# What Tony Dean Thinks Of ND & MN Hunters



## Matt Jones

Here's a couple of excerpts from an article written recently by Mr. Dean...

*"North Dakota duck hunters think the most serious problem is how to keep Minnesotans out while Minnesotans think it's figuring a way to draw a North Dakota license. But alas, hunters from both states think first of themselves, not ducks."*

and another;

*"In North Dakota, a vocal group of hunters think our hunting problems are all tied directly to Minnesota and Wisconsin hunters. Thus they have mobilized and as we go to print, seem to have the state legislature ready to tie nonresident numbers to a system the N.D. Game and Fish Department developed, and ought to be ashamed of."*

The article appeared in the MN Outdoor News, and is about the current state of wetland protection...or lack there of. Mr. Dean repeatedly rips on duck hunters nation wide (but especially those hailing from ND and MN) for their supposed lack of concern over the Supreme Court's 2001 interpretation that resulted in the delisting of protection for isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. Little is said about SD hunters however in the article, apparently they must be a 'driving force' behind the effort to restore protection. :roll:

...hmm, kind of ironic that the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2003 that was recently introduced in the House Of Representatives, was done so by a Minnesotan; Congressman Jim Oberstar.

Has anyone seen Tony Dean rip hunters from the Dakota's like this in any Dakota Outdoor Publication? It seems to me that it's pretty convenient for him to be saying this in a MN publication where most of the audience is essentially going to agree with him. Yet, I haven't heard of him being so scrutinizing in a Dakota publication. However, I very well could be wrong on that so if anyone has read something similar to what I posted by Tony Dean in a Dakota publication please inform me of it.

He is however right on one thing (even if he is extremely arrogant in making his point), getting permanent protection for isolated wetlands is a must. If you haven't done so already, please write or email your reps in support of Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2003.


----------



## Tony Dean

Matt, I was not "ripping" North Dakota hunters. You have taken me out of context. What I did imply was that saving wetlands is a lot more important than restricting access.

Arrogant? Go ahead and think so, at least I do appreciate the fact you agree that saving our wetlands is important.

Tony Dean


----------



## Field Hunter

Would be nice to see the entire article reprinted here, with permission. As to the wetlands issues. There are going to be LARGE areas of seasonal wetlands that go under the plow this year if we don't get rain this Spring. If we end up with 30,000 or more NR waterfowlers this year, there will be overcrowding in MOST areas like we've never seen before.


----------



## Tony Dean

As per your request, here is the entire article I wrote for Minnesota Outdoor News. I believe that reading it in its entirety, most will agree that the main thrust of the piece was to call attention to the problems facing wetlands...and the complicity of the present administration in allowing and even encouraging the wetland drainage. Read it all and I think it's safe to say I generall ripped my fellow duck hunters, not just North Dakotans, but southerners, Minnesotans, Iowans and yes, South Dakotans.

Truth is, few of them have stepped up to the plate to tackle this most critical issue of all.

Tony Dean

No Duck Season Next Fall
By Tony Dean

Bob Marshall wrote a great piece in the New Orleans Times Picayune about ducks and duck hunters, noting that most southern duck hunters were complaining this past season was one of their worst. And then he talked to Ron Reynolds, one of the brightest minds in waterfowl management. Reynolds, a Bismarck, ND waterfowl biologist employed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), told Marshall that closed duck seasons might be ahead.

Reynolds bemoaned the fact that duck hunters probably don't appreciate how serious the situation is. No kidding. North Dakota duck hunters think the most serious problem is how to keep Minnesotans out while Minnesotans think it's figuring a way to draw a North Dakota license. But alas, hunters from both states think first of themselves, not ducks.

Reynolds thinks first about ducks.

And, he says, most of the serious problems that might lead to closed duck seasons have taken place within the past year. It began with the US Supreme Court stripping federal protection from the most important duck breeding habitat on the continent, the prairie potholes in the Dakotas, eastern Montana and what remains in western Minnesota.

The tragedy is, the Bush administration could have done something about it&#8230;and didn't. In fact, they took a bad situation for ducks&#8230;and made it worse.

Did you get that duck hunters? The President most of you voted for could have done a lot to secure a future for ducks&#8230;and didn't. In fact, he weighed in on the wrong side.

As of today, all that stands between wetlands that remain and drainage is Swampbuster, a Farm Bill provision that denies payments --- some call them subsidies --- to farmers who drain their wetlands. The truth is, because those Farm Bill payments are so important these days, Swampbuster has saved a lot of wetlands.

But in spite of Swampbuster, drainage is taking place in a big way and no one seems to complain. Farmers who drain aren't worried because they believe they have little to fear from the Corps or EPA and certainly not the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The point is, none of these agencies is currently enforcing Swampbuster or, unless someone tells me otherwise, keeping track of those who are draining at the risk of the loss of their Farm Bill payments.

Reynolds told Marshall that if there were any break in the protection that the Swambuster provision provides, we could easily lose 50 percent of our wetlands, which would not mean slow seasons.

It would mean NO seasons.

The only significant thing Reynolds missed in the good duck hunting equation is grass on the landscape. Yeah, CRP has been good, but in South Dakota, farm bill provisions that make it more profitable to plow than plant grass have surpassed the CRP gains. In the top ten duck production counties, the net loss of grass due to plowing prairie has exceeded that which has been gained by CRP.

Puddle ducks nest in grass. Without it, water alone will do little for puddlers.

Prior to January 2001, wetlands were protected by the Clean Water Act. It offered protection to wetlands that are easiest to drain, the small, isolated temporary ponds that are critical to most duck species. These are the same wetlands farmers often refer to as "nuisance" wetlands and they're important is that because they are very shallow and most are located in low areas of fields. When the sun hits them, they warm quickly and promote a rapid hatch of invertebrates, the major food source for ducks in the spring. Wetlands of this type have all but disappeared in western and southern Minnesota and all of Iowa, which explains why both states host so few breeding ducks.

About 80 percent of all wetlands in the Dakotas are less than an acre in size, and because they are not connected to each other or any navigable waterway, the Supreme Court decision ruled they lost their protection. And Reynolds says these tiny wetlands are responsible for about 70 percent of pothole duck production.

But most duck experts are plainly worried about the fate of these small, isolated wetlands. They'll be subject to drainage following the SWANCC decision by the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court --- the same wetlands the compassionately conservative Bush administration has decided not to protect.

But this is not the first time conservatives have attempted to facilitate the drainage of these important wet spots. No one ever accused Sen. Bob Dole of being a liberal and a few years back, he introduced legislation that failed, thankfully. It would have eliminated these small wetlands from Swampbuster protection. Dole should not have failed because Matt Connolly, then the Executive Director of Ducks Unlimited, gave him the cover he needed by referring to them as "bathtubs" and that the duck populations wouldn't come crashing down if they were eliminated. That statement became one more reason serious duck biologists do not seem to be as enamored of the self-proclaimed world leader in wetland conservation as they once were.

In Howell Raines delightful book, "Fly Fishing Your Way Through the Mid-Life Crisis," he quotes his friend, the late Dick Blalock, a liberal Washington fly fishing guru regarding the difference between the two political parties.

"The trouble with Republicans," said Blalock, "is that they'll trample over human rights to protect property rights. The good thing about Democrats is they'll trample over property rights to protect human rights."

Obviously, the truth lies somewhere in between.

But aside from those hunters who have embraced George Dubbya because he pledged to let us keep our guns, others have been wondering. After all, this same President appointed Gale Norton, a James Watt protégé. And most recently, following his habit of appointing people to regulate industries they came from, appointed Bruce Knight to head a key federal agency. Knight spent his pre-Bush days lobbying for the National Corn Growers Association, whose South Dakota affiliate lobbied hard to get the Natural Resources Conservation Service to lower the wetland delineation standards in Knight's native state. The effort ultimately failed because conservation groups and Indian tribes partnered up and beat them bloody, but guess which agency Knight now heads. You got it. He's in charge of the NRCS, and upon receiving the appointment, called himself a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.

Honest!

I'm not implying all corngrowers want to drain what wetlands remain. Some do, of course, but most Dakota farmers are decent conservationists and enjoy seeing wildlife around their places, even if some species occasionally are responsible for depredation. No, it's the leaders of these groups who cause the problems.

Almost from the day the NRCS State Conservationist (an oxymoron in some cases) announced his plans, some landowners began laying drain tile. Know how that works? A machine digs a narrow trench into which is inserted plastic pipe that is perforated on the top. It's covered and from that point on, there are no wet low spots in that field.

No more wetlands.

No more ducks.

Ever!

And duck hunters seem oblivious to this connection.

In the south, they drink toasts to Dubbya because he's defending our gun rights and showing Saddam where the bear does his business. And if there's a slow season again next year, the southern guys will blame those Yankees who are shortstopping the birds.

But they are no worse than some of us in the north.

In North Dakota, a vocal group of hunters think our duck hunting problems are all tied directly to Minnesota and Wisconsin hunters. Thus they have mobilized and as we go to print, seem to have the state legislature ready to tie non-resident numbers to a system the ND Game and Fish Department developed, and ought to be ashamed of. It lowers the number of non-resident hunters during dry periods with low duck numbers.

You need legislation to do that?

However that legislation makes no reference to the policies to be followed in years of no season.

In South Dakota, non-residents are also an issue and sportsmen there took time to fight a measure that would have allowed a additional 500 non-resident waterfowl licenses in northeastern South Dakota, an area where duck hunters are conspicuous --- by their nearly complete absence.

What you do not hear in the Dakotas, Minnesota or anywhere for that matter, is the outcry from duck hunters over what will likely be happening to our wetlands and in short order, our ducks. It might be that they aren't aware of it. Lord knows they can't depend on the outdoor press to bring it to them. The Big Three (Field & Stream, Outdoor Life and Sports Afield) steer clear of controversy. They'd rather cuddle up to lawmakers who all too often use membership in the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus as a means of suggesting to hunters back home that we're here watching out for you. Truth is, you have to depend on a few outdoor communicators like Marshall, Dennis Anderson and others, who unfortunately see their influence dwindle at the outer edge of their newspaper circulation area.

When the President entered the House floor to deliver his State of the Union, he began by hugging Congressman Bill Janklow, the former SD Governor. Never mind the fact that Janklow has been unable to parlay that close friendship with the President into getting drought relief for Dakota farmers and ranchers or a fair break in Missouri River water management. What I really fear is that Janklow and Bush are on the same wetland page.

After all, when the NRCS State Conservationist made his anti-wetland moves, we did not hear from the Game, Fish & Parks Department about what it could do to ducks and a whole host of other things.

That's because they were gagged --- by Bill Janklow.

And that reminds me of the courage of guys like Ron Reynolds, who though he works for George Bush's US Fish & Wildlife Service, at least points out to duck hunters what will happen if these bizarre wetland shenanigans do become American policy.

Janklow was convinced that the wetland issue was one of fairness; that South Dakota farmers should be able to drain just like their Minnesota counterparts did. This from a guy I once described as the smartest man to ever sit in the Governor's chair in South Dakota. The man who convinced him was state legislator Larry Diedrich, another pretty conservative face with a zeal for higher office and a desire to drain every wet spot.

If people like Bush, Janklow, Knight and Diedrich are successful, you won't see little pockets of open water in farm fields after a snow melt. You won't see any ducks either. And to those who say, well, you're just picking on conservatives, please name the "liberals" who are consistently voting in favor of drainage or of policies that aid and abet drainage.

What sad is that too many duck hunters do not worry about the future.

Whether they hail from the "anti-non-resident" Mecca of the Dakotas or belong to the ranks of the "hate the shortstopping Yankees" of the southern states, they have one thing in common. They worry about themselves and today. They are much like the Minnesota and Iowa duck hunters of a few years back. Why worry about draining these little puddles, I imagine they could have said, for as long as we have Canada and the Dakotas, we'll have plenty of ducks.

Over the past decade, Canadian duck production has become an oxymoron and if we allow the drainage of the Dakotas, well, hopefully you get the picture.

Ron Reynolds said his agency (USFWS) recently analyzed the consequences of congressional failure to bring back wetland protection under the Clean Water Act and if the Swampbuster program were to end. He said we'd be looking at about a 50 percent loss of duck production.

And Swampbuster has just 5 years left.

After that, maybe a year or two of duck hunting will remain.

Maybe.


----------



## Drakekiller

Tony
You beleive ND should not have any restriction on the number of non res waterfowl hunters.Since you make a big chunck of money from Devils lake chamber of com. (30 K) approx. may have something to do with your point of veiw.Then you should also be infavor of and go on record of being against any caps in SD for waterfowl hunting.Take away the lottery and the 6000 cap.3,800 ten straight day licenses at $105,2,000 three day licenses at $75,and 200 alseason licenses for five SW counties. Then ND might not have 30,000 plus NRs. The HPC was a great compromise that would have been way more fair that SD small fixed cap.Even in a drought ND would have adjusted but still would have allowed more NRs then SD fixed cap.of 3,800 ten day licenses.
Kevin Hayer


----------



## Dean Nelson

Tony what is it yes or no should SD have a cap????


----------



## Tony Dean

Kevin:

You are wrong, significantly on the high side regarding what Devils Lake, ND spends with our company

And to Kevin and Dean, I have always been opposed to the caps in South Dakota. South Dakota's cap is the reason you are getting the bulk of the non-resident hunters.

All of that aside, I suspect both of you missed the main point of the article. It was about something a lot more significant than caps for either Dakota. It was about losing wetlands and grass and if either happens, the caps are a moot point. It was about the current administration's lack of concern for the value of wetlands. And you are both reacting the way I said most duck hunters react...with concern for only YOUR hunting and not enough for the overall well-being of the waterfowl resource.

Tony


----------



## Dean Nelson

No I did not miss it. So what do you propose we do about it?


