# Resolving the outfitter/freelance hunter controversy



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Right now there seems to be no resolution between the needs of our g/o inductry and the needs of freelance hunters. Ponder this:

*1.) Cap the number of outfitters at the current level.
2.) Cap the number of acres leased at the current level*

This allows the g/o to operate at their current level. It also eliminateds the influx of fly-by-night operations.

*3.) Create a new non-resident small game-hunting license for hunting with guides and outfitters, no cap.
4.) Create a new non-resident waterfowl-hunting license for hunting with guides and outfitters, no cap.*

This allows g/o's to optimize hunter pressure on their "lands".

*5.) Cap the number of regular non-resident waterfowl-hunting licenses according to the "hunter pressure concept", allowing only one license per season.
6.) Continue with the current non-resident small-game license system.
*
This will regulate the hunting pressure in the remainder of the state.

*7.) Do not allow concurrent "guide/outfitter" and "regular" non-resident hunting licenses.
8.) A non-resident possessing a "guide/outfitter" license may only hunt of land owned or leased for hunting by an outfitter.
*
This removes the option of giudes and outfitters receiving a monetary reward for putting their clients on lands outside of their control


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

jhegg

If you could find a way that was beneficial for the O/G businesses to go along with 1 and 2 of your proposal the rest of it would make sense. If you were able to cap the O/G numbers how would you deal with the people that want to get into the business? New O/G's can only get in if someone is selling their business? Like a liquor license? Would this create a new generation of un-licensed landowner O/G's and soft outfitters?

I like the special License idea, Similar concept to SD with Preserve licenses. I am not sure if this is still correct but if you buy a "Regular" NR Pheasant license in SD it is also good for preserves.

Bob


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Interesting ideas....

I believe numbers 1 and 2 are attainable.Sask. does this.Along with no leasing.You can't just start guiding or build a fishing lodge anywhere.There are zones with a certain number of outfits in each one.If you want to start a business and there are no more available....you would have to buy an existing one just like a liqour license.

I would think current G/O would favor this....less competition.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

I think it is terrific that you all are trying to find some commonality with the G/Os, BUT, if you haven't noticed the last 2 sessions the freelance hunters of NoDak had their hinders handed to them in a hand basket.

Please remember that it is not only the G/Os, it is also the hospitality folks, Farm Bureau as well as many OOS interests that will not give an inch but expect to take a mile. They have no reason to, it is coming their way without any giving.

It is a noble gesture from some of the top proponents for ND freelance hunting we have, but there is no reason for them to let up and give us a morsel to chew on. Ordinarilly I am an opitimist, but it's time to be a realist.
Our next best hope will lie with the appointment of a new G&F commissioner and the next election of a new governor.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

4 curl



> I think it is terrific that you all are trying to find some commonality with the G/Os, BUT, if you haven't noticed the last 2 sessions the freelance hunters of NoDak had their hinders handed to them in a hand basket.


Respectfully 4 curl, this is not an accurate statement. we lost the HPC bill because of a vendetta or whatever you want to call it by the HNRC Chair. HB 2256 did not turn out the way we wanted it to but the result remains to be seen. HB 1276 was a bill that was supported by Freelancers and Outfitters and partially drafted with outfitter input. The bills to increase big game licenses for outfitters died, we had a part in that. SB 2041 was passed but it is not the end of the world yet. HB 1339 died and SB 2367 passed we did not want it to but it does allow for the same number of days hunting for NR waterfowl and upland, Mr. Froelich's bill for tresspass went down in flames again.



> Our next best hope will lie with the appointment of a new G&F commissioner and the next election of a new governor.


Again I disagree although these will be very important to the future of hunting in ND, my gut feeling is that the legislators are as sick and tired of the fighting between O/G's and freelancers and small towns as I am. I think they are fed up to a point and until we bring something to the table and show them that there is a point of compromise and we can live with each other they are going to keep being anti outdoors. Think about this for a second, wildlife bills are sandpaper on their toilet paper! they see a bunch of bills that are one sided, either for us or them. the one bill they saw that was drafted by both sides (HB 1276) was passed by a wide margin! Does that tell you anything?

Later
Bob


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

I am sorry Bob but I fear I would make a pizz-poor politician. In my world I see only black and white, no shades of gray.

Please show me where commercialization had been slowed or curbed this last session, Ill give you 1276 but in your opinion why did the outfitters support this? I have a theory, please share yours. I feel hpc is the single largest bill that we NEEDED the past 2 sessions, if we had this they would be coming to you for concessions. For a lack of a better term, those who are doing the bootlicking really aren't the folks with the control.

Other than being a pain in their posterior, I'd like to see the money from some of these politicians. Maybe it is just me, can't see the forest thru the trees, maybe!

I visited with 3 friends (landowners) this past weekend trying to secure a little slice of ND to hunt this season.

1. Granted permission, as long as I bring the beer. He informed me some land that he has cash rented for many years may be lost due to a death in the family (his family) and is feared he will lose it to OOS interests. Extra prime land that will most likely go for well more than he can afford. He had an oppurtunity to purchase another piece awhile back that laid adjacent to his and lost it to party from Wi.

2. Granted permission but only after the first 3.5 wweks of the season. As soon as the guide is finished with his clients. New deal.

3. Land lost to the coal mine.

Just seems to fit in this conversation doesn't it? I have visited these landowners for 6 or more years.

I am in no way trashing the ideas mentioned, I am all for furthering our agenda as an open state so we and the next generations can enjoy the heritage. We just need a bigger stick! :wink:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

4 curl



> Please show me where commercialization had been slowed or curbed this last session, Ill give you 1276 but in your opinion why did the outfitters support this? I have a theory, please share yours. I feel hpc is the single largest bill that we NEEDED the past 2 sessions, if we had this they would be coming to you for concessions. For a lack of a better term, those who are doing the bootlicking really aren't the folks with the control.


Commercilization did not get what they wanted with:

HB 1393 -(Rep's D. Johnson, Carlson, S. Meyer; Sen's Krauter, Erbele,) Would have increased the maximum number of white-tailed deer licenses available for outfitters from 100 to 150. Failed house 21-72.

HB 1118 -(Rep's Norland, Drovdal, S. Meyer,; Sen's Lyson, Urlacher) Would have increased the nonresident any-deer bow licenses from 15 percent to 20 percent of the prior year's mule deer gun licenses. Failed house 1-89.

It did not affect them much. *1276 was supported because it had benefits to them as well as us.*
HPC was a big loss for waterfowl hunters, and quality waterfowl hunting, there are, however, many other aspects to hunting North Dakota as well. Yes we need more sportsman participation (bigger stick) but this "big dick" contest where we bring a stick and they bring a club isn't working. Legislators are hearing from the small towns that say regulations are hurting their survival, they are hearing from the O/G's that said the proposed regulations were going to hurt their business, they are the poster boys for econimic development that the legislature has been working for for as long as I can remember, they are NOT hearing from the hunters because MOST ND hunters do not travel much from their region, many only hunt openers and the hunting around home is pretty good O/G's or not. some of us travel a great deal and see the effects but we are the few amongst the many, and we are speaking up, they are not. solutions? I don't know if any of these ideas will work, probably will not but you never know until you try.

Sorry about your hunting spots, I have lost quite a few as well and so have many others here.

Take Care
Bob


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

*1276 was supported because it had benefits to them as well as us.*
The legitamate operations had nothing to lose from this one, maybe even an oppurtunity to grow their bus. I know a couple of guide operators who are squirming something fierce after the G&F asked to see their client list.

they are NOT hearing from the hunters because MOST ND hunters do not travel much from their region, many only hunt openers and the hunting around home is pretty good O/G's or not. some of us travel a great deal and see the effects but we are the few amongst the many

Sounds familar.

I don't know if any of these ideas will work, probably will not but you never know until you try

Agreed.

Sorry about your hunting spots, I have lost quite a few as well and so have many others here.

Don't be sorry for me, I am a resilient s.o.b. Be sorry for our sons and daughters who will not have the freedoms we have enjoyed so dearly.

Regards.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Full Curl said


> Please remember that it is not only the G/Os, it is also the hospitality folks, Farm Bureau as well as many OOS interests that will not give an inch but expect to take a mile. They have no reason to, it is coming their way without any giving.
> 
> It is a noble gesture from some of the top proponents for ND freelance hunting we have, but there is no reason for them to let up and give us a morsel to chew on. Ordinarilly I am an opitimist, but it's time to be a realist.


Thats exactly correct, there is no end to the commercial interests greed and they will not stop until they have it all.

Bob K says


> Commercilization did not get what they wanted with:
> 
> HB 1393 -(Rep's D. Johnson, Carlson, S. Meyer; Sen's Krauter, Erbele,) Would have increased the maximum number of white-tailed deer licenses available for outfitters from 100 to 150. Failed house 21-72.
> 
> HB 1118 -(Rep's Norland, Drovdal, S. Meyer,; Sen's Lyson, Urlacher) Would have increased the nonresident any-deer bow licenses from 15 percent to 20 percent of the prior year's mule deer gun licenses. Failed house 1-89.


A basic rule of negotiation is to ask for much more than you really want so you can "give up" something in the process. These deer issues are not much to have lost on in my opinion.

Full Curl said


> Don't be sorry for me, I am a resilient s.o.b. Be sorry for our sons and daughters who will not have the freedoms we have enjoyed so dearly.


I feel sorry for all of you because I've watched this process unfold twice before in my life and its hopeless. Living in ND without being able to hunt will be torture, ask any Texan.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bobm said



> there is no end to the commercial interests greed and they will not stop until they have it all.





> I feel sorry for all of you because I've watched this process unfold twice before in my life and its hopeless. Living in ND without being able to hunt will be torture, ask any Texan.


Half Full or Half Empty?

North Dakota is NOT Texas; I know many people from Texas, they are not tortured by not being able to hunt, friends there think nothing of paying to hunt. Our work ethic is legendary, theirs is not, they are a centrally and coastal highly urbanized state, we are not, yet. Our entire state population equals a Dallas suburb or two. They are "fixin" to do something, we "get ready" to do something. Their median income is significantly higher than ours.

Do not feel sorry for me.

A defeated attitude is the last thing we need in ND. Many of you may say it is just being realistic, maybe in your world, *Not In Mine!* I do not consider all ND O/G's greedy they are for the most part and with some exceptions, business men that are trying to make a buck just like you or I. there are some bad apples amongst them as there are amongst us. The big issue here is they are sometimes viewed as diminishing the *quality* of our leisure time by limiting to a degree how and where we use this time. It is a precious commodity now days and it is taken very seriously. Hence the uproar! I do not like losing anything; second place is just the first looser IMO. That still does not prevent me from taking a realistic look at the situation. Reality is ND has 650,000+/- citizens probably 300,000 +/- rural landowners and small town folks, that want to try to make a living and some are finding this very difficult, there are maybe 100 of us on this site that will speak up for what we believe on a good day. They ask their legislators to do what they want, so do we. It don't take no friggin rocket scientist to figure this one out!!!!

Focus! What is the effort really against Licensed O/G's or is it pay hunting? Or land leasing of which some are part? (O/G's are not the only ones that lease land to hunt on) Or is the problem A QUALITY HUNTING EXPERIENCE for some of us? Or is it the current trend of live for today and to hell with the future! Or is it the vagueness and limited scope of some of ND's outdoor laws? It is a little of all of the above. How do you change or curtail these laws, trends and practices? Make it worth their while to cut it back on their own, come to some form of agreement or create/change a law that prohibits or further regulates the activity.

Fact! O/G's are Commercial Businesses. They are licensed professionals for the most part, operating within the current laws. Some are preceived to interfere with a quality hunting experience for freelancers; some are in it for a quick buck cashing in on North Dakotas' bounty of wildlife. Again, not popular here but all within ND laws, NDGF does what they can to curb illegal operations. IMO In order to change these laws or create a new law you generally need multi faceted support, the backing of NDGF, and/or overwhelming common sense bills that have proven or statistical benefits. Or at the very least a majority of Legislators to support your cause. In one word COOPERATION.

True Commercialization as I see it are the sporting good Giants trying to lease up land and book hunts in ND for a bigger bottom line while asking us to shop in their stores, (remember these practices are now against the law in ND. HB 1276) and the Market Hunters from many years ago who slaughtered wildlife by the thousands and sold them.

My focus has always been to preserve the Freelance Hunting Heritage for future generation, to conserve and enhance North Dakotas Habitat and Wildlife Natural Resources, and to enjoy my outdoor experiences until I am no longer able to. And if you think I will not do whatever I can to try and achieve my goals, you are wrong, even if I have to try to do it on my own, knowing full well that I can not do it alone. However, I am going to try. Call me a "boot licker" if you must. I threw out some ideas on another thread; Jim threw some out here.

Lets get back to the topic of the thread, g/o, KB any others that care to chime in and post an opinion? Any other Ideas out there?

Bob


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

A fitting article in today's Rocky Mountain News.

Dentry: Public should benefit from sale of public resource 
August 2, 2005 
What is a voucher worth? Now there is an idea that would help people who profit from big-game hunting return the favor to Colorado's wildlife.

Big landowners - and by extension, outfitters who work on ranches and farms - profit handsomely from hunting fees. State vouchers allow landowners to cash in on the top 15 percent of limited licenses for deer, elk and antelope, which they then can scalp at any price to mostly nonresident hunters. *The euphemism we ordinary hunters have been whipped into tolerating is "access fee" because that sounds more American and more legal than "hunting fee," a foreign concept that smacks of selling wildlife, which is patently illegal. Having turned a public resource into private profit, some landowners want even more licenses for their shadow industry. *

That the issue would come up at all presents an opportunity that could benefit wildlife and all hunters.

*Make them pay.*

The License Allocation Work Group, the lopsided "stakeholder" committee that loaded this discussion, neglected to put that option on its lopsided "public input" form.

In three months of meetings, the best the committee could come up with in its "Key Considerations" mission statement is that whatever cat comes out of the bag should be "no worse than revenue neutral" for the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

No worse is not good enough. *If someone profits from a publicly owned resource, why shouldn't everyone have a share? *Especially the big-game herds themselves, and most especially those animals that live on public land and desperately need permanently protected winter range.

Hunters and anglers already pay for virtually all wildlife management through licenses and special federal excise taxes. A few years ago, the price of nonresident big-game tags went up dramatically. During the last legislative session, resident sportsmen strongly supported raising their own license fees to benefit wildlife programs.

