# Frustrating



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

It's creeping up on me everywhere. Every area I used to call sacred is now infested.

http://www.highplainsoutfitters.net/


----------



## Doug Panchot (Mar 1, 2002)

Looks like I need to get ahold of my contacts out there and see what is going on. IS THIS EVER GOING TO SLOW DOWN!! :evil:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Doug, we can put a check on continued outfitter expansion if we all work together in a reasonable manner. See the "Chris has been busy" topic and register into the database. Ask all of of your fellow ND sportspersons to do the same.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Please don't leave these up too long - I hate to see the free advertising. None of these kind of places, will ever be hunted by ND residents. While they are legal & I understand the concept, of extra income for a farmer or landowner. They really have no other economic advantages for ND residents, or their communities. They profit from all aspects of hunting ND.

I just wish all Freelance hunters could combine their concerns. Unless you want to see most, of the best quality areas, become like this. Sure many will be successful, but many won't. But I'd bet many that are not, will lease to another outfitter, or a rich NR if they fail.

How many of these does ND need ??? That is what has to be managed & limited.

Before other residents & Freelance NR's realize this (& there affect on local hunting) - it will be to late & ND will end up like so many other states :eyeroll:

For every acre of posted / leased land that goes to guides or outfitters. I'd like to see the same # of acres go into Plots or Creps or WPA. (in those same counties) & there are folks that would commit to that ideal. If the state is agressive in persuing this & / or legislation was enacted. But I am skeptical if the NDG&FD can match the pace of what is happening. (and / or find the resources to make it happen) I think (???) they are trying - but their wheels spin alot slower than the for profit folks.

Plus the for profit folks are way ahead & doing all they can to dis-credit the freelancers & keep us at odds with each other. Plus they are stronger & more organized in their missions.

We are hoping the G&FD is leading the way, to help boost or expand freelance opportunities. But are they really ??? (we need to be able to account for what they are doing & support them) & who else can ??? Will the legislature do this ??? Keep ND special ??? - Forget politcal parties when you VOTE - find out how they stand on these issues. We need alot more true hunters in the Legislature - to do the best, or right things. Cause there will be plenty, that will only see things from a money point of view. Thinking they are helping farmers & smaller communities. While not seeing the big picture, on how it affects real hunters. (who spend their dollars traveling around the state to hunt.)


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

There is a guide/oufitter in Turtle Lake now too. He charges one rate if you hunt only on public land and another if you want access to private, posted land. Ouch. :******:

Another outfitter is advertising for business out of that great waterfowl "hot bed" located in Kathryn, ND. :eyeroll:

Simply searching the net and watching adds in the newspapers, outdoor press, etc... Would guess the number of outfitters in ND has doubled over the last year or two. Waterfowl and pheasants both impacted.


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

I am glad everyone is seeing what we in the Central and West are having to put up with. The SouthWestern portion of the state is posted solid and areas I have hunted for years are mostly "unavailable" because these outfitters are popping up all over the place. Thanks for keeping us informed and hopefully we can all rally together to help stop some of this. I don't understand why they don't tax the heck out of these folks?? If you are a truck driver using the highways you have additional road taxes and fuel taxes- Why don't outfitters and pay to hunt outfits have to pay extra taxes for profitting off a public resource?? This tax money could be used to acquire more public land! Really "p!!#$es me off, because when their farm land was burning this summer they wanted all our "city peoples" help with volunteer fire dept and fund raising and such. Now it is hunting season and they don't want anything to do with residents who don't have big checkbooks. Maybe next time the Western half of the state is burning they can call "their clients" to put out the fires and have fund raising benefits!


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

I am convinced that there is nothing that we can do or should do to "stop" or "control" outfitters. Outfitters have a place in this state as do non-residents. It is not our right to limit someone else's right to earn a living.

I do support that the outiftters' clients should fund land acquisition and leasing for public hunting. Non-resident license fees should be doubled and there should be a time limit on upland licenses. The non-res should be able to hunt the whole season, just make him buy a new license every two weeks to do it. The ND G&F needs the funding to make many of their projects go. They have hundreds of potential Coverlocks that aren't being planted until they can arange for a group to fund the fencing of the new cover to keep livestock out. Raising license fees could open up 100's of quarters of land just through the Coverlocks program. This namby pamby attack on outfitters and threatening to control them and tax them is ridiculous. Their success with land access is based on supply and demand. Landowners want to be paid for hunting rights. The outfitters are paying it. That isn't going to change because the sportsmen of the state whine about it.