----------



## Tony Dean

How about generating the same kind of effort you fellows put together on the non-resident issue?

Letters, lots of them, to ND's congressional delegation, the President, Governor. Letters to the editor. The same kind of pressure. And remember, people other than duck hunters care about wetlands, so how about teaming up with them? That helps win more to our cause. How about Mayors whose community drinking water comes from rivers that currently carry runoff from drained wetlands? How about, instead of bashing Scheel's, like some have done on this forum, you recruit their help. They gain when people hunt...and fish.

A few years back, the ND Wildlife Society commissioned a poll and found an overwhelming number of North Dakota's supported wetlands and believed in retaining them. Bring that to the attention of the public.

And fight to eliminate the myth that draining wetlands helps agriculture. It doesn't. In the long haul, it hurts it.

Tony


----------



## Fetch

Tony - I actually found the Zenter article on a arkansas website. http://www.arkansasducktalk.com/showthr ... eadid=1349 I don't read yours alot because like FB (even more so) it is too one sided & too controlled



> In North Dakota, a vocal group of hunters think our duck hunting problems are all tied directly to Minnesota and Wisconsin hunters. Thus they have mobilized and as we go to print, seem to have the state legislature ready to tie non-resident numbers to a system the ND Game and Fish Department developed, and ought to be ashamed of. It lowers the number of non-resident hunters during dry periods with low duck numbers.
> 
> You need legislation to do that?


Yes - I think we do - sure after a few bad years, they will slowly stop coming - But just like all the concerns in the Zentnar article - They will come, (even in down times) just because ND is so much better than where they come from.

All the more reason to protect the USA side of the Prairie Pot Hole region. Which in recent years has become the prime Habitat to raise ducks (because of the moisture we have received) Did you spend anytime in Nelson County & NE of Devils lake last Spring Summer Fall - I mean from Lakota to the Canada Border. The only real prime wetlands last year (during those important (Spring & summer) months. Canada was in terrible shape during the critical months.

& your distracting from this, To make your Congressional campaign points - hurt 2048 - just for a few lousy Bucks to the commercial sides in all this. (which includes you) So I am disappointed in your narrow view & lack of understanding & trust in so many Good ND people.


----------



## Dean Nelson

"Did you spend anytime in Nelson County & NE of Devils lake last Spring Summer Fall - I mean from Lakota to the Canada Border. "

Well of corse he did Fetch But he was with Blanchfeild so something tells me access was not a problem! One thing you leave out Tony is how to do all this without pissing off every farmer in the state. By the way I love the plug for Scheels way to work that one in. Say hi to Dashhole for me.


----------



## Tony Dean

Keith: Why do you find it necessary to insult or question the integrity of anyone who disagrees with you? When we first met, you acted a lot more reasonable and friendly. When you stopped by and introduced yourself at the Grand Forks show, you walked right out and didn't bother to visit. If you had something to do, fine. But as this non-resident issue has progressed, my sense is, your views and comments become more and more strident.

Where did the Zentner post originate? Full Force Five, who posted it on the ARkanasa website says he took it off another. I don't know of another that had it other than mine. I think Dave would say that's true. Even so, it represents the thoughts of one of America's great conservationists and certainly takes in a lot more ground than one issue.

You focus on one statement from my story as though it's the only thing I wrote. You accuse me of narrow views when what I have advocated from the get-go is the conservation of wetlands and grass. That is far more than a one-area or one-state view.

I traveled all of the area you described, and a lot more. Not all of Canada was in bad shape. In fact, southwestern Manitoba was wet and will be wetter this year. Yet, even with water, it doesn't raise the ducks the Devils Lake basin does, primarily because there's little or no grass in Canada. There's plenty of CRP in the basin.

Congressional campaign points? Get serious. Why would I make them on a ND website? Another insult?

Yes, I do control things on my website. I don't post anything without knowing who's writing it. I will allow the use of the non-de-plume, and I'm not even sure that's a good idea. There's something about having to put your name on things that keeps things a bit more honest. I don't believe in hiding under those CB radio-type names. And if that means you don't visit mine or Fishing Buddy, fine. Tell me which is the more responsible approach.

And Mr. Nelson, I haven't hunted with Kyle Blanchfield for at least four years. If and when I do again, I won't apologize for it. There was no attempt to sneak in a plug for Scheel's, they no longer advertise with us.
Just the same, I don't tell others to boycott them as I've seen on these pages. And as for teeing off farmers, based on what I see and hear, you fellows have done just fine.

Finally, in the few times I've posted here, I put up with personal slams and insults. Fellas, I don't need this.


----------



## Dean Nelson

All we are doing is showing the real you not the one sided person you show on your site. So how many times have you hunted in ND without someone with a guiding license helping you? Just a qustion.


----------



## tsodak

I for one wholeheartedly agree with the things Tony has written. I guess if I would criticize anything I would say that the issues are seperate from each other, but when one takes the energy for the fight out of the other, there is a problem. I dont think many people realize the volume of grass going back to cropland this year, and last. TIling activities are rapidly changing the defintion of "maintenance" to existing drainage systems. Add this to a slow change in defintitions of wetlands, in practice if not definition, and things are changing. Another that is going to be much larger than people realize now is a major change in CRP allowing managed haying and grazing. Folks, I grew up on a farm and did it for 8 years as a life. Managed haying and grazing is going to be huge. Say your thanks to Ms. Veneman when that favorite tract of CRP is 100% hayed this fall. uke: We ND's should be fighting for our hunting future, yet at the same time we need to embrace movements to preserve what we have. Mr. Dean does have a point that maybe we have the primary issue mixed up..... maybe they should at least engage 1/2 our time. My.02$. Tom


----------



## ND Gander

Nelson, Fetch

I know you guys have problems with some of Tonys opinions on nonresidents, but guys lets take a good look at the even biger picture. Pot shooting Tony Dean is just plain wrong. Mr. Dean is one of the only champions of waterfowl we have left in this country. Mr. Dean has stuck his neck out and defended habitat, and often lost busines, friends, and support from it. He has a valid point about working to change the new EPAs rules. I for one would like to change our energy on this site to correcting this wrong. Pasting Mr. Dean is not going to get this site, or our readers anywhere. Lets use our brains and not our emotions on this subject. Habitat and wetland protection must remain in this country, with out it we won't have any ducks to enjoy. CRP is here for another 10 years, but this wont save us if we have wide spread loss of small temp. wetlands. We should be thankful for Mr. Deans hard work. A little respect has been more than earned.


----------



## economics 101

Insults, insults, and insults will never work. Mr. Fetch said it best recently on another closed post: We wouldn't need this site if everyone agreed. I sure hope you all settle down and use your head instead of ????????


----------



## Fetch

IMO - he was wrong about his stance on 2048 as he was on his stance about spring SOB hunting

I did not know or care about weather the article came from his site

Overall the article from Mr Zentar was very good

Just cause Tony is famous in our region is no reason to think all he says is gospel

If that is attacking his intergrity ??? I guess he needs a few.

I support his work in the "supporting Habitat" but to always use it to think we should support him is weak - when he did not support us in 2048 & he always confuses habitat with our real issues :roll: :******:

Especially when it comes to the likes of someone like Spirit water Steve.

Hey Tony do you support cootkiller too ???

He seems in the pocket of the commercial sides to ???

As for Mr Deans criticism of handles on these sites ??? Don't like that Don't participate - Like I choose to do on yours - & the fact I could not stay & visit after his show (I had my son with & Tony had lots of people waiting to talk to him - I had to get my son home, to go out with his friends - Not stay & talk to a bunch of old men, about things - Just the fact he stayed & listened to Tony's talk was enough for him. But I felt Mr Deans knowledge on anything Outdoors related was worth him staying & hearing him - In his Opinion (my son's) was not worth the time - & I agree because - it was a story & theme I'd heard several times before. :roll:

I wonder who's integrity is being questioned ??? & if you want to go there ??? I'm game just don't use the - " hurting my means of making a living" later when I RIP apart some of your views - I strongly disagree with - OK ??? Because I used to respect you & most of your opinions - But if you are going to act like this - Then I'm of the opinion your ideas are OLD & not worth the time, I put out to hear them. :******: I feel I have given you the benefit of the doubt several times.


----------



## Dean Nelson

Well I'm with Fetch on this one. These are from his site and sum up his last two years worth of ND hunting.

"The first day was our slowest. My young friend, Jason Mitchell, who guides out of Woodland Resort, pointed me in a specific direction, north of Devils Lake."

"Bruce Peterson, who owns Lighthouse Pointe Resort and the Trails at Oahe, joined me."

"And next week, we'll head north to Devils Lake to hunt mallards in the stubble with Randy Frost."

And I'm not even going to go into the fishing!!!

"Today, we fished with Jeff Dosch and his crew; Wade and Tim of Dosch Guide Service. We fished East Lake along Highway 20 south of Devils Lake."


----------



## tb

If I'm n ot mistaken, Mr. Dean supported the passage of South dakota's NO TRESPASS law. For me, that says it all about Mr. Dean's support for the average sportsman.


----------



## Tony Dean

The problem with websites is the person reading them sometimes thinks what they see is what everyone believes. Of course, that's not the case.

Fetch gets carried away with stridency. When he's not agitated, he writes with clarity. Too bad. I suspect we'd agree on most things but he's so hung up on non-resident issues that he can't even admit habitat is far more important, which is what I've maintaned all along. As a moderator, he owes it to the site to be...somewhat more moderate. And I hope he can. Fetch can't even give me a compliment without a slam. While he and (he says) his son, thought my seminar presentation was the same old stuff, he knows as well as I do that it wasn't. Not bragging here, but I'm one of the few that isn't hyping products and tells fishing the way it is. And all of those "old" people that were around me to talk to me about those "old" ideas must have thought so too. That happens everywhere I speak; Grand Forks, Fargo, Minneapolis, Sioux Falls, Chicago or Milwaukee. Keith Liebeg, you're too good a person, too intellectual, to resort to cheap shots. Don't do it. It doesn't hurt me as much as it does you.

tb? As you know, I did support the trespass law in South Dakota back in the 1970s, along with the SD Game, Fish & Parks Department. You should tell the rest of the story because I have, several times, in Dakota Country magazine. I believed some of the ag groups who said it would improve relations between landowners and sportsmen. It didn't and if I could reverse any stand I've ever taken, that would be it. That trespass law did a lot to facilitate commercial hunting. Castigate me? Of course you will because it serves your purpose. But I admit here...as I have, in print, several times in the past. I was wrong. But if you take things out of context, at least tell the rest of the story, not just the part that serves you.

Dean Nelson, as I wrote you in a private email, you make a mistake if you try to attack me. I'm a better communicator than you are. What you have done is take A LOT of statements out of context. I am in the television business and I will not apologize for working with guides. TV costs a lot of money, more than you'll realize, probably a lot more than your tuition. With limited time in North Dakota, because of non-resident license requirements and expenses, I have only a few days to produce a product. Don't criticize another until you've walked in his boots. And you are many years and lots of experience short of fitting in mine.

And if you think I do not know my way around the outdoors (as you and fellow student, Matt Jones, who started this thread have implied), I will only say this. I'm 62 years old, grew up on a North Dakota farm, and have hunted in more states under more conditions, for more species, with more outstanding and knowledgable hunters in just the past 10 years, than you as a student, have in a lifetime. I know how to scout, arrange and deploy decoys, call, and shoot as well as any of you. No boasting, just fact. And I suspect I have hunted as many days in North Dakota over the past 50 years as any of you, and certainly that includes Keith. In addition to that, I know my way around all types of fishing tackle, lakes, rivers, reservoirs, and I suspect of all TV and radio hosts, know at least as much about the conservation field.

Hey, I even know who BIOMAN is. He's Ron Stromstead, the former Wildlife Divison Director at the Game and Fish Department, and if I follow the reasoning I've seen on some of the threats on this website, he's a turncoat. He took more money to move to California...a lot more money. Does that make him evil? I think not. It says to me, he has a family to provide for and has the ability and stature to command more money.

Another who has contributed to this thread and isn't on my wave length on this specific issue (non-residents) is Ron Reynolds, and there are few people in wildlife management I have more respect for then Ron.

Both Ron Stromstead and Ron Reynolds make their living off the resource. Does that make them evil? I think not.

So far, there has been little meaningful debate; only attacks, cheap shots, etc. My thanks to tsodak, ND Gander and ND Economics for at least recognizing that my concerns were valid. And with that, I'm out of here.

Tony Dean


----------



## Fetch

I just don't like the way you use habitat as a means to justify (& confuse / distract) from your stance on all issues.

Sure I agree with you on it being the most important thing - But even most of that is provided by God or Nature & man is not in control, as much as he thinks he is - even if he were, there are so many political forces that will weigh heavier, on the outcome of what man could / should do - it makes it even tougher for man to do anything.

Lets agree we disagree & try to debate each subject without lumping all past differences - even though how we feel on things (in General) will always come to the top, in how we feel about most things.

This kinda SPIN only turns into a pissin match & war of words -

PS...I would give up being moderator in a heart beat in order to say & mean what I really feel. Just cause I'm the moderator does not mean I can't have & defend a opinion. (As long as it is done within the rules)

One of the big diffeneces in this site & Yours.

Sad part is too many people read yours & feel it is wiser & more correct because of your celebrity status - that plus the fact you are a better communicator, but that does not always make you right.

Peace my friend - I'd rather have you as ali than a foe - maybe all this war stuff & things like "your either with us or against us" - has become to strong of a feeling ???

I just hope you see a few of us trees on the edge(& our value) while you perform for the forest. Were maybe not worth as much - but unless you cut us down, were still close to being part of the forest. & some may be older & wiser & stronger than you give us credit for. (& who knows we may be the seed crop for a new begining.) After the forest is long gone.

