# Hunting Texas Style



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Take a look see at a letter to Tony Dean on Texas hunting.

http://www.tonydean.com/issues2.html?sectionid=7411

And we still have legislators that do not see the light. Just the money.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Those things will happen here also.....there must be some kind of law restricting the automatic issue of big game licenses to non-res. landowners.....antlerless only


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I know you will jump on me for this but the ONLY thing that will stop that from happening in ND is complete elimination of NR hunters.

Otherwise the wealthy down here will continue to buy and post land in ND or lease it from the unscrupulous ...

I hate the thought of never hunting in ND again but I would glady give it up to prevent ND from become another Texas. Its already well on its way. You guys better take up golf......

Jump away :wink: the truth is plain as day just most won't admit it...

35 years ago I could quail hunt all over north texas just for the asking now its 150-300.00 a day. Thats your future and the future for your kids unless you stop Nrs from hunting there.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

KEN W said:


> Those things will happen here also.....there must be some kind of law restricting the automatic issue of big game licenses to non-res. landowners.....antlerless only


Why Ken?? What does a non resident landowner have to with a hunting preserve? Gratis tags are only good on the land you own.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

We all better wake up and smell the coffee.

A gentleman from Texas bought up 3 quarters of pasture/river bottom land over near Velva. Incredible deer hunting land. Nobody allowed in and his boys have already got the towers up.

Another Texan is buying land up in McLean County. Paid over $1000/acre for land just South of Lake Audubon for pheasants, deer, and geese.

Last week a landowner along the Sheyenne River said a St. Cloud man offered him $2000/acre for pasture becuase he wanted it for his family to hunt deer and ducks on.

I am sure there are more stories everyone can share about this happening all over our state. The legislators just can't see further than their own pocket books right now. They keep thinking we are trying to take their money away when all we are trying to do is protect our farmers here, our resources, and our very own families.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

How many are stories and how many are facts? Are we going to pass laws to stop people from buying land or just non residents? What then it would be all right for people of wealth from North Dakota to buy this land? They are not going to let you hunt also,quit blaming everything on non residents.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

The 3 listed were facts.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O .....it is a completely different topic.But it is still true.

Yes you are correct that a non-res. landowner gratis is only good on their own land.But those tags count against the 1% allowed to go to non-res. landowners.

In some units non-res. landowners are taking ALL the tags available.As an example in 4A all Mule deer buck tags go to non-res. landowners.Yet at least 50 non-res applied for those tags,paid their $5 non-refundable fee and had zero chance of getting drawn.And the GNF doesn't tell them what non-res. chances of getting drawn are.....the figures we see are for residents only.And that's just 1 unit.

How do I know this?.....I have non-res. relatives who asked the GNF specifically for that information on certain units they wanted to apply to,and didn't want to apply for a tag in a unit that had no chance of getting drawn.

So since residents are opposed to raising the 1% and my relatives aren't in favor of that,then the only way to make it fair is to make non-res. landowner tags....anterless only.That would stop the buying of land by non-res. just to get a guaranteed buck tag.

You are correct I should have put this on a new thread....I will in the future.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, I agree that if non residents don't have a chance the game and fish should let the people know. Problem is we are talking mule deer its hard enough to get a tag if you're a resident. I personally would love to see the non resident licenses get raised to 3% We both know thats not going to happen.

Now if you and your non resident relative is serious about hunting in ND. It isn't a mulie hunt but Delta has a non resident license and a hunt for 3 residents up for auction. To me hunting is about being with family and not shooting the biggest buck on the planet. I would suggest you get a hold of Field Hunter and take a look at this.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

Very sad to see ND on the path to becoming like the rest of the country. If a non resident land owner is automatically getting big game tags becuase they own land, that alone is enough for someone with lots of money to come up and buy all the land they can get their hands on. Probably cheaper from them to come up and pick up some land, then it is to go to some of the big game "ranches" in Texas. uke: It has been said on here before, by me and others, 2000 dollars an acre for land in most areas of the country is at the very, very bottom of the starting prices, especially hunting land.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Gaddy, Why shouldn't a landowner whether resident or non resident not be entitled to a gratis tag? Where do the deer live? Who feeds them? Have you ever seen the damage they can do to crops or to a hay stack in the winter? This is the least we can do, remember we are talking about one tag for the land. It has to be at least 160 acres and you are limited to that land only. If someone from Texas wants to buy a 1000 acres to shoot one deer let him. That will be one expensive deer, but someday that land will be for sale again it will not be gone forever.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The gratis tag is one of those situations where you give an inch and they take a mile. I'd prefer it was does only for all gratis tags. If crop damage is a concern, then by taking the doe the hunter is removing three deer next year. A doe with two fawns eat more, tramp more, etc, than one buck. Actually I wouldn't mind the early youth season going does only too. Teach 'em right, from the start.