Most of us willingly will pay more to hunt and fish next year. *But those who gain the most from wildlife are required to drip nothing into wildlife coffers. In fact, many receive payments for "game damage." *

Landowners and outfitters don't even have to buy hunting licenses. Outfitters must be registered and licensed, but none of their license money goes to the Division of Wildlife or any wildlife programs. 
Giving landowners more licenses for scalping purposes gives them something (of ours) for nothing. Giving them 15 percent of the most coveted hunting licenses already is too much, but that was the work of our typically wildlife-hostile state legislature.

Legislative approval will be needed again for any change from 15 percent of vouchers. And if hunters and the Division of Wildlife are going to the General Assembly again anyway, they might as well write in a fee for vouchers.

There could be a standard fee, say, $500 for each voucher that is sold as an "access fee" to private land hunters. Or the fee might be based on a percentage of a landowner's income from hunting - something state and federal tax collectors might like to see documented.

The extra income for wildlife management might even allow the unthinkable notion of having lower- priced hunting and fishing licenses sometime in the future. Historically, there were many good reasons for hunters and the agencies that serve them to bestow favors on landowners. Private lands nurtured wildlife and kept America's hunting heritage strong.

Millions of youths learned to hunt and fish on private lands without paying anything. Many rural landowners even considered it their duty to foster hunting and fishing hospitably. That was before a heritage became a business and the businessmen got greedy.

Somewhere in the middle, there was that ham thing. Old-timers might remember the era when hunters were advised to thank landowners who let us hunt by bringing them a gift of a ham or helping them take in the hay.

Obviously, a ham won't do the trick anymore. Now, the shadow industry has moved in and it wants nothing more than a big, fat helping of pork.

Wildlife commissioners will give first consideration to the license allocation proposals at their next workshop, Aug. 11-12 in Alamosa. Sportsmen, who are the real stakeholders in this issue, should urge them to bury the project in the pigpen.

[email protected]

*Pretty telling article of what has happened here with the commercialization of elk hunting.

Why shouldn't these people be forced to give back something? Why shouldn't these market hunters be limited by a set number of tags per year and this would include both upland and waterfowl limits?*


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Thanks Bioman

That has got to be the best written article I have seen in some time. Thanks for passing this along. Everyone should email this article to their legislators for a "different" point of view.

Benelli


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Wow....just change the wording to ND and gamebirds instead of big game.

At least we beat off an attempt by G/O to increase their 100 whitetail buck tags and their mule deer bow tag increase.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Bob,
Thanks for your input. I will stand beside you to the end, whether it be bitter or sweet. How about the rest of you?

We haven't heard from the g/o's yet. What are your ideas? Can we work together or will it always be an antagonistic relationship? I have taken a few potshots here against g/o's - and I must admit that I am not proud of it. Yet, I feel the future of hunting as I know it in ND is at stake. I am willing to hear your side if you are willing to hear mine. Are you?

Jim


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> North Dakota is NOT Texas; I know many people from Texas, they are not tortured by not being able to hunt,


Sorry but I have to call BS on this one, as a former resident of Texas and one with many friends and family members still there don't lecture me about " not tortured" they are beaten into submission. Many hate it the ones old enough to remember the day quail hunting was available for the asking. The young ones don't know the diffference so if thats who you talking about then maybe....

The idea than Texas is a "highly urbanized state" is not accurate there is more rural land in Texas than ND. *And every bit of it is controlled by the Market hunters *, just like it soon will be in North Dakota. In ND they are leasing it up faster than we can write these words, and they wont stop until they have it all. All the brave talk is just hot air, something else you have in common, there is a lot of hot air in Texas.
They G/O's aren't "chimeing in" because they know they've won and know they don't have to play ball. Even if the few that do come here were willing to compromise there will be more and more to take the rest of the land. Move to Montana or buy land, or outlaw non-resident hunting( fat chance) nothing short of that will stop them.
The rhetoric here sounds like the men at the Alamo and the result will be the same, unfortunately.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Bobm,
Thanks for the support.... :-?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> The men - *two Texas hunting guides *and three North Dakotans - were indicted on federal charges of illegally helping clients shoot deer


Right out of Bob Kellams post on Sheldon, they have gobbled up all available land in Texas so their cancer spread around the rest of the country and now they are going for ND.

I guess I hate them ( and I mean hate) so much for what they have done to this sport that cozying up to them trying to make some compromise they will never keep just ****** me off. If giving up my hunting rights for the rest of my life would change the situation in ND I would do it today and I love to hunt. But I know in my heart you are all screwed, and that breaks my heart. You compromise with them and they will stab you in the back, until they have it all. I'm done posting on this topic its too upsetting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bob, we need everyone to be involved with this battle, and you know I welcome your input. We all know that Bob Kellam, and Jhegg work at it in their own way, I work at it mine, and you should keep giving your opinion. If people are laid back, everyone will remain apathetic. We need someone that alarms people. Only when the average Joe becomes alarmed will anything be accomplished. Right now they are all waiting for it to be accomplished by people like Bob, Jim, and you. It reminds me of a shirt I seen a hippy wearing back in the 60's. It said "We have met the enemy and he is us".


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bobm



> they are a centrally and coastal highly urbanized state, we are not, yet.


Read my post I said nothing about Texas being highly urbanized in general!

Our company owns over 50 businesses in Texas I think I have a pretty good Idea how they feel Young and old.

You just keep being as negative as you possibly can and I will do my best to ignore you. And I guess I am done responding to you as well.

As far as progress with the cooperation issue, tell me why any of the O/G's would even want to post in public here they get the **** kicked out of them by the "blinded by hate" crowd every time they attempt to put in their two cents.

Plainsman
Keep on keepin on!

Jim 
Thanks for the support 

Progress will be made. Conversations will continue.

Later
Bob


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Bob K. take off your combat boots, we are all on the same page here my friend. Not everyone will see thru the same glasses as you, but our end goal is the same. If your attempting to stifle others who have a different opinion or point of view other than yours it is working.



Bob Kellam said:


> As far as progress with the cooperation issue, tell me why any of the O/G's would even want to post in public here they get the &$#* kicked out of them by the "blinded by hate" crowd every time they attempt to put in their two cents.Bob


Defending ones position is never easy when your among the opposition, but not chiming in either shows cowardice or that there really is no need too. I want to thank Chris for letting us voice our opinions on here because any other hunting web-sites WE would be the ones getting blasted or banned, I'm speaking from experience.



Plainsman said:


> If people are laid back, everyone will remain apathetic. We need someone that alarms people. Only when the average Joe becomes alarmed will anything be accomplished. Right now they are all waiting for it to be accomplished by people like Bob, Jim, and you. It reminds me of a shirt I seen a hippy wearing back in the 60's. It said "We have met the enemy and he is us".


Thank You Plainsman for chiming in.
This is exactly where the truth lies, I have been saying this for along time on what seems to be deaf ears. Bob K. mentioned earlier that there was 100 sportsman involved on a good day, that needs to be 10,000. This is the ONLY way OUR message will be heard.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

4 curl

Just trying to focus on the positive! IMO a negative attitude breeds defeat! a positive attitude breeds success. The "sky isn't falling" and I am not ready to "duck and cover" in my view of the situation.

Like I said Just My Opinion! Sorry it offended you. 

Bob


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Here is the way I see things. I'm going to hang it out there. No, this message is not positive, its pretty negative but its the truth and if anyone wants to make any sort of progress then they need to see things as they are, not how they wish they would be.

This battle cannot be won through government intervention as it has been tried in the past. What does hunting mean to rural ND? I'm talking landowners, the cafe, G/Os. Simple, money.

Do any of you honestly think, any of the rural legislators are going to vote to take money out of their constituents hands? Take a look at most of rural ND, compared to the majority of the country it is in terrible shape economically. It doesn't matter if long term we are heading the wrong direction, people can only see so far in front of their face and right now that means getting money.

Our current officials see wildlife as a crop that is waiting to be harvested. They don't need to spend any money to build an infrastructure or anything like that, they only need to harvest.

There is not going to be limits placed on hunters, its not going to pass. That would be like taking food out of starving mouths, at least that is the way this problem has been framed, and until that perception changes a cap is not going to happen.

If our government is going to view wildlife as a profitable business then we need to treat wildlife as a factor of production. You have inputs and you get outputs. Put more land into habitat and you get more wildlife. Pretty simple. The problem right now is that guides and outfitters are willing to pay more to control the major factor of production, habitat.

This is never going to go away. People are going to pay to hunt. You want more access, go to the government and say we as hunters are willing to pay more for habitat. Increase license fees somewhat, fight for more CRP, get the USFWS to put duck stamp dollars where they matter most, in ND, SD and Montana.

The only way to beat the G/O is to flood the market with good hunting. Right now we have a shortage and that is why we have a market. Take away the shortage.

But please don't waste any more time doing the same things, address the issues that will really make a difference. Its too late for the stuff that has been worked on in the past. Its time for a change of direction.


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

Well said gandergrinder :beer:


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Ditto to GG

More habitat = more wildlife=more choices


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

gandergrinder said:


> The only way to beat the G/O is to flood the market with good hunting. Right now we have a shortage and that is why we have a market. Take away the shortage.


I am interested. Please expand?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

4curl,

Hopefully you are being serious but I will expand even if you are not. So here goes. This may get a bit long but bear with me here.

For my example I will use corn. Corn is a commodity and there are really only two things that drive the price of corn. The supply of corn and the demand for corn. Now, if the supply of corn goes up and demand stays the same, then the prices will go down and vice versa. Or it can work on the demand side. Increased demand on a fixed supply of corn will drive prices up or vice versa. Simple, basic economics.

In the past sportsmens groups in this state have tried to control this economic equation on the demand side. Control the number of people who are able to use the resource and you essentially cut off any increase in demand and place a ceiling on prices that can be charged for the commodity, in this case wildlife.

Now what I propose is to try to attack this problem from the supply side.

In the long term, all of the economic factors are against the G/O industry as a whole. The long term trend in hunter numbers is on the decline (reduced demand). However at the same time, the loss of habitat is decreasing supply, offsetting the reduction in demand, so the G/Os need only control the habitat to control the supply. In this case it is fairly easy because there is, looking at the US as a whole, very little habitat.

Why are hunters coming from all over the country to hunt? I think its pretty obvious, because we have habitat in the state. The problem is not on the demand side of the equation. The problem is really on the supply side. There are fewer and fewer hunters every year yet ND has seen an increase in pressure.

What does this all mean? There is a sector of the hunting community who has money, they want to hunt, and they are willing to pay to hunt. Why do they have to pay? They want quality hunting and there is so little of it left that we have intense competition for it, which has created a market by which guides and outfitters may profit.

Do you think if we had ducks and geese migrating south across all parts of the country we would have the pressure we currently have in ND? Nope. Rational people are not going to spend a bunch of money to come to ND when they have great hunting in their backyard.

You want to fight for your kids and grandkids so they have the same opportunities as you. Stop wasting time trying to control demand for wildlife and start trying to increase the supply of it. This is a much better long term solution.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be watching what our government does and what groups do. I'm just saying we should be working harder to improve our habitat.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Not trying to be a smart azz GG, you know me pretty well. How do you propose to increase habitat that much that fast? Where is infinity when supply and demand equalize.

Bob


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Bob,

I think you and I address the problem from two different perspectives. The realities I will face in my lifetime are much different than yours. The writing is on the wall for me. Its going to be pay to play for me. Maybe you have enough connections to stay out of that game but I am afraid I don't have enough too last the rest of my life.

However, I think we can both agree that habitat will make a difference for my kids and your grandkids.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

gandergrinder said:


> 4curl,
> Hopefully you are being serious but I will expand even if you are not. So here goes. This may get a bit long but bear with me here.


Hey, I'm serious once awhile, Alright!! :wink:



gandergrinder said:


> In the past sportsmens groups in this state have tried to control this economic equation on the demand side. Control the number of people who are able to use the resource and you essentially cut off any increase in demand and place a ceiling on prices that can be charged for the commodity, in this case wildlife.


Appeared to be the most attainable goal every session. Key word "appeared".

This is an excellent idea for the long term. A couple variables that do trouble me though. How would we sway farming practices (Mn comes to mind) to achieve habitat that is wildlife friendly? Would the land be purchased or just create habitat from land that is being used now by farmers, as we know for the past decade or so it is a sellers market.

You have obviously thought about this in depth, what vehicle would be used to obtain or create habitat for the public use?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Here is my checklist of things hunters can do to improve wildlife populations.

1) Fight to get/keep CRP in ND and SD, without it we will be going backwards rather fast in the habitat department.

2) Buy two, three or four more duck stamps. Currently, there are landowners who want to sell perpetual easements in ND and SD. Lots of them, I don't know exact numbers but its a lot (500). If you are not familiar with perpetual easements, they pay landowners to leave their land in grass and wetlands forever. This is the best of all worlds. It takes land out of production that shouldn't be farmed, saves wildlife habitat for ducks, deer, pheasants, recharges aquifers, cleans water etc, etc.

However there just isn't enough money to lock them up. Every year we don't lock them up one of two things happens. Either they get drained and plowed or the cost to buy them goes up. Trust me, duck stamp prices are not increasing at the same pace land values are. It is in your best interest to buy more duck stamps.

3) Get the duck stamp dollars funnelled to the right places. We shouldn't be wasting duck stamp money in the south. No offense to the south but they don't produce ducks, they only winter the ones that are produced in the north. Right now the only reason duck stamp money isn't completely spent in ND, SD and MT is for political reasons.

4) Demand that the conservation organizations work together. Either they are willing to work with other groups for a common goal (more wildlife) or they aren't going to get your money.

5) If you can afford to. Buy land and create habitat or at least save the habitat on it. Donate an easement to the USFWS. This will go a hell of a lot farther than a bunch of duck stamps. If you can't afford to buy land find someone who can and build nesting structures, help them plant trees, whatever. Imagine the possibilities if just the guys on this site got together and spent one weekend working on habitat or building hen houses.

Now these are not my ideas. They have been proposed by other people. I just spend way to much time reading.

I've begun to realize that all the parts are available to make this stuff happen but we as hunters don't demand that it gets done right and we expect someone else to take care of it for us.

All I'm saying is that it is time to quit *****ing and either give of your time or give of your money, or both.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

GG
Agreed on the habitat issue. It is a simple concept, "build it and they will come". Field of dreams I think.

