still. I was a tiny bit concerned that I may have missed out on some new topics being that I haven't been on the site for some time now. I (sadly) feel that it is my duty as a hunter on this site to throw out an idea and leave it at that. God forbid you people to actually take a couple of steps in the direction of your passionate goals and dreams for hunting. Some of the people on this site remind me of a few MTV commercials (the sink is running with a bunch of people standing around it talking about how awful it is till someone finally walks by and turns it off).

I suppose this is where I throw out my useless idea and let it simmer in your heads while it gets argued over and eventually forgotten. So, without further ado, I present to you the hunters association. 
There are countless membership organizations, so one more couldn't hurt. Why not start up a ND hunter nonprofit membership club in which members are charged an annual fee for membership, but have the right to hunt on all land that may be owned by the organization. I realize this is a far fetched idea, but in theory it sounds great (then again, so did Communism to some people). I also understand hunters will still be paying to hunt. Keep in mind that the fees paid to the membership would most likely be well under those charged by outfitters or landowners, and the only people allowed to hunt are those who are members to the land which I'm assuming could be easily enforced by the Game and Fish Department.

I personally hate my idea in all honesty because I don't want to pay more then I am now for hunting privileges in ND. On the plus side, the idea of fair chase won't be lost into high fences, minimal hunting pressure, or genetically enhanced animals. I could go on forever about the rules that could be instated into the membership as well as the pros and cons, but why would I waste my time when I know that the idea will only get onto the posted board and critiqued to no end without going anywhere. Perhaps some day I may take the first step towards my ideas, but until the day when the government land I so love gets leased up, I'll be sitting back watching the average income internet hunters keep themselves at a standstill while the wealthy eat up all the top notch farm hunting land.

One more note, keep in mind some of this post is sarcastic and some of it isn't. I do not wish to take a step into my pointless idea for ND hunting because I am content with my hunting opportunities. Rather then contradicting one another, someone take a F**king stand and get some people behind you to implement some of your ideas. I am not one to lead the way by any means, but I've read a few ideas that I would be proud to be a follower of. Someone turn the sink off!

This post is not meant for any one particular person. Those with the IQ to understand the point I'm getting at, don't take offence please. Those without the IQ or common sense to understand, I'm sure you will take offence.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Headhunter

I disagree on getting rid of section lines. That would simply be another way to denie access. They do that in other states, and sometimes you have to drive 20 or 30 miles and come in from the backside of public land when there is a farm trail on the section line and a person would need only follow it ¼ mile to get to 30 or 40 sections of public land. I am sure many landowners would like this. It would give them control of some of out public land in the badlands. Can you imagine having to pay $100 to get to public land.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o

As I posted on another thread we can not deny landowners the right to lease their land. We however control guides, outfitters, and individual hunters. We can outlaw leasing land for the purpose of hunting. As a matter of fact that would be my choice on how to handle this problem. We can't stop the landowner, but we can stop you and individuals through legislation, and if hunters wake up they will put enough pressure to over ride outfitter dollars influence in the legislature.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

g/o said:


> farmerj, You suggested that a farmer would not be eligble for CRP or PLOTS if he was to lease to a g/o. PLOTS are public land and g/o's are not allowed to hunt on this land. CRP has nothing to do with hunting so don't even go there. Solutions yes I do have a few, one that I'm sure will come in play will be extra points for farmers when enrolling CRP,if they open it to pulic hunting. They could go one step farther let say the max CRP payment is $50.00 an acre. Have some groups such as Delta,DU,PF etc. kick in some extra $$ and offer an extra $10 an acre if open to public hunting if the state matches. So now instead of a $50 an acre I can get $70. Of course these are hypothedical numbers here just trying to show how this could work. Lets face money talk and you know the rest of this one.


G/O....

I'll give you te credit for this one, but read my statement a little closer.....

You just said the same thing I did.....

I just went one step further and put an income tax on the income from a G/O lease to the landowner. It would also be done strictly through the government WITHOUT the assistance of groups like DU, Delta or PF....

on top of that, provisions are made to safe guard the homestead against hunting incidences.......


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

And how would you feel if you lease your land to a G/O and that income is taxed to the point it is taken away from you,

You don't get it do you....

It is the land owner who is taxed of the money you (G/O) pay him (landowner)....to the point he doesn't want to lease to the G/O, but rather to the GNF.....

Call it a "Natural Resource tax" if you want to call it a tax code(your words). It would be the landowners cost of selling access to a public natural resource to a G/O who would lock out the common hunter.

IF he were to lease land to a g/o, then that land owner would not be eligible for ANY PLOTS/CRP program..... and is left holding the whole bag on his own.

