# This guy knows!



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

This is from Tony Dean site:
Minnesotan Enjoys Good Pheasant Hunt in SD

Tony, just returned from a late season hunt. Lots of birds, jumpy, but we managed to secure our 5 day limit. We have hunted the same areas for about 13 years and know many of the farmers and have good luck getting on private land although it is getting harder each year.

Much of the good walk in areas we used to hunt are gone, mowed or both. Here is my thought. There are over 20,000 non resident hunters that spend $100 on a license. Why not tack on $25 a license to raise money for more quality WIA's? The $500,000 could lease quality and quantity properties for better hunting for all. Acres that could be enjoyed by locals as well as non-residents. These acres should be strictly closed to outfitters and all other commercial operations.

The argument is the cost is too much? This is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall cost of a trip so price is not a legitimate argument.

This is coming from a non-resident hunter going to S. Dak. to hunt. You have to respect a person of this caliber. Common sense goes a long way!!


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

I get a kick out of how everyone thinks that NR's have unlimited pockets. I'm not apposed to NR's paying more, but there should be a balance. NR's do use the resource but so do Res. Everytime a state wants to increase public opportunities, why do they turn to NR's? (okay, I know the answer, their an easy target) There was a post on FB that the Res deer tag has only increased $1 in the last 20 years. (If that's not correct I aplogize, it was taken from another post without any facts. Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Adding $25 to a $100 license when compared to a $300 weekend many times is not a big deal. But what if that hunter has two kids? It all adds up. I've read in other discussions how people have said 'if you want to hunt ND more than two weekends go buy an additional license.' But the same scenario comes to mind. I hunted for years when my Dad bought licenses for myself and my brother, and I'm grateful. But if that were this year he would he would have paid over $500 for those three licenses just so we could make more than two trips and this doesn't even count waterfowl. Correct me if I'm wrong but this could add roughly another $250. Now we're over $750 for LICENSES to hunt pheasants for 4 weekends and waterfowl for 2. Eventually the well runs dry. And I realize that is what some of the intentions of these rules were.

I have a question that I honestly don't know the answer to. Could someone please post the total number of resident and NR hunters for upland game, waterfowl? I'd ask for deer but I already know that resident's out number NR's 99-1.

My long winded point is that everyone who has hunted ND comes back for a reason. Whether you like it or not you have a very desirable state. Maybe I should start complaining that all you ND and SD residents are moving to the Twin Cities and taking potential jobs away from me. But I won't go there because that definitely isn't right nor do I believe that.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Nor do we want to - or we would have


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Mega - dittos, Fetch.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Powder while reading this post, I was struck by the fact that ND had not raised it's deer license in 19 year and it struck me that during that time, our game and fish expanded fishing oppotunity for alll across the state. Maintained and installed new ramps started and maintained a youth information pond in Bismarck and a host of other projects that benifited many people. Money for access programs was minimal but access was really not an issue.

Suddenly we are being overrun with NR hunters access is in the decline and while I am a big supporter of the program we are now in need of public access programs. ND State Constitution requires the G&F to manage and preserve the wildlife for the use by the residents of ND first, not the wants of NR's. I would encourage you to go to Discovernd and find the section dealing with the G&F and read it.

This will clear up a lot of things for a lot of people. I do not begrudge you the right to come and hunt, nor do I think you should be paying extreme rates, but the cost of hunting in ND has been driven up not by residents but by nonresidents and commerial interests. Eliminate the NR license and revenue and the need for plots would be reduced, if not eliminated. Reflect on that effect.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Well, as far as I am concerened, you guys won. :beer: I didnt go to NoDak this year and I probably won't return.
Of course, in a dozen years, I never hired a guide (cant understand why anyone would have to), never bought or leased land there, nor did I ever see more than a handful of hunters res or non res. In fact, the guy who invited me to hunt his land out there did so on the shore of a lake here in Ottertail County Minnesota. Funny, he owns the land and wants me to hunt it. You guys dont own squat and you fix it so he and I cant get together.
Nope, all I did was have a good time with my dad and kids out there and drop a little money into the rural economy.
As I read what is written here, a couple of things strike me. One is that it seems as though you guys have your noses out of joint more because of G/O's than NR's. I guess I can understand that, yet you lump the two together all the time. Anybody ever do a demo on the NR's who are unguided vs. the NR's that go through outfitters? I think it would be pretty lopsided. Funny how you pat the NR who is for increased license fees and yet, a NR who says that is more likely to be able to afford a guide (just what you dont want).
Me, I didnt go this year partly out of principle but mostly because when you add it all up, that extra $85.00 or whatever did, in fact, put it out of my price range.
The other thing that I cant help noticing is that the biggest noisemakers here seem to be from Fargo...Grand Forks and other cities.
You guys talk about the land out there like it is yours. People leasing it for hunting burns you but yet it takes two parties to draw up a lease, the owner and the dude leasing it. Do you hate the guy who found that he could make a better living by leasing his land as much as you hate the guys with the jing to lease it? Both had something to do with your big dilemma.
Two people doing business and you guys cry because it cuts into your playtime even though the only thing you have invested in the deal is the fact that you are technically a resident of the state. Who gets kicked in the nuts for it? Unguided NRs who appearantly dont bother the folks with any real claim to the land one bit.
The sad thing is that a lot of NR's who have never been out there may get the impression that all NoDakers are a bunch of hotheaded lunatics because of what they read here. The fact is that the majority of NoDakers are kind, friendly salt of the earth folks that the midwest is famous for. You can find people like that in MN, Wisc, Iowa...too. What you see here folks is mainly city hunters with too much time on their hands trying to solve all Gods problems on the computer.
Yeah, you love that isolationist hunting...just not enough to put your money where your mouth is and buy some land out there and post it or whatever. You pass yourselves off as being the pseudo saviors for resident hunters in North Dakota. I think that all you really care about is yourselves. How many of the regular squeakers here own a bunch of hunting land out there and open it to residents 24/7? How many have a cabin in Minnesota? Fish here for peanuts a year? Not worth it for me either or Id move there but things are all around better in Minnesota.
Like I say, you won. Got what you wanted with this guy and his kids.
Too bad that Minnesota's economy is so dependant on tourism. Half of Fargo will be in my backyard all summer and there isnt thing one I can do about it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bert we have not won, but we are fighting the war. I tried to lay it out so that you and others can connect the dots. You need to read the constitution of our state, and then go back and read some of the old articles from the early days in ND.

One drip of water does not fill a glass but repeated drips do, look at the small amount of water that passes through a leaking toilet. See what that leak does to the water bill.

When things are broken down to a single person and the effect they it is just a ripple, but have twenty jump in a pool and see the wave. Something you alluded to about the lakes area. Me coming odwn would not be a big crowding affect, but me and my neighborhood would.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Ron,

I'm afraid you'll never get some of these guys to "connect the dots". I've decided the guys that are going to ***** are just going to *****. We have guys like this on both sides of the border and always will. Hey maybe I'll have to start *****ing about having to pay for 4 fishing licenses this year for the kids over 15 and ........oh what's the use.