Supply and demand is a great theory it has, however, proven in some cases to create vast imbalances in some situations. IMO North Dakota outdoors needs a more secure future than to base its future solely on supply and demand alone. You know the following, I am posting this incase someone is wondering what we are discussing.

*Supply* is the quantity that producers are willing to sell at a given price. Wildlife? access? hunting privileges?
*Demand* is that quantity of a good (wildlife) that consumers (hunters) are not only willing to buy but also have the capacity to buy at the given price.

The theory of supply and demand usually assumes that markets are (perfect competition, perfectly competitive)( this as you know is unobtainable). This implies that there are many buyers and sellers in the market and none of them have the capacity to influence the price of the good. 
In many, possibly even most real life transactions, the assumption fails because some individual buyers or sellers or groups of buyers or sellers do have enough ability to influence prices.

What happens when the equilibrium point is achieved with supply and demand economics? More often than not you get a (correction) crash failure what ever you would like to call it. Ie. The Boston housing market dried up in the early 1990's, with neither buyers nor sellers willing to exchange at the price equilibrium. (Keynesian theory) So what happens into infinity you create a situation where the ultra wealthy are the only demand for the supply because the exclusivity of the product has dictated the price. No one else can afford it.
(I dug up some of my old college books to reference some info, referenced authors on the web. ain't the web a great thing. I loved economics  )

I know you have a much higher degree in all of this than I do. But to base the situation in North Dakota with hunting and to imply that supply and demand will eventually make all issues here come home to roost is simply stating that everyone should just give up and pay to hunt, further fueling the trend toward exclusivity. Sorry GG I am not willing to do that and I will have to respecfully agree to diagree with you on this, because pay to hunt and supply and demand will not and does not insure the future viability of habitat or wildlife within the system, much less assure anyone that the creation of the habitat required will be put in place. That is always going to take grunts in the field to carry out the task at hand.

:beer:

GG Great post above!! :beer:

Bob


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't think the supply and demand thing will work at all. What it will do it make the g/o laugh themselves to sleep tonight, and drool on their pillow until dawn. If you increase wildlife you will increase the number of hunters who want to come here. Increase the number of hunters who want to come here and you will increase the amount of land leased by each hunter, and the number of g and o's . Nothing would make them happier than all of us working for their profit. It would be like running an extra blood vein to a rampant cancer. Hear that sucking sound on the horizon? It is our wildlife resources going down the drain.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a wet rag. Please don't stop with the ideas, I just think this one is self defeating. I would rather complement someone than rag on them, so don't take this bit of pessimism the wrong way.

You know what will end this. A drought, and the ducks will be gone for a while. The hunters will not come, and the outfitters will be filing bankrupts. That's when they will duck all the bills they have in those small towns that think they help so much. It will be like those tiny towns out west that built new schools with the oil boom, only to be left holding the snotty end of the stick when the oil boys moved out.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Hold on boys, in GG's defense he may have something.

When you speak of pheasant hunting in NoDak, where do you think of? In the Southwest right?
Who is crying the loudest for a couple of years now because of lost $s. The Southwest. 4-5 years of mild winters and plenty of crp and there is a glut of pheasants nearly statewide that can be had by freelancers without $ changing hands. Residents and non-residents alike will not travel further and pay to hunt if the birds are closer without a fee. In this case weather had a hand in it but the habitat had a large part in it also. From what I've been hearing there are a few more oppurtunities opening up in that part of the state for freelancers.

Consider this, if we had 50 million ducks migrating south every year, the nres issue would be a heckuva alot more tolerable.

Although I do agree with Bob K., we still need hunters to be active in the politic end of it. If we left our post at the Capitol lord only knows what they would cram down our throats.


----------



## griffman (Jan 17, 2004)

4CurlRedleg said:


> Defending ones position is never easy when your among the opposition, but not chiming in either shows cowardice or that there really is no need too. I want to thank Chris for letting us voice our opinions on here because any other hunting web-sites WE would be the ones getting blasted or banned, I'm speaking from experience.


Amen Brother! Bobm and I just recently got lambasted on another forum! They just don't get it..... :eyeroll:

Anyway, how bout these two ideas....

1. I've said it before, raise the price of licenses, up to 4 times its current amount. Theoretically we'd have 4 times the PLOT land to hunt on. That would be nearly 4 million acres. Sure, not all of it is prime, but some is very good. I would personally trust G+F to tackle a project of this magnitude but I know many would not.

2. Here's an off the wall idea....don't know if it's good or bad....just a thought. What about setting some type of regulatory dollar cap on land leased for hunting? Kinda like they do with milk. Milk prices are basically the same no matter where you buy it, what if leased land would have a set price based on it's habitat value. Kinda like what G+F does right now with the PLOTS. A land owner gets X amount of dollars for trees, food, water, cover etc.... My point being, regulating all the leased land prices would make G+F a marketable competitor. G+F would not get priced out as it currently does right now by the wealthy.

I know this idea would take money out of some landowners pockets, but I'm sure the "set" prices on milk takes money out of peoples pocket too. Think about it, if the big operations could sell milk at half price, it would drive the little guys out of business. Similar to what is happening to G+F and wealthy investors.....they pay double, G+F takes a backseat. Maybe I got it all wrong....any thoughts from those more knowledgable than I??


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

4 curl

I am not saying GG's theory is wrong 100% we will always have supply and demand issues in every economic discussion. I just do not feel it should be the only basis upon which ND outdoors is based. Common Sense will go a long way if you can logically explain the situation to reasonable people.

Mott is a pretty classic example of a supply and demand model out of balance. Same situation with North Dakotas Coteau region, as well as waterfowl hunting in Minnesota and most recently Arkansas.

If I take GG's theory and extrapolate information I have garnered from some of his previous posts, I can make an assumption that he is looking at supply and demand in the context of land ownership. In this case it may work with limitations statewide if and only if the right mix of land owners is obtained and maintained at status quo (perfect competition) perfect competition is a myth, as explained in my prior post. On an individual landowner basis supply and demand will work with ultimate efficiency in the hands of the right landowner, because it will be controlled in its entirety by an individual independent of other outside groups and forces.

We do need supply and demand in North Dakotas outdoor economic future. ND outdoors IMHO can not and should not be based 100% on economics. it is not working well in some areas now.

GG you know I respect you and your opinions/views. Just a little different point of view.

:beer:

PEACE!!

Bob

Griff. Interesting Ideas!!!! I am going to put some thought into them.
Thanks for engaging the issue!!!!


----------



## griffman (Jan 17, 2004)

The following is an excerpt from another board. Kinda interesting....what do you think would happen if the ND Atty General would take a similar stance?

*One reason we do not have a lot of leasing, nor very many pheasant guides/outfitters here in Iowa, is that our Attorney General has issued an interesting opinion on the matter of hunting leases and trespass fees. The opinion, in a nutshell, tells landowners that they lose their presumed liability protection if they charge people for hunting (or fishing, or whatever else) access to their land, because at that point, the land is no longer agricutural, but recreational. Thus, they need different (and fairly expensive, as it turns out) insurance coverage. Your average Iowa farmer owns a lot less land than your average Dakota farmer/rancher, mainly because land here is far more productive and far more expensive. Thus, he can only "grow" a limited number of pheasants on that land--not nearly as many as in the Dakotas, because he has only a fraction the acres. So he has to weigh the money he'd make from leasing or charging against what he'd have to pay for insurance--unless he wants to, quite literally, bet the farm on the money to pay for the family Christmas presents.*


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Bob K your comment about Texans is what got my goat , our work eithic is a lot better than your opinion of it, and our Texas state economy is one of the best in the country with Yankees moving down here in droves to take advantage of it, inspite of our substandard work ethic, maybe you ought to extend the same insult to all your "friends" down home in Texas and see how they take it......

Now back on topic 
Griffmans post


> 1. I've said it before, raise the price of licenses, up to 4 times its current amount. Theoretically we'd have 4 times the PLOT land to hunt on. That would be nearly 4 million acres. Sure, not all of it is prime, but some is very good. I would personally trust G+F to tackle a project of this magnitude but I know many would not.


*Is the very best idea by far,* your NR liscenses are cheap they should be raised dramatically with a much longer period of hunting available( the whole season would be best), most probably 99% of us NR's wouldn't hunt any longer so it wouldn't really add to pressure but we also wouldn't feel like the price was unreasonable if the "opportunity" was there at our discretion. You could leave it lower for kids under 18 so it wouldn't hit the guys with a bunch of kids, maybe even reduce the cost for kids, but raise the NR liscense to $300.00. Then raise the Adult Res liscense to what the NR cost is currently. *The legislation would have to specifically earmark that all the additional fees were to go to non-postable habitat aquisition*. I doubt many hunters would resent the increase if they knew beyound a shadow of adoubt that it was spent on hunting land they could access. Permanent easements or actual purchase would be better than plots in the long run. We are in it for the long run, I hope. The thing you want to watch out for is that when the politico's are going to be licking their lips trying to benefit from the windfall, *their first step will be to eliminate any monies they are currently spending on wildlife issues *so you will have no net gain if that isn't addressed in the legislation. 
This is exactly what the rotten politicians did here in Georgia. When we voted for a license fee incress for addtional monies for our WMA system.

Theres a positive idea for you BK hope you like it we are on the same side after all :beer: Talk to you later I have to get my lazy ex texan *** down to the jobsite where they pay me to sunbathe :lol:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bobm

PEACE!!

don't take things so personally, I won't either. Never said or ment to infer that you or Texans were lazy!! :beer:

Griff. If I am not mistaken in ND if you allow access (un-posted) land you are free of liability. and if you charge for access you are required to have liability Insurance. I am not sure I will try to find the NDCC section.

Bob


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Bob Kellam said:


> I am not saying GG's theory is wrong 100% we will always have supply and demand issues in every economic discussion. I just do not feel it should be the only basis upon which ND outdoors is based. Common Sense will go a long way if you can logically explain the situation to reasonable people.


Agreed, it is however an excellent long term solution.



Bob Kellam said:


> Mott is a pretty classic example of a supply and demand model out of balance. Same situation with North Dakotas Coteau region, as well as waterfowl hunting in Minnesota and most recently Arkansas.


Heres another scenario we could looking at in the future. With Delta and the Canadian govt. working on ALUS in the near future, duck production could sky-rocket in the PPR giving the 50 million duck migration some merit. Of course barring any weather related anomolies. Again this would change the whole scope of supply and demand on the waterfowl end. Huge supply, the demand stays status quo or slightly increases because all indications are on a downward hunter trend and folks will not travel farther or pay to hunt. I'm likin' it.



Bob Kellam said:


> .If I take GG's theory and extrapolate information I have garnered from some of his previous posts, I can make an assumption that he is looking at supply and demand in the context of land ownership. In this case it may work with limitations statewide if and only if the right mix of land owners is obtained and maintained at status quo (perfect competition) perfect competition is a myth, as explained in my prior post. On an individual landowner basis supply and demand will work with ultimate efficiency in the hands of the right landowner, because it will be controlled in its entirety by an individual independent of other outside groups and forces.


Agreed, large variables in either land purchasing or for a lack of a better term, leasing land already under some sort of use.



griffman said:


> 1. I've said it before, raise the price of licenses, up to 4 times its current amount. Theoretically we'd have 4 times the PLOT land to hunt on. That would be nearly 4 million acres. Sure, not all of it is prime, but some is very good. I would personally trust G+F to tackle a project of this magnitude but I know many would not.


Good idea, however do you think it would price the less fortunate out of the oppurtunity? Food for thought.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

It might hurt some truly poor hunter but if it was just for adults over 18 its shouldn't hurt most of them


> however do you think it would price the less fortunate out of the oppurtunity? Food for thought.


Want some food for thought about the price of a license, the bird hunting down here is $150.00 per half day, thats what will happen if you don't anty up the money to secure land now......once its all commercialized it gets pretty expensive. I can drive 1500 miles to ND pay for a hotel, and NR license and still hunt cheaper than I can here on a two week hunt.

by the way, "bird" to us southerners means quail


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Bob,

What do you do with a college degree, or several? Frame them. They really don't mean crap IMO.

Does the perfect market really exist? Probably not, however, what I was trying to get across is that we first need to recognize where we are at. You can explain human behavior pretty well through economics.

I was waiting for someone to mention the situation in the Southwest part of the state with pheasants. Why head west when there are pheasants available for free or for a nominal fee. The southwest faces a decision, either they can lower fees and attract more hunters or they can keep them the same and attract some hunters at the given price. However, with more pheasants in other parts of the state, the Southwest will have to lower prices to attract more hunters. Is the Southwest having problems? I really don't know if that is true or not, I haven't heard from anyone first hand.

I'm not upset if people don't agree with me, but I hope that I made people think a little bit different. Emotion is a good motivator but when when we talk about these issues I think it is time for everyone to put their emotions and ego on the shelf for awhile. We will come up with better solutions.

The factors I outlined that drive the hunting market are dead on. You can argue about how to correct the "perceived inefficiency" but I want everyone to recognize what is happening and what drives the market.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

GG
Agreed 100%

Here are some of my Ideas that I have been kickin around.

Resident freelance changes- charge higher license fees, offer a lifetime hunting license, specific for waterfowl, and upland $1000.00?-$1500.00? more? with a $20.00 annual habitat fee. All lifetime license fees and habitat stamps must be dedicated toward habitat improvements, creation and restoration. Conservation Easements?

Outfitter-Guide rating system,

5 Star requirements
1. Open for hunting/fishing 12 months of the year w/ on site lodging, full service resort.
2. Must be a legally licensed and registered in ND. Business, outfitter, guides
3. Multiple species outfitting required
4. Must own at least part of land used for operating
5. Employs local guides
6. No violations of laws in ND. 
7. No felonies anywhere.
8. No more than one outfitter operating from business, base.
9. Must stamp hunting license w/official NDOG stamp (TBD) (dated and signed) that will be voided (dated and signed) by outfitter/guide upon termination of hunting with the outfitter.
10. Leased land shall directly commensurate with requirements of the business to remain historically profitable.