Kieth Lieberg (Fetch)


----------



## KEN W

Tony...you are correct...the main issue IS habatat.But does that mean we should ignore everything else? The no-tresspass and non-resident's issue are important also.
Matt and Dean are also correct.I watch your show all the time.I check when it will be on every weekend.You do use commercial interests all the time.
I remember when I saw the last show where you weren't using commercial interests to hunt upland or waterfowl.I taped the shows where you were hunting with Rick of DU near Westhope,and with your wife east of Lord's Lake.I still have the tapes.You had great snow hunts .
That is neither good nor bad,but it is true.Why don't you hunt on your own...there are lots of public areas in both ND and SD.Show sportsmen that it can be done on your own.You are saying it is a lot easier to rely on some one else to do all those things that you listed for you.BUT most hunters that come here are free-lancers.So why don't you show that aspect of hunting in the Dakota's???All I have to do is go to your site and look at the schedule of this year's shows.None say anything about a do-it-yourself hunt.
That is neither right nor wrong...but it is true.


----------



## Field Hunter

Mr. Dean,

My sons and I watched your show this Winter on the local Fox Affiliate in the Fargo market. Not a jab, or anything like it, but Scheels gets alot of free advertising if they haven't been with you for 4 years. My sons and I spend hundreds of dollars a year at Scheels and will probably continue to do so in the future. The letter that Mr. Scheel wrote just seemed to have a complete lack of understanding as to the issues of access and NR hunter numbers that are going on this year in ND.

An idea comes to mind...there are several young hunters, one of my sons among them, that could arrange a hunt in ND this Fall for your show. My son is a senior at South High and others would be in ND colleges and high schools. It would be great to see the type of individuals that are coming up in the sport and get their views on the subject. I don't believe you could find better "guides" or get on better land than with this group of young "freelancers". As you've seen, they do have strong opinions on the subject, not unlike some of your other guests such as Randy Frost who appeared with you on a late Oct duck hunt in ND on one of your shows.

I for one have not kept myself as informed as I should have been on the issues of the wetlands drainage. Athough I don't agree with some of your views, I do thank you for the reprint of the article and making me and others aware of that issue.


----------



## Perry Thorvig

This whole debate between well-meaning North Dakotans and Tony Dean is very distressing to me. I really like both sides. I really don't think Tony is the "enemy" as some are making him out to be. I have been really impressed with his overall knowledge of the state of our sport and that he takes on some of the giants like the Farm Bureau. I have always said that a man can be judged by who his enemies are. If the Farm Bureau is against Tony, he has to be on the right side of the whole hunting sustainability issue.

Sure, he has some sponsors and hunts with some guys that the freelancing North Dakotan and I don't like very well. But, Tony believes that we would all be better served if we attacked the problems of duck habitat, overgrazing, barge use of the Missouri River. I agree. These are issues that really need to be addressed if we are to have sustainable hunting for years to come. Restricting NRs may need to be done but protection of the whole hunting environment is a much more important issue in the long run.

Tony is only telling us, in his way, to keep that idea in mind as we take on the NR issue. Tony, is not the enemy. Lighten up a little guys.


----------



## Miller

I agree that Tony isn't neccessarily the "enemy".But as far as attacks,did Tony really have to take (not one) but two shots at ND hunters in the article?So because at this time we're not fighting the same battle as you, you take shots at us?

I also was listening to Ed Schultz the last time Tony was on.He just couldn't help but take shots at ND hunters then too.

No offense Tony but you brewed this discontent yourself. Put the habitat issue aside for just one moment. You constantly bash ND hunters and your close acquaintances are those on the extreme opposite side as to the recent ND issues (such as Blanchfield, Frost, heck the last time I was on Sheldon Schlects site I saw you endorsing him). Just for a moment understand why ND hunters are upset with you.



> Finally, in the few times I've posted here, I put up with personal slams and insults. Fellas, I don't need this.


And we don't need you insulting ND hunters either!!!


----------



## KEN W

I am not critizing Tony...just stating the fact that his shows in recent years have not shown what most people come here to do.Why not?????They probably are the largest part of Tony's audience.


----------



## MRN

Bioman,

Dude, you've been outed - but that ain't the name I have in my address book. Are you padding your vita now?

Give it a break Tony. Everyone here supports habitat restoration and preservation, as part of preserving items of the public trust. Your support for the public trust is what's in question.

When we are finished fighting the current battle against your constituency, the commercial guiding folks, then we'll start fighting yet another battle against another set of commercial interests - our friends the farmers who simply want to increase their acreage and their profits so they can stay on their farms. Unlike the previous group, I have sincere sympathy for the farm folk.

I would be delighted if you could join us, rather than oppose us, in this battle, instead of picking and choosing when support for the cause best suits YOU.

M.


----------



## rap

we definitely need to show more support for wetlands, but the way hunting is heading now, it probably really doesn't matter, since commercialization of hunting and the huge increase of NR hunters are going to have every wetland in control, i will probably be out of hunting and won't give a rip anymore. i think tony would look differently at this NR and guide issue if he wasn't tony dean. i've emailed him before on this issue a long time ago and he claimed he did most of his hunting without guides and found no problem finding land to hunt on. well it probably isn't that hard when you say your name is tony dean to the landowner. plus i rarely ever see hunting on his shows without guides, about the only time he doesn't is on the grasslands of sd(which by the way, we need to start supporting the grasslands!). I just get angered when he writes these things about us, but he has no idea what it is like not having contacts with land all over the place(alot of guided land). Tony is one of the greatest voices we have around for conservation of our habitat though, and I think we are better off with his efforts than without. hopefully he can see our point of view on this issue..


----------



## northwind

Man, oh, man, if you don't agree 100% with this group you just get blasted.

I've been trying to figure this out before and I've come to the realization that this site is probably kings of spin and out of touch with the majority, otherwise they would have got their 2048 passed rather than losing by 1 vote.

Here's the spin. This site keeps promoting the freelance hunter and claims that 95% of the non-residents free-lance. How then can outiftters and guides survive in North Dakota?

This means that 1500 waterfowl hunters and 1100 upland hunters use guides and outfitters based on information provided on this site. Now if their are 300 guides this leaves an average of 5 per guide for waterfowlers and lesss than 4 per upland hunters. If they can truly survive and threaten your existence with these low numbers something is really out of whack. I suspect the numbers were jostled a bit to try to sway people to think that this group has all the right numbers. I would like to see someone spin those numbers into something that is believable by anyone other than the village idiot.

Keep taking people out of context and make up figures like this and the DL Chamber of Commerce and see how much credability you remain with.
You seem to think that you should all be able to follow the ducks and geese to whatever field or pothole they are using and then be the only person who can hunt them because you saw them in the air. Get real.

Anyway I've been asked by your adminstrator to be nice so I sincerely doubt if I'll be back because if you don't agree with the people on this site you're not welcome. The poster that is the subject of this thread was asking people to look at a bigger picture or the small picture may disappear. It's food for thought if you just open your mind a little bit.

Good luck to Prairie Hunter and Economics 101, they're going to need it if they want to keep trying to beat their heads against the wall.

Time to go fishing as the ponds are starting to open.

Can't wait until fall to see if we can find a few more of those "OPEN TO NON-RESIDENTS ONLY" signs. I think we will.


----------



## grizzly

I detect some jealousy from a few,nelson,fetch??????/


----------



## Fetch

I have nothing to be jealous of - ??? I have more contacts than I want & can use, or have time for.- Plus I am headed to Canada (New Adventures) - For Ducks I'm a boat hunter now - But I know where to go (every year to slaughter them) like so many others do. (Not my thing, I out-grew that long ago) It would not bother me, if all we could do was only shoot one of each species, of waterfowl per year  I'd enjoy ND as much as I have for years.

Tony has worked hard to be who he is - His schedule makes him take the easier hunts - I'm sure he could freelance with the best of us. (Just ask him - he will tell you) :roll: 

But it would be a eye opener for him to wear a disguise & use another name & set out on a freelance hunt. Things have changed so fast that there is not time to study all this - the effects will be unresolvable & make ND no better than most other commercialzed States.

So much of my concerns are for the future of ND residents & Youth - Plus the impact on the resources - Sure if all is good - we can share what we have - I just believe it is assnine to let it be a free for all & allow all to come, at the same time, to the same few areas, that have services to handle hunters - I think ND would be smart to disperse NR hunters around the State & to all areas that have waterfowl & have them come in reasonable #'s at different weeks thru-out the entire season - This would be real economic development & not have so many slaughter the new ducks & blast them out of their summer homes & then push them out of State to soon.

Pheasants stay home & buy a few birds from your local Game Preserve - (Thats all your doing here anyway ) :roll:

Don't like that - move here - If thats a Bad thing ??? then I'm a Bad Person - I still hope the powers that be have learned something the past year & will do the right things without the Legislature & politicians - They have the ability & Laws in place ??? Lets wait & see - Before you get too cocky :-?


----------



## bioman

Sorry Tony, but you are wrong. I am not Ron; however, as a fellow graduate of UND and former resident of No.Dak., I have talked to him. For those of you who don't know, Ron is director of DU Western Operations. Another classic case of No. Dak. losing its best and brightest. My name is Ryan Henning and I would guess the strength of my public trust rebuttal fooled you into thinking I was Ron.


----------



## Maverick

TONY~ I want to know why you think ND hunter are all about Keeping NR out of are state, when we were the ones fighting for the Bill SB2048 which limits the amount of pressure on all the birds? We were the ones fighting for the birds, not all the people who want to commercialize our state!!
*Come on Tony!!Do you really think we don't want NR here? We just don't want all of them!!!*

~Which side were you on for SB2048 Tony?

P.S. As a young boy i couldn't wait till Sunday came around and I could watch his( The TONY DEAN SHOW) show and see how he hunted and where he was, but lately he has been just dissapointing me!!!! He even had adds for SHELDON SCHELECT on his show. A HUGE SLAP IN MY FACE!!!
*I would rather watch the SIMPSONS instead of 5 minutes of his show!*

MAV.....


----------



## Maverick

NORTHWIND~ I think if you had been around for some (maybe even one) debates we had infront of our legislatures you would understand that.
1) We want to keep our ducks after the 1st weekend of opener. They are usualy pushed away after 30,000 NR come in and shoot everything they can find( all new experinces to them). Jumping all the roost, and jumping in on other decoys (not saying residents don't do it either but I personally have had more NR 200yds away than res. hunters.)
2) When we are doing all of this on are free time or inbetween working, going to schoo,l kids, and family, it's not all as easy as you think it maybe.
3) when you are trying to fight people(Outfitters) that get $ (thousands of dollars) from outside states ( that only go to a few people that can use it to sway some votes) it's pretty tough to get the out come we wanted when we can't persuaed people in the same manner.
4) we are the active voice on this site. We are fighting to keep and maintain a healthy hunting season. So maybe our children won't have to worry about hunting on leased land?

Think of it this way? When I was 4 years old (now 26) I was able to hunt the STREETER GACKLE area (an area where I grew up). Now due to 1 Outfitter ,140,000 acres( of some of the best wet land in the area) in that area are not touchable by anyone in the state. You can only get access to land if you go on his guided trips. People in the area hate it because they keep hitting deer in their cars, or on motorcycles. They can't even take a worry free drive in the country.

As for your opinion! We all accept it to, but remember we all have our own opinion. You can voice it but be able to back it if you haven't participated in the legislative part of it!(because for you it's all hear-say)
As for PH! If you think for one minute we don't take into consideration on what he thinks than your wrong! As a matter of fact i think we had some discussions this weekend on somethings he has had to say!! Good thing and bad things but it's all opinion!
and we all like to voice it here!

Mav....


----------



## Matt Jones

Tony, I did think your article was rather arrogant. You labeled ALL duck hunters accross the country as being more concerned about themselves than the resource. I spend a decent amount of time on these type of websites (probably a little too much :roll: ) and every site I've been on has been following the events that have been occurring in regards to wetland protection since the Supreme Court's new interpretation of the CWA. I think you made a very big assumption when writing this article saying that most hunters simply don't care---because a lot do. You know as well as I do that duck hunters do a great deal for habitat, probably more than anyone. Just because some choose to address other concerns, such as hunting pressure, doesn't mean they simply stop worrying about habitat while they are doing it. If you read your article you will see you label all duck hunters as not caring about the resource. I took this this as an insult, and hope many other hunters did as well. You are not the only person concerned with the current state of wetland protection, and that's the attitude I got from you when reading the article. Whether or not that's what you were trying to imply I think anyone who reads the article will agree with me that you bashed duck hunters to a certain extent. I just really feel you could have made your point (which I agree with) without being so negative on the behalf of hunters.

As for taking you out of context, that I apologize for. I would have liked to have posted the article in it's entirety. I tried to locate the article on the MN Outdoor News website but was unable to because I don't think they copy all their articles from print over to their website. So I typed the portions I thought most people would interested in reading. I guess I was suprised to read them myself, especially considering that they were printed in a MN publication. Has this article, or your opinions expressed in the article (pertaining to NR restrictions), been printed in any publication for the Dakotas?

"And if you think I do not know my way around the outdoors (as you and fellow student, Matt Jones, who started this thread have implied)"

I have no doubts that you are an accomplished outdoorsman, I don't think anyone does. You don't get to where you are by not knowing what you are doing, and I've never implied that you don't know how to hunt and fish. I have however talked about your use of guides on your shows. I just think that a man with your experience and expertise when it comes to hunting and fishing could do a show without having to use a guide so frequently. As a viewer of hunting and fishing shows it's gotten to the point where I'm disgusted to even watch them anymore. The amount of advertising and commercialism has become sickening. I obviously don't know what goes into making a show...maybe you have to do it that way. If that's the case, it's a very sad one indeed; and the reason why I don't watch hunting/fishing shows very often anymore.

