# Cost of hunting?



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

*At what cost per day would you stop hunting?*​
$50911.39%$10045.06%$20056.33%$30000.00%Will not stop1924.05%I will quit first if I have to pay for access4253.16%


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have a question of everyone. If you don't count your personal equipment at what cost per day would you stop hunting. For example: would you stop if access cost you $50 per day, $100, $200 etc?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman.....you also need to add.....won't pay for access as an option.

Because here is my take. If you use a guide it is access, his equipment, his calling or expertise you are also paying for.

But if a land owner told me I want x amount per gun so you can hunt. I find a new spot or state and federal land to hunt. That is why I don't hunt SD for pheasants anymore.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

If I have to start paying for access I am going skiing down the hills of Colorado....not hunting! I love hunting but I have never and will never pay for access. My :2cents:


----------



## trentmx_05 (Apr 16, 2008)

I agree that there should be a $0 option. Wildlife is defined by law to be property of the public. Yes, I buy licenses, because those dollars go towards the conservation of wildlife game and non-game species and it is for the better good. I will never pay for access and go through a "middle-man" to something i am directly entitled too, just so one individual can benefit all the while adding fuel to the fire of this big money-making fiasco that is sweeping its way through the hunting industry. Yes, access can be denied to these resources, but i promise you i will always find a way, without paying, to enjoy the outdoors


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

I will never stop, and I will never pay for access!


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I will pay for lodging, food, gas to get where I am going, and I will spend plenty on equipment, but access??? NOT A CHANCE IN......Well, you know!


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Glad i live in SD there is so much public land it is so easy to hunt. Chuck you have not tried very hard to hunt pheasants in Sd i can take you to 10 places where you would see 2- 3 hundred pheasants at any given time. If anything the guides have done more for wildlife by putting habitat in and keeping crp from being plowed up. there is not one animal that i can hunt here that i cant go to a public place and find right now.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Not to start a huge debate or anything like that.

But this just dawned on me as I was reading this. In ND every license bought is paying for access. The PLOTS fee is an access fee to a certain extent. I am not complaining because it is a great program. But it is an access fee.

Again so should $10 be an option?

******* Disclaimer*******

I 100% back the PLOTS program and wish other states had things like this.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Kurt....

In the area i used to hunt did not have much public land. Or the public land was getting over ran by the guides. I was hunting one stretch when a mini bus pulled up with the a lodge logo on the side and all the clients and guides bailed out. One of the guides had enough balls to tell me if I wanted to hunt with them I would have to pay! Even though I had my own dog and was on public land.

But again this was about 10 years ago. So things could have changed.

I also agree that those operations are good for habitat for all wild life.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I see theres 8 votes for monetary amounts. Must be non-residents. :stirpot:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I will quit when I have have to pay access to land.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

KurtR said:


> Glad i live in SD there is so much public land it is so easy to hunt. Chuck you have not tried very hard to hunt pheasants in Sd i can take you to 10 places where you would see 2- 3 hundred pheasants at any given time. If anything the guides have done more for wildlife by putting habitat in and keeping crp from being plowed up. there is not one animal that i can hunt here that i cant go to a public place and find right now.


Keep drinking the :koolaid:

:eyeroll:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

barebackjack said:


> I see theres 8 votes for monetary amounts. Must be non-residents. :stirpot:


Or lazy residents. :stirpot:


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

Interesting poll. Especially since I've recently switched my attitude on time spent fishing vs. hunting. I'm stopping spending the money on larger hunts (New Zealand, British Columbia, ect) as well as all the intermittent hunts and spending that money on a new inshore fishing rig that I can use for Gulf of Mexico sport fishing as well as Lake Michigan. It seems to me from a dollar stand point fishing is much more cost effective.

I'll be selectively hunting productive times and areas. I still intend on going to NoDak for a week every fall as well as Montana and Deer Camp in MN. However if the ducks are not in the area on a particular weekend, I'm going fishing.

It helps that the fiance is much more interested in fishing than hunting. She's happy and I still get to do what I love. It's a win win.


----------



## Scott LeDuc (Aug 4, 2008)

I agree it's very interesting. I also find it interesting that the majority of people who said they would give up hunting before they paid for access are from ND. Please keep in mind that as a ND resident you are blessed to have some of the very best hunting conditions in our county. _By comparison_, we have more game, more access then just about anyone in the nation. With that said, what if you had to move to New York City, New Mexico (waterfowlers), etc, would your view on this change? Would your view on guides change? If you didn't have the opportunity you have here, would your view be a little different?