4 Star requirements

1. Open for hunting/fishing 6 months of the year minimum w/ on site or local lodging (lodging is considered a lodge, house or a hotel in town).
2. Must be a legally licensed and registered in ND. Business, outfitter, guides
3. Multiple species outfitting required (shooting preserves included here)
4. Must own at least part of land used for operating
5. Employs local guides
6. No violations of laws in ND. 
7. No felonies anywhere.
8. No more than one outfitter operating from business, base.
9. Must stamp hunting license w/official NDOG stamp (TBD) (dated and signed) that will be voided (dated and signed) by outfitter/guide upon termination of hunting with the outfitter.
10. Leased land shall directly commensurate with requirements of the business to remain historically profitable.

3 Star outfitter requirements

1. Open for hunting, a species full season minimum. Local lodging provided minimum (lodging is considered a house or a hotel in town).
2. Must be a legally licensed and registered in ND. Business, outfitter, guides
3. Single species, multi species or split season outfitting (ex.Waterfowl/deer)
4. Must own at least part of land used for operating
5. Employs local guides
6. No violations of laws in ND. 
7. No felonies anywhere.
8. No more than one outfitter operating from business, base.
9. Must stamp hunting license w/official NDOG stamp (TBD) (dated and signed) that will be voided (dated and signed) by outfitter/guide upon termination of hunting with the outfitter.
10. Leased land shall directly commensurate with requirements of the business to remain historically profitable.

2 Star outfitter (land owner outfitter, day leasing) requirements

1. Open for hunting full season of one species minimum. Local lodging provided minimum when providing multi day hunts.
2. Must be a legally licensed in ND. outfitter, and or guides
3. Single species multi species or split season outfitting
4. Must own all land used for operating
5. Employs local guides if used
6. No violations of laws in ND. 
7. No felonies anywhere.
8. No more than one outfitter operating from business, base.
9. Must stamp hunting license w/official NDOG stamp (TBD) (dated and signed) that will be voided (dated and signed) by outfitter/guide upon termination of hunting with the outfitter.

1 Star Private professional Guides requirements (one man O/G)

1. Open for hunting full season of one species minimum. 
2. Must be a legally licensed in ND. 
3. Single species multi species or split season guiding
4. Must not hunt any public land.
5. No violations of laws in ND. 
6. No felonies anywhere.
7. No more than one guide operating from business, base.
8. Must stamp hunting license w/official NDOG stamp (TBD) (dated and signed) that will be voided (dated and signed) by guide upon termination of hunting with the guide.

Determination of the maximum number of "star rated" O/G's per region would be required. Maybe base it area specific using a formula based on wildlife and habitat available. Divide ND into 6 regions (2 east, 2 central 2 west) if an outfitter has been operating in more than one region for two years or more he is considered grandfathered in, if land is given up (not re-leased) in the adjacent region it is considered null and new leases will be prohibited in the adjacent region.

All leased land shall be secured by outfitters prior to September 30th of the current year. Leased entered into after that date shall be considered illegal. All recreational/hunting land leases shall be signed, notarized and include a legal description and a monitory lease value of the property. All land lease documentation shall be available for inspection upon request by NDGF representatives. All recreational/hunting land lease documentation for the previous years hunting season shall be provided to NDGF for publication of total land leased report. Failure to submit accurate records shall be considered a violation with revocation of license.

1st offense 3 day revocation
2nd offense 10 day revocation
3rd offense at the discretion of the director of NDGF?????

Now the sportsman tax idea.

Have a tax on all sporting goods in ND (1/4 cent sales tax) this money would be available to be applied for by landowners, O/G's, communities, clubs, etc. for habitat restoration or creation. The monies will be managed by the NDGF in a special habitat fund, and not used for general budget purposes. Large projects would require multi year allocations. The money would also be used to secure a better class of PLOTS land in some of the prime habitat areas. It would also be used to improve habitat on existing PLOTS land.
O/G's that would increase habitat on existing land would improve their bottom line over leasing habitat.

Allocations from these funds would be by application that will include a description and plan of action of why, how, where, and how long the project will take. A maximum allocation per application will need to be determined.

Other Ideas I have been kicking around would be Outfitter licenses, where clients of outfitters would obtain a special license to hunt w/outfitters. The number to be determined by the Star Rating. No limit for 5 Star etc.

Landowner license program similar to some other states. Landowners would participate in a program where they would enter their name and land as available to hunt with permission from that landowner. The license would entitle the landowner to turn into the NDGF a certificate (duplicate copy of the license?) of harvest, for reimbursement for access. Land owner is only reimbursed if game is harvested. These lands could be listed in the PLOTS book with a key to species listed. Funds from the special license fund or the sportsman tax.

????
:beer: 
Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

I must chime in here, I can't believe some of the things I'm reading here. We are suppose to fiqure out way to save freelance hunters and yet people here are saying raise the fee's for nonresidents. The nonresident freelance hunters are what helps keep our small towns going. Yes our neighbors to our east are the ones that come here to hunt. If we are going to do something, lets make it more freindly. First lets lets do away with this reciprocity bs for youth and raise it to 18. Anyone under the age of 18 may buy a resident license no matter what state there from but must be accompianed by a parent or guardian. Think about the working man from Hudson,Wisconsin with 3 boys under 18 that would love to come here and hunt. Now pa has to buy 4 licenses thats a chunck of change for a weekend of hunting. I would like to see a special so called nonresident upland license. They would only be allowed to hunt 5 days between the pheasant openor and the third Wednesday in November. But before and after they can hunt as much as they want.

Bob Kellam, I like your tax idea, except I would also and it on to hospitality,lodging,food and booze especially during the hunting season. On your rating sytem I think you should include consevation methods used by o/g's. Also land made available for public hunting by o/g's.

Remember freelance hunters include more than the residents of this State.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

G/O,
While you address ways to help the local community get more people in the state and make more money you still have not addressed ways the local community can help themselves. Improve access and improve habitat.

What will the local ND communities, who are the ones who benefit from freelance hunters, do to help improve habitat and help the poor guy who can't afford to pay licenses for his kids.

I spend a rediculous amount of money in rural ND each year on trips hunting and fishing. It measures in the thousands of dollars, I think its fun, I have no complaints. However, ND communities want friendly laws to attract more hunters, yet what do they do to help themselves attract these hunters who cannot afford expensive licenses? Do they work with local landowners to improve habitat and open up acres, do they work to help local wildlife organizations?

I would guess there are some that do, maybe many. But I bet some of the loudest complainers are also the ones who do nothing to help their situation. The same can be said about many hunters.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> They would only be allowed to hunt 5 days between the pheasant openor and the third Wednesday in November. But before and after they can hunt as much as they want.


I wouldn't willingly spend more money for a license like that, thats worse than the way it is now. If you want to attract hunters give them access, charge them more and use the fee increase to aquire still more access. late Oct. thru Nov is the best time of the season, guys like me hunt December but you really have to be hardcore to do it, my buddies won't. Just a Nrs point of view, you hairy chested North Dakotans :lol: like hunting in the freezing cold, many southern folks don't grow a thick winter coat. You are selling a product keep it attractive to the customer base. 
I do agree that keeping the price for kids hunting licenses down is a good idea. I think most Nrs that travel to Nd to hunt are not going to worry about a doubling of the fees if they believe its going to additional future habitat. And I doubt that many of them will hunt more than a week no matter what they are alloted time wise.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bobm, I would not think a license such as this would interest you. But as you said selling to our customer base. Our customer base is not in Georgia,although we appreciate your money. Our base is our neighbor to the east Minnesota. They like us enjoy the cold and know the best hunting is late. By limiting them to 5 days will take pressure of some of the public land and also bring more people out when things are slow. I'm glad you and GG have deep pockets and have lots of disposable income for hunting. Many working people in Minnesota raising a family are on a fixed income and can not afford to spend the extra money for there kids licenses. If we do not encourage the youth into hunting the sport will be completely dead in a matter of a few years. I'm a strong supporter of youth programs and do all I can for the kids.

GG, The communities that will survive in hunting will be doing things for habitat,access etc. or they will not survive. The community has to be involved in various aspect to keep themselves alive. As a good example SB2256 it was dead and gone and a bunch of people in various communities brought it back from the dead and now it is law. These are people who care and are willing to go to Bismarck and fight. Where was the opposition?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

G/O, I have five kids so I know the pinch your talking about. Both my suggestions stated to LOWER the price for kids, I was agreeing with you. I do think there are few people( adults) that wouldn't willingly pay more for a license if they were certain that the money went for more access.

Is there any real breakdown as to where the NRs do come from I'm sure most come from Mn its right next door. I have a lot of customers in Mn and they seem to be very successful and I'm not just talking white collar guys, Mn is not a poor state. When you look at the cost of hunting an extra 150.00 is not that big a deal for adults. GG's supply/demand idea has to be funded somehow. I bet few, very few would stop hunting if the fees were raised especially if resident licenses were also raised for the habitat purpose.
Nobody but us ( us meaning hunters , R's and Nrs) is going to pay for it.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

OK

I was waiting for someone to chime in about Ideas for NR hunters

Here are mine

1. NR youth pay resident license fees up to 18 years of age, 18 and older it is an adult NR license fees. Reciprocity?? MN MT SD WI???

2. NR would be able to obtain a percentage (to be determined) of the landowner licenses issued. ( I fully agree with GG there needs to be habitat and community strings attached to these licenses)

3. Outfitter Licenses: O/G's would be able to sell an unlimited amount of NR licenses to hunt only on land the outfitter owns or leases per requirements in my post above. This would be a special License, price TBD, 1, 2 or 3 days, one license per person per season per outfitter. (Yes they would be able to get another license with another outfitter) it would be based on the Idea of no more than one outfitter per base of operation. It would also count against waterfowl and upland days per state rules. Outfitters/clients hunting public land would be an automatic license revocation for the outfitter.

4. NR could buy 2- 7 day a 14 day (the way it is now) or 5- 3day licenses (a new license). 2 of the 3 day licenses would have to be for mid to late season to hunt as the NR wishes if used for upland during Thanksgiving weekend while visiting family 1 free day would be added. Opener licenses would include one for NR grouse-huns, one for NR pheasant one for NR waterfowl opener. license would be without zones for waterfowl. Could not buy conventional and special license in one season.
cost of license????

5. Spring snow goose and early fall goose licenses would be same price for residents and non-residents. They are both conservation licenses.

6. State to state reimbursement with Duck stamp dollars, based on a percentage of hunters that hunt ND. some of their duck Stamp funds should go to where the ducks are raised. Maybe a state duck stamp also?

7. Raise the price of Nonresident Fishing, Hunting & Furbearer Certificate to $10.00 for residents and nonresidents alike (habitat fund), youth would be free up to 18, 18 and over would be adult price.

8. Community licenses. Communities with habitat enhancement programs would have the ability to issue licenses to residents and non-residents on an equal basis with the number of licenses to be determined by the available resource measured jointly by NDGF, Tourism, Local wildlfie clubs, and the community committee. Based on any and all available state issued wing shooting or furbearer licenses. This could also be implemented on tribal land if the tribal authorities would be interested.

Now before you beat me to death think about what I posted above, Yes I am suggesting more NR hunting days, but it is mostly for mid to late season. with some perks for youth and incentives for communities. it is possible if we can get everyone on the same page.

What flaws do you see? what problems do you see? I have been spending a lot of time thinking about these issues. I need to hear your comments.

PEACE!!!

Bob


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Bob it seems complicated, can't Nrs buy as many upland licenses as they want now? I don't have enough info or interest to comment on the waterfowl rules. I would love to know how many upland hunters come more than two weeks now available week. If that numbers is low the license fee should be doubled( for adults) and go back to a whole season license( less your precious first week if you must) with the money earmarked for land aquisition. I still contend that few Nrs use more than the two weeks they are allowed on the current license ( few have more time than that to spend) so the useage wouldn't go up but the cash flow would.

Surely someone knows what the demographics of the hunters is with all the info they have on licenses. You need to find them out. Know your customer!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here you go Bobm
From 1999 to 2004 I go through these numbers all the time. it can make your brain hurt sometimes :-? I gotta dig a little for second licenses for upland last year. I will fin out and post an exact number

Not really that complicated just gives more choices to a wider variety of NR interests. I am not changing the current system just adding options. I will keep my early week thank you. I deserve it!  :beer:

Department Reports 1999 Waterfowl Harvest (6/23/00)
North Dakota's waterfowl hunters had another successful year in 1999, reports Mike Johnson, waterfowl biologist for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department.
The total duck harvest was 375,000, down only slightly from 378,000 birds harvested in 1998. "The 375,000 birds harvested last year was the second highest harvest since 1979," Johnson said. The average seasonal bag decreased from 6.4 ducks per hunter to 6.1. Mallards comprised 54 percent of the duck harvest and gadwall 12 percent.
Goose harvest was also high last year at 271,000 birds, but seven percent less than 1998. The average goose bag decreased from 5.0 to 4.4 geese per hunter. Canada geese made up 62 percent of the harvest, followed by 36 percent snow geese and two percent white-fronts.
The number of waterfowl hunters increased from 59,000 in 1998 to 61,000 last year. Resident hunters decreased from 40,000 to 39,000, while nonresident hunters increased 14 percent, from 19,000 to 22,000.
The average hunter spent more than four days each hunting ducks and geese.
The annual harvest of ducks and geese is determined by a mail survey of nearly 9,000 randomly selected small game and waterfowl hunters, Johnson said.

1999 Pheasant Hunters Fared Well (7/21/00)
North Dakota pheasant hunters had a productive 1999 season. Harvest statistics compiled by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department show an 18 percent increase in the number of birds bagged from 1998, according to Lowell Tripp, upland game bird biologist, Oakes.
Last fall's pheasant harvest was 258,335, up from 219,873 in 1998. "An open, mild winter during 1998-99, followed by a good reproductive season, set the table for a good fall," Tripp said.
The number of hunters increased almost four percent, from 57,265 in 1998 to 59,466 last year. Resident hunters increased from 42,900 to 47,609, while nonresident hunters decreased from 14,365 to 11,857. Kill per hunter increased from 3.84 to 4.34.
Counties with the highest percentage of pheasants harvested were Hettinger, 13.1; Stark, 8.5; Morton, 8.0; Grant, 8.0; Burleigh, 6.0; Emmons, 5.5; and Mercer, 5.2.
The annual pheasant harvest, Tripp said, is determined by a mail survey of resident and nonresident hunters.