He can either do that or be a good steward and work with GNF and put the land into PLOTS/CRP and receive his CRP funds, as well as a considerable tax break from the county/state.

The state would reimburse the county for the tax break the owner would receive.

The county keeps their tax coffers,
The landowner gets his might buck,
The public get additional hunting ground
and the average hunter no longer has to pay a $100 license.

The only one left standing on the side....
The G/O who wants the minority to control the majority.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Farmerj

A few years ago the CRP didn't meet the cost benefit ratio as determined by the government accounting office. Because CRP is beneficial to wildlife groups like The Nature Conservancy lobbied congress to add wildlife values to its cost benefit estimates. It was then passed in congress. It had been proposed that these lands be open to hunting, but agriculture groups nixed that plan. I would suggest that when CRP is up for renewal that public access be added again. The landowners are free to sign up or not. There is no need to add $10 or $20 to sweeten the pot.

I think our guides and outfitters need to be handled like Alaskan commercial fishing license. There is a set number, never to be increased. I think the license is $50,000 lifetime. If you want to be a commercial fishing license you buy it from a current fisherman who is going out of business. The state sells the license once, after that it goes from fisherman to fisherman.

g/o, my goal isn't to get rid of the guides and outfitters, simply make it illegal to lease land to keep others out. I don't think we can sit around and be nice guys because guides and outfitters want everything we have. Lets face it their dream is all of us standing at the gate with our wallets open because that will be the only way we hunt in the future if they have their way. What we have to do is make sure they can't take it. What we have in our favor is far greater numbers. It's not that we want to hurt anyone, we simply want to halt the theft of a public resource that belongs to all of us.


----------



## p/b (Jan 29, 2005)

"The only realistic chance you have on any of your ideas would be to change the tax structure in this state. Make all land that is bought for hunting purposes commercial,and or any land leased for hunting purposes commercial also. This would be hard to do but would be a possibility."

If purchased land isn't being used for ag purposes, in some cases it already is taxed as commercial property. I believe a bill still alive in the legislature reinforces this. As for leased property, I think some tax assessors are trying to get a handle on this as well. Whether this session or next, I suspect if there is more value being generated off the land than just farming, such as hunting leases, the taxman will be interested!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

g/o said:


> farmerj, Sorry I have had trouble understanding where your coming from with this. So now you want to tax it to death to make outfitting non existant. Good luck. I thought Griffman was looking for some things that could work.


So who would you rather price out of the ability to hunt?

The minority? or the Majority?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No, of course CRP is not a wildlife program. It is a program to reduce erosion and production, hence increase prices of commodities through supply and demand. It did not meet cost benefit ratios, and hence many organizations lobbied to include wildlife values as a benefit provided by CRP. CRP is valuable for erosion reduction, reduced production, and wildlife. However many taxpayers see paying to hunt as double dipping, and an insult. We all live together within the social structure of this nation, but it can't be one sided. It is time to make choices. Guides and outfitters have been benefiting from the conflict between sportsmen and landowners. A conflict that outfitters have successfully orchestrated. Sportsmen have appreciated the privilege of hunting private land and hence have showed our appreciation not on the doorstep with our wallet open, but at the ballot box by voting to support agriculture. I hope the symbiotic relationship can continue, but it will require controlling the guides and outfitters unsatiated appetite for sole access and money.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o wrote:


> Wonder why more land is posted every year?


No, I know why more land gets posted every year, because people want more of what everyone else has every year.



> I do let many hunt for free but for people such as yourself I will say open your wallet.


I keep hearing about how outfitters and such always let people hunt. Aren't these great people. I wonder why they lease land? I have some swamp land for sale.



> Its all about attitude.


It works both ways g/o you only see us as money in your pocket and nothing else. Not fellow hunters, not fellow North Dakotan's, just another buck. I think you are on here to stall people from reacting to the current dilemma. You know, stay calm let the poison work.

The reason I have such a poor opinion of outfitters is because they are damaging their home area economics for personal financial gain. Not only that they are cheating all hunters our of natural resources that belong to them. Providing access should be called wildlife resource pimping service.


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

It is interesting that almost all distributions of federal money have strings attached to ensure that the people paying the bill, taxpayers, aren't excluded from using what they are paying for.

Do any of you farm economists know why this is different in the Department of Ag?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

scraper, your right, and I think these things need to be brought to light. This is the right trail to follow if we want to attach some strings to the CRP. Public access or no CRP may change some attitudes. I would bet they still sign up rather than trying to farm some of the sand they have turned their native prairie into.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

*Sorry fellas I'm done with your discussion, this is ridiculous.*

well then dont let the door hit you in the.... well you know the rest


----------