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

Bert, don't give so easily. I have been reading this site for awhile now and agree with you that some of the people that post, do want an isolationist ND. They like the ability to go out and easily shoot their limit of birds or ducks or geese and not see anyone else, hey who wouldn't.

I also agree that the G/O's seem to be the biggest burr in most these guys underwear, not the freelance NR who comes over for a long weekend bird hunt. Especially somebody who comes over for a late season hunt. There seems to be more than enough room for everyone at this time of the year. Tougher hunting conditions, smarter birds, but less hunters and easier access to some private land.

I am afraid that this could pit sportsman against sportsman if this I want to protect my birds/fish or whatever continues. A concerted effort from the MN side could get people all worked up over license hikes for NR who own cabins in MN or just want to come over for some panfish action a couple times a year, like a Red Lake crappie trip, a lake of the Woods weekend etc..

I didn't make it to ND this year but did get to SD for late season Roosters, hope to make it one more time before the season ends. For now will just keep reading the posts. Do enjoy the stories people tell here.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

"I am afraid that this could pit sportsman against sportsman if this I want to protect my birds/fish or whatever continues."

Ranger I want to challenge this little statement. First I will give you a little back ground on myself. I was opposed to any limits on NR as I felt we had plenty of room etc. When Hunter Pressure Concept was introduced I felt it was my duty if I was opposing it to research and argue my postion with facts and figures.

What I found changed my thinking and turned me into a supporter. More than anything was the comments by many that why should we have limits when duck populations are at all time highs and the state is at the wetest it has been.

HPC and some of the legislation that came about is rooted in resource protection, state constitution requirements, and a dislike for the prostitution of wildlife.

With waterfowl we are harvesting 70% young of the year birds. This is up from 25%. Studies show that health and welfare of the population to expand or maintatin current levels should not exceed 27-30 %. When we remove that many young and nature takes her share we are now depleting the resource. We cannot control weather, or harvest levels in other states but it is prudent to reduce the amount of young birds harvested. You do this by reducing limits, days and hunters. Other studies show that limits are the least effective and that days afield are really the the indicator of harvest numbers. I would bet that half the waterfowl hunters in ND do not spend more than 5 days average afield stricly pursuing waterfowl however freelancers on the otherhand do. Most residents hunt primarly2 day back to back, but NR hunt 5-7 days putting continious pressure on the resource. Thus the young of the year are what get harvested first and fast.

Upland is a little different in that it does not migrate but does become affected by pressure. Upland need to build fat reserves to survive the winters in ND to much pressure when the birds are young stunt growth and inhibit the growing process on young and disrupt the adults also. Upland are day time feeders unlike deer so with hunting hours all day we stress them for to long of periods. Few think about this when temps are in the 70's and snow fall is weeks away.

I have looked at a lot of data from the USFWS, DU, DW, other state game agency's and to much pressure is a huge impact on wildlife. Fortunneatly our state constitution requires game management to be for the resident first not NR interests.

It is not just my game but the residents of the state of ND held in a public as a public trust by the state. My claim to a rooster or grouse is no more or no less than a landowner or business man. However it is greater than any NR.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bert, Rangers, thank you for coming to this site to share your views. And some of your points do have merit. The situation you are unaware of in ND has evolved into a convoluted ball of snakes, rather than a simple Res verus NRs.

ND Farm Bureau is jockeying for power under a guise of landowner interests, (intentionally pitting east against west and urban against rural), ND Hospitality is running a massive effort to increase the number of hunters at the expense of the resource without contributing one cent back to the resource, ND Tourism Dept sought to place the NDGF under the state Dept. of Commerce, the governor tried to sell an extra week of pheasant season for political contributions from outfitters, (he kept the money-lost the week), outfitters have mushroomed in number, and the amount of habitat leased by outfitters has skyrocketed. Did I mention Governor Hoeven put a gag order on NDGF just proir to the legislative session, forbidding testimony that was not pre-approved?

I am unwilling to see North Dakota become North Texas.

In the last legislative session the sportsman's groups were tracking 50+ bills, most of which sought to commercialize the states hunting in expanded measure, to the detremint of all hunters. Large outfitters are leasing huge tracts of prime habitat, decreasing opportunities for all hunters and destroying local established businesses. At the same time they are trying to *increase* the numbers of NR hunters to saturate the available space, forcing more customers to pay for their services. Simple market saturation.

ND Farm Bureau portrayed themselves as the savior of small town businesses during the last legislative session. Yet the session was hardly over when Farm Bureau filed a lawsuit against NDGF to overthrow our century old tresspass law, seeking to automatically post all land! At the same time Tourism, Hospitality, ND Outfitters Asc. and ND Farm Bureau sought to blackmail sportsmen with an organized posting boycott. Which failed miserably.

Add to this mix a concentrated drive to purchase-lease farmland for hunting. Wealthy sportsmen, seeking exclusivity, are driving up the land price and cash rent for ordinary farmers, and helping to drive young farmers from the state. Makes for a negative cash flow statewide.

Far too many sportsmen who still have a place to hunt are not looking at the future. It is worse than it was 5 years ago and a heck of a lot worse than it was 10 years ago.........If all of us don't save it now it will be gone.

The first post in this topic presents increased public access as a solution. As good as the PLOTS program is, it cannot solve the politics behind the problem. If you as an individual do not become involved, it is lost.

It is a little more complicated than Res versus NR.
*ETREE* www.nodakoutdoors.com/signup.php


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

Ron, you can't be implying that the State of ND harvests 70% of all young of the year birds. If so, there certainly can not be much left over for all the states south of us.

As far as land prices being inflated by the wealthy sportsman, I agree that is a threat to the average farmer trying to expand. Corporate farms are doing the same things in other areas with little to no concern for wildlife. They outbid everyone, tile everything and farm every square inch, leaving it black for the winter. Then take advantage of every Govt. program their tax people can find to get a subsidy check for.

I still don't think the us against them, resident -vs- NR will ultimately help any of us in the long run and as Dick explains this really is a political can of worms, with a big business, and G/O's throwing money around the Capital, lobbying for their special interests. I hope things are not as bleak as they seem or are portrayed. I hope to be able to bring my grandchildren hunting somewhere in the future.

[/u]


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Ron, Fetch, TB :beer:

Bert & Rangers:

I appriciate your zelousness and your interest. One thing you will find here is the ability to discuss topics without childish retorts (for the most part).

I have been researching my arse off to try and learn the topics. I too have had differentuating ideas on this Res-Non issue and through my research I have learned there is so much more then the upper emotional crust. Research more and gather more information and when you have enough to make a radical decision, start looking again.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Considering what we have to pay to go see the Vikings, Timberwolves or Wild for one game which is supposedly world class intertainment, what we charge for admission to world class hunting is a bargain.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

Dick,
It might not seem like it but our opinions on the matter are not that far apart. Maybe MN's are just jealous that ND's legislature is doing what we wish ours was, putting it's own residents first when it comes to natural resources and their uses. But the one comment that I've seen you and others make on this board says that your legislature specifically states that the State's natural resources should be managed for the Residents. While I can't disagree, I fail to see where it says that it should done so on the backs (and wallets) of NR.