In the past, I have paid for access. I no longer have a need to do that because I live in an area where the opportunity is endless. If 20,30 or 50 years from now I have no choice but to pay for access or not hunt my decision will be easy. Without question I will hunt because I know the enjoyment that it brings to the face of my kids and myself.

I know my view will be the minority here but look at the question from a big picture and see if you would change your opinion a bit...


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

When I look at the big picture, it makes me want to keep it like the way it is.

Which means, limits.

Limiting the number of people that can come here, and for how long they can hunt here. The more we "open the door" the more we'll ultimately loose.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> With that said, what if you had to move to New York City, New Mexico (waterfowlers), etc, would your view on this change? Would your view on guides change? If you didn't have the opportunity you have here, would your view be a little different?


Been there done that and moved back. My answer is still no I will not pay for access or use a guide.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

I have a question for some of the ND residents...I've heard a lot of ND residents say that everything is getting posted and they no longer have places to hunt or have lost a lot of places they normally go because a farmer/rancher has posted it. I'm not talking of the places posted because the landowner ow leases it but for the land where the farmer just posted it because of increased traffic. Here's the question....

Why don't these people become friends with the farmers/ranchers. Maybe help out a weekend or during harvest time not just for hunting access but to help some of these guys out. I find it hard to believe that someone who has lived in ND their whole life doesn't have at least one or two land owners who will let them hunt even if they do post there property.

I live in Minnesota and hunt ND every year and have at least 4 properties where I knock on the door and let them know I'll be there (posted or not) and have no problem even when some of these farms get posted. In the summer I've done simple stuff like helping fix a fence or just stopping in and talking to them. If I gain permission I make sure I get a address and at very least send a card and most the time a gift card.

Like I said just wondering it has always made no sense to me. I know a lot of you do these types of things but for the ones that complain about it I ask why?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I forgot to follow up and watch this thread. To busy I guess. My wife and I had a nice meal while Scott Hennan gave a great talk in Valley City last night, and I have been here on and off today while I have been glueing up boards for raised pannel doors on kitchen cabinets. Anyway, thanks to someone for adding to the poll for me.

I don't plan on ever paying either. Retired income doesn't give me an option. "As far as the idea: why don't we form friends so we can hunt". I would never befriend someone so I could hunt either. I form friendships, and if one happens to have land then perhaps I can hunt it. I have friends then I hunt, but I will not form friendships to hunt. That's just to false.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Some times the hunting access has led to friendships, but I agree with Plainsman 100%. I would not pretend to be your friend just to hunt your land.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I think what he was saying is it can turn into a friendship.

Myself I would not call most of the peoples land I hunt on friends. More aquintances. But some have turned into friendships.

But i also question some of this access issue. Because I have knocked on doors of land owners who's land is posted and have gotten permission.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I just think with the way the laws are written in ND that people have gotten lazy. Again please don't take this the wrong way. What I mean is they have gotten used to not knocking on doors to hunt. But just going out and hunting. You know they see an unposted field full of birds and show up the next day and hunt.

Where as in other states or area's people need to do loads of leg work. Not just scouting. Running down land owners, renter and what not.

The reason why I question the access issue is that in the years of hunting out in ND i think I have been denied access only 5 times. And that was because the owners had other people hunting it or they did not want me to hunt because it was before the deer season and they have been seeing a big buck in the area.

I also know other parts of the state it can be an issue.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

I agree with you Plainsman I hope my post didn't come of like creating a false friendship. There are many times I have asked permission and never return but I still send the card. I also have many places I hunt almost yearly where I am never around to help out or chit chat until hunting season. But, I do have those farmers who have started out just getting permission and now they will invite me over for a BBQ or something when I'm around.

It just seems to me that a lot of guys just want to be able to hunt land and not have to deal with the landowner or hassle (if you want to call it that) that comes with gaining permission. And as soon as that land gets posted they just view it as a bad thing and they shouldn't have to ask permission. If you have lived in a state your whole life and hunt I can't believe you haven't developed a couple relationships with landowners. Not saying you have to go to the movies with them.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I agree with you Plainsman I hope my post didn't come of like creating a false friendship.


You didn't come off that way, but I know it happens so I thought I would address it.



> I can't believe you haven't developed a couple relationships with landowners.