1999 Partridge, Sharp-tailed Grouse and Sage Grouse Harvests Reported(7/12/00)
Last fall's Hungarian partridge harvest increased, while sharp-tailed grouse and sage grouse harvests decreased, according to Jerry Kobriger, upland game management supervisor for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Dickinson.
Last season's total harvest for partridge was 41,452, an increase of nine percent from 1998's harvest of 38,008. Number of hunters was down three percent, due to the decrease in estimated nonresident hunters from 6,250 in 1998 to 3,535 last year. Kill per hunter, however, increased from 1.77 to 1.99.
Counties with highest partridge harvests and their percentages in 1999: Ward, 8.1; Stutsman, 5.4; Williams, 4.9; Morton, 4.6; and Stark, 4.6.
The 1999 sharp-tailed grouse harvest was down 10 percent. Last fall's sharptail harvest was 101,564, down from 112,707 in 1998. Number of hunters decreased almost four percent, from 34,754 in 1998 to 33,425 last year. Nonresident hunters declined from an estimated 9,690 to 7,138. Kill per hunter decreased from 3.24 to 3.04.
Counties with highest sharptail harvests and their percentages: McKenzie, 9.7; Mountrail, 6.3; Ward, 5.8; Burleigh, 5.5; Stutsman, 5.0.
Sage grouse hunters harvested 29 birds last year, down from 33 in 1998. Number of hunters increased to 103, up from 96 in 1998. Kill per hunter decreased from .34 to .28.
Partridge and sharptail statistics are based on a small game questionnaire survey of 5,942 hunters. Sage grouse numbers are based on a postcard survey given to hunters during the sage grouse season.

Department Reports 2000 Waterfowl Harvest (6/27/01)
North Dakotas waterfowl hunters had another successful year in 2000, reports Mike Johnson, waterfowl biologist for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department.
The duck harvest was 358,400, down from 374,600 birds harvested in 1999, but still the third highest harvest since 1979. The average seasonal bag decreased from 6.1 ducks per hunter to 5.9. Mallards comprised 55 percent of the duck harvest and gadwall 13 percent.
Counties with highest duck harvests and their percentages in 2000: Nelson, 7.8; Stutsman, 7; Ramsey 6.2; McLean, 6; and Burleigh, 5.2.
Goose harvest was also high last year at 270,300 birds, only 400 less than 1999. The average goose bag remained the same at 4.4 geese per hunter. Canada geese made up 64 percent of the harvest, followed by 35 percent snow geese and one percent white-fronts.
Counties with the highest goose harvests were McLean, 8.9 percent; Stutsman, 6.8; Richland, 5.1; Burleigh, 5.1; and Nelson, 5.
A total of 61,000 waterfowl hunters took to the field last year, the same as in 1999. The number of resident hunters decreased from 39,000 to 36,000, while nonresident hunters increased from 22,000 to 25,000.
The average hunter spent four days each hunting ducks and geese.
The annual harvest of ducks and geese is determined by a mail survey of nearly 9,000 randomly selected small game and waterfowl hunters, Johnson said.

Successful Year for 2000 Upland Game Hunters (6/20/01)
Partridge and grouse hunters had successful seasons last fall, as harvests for Hungarian partridge and sharp-tailed grouse increased 23 percent, and sage grouse increased an overwhelming 100 percent from 1999, according to Jerry Kobriger, upland game management supervisor for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Dickinson.
Last season's partridge harvest was 50,910, up from 41,452 in 1999. Number of hunters was up eight percent to 22,470, compared to 20,858 in 1999. Kill per hunter increased from 1.99 to 2.27.
Counties with highest partridge harvest percentage in 2000: Morton, 7.3; Hettinger, 5.7; Stark, 5.7; Stutsman, 4.2; and Grant, 4.1.
The 2000 sharp-tailed grouse harvest was 125,006, up from 101,564 in 1999. Number of hunters last year was 33,573, up from 33,425 in 1999. Kill per hunter increased from 3.04 to 3.72.
Counties with highest sharptail harvests and their percentages: Morton, 7.3; McKenzie, 5.9; Stutsman, 5.7; Grant, 5.1; and Mercer, 4.4.
Sage grouse hunters harvested 58 birds last year, up from 29 in 1999. Number of hunters increased to 108, up from 103 in 1999. Kill per hunter increased from .28 to .54.
Partridge and sharptail statistics are based on a small game questionnaire survey of 4,340 resident hunters. Sage grouse numbers are based on a postcard survey given to hunters during the sage grouse season.

Game and Fish Summarizes 2001 Partridge and Sharp-tailed Grouse Seasons (6/26/02)
North Dakota's Hungarian partridge and sharp-tailed grouse hunters bagged fewer birds last year compared to 2000, according to Jerry Kobriger, upland game management supervisor for the State Game and Fish Department, Dickinson.
Last season's partridge harvest was 46,493, down eight percent from 50,910 in 2000. Number of hunters was 19,265 (14,662 residents, 4,603 nonresidents), down 14 percent compared to 22,470 in 2000. Kill per hunter increased from 2.27 to 2.41.
Counties with the highest percentage of partridge taken by resident hunters in 2001: Ward, 7.8; Mountrail, 6.9; McLean, 6.2; Stark, 5.8; and Williams, 5.6. Top counties for nonresident hunters were Hettinger, 10.5; Bowman, 9.8; Adams, 9.5; McLean, 6.7; and Stark, 6.3.
The 2001 sharp-tailed grouse harvest was 107,980, down 13 percent from 125,006 in 2000. Number of hunters last year was 32,947 (22,787 residents, 10,160 nonresidents), down from 33,573 in 2000. Kill per hunter decreased from 3.72 to 3.28.
Counties with the highest percentage of sharptails bagged by resident hunters: Mountrail, 6.3; McLean, 5.8; Stutsman, 5.7; Burleigh, 5.3; and Williams, 4.6. Top counties for nonresident hunters were Hettinger, 12.2; Dickey, 7.5; Sheridan, 6.1; Logan, 5.5; and McIntosh, 5.4.
Partridge and sharptail statistics are based on a small game questionnaire survey of 4,332 resident and 1,996 nonresident hunters

Game and Fish Recaps 2001 Pheasant Season (7/11/02)
North Dakota pheasant hunters had a successful 2001 season, as harvest statistics showed a 49 percent increase in the number of birds bagged compared to 2000, according to Lowell Tripp, North Dakota Game and Fish Department upland game bird biologist, Oakes.
Last fall's pheasant harvest was 421,586, up from 283,759 in 2000. "A good reproductive season in 2001 and a 13 percent increase in hunters accounted for the higher harvest," Tripp said.
The 2001 harvest is the highest since 1963, when 490,000 birds were taken.
The number of hunters increased from 67,176 in 2000 to 75,825 last year. The number of resident hunters increased from 52,651 to 53,589, while the number of nonresident hunters increased from 14,525 to 22,236. Birds bagged per hunter increased from 4.22 to 5.46, and the average hunter spent 3.6 days afield.
Counties with the highest percentage of pheasants harvested were Hettinger, 12.9; Stark, 8.3; Burleigh, 7.5; Morton, 7.1; McLean, 7.0; Grant, 5.8; and Emmons, 5.1. Statistics show pheasants were taken in 50 counties last year.
Annual pheasant season statistics, Tripp said, are determined by a mail survey of resident and nonresident hunters.

Nonresident Waterfowl Licenses Sold Out - Special News Release (10/10/02)
As of Oct. 10, nonresident hunters had purchased all 30,000 waterfowl hunting licenses available in North Dakota for the 2002 season, according to Paul Schadewald, administrative services chief for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department.
Reaching this milestone ensures that North Dakota this fall will host about the same number of nonresidents waterfowl hunters as in 2001, when the number of licenses was not limited.
The game and fish department's 2002 waterfowl proclamation, for the first time in recent years, established a limit on license sales to nonresidents. In 2000, with no limit, game and fish sold about 25,000 nonresident waterfowl licenses, and in 1999 about 22,000.
For more information contact Paul Schadewald, Chief of administrative services, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, 701-328-6300.

Department Recaps 2002 Pheasant Season 6/25/03
Pheasant hunters in North Dakota had a successful 2002 hunting season, as harvest statistics showed an increase in the number of birds bagged compared to 2001, according to Lowell Tripp, North Dakota Game and Fish Department upland game bird biologist, Oakes.
Last fall's pheasant harvest was 517,821, up from 421,586 in 2001. "A good reproductive season in 2002 and a 4 percent increase in hunters accounted for the higher harvest," Tripp said.
The number of hunters increased from 75,825 in 2001 to 78,995 last year. The number of resident hunters increased from 53,589 to 56,155, while the number of nonresident hunters increased from 22,236 to 22,840. Birds bagged per hunter increased from 5.46 to 6.56, and the average hunter spent 4.3 days afield.
Counties with the highest percentage of pheasants taken were Hettinger, 12.6; Stark, 10.4; Burleigh, 8.3; McLean, 7.7; Mercer, 6.7; Sargent, 6.1; and Emmons, 5.6. Statistics indicate pheasants were taken in 50 counties last year.
Annual pheasant season statistics, Tripp said, are determined by a mail survey of resident and

Department Reports 2002 Waterfowl Harvest 073003
North Dakota's waterfowl hunters had another successful year in 2002, reports Mike Johnson, waterfowl biologist for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department.
The duck harvest was 550,200, up from 433,800 birds harvested in 2001. The average seasonal bag increased from 6.6 ducks per hunter to 8.6. Mallards comprised 50 percent of the duck harvest and gadwall 13 percent.
Goose harvest was at 220,600 birds, down from 254,100 in 2001. The average goose bag decreased from 3.9 to 3.4 geese per hunter. Canada geese made up 72.2 percent of the harvest, followed by 25.4 percent snow geese and 2.4 percent white-fronts.
A total of 64,100 waterfowl hunters took to the field last year, 1,200 less than in 2001. The number of resident hunters decreased from 35,300 to 34,100, while nonresident hunters remained at 30,000.
Stutsman, McLean, Ward, Sargent and Ramsey counties saw the heaviest use by waterfowl hunters.
The average hunter spent four days each hunting ducks and geese

2003 Pheasant Season Had More Hunters, Birds 060904 
A 12 percent increase in the number of pheasant hunters in 2003 meant nearly 600,000 roosters were bagged in North Dakota last year, according to Jerry Kobriger, State Game and Fish Department upland game bird supervisor, Dickinson.
Last fall's pheasant harvest was 592,066, up 14 percent from 517,821 in 2002. The number of hunters increased from 78,995 in 2002 to 88,809 last year. The number of resident hunters increased from 56,155 to 63,711, while the number of nonresident pheasant hunters increased from 22,840 to 25,098. Birds bagged per hunter increased from 6.56 to 6.65, and the average hunter spent five days afield.
Counties with the highest percentage of pheasants taken by resident hunters were Hettinger, 8.7; McLean, 8.5; Stark, 8.4; Burleigh, 7.9; Emmons, 5.2; and Sargent, 5.2.
Top counties for nonresident hunters were Hettinger, 22.4 percent; Dickey, 10.4; Sargent, 6.8; McIntosh, 5.6; and McLean, 5.3.
Annual pheasant season statistics, Kobriger said, are determined by a mail survey of resident and nonresident hunters

Waterfowl
Resident
34,138 2002
30,771 2003

Waterfowl
Non resident
29,992 2002
26,066 2003
24,375 2004

Upland 2004

G&F Reports 2004 Grouse & Partridge Stat's 070605
Fewer hunters contributed to a lower harvest of partridge, ruffed grouse and sharp-tailed grouse in North Dakota in 2004, according to Jerry Kobriger, upland game management supervisor for the state Game and Fish Department, Dickinson.

Last season's partridge harvest was 52,443, down 41 percent from 88,616 in 2003. Number of hunters was down 24 percent to 21,066 (16,378 residents, 4,688 nonresidents), compared to 27,732 in 2003. Seasonal kill per hunter decreased from 3.2 to 2.5.

Counties with highest percentage of partridge taken by resident hunters in 2004: Ward, 11.5; Mountrail, 7.7; Barnes, 5.4; Bottineau, 5.1; and McLean, 4.2. Top counties for nonresident hunters were McIntosh, 9.6; Dickey and Hettinger, 7.8; Slope, 7.4; and Bowman and Emmons, 5.3.

The ruffed grouse harvest for 2004 was 249 birds, down 86 percent from 1,830 in 2003. Number of hunters was down 54 percent to 463 (408 resident, 55 nonresident), compared to 1,013 in 2003. Kill per hunter decreased from 1.81 to 0.54.

Counties with the highest percentage of ruffed grouse taken in 2004 were Rolette, 54.5; Pembina, 27.3; and Bottineau, 18.2.

The 2004 sharp-tailed grouse harvest was 101,637, down 31 percent from 147,517 in 2003. Number of hunters last year was 29,499 (22,316 residents, 7,183 nonresidents), down 26 percent from 40,099 in 2003. Kill per hunter decreased from 3.7 to 3.5.

Counties with the highest percentage of sharptails bagged by resident hunters: Mountrail, 9.6; Ward, 6.6; Bottineau, 5.0; Williams, 4.8; and Morton, 4.2. Top counties by nonresident hunters were Sheridan, 10.2; McIntosh, 6.3; Kidder, 5.5; Divide, 5.3; and Emmons, 5.1.

Sage grouse hunters bagged 28 birds last year, up from 14 in 2003. Number of hunters decreased from 185 in 2003 to 100 last year. Kill per hunter increased from .08 to .28.

Statistics are based on a survey of 4,462 resident and 1,623 nonresident hunters.

2004 Pheasant Harvest Evaluated 070605
North Dakota pheasant hunters bagged nearly the same number of roosters in 2004 as in 2003, according to Stan Kohn, upland game bird biologist for the state Game and Fish Department.

"This was somewhat of a surprise since we knew production was down last summer, especially in the southwest, leading to fewer young birds in the fall population and eventually in the harvest," Kohn said.

Last fall's pheasant harvest was 587,600, down less than 1 percent from 592,066 in 2003. The number of hunters was down only 3 percent, from 88,809 in 2003 to 85,982 last year. The number of resident hunters decreased from 63,711 to 59,030, while the number of nonresident pheasant hunters increased from 25,098 to 26,952. Birds bagged per hunter increased from 6.67 to 6.83, and each hunter spent an average of 5.46 days afield.

Counties with the highest percentage of pheasants taken by resident hunters were McLean, 9.4; Burleigh, 7.5; Hettinger, 6.5; Ransom, 5.8; and Sargent, 5.7.