It goes back to the public trust doctrine versus the European model of wildlife management. In that case the game is owned-controled by the landed elite. The king and his court. Read Texas in the USA. The public trust should win hands down if sportsmen orgainize and get active. There have been numberous attempts by commercializers to pass laws that allow "transfering" ($$$$$$$$) a gratis tag and to manipulate the qualifications for one.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, For the life of me I can never understand your logic. You feel that we need to give the resident hunters of this state a week of waterfowl without the threat of non residents. You keep the PLOTS all to yourselves for the first week of pheasant season. Then you want to turn around and make gratis tags doe only? The biggest problem in this state is access yet you want to go after the landowners, That should help alleviate the problem.. Public trust holds no water Dick its a figment of your imagination.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

G/O 
I think most of us agree that landowners actaully work the land. They actually plant a crop, they take care of the crop and they harvest the crop. They live here, the work here and they pay sales, county, state and federal taxes here. Someone who buys land, lets someone else rent it and hunts here is not a "landowner". They own the land for convienance, they don't work the land. I would love to collect a state tax return from a state that could offer me more money on my return, but I don't live there. I can visit another state, pay lodging tax, food tax and gasoline tax, but I don't get any of that back April 15th. Have we all seen the damage deer can do to land, you bet. Just because an animal walks onto your land and grazes on your crop doesn't mean he is your property. In your logic, I would own every dog in the neighborhood who ****s on my lawn. I clean up after them, I must own them. Being a steward of land makes you the owner of the minerals, soil, and product you plant/harvest. Incidental grazing by animals, migratory or local doesn't make them yours. We pay taxes year round, we make this state happen, we would be here with or without NR hunters. You may not be here(as a g/o), but we would. To try and justify a parasitcal profession (g/o), gaining from others loss, is not a nobale cause, no matter how you try and rationalize it. G/O's are the root cause of a ND tradition going down the toilet. It is a privelage to hunt, one earned through friendship and tradition. By making it a pay per event, you have made it into ****. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are so noble, guide FREE hunts for underprivelaged kids, handicapped people and the less fortunate. Teach someone the joy of the outdoors, don't make some lazy ***'s life easier by hand feeding him. If you are not part of the solution, you are the problem. It isn't the NR's, it is those who buy up the land, post it up solid, and force people to pay money to hunt. You have land enough for 100's of people to enjoy, but you choose to let a few pay you to tie up all that land. Very noble of you, you are a great man. You make me uke:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Public trust holds no water Dick its a figment of your imagination.


 Wrongo g/o

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t201c01.pdf
20.1-01-03. Ownership and control of wildlife is in the state - Damages - Schedule of monetary values - Civil penalty. *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, and for maintaining action for damages as herein provided.*



> Ownership and control of wildlife is in the state


=Public Trust :beer:

Nothing special about being a landowner, just kind of one of those business burdens one bears. Most in ND are absentee. Search as you might in the Century Code there are few special game related privlages for landowners and ownership of wild game is *not* one of them. And you bet, PLOTS should be resident only the first week, as should the first week of waterfowl. If you disagree about the PLOTS get your fellow outfitters to open their leased land for NR that week. Don't think it will happen. But maybe the public spirited outfitters will step up for once.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

#*. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are so noble, guide FREE hunts for underprivelaged kids, handicapped people and the less fortunate. Teach someone the joy of the outdoors, don't make some lazy a$$'s life easier by hand feeding him. If you are not part of the solution, you are the problem.

Fireball, you are barking up thge wrong tree, I give several youth hunts away for underprivaleged kids. Also,10% of my land is set aside for youth hunting only. I'm not a part off the problem I'm the solution. I'm doing thi
ng and what are you doing????

l. If you disagree about the PLOTS get your fellow outfitters to open their leased land for NR that week.