I think you would have very few people complaining about license fee's and NR quota's if a change in NR license fees was met with a corresponding change in Resident license fees. I'm not talking about a dollar for dollar increase I'm am talking about %. If yours goes up 10% ours should too, and vice versa.

All of the access and programs you discussed earlier had to get money from somewhere and I doubt the government subsidized them. The money for those programs came from the increase of NR fees. If someone would like to dispute this please post the NR and Res. license fees for the past 20 years. Lets see where that money is coming from.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Powder, during the House Natural Resource hearings on fee increases one of the legislators who happens to be an avid big game hunter gave the break down on res-nonres licenses in Colorado, Montana, and Arizona. The primary game animals were elk and desert bighorn. And the $$ differences were huge. Because those states saw a need to protect the residents and the resource. I cannot give you his figures but the last time I went elk hunting in Montana the combo license for NR was about $500-NR and the same package for a Montana res was $50 over the counter. I wanted to go so I paid the price. ( I was required to use an outfitter to get the license.) And ND outfitters have sought to get that same requirement here.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

You're right about the cost of other states licenses being more. In fact, Montana is considerably higher than the $500 for a NR gauranteed license that you mention. But a few months ago a lot of people on this board complained when Gov. Pawlenty tried to influence Gov. Hoven. The consensus on here was that no other state should try and tell ND how to manage it's natural resources. But now you're justifying higher NR fees by saying Colorado, Montana and Arizona do it. Why not look at Minnesota and say 'they have lower NR fees maybe we should too.' But that's obviously not how the world works. I just hope there's not an outcry from anyone on here when Pawlenty strong arms the Vikings to keep there training camp in state instead of going to Sioux Falls or Fargo. Afterall, he is protecting his state and it's economic resources.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Powder...interesting ...it's Ok for Pawlenty to protect his economic interests,but not OK for us to protect ours???He is looking out for his state...why shouldn't we do the same???


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Powder I think Dick was pointing that other states do protect it's residents interests ahead of NR. Not justifiying anything. The cost and fee issue would not even be taking place had ND increased fees over the last ten years instead of all at once. I paid roughly $100.00to hunt roosters in SD with the same 5 day or ten concurrent struckure we have here in 88'.

The subject and concerns runn way deeper than what we are talkingabout here, not that this is irrelevant. Most here appreciate other views and will discuss or debate them in a civil manner.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The difference between Pawlenty and Hoeven is that Pawlenty is looking out for MN residents best interests. Hoeven is selling out ND residents best interest to the highest bidder. Wether or not the MN state constituation protects MN natural resources I cannot say. NDs consituation *and* statute law *do* give favored status to residents on hunting issues. Some of the commercial hunting bills signed into law by Governor Hoeven are unconstituational and a clear violation of state law and legislative intent. And that hasn't bothered him a bit. Because he has publicly stated that the ND sportsmen will never get organized.  Hoeven is counting on it.

Etree signup www.nodakoutdoors.com/signup.php --Show him he is wrong


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Funny, I have never hunted in Montana, Colorado, Wyoming... for the simple reason that it costs too much.
North Dakota was an affordable adventure. 
You jack the fees, I dont come, no big deal. NoDak is just one more state on the list of places I can't go. 
Im not whining about it, I mean, its not like there is no sporting opps in Mn. Fact is that I dont really even blame you. I would be doing handsprings if Minnesota raised NR fishing licenses, limited the days and jacked the taxes on NR owned lake property. Not out of spite, but for some of the same reasons that you guys are doing what you are doing. The difference is that I live on a lake in Mn. I dont live in Mpls. and ***** because NRs crowded my weekend like you sit in Fargo and ***** about the pressure 100 miles away. I get to listen to jet skis from NoDak day after day. I have to fight to beat somebody to a spot to fish. Somebody mentioned here once that you can fish a whole lake but hunting spots are different. Got news for you, many walleye spots are no bigger than a pickup truck and banging hulls with some guy from NoDak is not my idea of a relaxing experience.
Do you have any idea of how many Minnesotans cannot afford a lake place partly because of NRs driving up the prices? Do you know how grocery and gas prices go up partly because NRs will come and pay them ultimatly costing me more too?
Why then dont I put my energies into pushing for NR policy change? Because I know that Minnesotas economic structure is so dependant upon tourism that it aint gonna happen.

The things that bother me about the whole deal are:

Who is driving the bus and why. Its mostly people from the bigger cities out there who have no qualms flooding into Mn to fish and when you speak here, you speak for the landowners and small town merchants and a whole host of people many of whom dont see it like you do.

The percieved pressure which is in fact a problem in parts of the state but not the entire state and yet effects the entire state when it comes to a blanket increase.
When a NoDak landowner begs me to come out and whack some of the deer that are giving him headaches, shoot some ducks because nobody else is shooting them, take some pheasants if I want because there are plenty for him and his buddys out there to hunt, I have to scratch my head when I read some of the stuff here.
When Im out there hunting for 2or3 days and never hear another shot fired and maybe see two pickup trucks that look like guys hunting, I have a hard time believing that there is a problem everywhere. 
Dont you guys hunt anywhere other than Devils Lake or Mott or Jamestown?

The perception that hunting pressure has diddly squat to do with numbers of critters. (NoDak has always been a good waterfowl area but 10 years of really wet weather is what made it what it is today, and is also the reason that hunters want to go there.
Mild winters and dry springs = pheasants regardless of hunting pressure.

That G/Os seem to be the biggest problem but the only way you can hurt them is to exclude the average Joe NR. (Money will never be an issue for the guys that go through the G/Os.)

I dont have the answers. Im sure there is a whole pile of geo-political stuff going on there that I dont know about. I do know though that for whatever that which is written here is worth, a great deal of what you say here is hypocritical to say the least.
Connect the dots...one drop of water...the Vikings...

Again, if Joe landowner/sportsman (the people Ive met) out there wanted to put the brakes on the NR hunters, Id say, yes, there must be a problem. When it comes from a bunch of guys from cities who are bent out of shape because the G/Os came in and leased up DL and Mott... the jury in my mind is still deliberating.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bert the simplistic approach you give sounds good and plays well, but is not the reality. The adviroy meetings last spring showed a large number of rural resients wanting controls in place concerning a varitey of issues related to NR issues.

Land costs and taxes being high on the list. You will not reduce the spread of increased land costs unless the source ofthe problem is shut down. MN currently does tax NR lake home owners above locals, ND does not. Many landowners what this changed. While they do want hunters they do not want what comes with it.

NR,G/O,tourism,resoure protection,access and a list of other issues are all connected. Limit one to reduce a probelm and you affect another area. Finding a balance that works for the majority is what we seek. Tweeking and jumping to a single issue is not what the actions we have undertaken is about.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

I agree 100% with Bert.