Top counties for nonresident hunters were Hettinger, 19.7 percent; Dickey, 11.6; Sargent, 7.4; McIntosh, 5.6; and Emmons, 5.4.

Annual pheasant season statistics, Kohn said, are determined by a mail survey of resident and nonresident hunters.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob and Bobm, Sorry bobm about the youth deal I'm glad you agree. Bob I know this will irratate some on this forum but throw away the reciprocity. Let us show an example if other states want to follow fine.Example Bob lets say your son married Bobm's daughter and moved to Georgia. 15 years from now little Bobby comes home for thanksgiving and his grandpa's want to take him hunting. No reciprocity he would have to buy a nonresident license for the day he hunts here. No big deal to maybe you but to many little Bobby would either not go hunting or hunt illegal. What would be the chance of Bobm getting the Georgia legislature to go along with a reciprocity agreement for ND? I'm not worried about a bunch of kids taking away my chances. Nothing I enjoy more is watching these kids get fired up. Now about you o/g license I have a problem with that. If there would ever be caps and o/g's could sell all they want it would only increase leasing and gouging. A much better idea would be a private land license. Bobm my idea for the 5 day license would be a special license you would still be able to buy the one you have now. The special license would be advantages for our neighbors to the east. They could come dove hunting,sharpie hunting pheasant and come all they want in the later part of the season. an economic view only.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Thanks to both of you. I saw this line


> The number of resident hunters decreased from 63,711 to 59,030, while the number of nonresident pheasant hunters increased from 25,098 to 26,952


. in Bobs post. Why did the resident numbers go down?

What I was curious about was the breakdown of where , what states, the NRs come from. Guys from Mn can come for a weekend but most other folks are not going to make the drive for a weekend they are going to come for a week. And most of the people that hunt there are probably going to be coming from eastern states( the other adjoining states have plenty of pheasants to hunt). I'm talking Wisconsin east to the coast and south to the gulf, thats the region I see license plates from when I'm up there, and of course MN because they are right next door. This is what makes me think that raising the NR license fee while giveing them back the whole season to hunt is not going to affect the actual time they hunt because of the limitied time they have for vacation. Most people only have 2 weeks of vacation. Your current license already gives them 2 weeks.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Wyoming had stats that the single biggest factor for res # decrease is less access available. ND has to be the same. The increased posting goes right with increased commercialization. Hand and glove.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

I have to totally agree with Dick M. Having lived in ND for my first 30years and now wi the last 6 I want to move back hopefully sooner then later But is there going to be much to move back to. I think ND hunting should be first for ND hunters and second for none res. I have been back and bought non res hunting and fishing license every year I have been gone. But honestley how much money does a non res hunter put into the community I dont feel the money I spent ever really helped because I know that I spent a lot more living there and paying taxes also. I think if ND whats to keep there young people and keep res hunting # up they need work out this g/o issue soon because with out access to good hunting more and more people are going to leave in search of better paying jobs. Just how many years till a bad winter and most of the wildlife gets wiped out, the non res wont show up and the g/o will go broke. I think there needs to be more habitat and access for res first. I wish I had the answer but I dont just my opnion. And just for the record I think its great so many non res want to come to ND and hunt I myself enjoy it as a non res and I have no problem with honest g/o trying to make a living just everyone needs to quit thinking dollars and cents and more on how this is going to impact the future.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I dont feel the money I spent ever really helped because I know that I spent a lot more living there and paying taxes also.


Most of that tax money went into a general fund I'm suggesting additional fees for land access only.
Please lets not start the "NR's don't contribute debate again", talk about whipping a dead horse. I put between 700-1000 dollars into the coffers of ND in about 7 days or less of usage so you would have to spend about $37,000.00 annually to match that, if you want to honestly compare it on a usage adjusted basis. I think thats probably more than the average annual income of ND ( I don't really know). Its a tired and stupid argument anyway irrelevant to the issue.

I am advocating raise the fees on myself an Nr, but I want the extra money earmarked for land I ( and North Dakotans) can hunt on.
If G/Os didn't lease land and post it, but just hunted side by side with freelance hunters, I wouldn't resent them at all. I don't care if they make money taking some nimod out to hunt I just resent that they have to attemp to exclude everyone else. There is so much uplands hunting area in ND that its unecessary to exclude anyone. I am not commenting on waterfowler issues, I don't duck hunt.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dick, your absolutely right about why resident numbers went down. Bobm, of course you contribute to the economy, but a resident doesn't need to spend $37,000 to beat your contribution, they need only spend $1001 to beat your contribution. My pickup was over $40,000 and over 50% of the miles on it go to hunting. My boat was $27,000 and it all goes to fishing. Both are only a couple years old, and soon I will look for a new truck. We appreciate your money, but there isn't a non resident that comes close to contributing as much to North Dakota. How much North Dakota income taxes do they pay? We are not saying NR don't contribute, just that there is no comparison.

If we are going to negotiate we better be very careful. If a g/o proposes it they propose it for one reason, money in their pocket. Don't even begin to think they respect us or the resource as much as the dollar. After all people who sell a public resource in the name of access have not many scruples.

Politicians love taxes, and I think a pheasant shot on leased land should be taxed at about $20 from the outfitter, and $20 from the landowner. That money should go directly to the Game and Fish, earmarked for plots or other public hunting programs. Also, any county with more than 25% of it's land leased for hunting should not have pheasants or any type of wildlife released at public expense. Nor should their be damage from wildlife payments in that country.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well Plainsman my friend I love you :lol: but I have to disagree about the tax/ spending issue. What are taxes for??? Services, schools road improvement ect. You residents use those things in ND 52 weeks a year I use some of them for 1 week so my point is that if you adjust for the actual usage and the time period I use them than most NRs spend more than Residents. Makes sense to me if you came and spent a week here in Ga sightseeing fishing whatever you would spend much more money in that week in Ga than I would. You would use hotel/restaraunts/ Nr fishing licenses at a much greater cost( I think) ect. Everything you spend here or I spend in ND has a percentage of state income taxes in it that are a component of the pricing for these amenities.

My point is of course a resident will spend more ANUALLY but not more per week, unless your wife has finally found a 25 year old to replace you :lol: and your living in a hotel and eating every meal in a restaraunt.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

Just Ideas nothing more. Not part of any sinister master plan :lol:
Put all of the ideas for O/G's and NR on the same page and think of them as a unit, that is how I came up with them Jotting down notes and one led to another. Reciprocity was just an educated guess that the majority of youth hunting here come from these states. I have no desire to go to Georgia. Nothing Personal Bobm :beer: Been there a few times did not like it. My kids saw the benefits ND had for raising a family, they are pretty well rooted here, not to say they may leave but it would have to be an exceptional opportunity

It did seem to get some discussion going.

Bobm I do not know if those stats are ever made public I have never seen them published anywhere. I am sure they exist though.

Dick is absolutely correct, decreases in Resident and Nonresident hunters have two factors from my experience, one is access the other is pressure. the cost of licenses doesnt have much to do with the situation, other than the fact that a price increase is slowly moving toward the exclusivity of hunting. Price increases affect the bottom end of the pay scale not the middle and top.

I kinda get a kick out of your comment about the cold and late season hunting. I really enjoy late season, believe it or not I pheasant hunted with snow shoes once. boy was that a pain in the a$$ the dog thought we were nuts! Even at 10 to 15 below I still only wear thermals, jeans sweat shirt and a medium weight upland coat, (boots and hat) otherwise I start to sweat. Late season is great the air is crisp and clean it gives you the opportunity to realize you are alive, coffee and a ham sandwich never tasted better.

What should the NR license price be Bobm

The other thing that a lot of people come to ND for is the experience, Many have better pheasant hunting in their state but it is pay to hunt. Like you said $150.00 for a half day of Quail Hunting.

Point is mute. Who do you know that goes on Vacation and doesn't have money to spend to enjoy themself? some just go hunting on their vacation.

PEACE!

Bob


----------



## griffman (Jan 17, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Politicians love taxes, and I think a pheasant shot on leased land should be taxed at about $20 from the outfitter, and $20 from the landowner. That money should go directly to the Game and Fish, earmarked for plots or other public hunting programs. Also, any county with more than 25% of it's land leased for hunting should not have pheasants or any type of wildlife released at public expense. Nor should their be damage from wildlife payments in that country.


Hmmm..now there's a very interesting thought.....I like it. Maybe not $40 per bird, but maybe $40 per gun, it'd be easier (but still difficult) to police.

Bobm, I think plainsman is refering only to those who go to g/o's would pay this fee, not the freelance person.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Dick Monson said:


> Wyoming had stats that the single biggest factor for res # decrease is less access available. ND has to be the same. The increased posting goes right with increased commercialization. Hand and glove.


Right on Dick!! Anyone who says different better pull there head out!!

Good post fishless! :beer:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> What should the NR license price be Bobm


 I've stated *$300.00( adults) but make the upland license good for the entire season so the price increase doesn't feel like a rip off.* Most people will not hunt any longer than they do now as I also stated before most people don't have more time than the two weeks now available so based on that I believe it would just be extra money for the NDGF.



> I have no desire to go to Georgia. Nothing Personal Bobm Been there a few times did not like it.


It has its good points, especially on a sunny 70 degree day in January when I'm riding my motorcycle. :lol: 
And there are more beautiful women in any county of Georgia than there are in any entire midwestern state, I have no idea why and its doesn't do old married farts like us any good, but the scenery is pleasant, as I tell my wife of 26 years when I quit looking check my pulse :lol: .



> I kinda get a kick out of your comment about the cold and late season hunting. I really enjoy late season, believe it or not I pheasant hunted with snow shoes once. boy was that a pain in the a$$ the dog thought we were nuts! Even at 10 to 15 below I still only wear thermals, jeans sweat shirt and a medium weight upland coat, (boots and hat) otherwise I start to sweat. Late season is great the air is crisp and clean it gives you the opportunity to realize you are alive, coffee and a ham sandwich never tasted better.


I also love the late season ( I was speaking for true southerners) but I was raised in Wisconsin until I was 19 then off to Texas. My friends down here are true southerners and they freak out when I try to get them to go back up in Mid December. Its the best time of year all the rookies have hung up their guns and its easier to get permission. That said I don;t want to miss the early season either
I love every day I spend in ND and don't want to waste a second of them.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Griffman, I would charge per pheasant on any guided or pay to hunt operation.

Bobm, I understand what you are saying. I was thinking about the total economic/yearly picture. I know you spend more per week than I do when I stay home. I do however spend a good chunk when I get over 200 miles from home (badlands). I am cutting my expenses there also. I purchased a 7X17 trailer 7 feet tall inside. Carpeted it, power vents, bunks, rear ramp door, furnace. It should work out nice and comfortable for these old bones. The fifth wheel worked nice, but when I tracked it up it was tough on the old bones when I got home.

I am happy to see Bob K. trying to negotiate. When it comes to pay hunting I have a hard time negotiating so will leave that up to Bob. I'm more of a take no prisoners, drive their thieving a$$es into the sea type of guy.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I'm more of a take no prisoners, drive their thieving a$$es into the sea type of guy.


Me too thats why I probably shouldn't get in this conversation, I can't have any infuence on it anyway. I'm just an interested observer.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm, a few thousand residents can have an impact on the legislature. I think hunters need to open their eyes while they can still hunt. I would like to see us target the top three or four legislators that are a pain in the behind to hunters. Send their sorry behinds packing from the legislature, then start on the next in line. I think some good hard data on the economy of areas with freelance opportunities vs. the screw the hunter meca of Mott, North Dakota. Lets see where each is in five years after a hard winter. I am conservative and believe in capitalism until it begins to go against what the framers of this nation had in mind.

I know many people feel the same as we do they just will not get off their duff. Remember pheasant gate. If we could revive that passion we could take back everything we have lost. It's time that our representatives realize they are our representatives, not our masters.

It is no wonder the problems we have sportsmen are independent people and hard to organize. I remember outdoor buddy.com. Old Sheldon gave them a free week-end and they come back singing his praises. They sent me a nasty gram because I didn't like him. How easily we are bought off.

If sportsmen and women of the state want their sons or daughters to ever have the chance we have had we had better put some limits on these outfitters and guides. If we don't they will continue sucking at the resource until there is none left unless you spend $100 or $200 a day, and it will get more expensive. Out ancestors wanted wildlife to be property of the public so that this nation would never become like Europe where only the royalty or aristocrats could hunt. If this continues, then they failed.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Plainsman
I know you post was directed toward Bobm. I am going to chime in if I may.

You bring up some good points I do not have any Idea how many times I have posted this on this site, Probably to many, but it is key to just about every discussion that has taken place here on this subject.

The *"Public Trust Doctrine"*Is a declaration of the "Institutes of Justinian" the body of Roman civil law that was put together by the Roman Emperor Justinian's top legal scholars in 530 A.D.

England, in adopting much of the Roman law, eventually recognized it as owned by the King in trust for the public. In America as the colonies began to acquire charters from the King of England the law came to America.

Simply stated: a natural resource (Wildlife in this case and for this discussion) is owned by the State, as sovereign, in trust for all the people, managed for the equitable benefit of all the people, and is to be democratically distributed amongst all the people. The purpose of the trust is to preserve resources in a manner that makes them available to the public, public uses.

The Public Trust Doctrine Is not part of the North Dakota Constitution, however, The North Dakota Century Code, Title 54 State Government, Chapter 54-01 Sovereignty and Jurisdiction of State, 54-01-01. Original and ultimate title to all property in state. The original and ultimate right to all property, real or personal, within the limits of this state is in the state.

Section 20.1-01-03. Ownership and control of wildlife is in the state. The ownership and title to all wildlife within this state is in the state for the purpose of regulating the enjoyment, use, possession, disposition, and conservation thereof&#8230;&#8230;

From the North Dakota Constitution: 
Section 27. Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good.

I wonder how many of our legislators even realize these exist. Section 27 of the NDC is the most powerful of the group. *"will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good. " * it doesn't say "will be forever preserved for the business's" O/G's it says *people* and how is it in the best interest of the people and the public good (*managed by law and regulation for the public good*) to have ND business's act counter-productively with the people?

I am no legal eagle and I may be reading to much into this. I would sure like an opinion (legal) on the exact meaning of this section.

PEACE!