Why Dick my clients need to hunt that land and I need the money. Yep Dick the public owns the wildlife but it resides on private property and if you want to get it you need permission now don't you. Like I say it just doesn't fly

Why don't you guys try doing something positive for a change and try and work together on things?


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Seems to me that the intent of the gratis tag was as a landowner perk that was devised *LONG BEFORE *non-resident landownership was even part of the picture.

It was meant for resident farmers & ranchers, and should remain so...


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I know in South Dakota this has become a big issue because we do not set up any tags for non-resident landowners, they have to apply the same as any other non-resident, which is the way it should be.

First they complain for that right, then they want the state to issue them a certain number of tags for their property that they can sell to whom they want, and pretty soon the residents will be out of luck unless they want to spend a small fortune for a license.

If this type of mentally is allowed to continue, it will eventually be the end of hunting.

Game is free ranging, can leave people's property whenever they want, so it is not the property owners right.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O....all I'm saying is that in some units....ALL buck tags available go to non-res. landowners.....You don't have a problem with that.Then why can't they accept antlerless tags?If they want a buck tag.....they can apply with the rest of the non-res.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, I doubt this is much of a problem. Yes I can see that in mule deer units it could be, but state wide??? I would really like to know the total number of non residents get landowner licenses.. I'll bet its a very small number.


----------



## oatsboy (Mar 29, 2005)

it seems the the state manages the wildlife,the legislatures pass laws that above all else maximizes profits,privite and pupllic own the land, sounds typical to me,but what i have heard nothing about is locale municpal gov.

gov is easiest to control at the locale level and is backbone of america.is there a locale law or a zoning ordanace available in any given community that would stop an adult book store or gentlemens club within a certain distance of a school?is that type of bussiness only allowed in a certain district [ for the well being of the comunity. ]

i know this is politics,but zoning and taxes could be used to get what a locale host cummunity wants with regards to res/vrs non res hunting land which in a round about way will dictate if a mule tag can be used on apiece of property or not.

land controll is not going away ,as apro-hunting state may i sugest using zoning to enhance and preserve your hunting heritage,before the tides change and its used to destoy it.

commercial hunting is just that comercial,and should be treated as such,it has nothing to do with the agriculture bussiness no matter what the g/o's or a nonres. non farming land owner claim.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O....I don't understand your logic here....what difference does it make if it's mule deer or whitetails?Shouldn't all non-res. have an equal chance at the mule deer tags available?Only non-res. landowners should be allowed to hunt mule deer bucks?They want a guaranteed tag....it should be for antlerless.

I don't know about other units except for 3A4 where I hunt and the mule deer units.

In 3A4....there were 26 buck tags available to non-res.G/O took 10 of them and non-res. landownwers took 5 I believe....that left less than half for the rest.

Plus the number of non-res. landowers is increasing.When do we put a stop to this?When there aren't any left at all?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I've had several Kansas ranchers (nice people by the way just like in ND)

approach me and try to sell me landowners tags for big bucks. I just tell them I don't hunt deer because I don't want to get into it with them, they wouldn't see the issue and there is no point in being abrasive.

The point is thats what happens to landowner tags, commecialized hunting ie Market hunting, it should be illegal.

Nr landowners just want to figure out a way that they can get swomeone else to help pay the taxes on their "private hunting land".


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Oatsboy, in ND the State Legislature is the body that has the authority to deal with these issues. Local govt has nothing to do with G&F or NR legislation....


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, Lets face it you and I will never agree on most every issue. I still don't think it is a problem. Like you say in 3A4 5 were used by non resident land owners. Do you suppose the is 200 licenses used state wide? Remember Ken they can hunt there land only,not the unit. I know several guys in my area that left ND and got jobs elsewhere. They have become very successful and came home and bought some land. Now they come home and spend time with family and friends and hunt on the 160 acres of land,BIG DEAL.

Now if you were serious about correcting this problem make it so the landowners licenses don't count against the number of non resident licenses available. Lets face it we are talking 5 deer here. There is no shortage of deer in this state.

It really amazes me that you guys always blame the non residents and the guides. Maybe its time for some here to look in the mirror and see what the problem is.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

You're not in Kansas Bobm. The gratis tags are good the land you own or operate only. They can not be transferred like they can in Kansas. There are 100 outfitter whitetail tags that can be sold to whomever.