What gave you the idea that I haven't? I have a dozen landowner friends within 20 miles of home. One has over 20,000 acres and I can take posted signs to him and post it for myself if I want to. I think that would be selfish though, but I did that the first time on 160 acres this year. It bothered me to do it on 160 acres, but people wouldn't leave my things alone. Take my camera down and throw it on the ground, pull my blind down, etc. I had enough of that.

I have a cousin with 22 section, a brother with a farm, brother-in-laws with farms etc. I could never hunt 10% in a year if I tried. I grip about access for the future of all hunters, not for myself.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

Woops I did it this time though!!! :lol:

Plainsman I meant the "you" as the people who complain and haven't developed one. Sorry, I agree that access can be a problem when money is involved and understand the problem with it. But, many people act like all the land is posted in ND and they can't find access.

I have no doubt that you have access and good relations with many people. As I can tell from a lot of your post you care for your fellow hunters as I do.


----------



## headshot (Oct 26, 2006)

I will never pay for land access to hunt or fish. My grandfather fought in a war to prove we are FREE. There are millions of undelveloped acres here and I hope it stays that way forever.


----------



## Boonedog (Sep 10, 2006)

There seems to be a philosophical opposition to paying for access. I do not see people complaining about paying for access to golf courses or ski slopes. I understand that in most cases in ND that paying for access in not necessary, but if I could afford it and I thought it was worth it I would have no problem paying for access. Hunting is too important to me to let access fees stop me, I would find a way to get the money.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

I've always liked the idea of paying for access. In certain cases anyhow. It' keeps the riff raff off the property and out of my hair. I don't need to worry about some yahoo busting up my hunt of putting me in danger.

Obviously in NoDak there is enough room for everyone. But some states, that is not the case.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Boonedog said:


> There seems to be a philosophical opposition to paying for access. I do not see people complaining about paying for access to golf courses or ski slopes.


Not to mention neither of those deal with a "public resource" like wildlife.


----------



## giwoyna5 (Mar 5, 2008)

My .02

I grew up hunting and in the good old days there was hardly anything posted. You could hunt almost anywhere. Permission? who needs permission? Lets go get 'em. I think quite a few people became accustomed to hunting this way. It was a way of life. Now with it actually considered a "sport" :eyeroll: the money and greed have taken over along with the posted signs.

Oh, and never will I pay for access.


----------



## trentmx_05 (Apr 16, 2008)

The golf course and ski slope analogy....doesn't work

Theres alot of money that goes into a nice golf course. If i wanted to golf for free hands down...then ya, i could go dig a hole and tee off in a pasture somewhere...but your paying for alot more then just to whack a ball around at a golf course....and as for the ski slopes, i have no problem paying them because i sure as heck dont want to climb my a$$ up a mountain 40 times a day....They are making things possible that otherwise wouldnt be. With hunting, theres enough places in the country that it IS possible to hunt without fees. You just have to look hard enough.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> > Glad i live in SD there is so much public land it is so easy to hunt. Chuck you have not tried very hard to hunt pheasants in Sd i can take you to 10 places where you would see 2- 3 hundred pheasants at any given time. If anything the guides have done more for wildlife by putting habitat in and keeping crp from being plowed up. there is not one animal that i can hunt here that i cant go to a public place and find right now.
> ...


And boy is it great Koolaid. It is chumps like you that keep make it great when another good deer or another limit of pheasants is take off of public land.

Chuck if you ever see anyone guide on public land in Sd call the G&F it is illegal to do that.


----------



## Boonedog (Sep 10, 2006)

Some of the people that charge for access also put alot of money into making their land better for hunting, so I would say it is a legitimate analogy. You could golf or ski out in a pasture for free or pay money to go to a place that is set up for it and give you a better and easier experience. When you pay for hunting access you are not paying for the deer or the pheasant you are hunting, any more than you are paying for the air you breath on the golf course of ski slope. In some areas of the world the only thing that has sustained wildlife are fees hunters pay to hunt the animals. If hunters do not pay to hunt the animals, they have no value to the people that live there and the animals and their habitat disappear. I do not believe this will happen in ND and hope it does not, but to quit hunting over something as trivial as money seems short sighted to me.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Kurt.......I did call the G&F. I don't know if they did anything about it. But the call was made.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I voted I will not stop because I own land and also a lot of members of my family own land. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

buckseye said:


> I voted I will not stop because I own land and also a lot of members of my family own land. :beer:


That doesn't address the issue then buckeye. If you own land then your not paying to hunt. So your simply skewing the statistics by voting you will not stop. If you owned no land what would you pay to hunt?