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Sorry Bob this is getting old. Since when are the people coming to my place not people when they decide to stay with me instead of the local motel or go back home at night? Do we not have laws in place regulating the o/g industry and also have laws protecting everyone? If you have a problem with that join Minnesota and sue us also, let the courts deciede. Don't mean to be hard on you Bob but that argument is getting old.

PEACE


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's getting old for you g/o because you know he is right. The people that come to you pay you for a public resource that does not belong to you. Don't give me the old song and dance routine that they are paying for access. Your access without the publicly owned animals isn't worth squat. You know what your selling and so does everyone else who's synapses are firing on at least two brain cells. It's an insult to intelligent people to keep feeding them that line. If they hear it enough they will believe it right???? It might work, but I sure hope the average Joe is smarter than that.

It would be nice if we could negotiate something that everyone found satisfactory, but the pay for access line proves (to me anyway) that your not serious. I think your objective is to keep us talking while the cool aid takes affect.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

That was uncalled for


> If you have a problem with that join Minnesota and sue us also, let the courts deciede.


 and you know damn well what the difference between your place and others. If you want to stoop to that level fine, I choose not to follow!

Later
Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob, Sorry about the lawsuit comment. Maybe we should get an attorney generals opinion on this and then put it to rest. I will agree to disagree with you on this. I will always believe someone using a outfitter is just as entitled to that game as you are. The last part "managed by law and regulation for the public good." Do we not have laws regulating o/g's in this state? You may not agree with them but they are the law and we need to abide by them. If you do not like a part of the current laws get them changed. There is nothing illegal about leasing land or charging a fee to hunt . We are suppose to be trying to find ways for freelancers and o/g's to get along here, maybe we should get back to that.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Apology Accepted



> If you do not like a part of the current laws get them changed.


Easy statement to throw out. Like I have said I proposed a bunch of things that have the possibility of improving the situation for both groups, Just like HB 1276 did, and this is the answer we get here,


> 4curl, you need to make another post, I don't care for the number you have made so far. To answer your questions, a no for all of them, sorry but that is probably the answer you will get.


 I have not heard from anyone but you because you know full well that your industry has the political muscle to push their weight around any time they wish. I was looking for a chance to discuss the issues, doesn't look like anyone from your side is interested.

later
Bob

I am out of the discussion for a few days.
Knock yourselves out!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I have not heard from anyone but you because you know full well that your industry has the political muscle to push their weight around any time they wish. I was looking for a chance to discuss the issues, doesn't look like anyone from your side is interested.


Gee Bob your starting to sound like Bobm :wink:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O....bob is right....what has the G/O industry done to come up with a compromise of any kind on these issues...

All I have seen is them standing on the capitol steps yelling...."gimme,gimme,gimme. Don't put ANY regulations of ANY kind into law that would slow down the commercialization of hunting in North Dakota."


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Bobm said:


> > I have not heard from anyone but you because you know full well that your industry has the political muscle to push their weight around any time they wish. I was looking for a chance to discuss the issues, doesn't look like anyone from your side is interested.
> 
> 
> Gee Bob your starting to sound like Bobm :wink:


It sucks when reality sets in. This has been an excellent discussion, but there are no shades of gray.

If our interests were in control would we be looking for concessions??? NOT!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, and I could call you guys a bunch of me firsters. Why should outfitters give up everything to make you happy? Now I'm not going to get into name calling. If you guys want to do something to help your cause overhaul the PLOTS programn. There is more money there than you can shake a stick at. It is truly mismanaged in my opinion, remeber this is my opinion. Increase the fees paid 2 bucks an acre doesn't cut it. Pay on the quality of the land ,if its a farmed quarter with a couple of sloughs maybe 2 bucks an acre. If its a section of CRP in Hettinger county you may have to pay 10. On leasing I posted earlier but no one cares to read or comprehend what I've said. To make it simple get a handle on it, make sure every piece is registered with a contract between the landowner and the outfitter. Make sure land is posted likewise with both parties name on it. Make sure it is insured proof of insurance. Just a few suggestions.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O...I agree with the last half of your above post.

I would also like to see people hunting with a G/O to have a different colored license to guarantee they are not hunting on public land.I have seen G/O websites that advertise PLOTS land to hunt on.Just don't have the guide with. :eyeroll:

I would also like to see all non-res. get a book of tags with their license.When they are gone you either quit hunting or hunt something else.

There also needs to be an acreage limit on leasing and a specific number of G/O in specific zones.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Overhaul the PLOTS program so some of the members of you organization can send their clients to plots land in the afternoon?? You do not do it but you and I both know it happens! How many in your industry would host freelance hunters free of charge in the afternoon? we both know the answer to that.  and you wonder why we get a little testy at times!

We both know PLOTS needs some change, What are you in your industry going to do to keep illegal hunters off of it? or is that the problem of NDGF?

What else would you like us to fix for ourselves so some in your industry can partake? Come on g/o You can do better than that.

Again I am not trying to pick a fight. I just feel that Your industry right now is all take and no give! you do little if anything to police your own ranks even when members are aware of problems.

:beer:

Bob


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

The hunters of Colorado unite and rise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take note North Dakotan's, their is primacy in making your voice and concerns heard. And let me tell you, commerical elk hunting is a gargantuan enterprise in this state...

Cries of angry public hunters cause DOW to draw own plan

By Charlie Meyers
Denver Post Outdoors Editor

Having received an earful from angry sportsmen over the past two weeks, the Colorado Division of Wildlife on Thursday will pass this message of discontent along to the Wildlife Commission at its workshop in Alamosa.

This merely is the most predictable in a series of episodes that includes yet another meeting of the Big Game License Allocation Working Group on Aug. 27 in Buena Vista. This add-on conclave will shed light on the legitimacy of proceedings that thus far have only raised the ire of the public hunter.

In another development in a progression that seems to evolve daily, it has been revealed the DOW will formulate a recommendation of its own, perhaps to be delivered to the commission at its September gathering in Lamar, the next full-fledged meeting of the policy body. The Thursday assembly doesn't provide for open public commentary.

*The memorandum the commission - or at least those members who don't have cow pies covering their ears - will hear Thursday is that the overwhelming majority of public hunters don't want more of their precious deer, elk and pronghorn draw licenses doled out to commercial interests. *

The same directive will echo to the Working Group at what likely will be its final gathering. Listen up. The rank and file who purchase the great majority of licenses are mad as heck and won't take it any more. 

Matter of fact, they're upset landowners, many of whom don't harbor any animals on their property, are able to skim the current 15 percent of prime tags off the top. *If there's any change in the status quo, public hunters are gunning for a rollback. *

This puts the public at odds with the recommendation of the Working Group appointed by the DOW to address a landowner proposal for more commercial tags. *Oddly weighted in favor of interests who view wildlife as commerce, the 15-member panel a month ago issued a report suggesting a boost in the percentage of landowner preference tags, particularly in areas where prized licenses are hardest to draw. *

Judging by comments emanating from eight recent public meetings, most hunters don't have a problem with landowners getting tags to hunt on their property. *But they're incensed at the notion these licenses can be sold for many thousands of dollars and used on public lands. *

Don't expect the commission to take final action on this ticklish matter anytime soon, at least not until the DOW has its say and the Working Group has a chance to make amendments, if any, to its earlier position. The commission may accept or reject all or part of these recommendations.

Truth, the commission has no authority to make any changes in landowner preference, a matter of legislative prerogative. But it may direct the DOW staff to prepare a package that might be introduced for debate in the 2006 session of the Colorado Legislature.

It has been roundly predicted landowners and outfitters who continue to push for a bigger slice of these most desirable tags will find a sponsor for their legislative package should the current proceedings not meet their approval. One also hears rumblings that sportsmen might seek rollback legislation.

Meanwhile, the commission does have authority to change policy on certain other matters regarding big game licensing, such as ratio of resident and nonresident tags and reform of the hunter preference point system.

This process now awaits the release of additional economic data to pinpoint the impact any shift in the current 60-40 split might have on the DOW's economic bottom line. A preponderance of the agency's budget revolves around income from big game licenses. 
Nonresident tags typically yield 10 times as much revenue.

There has been talk the commission might separate these issues over which they have final command from the more volatile, and uncertain, matter of landowner preference. 
Don't expect rulings on any of this until the September meeting in Lamar. But there'll be plenty of verbal fireworks in the meantime.

[email protected].


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

bioman said:


> The hunters of Colorado unite and rise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Take note North Dakotan's, their is primacy in making your voice and concerns heard. And let me tell you, commerical elk hunting is a gargantuan enterprise in this state...
> 
> Cries of angry public hunters cause DOW to draw own plan


I love it!! Like I said before turn 100 "me firsters" into 10,000 and they will have to listen!!

Thanx, Bioman.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That is what we need. If we don't wake up we will not hunt without paying some guy for the wildlife we already own. We really need to awaken the common hunter. If we could we would take everything back. Any legislator that resisted would be shipped out of Bismarck next election. The problem is the only people who can take off time to be in the legislature are retired people, and grain farmers. Fox in charge of the hen house there.


----------



## BROWNDOG (Nov 2, 2004)

KEN W said:


> G/O...I agree with the last half of your above post.
> 
> I would also like to see people hunting with a G/O to have a different colored license to guarantee they are not hunting on public land.I have seen G/O websites that advertise PLOTS land to hunt on.Just don't have the guide with. :eyeroll:
> 
> ...


Just courious but what kind of tags and what kind of numbers are you talking?????


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Hey Bioman, Colorado *is* way ahead of us. Our last session had 2 bills to give out second elk tags to certain individuals. So much for once-in-a-life-time license. Hardly a whimper was raised.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

BROWNDOG....I'm talking about a book of tags for each species except snow geese since the limit is so high on them.

Say 20 duck tags.You would have to wrap them around a leg when you leave the field.When they are all used up you can't hunt ducks anymore.That will allow someone to hunt at least 4 days....but no more hunting every day and giving them away just to stay under the limit.

Since the Canada limit is 3 a day.....say 10 of those tags.

The reason for them is to slow down the constant everyday pressure on ducks.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Say 20 duck tags.You would have to wrap them around a leg when you leave the field.When they are all used up you can't hunt ducks anymore.That will allow someone to hunt at least 4 days....but no more hunting every day and giving them away just to stay under the limit.
> 
> Since the Canada limit is 3 a day.....say 10 of those tags.
> 
> The reason for them is to slow down the constant everyday pressure on ducks.


  Hi Ken, 
I have to take issue with this idea. 
Tags are like locks. They are for honest people. Game violators are not going to tag their ducks. And, it appears, that since you have associated tags only with non-residents that they must be the only game violators. Why haven't you proposed tags for residents also? Is it because they don't give away birds to others to stay under limits?


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Sorry about sticking my nose in but it probably is because the limit on Residents is much larger since we could theoretically hunt birds every day of the season and the number of tags would be huge.......as long as we are eating them fast!!!


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

It all boils down to trusting people to follow the laws. Sorry I got off topic by going down this road.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Shu,

I think the tags have great value in part as an enforcement mechanism and in part as a pressure mitigation mechanism. On the enforcement side, there is a very strong belief by many that possession regulations are regularly being ignored/broken these days. Leg tags would weed out (or send elsewhere) - just like locks do - the casual cheaters. With the tags, one has to be willing to risk being caught (and significantly more-easily caught) from the moment the trigger is pulled the first time to the moment the rear bumper crosses the border.

On the pressure mitigation side, not many years ago 90+% of ND's waterfowl pressure came two days a week - the weekend. Now, mostly R's and some NR's hunt weekends and many/mostly NR's hunt weekdays. It's awfully hard to hold waterfowl with that pressure pattern and the raw numbers of hunters we've had recently. As we all know, caps seem to be verbotten for the time being in terms of mitigating pressure - we need to be creative and come up with other tools. The tags would also serve effectively for this purpose.

What's the right number? For ease and consistency of application, I'd suggest possession limit + one daily limit. Those who want to eat a few or actually have the opportunity to give a few away would have the chance to do some more hunting. *Very few *who follow the letter and spirit of the law when it comes to possession limits would be impacted by something like this.

Want to make it R/NR neutral? How about R's only get that same number of tags for each seven day period during the season - identified by specific seven day period? I want to duck hunt all seven days one week? No problem as long as I bring my tags with me and harvest only 18 and do what I must to remain within the possession regulations.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Dan, thanks. I can now better see the use of tags benefitting enforcement. And I like the R/NR ideas you put forth.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Shu....I didn't look at this as an enforcement issue at all.Strictly a pressure issue.Dan is absolutely correct....in the difference between pressure now and 20-30 years ago.

My number of 20 is 3 times the daily limit plus 2.It would allow a non-res to come twice or hunt 4 days to reach his limit.

Dan.....interesting idea about resident tags.....could work.

whatever it takes to lower the pressure.A tag system would allow more hunters to come....just can't shoot as many ducks.

I would also like to see people who use an G/O be issued licenses of a different color,to make sure they get nailed if they hunt public land.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Shu,

The purpose of possession tags would be to reduce the hunting pressure on waterfowl. I don't know how close you have been following these discussions, but resident waterfowl hunting pressure is decreasing and non-resident waterfowl hunting pressure is increasing. So why would we want tags for residents? If you want resident hunting privileges, move out here and become a resident.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> If you want resident hunting privileges, move out here and become a resident.


That would be a mistake, pretty soon only wealthy NR's will be able to afford to hunt ND. ( ouch! )


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

jhegg - Since I didn't see any "pressure comments" in Ken's inital post, I assumed his comments to mean that tags were needed to keep NR from going over possession limits. I only brought up the resident idea to counter that idea, not to try to change anything for residents.

You must be ready for early goose season with that itchy trigger finger!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The recent statistics the GNF released show res and non-res waterfowl hunters are almost 50-50.

But non-res. are shooting 70% of the waterfowl killed in ND.To many guys hunting all week and shooting a limit EVERY day.

I have seen guys brag on other forums about 8 guys shooting over 300 ducks in a week.They admit to giving them away to stay under the possession limit.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Shu,
You bet!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I agree with you guys we need a tag system AGAIN. We tried it before, and I think it worked. The heavy pressure from non residents is a problem. Another problem is outfitters thinking they own the wildlife. Perhaps the biggest problem is politicians that think they are wildlife biologists.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Perhaps the biggest problem is politicians that think they are wildlife biologists.