Ken,
Pawlenty didn't try to keep the Vikings in MN until he felt ND was treating MN's unfairly. Lets remember the order in which things happened.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Oh come on Powder..... so you are saying that if the Vikes elect to go to Sioux Falls instead that Pawlenty will just say "Good idea" because everyone is happy with MN SD relations? Bull. You better show me something to back that statement up. :sniper:


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

tsodak,
I never said that. You might want to reread what I wrote. I specifically said "keep there training camp in state instead of going to Sioux Falls *or* Fargo" Pawlenty does not think it's a good idea to take training camp out of MN, period.

But I do feel that if these issues with ND would not have come up he would have been more than likely to stay out of the issue concerning where the Vikes hold training camp.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

One of my pet peeves about chatroom sites like this is so many people complain (similar to what I've been doing :lol: ) but never give any solutions. While this probably isn't an original idea, I don't believe I've seen this scenario posted before so here goes!

What about creating upland and waterfowl zones with a lottery similar in size and number (this could be altered) to deer hunting? Granted, waterfowl might be difficult but upland wouldn't. This would solve the issue that Bert was talking about how Mott, DL and Bottineau are over crowded but other areas might not have any problems. I realize this creates headaches, not only for government officials charged with implementing the plan but also for hunters having to know where the boundaries are. If done right, this would aleviate some of the pressure by NR's and allow Res. to more access.

Res. and NR's alike would have to apply for licenses in each zone. There could also be a % of NR hunters allowed in each zone similar to deer hunting. The % would then replace the statewide quota.

DO NOT give G/O's guaranteed license like they have for deer. By doing this, NR's wouldn't be able to pinpoint where they will be every year and therefore less likely to purchase land. It would still give NR's a chance to hunt by simply applying for areas where fewer than the alloted maximum licenses were issued, possibly on a second or third drawing. The percentage could be adjusted to keep it near the maximum of 30,000 like it currently is. The only exception would be to make the license good for all season.

Maybe this should be a topic by itself but I'll leave it here for now.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I think I knew what you were trying to say, but I think tying Pawlenties desire to keep the Vikes training in MN is a long way from Hunting issues. There is no way he would have ever been happy about it, nor should he have been.

THe idea you forward has been thrown around many times in the past. We did have units for waterfowl this year, and look at the stink it erupted into. Generally people are hesitant to go that way because they want to be free to follow the birds, and to often the birds are not where you thought they would be. What about an early freeze pushing birds 200 miles? Very very difficult.

the overriding thing in a lot of NDGF rules is KISS. Keep it simple and we all have a lot less problems. Many think we have already made it to complicated. Not me, but I hear what they are saying. The idea that you advocate could help with a lot of things, but I fear it might cause more problems than it cures.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

"Pawlenty didn't try to keep the Vikings in MN until he felt ND was treating MN's unfairly."

Come on Powder...what does the Vikings moving camp to SOUTH DAKOTA have to do with NORTH DAKOTA.

Unless you have proof that one has something to do with the other...I don't believe it.

Pawlenty is simply looking out for Minnesota.It has no connection with ND hunting issues.

I have no problem with him trying to keep them in Minn. That's what he's supposed to do.Unfortunatley our Governor doesn't feel the same way.He would rather kowtow to out of state interests instead of doing what is best for residents.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

The connection is that South Dakota got shafted because ND and MN were squabling.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You mean if ND and Minn. were not squabblying he would not have come out and said ...NO new stadium if they move to Sioux Falls?????He would not be trying to keep the Vikes in Mankato for camp?

Like I said above...he is doing what he should be doing.Our govenor isn't.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Powder, thank you for the PM; some of the solutions offered by Bert and yourself were taken to the legislature. Market hunters, ND Farm Bureau and their surrogates fought the idea of zones and a lottery tooth and nail. G/Os because they could not move clients around at will, and because the client may not have a license for that zone. (a perfect idea). ND Farm Bureau fought it because some of their large farmer members are heavily into leaseing land to hunters for big cash sums. The surrogates fought it because they were dumb enough to believe Farm Bureau and G/Os. And now of course Farm Bureau and the G/Os are cutting their surrogate supporters off at the knees with the tresspass lawsuit. Make a deal with the devil.......


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Nature will deal with alot of the issues debated on this and other sites in its own way. NR caps and restrictions will be meaningless during the next dry spell or wicked winter with lots of snow, people who have begun to rely on the "hunting season" dollar will get humbled, in the meantime it is interesting.


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

The weather is certainly something we cannot control, and the current weather could be the start of something which will give everyone alot more time to work out the issues. First rain/sleet and then snow, coupled with some 30 mph winds could fill in a lot of cover and make it tough on the birds. 
Just how much extra does NR lake property owner pay in taxes here in MN? I know residents pay a non-homestead increase, but have never heard more for a NR.

How about this, for the first half the season, if you wish to hunt for the real easy birds, you pay, say $150.00 for the two five day periods, if you chose to hunt the 2nd half, late season, you pay, $100.00 for the rest of the season. You cannot do both.

That would spread the pressure a little, it would not impact the first few weeks that much, because it's normally a zoo anyway, everywhere you look.

I think that would give a viable option to the die hard pheasant hunters who would like the opprotunity to hunt a few more weekends. For the normal joe, the two five day periods is usually enough.


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

I want to see the people that benefit from traveling hunters solve this problem. They are the ones turning this into a money issue. The hunters of this state have identified a problem, there are problems with access and pressure on the game in our state. Why don't those that benefit $$$ take the lead to solve these problems.

The hotel/bar/restaurant owners say that they make the majority of their income during hunting season. Spend the rest of the year helping to increase access in your area.

Problem-Solution, I am going fishing!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Everyone is looking for a solution to their problems involving hunting and access. I would doubt that there is a fix all. Our game and fish dept is looking at all the angles and came up with the regulations that were in force for this season. Quite frankly I don't see where they were that unreasonable for any particular group utilizing the resource. It seems to me that all groups want unlimited use of the resource for little or nothing. When the game and fish dept came up with the present regulations everyone has presented themselves as a victim. I guess that proves that they truly have come up with a compromise situation because everyone feels that their turf has been violated. I hope that trend continues because a compromise is fair for all parties.


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

That was a really good point Rooster. After reading some of the posts I thought I would put down a few thoughts. The Vikings want a new stadium and are looking to the state for help right? So when Pawlenty hears they might move training camp to Sioux Falls he calls the Vikes and says if you move camp forget help for a stadium. Next there is no way I, as a resident, I would be part of a plan where I would have to enter a lottery because there are too many hunters. I live in the state, pay all sorts of tax to the state, and buy most of my "stuff" in the state. I expect to be able to go out and hunt in different places in the state for birds(deer excluded). On the fee increases: if a person can't hunt in ND because they can't afford the extra $85.00 then they probably aren't people who are going to rent rooms, go out for dinner, etc. You can bet that people in the legislature are well aware of this and this brings me to DJRoosters point, a compromise was reached that would limit some of the people who come here, but probably wouldn't spend much anyway, still allows a lot of paying people to stay and spend money in town, and still ease some of the pressure that the residents have been feeling. Right or wrong I can see their thinking on this as a way to meet some of each group's demand. Shoot away.....