Bobm you should tell those landowners how you feel. They will likely never let you hunt again when you call them market hunters. I just wish there were a few reading this and know who you are.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Your'e right....we probably won't agree on too much....but at least we are keeping it civil  like you and Dick.

There are 3 options I can think of for this problem.

1.Antlerless only for non-res. landowners

2.They don't count against the 1%

3.Increase the % to 2 or 3

So which one would our resident deer hunters probably go for?My guess....number 1 since number 3 went down big in the last session.Number 2 as you suggest would work also....but my guess is number 1 is the one with the best chance.Plus number 3 would still encourage non-res. to buy land for hunting only.If they want to have resident privileges,they should live here.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, At least your moving in right direction and that is looking to a way to solve this.

I personally would love to see it increased to 3%, but you and I are probably the only ones on this site that feel that way.

I get a gratis every year and only for part of my land. It makes me stay on my property and away from others. That way if you drove down the road and saw all my land posted and me hunting elsewhere. You would not come unglued and start cussing me more than you do now. So as a landowners point of view leave it for a buck license. What will happen if you change this, a revolt. In some units its hard to get a license every year so some landowners get gratis tags. Now make them Bambi tags and a bunch of tags go to guys from Horace and Walcott. Joe Blow the farmers will let no one on, so think about that Ken.

So now that we are in the problem solving dept. this morning. My vote would go for door number 2.

Or how about door number 4. Set aside 200 or whatever just a number here. Have landowners apply for them the rest would have to get a Bambi license. Much like the good people do (outfitters).

One other thing to keep in mind Ken when you want to make non resident landowners get Bambi tags. They are paying $200 for these they are not free. In most those units they could get a Bambi license for $50.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

G/O, if you do provide hunting opps for those kids who need it, that is fantastic. I retract my statement and applaude you. We need this. The only problem I have is, when these kids grow up, and become minimum wage ND workers, where will they hunt. The land will be tied up, it will be pay to hunt, they will have been given a moment of hope only to have it stolen later.

Again, I am sorry for assuming. I would be willing to donate money towards the purchase of ammunition and food supplies for these kids. I am serious, I am not just posting crap. I can afford to do this and I would love to be part of some kid getting a chance to discover the outdoors. PM me and we can exchange information, if you are interested.

Granted, I will never agree with the profession you practice, in G/Oing, but I will not argue with your donation of time and resources to help kids become involved in our outdoors future.

:sniper:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O....why would there be a revolt if non-res. landowners couldn't get a guaranteed buck tag?You say there aren't very many....They would be a small group.

As far as the $200...if they couldn't get a buck tag,why should it stay at $200?Give them an antlereless tag free just like resident landowners.

I would go along with either 1 or 2.But some residents would feel that number 2 encourages out of staters to buy land just so they can get a guaranteed buck tag.

And can't say 1-2000 acres be divided up amongst a landowners family and each of them get a tag?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, Sorry I got confused, it comes with old age. I was referring to resident landowners revolting. You will still allow resident landowners buck tags correct? You are just going penalize the non residents as usual, I understand.

Ken said And can't say 1-2000 acres be divided up amongst a landowners family and each of them get a tag?

Again lets penalize the successful. It is 160 acres minimum and one must own the land.

If there is a problem then door number 4 would be the way to do it. Of course this is my opinion. So go back to beating kids on the head Ken I'm off to work.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> Ken, Sorry I got confused, it comes with old age. I was referring to resident landowners revolting. You will still allow resident landowners buck tags correct? You are just going penalize the non residents as usual, I understand.
> 
> Ken said And can't say 1-2000 acres be divided up amongst a landowners family and each of them get a tag?
> 
> ...


Resident landowners....no change.

I am not beating up on non-res.....You are saying non-res. landowners should have special treatment....I think all non-res. should be treated the same and I would bet every one of them who apply for a non-res. buck tag in the lottery will agree with me.

I am willing to give non-res. landowners a FREE doe tag.Plus they could buy the extra ones for $50 if they wanted more than 1 just like it is now.So option #1 is the best way to go with option 2 a possibility.Your option 4 would still encourage them to buy land just for deer hunting.

Only 30 days left to beat those kids on the head.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, No #4 would not if there is only x amount available statewide how will that encourage land buying? There would be no guarantee as there is now but we could still kind to non residents land barons. Remember Kenny many of these people grew up here went to school here and may have got that land from inheritance.