You say the reason that you use guides on your show is to maximize your chances for success so you can produce a quality show. If that's the case, there's several people on this site alone who I'm sure would be more than glad to take you on a quality hunt. It'd truly be a breath of fresh air to watch a true freelance show, a show that gets back to real hunting. Just people enjoying all the thrills and experieces of a day in the field...with no money involved.


----------



## Maverick

Tony~ You are blinded by the fact that all the Outfitters would love you on their land. FREE PUBLICITY!!! Do you have to pay when they are making a show for you? My Guess is NO! Where the only way I can get on that land would be to go on a guided hunt with them! So you have to realize that Outfitters want you to come out and give them free TV time. SHELDON SCHELECT is one example. You promoted him when He's one of our states wearst LAW BREAKING GUIDE in the STATE!!! In fact! and if you still don't believe it, I'll mail you his rap sheet *again* for the second time. You probably threw the first 20+ pages away and then read the last 2 or 3 but man.......! 140,000 acres of untouchable land ( I grew up in the area he is taking over!!One day I would love it if we, yes you and I, went out there in my car and asked him if we could hunt a feed we scouted the night before! I garuantee you he'd say no and take his clients out there the next day(had it happen to me a couple of times!))

*If you promote people like that then you are promoting Poaching!!*

I would also like to know where you stood on the 2048 Bill? If all us hunters are not thinking of the birds? Wasn't that Bill for the birds?
HUNTER PRESSURE concept! FOR THE BIRDS? NOT HUNTERS!!
STOP insulting us Tony we are the people watching your show!!!!

Mav...


----------



## Miller

northwind said:


> I've been trying to figure this out before and I've come to the realization that this site is probably kings of spin and out of touch with the majority, otherwise they would have got their 2048 passed rather than losing by 1 vote.


Actually SB 2048 got the majority in the Senate and the House.

--The Southwind blows straight, warm and true.


----------



## djleye

Now I have no doubts that Tony Dean could do a great job of hunting without guides if he so chose! Matt, what a great show that would be, Tony Dean and a few of the Nodak Outdoors crew!! Would make for some interesting hunting and conversation.
Northwind, I know you don't agree with a lot that is said here. If that is the case, why are you here. Surely you have more to do in life than make smart _ _s comments like the last one you made. You once chided me for some comments I made and we had several private e-mails about it. Now you come out with a comment like that, na na na na. That sounded an awful lot like something my three year old would do.I guess he is even more grown up than that!! There are a lot of people here that worked awful hard for a cause they believed in. Why you would want to try and rub something like that in their face is beyond comprehension. I guess some people are so miserable that they aren't happy unless they can make others upset! Certainly you get to some people here, but I just consider the source, a ND expert after a few trips here!!


----------



## prairie hunter

It takes balance - right now ND is out of balance.

The sportsmen of ND will certainly work to protect wetlands in ND.

Many are already working to improve pheasant habitat via Pheasants Forever and Pheasants for the Future club projects.

Self centered approach Tony? This is certainly true for most things in life. Most coaches of youth teams are parents, most volunteers of school functions have students in that school, many people that raise funds for cancer research or other health issue have been personally touched by cancer, etc...

It is that personal tie that makes people passionate about that cause.

If ND sportsmen feel that they are protecting the resource for a select few to use then the passion for the species or the cause certainly wanes.

Unfortunately for ND both the wetland conservation issue and the NR hunter density/guide leasing issue are coming to head at the same time. Nothing is ever easy.

Resolve the access issue and then;


----------



## northwind

Miller: What I was trying to convey is that if you had a true majority you would not have been digging for one more vote and a simple majority.

djleye: The comment was meant to explain that it probably isn't worth all the effort to piss off as many landowners as the people that campaign against the non-resident hunter do. Like someone said, "if everyone thought the same you wouldn't need the hot topics section."

I'm still wondering how the outfitters survive on only 5% of the non-resident hunters. Who can explain the proliferation of outfitters and guides when the have a clientle that limits them to 4-5 people on average per season. How are they able to survive and sway the legislature and represent such a small percentage of the hunting population.


----------



## Miller

northwind said:


> How are they able to survive and sway the legislature and represent such a small percentage of the hunting population.


That's what I've personally been wondering all session. For some reason, all of the businesses think that the outfitters are good for their community. Well, how is that? Freelancers spend money all over, customers of the outfitter spend it at the lodge (for the most part, some lodges are move "full service" than others).

I don't mean to pick on Econ, but I'll use you for an example. It sounds like you run a bar in Devils Lake. So my question for Econ 101 would be, how is Blanchfields business (just using Kyle for example as well) helping yours? Shlect took over Streeter, how is Streeter doing these days?

These tourism folks will have to learn the hard way.Commercial hunting doesn't do anything for local tourism, it hinders it.Don't take my word for it, like a gentlemen from Texas posted a couple weeks back; he could see the downward spiral when commercial ops moved in.

Wetlands? Sure we need to save the wetlands! But will I be able to afford to hunt the ducks 10-20 years from now? Greed will be the demise of the ducks.

Well I can see that I'm way off track from the original intent of this topic, but I had to say it.


----------



## administrator

As everyone knows I'm not a fan of censoring, but lately things are getting a little out of hand.

PLEASE show some respect for others.

I don't have the time to filter out all the personal attacks so KEEP ON THE SUBJECT!


----------



## Maverick

NORTHWIND~MILLER~The in some cases the $ is coming from outside states. Outfitters are getting the $ from personnal invetsors from Texas Missouri, and Iowa ( a few that I know of). They are giving them up to $10,000 (tax free) a year to buy and post land.(Legally it an be given as gifts up to $10,000 for they are considered gifts). A couple of these and that's 30,000 to $40,000 a year to put into land? Then they bring in there clients from Chicago Or Denver or minneapolis where they can afford a $2,000 trip,at that rate with 20 hunters a year ( but there are alot more than that), put that on top of the other money and it builds up!! Especially when ND doesn't have the economy as the rest of the nation?

If you don't believe me stopout by GACKLE STREETER area and ask them if they are for or against SHELDON SCHELECT. If you were eating in one of there cafe's I gaurantee you if you said you were out there hunting with him your food would be bagged and you be asked to leave....
Mav...


----------



## Dan Bueide

Tony,

I won't pretend to speak for others or that my thoughts represent anything other than that - my thoughts. Many on this site agree on many general things. On almost any specific topic, some will disagree. Freelancer's (soon to be recaptioned "Freeloaders" - wait and see), regardless of zip code, generally disfavor the G/O expansion and effects. Most ND residents, and some nonresidents, favor nonresident caps/restrictions. While almost all believe "access" plays a role in the debate, some would say access is the end-all-be-all, while others would say you cannot endlessly manufacture good hunting through more access without other consequences. It seems impossible that anyone could argue about the implications of lost habitat, but some landowners (even the ones that hunt) would definitely disagree on the role of government in this respect too. Point is, the position of anyone on any single issue depends largely on a person's perspective and interest, and it's easy for anyone (including me) to say we should all be focusing on ________ because that's the real (read overwhelmingly large or only) problem.

I can only think of a few during this session whose opinions and efforts run squarely in the face of what their interests, motivations and perspective could be. One of those is someone to whom you contribute work (Bill M.), and I very much aprecaiate and respect his efforts that are unquestionably among the most unselfish. Likewise, the long-time ND nonresidents who know these efforts could mean less days hunting in ND, but would rather trade quality for quantity, also break the conventional interest/perspective model.

Your efforts on habitat retention are much appreciated and should be joined by those who share a passion for waterfowling. But, to the average ND hunter, the wetlands issue is no more or less imperative than the G/O or numbers issues. True, without enough quality habitat there will be fewer ducks. But with all the habitat in the world, the quality of hunting for the average ND will continue to slide as the G/O industry expands into the best of the best and more and more hunters scramble for the rest. For someone who will always get to quality hunting/shooting, habitat must take priority. For someone without those assurances, both may be important, but how do you draw priorites? If it's habitat, which just produces more ducks that can't be got at or that prematurely leave our area from too much hammering, how has that advanced the ball? And some will say, c'mon, this is ND, commercialization can never put a dent in the hunting opportunities for the average person. Most of us would argue it already has, and to those who don't believe it's happened yet, why won't it happen here? It's happened everywhere else - why not here? Your interests and perspectives, like anyone else, drive your perceptions of priority.

I enjoy your media offerings and openly admit much envy (anybody else?) that you've found a way to make a living doing the things for which most of us reserve our weekends and vacations. I'll bet this has only been achieved through a great deal of very hard work and some fairly lean times, more than most would even begin to understand or tolerate. But, I feel you've lost objectivity and credibility on the cap debate. Like anyone else, you get your opinion, and while you're opinion deserves as much respect as another's, you are also subject to defending that opinion like anyone else. Probably unfairly, because your voice is so loud and prominent, your opinion gets a trip through the electron microscope, but you've clearly weighed in on 2048 and other ND legislative efforts, and it's fair for you to answer fair challenges.

It does not serve your interest in any respect that there be nonresident caps or restrictions in ND. Because of the promotional value of your shows, you must literally have to turn down requests by outfitters for shows, as there isn't enough time to get to everyone. In this sense, caps or restrictions don't affect your hunting and don't serve those who host and help sponsor you and are looking for an introduction to your constituency. A large portion of your viewers are also not served by caps/restrictions. No sense doing a show somewhere they may not be able to visit. I honestly don't know the answer, so I'll ask the question. How many of your fall waterfowl shows in that last 3 years have featured SD and ND respectively? Have you given SD waterfowling the same coverage as ND? The reason I ask is that it seems difficult to promote something that is accessible to so few. Again, based in SD, and given your sponsors and viewers, I think it's perfectly fair to challenge your opinion (or Schara's or others who directly benefit from the commercialization of hunting) on this issue, even if you and I would stand side by side on a habitat or other issue. And neither issue is "more important", one just happens to have priority based upon my interests and the other happens to carry the weight of priority with yours.

Maybe it's just urban legend, but it's my understanding some of your peers have staff or locals that "pre-fish" an area, so when the personality arrives the show can be filled with more catching and less fishing. Other of your peers hunt reserves or other controlled environments where kill shots are a virtual certainty. To say you need to use guides to offer a "quality show" may be true, depending on whether you or your audience wants your show to be more about the shooting than the hunting. If a guide is required to make your "product" it all seems a little artificial to me, and is clearly something that your average viewer is not capable of or willing to replicate. If your interest and perspective drives you to use guides because of what you feel your shows and other productions must portray, surely your opinions about caps/restrictions must be influenced by their role. Fair enough?

And I'll reiterate the challenge of others. Next fall, come to ND, but this time have one of your cameramen or other staff make all the arrangements/contacts. Like many others who have hunted ND for many years, you'll have a good head start on general areas. But this time have your staff person, who doesn't associate himself with you in any manner, work things like a free-lancer and make all the pre-trip landowner and other calls, and have that person, again without identifying his/her association, do all of the scouting and landowners contacts, while you stay in the truck or motel room. If he/she works his/her tail off, in the course of your trip you'll get some good hunting and material for your show. But, you'll also get a flavor for how hard the average non-guided hunter works for good hunting and the fact that even with a great deal of work good hunting is getting more rare. Won't probably change your interests or perspective, but should give you a real insight as to the perspective/motivation of many of us. And it would give you a unique angle for a show - a freelance trip to ND.

And I'd much appreciate an answer to the question of how many nonresident waterfowlers should be allowed in SD. I believe you've stated the current cap is too low. What is the right number and how do you come to that conclusion? Further, should that number change over time, or is it a number for all times?

I appreciate you visiting this site, and I'd appreciate your thoughts and comments.


----------



## Dick Monson

Northwind, in my mind it wasn't the outfitters that swayed the legislature. The group dynamics are difficult to explain if you haven't been immersed in the background of it. Leasing has always been common in the Devils Lake Basin. It was so before statehood, in the 30-40s, again in the 70s, (remember the pro sports teams that tied up huge chunks of ground), and now. As spendable income rises and people are forced out of their spots in other states they come here with the money to pay. And by then our game laws are diluted and the cycle starts all over.

The outfitters would not have stood a chance on their own, but for some big money boys that give and receive cash under the table where ever commercialized hunting is popular in North Dakota. Political votes and campaign contributions are heavily wrapped into this, but not from the mom and pop small town businesses. When I sat thru the testimony on the hunting bills, very few if any small town businessmen spoke up. Instead these guys let the small outfitters carry their water. You never did see the people casting the shadows, just the shadow, along with GNDA, Farm Bureau, Hospitality, etc.

I cannot believe the vote on 2048 was lost by a count of 1. It was set from the get-go, or they would have reconsidered. The boys lobbying for mareket hunting knew exactly how many votes they needed and had, and John Nelson would not let that bill hit the floor until it was a wrap. Done deal.


----------



## Fetch

Now that the better communicators have arrived the topic has gone silent :huh: - I guess some don't like real debate ???

Not that Dean & Matt are not good communicators :roll: - I take you two & Chris & maybe Hoggr against any of those hot shot guides anyday in a true Freelance SOB hunt challange :beer:


----------



## prairie hunter

Dick : The comment in your last paragraph is very interesting insight into what may have happened on the house floor. Lobbying, phone calls, etc... are all important - but the power and planning of one central politician may defeat everything.

Politics is the same whether in the ND house or the US house. Often up front everything appears chaotic and somewhat out of control, yet behind the scene there is a high degree of order. Negotiation, back scratching, and deal making decide the vote count long before the actual count is made on the floor.

Any ND representitives sell out on SB2048 in return for a favorable vote on another bill ?


----------



## Dick Monson

Are weasels white in the winter?