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

I was going to quit posting on this topic because most of this has been debated ad naseum but after reading Eric's post I was curious as to why it's acceptable to have small zones for deer hunting but not for pheasant hunting? Valid points have been brought up regarding migratory birds relating to zones but I'm guessing most guys, Res. or NR, would be hunting in one specific zone. You'll always have guys on the boundaries that wouldn't be happy.

My guess is that if ND didn't have zones for deer hunting it would be difficult to get that approved. But once it has been, people adjust. I think the same would happen with pheasants.

One other thing. The point has been made by Dick Monson (and it's very valid) that ND is required by the legislature to manage it's resources for the good of the people (okay, I paraphased). Dick, feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong because I'll admit that I haven't read the statute. But did the legislature ever say that it's natural resources should be managed for the benefits of hunters and fishermen?

My point is, that many people want to make a living on the outdoor resources that are provided in ND. This may be by guiding, owning a hotel, restaurant, gas station, hardware store etc. The trickle down affect is amazing. If a person can make a living with the resources the State provides, couldn't that be considered resource management for the good of the people? It never says the resources should be managed for the individual ND resident, but for the good of all residents. This includes many things beyond the wishes and desires of the everyday outdoorsman, Res or NR. And if relieving or elimanating NR restrictions is believed to be in the best interest of the State as a whole, couldn't this be considered to be legal???? Maybe not popular, but probably legal.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Eric, our party has already began doing exactly what you are saying, since the costs have risen we have been buying only what we can't bring with us when we hunt in ND. Fuel and ice are about the only items we buy now in-state, going into town for a meal or beer after the hunt is history. This is not to be confused with retaliation, when we hunt SD we do the same thing, we just never did it before in ND. I can buy everything I need in my home state where my tax money is used.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Powder 
Its in the paraphrasing:



> 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.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

Thanks MRN,
I think that validates what my most recent post says, the resources should be managed for the good of the public. It never says for the good of sportsman.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

sorry, double post


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I think many of you have forgot that "public good" does not equate to "money".

I think many of you forget that in terms of economics, which seems to be the underlying theme behind everyones posts, utility is the ultimate judge of overall good.

Utility is a measure which is ordinal and not cardinal meaning I can not say that I get three times more enjoyment from hunting as you do. I can only say that I enjoy it but it is impossible for us to compare the enjoyment we get from hunting.

Money is not the best judge of economic good. Money is easy for people to understand. You use money to do other things that give you utility but not all things that give us utility require money. Watching the sun set gives us utility but it does not cost money.

The resource should be managed for the overall good, replace good with utility, and you have the true idea of what North Dakota is trying to preserve.

How can I or any of us say that money is more valuable than the utility some gain from the outdoors. How can you tell me that I should like the idea of money over the outdoors. Impossible and there lies the problem. Money is not the best judge of overall good.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

NRs
Instead of being happy for being able to hunt in ND for so cheap for so many years you ***** because we finally raised or fees which were way over do? 2002 small game license cost $75 good from Sept 1-Jan 4 (127 days) and for $10 more bucks have the best waterfowl hunting for two seven day periods. So for a little more than it costs for me to fill up my burb,you guys could hunt small game for the entire season and come two times for a week and have some of the best waterfowl hunting in the world. If you do not want to come back that will be fine with me, there will be more than enough to take your place. My buddies (NRs) that I hunt with sure don't complain they still think it is great to come here. You can't compare fishing to hunting. I can't lease or buy a lake and deny access to all.
If you want to compare fishing lets compare fishing. Why don't you look at the difference between ND and MN NR fees you will find that MN charges about $10 more for every fishing license. Also NRs can't spear fish.Nrs also have to spend another $38 for a fish house license, which NRs do not in ND. ND fishing season 365 days MN about eight months.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

Our society is driven largely by money, ie. economics.

Public good might not equate to money but it doesn't exclude it either. If my enjoyment of the outdoors comes directly from how much money I can make then yes, it does equate.

Hypothetical question: If a study was done showing that a billion dollars could be added to the overall economy of the State by changing the way it manages its resources, would it be in the PUBLIC interest to change the current policies?

Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on which side your on. Would the extra billion dollar benefit to the people of the State offset the loss of individual hunting opportunities? I don't know. I'm just saying that there are arguments on both sides. Both could be argued to be legal.

Let's say you're not associated with hunting at all. Maybe you build houses. Gandergrinder's post says that utility should be the deciding factor. What if the guy who builds houses doesn't hunt? Improvement of the economy would be beneficial to him where as the loss of hunting opportunities wouldn't bother him. Currently, this resident is getting close to zero utility from the natural resources in the state. (I'm sorry but the sunrise and sunset are a natural event, not natural resources. Neither can be harnassed to exclude certain individuals.) There are people in the state that don't hunt that would benefit by the change. The way the current regulations are written are not in this persons best interest.

You may not want to equate economics to natural resources but that's life. Gandergrinder is right, you can't put an exact dollar figure on a specific natural resource or event like the sunset. But then why would NDSU have a Natural Resources Management degree with emphasis programs heavy into economics? The program was founded by a professor of Ag. Economics!


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

A little off the NR/R subject, but that isn't the subject after all is it, it is a diversion created by a few people to cover up the real matter.

The "whats good for the business is all that matters" outlook is so severly flawed. If there are 50000 resident hunters in ND(waterfowl, upland, deer, varmint...etc..), and there are 200 business' that are effected for two months out of the yr, you tell me who the minority is in this situation. If each retail/hospitality business employees an average of 10 people in ND(which is a high estimate, becuase most of the small business complaining about this hire less than 5 full time people) that would come out to 2000 people being effected by this new legislation. I have yet to here anyone say that so and so had to be let go, because of this new legislation. If these business are forced to lay off 10% of their work force because of economic changes and new legislation, that would be approx. 200 people in the state having to find new jobs, because there are plenty of them out there, right? The company I work for is desperately looking for new hires and our starting wage is 14.00 dollars an hour, alot of hardwork and overtime, but the money is nice. So, is it better to cater to the whims of 2000 people, or 50,000 people. I always thought that a real democracy was about the majority, not the whining minority. If Joe's Guide Service can't make it with the new laws, then Joe will have to get another job. It is great if you can make a go at something you love, but if your profit is coming at the expense of the majority, don't expect it to last too long before the majority takes control again.

No body tells anyone where or what they have to do for a living, sometimes a guy has to suck it up and do what you can to provide for yourself or your family, and if that means getting out of service job that benefits the minority at the expense of the majority, it isn't going to last very long, especially when climate and animal control are variable in the success of the market.