You guys really confuse me with your logic. Lets see, if we passed HPC that would curtail the non resident land purchases because they would not be guaranteed a duck license every year. But my number 4 would not guarantee them a license every year. This is not good for some reason hmmmmmm. :idiot:


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

*g/o wrote:*


> Remember Kenny many of these people grew up here went to school here and may have got that land from inheritance.


What good is that doing ND now? They still do not live here 365 days a year, spending money every day! :eyeroll:

Why should they be treated better than any other non-resident that wasn't born here or went to school here or got a hunting paradise thanks to inheritance? uke:

*THEY'RE STILL NOT RESIDENTS!!!*

They *chose* to leave!!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O....I don't know how many non-res. landowners there are.So I really couldn't say what the number would be for option 4....100 or 200????

Plus even with a number like 100 there still could be no tags left for mule deer bucks in some of those units.There are only 3 or 4 available in each unit....so that would still shut out some units during the lottery.....no thanks,just doesn't seem fair to me to give all the mule deer buck tags to landowners. :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I agree that any land owner (R/NR) should get a gratis tag. But that tag should not be transferable. It can only go to a member of the imediate family....ie brother, son, daughter, wife. What you should be worried about is that if they give more than one buck tag and it can be transferable. That is when you get into the same issues that are like out west. Guides will buy up the tags and lease the land.

I know in MN if you apply for the Land owner "gratis" tag....you have to open your land up for the public to hunt....at least 40 acres. Also you only get a couple of tags and they are for antlerless deer.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken,
Some of the stuff you seem to be upset about is that there are limited number of mule deer buck tags.....and land owners get them.

I understand what you are saying.....

I don't know the laws in ND regaurding deer hunting....but if they give the farmer a gratis tag....maybe they should make sure the farmer allows access. I know that does nothing for the number of permits, but maybe some will not apply for a gratis tag if there land becomes open to others. Also that will eliminate your fear of the NR landowner buying land and posting it just to get a deer tag.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The intent of the gratis Deer tags when it originated was to reward "THE" landowner with a gift for his land stewardship and for feeding the animals etc.

When that "single" landowner dies it usually results in 4 or 5 gratis tags for the kids who inherited the land if there is enough land available for all to meet the acreage requirement. This was not and should not be the intent of the gratis program.

We keep giving out gratis tags to the point it is costing NDGF more than the program is worth when you count in Deer, Turkeys, Elk, on and on and on. If I am not mistaken there were appx, 14,000 gratis tags issued to residents last year in ND.

It is broke and needs to be fixed IMO.

Bob


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

G/O said



> Bobm you should tell those landowners how you feel. They will likely never let you hunt again when you call them market hunters. I just wish there were a few reading this and know who you are.


If your are selling hunting rights you are a market hunter simple as that and those ranchers are market hunters. They approached me on the road and its not the first time its happened either. They drive around looking for potential customers and approach them with the landowner tags for sale to the highest bidder. If they don't want anyone else to hunt their land I say fine, if they don't want to hunt deer I say fine, if they sell the states game animals I say thief.

By the way I wasn't hunting their land I asked and once again they had their hand out trying to sell game animals they don't own. I didn't know where their land was so hopefully I didn't miss anything. Hell will freeze over before I ever knowingly pay someone for something they don't own, I pay the state license fee because thats who the public has appointed manages our owenrship of game animals for us.

I guess to see it in black and white, its a painful truth and it wouldn't bother you so much if you didn't know in your heart the commercial croud is destroying hunting.

Candy coat it anyway you want ND game is the property of the state (as it is in all states I'm aware of ) if you don't own it then you should not be able to try to sell it.

Market hunters are thieves selling the states publicly owned game animals they don't own.

G/O said


> Fireball, you are barking up thge wrong tree, I give several youth hunts away for underprivaleged kids. Also,10% of my land is set aside for youth hunting only. I'm not a part off the problem I'm the solution


Fireball ably pointed out the reality of your supposed kindness but left out the other most likely angle

Why not cultivate future customers? When you fully realize that the rest of the commercial crowd continues to tighten the noose on the freelance hunters and soon there will be no alternative. :eyeroll:

Its not kindness its business, good PR with thinly veiled motives uke:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, The number is a hypothetical one, I have no idea 100 was used as an example. This has been fun and educational learning how you guys feel on things. Maybe you could pull the non resident landowners out of the mule deer situation. Make it like the outfitter licenses x amount of non resident whitetail licenses. So we go after the non residents, but what about residents? We leave them alone, but what about the guys from the larger towns in the eastern part of the state that have purchased land out west. I guess these guys are alright because they are good old boys? I can't see a quick fix.