I agree with your post,except the actual biggest problem is resident complacency, which allow politicians to act like wildlife biologists.

Like Dick Monson correctly stated 


> Hardly a whimper was raised.


Thats how is happend down here, thats how it happened in Texas and that is what is happening in ND now.

Look at these threads maybe, just maybe, only 10 different guys feel enough passion to even truly discuss the issue. 
I hate it but, with that lack of interest the issue of preserving freelance hunting is a non-issue. Enjoy it now, I think there is less than 5 years left, and get your kids into something else :eyeroll:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The dynamics of this is a mystery. "Pheasant gate" saw ND sportsmen come out and be vocal and that made a difference. There have been issues that have been of equal scope in the recent past that have had less than a whimper from some of the same sportsmen.

I truly believe that the legislators of this state feel they are saving rural ND with some of the legislation proposed and passed. They may be right to an extent but the cost is in North Dakota residents. They are doing very little if anything to stop the out-migration issue. With the age of ND residents ever increasing and the kids gone the farm is rented or sold when retirement looms on the horizon. With that the residents take their nest egg and many move to lake country or southern deserts, and become Non-residents. OOS land sales often are the pot-o- gold at the end of the rainbow for some of these former farmers, many never thought they would see the day when their land was worth so much.

Factor in resident hunters and a seemingly ever decreasing pool of land for outdoor recreation, and you loose hunters (10,000resident waterfowl hunters alone in the last few years) Do not get me wrong PLOTS is increasing in acreage. It is not increasing as rapidly as OOS buyers, and commercial interests are taking control of it. balance is what is required IMO and the legislature is balancing the books with out of state income instead of trying to determine a way to balance it within. You all know (at least I hope you do) that I am NOT anti-Nonresident. I am not totally against O/G's either, I am against the current legislative thought process where they feel life will be good and ND will prosper with the influx of out-of-state money alone!

Dan I like the tag idea! I remember them from years past.

Later
Bob


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

One of the angles I have never understood is the association between hospitality and outfitters. When outfitting first moves into an area hospitality benifits but as outfitting becomes verticaly integrated hospitality suffers as access decreases due to leasing and exclusitivity of wealthy sportsmen.

Mott is a prime example. The hunter #s drop due to comericalization so their answer is to extend-expand season for NRs which will excalibrate leasing and land purchases. Increasing access never enters their mind and of course more access is the last thing outfitting wants to see. And we have never tried to work with hospitality other than the CAP program which received no responses.

I believe a measure on the ballot will be the only way to go. When you look at the endless list of outfitter inspired bills, not one would have passed public vote. I have faith that gandma does *not* want her grandchildren driven from the ND outdoors.


----------



## KB (Dec 1, 2002)

Good ideas being tossed around. Always productive to air ideas and let people chew on them for a while. I wish like heck I had the silver bullet on how we can make everyone happy. God knows I've lost many hours of sleep thinking about this subject. By the looks of what drew the most attention in Bismarck the past 2 sessions, and if we look at the hottest of hot topics on this site one could surmise that waterfowl hunting is by far the most contentions issue facing sportsmen in ND. If we dissect it ever deeper we come across the issue of land access and pressure on birds in certain areas. Please post if I'm off base.

I think we need to invest more in plots in duck country, outfitters need to work with hunters and share some turf when asked, hunters need to do even more to learn new areas and make relationships with landowners, not the once in the fall relationship. One of my biggest pet peeves is hunting water. Waterfowl will prematurely leave an area first and foremost if harassed on the roost water. I don't care if you have 1000 hunters. If all had boats on crucial water we would see bird leave for safer water. With this in mind do we see any attempts from Game and Fish to increase waterfowl rest areas? No! In fact we have less now that we did 10 years ago. Investing in safe water will keep birds in certain areas longer. If you are paranoid about guides leasing all the land around it supplement surrounding rest area waters with PLOTS. We all know birds will fly 30 or more miles one way to feed from a particular roost. Guides cant "corner the market"on rest area water. Just my opinion on a few important aspects of this discussion.

Dick: I respect you and your opinions but you need to add a paragraph to your trailer:

Geist: The first rule of North American wildlife management and the democratic hunting tradition upon which it depends, is that wildlife "ownership" must be held exclusively in the public domain, as a public resource, with no private-sector interference. The corollary is that wildlife must never become private property: For all Residents of ND, others must limit this access to 14 day, can't access this public asset for the first 7 days of the season, cant hunt on public land for public game on a certain dates, ect, ect, ect. (More limitations to certain public resources for certain segments of the public to follow) I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, but I cant help see the hypocrisy of Geist with those that want to limit out of state hunters, or other limits on access to this public resource. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Welcome to the discussion KB

"The corollary is that wildlife must never become private property: For all Residents of ND, others must limit this access to 14 day, can't access this public asset for the first 7 days of the season, cant hunt on public land for public game on a certain dates, ect, ect, ect."

What is the solution? I realize the difficulty of answering that question. I like your thoughts on the issue.

Just in my life time hunting has gone from a weekend with family to a 7 day per week testosterone contest by residents and non-residents. I don't view ND's current regulations as any more restrictive than some of our neighboring states and provinces. SD has great upland hunting so they have a resident opener, ND has a resident opener and allows NR to hunt everywhere except public land of which the lions share of the cost is absorbed by Residents.

Waterfowl well what can you say, last year after week 3 of the season I took a trip to sand lake in SD and took pictures, it was an unbelievable sight. I am sure we all realize why the ducks were there.

I agree with you on water hunting, I used to when I was a kid with Dad, we went to fields after some success with calling and decoys. It was fun to not have to deal with leaky waders and being stuck in the mud trying to retrieve ducks that were down.

If water hunting were regulated the outcry would be that we were resstricting them again, and another battle would arise. Is education the answer? all I know is that duck hunting is not and probably never will be in my lifetime what it was when I was young. We had more ducks, limits were lower, time limits were in place (1/2 day hunting) and people did not have the disposable income and vacation time that they do now. I may be wrong but all of the above, management and hunting are the main reasons IMO that we have less ducks. Now do I think we as residents should have exclusive access to all waterfowl. No I do not, Balance is my goal.

Later
Bob


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Kyle,

Thanks for posting up!

Access and hunting pressure are *"the"* issues.

I also agree that roost hunting will drive ducks (and even more so geese) out of an area quicker than anything else.

I don't agree with you that


> Guides cant "corner the market"on rest area water.


 If at all possible, they will.

Yes, I also think that


> wildlife "ownership" must be held exclusively in the public domain, as a public resource, with no private-sector interference.


 However, in North Dakota, the state of North Dakota is the holder of the public domain, not the state of Minnesota or the state of Wisconsin or any other state. I believe North Dakota should manage its wildlife first and foremost for all the residents of North Dakota, not for the commercial interests of a few. This is where we differ. Commercial interests tie up very large quantities of prime hunting land. If that is not "private sector interferance", I don't know what is.

But, we can and do disagree. Again, thank you for responding.

Jim


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

No harm in civil discussion. Espically outside the political arena now that the session is over.

KB said:


> I cant help see the hypocrisy of Geist with those that want to limit out of state hunters, or other limits on access to this public resource. You can't have it both ways.


And I would say the hypocrisy lies with those who are adamant for no restrictions and are the most restrictive themselves.

A push for a Community Access Program (organized voluntary access) by commercial interests would be a big step forward. No community in the basin or any of the other high use hunting areas has responded. Rep. Porters bill 1189 for community sponsorship of PLOTS will see the same fate. I hope I'm wrong but doubt it.


----------



## englishpointer (May 16, 2005)

Bobm ;

Come on up and bring some freinds!!!!
Would be more then happy to turn you onto some land owers that will allow you to hunt, or show you some good State and Plots land .


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Good discussion....hypocrisy????

G/O are opposed to HPC and any cap on numbers of hunters,yet every one of them practices HPC on the land they own or lease.They don't let unlimited numbers of hunters onto that land do they????Of course not....who would pay to hunt barren potholes and land that has been over-hunted.Yet they won't allow the state to practice the same thing. :eyeroll:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> G/O are opposed to HPC and any cap on numbers of hunters,yet every one of them practices HPC on the land they own or lease.They don't let unlimited numbers of hunters onto that land do they????Of course not....who would pay to hunt barren potholes and land that has been over-hunted.Yet they won't allow the state to practice the same thing.


Good Call Ken!!!!!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Ken 
Interesting observation HPC has been practiced in some form or another in ND for many years! Elk, Deer, Sheep, Speed Goats, etc. etc. etc. only it is called "wildlife management by lottery". Many O/G's feel they get screwed by the big game lottery in ND, could be why they are against it for waterfowl? Just kicking things around but what would the response be to a statewide waterfowl lottery with a guaranteed number of licenses for O/G's?

26,000 total tags with a percentage of the total going to O/G's ( i just pulled a number out of the air)

The state of MN would have been a heck of a lot better off if it had addressed this a few years ago. I know many differences exist between ND and MN when it comes to ducks but we should learn from our own and others mistakes.



> The recent statistics the GNF released show res and non-res waterfowl hunters are almost 50-50.
> 
> But non-res. are shooting 70% of the waterfowl killed in ND.To many guys hunting all week and shooting a limit EVERY day.
> 
> I have seen guys brag on other forums about 8 guys shooting over 300 ducks in a week.They admit to giving them away to stay under the possession limit.


Unfortunately IMO it is all legal!

IMO this is the single biggest factor in all of the waterfowl hunting debates. It is no longer a "hunting trip" it is a "vacation with hunting" More vacation time is given by businesses more disposable income is out there all the newest toys and equipment all lead to increased pressure and less ducks. Put on top of that the ability of ducks to learn new behavior patterns because of all of the above and quality hunting is diminished.

BTW My definition of quality hunting is: finding birds, setting up, being out there with family and friends, a hot cup of coffee, a few wise cracks, (they make fun of my calling  ) sunrise, and getting birds to decoy. and then being able to do it again the following weekend or a few days later. a bag limit is a bonus to me and I really do not care if I shoot any more than I will be able to eat for a meal. one of the things that i will very seldom do is hunt the same place two days in a row. same area yes, exact same spot no.

I am sure a bunch of guys here remember the so called "good old days" of duck hunting in the late 60's and early 70's. I was in my late teens and duck hunting was a quality hunt every time out. You may not believe this but they were not real hard to find. you could see clouds of them decending on the fields in the morning and evening pretty much anywhere there was feed, and they stayed until the weather forced them to migrate. It will probably never return to those days but again we should learn from the past and adapt. My standards of a quality hunt have adapted to current conditions, it should not be that way. Management should adapt to quality hunting standards. 

Later
Bob


----------



## oatsboy (Mar 29, 2005)

griffman you keyed in on a good point[ checks and balances with 
programs offered to land owners].unless it is a condition of a game farm lisence although a deteraint to leasing land, ins. coverage is optional.
while were on the suject its been my understanding a condition of enrolling land in a gov ag program the lands had to be used soely for ag.Hunting leases nor shooting preserves were definnd as standard farm practice is it? it would be ashame to loose elligibilty to those payments or worse yet to have to repay ill gotten gains.
i feel conditions like these are essential to preserving hunting lands.locale municipel zoning may also be a viable option.
i dont like it but i feel the gov already owns the land and we only rent it.you as a hunting community better lobby gov with some hunter friendly land regs. and license/program conditions.
it's going to take a visionary and some fancy lawers but what ever coarse of action you guy's take, the sooner the better.once established these 
land restrictions would apply to whoever would be renting /owning the land.

land regs. and use controls that take profit out of the equoation for non- puplic hunting land use is the only way to the stop the bleeding.
i know it sounds un -american but if you guy's dont push for these controlls, your fine state may side with groups like peta ,good-luck


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Bob:

The percentage of tags is a horrible idea. One needs to look no further than Colorado to see how that plays out. Here in Colorado, the pro-commercial/market hunters stacked the Wildlife Commission deck, so they attempted to get even more tags.

If anything is to be implemented, the fees have to reflect what they harvest. If you are a truck driver, the more you drive the more you are spending on gas. Which means that driver will pay more in taxes than somebody just driving to work and back. Same concept needs to be applied to the market hunters. If this group is the one harvesting the most of the public trust resources, why aren't they paying accordingly????????

1.) A limit needs to be placed on the number that can operate. Why shouldn't they have to compete via a lottery to get a license to operate?

2.) Allocate a fixed number of waterfowl, pheasants that they can harvest (no different with the lobster market or commercial fishing season in the NW). This could be handled with tags and implemented with little or no hassel. Then develop a set number of tags by unit and develop a lottery for allocation.

3.) Tax the heck out of what they lease. These funds should then be dedicated so the State can get back in the business of purchasing lands for management areas. The State and the Feds have not been active in protecting lands, and this needs to be addressed for future generations.

Just a few of my thoughts.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Thanks For the post Bioman

Interesting observations, and very valid points. What factored into the public getting involved with the issues in Colorado?

:beer:

Bob


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I don't think raising hunting licence fees would force out any needy or really poor people, although you will sure hear screamin and yellin about this. If someone could prove to me that they were really that needy, I'd buy them their licence myself. (But don't bother to apply if you smoke, drink a lot, drive a gas guzzler, cheat on your taxes, don't pay your child support,are tattooed and body pierced from head to toe, have cell phones, sattelite radios, internet connection, etc.) 
I've long maintained that this will have to be done one way or another to raise money for habitat - habitat - habitat! Then more habitat after that! Better to keep access to good habitat in the hands of the public than G/O's or the many other individuals out there leasing up hunting lands. One way or another we will all have to pay to play or hang it up. I personally never hunt public land or even rarely off my own land for all that matters, but still wouldn't object to higher fees for habitat production, enhancement and access. That benefits everybody! Even have a seperate PLOTS licence, like a trout stamp some states have, or a warm water fish stamp in MT. or like the school land stamp in Montana. Let's all ante up or the good habitat will be long gone, and pretty darned soon, too!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here is another Idea

The latest numbers I can get my hands on quickly are for total Resident and Nonresident licenses sold for 2001-2002 fishing and hunting all species. the total was 471,681, that is a bunch. Now attach a $15.00 habitat stamp to each license, you end up with $7,072,215.00 a fair chunk of change. So if you hunt deer, waterfowl, upland, and fish it would cost you an extra $60.00, That is a grand total cost to you of .164 cents per day that would go toward improving Habitat. pretty cheap IMO

Bob


----------

