# Bob K. Strikes again!!!!



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Bob had a fabulous letter to the editor in the Forum this morning!! As I have said before, I am glad that you are on our side!!! 

I also wanted to take the time to publicly thank you for your tireless work on the part of all sportsmen, resident and non resident. We are all in your debt. I shudder to think where we would be without your efforts on these legislative issues. It is hard for me to keep them all straight but you are there to help us all out. Thank you BOB!!!!!! :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Agreed! Nice work Bob!


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

E-fact???

When did trucks become hunting-related expenditures?

Seems a little misleading!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Why would a truck NOT be a hunting related expense??? If I didn't hunt and fish I wouldn't own a truck because I wouldn't pay for the gas of a 4 wheel drive if I didn't need to.


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Dan, I agree with you, I have been trying to come up with a way to hunt/pull my boat in a better cost effective mannor, still waiting for the truck that gets 20+ miles a gallon. I definitely would not own the truck if not for the above reasons..

PS- Bob, keep up the great work!!!! :beer: It is greatly appreciated..


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Move to the country you'll need your pick-up just to get to work, between spring mud and winter snow we need 4 wheel drives out here just to get around alot of days. Nothing to do with recreation more like survival and being able to be independent.

Can someone post the article or a link to it?


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

http://in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm? ... on=Opinion


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Thank you Bob. A well thought fact based assessment is rather refreshing to read in the forum.


----------



## SnakeyJake1 (Mar 22, 2005)

Great Letter Bob!!!

Some times them boys at the Forum need a little wake up call!

Especially when they seem to open their yaps without researching the subject enough...

Keep up the good work!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Thanks 870.... good read Bob Thanks.


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

zzzzzzzzzz


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Djleye,

That is comparing apples to oranges for hunting-related
expenditures for residents/non-residents. I have a hard
time trying to be convinced that "you" bought the truck
solely for hunting! How about the Mn residents that 
purchases trucks in ND, our those considered in the factor
for non-resident's expenditures? My guess is no.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Good job....Bob :beer:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I would guess that the assumption here is that residents and non residents buy their vehicles within a fairly close proximity to their home. Regardless of the assumption being correct or not, the numbers do not lie. Maybe there are a few that come to ND and decide to pick up a new truck while here but I sincerely doubt it!!


----------



## MACBARN (Aug 1, 2002)

Bob Thanks for all your help during the sesion.sandy barnes


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Hats off to BOB! He put in hundreds of hours and a pile of personal money, not to improve his own personal hunting (or bank account), but to improve hunting for the general population. You did good. Thank you.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

PSDC,
The study was conducted by the Econ Dept at NDSU so it is the most credible study done on hunting expenditures to date in North Dakota. I can sit and pick apart any economic study because it is always based on a set of assumptions.

The studies that all economic decisions are based on in this country are similar to this one. Non are perfect in every single aspect but they do give a very good assessment of the situation. It is simply impossible to ***** every single aspect perfectly. This study was done so policy makers could make the best possible decision given the information we have available to us and I think it does that very well.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

*HERE IS MR. KELLAM'S ARTICLE*

In its March 18 editorial, The Forum cites the following as the three most-important considerations for the Legislature when considering hunting legislation:

"The impact of all hunters on game populations."

"The impact of nonresident hunters on the economy of rural North Dakota."

"Maintaining a warm welcome for nonresident hunters and tourists."

In this piece, The Forum castigates resident hunter groups and the legislature as "unwelcoming" to tourist hunters.

Wow! Those are the three most-important factors when considering hunting legislation. Shockingly (maybe not) absent from that list is the economic impact North Dakota hunters make to the state's economy and the importance that quality hunting plays in the decision for thousands of North Dakota hunters to remain or become North Dakota residents and to participate in the outdoors.

To The Forum (and unfortunately to some policy makers), not only do resident hunters rank low in consideration, they do not rank at all. This blunder on The Forum's part is only the latest in its consistent unimformed and biased reporting and editorial stance on the hunting issues, constantly favoring the interests of the relative few who have enjoyed recent financial gain through marginalizing the state's game and formerly outstanding hunting opportunities.

E Fact: In 2002, residents contributed $402 million to the North Dakota economy through annual hunting/fishing-related expenditures. (North Dakota State Accounting Economics Department)

E Fact: That same year, non-residents contributed $66 million to the North Dakota economy through annual hunting/fishing-related expenditures. (North Dakota State University Ac-Econ Dept.)