When I started the poll I didn't have will not pay access. I had the lowest at $50 thinking that if that stopped you it meant the same thing. I voted that I would stop at $50, but in reality I would never pay a nickel. OK, I goofed, shoot me.  But I do think you guys for pointing that out.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I voted before I read it was about access. I thought it was just cost in general gas, food, etc....

If the future holds paying for access I will pay for access, I would probably access many different states then. Maybe all states should have the exact same prices and laws to make it easy. It would be like throwing down a twenty to apply for a deer hunt in MT, IL, WI, MN, etc... :beer:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Boonedog said:


> Some of the people that charge for access also put alot of money into making their land better for hunting, so I would say it is a legitimate analogy.


These people are 1 in a 100. If that. And most of them that do put money into the land (at least from a wildlife perspective) are guides/outfitters.

Most are farmers, making money off the land, than trying to make money for access to "their" wildlife. Any money they do put into the land that does benefit wildlife, is purely conincidental. Many things that benefit agriculture, also benefit wildlife.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

barebackjack said:


> Boonedog said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the people that charge for access also put alot of money into making their land better for hunting, so I would say it is a legitimate analogy.
> ...


That's one thing I can't stand when people whether it be hunters or landowner's that think the wildlife is *"theirs"* Sometimes it is hard to understand the thought of people.

If I didn't hunt and was not against hunting I would have no problem with people hunting my land as long as they closed gates, and showed respect to my property. I would post my land just so I knew who was on it. And if I owned land right now I would post it and not let anyone hunt it because I would be hunting it. Now I wouldn't claim I owned the animals on the land and I want them all to myself I however do want my hunting spot to myself. And if I own the land then I should be able to post it and refuse access to anybody I want to. But, if I'm not using the land anyways have at it with permission.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Many things that benefit agriculture, also benefit wildlife.


I would say some things that benefit agriculture also benefit wildlife. I grew up on the farm, and am painfully aware that many things that benefit agriculture are detrimental to wildlife. I watched far to many duck nests go under the plow. I watched far to many rabbits scrambling to not go under the plow. I watched to many fawns trying to run without legs after introduction to the mower. That doesn't even consider that agriculture destroys most of the habitat.

We all have to eat so we put up with it. Farmers have to feed their families also, so we put up with it. Many farmers like wildlife and do things to improve conditions for wildlife. Some farmers because of disputes over wetlands etc hate wildlife agencies and go out of their way to destroy habitat for spite. Every one is different so wait until you shake their hand and get to know them before judging.

The wildlife belongs to all. The golf course and ski tow belong to someone else. I would pay for room and board and any other service, but I would not pay for hunting itself.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman,

I agree with you on the collateral damages like you mentioned. But in the grand scheme, agriculture provides much more to MOST wildlife than it takes away.

Look how many deer are out there right now, why are they out there in the numbers they are? Farming, food. 
They link the blossomed midcontinent snow goose populations on farming. More food through the flyway means more birds survive the migration, the winter, and arrive on the nesting grounds in prime breeding shape come spring.
More deer benefits predators.
Farmers plant trees (at least they used to), they did this not for wildlife, but to protect the land that provides them a living, these benefited countless forms of wildlife.

So yes, your always going to have those fawns and bunnies that get smoked by a mower, a cultivator, and what have, but how many individual animals is that 160 acres of corn benefiting? You may run over one fawn with a farm implement in that field, but that field of food will benefit many more than one individual.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Many things that benefit agriculture, also benefit wildlife.


No till farming, need I say more


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

BBJ you will find few if any duck nests in wheat, corn, oats, etc. The breeding is gone. The 160 acres would perhaps have had 20 to 30 nests on it. The wetlands that are drained provide no duckling habitat. No habitat to breed, no habitat to grow. The plowed under nest and rabbit are just the tip of the iceberg. I have done wildlife surveys on idle native grassland vs. hay land, vs. pasture vs. no till vs. tilled, vs. row crop. vs. CRP. I am familiar with waterfowl breeding on most land types. Upland also. Wildlife lives in spite of farming, not because of it. The ones that benefit are just the survivors of the mechanical onslaught.

Don't just look at nests per acre. Search the literature for nest survival rates. You should find a nesting study with about 20,000 nest records from variable habitats. It's a much more complex problem than 99% of the people think. A nest may be destroyed, but the hen may renest. A predator is natural, but they concentrate on fence lines where some of the only habitat remains. Rock piles are used on the drift prairie for nesting, but it's also the only habitat in some fields for predators.