----------



## MRN

Dan,

I could not be more different in my attitude - I have absolutely no envy for the purveyors of the television hunting tripe. These shows have absolutely no value to me. While the genre may have begun with an informational/educational emphasis, that is long gone. Their goal is "sharing" the bounty of nature? Sharing? Ya, right, like the purveyors of porno are interested in "sharing the bounty of nature". Both cases, the viewer is sitting at home, instead of being out there doing it. I have no interest in "doing it" on film/tape for $$$ either - even though I'd be helping a lot of folks "do it" much much better.....

In response to Grizzly's jab, envious of Tony Dean? No way! Do you think Tony has fun hunting and fishing with guides all the time, always trying to get something on film, rather than have fun? You're describing one of the lowest circles of hell. I'm envious of the young guys here - still young and free, loads of great hunts whenever they wannt, lots of good buddies they didn't have to pay for. Their goal is pure fun and experience, not debauchery or debasement. They are beholden to none. Cool.

M.


----------



## prairie hunter

Hold the presses. MRN and PH have finally found something to agree on. 

Nearly all newer hunting shows are too commercial and product sponsor driven. Most seem driven by kill shots and body counts. Rarely is a show not being hosted by one outfitter or an agency.

Tony has for the most part avoided the body count trend, but certainly fallen into the corporate mode. Yah, I know the guy needs to earn a living too, but ...

Still ... I have found these type of shows (that I could not get enough of when I was 14) now bore me or repulse me. Rather spend time cleaning the garage.

Do they appeal more to the people who are still dreaming of the experiences rather than those who have already lived them ?


----------



## FACE

How about trying to put together some shows where guys really freelance hunt. Then we could show just how exciting hunting all day, walking miles and miles, birds or other game flushing or spooking before we get to them, pointing dogs that try and try and try but can't get a bird to hold let alone find some. Birds that circle dekes but will never enter the atmoshpere, guns that tend to jamb at the most opportune times, hunting in the worst weather just to be out, you know...real hunting!!!! I bet real hunters would get a real kick out of a show like that, or at least relate! But I do realize that most hunting shows now try to get those of us that havent done much or havent hunted before into the "sport" and outdoors.these type of shows just would not exist if it weren't for the outfitters though. Don't get me wrong, I have always freelanced and always will( with the exception of a once in a lifetime opp. such as bird hunting in Argentina) but the shows have a purpose. The only ones that don't bore me to death are the ones where something new is being done instead of the same old thing over and over again, which is SELDOM.
FACE :lol:


----------



## Fetch

Well put MRN :beer:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Just a thought, I was told by a very senior in years educator that the reason our founding fathers made education a priority is that they understood that"Idiots teaching children produce more idiots." with that said many times I get up from this computer and reflect on those thoughts. Dan and Dick and Chris and others have made good arguments for and againist many issues. I have spoken my piece many times on many issues. The reality is that as I said before this forum allows for open and free exchange of thoughts, idea's and concerns.

We at times are choir preaching. My focus is changing to how can I affect what will happen the next session. For those how had reps or sen let you down take the time to start finding electable replacements for them. Then get behind them and volenteer your time. This will be the only way we will effect changes that benifit the sportsmen. My gut feeling is even if you are unsuccessful in replacing them the first time around next session they will heed our voice with more respect.

The concern over our support by a single Rep should demonstate this.

Tony has spoken his peace and so have others we should move on and let things go, for we will not change his stance or mind. Put the effort into more productive things. In dealing with my sisters illness it has given me time to reflect on the important issues at hand. I have spoken with Dan on the phone and his council has calmed my anger and frustration. Thank you again.
Do not take this as nobody should refute or disagree with someone or not state his or her opinion, just make sure to put the same effort into effecting change the next time around and this summer and fall to keep the need for limits at the forefront.

Many of you will see me post on on other sites and I hope to follow my own council. I will be pushing for conservation measures and other things that will affect the long term future of waterfowling and duck and goose populations.

We should avoid being the idiots teaching, instead be the students learning from scholars.


----------



## Bobby Cox

Tony:

I'm a waterfowl biologist who recently moved to South Dakota because of the uncontrolled commercialization of waterfowl hunting in North Dakota. A major part of the reason I moved was because I had grown tired and exasperated from fighting the battle to keep waterfowl hunting for the common man in North Dakota. I resolved that after I moved, I would no longer engage in the battle, but if you're going to wade in from afar on North Dakota issues and criticize North Dakota hunters for trying to maintain some semblance of their waterfowl hunting heritage by instituting limited controls on access and pressure on the resource, then I feel compelled to respond to your comments, your support of unlimited access to wildlife resources by nonresidents, your promotion of guides and outfitters, and your general failure to recognize and appropriately weight comments by true experts in wildlife management.

First, I applaud you for alerting waterfowl hunters to the current crisis regarding wetland protection laws. Hunters certainly need to be aware of the situation and encouraged to get involved politically to ensure that wetland and grassland habitat are protected and preserved to maintain huntable waterfowl populations in the future. However, the major point of your article was greatly diminished, and as demonstrated above was totally lost on many as a result, because in the process you felt compelled to unjustifiably criticize waterfowl hunters as being selfish for devoting time to the issue of restricting nonresident hunter numbers. When it gets right down to it, Tony, everyone is selfish and very few people care enough to get involved politically and devote large amounts of their personal time for a cause that doesn't benefit them or their children directly. If you stopped the average New Yorker on the street and asked them about wetland protection laws, they'd view hunters as being selfish for lobbying to protect wetlands so they and their children could hunt ducks in the future and farmers as being selfish for lobbying to drain wetlands so that they and their children could grow more crops that we don't need and make more money in the future. It's all a matter of scale and personal interests. You wrote what appeared to be a well-intentioned article with a very good message, but you ruined its message and effectiveness for North Dakota hunters by criticizing them for their involvement in nonresident hunter issues which with you disagree. In turn, you were quite justifiably criticized. You responded that you didn't need personal attacks, when in reality, it was your personal attack of North Dakota hunters that was most unneeded because their hands currently are full fighting the most immediate threat to their future waterfowl hunting. Maybe you and some of the economic interests you promote such as Randy Frost and Kyle Blanchfield would have more time to pursue wetland drainage laws right now because they currently seem to be winning the battle to commercialize duck hunting in North Dakota and because both their recreation and livelihoods are at stake.

Second, it is clear to me that you don't recognize the urgency of the current waterfowl hunting situation in North Dakota. I won't bore everyone here by restating facts and figures regarding trends in nonresidents hunter numbers, guides and outfitters, etc., but I will point out that it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of resident waterfowl hunters in North Dakota perceive the uncontrolled proliferation of nonresident hunters, guides, and outfitters as a major threat to their current and future hunting opportunities. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find an intruder standing over my bed with a butcher knife in his hand, my most immediate concern is that I'll be killed by stabbing. I find no consolation whatsoever in you telling me that my real concern should be getting shot by an intruder because homeowners, in general, are 100 times more likely to be shot than stabbed during break-ins, and therefore gunshots are my biggest threat. By the same token, North Dakota hunters take little solace in you telling them that wetland drainage is the biggest threat to their future waterfowl hunting because the intruder standing over their waterfowl hunting heritage right now is holding in his hand an enormous proliferation of nonresident hunters, guides, and outfitters, not drained wetlands.

Third, you've consistently opposed caps on nonresident waterfowl hunters and you often state that the waterfowl resources in South Dakota, particularly northeastern South Dakota, are underutilized, which simply is not true. The fact that you can ride through many parts of South Dakota and see ducks sitting on ponds that aren't being hunted at that particular time is good, not bad. At what point do you consider the waterfowl resources properly utilized---when the vast majority of ponds don't have ducks as in many parts of North Dakota? I encourage you to drive by and check the motels and hunting activity around Webster in late October on your way to film a guided hunt in North Dakota. I think you'll find plenty of hunting activity.

Fourth, you've stated that restrictions on nonresident waterfowl hunters in South Dakota has not improved waterfowl hunting quality. I don't think you could be more wrong, and I think you'd find this to be the case if you did some waterfowl hunting on your own in South Dakota. The only commercialized waterfowl hunting I've found in South Dakota is for Canada geese right around Pierre. This also happens to be the home of a certain TV personality who regularly promotes commercialized hunting (you) and also where the greatest number of nonresident waterfowl hunting licenses is available. Do you think this is a coincidence?



> Dean Nelson, as I wrote you in a private email, you make a mistake if you try to attack me. I'm a better communicator than you are. What you have done is take A LOT of statements out of context. I am in the television business and I will not apologize for working with guides. TV costs a lot of money, more than you'll realize, probably a lot more than your tuition. With limited time in North Dakota, because of non-resident license requirements and expenses, I have only a few days to produce a product. Don't criticize another until you've walked in his boots. And you are many years and lots of experience short of fitting in mine.
> 
> And if you think I do not know my way around the outdoors (as you and fellow student, Matt Jones, who started this thread have implied), I will only say this. I'm 62 years old, grew up on a North Dakota farm, and have hunted in more states under more conditions, for more species, with more outstanding and knowledgeable hunters in just the past 10 years, than you as a student, have in a lifetime. I know how to scout, arrange and deploy decoys, call, and shoot as well as any of you. No boasting, just fact. And I suspect I have hunted as many days in North Dakota over the past 50 years as any of you, and certainly that includes Keith. In addition to that, I know my way around all types of fishing tackle, lakes, rivers, reservoirs, and I suspect of all TV and radio hosts, know at least as much about the conservation field.


Concerning your use of guides and outfitters to produce your show, I find the above 2 paragraphs quite contradictory. Folks who specialize in animal behavior (called ethologists) break the predation cycle into 5 parts, and duck hunting certainly is predation. These 5 parts are: (1) search, (2) pursue (3) attack, (4) capture, and (5) handle. Despite your self-proclaimed hunting prowess, including scouting, it seems that you don't have time to conduct the early portions of the predation cycle for your own hunting and for producing your show. Ask yourself this: Purely from an outfitter's perspective, why would they lease land? Leasing land, and thus excluding other hunters from pursuing the wildlife (which they own) on it, surely detracts from the bottom line (profit margin) of outfitters. When I moved to North Dakota in 1995, I easily could have guided waterfowl hunters on land that was unposted. The reason that land leasing by North Dakota outfitters has proliferated to such an extent in recent years is because waterfowl hunting on unposted land has deteriorated and become unreliable from a business perspective. Continued increase in the numbers of nonresidents that come to North Dakota to hunt will result in greater deterioration of waterfowl hunting on remaining accessible lands, greater potential client base for outfitters, and greater demand for the services of outfitters. I have little interest in watching your TV show where you arrive and film the attack, capture, and handling phases of the predation cycle with an outfitter, and I think you'd recognize the urgency of the current situation regarding nonresident hunters, guides, and outfitters if you personally were involved in the early forms of the predation cycle. Anybody, as you've regularly demonstrated, can show up and shoot the birds after someone else has found them and restricted all others' access to them except yours. If you do take the time to actually freelance hunt in North Dakota in the near future, I hope you'll take to heart your own advice about "Packing along a bunch of Pugsley's sandwiches" because you're gonna be riding and searching a long time between good duck hunts on lands that are unposted or otherwise accessible to most who might ask for permission to hunt.

Your above statement about Ron Reynolds and Ron Stromstad "making their livings from the resource", and as such, comparing them to guides and outfitters by inference, couldn't be more misleading. These wildlife professionals, who individually have forgotten more about waterfowl and waterfowl hunting than you'll ever know, are paid by conservationists and taxpayers to manage a publicly owned trust resource for all to enjoy. Hunters and the general public benefit from their work, and these professionals have made a huge sacrifice in terms of money to work with a group of animals that they truly love and care about. In contrast, guides and outfitters make a living by restricting the general public's enjoyment of a resource that they own in order to provide a service to a select few hunters who are willing to pay them for accessing the wildlife. If guides and outfitters are going to make a living by exploiting a resource held in public trust, they should be heavily taxed (no differently than truck drivers who make a living by exploiting publicly owned roads). And those who use their services should be heavily taxed as well, particularly if they're using their services to also make money for themselves, as you do.

I'll conclude with this, Tony. You and many other outdoor writers routinely demonstrate that you lack considerable knowledge and understanding on the subject matter of your articles, and that your opinions often are ill-founded. You clearly lack the knowledge, education, and training, and thus are not qualified, to make statements to the effect that Mike Johnson and others at North Dakota Game and Fish should be ashamed for developing the Hunting Pressure Concept. Should waterfowl managers in California and most other states also be ashamed for allowing only a fixed number of hunters to participate on public hunting areas because otherwise the areas would be too crowded? Even worse, you in particular regularly demonstrate not only that you yourself are poorly informed, but also that you do not recognize and give due weight to the opinions of true experts when you are fortunate enough to have one spend time with you discussing a subject. You state that you have great respect for Ron Reynolds, who is a true expert, yet you regularly disagree with him. That should tell you something. And after your above lack of professional discretion in disclosing the affiliations of some of these folks, I would be amazed if they would give you the time of day, which is far more than you deserve. I hope that someday sportsmen will realize that the fact that someone is a well-known outdoor writer or television personality doesn't make them an expert or even well informed---in fact, you're proof that it's an indication of the opposite. No one can be an expert on many things and all of us are ignorant on the majority of subjects. But your repeatedly demonstrated lack of ability in discriminating true experts from other poorly informed individuals such as yourself strongly indicates that you would be a very poor choice for congressional representative. I guess I now can add to my list of benefits of moving to South Dakota that I can vote against you.


----------



## djleye

Mr. Cox, That is the most well thought out and best letter I have seen since I joined this web site. I wish you were still a ND resident because we need more like you here!! Thank you.


----------



## KEN W

Wow.....as they say in the cartoons....POW,ZAP,SMACK,SOCK,SPLAT


----------



## Qwack

Interesting post Mr. Cox. Thanks for weighing in.


----------



## MRN

Excellent post Dr. Cox.

M.


----------



## 2labs

Now that is SHOCK and AWE Bobby!

I am proud to know you!