Bob Kellam, lets see 14,000 gratis tags, How many resident tags were issued Bob? I know it is over 100k, again I think you guys are very selfish. The landowner is the one who gives you the place to hunt. Now you guys want resident waterfowl for a week. PLOTS for yourselves for a week of pheasant hunting and now to top it off you want to overhaul gratis licenses. Talk about chopping off the arm that feeds you.

Bobm, Again your intelligence or lack of never ceases to amaze me. Tell me Bobm, Just how in the hell am I cultivating future customers? Tell me Bobm how giving 160 acres of CRP to the youth resident or non resident whom ever to hunt anytime they want a bad thing. I'm sure you can and I can't wait for your answer. Which I really don't care about other than a good laugh. I'll keep feeling good when I get calls from a father and son like I did last week thanking me Bobm and telling me They hope I never change this. I could show you countless letters from kids thanking me for doing this and telling me how they shot there first pheasant there. Oh Bobm I do not receive one penny for this, the 500 bucks I spent on signs came out of my pocket also. You can call me a thief all you want and a market hunter because this is your only defense. Its not business its called giving something back you should try it sometime.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

the 14,000 +/- gratis tags I mentioned were for Resident deer only. Was the original intent of the gratis program to give every family member a free tag?

Was the Gratis program designed to decrease the deer population or to reward "A" landowner for his/her stewardship??

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob, Every family member cannot get a gratis tag. Now if every member owns land 160a+ why shouldn't they get one? Example if 2 brothers farm together one owns 320 acres and another owns 960 acres. Why shouldn't they be able to get a tag? Yes I think rewarding landowners makes a lot more sense to me than the resident hunters.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Once again, a history lesson may be useful. In the early 1970's there was the first of many legislative fights over the gratis deer tags. When the non resident issue became an issue in the late 1990's, it came up all over again. Just about every session recently, there is a bill to raise the acreage requirement or some other proposal which invariably fails. AS to differential between resident and non resident land owners, it appears that both south dakota and minnesota have some form of restriction on gratis tags and I know there are other states as well. Minnesota's make sense in one fashion, that may provide a solution to the "problem" What if we changed the gratis law to say if you are a non resident landowner of North Dakota property and get a gratis tag, you must also leave your land unposted?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

A version of that was tried last time and was killed. It also had in fine print they would be able to hunt the whole unit. Yes there is lots of worthless bills every session and they get weeded through quickly. What we really need in this state is a group to screen these bills.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

What are Minn. and SD laws for non-res. landowner gratis permits?


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Minnesota landowners can get a free permit to kill antlerless deer if they live on the property they own to hunt. They must also give permission to anyone else who wants to hunt his or her land. The intent is that if the deer population is so high as to do damage to property or crops, and the landowner wants them thinned out bad enough to get a free tag then he sure wouldnt mind haveing a bunch more people out there helping.
So, it is more than a free tag. I do not know about non res landowners other than if they dont live on the land hunted, then they wouldnt qualify.
That being said, why is it even an issue. Deer are so thick in NoDak and Minnesota right now that hunting cannot keep up with the growth of the herd. 
I can shoot up to 5 deer a year. It is not like deer or permits are hard to come by in either state.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Must be no such thing as a non-res gratis permit.If you have to live on it....you aren't a non-res.

Wow....if you want a gratis license you must let other hunters on your land!!!That would go over real big here.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

KEN W said:


> What are Minn. and SD laws for non-res. landowner gratis permits?


Ken, Why is you guys always have to compare with what SD or Mn is doing? If they are doing some thing you like, for instance 4000 waterfowl permits its great. When it comes to things like a tresspass law heaven forbid. Or how about SD resident pheasant season? The weekend before on public land only? Now that sounds like a winner to me.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken,

It seems you are upset about people getting gratis tags...period. Then you are making it a NR issue. I know you don't want the gratis tags to go against the 1%. I agree....because they are "free" tags (sorta). But one thing that you mention is how NR post thier land and not let anyone in and get gratis tags....well one way to get rid of the posting is if anyone (R/NR) gets a "free" tag they should allow others to hunt there property. That could eliminate some of your problems that you have with the gratis program.