We need to outcompete with outfitters for land access by supporting our G&F with policies that put the burden of solving the land access problems on the tab of those that are essentially causing the problem, the clients of outfitters and other non-residents. Double the license fees and make upland licenses expire every two weeks.


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

I disagree, the wildlife of this state is a state resource and individuals shouldn't be allowed to prosper off a public resource. If you are going to make a living off a state resource you should have to pay for it. If you make a living "off the road" a public resource-you pay additional taxes! I agree with you in your opinion of supporting the Game & Fish, but in the portion of state where I live 90% of everything is posted and 70% you can't get access anymore and that is a hard pill to swallow while we wait for the G&F and state to make changes.

In addition, a portion of the land in this area that is posted (much of which is used by outfitters) is CRP land. As a taxpayer, I ended up paying for much of this land to be "out of commission", however I am not allowed to use it. Also, there is alot of Game Management areas that are being used for livestock grazing! One example is 10 miles east of Bismarck. All the land around the Game Management area is posted (solid) yet the landowner is allowed to graze his cattle on the management area???? There is hardly any cover left for wildlife as it has been grazed down to nothing! I seen the same thing out by Medora 2 years ago when I hunted Mule Deer! I don't have a problem with a Landowner making a little extra money, however why as a TAXPAYER should I support them and then be told to take a hike when it comes hunting season? If I own a hardware store in Bismarck and there is a surplus of "hammers" in town the government does not subsidize me not to stock hammers anymore! I'm just tried of hearing about all these outfitters and how they will solve the farmers financial crisis! The bottom line is things would be much better and outfitters would be struggling if the government could adapt a farm policy that works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Until then I say limit outfitter licenses to about 50 for the state and tax em for using a state resource!


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

I see you are from Fargo and I may be wrong, but I don't believe things are as bad out there as here, regarding very limit land access and more & more outfitters. In addition, there have been editorials in the paper from outfitters in the southwest portion of the state, who have stated they won't let anyone from eastern North Dakota hunt (without big $$$) because of the strong support Hoeven received in reversing his pheasant hunting decision in that area. They don't want you "Eastern Fella's" telling them what they can do! The outfitters causing most of the problems/hard feelings between sportsman in this area & landowners!


----------



## Dr. Bob (Mar 3, 2002)

If you want to see more available land get closed off QUICK - Go ahead double the cost of NR Licenses :evil: . Let those NR CEO's and Lawyers buy all the licenses they want each year uke: . I am sure that would make them very happy! They would then have no problem with buying up a SH*T LOAD of land as they would be able to hunt it as much as they want.
:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

Then all us Commoners - Res and Non Res (at least the one's that can afford the extra license fees anyway) will be even more crowded into the little bit of public land that is available. :******: :******: :******:


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

I have friends from Minnesota and this year North Carolina that are coming to hunt. I am NOT a guide and these folks just come to have a good time, and I do not get paid, (although they have bought me a beer in the past). I don't believe the answer is to double NR licenses, however I believe a modest increase in both R & NR licenses could go a long way towards acquiring more public land. As previously stated, I believe the outfitters and fee hunting establishments should face additional taxes, (for profitting off a state resource) and limit the number of outfitters.

DR. Bob, I have a bad news for you, though. If you come to Western North Dakota, most of the land is posted "Thanks to Outfitters"! When Governor Hoeven attempted to open pheasant hunting early (per outfitter request) and then decided not too, alot of landowers got ****** and posted their land out of spite or turned it over to outfitters. Some outfitter organizations went out of their way to work up area farmers and made the issue a "East vs. West issue" and as a result everything is posted. Outfitters, were in the paper stating this is the Eastern portion of the state mandating the rules to us (outfitters/farmers) in the western portion of the state. As a resident I am even concerned if I will be able to find a decent place to hunt geese this fall.