----------



## Fetch

I didn't know BatMan lived in Bottineau ??? :lol:


----------



## Maverick

~MR. COX~ Well said!!! :beer:

Mav...


----------



## KEN W

Great post Mr. Cox!!!

Fetch...I need a sidekick...can you be Robin...Can you say "Holy ducks Batman."


----------



## grizzly

way too much whining going on.If you (the ones complaining) care so much about hunting pressure,I have a suggestion.If you will stay home this season and dream about how great of hunters you are and let others hunt instead there wouldnt be a need for the so called 2048.because in most of your minds you are like GOD .there is no way (in your eyes)tony could compete with your so called freelance abilities uke:


----------



## djleye

HUH!!!!!!! What are you talking about Griz?? :eyeroll:


----------



## Miller

Ya grizzly, you lost me too???


----------



## C Kiedrowski

Griz-If thats all you got out of Mr. Cox's post . . . I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Tony Dean

I was not going to post on this site anymore. But I will this time, for the last time. This is my response to Mr. Cox.

Tony Dean



> Tony:
> 
> I'm a waterfowl biologist who recently moved to South Dakota because of the uncontrolled commercialization of waterfowl hunting in North Dakota. A major part of the reason I moved was because I had grown tired and exasperated from fighting the battle to keep waterfowl hunting for the common man in North Dakota. I resolved that after I moved, I would no longer engage in the battle, but if you're going to wade in from afar on North Dakota issues and criticize North Dakota hunters for trying to maintain some semblance of their waterfowl hunting heritage by instituting limited controls on access and pressure on the resource, then I feel compelled to respond to your comments, your support of unlimited access to wildlife resources by nonresidents, your promotion of guides and outfitters, and your general failure to recognize and appropriately weight comments by true experts in wildlife management.


I grew up in North Dakota and live in South Dakota. That is hardly afar. I do not support unlimited access. Non-residents pay significantly more for the privilege and have contributed more dollars to maintaining resources. I only give a guide or outfitter a credit on my show. I do not know how you define a true expert. However, I have interviewed and presented the views of leading wildlife biologists in my work; radio, television, and print for many years. You have probably not been around long enough to have seen or heard any of this.



> First, I applaud you for alerting waterfowl hunters to the current crisis regarding wetland protection laws. Hunters certainly need to be aware of the situation and encouraged to get involved politically to ensure that wetland and grassland habitat are protected and preserved to maintain huntable waterfowl populations in the future. However, the major point of your article was greatly diminished, and as demonstrated above was totally lost on many as a result, because in the process you felt compelled to unjustifiably criticize waterfowl hunters as being selfish for devoting time to the issue of restricting nonresident hunter numbers. When it gets right down to it, Tony, everyone is selfish and very few people care enough to get involved politically and devote large amounts of their personal time for a cause that doesn't benefit them or their children directly. If you stopped the average New Yorker on the street and asked them about wetland protection laws, they'd view hunters as being selfish for lobbying to protect wetlands so they and their children could hunt ducks in the future and farmers as being selfish for lobbying to drain wetlands so that they and their children could grow more crops that we don't need and make more money in the future. It's all a matter of scale and personal interests. You wrote what appeared to be a well-intentioned article with a very good message, but you ruined its message and effectiveness for North Dakota hunters by criticizing them for their involvement in nonresident hunter issues which with you disagree. In turn, you were quite justifiably criticized. You responded that you didn't need personal attacks, when in reality, it was your personal attack of North Dakota hunters that was most unneeded because their hands currently are full fighting the most immediate threat to their future waterfowl hunting. Maybe you and some of the economic interests you promote such as Randy Frost and Kyle Blanchfield would have more time to pursue wetland drainage laws right now because they currently seem to be winning the battle to commercialize duck hunting in North Dakota and because both their recreation and livelihoods are at stake.


This is not about New York. According to the newest edition of Delta Waterfowl Magazine, about 60 percent of all ducks raised on this continent are raised in North and South Dakota. Therefore, retention of wetlands and grass should be the highest priority for hunters. Your disdain for outdoor writers is apparent but who is going to inform hunters of the seriousness of the situation? The article that appears elsewhere on this site, authored by Peter Harriman of the SF Argus Leader, is a result of numerous conversations between he and I. Peter and I are close friends as are most of the biologists quoted in the article.

North Dakota resident hunters represent a small portion of America's waterfowl hunters. And while you admit my article was good otherwise, it is certainly possible it didn't resonate with a specific group of North Dakota hunters. It was written for a Minnesota magazine and I suspect it did resonate with them. Moreover, North Dakota hunters have not invested the same amount of money in preserving habitat there or anywhere else as have hunters from more populated states. I did not criticize all waterfowl hunters. It appears to me the opposition to non-residents in North Dakota is made up of a small, but very vocal segment of the waterfowl hunting community, and that they were not elected to represent all North Dakota hunters. Of course, if you pose the question in the simplest term, "would you like to keep all non-resident hunters from hunting waterfowl in North Dakota," the answer would be apparent. Duh! That type of question appeals to the lowest common denominator.

I have been deeply involved in most conservation battles on the Dakota prairies for nearly 30 years, and I have seen none of the same self-proclaimed freedom fighters, working to keep public lands open, or working on behalf of the wetland and waterfowl resource.

Randy Frost is doing his job. Kyle Blanchfield owns a business and was ND Small Businessman of the Year one year ago. I do not always agree with what he does, and say so when I visit with him. As for Randy, he hunts without guides and neither of us used guides when we hunted together last fall. We did the scouting and securing of access to land on our own as I have many times in the past, including the autumn before.



> Second, it is clear to me that you don't recognize the urgency of the current waterfowl hunting situation in North Dakota. I won't bore everyone here by restating facts and figures regarding trends in nonresidents hunter numbers, guides and outfitters, etc., but I will point out that it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of resident waterfowl hunters in North Dakota perceive the uncontrolled proliferation of nonresident hunters, guides, and outfitters as a major threat to their current and future hunting opportunities. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find an intruder standing over my bed with a butcher knife in his hand, my most immediate concern is that I'll be killed by stabbing. I find no consolation whatsoever in you telling me that my real concern should be getting shot by an intruder because homeowners, in general, are 100 times more likely to be shot than stabbed during break-ins, and therefore gunshots are my biggest threat. By the same token, North Dakota hunters take little solace in you telling them that wetland drainage is the biggest threat to their future waterfowl hunting because the intruder standing over their waterfowl hunting heritage right now is holding in his hand an enormous proliferation of nonresident hunters, guides, and outfitters, not drained wetlands.


How do you know the vast majority of North Dakota hunters share your views? Have you surveyed them? IF so, please post the results of that survey. I know a great number of North Dakota waterfowl hunters and not all of them support the view that there are too many non-residents. Those who cannot find a place to hunt, are not working very hard at it. If duck hunters can not see the threat to duck huntings future in the form of loss of wetlands and grasslands, then who will?



> Third, you've consistently opposed caps on nonresident waterfowl hunters and you often state that the waterfowl resources in South Dakota, particularly northeastern South Dakota, are underutilized, which simply is not true. The fact that you can ride through many parts of South Dakota and see ducks sitting on ponds that aren't being hunted at that particular time is good, not bad. At what pointdo you consider the waterfowl resources properly utilized---when the vast majority of ponds don't have ducks as in many parts of North Dakota? I encourage you to drive by and check the motels and hunting activity around Webster in late October on your way to film a guided hunt in North Dakota. I think you'll find plenty of hunting activity.


Man, you sure see a different North and South Dakota than I do. I daresay I have traveled the wetland areas in these states more than you have since you apparently just moved here. And, I have checked the motels in the Webster area. I do not think they will agree with you. I hunt those areas each fall. My point is, there are not many duck hunters, even on weekends. Ask any conservation officer in South Dakota duck country how many duck hunters he sees. That might be good for the few hunters in the field, but I'm not sure it is good for the resource over the long haul. No hunters, no political support for hunting. Most waterfowlers in both states are hunting geese. In addition, your view of underutilized might be different than mine. Either way, it is subjective.



> Fourth, you've stated that restrictions on nonresident waterfowl hunters in South Dakota has not improved waterfowl hunting quality. I don't think you could be more wrong, and I think you'd find this to be the case if you did some waterfowl hunting on your own in South Dakota.


Why do you keep making statements with no basis in truth? I hunt South Dakota waterfowl each fall and wager I spend more days afield than you have in South Dakota. And I do it all on my own. Your statements are not only baseless, they are frankly, insulting. Do you make waterfowl management decisions the same way? .



> The only commercialized waterfowl hunting I've found in South Dakota is for Canada geese right around Pierre. This also happens to be the home of a certain TV personality who regularly promotes commercialized hunting (you) and also where the greatest number of nonresident waterfowl hunting licenses is available. Do you think this is a coincidence?


This is a cheap shot, guilt through location. I had nothing to do with the issuance of more licenses. Moreover, this area was just as commercialized when I moved here in 1968 than it is today. And if you think there's no commercialization in eastern South Dakota, then you haven't hunted very much in South Dakota. You seem to know something about the Webster area and if that is the case, why are you not aware of Dave Hansen's commercial hunting area? And he is not the only one.

Quote:	
Dean Nelson, as I wrote you in a private email, you make a mistake if you try to attack me. I'm a better communicator than you are. What you have done is take A LOT of statements out of context. I am in the television business and I will not apologize for working with guides. TV costs a lot of money, more than you'll realize, probably a lot more than your tuition. With limited time in North Dakota, because of non-resident license requirements and expenses, I have only a few days to produce a product. Don't criticize another until you've walked in his boots. And you are many years and lots of experience short of fitting in mine.

And if you think I do not know my way around the outdoors (as you and fellow student, Matt Jones, who started this thread have implied), I will only say this. I'm 62 years old, grew up on a North Dakota farm, and have hunted in more states under more conditions, for more species, with more outstanding and knowledgeable hunters in just the past 10 years, than you as a student, have in a lifetime. I know how to scout, arrange and deploy decoys, call, and shoot as well as any of you. No boasting, just fact. And I suspect I have hunted as many days in North Dakota over the past 50 years as any of you, and certainly that includes Keith. In addition to that, I know my way around all types of fishing tackle, lakes, rivers, reservoirs, and I suspect of all TV and radio hosts, know at least as much about the conservation field.



> Concerning your use of guides and outfitters to produce your show, I find the above 2 paragraphs quite contradictory. Folks who specialize in animal behavior (called ethologists) break the predation cycle into 5 parts, and duck hunting certainly is predation. These 5 parts are: (1) search, (2) pursue (3) attack, (4) capture, and (5) handle. Despite your self-proclaimed hunting prowess, including scouting, it seems that you don't have time to conduct the early portions of the predation cycle for your own hunting and for producing your show.


You know nothing about television production, and you certainly do not know anything about my time schedule. You have not walked in my shoes, thus you do not know what you're talking about. If you were to take a look at the waterfowling pieces I have produced over the past five years, you would then find how wrong you are. Those who say otherwise only remember what they want to remember.



> Ask yourself this: Purely from an outfitter's perspective, why would they lease land? Leasing land, and thus excluding other hunters from pursuing the wildlife (which they own) on it, surely detracts from the bottom line (profit margin) of outfitters. When I moved to North Dakota in 1995, I easily could have guided waterfowl hunters on land that was unposted. The reason that land leasing by North Dakota outfitters has proliferated to such an extent in recent years is because waterfowl hunting on unposted land has deteriorated and become unreliable from a business perspective. Continued increase in the numbers of nonresidents that come to North Dakota to hunt will result in greater deterioration of waterfowl hunting on remaining accessible lands, greater potential client base for outfitters, and greater demand for the services of outfitters.


Finally, something we can agree on. I do not favor outfitters leasing land and never have favored it. Those I have talked with about this, including Kyle Blanchfield, can tell you I have always felt this way. But you and others frequenting this website will believe what you want to believe.



> I have little interest in watching your TV show where you arrive and film the attack, capture, and handling phases of the predation cycle with an outfitter, and I think you'd recognize the urgency of the current situation regarding nonresident hunters, guides, and outfitters if you personally were involved in the early forms of the predation cycle.


So please do not watch it. And it is apparent you have not. I have done numerous shows over the past decade in which I have made scouting a significant part of the show. It happened in two shows I shot last year; once at Kenmare, ND and another in McPherson Co. SD. But you cannot do every single segment identical to the way you did the previous one. As for showing up and shooting, I think you could direct that criticism at the Ducks Unlimited show. That's all they do and I cannot remember seeing one that didn't involve an outfitter. By the way, my show has compiled the highest Nielsen ratings of any outdoor show, broadcast or cable, for about 15 consecutive years. And, during that same time period, has won over 140 national and regional programming awards. Ratings indicate many like it. Awards indicate Judges rank it high.



> Anybody, as you've regularly demonstrated, can show up and shoot the birds after someone else has found them and restricted all others' access to them except yours. If you do take the time to actually freelance hunt in North Dakota in the near future, I hope you'll take to heart your own advice about "Packing along a bunch of Pugsley's sandwiches" because you're gonna be riding and searching a long time between good duck hunts on lands that are unposted or otherwise accessible to most who might ask for permission to hunt.


See the above and reread it. And I did exactly what you said this past fall near Devils Lake. No guide, no outfitter and Randy Frost and myself scouted on our own, and hunted on two pieces of private land, one posted, one not posted. We spent a full day scouting.