1. NR who don't want anyone on thier land will have to apply with the rest of the NR's.

2. More access to land

3. It will also eliminate the fear of the NR posting there land and selling the tags....like what happens out west on guided hunts.

I know you don't think it will go over....but maybe that will be one of the perks to getting that "free" permit. Just an idea.

It is a great deal in MN...they use it for deer and turkey...all you have to do is ask the DNR for a booklet and the booklet will post the owners name, contact info, where the land is located. It is a great tool...all you have to do is ask permission. The only way they can say "no" is if another person is hunting thier land during a turkey season....but I have never been turned away in 16 years of hunting turkeys.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Right Chuck....put words in my mouth. :eyeroll:

This is what I said.....

"What are Minn. and SD laws for non-res. landowner gratis permits?"

And this after I went to the Minn. DNR website to see what they did with gratis permits......

"Wow....if you want a gratis license you must let other hunters on your land!!!That would go over real big here."

Now you tell me how the above translates into this.....

"It seems you are upset about people getting gratis tags...period."??????

"I know you don't want the gratis tags to go against the 1%. I agree....because they are "free" tags (sorta)."

They are not FREE....they still have to pay the $200.

"But one thing that you mention is how NR post thier land and not let anyone in and get gratis tags"

Where did I say this????

Now this is what I think in one of my earlier posts.....

There are 3 options I can think of for this problem.

1.Antlerless only for non-res. landowners

2.They don't count against the 1%

3.Increase the % to 2 or 3

So which one would our resident deer hunters probably go for?My guess....number 1 since number 3 went down big in the last session.Number 2 as you suggest would work also....but my guess is number 1 is the one with the best chance.Plus number 3 would still encourage non-res. to buy land for hunting only.If they want to have resident privileges,they should live here.

No where ever did I say I was opposed to the gratis system in general.....only about the non-res. landowner gratis program.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken:



KEN W said:


> G/O....I don't understand your logic here....what difference does it make if it's mule deer or whitetails?Shouldn't all non-res. have an equal chance at the mule deer tags available?Only non-res. landowners should be allowed to hunt mule deer bucks?They want a guaranteed tag....it should be for antlerless.
> 
> I don't know about other units except for 3A4 where I hunt and the mule deer units.
> 
> ...


Here you are complaining about who is getting tags. Your second to the last line in this statement sounds like you are against NR landowners.

What I mean't by "free" tags is they don't have to apply. (That is the way I take it from the tone of what has been posted.)

Then your "that will really go over big here" comment sounded very sarcastic.

Sorry other posts had the posting land issue and I was just typing and thoughts hit my head and I incorperated them in...not directed at you. Again sorry for that.

I agree with your three options but why just NR landowners be antlerless?


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

g/o said:


> Tell me Bobm how giving 160 acres of CRP to the youth resident or non resident whom ever to hunt anytime they want a bad thing.....I'll keep feeling good when I get calls from a father and son like I did last week thanking me Bobm and telling me They hope I never change this. I could show you countless letters from kids thanking me for doing this and telling me how they shot there first pheasant there. Oh Bobm I do not receive one penny for this.....


Not now, but hopefully later on when these kids grow older and they have nowhere else to hunt....who are you hoping they call to pay for access? Like Bobm said, this is a good PR move on your part.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Not now, but hopefully later on when these kids grow older and they have nowhere else to hunt....who are you hoping they call to pay for access? Like Bobm said, this is a good PR move on your part.

Well I guess I should remove the signs and put up some more no hunting signs and then you guys will be happy. I would have never imagined that you people would be so narrow minded to think that I have a deep plan for doing this. I give up of course I'm sure you are doing a bunch for the youth now aren't you.

I guess I should be so naive to believe that outfitters and sportsman could work together. My new signs will read sorry kids your area is closed because some idiot in Grand Forks believes I'm warping your minds.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck....the only reason I am opposed to non-res. landowners being guaranteed a buck tag is because they are taking all or close to all the tags in some units.Is this really fair to shut out non-res. who don't own land here from hunting here???? 