In addition SCRAPER: I live about a mile from the G&F Headquarters here in Bismarck and the Hendrickson Waterfowl Management Area is less then 10 miles from town. This morning I was out there walking my dog on a section line and the wildlife management area (that the Game & Fish Manages) is full of cows. Unless the pheasants learn to stack up cow patties in the next month, there is a pretty good chance they will all be across the road the farmers "private & very posted land"!!! Three no hunting signs on 1 corner post!! This is how the Game & Fish manages the public land around here-give the public land to the farmer to graze cows and let him post all his land to keep the public off. I support the G&F, but stuff like this really makes me wonder where they are coming from at times. The cows have the management area grazed down to nothing! Now maybe if I lived in Fargo and could go across the river to Moorehead to get a Out of State License and Corporate Sponsor and pay the farmer $150.00 per day, maybe I could hunt some of those pheasants that were on public land a month ago???????????????????????????????????


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

HEy everyone. Fetch asked me to stop by here, and I finally have had time to. My name is Tom Jones, and I just moved to Jamestown and took the job of Private Lands Biologist, which means I am in charge of the PLOTS program in SE ND. Dont pull any punches, I want to hear the bad stuff, but let me state a couple of things will you?

1. Always remember that the people who run G&F are resident sportsman as well. What is good for them is good for you. So they are trying to do the right thing.

2. I just moved here from SD and none of you know how good you have it. SD has a NR cap of 6000. What does this mean? No guiding except along the Missouri River, resident duck hunting that borders on complete apathy, and if my brother in law comes to visit he cant hunt, cause he did not apply in June. On the landowner side, you have no trespass law. Do you know how much that means???? Sure there are 10 times as many posted signs, but where there aint there aint!!!! I called Ed Shultzes show one day back when I was farming during the Pheasant CRISIS and told him the same thing. We can all shoot ourselves in the foot. You cap NR too low, the landowners will get there poop in a group and pass a tresspass law. If the leasing keeps getting worse, resdents will put a cap on NR pheasants as well.

3. PLOTS is going to grow, and big time for next year. This program has been run in the spare time of department personnel in the past. With the addition of dedicated personell to the program. this is going to explode. If we can keep funding coming, we could see growth from the current 224,00 to a million acres in the near future. I know that sounds ambitious, but it could be real.

4. You guys all need to know how cheap your liscences are. i bought mine last week, and it was exactly half of what i paid for the same thing in SD.

5. I knwo nothing yet of management on the WMA's, but many of the ones I have seen could benefit from some grazing. In the long run grazing stimulates productivity, producing better nesting cover. Was this a State of Federal peice. My degree is actually in Range, so I would be interested in this.

None of what I write is official on here, and I will not speak out professionally again, but if anyone has concerns or suggestions, post em up, I will be watching and will answer. Tom


----------



## Dr. Bob (Mar 3, 2002)

I have said before I have no problem with increases in license fees as long as the money goes towards habitat / access. I just think we should all pay for it - not just the the NR's.

I think doubling the cost of a NR license is a bit extreme especially for us average guys who involve their kids in it. If you cut us out the future of hunting for us "Common Folk" is dead (That means Residents too!).

Sorry if I was a little "Rammy" with my last post - but I was really busy and did not give it as much thought as I should have before I hit "submit".

I do think in a way we are comparing apples to oranges as far as Western and Eastern ND is concerned. My main goal here is to preserve the quality of free lance duck hunting in NE North Dakota - That is were I hunt. If it means missing a season hear and there due to a limit on licenses - So be it. I would rather have a good experience when it is available - than to have an okay experience annually.

I think it might help the problem a little if the G&F Dept. made the NR Duck and the Upland Hunting separate licenses. I am sure this thought will piss off a lot of people, but that's just MHO.

I have felt since I started hunting in ND that access is the biggest problem facing ALL freelance hunters there. *That* access (IMHO) is mainly being taken up by the outfitters and to a lesser degree private leases. I just think cutting out the "Average Guys" will do nothing but hurt all of us in the long run............Kind of like outlawing guns - Then only Outlaws will have them.

Just My .02

Good Luck to you all,

Dr. Bob

--------------------

Boy - I wish we could just go shoot some ducks!