Fire away all you neysayers, I have my kevlar vest on...I am invincible.
:sniper:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

FIreball I think we need Conrad and DOrgan to petition the Fed Gov to include G/O in the Farm Subsidy Program!  :-?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Powder,

I am confused with your post.

Economics is not the study of money it is the study of natural resources and the wealth it produces. Wealth does not directly equate to money.

Lets take your hypothetical situation of the guy who builds houses. He takes the money and buys items that give him utility. Now my point is how can you say that the utility the home builder gets from the items he buys is greater than the utility that was taken away from the guy who likes to go hunting. Not possible. It is an arbitrary argument either way.

And if your wondering I am a graduate student in the very program you speak of in your post.

Maybe we are on the same page I'm not sure.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

You're exactly right, it is arbitrary and that's where the conflict comes in because everyone has differing opinions on the value. That's why that program was established, to help train people into making decisions in the best interest of the public.

But I think we're getting off subject. My goal is not to turn this into an economics debate. It was simply to point out that sportsman don't have the only opinion on how the resources should be used. To steal a line, too many people can only count the number of birds vs. the number of hunters. They only look at how it directly affects them. I'm trying to point out a more broadly based view.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

If we let as many people come for the lowest possible price it will create a very high demand for a very limited resource and play right into the hands of G/O and other types of fee hunting and access will start to cost you more and more money just like it does in other states and if you are not aware of it you need to go to Texas, Arkansas and some of these other states and get educated. If you think you are a little guy you better be very carefull about what you are wishing for for "Christmas." And if you think that G/O and others involved with fee hunting are going to watch out for the little guy then I'm afraid we are all going to get an education and we are now in the primary years of our education. I consider myself to be a little guy and am not looking forward to junior high because it doesn't look good. Unlimited invitations for a limited resource is not the cure all that some people seem to think it is!! I do like it when I hear that an $85 liscense is too expensive because that tells me that this person will not pay for a guide or a place to hunt and that is good for access for all hunters. If we do not pay to hunt then there is no demand for pay to hunt. Fee hunting is the demise for the little guy for all other hunting in America and will be the demise for hunters in North Dakota whether it be a little guy from out of state or a little guy from the great state of North Dakota. Do not pay to play it is a dead end street for all.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Very interesting reading, and very level headed responses. Excellent thread guys.

Keep some of the material handy, and use them in the etree when needed. I hope you're signed up!

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/signup.php


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

DJ Your post made me think about a conversation I had with a freind that I played basketball against in high school. He was a standout in his school and made all confernce. He had hoped his boys would follow in his footsteps but living in Fargo his kids did not have a chance to participate in high school basketball. He also came to the realization that he would not have been able to during his high school days also had he not lived in a smaller community.

This is kind of like what we have here with hunting today. Most anyone can still particpate directly, you do not need to be the most gifted to enjoy and compete. Like him, for me particitaping was a very worthwhile experience. I did not play as much nor did I recieve the awards or recognition he did but I did get to play.

The changes made should ensure that for the time being most can play instead of being the spectators at the game. I would rather be playing than watching even if it was for a short time on the court.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Very good analogy & very true Ron


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Go back to the original post by the Minnesota hunter. He presents a scenaro for more public upland access in SD. This topic is so similar to the waterfowl zone controversy in ND just 2 months ago.

Minnesotans squandered their own opportunities when they made a conscious choice to have their natural resource in the condition it is today. Chris Niskanen of the Pioneer Press layed it out clearly, "Minnesota needs to fix it's wetlands and improve it's hunting opportunities". Only then will the problem be solved.

Their legislature did not address it, their hunters did not address it, their general populatin did not address it, their farmers did not address it, their DNR did not address it, and it would behove our good neighbors to the East to fix the problem at home in Minnesota first. Just my opinion.

[/b]


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

speaking of the legislature not addressing it...............


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Dick,
Minnesotans squandered their opportunity?
Consious choice?
Which Minnesotans?
The early ones certianly. Around the turn of century (1900) til the 70s wetlands in SW Minnesota were drained. Most of that was done buy guys who are long dead now.
Chris Niskenen? Minnesota needs to fix its habitat and all will be well?
T.G.O. (tremendous grasp of the obvious) on his part.
I can tell you how to be a millionaire too...first...get a million dollars, then...
Mr. N didnt spell out exactly how to make that happen did he?

Please dont make it sound like todays Mn Sportsmen peed all over there habitat and are now crawling over to ND. The majority of Mn sportsmen are all about habitat. Probably moreso than their NoDak brothers for the simple reason that you really dont have to worry about it.
Ive never drained a wetland but Ive created a few.
By the way, North Dakota was on a huge draining jag back in the day too.
Correct me if Im wrong but many of the potholes in the Couteau region are only there today because the federal govt. came in and paid people to bust tiles and blow em out with dynamite.
As it stands, even with government incentives and more ecologically minded people, restoring habitat substantially enough to draw the flyway back over here is a long, long way out. (you and me will never see it)
If you are an old time Nodaker who actually had some impact on the state of the state, that is one thing. I think that many of the people posting here like to puff out there chests and say "look at this nirvana we created...keep your *** out" when in fact, many of you had about as much to do with NoDak being a great duck state as I did with screwing up Minnesotas duck hunting.

"Fix its wetlands and improve hunting opportunities" Thats rich.
You gonna chip in for that? Many of NoDaks wetlands were paid for by people other than north dakotans.

Plots land is paid for with NR money as well as R money.

Nationwide there are members of DU who have contributed to lots of wetlands and nesting cover in NoDak.

Everybody who buys a duckstamp in the US pays for the federal land and water in NoDak.

Everybody who pays taxes in the US pays for the CRP out there.

Of course money gets spent elsewhere but since NoDak is breeding country, it gets a lot of focus.

Some of you were born there, some of you moved there. Good for you.
I am not willing to do likewise. Just, please, dont make it sound like there is some easy fix that will turn Mn into NoDak.
Living in a state does and should provide you with special privalages regarding the pursuit of sport. Nobody disagrees with that. What is reasonable is what is debatable.
I cant (wont) go there anymore and am ok with that.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Good post Bert, I agree with most of what you said. I also like the fact that you won't come hunting here anymore and don't blame everyone else for that fact. I can't afford to hunt elk out west, but I won't blame the resident hunters for that fact, do I blame the G\O's for turning it into a rich mans game, yes, but the residents aren't to blame for that. I think most guys here vent because we hear the same ole sh!t about someone that isn't going to come back becuase we don't set up our NR hunting guidelines to their appointment book. Well TFB. Did SD ask anyone from MN, ND, NB or elswhere what we thought about them only letting 5,000 nr waterfowler's in their state every yr? Did SD ask anyone when they decided to keep letting there residents have a special opener, allowing no one else to hunt? At least ND lets NR's in to hunt, they just can't have access to state land that first three days, but NR's can hunt any other land.