That's just waterfowl I am talking about. Some species are nearly eliminated. I did the ornithology work on the grasslands of the Northern Great Plains. Heavy grazing eliminated most of the birds. The only species that benefited were Horned Larks and Killdeer. Moderate grazing eliminated many. Light grazing had much higher species diversity. Light grazing from a diversity standpoint was perhaps beneficial.

I am not advocating that we jump on the farmers. I kind of like a few vegetables with my steak, so I am not going to be a hypocrite, but I will look at things realistically. AS g/o pointed out no till has been a great benefit. As compared to tillage that is, but not compared to native grasslands that naturally would be there. So now I'm going upstairs and eat a cookie that the flour was perhaps from wheat g/o raised.

With a couple hundred million people in the nation the best farmers can do is go about business with the least impact at the best profit they can manage.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ok, so agriculture may somewhat hinder migratory species. 50 years ago, with the practices of the time, it did, in the modern age, not so much. We've learned from the mistakes of draining any and all wetlands, leaving ground unprotected, etc etc. 
What about the species that spend the winter here? What is the food value (or cover value for that matter) in native prarie (or CRP) thats socked in with several feet of snow? Why is it, that in late fall/winter, I see the vast majority of wildlife (most notably deer and upland birds) in and around the croplands? How many of these year round resident species would die the first winter if the entire state was reverted back to grass prairie?

And its true, not many ducks nest in the crop land, but they benefit from it later.

We are WAYYY off topic however.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

First off BBJ most of the deer around here were mule deer at one time. We also had vast herds of pronghorn, not to mention buffalo. When 80% of everything has been destroyed before you see it an improvement over devastation looks impressive. We have driven the less tolerant species out and replaced them with species that put up with the habitat distruction. Remember the big flocks of prairie chicken in North Dakota? I'll bet not.

My father remembers the first fox to move into the area around my home town. People were not sure what the heck a raccoon was. White tail deer have moved in since the turn of the century. They are much more inclined to live in proximity to human activities. Yes, they have increased and gather now at grain fields. The reason they gather there is the browse that would be normal for them is plowed, grazed, hayed, and burned.

There is no way around this. From the mid 1800's until now most of the wildlife is gone. Today we see recovery from near total destruction. If you were born anywhere from 1950 to now things look like they are improving because they are improving. Don't let improvement blind you to what really happened.

Sure drainage is slowing down, there is little left to drain. I worked on wetlands from central Iowa to the edge of the Missouri Coteau escarpment in Alberta. Start in Iowa where everything is drained including tile under moist hill sides and proceed north. When you hit the Canadian border you will find 20 percent of the original wetlands remaining. All else falls somewhere between 0 and 20 percent.

The department of agriculture has spent a lot of money looking at wetland restoration. Modern hydrological studies reveal that our groundwater is replaced by wetlands. Watch in the next few years. It would be a good time to get into well drilling. I monitored 75 wells and six piezometers for 25 years. They ranged from 18 ft deep to 480 ft deep. Don't believe the beer advertisement that tells you it takes water 100 years to move 100 ft. I watched hydrological recharge wetlands establish an extra six feet to the water table 100 ft down eight days after a rain. OK, this could get to long.

The ways some habitat changes, and the slowness in which it does it masks some of the devastation. For a simple example look up "fire shadow" and how fire kept woody species at bay on the prairie and only allowed them to occur mostly on the south east side of wetlands.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman,

With all due respect, I was aware of all that. But frankly, I don't care. (Don't take that the wrong way, ill explain).

We cannot be held accountable for what happened 100+ years ago. Thats like holding someone accountable for slavery because their great great great great great grand relatives kept a few around. Those days are gone, never to be seen again, the prairie will never be that way again. It may have been a raw deal, but it happened, move on.

What I'm referring to, and what I'm concerned with, and what I talk about, is the now. I'm not worried about managing mule deer in the eastern parts of the state. I'm not worried about managing bison herds. I'm worried about managing the species that are commonplace now, whether they be immigrants or not, they are what we have now.

But again, we're off topic. If you want to continue our side conversation, feel free to PM me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> With all due respect, I was aware of all that. But frankly, I don't care. (Don't take that the wrong way, ill explain).
> 
> We cannot be held accountable for what happened 100+ years ago. Those days are gone, never to be seen again, the prairie will never be that way again. It may have been a raw deal, but it happened, move on.


  Nope didn't take it the wrong way.