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Bronco
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it might be a duck. To your friends from out of the state you are their GUIDE weather you charge or not. Maybe you should apply to have a guides license. The differnce between you and a guide is you know the people and don't charge. :eyeroll: The guide doesn't know the people and charges a fee. :evil:


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

Well Zogman,

I can tell you there is a big difference between me an a guide. I stated the obvious, in the fact I don't charge. I don't lease up land or ask landowers to "reserve" land for me! I go out just like everyone else and do some scouting, ask permission and hunt with some friends. We do some hunting, occassionally some fishing and drink some beer and have a good time in some of the small communities, but I'm no guide! So maybe you should take some duck identification classes, cause I may walk like a duck and talk like one but I'm NO Duck! :******:


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

Tom,

Thanks for posting up and making contact on this issue. I hope you understand that the hopes, prayers, and support of resident and non-resident sportmen alike are behind you. We all look to the Private Lands Initiative to solve the hunter access problems in ND.

Dr. Bob, I agree with you 100% that the non-res fees for children under 18 should not increase, in fact they should decrease. There are times when I watch the ND skies full of ducks and pheasants and wonder if doubling the non-res license is enough, you out-of-staters get a lot of value out of that $100 license. There is not another state in the nation where, as a non-resident, you can buy a license, drive out in the country and start hunting. The intention is not to keep the common guy out or to encourage more land gobbling. It is to place an accurate price on what ND has to offer. The benefit will be that professionls like Tom will have more money available to make your experience here the best that it can be.

Another idea that doesn't see much press is to give landowners an incentive on their CRP, during signup, to allow hunter access.

The time for negative grumbling about East vs. West, Non-Res vs. Res, Anti-Outfitter or landowner has passed. Every state-owned resource argument has been made. The obvious has been beaten to death. I am putting out a call to all sportmen that have new, innovative, positive ideas on how to increase the funding for the Private Lands Initiative and thus fund more Coverlocks and PLOTS to post them on this forum. Until that time, please remember your manners afield and support the improvement of habitat in the areas that you hunt.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Nice post Tom.

A few points:

Lets not forget that while SD does cap NR waterfowlers, they allow unlimited access for pheasant hunters. Over 60,000 NR hunters enter the state of SD to chase pheasants. That is about double the number of NRs entering ND. The fee hunting, lodges, etc are probably out of control. I would guess the commercial hunting interests are so busy with the pheasant hunters - little time to deal with waterfowl. 
question: part of those 6,000 licenses sold to guided hunters only ?

Growing up in ND I have seen a no trespass (while hunting) bill entered into the ND legislature just about every session (every other year) since 1976. The bill is always defeated. Tom is right ... the direction of the trespass laws could change quickly. :******:

In the late 70s over 50,000 resident and 10,000 NR hunted ducks in ND. Posting in ND was intense especially anywhere south and east of Valley City. We ended up north and west of Jamestown just to find places to hunt ducks. More WPAs there too.

Finally, ND does have a reciprocity law with several states including MN. Youth hunters do not pay the same fees nor are they limited to 14 days. They must be accompanied by an appropriately licensed adult (NR parent or resident guardian - ie. uncle). Curt Wells just wrote a nice article about NR youth hunters in ND in Outdoor News - A MN outdoor paper.

Bob
http://www.state.nd.us/gnf/licenses/waterfowl.html
*Nonresident youth hunting licenses. A nonresident under age sixteen need only purchase a North Dakota resident fishing, hunting and furbearer certificate and a North Dakota resident general game and habitat license to hunt small game and waterfowl except swans and wild turkeys; provided, that the nonresident's state, or province or territory of Canada, of residence provides a reciprocal licensing agreement for North Dakota residents who are also under age sixteen (currently states of CO, CT, KY, MI, MN, MO, MS, TN, and TX). To be eligible, a nonresident youth may not have turned sixteen before September first of the year for which the license is issued and must possess a certificate of completion for a certified hunter education course. The nonresident youth may only hunt under the supervision of an adult family member or legal guardian who is licensed to hunt small game or waterfowl in this state and is subject to the same regulations as that youth's adult family member or legal guardian.*


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

High Plains Outfitters is run by Jason Mitchell from outfitterbuddy.com

It appears he doesn't have enough land around devils lake/rock lake


----------



## Dr. Bob (Mar 3, 2002)

PH - I know what the laws are.

I have 4 kids ages 13, 12, 8 and 4. When The oldest two are 16 and 17 they will need NR licenses. If licenses are doubled It will cost me almost $600.

I doubt will be able to afford that. But I guess that is my problem  .