> Your above statement about Ron Reynolds and Ron Stromstad "making their livings from the resource", and as such, comparing them to guides and outfitters by inference, couldn't be more misleading. These wildlife professionals, who individually have forgotten more about waterfowl and waterfowl hunting than you'll ever know, are paid by conservationists and taxpayers to manage a publicly owned trust resource for all to enjoy. Hunters and the general public benefit from their work, and these professionals have made a huge sacrifice in terms of money to work with a group of animals that they truly love and care about. In contrast, guides and outfitters make a living by restricting the general public's enjoyment of a resource that they own in order to provide a service to a select few hunters who are willing to pay them for accessing the wildlife. If guides and outfitters are going to make a living by exploiting a resource held in public trust, they should be heavily taxed (no differently than truck drivers who make a living by exploiting publicly owned roads). And those who use their services should be heavily taxed as well, particularly if they're using their services to also make money for themselves, as you do.


I agree that the wildlife resource is a publicly owned trust. And that means these birds belong to the people of the United States, Canada and Mexico, not just North Dakota residents. They are lucky enough to live in one of the last, best places on Earth and the last great bastion of free hunting.

The two Rons DO make their living from the resource, just as you and I do. But do not say all of the taxpayers who pay their salaries are conservationists. Some may be, many others are not. Check out the current Delta Waterfowl magazine and read about how waterfowl management is the only business in the world for which practicioners are paid for their input and not output.

Just the same, I do respect these guys and the only place Ron Reynolds and I have disagreed that I am aware of is the old compensatory/additive mortality argument and even many biologists disagree on that one. The legendary Art Hawkins, the first student teacher under Aldo Leopold, told me both views are correct. "When ducks are plentiful, mortality is compensatory, but when the populations are low, mortality is additive. Thus, I believe it was compensatory in the 50's, 70's and part of the 90's. Otherwise, harvest has been additive. I am not alone in believing we are harvesting too many ducks and if capping is necessary in North Dakota, it should be due to excessive harvest. North Dakota moved into the number five position among harvest states. And also, if capping is necessary, residents should also be capped. And along those same lines, why not also cap Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and California?

Yes, so Ron Stromstead and Ron Reynolds made sacrifices to do what they love. So what? Who hasn't made sacrifices? True, they may know more about waterfowl than I know, but it is purely your judgement that either knows more about hunting. And since you have not hunted with me, it's one you aren't qualified to make.

Notice also that I have not defended guides and outfitters. We'd all probably be better off had they never showed up. But this is not about what it once was, it is reality, it is what is.

And is it not a bit pushy of you to suggest these biologists should not work with me? They both have in the past, always, and even when we do not agree, it is on a friendly basis. Not the grind them into the ground and kick them in the balls type of attack that seems to play so well on this website.



> I'll conclude with this, Tony. You and many other outdoor writers routinely demonstrate that you lack considerable knowledge and understanding on the subject matter of your articles, and that your opinions often are ill-founded.


My, my, are we getting a wee bit petty? Insulting, too.



> You clearly lack the knowledge, education, and training, and thus are not qualified, to make statements to the effect that Mike Johnson and others at North Dakota Game and Fish should be ashamed for developing the Hunting Pressure Concept.


Do you suggest only a trained waterfowl biologist can make that judgement? If so, how are you, a biologist, qualified to judge me in all of these areas? I think what was done fits more under social engineering than waterfowl biology. Any plan that says the numbers of non-resident hunters will be based on assessing duck numbers and wetland conditions, but resident hunters will not be factored in when we're talking about an international resource, is suspect.

Harold Deubbert, who has many more years of waterfowl management experience than Mike has, believes, as I do, that if the forecast is meager and the wetlands are dry, hunters won't come to North Dakota.



> Should waterfowl managers in California and most other states also be ashamed for allowing only a fixed number of hunters to participate on public hunting areas because otherwise the areas would be too crowded?


You can't compare California with North or South Dakota. They have so many more people than we do. Example: In order to fish the world-famous largemouth bass reservoirs in San Diego, you must draw for the right to launch.



> Even worse, you in particular regularly demonstrate not only that you yourself are poorly informed, but also that you do not recognize and give due weight to the opinions of true experts when you are fortunate enough to have one spend time with you discussing a subject.


Boy, you are a cheap shot artist. When did I not give "due weight" to an expert on any of my radio shows, magazine articles or television shows. And if that were true, I doubt I would have received honors from the North and South Dakota wildlife societies in recent years. I would not have received the Jade of Chiefs award, the highest conservation communication award issued by the Outdoor Writers Association of America or the Chief's Award from Mike Dombeck, 14th Chief of the US Forest Service.



> You state that you have great respect for Ron Reynolds, who is a true expert, yet you regularly disagree with him. That should tell you something.


See other references to Ron Reynolds and tell me where I am disagreeing with him. On this issue, yes, but whether I am right or wrong is subjective. And while Ron and I might occasionally disagree, as noted earlier, it's on a friendly basis with mutual respect. Ron's expertise is waterfowl biology.



> And after your above lack of professional discretion in disclosing the affiliations of some of these folks, I would be amazed if they would give you the time of day, which is far more than you deserve. I hope that someday sportsmen will realize that the fact that someone is a well-known outdoor writer or television personality doesn't make them an expert or even well informed---in fact, you're proof that it's an indication of the opposite. No one can be an expert on many things and all of us are ignorant on the majority of subjects. But your repeatedly demonstrated lack of ability in discriminating true experts from other poorly informed individuals such as yourself strongly indicates that you would be a very poor choice for congressional representative. I guess I now can add to my list of benefits of moving to South Dakota that I can vote against you.


Do you call your remarks professional? Well, I hope my closing words give you even more reason to vote against me. I can not understand how someone who claims to be a biologist (I am curious as to where you have worked in the past and now work in South Dakota, since I have never heard of you until now) can make such unprofessional charges and deliver so many cheap shots. And where does it say that obtaining a degree in biology makes you an expert?

I have not yet decided to run for the US Congress from South Dakota, but I do invite you to compare former SD Gov. Bill Janklow's conservation credentials with mine. Now that you're here in South Dakota, ask anyone in the GFP who it was that gagged the SD Game,Fish & Parks department when the NRCS tried to change the way wetlands were delineated.

Ask also who wrote article after article about the issue and kept it in the public eye. Then examine the former Governor's record on all fish and wildlife issues.

Finally, I really can not recall asking for your vote.

If you favor wetland drainage, you probably should vote for former Gov. Janklow. And if he does not run, the likely GOP candidate will be Larry Diedrich, an Elkton, SD farmer and legislator who is the one who convinced Janklow wetland drainage was good.

Go ahead, cast your vote upon the waters

If they're still there.

In closing, I already said I am outta here. I can't tell you how disappointed I am in some of you. You seem to revel in personal attacks and applaud those who deliver them. If anyone expresses an opinion that is in opposition to the dozen or so folks who dominate this website, you kick, scratch, gouge and pile on. There is no meaningful debate here, just attack, attack, attack. I grew up in North Dakota and spend many days in my home state each year. I can honestly say people with attitudes such as those expressed on this website are certainly in the minority of North Dakotans.


----------



## Dick Monson

Bobby, Mr Dean would like to see a copy of the survey. THE survey. Please post it.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Tony Dean said:


> In closing, I already said I am outta here. I can't tell you how disappointed I am in some of you. You seem to revel in personal attacks and applaud those who deliver them. If anyone expresses an opinion that is in opposition to the dozen or so folks who dominate this website, you kick, scratch, gouge and pile on. There is no meaningful debate here, just attack, attack, attack. I grew up in North Dakota and spend many days in my home state each year. I can honestly say people with attitudes such as those expressed on this website are certainly in the minority of North Dakotans.


Tony,

With all due respect, I do not feel you need to attack all of the work put into the site and disrespect it, and it's members as a whole, because a few are vocal against your opinion. North Dakota hunting, and the politics behind it are drastically changing in a very short time as you're aware. I think you will find that the members of this site (most don't even post, but support the site for more than the forum) are some of the most supportive and active sportsmen found anywhere these days. Many hours are put into something we believe in, and as a result we get backlash from those we always felt close to in the outdoor community. At the end of the day, protecting the resource for everyone is something we all agree on, but in different ways and for different reasons and at different times. We are far from the minority, there's just only a few of us who choose to post in an Internet forum. I can admit myself, at times my emotions get to me. I guess it hurts a little when something you strongly believe in appears a little further and further away each year and people you respect throw it in your face. Although opportunities in North Dakota are still abundant, certainly you can see the direction it's headed, we're moving on but it's a little hard to swallow.

Heck, I remember being just a boy up at the Gateway Hotel in Westhope at 4 a.m. as Reda fed us all breakfast before we ventured out in the countryside. I shot my first goose that morning, and you were apart of my first real experience whether you know it or not. And I'm sure I'm not alone as most here probably remembered growing up with Tony Dean as well in one form or another. You were the voice of the Dakotas. Seeing us at opposite ends on an issue we support decades later is just a little difficult to take initially. I felt you could've gotten your point across in the article without stereotyping all hunters in 2 states, but I won't attack you for it, we'll just have to disagree. But I mean you no disrespect, I hope the same is in return and for many on this site as well.

I wish you luck if you venture into the political arena. I, and I'm sure most here wouldn't be able to do it, nor would we be prepared for the backlash that would come with it. I hope you're prepared as well.


----------



## Qwack

Interesting reply Mr. Dean--thanks for posting.


----------



## Fetch

I'm kinda shocked at the pot calling the kettle black ???

Is this a re-run of Grumpy old men ???

I'm disapointed how such a once admired hunting & fishing show host - is so affected by folks that dis-agree with him ???

I am also bewildered how he thinks he is such an authority on so many things ??? & that we should be in awe of his opinions ???

Lighten up Tony !!! you of all people should be thicker skinned & realize we are as passionate about this issue, as people can be. You sir are as wrong about your views as any from the commercial sides of all this (& your attitude is just as BAD as theirs too) & you sound like a Non Resident trying to keep your foot in the door & it's sad to see you behave in such a Me Me Me I can give, but I should not have to take - Na NaNa NaNa Na coming out of a 62 yr old man :roll:

Attacks ??? anything that could be remotely considered an attack has been & was immediately deleted - You come in here & think we are going to take a tongue lashing from you & not tell you how we feel is laughable, if it were not so sad.

You can no more relate to what being a ND Freelance hunter has been like, than all the rest of the politicians & commercial & hospitality folks - (only thing you had & they didn't was your show & name) :roll: That is not enough to be worthy of ND becoming like SD is for pheasants. You sound like you have become a legend in your own mind ???

If you can't debate in a HOT TOPICS Forum - without posting & running away mad. Then I'd suggest you stay out of them. If we followed your forum advice 1/2 of what you wrote would be deleted too.

As if losing you, or your opinions is that big of a deal :eyeroll: I'll tell ya, if you act like this on your shows - It won't be on much longer.

BYE !!!


----------



## bioman

Tony:



> See the above and reread it. And I did exactly what you said this past fall near Devils Lake. No guide, no outfitter and Randy Frost and myself scouted on our own, and hunted on two pieces of private land, one posted, one not posted. We spent a full day scouting.


Please answer one question: Since you indeed did hunt with Mr. Frost, how much were you paid by the Devils Lake Chamber of Commerce for the honor, I mean advertisement?


----------



## prairie hunter

Most Politicians and TV personalities maybe of different colors but they appear to be from the same breed.

You just really never know who you are dealing with so....

Watch your back. oke:

When in contact with either, protect yourself and keep your butt pushed tight against that wall. :wink:


----------



## GooseBuster3

Tony, how about acouple of High School Graduates take you out on a goose hunt, and we will show you we know just as much as you. Come on you have nothing to loose. Hunter to hunter we can discusse the hunting probablems that have uponed use Nd residents. We can discusse every asspect of what we think is knocking right on our door step, plus you will get the views from a couple of 18 year olds that would do anything for the sport of waterfowling. 
Tony, just think about what I have said and let me know, you could have alot of fun.


----------



## C Kiedrowski

Tony, if you actually hunted the Devil's Lake area last year and scouted yourself, how could you possibly say ND doesn't need to limit nonresidents. Every time I scouted last year, with the exception of the res only opener, I was discouraged by the amount of hunters. 4-5 vehicles watching the same feed is a sad sight, and not because I'm greedy and want the field for myself but because that is not hunting. Maybe in other states, but not ND. 
North Dakota is a unique state and there is no reason we shouldn't be able preserve those qualities that give her that distinctiveness.
If you're going into politics you will have to learn to see the big picture and not be blindfolded by a few individuals.


----------



## GooseBuster3

Good way of saying it Keidro. I noticed the same thing. While we sit and watch a flock of maybe 800 birds work a field, there are guys coming as fast as they can to see what is going on. Well we got permission first and what do you know the next morning there were guys totally surrounding use the the adjacent fields, not to mention 2 groups were using E-callers. 
Well we shot our limit and got the hell out of there to let let the birds com in and feed. As you would know it the second we pulled up to the farmers front door to say thank you, there were guys rushing into the farm to see if they could go and hunt the field, while there where birds landing in it as they were speaking to him, come on cant these birds ever get a break. It just crazy on how concentrated the hunters are up around the DL area.


----------



## Fetch

Ken - I'd prefer to be Howard the Duck :wink:

Howard The Duck (1986)
The cigar-smoking, wise-quacking comic book canard makes the leap to the screen in this fantasy/adventure laced with laughter. Can a 3-foot-tall, talking duck find happiness in Cleveland with a female rock singer and defeat an extradimensional demon bent on conquering Earth? Lea Thompson, Jeffrey Jones, Tim Robbins star; George Lucas produced.










???


----------



## waunderer

I have just spent the last hour reading all the post on this topic and i still have not yet heard an answer that is truelly the position of the general hunter, landowner perspective.