Nope we sure are not responsible for what happened 100 years ago. If it had not happened then it would have to happen now, we can't expect landowners to put up with buffalo running through the sunflowers. Not many civilized countries where that could exist anymore. My only point is agriculture has not been a boon to wildlife. However, if I have to choose between a full stomach and mule deer around Jamestown I would rather eat and drive to the Badlands for mule deer.

I was just trying to put things in perspective. My perspective I guess. I think wildlife thrives in spite of most farming practices but no fault to many farmers, and of great fault to a few. Since growing up on a farm that was in the soil bank I always thought I would be more willing to pay for conservation practices than support prices. I also think that's more beneficial to the farmer, because I think support prices hurt the free market that would naturally raise prices, and conservation practices reduce surplus increasing prices naturally in the market.

Man are we getting off subject. Lets forget this part for now.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Since growing up on a farm that was in the soil bank I always thought I would be more willing to pay for conservation practices than support prices.


Just out of curiosity, when were you born? Judging from most of your posts, and of course using my amazing powers of intuition :lol:, im going to guess you probably grew up in the years following the dust bowl years, 40's-50's??? Probably saw practices (farming wise) at their worst, before we realized what we were doing to the land.


----------



## huntnfishn1 (Feb 8, 2009)

You cant put a price on hunting. any day hunting is worth 1000s of dollars. not that anyone would have to pay that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

BBJ yup, your right about when I grew up. There were many wetlands. The majority are drained. North of Devils Lake most are drained. Most of them into Devils Lake. No outlet in Devils Lake. Why does it flood?

My grandfather was here right after the Civil War. I would liked to have heard his stories. Those that I did hear were passed down through my father. Along with a buffalo robe coat. My grandfather shot them, tanned them, and in 1923 my dad helped him make this coat. The collar and cuffs are otter.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

When I think about it, I am already paying for access, not in overt access fees, but in time and gas when it comes to scouting and gifts to landowners after the season. Heck, I gave landowner friends of mine $100 gift certificates for Christmas presents. In the past, I gave other gifts. I even lend some free labor throughout the year on small projects. All of this is to ensure access to "free" hunting.

I think that it comes down to principal. I'm already paying, just in a different form. I shell out the fuel, time, and landower gifts voluntarily. It might not be different when it comes to my checking account balance, but it sure seems different than passing over some cash at a landowner's front step.


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

Bustem36 said:


> I have a question for some of the ND residents...I've heard a lot of ND residents say that everything is getting posted and they no longer have places to hunt or have lost a lot of places they normally go because a farmer/rancher has posted it. I'm not talking of the places posted because the landowner ow leases it but for the land where the farmer just posted it because of increased traffic. Here's the question....
> 
> Why don't these people become friends with the farmers/ranchers. Maybe help out a weekend or during harvest time not just for hunting access but to help some of these guys out. I find it hard to believe that someone who has lived in ND their whole life doesn't have at least one or two land owners who will let them hunt even if they do post there property.
> 
> ...


Wow, I could of guessed this came from a Minnesota resident without even looking. You see people (hunters) in ND already do this, because they are mostly friends with all the farmers on the land they hunt.Give me a break!! uke:

As far as comparing hunting access to skiing, or golfing, NEXT!! 
And for all the guys that were not raised this way like ND hunters, and say they will always pay for hunting, this is one of the things that is fueling the big money hunting industry. You are part of the problem, the big part!!


----------



## busdriver (Feb 26, 2009)

i voted to stop if i had to pay, but this is not the case i would just find another place. i have worked with an area farmer for 6 years now and last year it payed off with access to hunt his land, this year he told me he needed money to hunt so i politely told him next time he needs help i need 25.00 an hour instead of my current and past wage of free. i haven't heard from him since i guess the big city boys win again.


----------



## take'em down (Jan 8, 2009)

$300 a day would be nice but id rather be hunting


----------



## hntnmn23 (Feb 26, 2007)

I voted I would pay some. This is a very interesting question and it took me a few mins to think what I wanted to pick. At first I thought, well I would never pay but that is because I have land now and have never had to look for a place to hunt and do not think it is necessary to pay.

I think we all like to think we would never pay for a place to hunt, but if the time came where there was no public land and everybody was asking for money we would all pay. I cannot see many people (especially the people on this site as dedicated as many of them seem) giving up hunting because they have to pay a fee for land after all the money they already have invested in equipment. I would definately exhaust all options first but I am not going to say I would give up hunting completely. I might limit my trips but I would never beable to give it up. I think if I said I would give it up I would be lying.


----------