I find it funny how we needed to have a summit, becuase we finally brought ourselves current with other states game laws. 
:sniper:


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Thanks Fireball.
However, I think the summit came about because Minnesota's economy wont allow for a price hike and other restrictions "to keep us current with what other states are doing" and North Dakotans are going to keep coming and enjoying the inexpesive pleasures of this state anyway. The summit is our governments half-a**ed attempt at looking out for the little guys in Minnesota.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Can you clarify these "inexpensve" pleasures that Minnesota has to offer?


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

Took the words right out my mouth, "inexpensive pleasures?" I will say that the non-resident fishing license is dirt cheap but I look at the folk's lake home and nothing about that is inexpensive. However I am sure you weren't talking about owning lake property, but seeing the inexpensive part brought a smile to my face because dad is always yelling about how much he had to spend on this and that at the lake. If people are going to try and tell others how to run a state then Minnesota should be catch-and-release for walleyes. Too many "meat whores" and not enough walleyes. Just my :2cents:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Bert, please see the following re: the relative use of the neighbors' hunting/fishing resources:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/members/ph ... ght=#15520

In the grand scheme, ND doesn't play a very big role in the use of MN's resources, but the opposite certainly is the case.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

I would beg to differ with some of the conclusions you came to in your other post. :lol:

For the sake of not arguing I'll agree that the number of NR hunters and fisherman in each state are accurate.

According to Dan's numbers:

FACT: In 2002 26,600 ND residents fished MN.
In 2002 2,502 ND residents hunted in MN.

FACT: In 2002 23,850 MN residents hunted in ND.
In 2002 10,850 MN residents fished in ND

CONCLUSION: More ND's fished in MN than MN's hunted in ND!

These were your statistics.

To be fair, lets add NR hunting and fishing together. (Just ND and MN)

Fished or hunted in ND: 34,700
Fished or hunted in MN: 29,102

If you like percentages, this would mean that a MUCH MUCH MUCH greater percent of North Dakotan's use Minnesota's resources rather than the other way around.

According to the US Census for 2001 there are 634,448 ND residents. This would mean 4.58% of North Dakotan's fished or hunted in MN. (29,102 / 634,448)

According the US Census for 2001 there are 4,972,294 MN residents. 34,700/ 4,972,294 would be 0.697%! Less than one percent of Minnesotan's use ND as a recreation destination.

These statistics would tell us that an average North Dakotan is 6.57 times more likely (on a per capita basis) to go to MN than a Minnesotan is to go to ND!

But like I said, statistics can be used to prove anything you want!

Census links:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/38000.html
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Powder,

Just a little levity:::::::::::::

TOMATOES ARE PIOSONOUS! 100% of the people that ate them in 1827 are dead!

Just had to put a little funny in there! Sorry... :lol:


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

Bert,Most all of the wetlands in the couteau never were ditched,tiled or drained in any way.Most of that area doesnt drain well because of the topography.Also,before grain prices went way up in the 70s,a lot of that area was pasture.Most of the drainage I have seen has occured in the eastern third of the state(drift prairie) where the soils are better for raising crops,and the topography allows for much easier draiage.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Eric,
By inexpensive, I was in fact referring to the fishing license which is only $36.oo . That is the main reason you all come here anyway. Its not like you come here to shoot ducks pheasants or deer.
Mostly I was referring to the fact that it is good for a whole year.
Your dad *****es about how much his lake place costs but why does he pay it? Because he can FISH ALL YEAR for peanuts.
Conversly, who in their right mind would want to buy land (not talking G/Os here just regular guys) in NoDak where you pay through the hind end and are limited to a few days? 
They could darn near be giving the land away out there and it wouldnt pay for the recreation.
By the bye, every guy like your dad who buys property in Minnesota is not only competing with a resident for that property but driving up the prices, values and ultimatly the taxes for the residents of the state. 
If you cant admit that you are getting the best of both worlds, youre outta your mind.
By the way, its been my experience that way more NoDakers keep every walleye they can, than Minnesotans.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Mallard having grown up in central ND I can say that large numbers of temp and isolated wetlands have been drained and are being drained yet today. If tiling becomes economiclly feasable even more will be eliminateed by stopping the water from getting to the wetland. I can take you out and show you a host of wetlands that have been lost this last fall. I have not seen this much since the mid 70's.

What we see left are those that are tougher and will be more expensive. However if ethanol becomes a mandated fuel in the Energy bill those left will be under heavy assault. Currently the most threaten are the small less than an acre brood and rearing ponds that allow large equipment to be pulled through them. With the large field cultivators and harrows the farmer does not risk getting stuck and can keep working farther and farther in speeding up evaporatation and the rate the water absorbs into the ground.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bert, I did not mean to kick over your beehive, but yes, in my own humble opinion, Minnesotans have muffed many habitat issues. If your citizens wish to start the correction process or not, is completely up to Minnesotans. Because it is easier and cheaper to come to ND is not a good reason to let your states resouce slide down the drain or tell us how to manage ND. We have made plenty of mistakes and are trying to correct them ourselves. You good folks have your own state constituation and century code and so do we. Speaking of which:

http://www.state.nd.us/lr/cencode/T201.html

North Dakota Century Code-General Provisions: Chapter 20.1-01--20.1-01-03----*OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF WILDLIFE IS IN THE STATE. THE OWNERSHIP OF 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.....THE STATE HAS A PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALL PROTECTED WILDLIFE.*


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

The reason ND's come to MN to fish and buy lake cabins, is as simple as the reasons, we want to hunt ND. Both states have something the other does not. MN has the lakes, with trees and accessibility close to the Fargo area. What percentage of ND population live within 50 miles of Fargo, verus the rest of the state?

I still have not heard from anyone what the extra tax is for NR to own a property (lake cabin) here in MN. How much extra does the land of 10,000 taxes bite ya for on say a $150,000 Land of Sky Blue Waters getaway?


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Not *****ing at all but how about the local small towns in MN who have benefited much more than any small town community in ND when it comes to schools. Take a look at the Pelican Rapids and Perham schools. I'm not an accountant but I'd bet they wouldn't have as nice of facilities without all the ND lakeshore owners in their respective school districts. Again, NO PROBLEM, just the facts.

The biggest difference is that ND residents, IMO, aren't complaining about the cost of owning property in MN (for the most part) and also have never complained about the restrictions placed on ND residents in MN on hunting and fishing activities. ie. spear fishing, youth duck hunting, portable fishhouse licenses, etc. All been said before.