That residents contribute so much more to the North Dakota economy through hunting-related expenditures is not a surprise. Residents make almost all of their hunting related expenditures in North Dakota (trucks, guns, decoys, other hunting equipment, dogs, vet bills, clothing, lodging, gas and food, just to name a few), whereas nonresidents generally make only their trip-related expenditures here (lodging, food and gas).

E Fact: Since the beginning of the last great game boom (early '90s), resident upland hunters started at 42,900 in 1998 and in 2003 were at 63,711. (North Dakota Game and Fish stats)

E Fact: During that period, nonresident upland hunters started at 14,365 in 1998 and in 2003 were at 25,098. (NDGF stats)

E Fact: During that period, resident waterfowlers started at 40,000 in 1998, and in 2003 were at 30,771, after peaking in 2001 and 2002 at 35,300 and 34,138 respectively. (NDGF stats)

E Fact: During that period, nonresident waterfowlers started at 19,000 in 1998, and in 2003 were at 26,066 after peaking in 2001 and 2002 at 30,000 and 29,992 respectively. (NDGF stats)

So, based upon the numbers above, how has North Dakota been or could possibly be perceived as "unfriendly to non-resident hunters"? If we have been unfriendly and unwelcoming, we have done a pretty poor job at it. The relative nonresident participation level is huge compared to historical levels and is increasing virtually every year. In fact, the numbers seem to suggest that North Dakota's recent hunting policies have been friendlier to nonresidents than to residents.

In this time of supposed limitless waterfowl hunting opportunities as some would mischievously or ignorantly suggest, what caused nearly 10,000, or 25 percent, of North Dakota waterfowlers to quit hunting over the course of just five short years? A lack of quality opportunities through over-use, that's what. More importantly, what was the effect to the North Dakota economy of those 10,000 waterfowlers no longer making year-round waterfowl (the most expensive form of hunting, gear-wise) related expenditures here?

The Forum, some commercial interests and some North Dakota policy makers are taking residents and their dollars for granted - feeling that resident participation and their "old money" will always be there, so all new nonresident participation is "new money." In doing so, the storekeepers are telling their best customers they are second rate. A big mistake, as the above resident waterfowl hunter numbers indicate.

Ask the businesses on the Main Street of Mott what happens when you try to stuff the sausage tube already full of boring, average-Joe "old money" with county-club styled "new money." Eventually, you trade the steady, consistent, year-round, loyal, repeat business of one group for the fickle, sporadic, seasonal dollars of the other.

As the state's largest newspaper, The Forum owes a responsibility to its readers to independently and thoroughly research, digest and accurately report on these important issues, rather than perpetuating the anecdotal diatribe of itself and others. Nonresident hunting is important to North Dakota; however, the interests of resident hunters (and their economic impact to North Dakota) should not only make the list of hunting policy considerations, but also occupy the top spot.

I would strongly urge The Forum to bone up a little and keep the interests of its readers in mind before it chooses to print facts on the subject again.

Kellam lives in Fargo


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

WOW!!!!! Thank you very much.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

djleye said:


> Bob had a fabulous letter to the editor in the Forum this morning!! As I have said before, I am glad that you are on our side!!!
> 
> I also wanted to take the time to publicly thank you for your tireless work on the part of all sportsmen, resident and non resident. We are all in your debt. I shudder to think where we would be without your efforts on these legislative issues. It is hard for me to keep them all straight but you are there to help us all out. Thank you BOB!!!!!! :beer: :beer: :beer:


I'll second all that!!
Thank You Mr. Kellam!!! :beer:


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

To tell the truth, I'm surprised the Forum printed Bob's letter. It has so much more truth than their normally biased drivel. Well done Bob! Thank you! Burl


----------



## Draker16 (Nov 23, 2004)

Great article Bob thanks for looking out for us!!!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Well put Bob. :beer:


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

BOB FOR GOV> :beer:


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

:beer:


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

I just saw Bob's article on Tony's web site. I wonder what Mr. Dean thought of that?


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Thanks Bob! :beer: 
TC


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

:thumb:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

You are all welcome! 

Thanks to all who helped me :beer:

Later 
Bob


----------



## leadshot (Aug 2, 2004)

Thanks alot bob for all your time and everything you do for all. :beer:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Thank you Bob, and also thank you Forum for publishing Bob's letter. Let's realize, that took some guts on the Forum's part to publish that letter. Thanks to both of you!

Jim Heggeness


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

a late thanks to you bob! i remember seeing your well put statement. nice work


----------