And yes I was being sarcastic about it by saying it would go over big here.....Do you think resident landowners would go along with manditory access for everyone if they get a gratis tag like in Minn??? :eyeroll:

As I stated earlier....there were 4 mule deer buck tags available to non-res. in unit 4A.All 4 went to non-res. landowners.Yet over 50 non-res. applied for 4A and did not know they had no chance of getting drawn.Each basically donated the $5 application fee to the GNF.Is that really fair??? 

Plus every landowner,including non-res. must be given a tag if they ask for one,even if it goes above the number available.Is this right???


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

No where ever did I say I was opposed to the gratis system in general.....only about the non-res. landowner gratis program

Plus every landowner,including non-res. must be given a tag if they ask for one,even if it goes above the number available.Is this right???

So Ken what exactly do you want? No non resident gratis tags only for anterless?? In your second comment your against residents also, maybe you should take a drive out west and ask the ranchers how they feel about this.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken,

You are correct that is not fair. If they give out gratis tags it should not count against the normal % or they should at least post it so others know they don't have a chance at getting a tag.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

let's make sure the discussion doesn't get away from the facts for North Dakota

Nonresident Landowner Deer

Nonresident licenses required: Nonresident Landowner Permit, $220 (fee includes Landowner Permit, $200; application fee, $5; Nonresident Fishing, Hunting and Furbearer Certificate, $2; General Game and Habitat License, $13).

Nonresident landowner licenses are issued only through the department's Bismarck office and are subtracted from the maximum number of deer gun licenses available (nonresident landowner from the one percent (1%) allocation), for each unit.

State law allocates nonresidents one percent (1%) of deer gun and muzzleloader season licenses available in any unit (thru second lottery for deer gun). One half of the nonresident allocation of antlered white-tailed deer licenses per unit are available to licensed guides or outfitters.

Therefore, if there are enough non resident landowners in a unit and request gratis tags, that would use up all the non resident tags (other than guides and outfitters, of course).


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

indsport, yes lets get everything straight here. The guides are issued 100 whitetail tags state wide. They also go by units and in some units very few if any are issued. Kens biggest problem is mule deer and we get none.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O,

I am not opposed to the resident gratis landowner program,except for 1 thing.Why should landowners,resident or non-res., take every license if there are more apps. than licemses available?

This has not happened with resident landowner gratis tags for deer yet.But a few years ago I asked the GNF why some units had bow Antelope tags,but there was no rifle season.They told me.....if they had a rifle season....all the licenses would go to landowners.Since all landowners had to be given one if they asked for it.They said there would be more landowner rifle tags and a bigger kill than they wanted,so there would be no season for anyone.....is this right and fair?

This is exactly what is happening in the mule deer units for rifle buck tags.

It needs to change....I don't care if they get a license but it should be "antlerless only"If they want a buck tag,they should have to apply like everyone else.

As for G/O getting few tags....I hunt in 3A4.G/O took almost half the allotment of the 1% available to non-res.Non-res. landowners took 5 more.....less than half were avavilable to in the general drawing.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, Talk about hypocrisy, this whole thing is funny. Here is the way things are where I'm from. The locals (the people and farmers living in this unit). Apply for for licenses and get drawn only every 2 to 3 years. Now what gets there goat is that all these guys come to this unit from some eastern cities in this state which I shall not name. There argument is they live here (the local community) 365 days a year and these guys from the larger cities get all the tags. They cry fowl, hmmmm where have we heard this same scenario before??? Could it be resident hunters against non residents?? There argument is because they live in there why should they have to go elsewhere to hunt?? So Ken when you make the comment

It needs to change....I don't care if they get a license but it should be "antler less only"If they want a buck tag,they should have to apply like everyone else

Sounds hypocritical to me.

Now as far as landowner tags go I disagree with you. I can't agree with your logic that its OK for resident landowners to have them but not nonresident. Now if you would go to say that they must be actively engaged in farming or ranching to get the tag that would be fine with me. To make a class for residents only really show your selfishness again. I find no difference in a rich dude from out of state owning land versus the rich dude from NoDak. In fact I would rather work with the out of stater, I have found them much easier to work with. I hope you don't feel I'm trying to ruffle your feathers. Just pointing a few things out. Hope the Easter Bunny pays you a visit :lol:


----------