I've said this before and I'll say it again....charge the NRs that visit your state what the resource is worth. Maybe you haven't done that in the past as well as you should have. I know raising the fees wouldn't affect me....I like the fishing enough to pay to enjoy. If you want to limit the # of days we can fish, do that as well.....it's your state, you should run it the way YOU feel is best.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Guys,
I have to apologize. I probably never should have checked this site out in the first place. 
I stumbled upon it when I was trying to figure out what was going on with the licensing of NRs out there this year.
Its your state and your site. 
The more I read, the more my hackles got raised because I lost sight of your points of view. Empethy/apathy...
See, I live in what you guys call the lakes country. Only about 70 miles from Fargo. We shop in Fargo from time to time so I know about its proximity to Mn, as well as to the hunting opps in NoDak., The way it is growing by leaps and bounds, Id have to say that a lot of Fargoans are transplants from somewhere else. Heck, I have several freinds that grew up with me in Mn but moved to Fargo for career reasons. I know several who live in Fargo but work in Minnesota because its cheaper that way.
The hunting opps out there for lots of NoDak city dwellers are merely a by product of their job.
I have the same problems with some of Minnesota's metro hunters who have all the answers to what goes on out in the twigs but that doesnt always jibe with how the people who own the land and live out in the twigs feel about things.
I guess I thought that maybe you could understand how frustrating it is to save up and buy a place on the lake in your own state and then not only have NoDak city people more or less lay claim to the area, but then do everything in their power to keep you out of the parts of their state where they dont really live, they just go on weekends to play, just like they come here.
For some in Mn, it probably isnt the big deal that it is for me because not everybody lives on a lake over here. That being said, the way Id like to see Minnesota "fix" its "problems" would be to jack the prices for NRs and shorten their stay. I think you guys must agree with that line of thought or you wouldnt be doing what you are doing. The trouble is that our hands are essentially tied by our dependance on tourism dollars and its trickle down effect. So you see, we are no different really other than its fins instead of feathers and locals instead of travelling folks from the cities.
Any way, Ill leave ya alone now.
Have a merry Christmas.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Just a word about Bert for those of you who don't "know" him.

If this is the same Bert that has been contributing to the Minnesota DNR community forums, I have found his thoughts and opinions to be pretty well grounded and helpful on that site. I have come to the conclusion that he is a very good guy and a real outdoorsman. Other than that, I don't know him personally. He may not agree with all that is going on in North Dakota hunting politics, but he is a good guy.


----------



## zack (Oct 17, 2003)

Rangers

As far as I can tell the tax for non-homestead property is the same for 
residents and non-residents. The only extra tax is for seasonal properties
which all have an additional 1% tax for res and non-res. This is for properties under $500,000, 1.25% for properties over 500K.

zack


----------



## Ringbill (Mar 7, 2002)

I'm quite sure there's no difference (R or NR) in the taxes paid here in MN on lakeshore property. There is a difference in taxes bases on whether you homestead that property. Can you envision the complaints if MN would 'suddenly' make all the NR fishing licenses cost $100 each-0---one for pike and 'eyes' and another $100 for panfish etc, THEN make them pick their zone (Can't fish the same zone for your full 14 days!) and they can spit their 14 days of fishing into 2 periods. WOW!!

I've hunted birds in ND since I was 11 and my dad would take me out there. I'm 50 now & that's 39 years. There's been a minimum of changes I've seen until the last number of years. Sure, they rezoned and eliminated tagging the birds etc, but nothing like what's happening lately. 
I must admit that I'm not "happy" with the ND changes----but I can also understand how the ND hunters feel, and the NR like me----I see both sides. Seems there's s general consensus that the REAL PROBLEM---is the Guides & Outfitters and the land leasing. A bigger problem in and of itself than the NR hunter. That's a problem(s) that apparently isn't easily addressed---if anybody is even trying to address it in any capacity.

Dick (& other posts too) laid it out pretty good. I can only say that they at least are trying to preserve the quality of the ND hunting experience, though it all came down at once. If they would've implemented some of these changes more gradually, it wouldn't have seemed like 'too much too soon' to the NRs anyhow., since they're the onces more negatively affected by the changes. The positive part is that it's a valiant attempt at preserving some of that quality that's appreciated by most of us. Most of us are blue collar working guys with other family members hunting with us and have a more limited budget than the white collar guys with 'bigger budgets' who can spend freely. There are no easy answers, but the whole bunch of us as hunters and conservationists still have a lot in common despite the location of where we hang our hats. Let's not forget that either.

Back to the original post, The $100 NR fee is going where? I don't mind---in fact I'm happy to "Contribute directly" to habitat preservation/enhancement projects . Tacking another $25 onto the license?

Rinbill


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

A couple of things here Ringbill...

We keep saying you can't compare fishing and hunting...here's why.The fishing season is 365 days long.The waterfowl season is 60 days.Fishing is 6 times longer.So to be proportional if we would get 14 days out of 365,then you would get 2 1/2 days out of 60.

Also...if you start putting seperate licenses on fish...then how about $100 for a mallard license,$100 dollars for a snow goose license,$100 for a Canada license,$100 for a gadwall license etc...

Obviously we aren't going to do that and neither are you.


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

Actually, the walleye, northern Pike, LM bass and SM bass season are really only approximately 270 days, if you count the closed portion of the seasons, mid Feb through the opener in May, then take into account the bass fishing really isn't that good through the ice and there is the transition time from open water to fishable ice. Now if take into account the really easy fishing is usually from the opener through mid june for the average angler, it starts to narrow things down some.

Also most NR open their cabins in early may and are shutting them up by Labor day, you really are concentrating the pressure into a three month period, with intense pressure the first 4 weekends, which we all know can have a negative effect on the bite.

Also the Fargo Bass clubs and bass fishermen would probably get way up in the air if they could not come over here and fish all the money tournaments and excellent bass fishing we have over here. Bass fishing in MN is great in terms of #'s and size. Maybe they would pay for multiple licenses, if they have $30,000 tied up in a boat, and approximately $10,000 more in tackle.

Just some more thoughts on this most excellent of topics, it really is good to here so many opionions from a diverse group, and it seems to keep brining more people in.


----------



## Ringbill (Mar 7, 2002)

I certainly understand what Ken's saying and that's not what I'm "Suggesting"----using it as a bit of a scenario of sorts. We now need 2 licenses to hunt birds---1 migratory, 1 resident. The comparision toward needing '2 fishing licenses for different fish' and limiting days etc etc .

Because ND has been very lenient with NR hunters for all these decades, their licensing and regulations were not 'on par' with those of other states-----like their SD neighbor. In one respect, the fact that so many different restrictions and changes etc took place in such a short time period, was just too much for many of the hunters to adjust to and try to understand any reasoning behind it. (IMO)

The vast majority of NR hunters that like ND hunting & return there, have got to appreciate the tremendous quality of the ND people and hunting opportunites. With that in mind, they should understand that there are changes taking place that are required to preserve that quality. I would rather be drawn for a license every 2 or 3 years knowing I will have a quality hunt(s) than go every year and continue (as we have seen at times in the last number of years) to see the quality hunting opportunites eroding.

The question remains-----What can be done to address some of the 'other problems'----Leasing & Guides / Outfitters??

Ringbill


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Ringbill,

THANK YOU!


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

Ron,I guess I was talking about the area between Wing and Robinson(your from Jud right?).It is very hilly out there and most of the wetlands I remember from the 70s are still there today(also not that many ditches).East of Valley City is a different story,ditches in the fields everywhere and not that many small wetlands.I havnt spent that much time around Kulm or Jud so I have no idea what it is like in that area.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Excellent post Ringbill, hit that nail right on the head.


----------