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Man are you ever right on the SD pheasant thing. If the governor in SD tried to limit NR pheasants, it would turn into exactly the kind of thing that happened up here over waterfowl. In fact, I am suprised it has not happened over pheasants here yet. But like ND, there are good areas of the state that locals can hunt that are not pressured like the prime areas. One main difference is the size of the access programs. The WIA program in SD was a groundbreaker, and they are at least three years ahead of us. But the liscence down there is twice as expensive as well NR and Res alike. 
Personally I think the pain reason leasing in waterfowl is not as bad down there is because of the caps. It is easy to see there when you have one species capped so low, and another with no limits. It is a striking thing to live in. It stinks that I cant go back to hunt there this fall, but I am glad they have them in the whole. Some Waterfowl liscnces along the River are set up for guides only, but they are handled as a special unit,a nd all the proceeds go towards leasing and aquiring more land in those same high pressure areas that is public access only.
Scraper, I know this is not what you meant, but what you said terrifies all of us in the PLI community. We do not want to be what solves the hunter access problems. We do not want the state to be in direct competition with the outfitters to lease the best land. We nee YOU to get out and work with landowners to find yourself a place to hunt, and then supplement that with PLOTS. Can you imagine if everyone just said" Well, I am not going to go scouting until Friday this year.... Look at all these pretty yellow sections, we'll have no problem finding the birds...." The PLOTS program cant provide that. But what it can do is provide large areas of HABITAT, that is also open to hunting. I am hoping that I can close the deal on 2300 acres of wonderful Logan county land this week. DO you know what is great about that???? Not so much the hunting on those acres, which will be amazing for ducks and sharpies, but we will take several hundred acres of hayland into a better system to keep a whole bunch of nests from getting trashed. Habitat with access guys, not just access.

The CRP cost share program does what you are saying, we just need to get the word out a little better.

Later everyone Tom


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Thanks Tom & welcome to ND & NoDak Outdoors

I'm so proud ND continues to hire knowledgeable folks that know their stuff. Now if the powers that be - would only listen :roll:

Don't be a stranger !!! I know you walk a tight line between sportsman hunter & your new job. But most here are thoughtful of these things & would'nt want to put you in a uncomfortable position.

Hey!!! show them your close call pics from earlier this summer  I think your still around cause it was meant to be. I hope your future is bright for all of us


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

Tom,

You are selling yourself short. When PLI has 1 million acres under the PLOTS program, it will make a huge difference in ND. When I talk about hunter access problems I am not talking about replacing the need for landowner relations, scouting, manners, etc. I am talking about having an answer for the guy who asks me, "How can I start my kids hunting if we don't know anyone that farms in good hunting country?" That to me is a symptom that we have hunter access problems. If a person can at least go out and have a place to hunt and not have to drive around all weekend trying to build relationships, it makes it a quality experience. the relationship building may or may not come later. PLOTS is also like you said about the tract that you are working on, a huge chunk of habitat.

The direct competition thing may be right. Maybe the state shouldn't compete with outfitters, directly. The state ought to be comparable, though.

As part of the PLOTS program, is food plot and winter cover development a possibility under that contract? I see lots of those areas that could be so much better with some evergreen clump plantings and a few acres of corn and sorghum.

Good Luck with the PLI


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

There definately is a food plot/ tree planting component. Doing lots of them. Tom


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Well here are a few gems http://www.qwestdex.com/servlet/ActionS ... Find+It%21

http://www.spyorg.com/Recreation/Outdoo ... rthDakota/

I guess if they are dumb enough to have to use these they get what they deserve (???)

This one is worrysome ??? http://www.northdakotahuntingleases.com/

But when is enough enough ???


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Fetch:

I checked out the one you said was worrisome and the was something familiar about it. It came to me last week when I got the new DAKOTA COUNTRY magazine. This guy takes out a full page ad on a regular basis in DAKOTA COUNTRY and his latest is inside the front cover of the magazine.

The picture that is used is the opening shot on his website:

www.esetter.com

I realized this because I freqently take a look at the pictures of the puppies on his website.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Fetch:

I checked out the one you said was worrisome and the was something familiar about it. It came to me last week when I got the new DAKOTA COUNTRY magazine. This guy takes out a full page ad on a regular basis in DAKOTA COUNTRY and his latest is inside the front cover of the magazine.

The picture that is used is the opening shot on his website:

www.esetter.com

I realized this because I freqently take a look at the pictures of the puppies on his website.


----------