Here's mine, I'am the land owner that let Tony & Randy hunt to do the show. Did they get special privlage? No way. The first time they contacted me I had already told some young hunters from Valley City that they could hunt this particular feild as they were struggling to have a good hunt. These young men called me on my cell phone, which they had from my poster and asked if there was a chance to hunt this field. I was only about 2 miles away at the time and drove over to meet with them and discuss with them the reasons that I post the property in the first place and the fact that I did not allow blasting on the water. They agreed to this and had a great hunt in a field setting. Now is where I have a to descibe this hunting area 195 acres of wet land property that we have dammed and added water to for habitat. Dense nesting cover grass seeded to promote nesting. surrounded by barley, corn, state land and other hunting areas, this my brother and I did to help with the hunting at our own expense, have you ever tried to talk a farmer into idleing land to promote water fowl at their own expense and gotten it done. The second day when I was contacted by Tony the same discussions I had with the young men from Valley City took place. Did he get special treatment no he did not, was it a set up hunt no way. Most of the water was frozen in the area few Birds flying to larger sloughs about 2 miles away. Tough conditions for any seasoned hunter. Did they put in a full day yes they did, I happen to have a hill about 3/4 mile away that i can see for about 2 miles in any direction to watch what is going on, those boys worked their butts off to get the birds ,quite fun watching from a nice and warm pick-up when it's in the 20's with wind blowing about 20 out of the NW.

I have had several sportsmen contact me about hunting this same parcel and it did not matter if they were rich or poor, young or old , famous or a nobody, the answer and the rules are the same if the pressure is not to great and the rules are respected certainly you can hunt this parcel, could I make a fortune off of this area probably, would it make my brother happy you bet. Have I allowed guides to hunt it yes I have, did I get paid for it , no, did i want anything, no Did they offer yes they did.

Now I do not feel as if I did something out of the ordinary Just FOR TONY DEAN he was just a curtious as were the young men from Valley City and both parties trully understood what was expected from the sportsmen that hunt this area. Just to let you know I have a 12 year old son that is a fanatic when it comes to hunting and he is starting to understand that preservation of habitat is the key to long term oppertunities in the waterfowl arena.

Just my thoughts on the issue


----------



## grizzly

goosebuster
why would tony want to hunt with some 18 yr olds who think they know it all and would probally just attack him anyways


----------



## Bobby Cox

Tony:

It would take me a long time and a lot of text to respond to each of your points, as you did mine. In the interest of not boring everyone here to death in a big urinating contest, I'll be as brief as possible and only respond to your most salient points, and will avoid the petty ones. I'm also going to try my dead-level best not to insult you during my response. I really don't expect to change your opinions based on anything that follows, but I spend this time responding to you in hopes that I might influence the opinions of others who read this.



> I grew up in North Dakota and live in South Dakota. That is hardly afar. I do not support unlimited access. Non-residents pay significantly more for the privilege and have contributed more dollars to maintaining resources.


Regardless of how near you live to North Dakota and where you were raised, if you don't live there now, it's not your fight. I think you're going to have to explain to me as well as everyone else here the apparent contradiction of how you can oppose caps on nonresident waterfowl hunters and how you simultaneously do not support unlimited access because nonresidents pay more for the privilege. If I pay enough, should I be able to shoot a bighorn sheep each year in any state of my choosing?



> I do not know how you define a true expert. However, I have interviewed and presented the views of leading wildlife biologists in my work; radio, television, and print for many years. You have probably not been around long enough to have seen or heard any of this.


An expert waterfowl biologist, in my opinion, is someone who has clearly demonstrated through peer-reviewed publications or by peer-recognition that he is an authority on a given aspect of waterfowl ecology and management. I'll list a just few of these folks, who primarily do research, off the top of my head and their areas of expertise:

Ron Reynolds-breeding ecology of dabbling ducks, farm policy, and harvest management
Todd Arnold-breeding ecology of dabbling ducks, predator ecology
Al Afton-lesser scaup, nutrient-reserve dynamics, wintering and breeding waterfowl ecology
Dave Ankney-lesser snow geese, black ducks, nutrient-reserve dynamics, postbreeding waterfowl, hunter behavior
Fred Johnson and Mike Runge-adaptive harvest management
Al Sargeant, Marsha Sovada, Bill Clark, and Serge Lariviere-predator ecology and management
Rick Kaminski-habitat management of wintering and breeding waterfowl
Gary Krapu-foraging and breeding ecology of dabbling ducks
Mike Anderson-canvasback and lesser scaup breeding ecology
Doug Johnson-anything he wants to be an expert on
Ray Alisauskas-arctic-nesting geese, nutrient-reserve dynamics
Jim Nichols-harvest and survival rates from banding analyses
Dan Neiman-white-fronted geese population dynamics and distribution

There also are a whole lot of other folks out there who are primarily involved in management who I also consider experts-two of them are the waterfowl biologists for both Dakotas, Spencer Vaa and Mike Johnson. I'll quickly admit that I haven't been an avid reader of your articles or an avid watcher of your TV shows, but I see your shows and read your articles from time to time and I did spend a long while reading several articles on your website a few weeks back. I don't recall any of these folks other than Ron Reynolds being consulted or mentioned in your articles, despite the relevance of these folks' areas of expertise to the subject matter. You are very quick to shower accolades on the author of a contribution to your website that shouts "We're killing too many ducks!" and criticizes adaptive harvest management with absolutely no data to support his contention. As a responsible outdoor writer (if you assume any responsibility for accurately reporting information to the public), you could at least check in with a few experts who have real data to address this unfounded concern before unnecessarily spreading fear among the duck-hunting public. You also might want to check in sometime with several of the predator ecology experts I've listed above to get a more well-rounded view of the predator control debate before encouraging duck hunters to jump whole-heartedly on the Delta Predator Control Bandwagon and off the DU Habitat Management Bandwagon. There's a whole lot of interesting topics you could write about that are current crises in waterfowl management, and justifiably use to stir up your readership. For example, did you know that the important northern regions in the upcoming May and July surveys are currently in jeopardy of not being surveyed because the flyway biologists can't get a waiver to fly their planes into this area because they're too heavy with the necessary fuel, even though they've gotten waivers in the past?

I've been doing waterfowl research for 15 years, which is not as long as you've been writing popular articles and making TV shows. While I certainly don't consider myself an expert, I'm also not a rookie. And if 15 years isn't long enough for me to be around to hear you talk to a lot of real experts, maybe you're not talking to many of the active experts today.



> This is not about New York. According to the newest edition of Delta Waterfowl Magazine, about 60 percent of all ducks raised on this continent are raised in North and South Dakota. Therefore, retention of wetlands and grass should be the highest priority for hunters.


First, I'll ignore the insult about New York. Second, there are much better places to get this kind of information other than Delta Waterfowl Magazine. Delta Waterfowl in the last few years has decided to get into the public membership business to support their programs. They take selected pieces of the real information from primary published literature and relay to readers the parts that support their programs, primarily predator control. I'm not saying this is bad, but I would give anything I read in Delta Waterfowl Magazine or any similar magazine aimed at recruiting membership for a narrowly focused goal far less credibility than something from a peer-reviewed paper. Again, I'm not saying they don't tell the truth, but they tell the parts that suit them best and leave out the parts that don't suit them. I agree that retention of wetlands and grass should be a consistent high priority for hunters, but other threats to waterfowl populations or waterfowl hunting can arise that demand more immediate attention.



> Your disdain for outdoor writers is apparent but who is going to inform hunters of the seriousness of the situation?


The only disdain I have for outdoor writers is that they often (usually) fail to get all the facts, consult the relevant experts, and weigh their opinions appropriately before launching off into left field on an issue. I think outdoor writers could do a much better job at researching their articles, and that waterfowl biologists should share in the blame for the lack of better communication between biologists and outdoor writers.



> Moreover, North Dakota hunters have not invested the same amount of money in preserving habitat there or anywhere else as have hunters from more populated states. I did not criticize all waterfowl hunters.


I see a strong influence of economics in this statement. So should hunting opportunity be allocated disproportionately based on how much money each hunter spends? What about those folks who choose to suffer economically by turning down higher paying jobs in other areas in order to live in a sparsely populated state or region like North Dakota primarily because the hunting should be great there? And yes, Tony, you did criticize all waterfowl hunters, and you said so yourself earlier in this thread:


> Read it all and I think it's safe to say I generally ripped my fellow duck hunters, not just North Dakotans, but southerners, Minnesotans, Iowans and yes, South Dakotans.





> It appears to me the opposition to non-residents in North Dakota is made up of a small, but very vocal segment of the waterfowl hunting community, and that they were not elected to represent all North Dakota hunters. ... How do you know the vast majority of North Dakota hunters share your views? Have you surveyed them? IF so, please post the results of that survey. I know a great number of North Dakota waterfowl hunters and not all of them support the view that there are too many non-residents. Those who cannot find a place to hunt, are not working very hard at it.


Sorry, Tony, but you're wrong on the composition of those involved with the nonresident issue in North Dakota, and wrong on your view that the majority of North Dakota hunters don't share the views of many on this site, just like you were wrong on the South Dakota trespass issue and wrong on the identity of Bioman. Turns out, I have surveyed North Dakota duck hunters, totally on my personal time, and I also used to be a North Dakota hunter. I tried twice to paste below the survey, which Ron Reynolds referred to in his letter on your site as statistically valid, but the formatting ran everything together and made it illegible. You can view an executive summary of it at http://www.ndsportsmen.org/pages/906961/index.htm and I'll be glad to provide with with any additional statistics (standard errors, confidence intervals, etc.) if you'd like to see them. Please note in particular the results from questions 7, 9, 10, and 11. Could it be that your distorted views on the nonresident and other issues arise because you move in circles that aren't representative of the average hunter?



> Randy Frost is doing his job.


There are a myriad of ways that Randy could encourage economic development for the Devils Lake region. I'd bet my last dollar that nowhere in Randy's job description does it state that he is required to totally ruin duck hunting for residents and nonresidents alike in the process of helping the area merchants making a living.



> Finally, something we can agree on. I do not favor outfitters leasing land and never have favored it. Those I have talked with about this, including Kyle Blanchfield, can tell you I have always felt this way. But you and others frequenting this website will believe what you want to believe.


When there are too many hunters competing for a limited resource, land leasing will become prevalent. It is the American way, and it is inevitable without a drought to interrupt it or legislation to prevent it. Ron Reynolds said the same thing in his letter on your site.



> And I did exactly what you said this past fall near Devils Lake. No guide, no outfitter and Randy Frost and myself scouted on our own, and hunted on two pieces of private land, one posted, one not posted. We spent a full day scouting.


Congratulations, you beat the odds. I'll rely on my own observations in the area, those of other hunters who I know or feel confident are good hunters, and on the survey results to assess how easy it is to freelance hunt in the Devils Lake area. By the way, there was no statistical difference in how the hunters in the Devils Lake region felt about caps versus those elsewhere. If there were more farmers like Waunderer, hunters certainly would have an easier row to hoe. The sad fact is there will be less and less like him if more and more people are vying for the same resource in the future. I'll bet he already knows more farmers in the area who share his brother's view than those who share his.



> The two Rons DO make their living from the resource, just as you and I do. But do not say all of the taxpayers who pay their salaries are conservationists. Some may be, many others are not. Check out the current Delta Waterfowl magazine and read about how waterfowl management is the only business in the world for which practitioners are paid for their input and not output.


I fully stand by my earlier comments and maintain that there is a big difference in the benefits to society and the wildlife resource itself made by wildlife professionals who manage the resource and those who exploit it for money such as guides and outfitters or those who use the resource to provide entertainment. If you're going to insist that the two Rons "make a living from the resource", you've got to admit they're one of the best bargains the taxpayers and/or conservationists ever got. See earlier comment on one of your primary sources of information, Delta Waterfowl Magazine. You know DU has a magazine also.



> And also, if capping is necessary, residents should also be capped. And along those same lines, why not also cap Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and California?


I think it is absolutely absurd that you would suggest that residents be capped. There aren't a lot of reasons to live in North Dakota, and the opportunity to have quality outdoor experiences is a major reason that many live there. Many, many hunters stated these exact thoughts in the comments section on the backs of the surveys. The states you listed are capped in terms of harvest and hunting opportunity-season lengths and bag limits are set at the flyway levels. The Atlantic Flyway gets most of its birds from the less productive area of eastern Canada and it historically had the most hunters, so they have the most restrictive seasons within years. The Mississippi and Central Flyways get their birds largely from the prairie pothole region, but the Mississippi Flyway has far more hunters, so it gets a more restrictive season than the Central Flyway.



> Boy, you are a cheap shot artist. When did I not give "due weight" to an expert on any of my radio shows, magazine articles or television shows. And if that were true, I doubt I would have received honors from the North and South Dakota wildlife societies in recent years. I would not have received the Jade of Chiefs award, the highest conservation communication award issued by the Outdoor Writers Association of America or the Chief's Award from Mike Dombeck, 14th Chief of the US Forest Service.


I'll again ignore your insults. The most recent time I recall you failed to give due weight to an expert's opinion was in your response to Ron Reynold's letter on your website regarding the nonresident hunter situation. I really don't care how many awards you've won-there aren't a whole lot of other fish swimming in your pond. I'm not going to sit down and critically review the recent articles on your website, but I often know the real opinions of the real experts using the real analyses from the real data on the subjects of many of your articles, and they're often totally different than yours.



> I have not yet decided to run for the US Congress from South Dakota, but I do invite you to compare former SD Gov. Bill Janklow's conservation credentials with mine. Now that you're here in South Dakota, ask anyone in the GFP who it was that gagged the SD Game,Fish & Parks department when the NRCS tried to change the way wetlands were delineated. Ask also who wrote article after article about the issue and kept it in the public eye. Then examine the former Governor's record on all fish and wildlife issues. Finally, I really can not recall asking for your vote.


As much as I'd hate to see wetland drainage, drained wetlands can be restored, and there's a wealth of information indicating that ducks use restored wetlands just as readily as those that have never been drained. Once the hunting in a region has been fully commercialized, it will never go back. Regarding you not asking for my vote, that's good because you're sure not going to get it until you show me that you can find, consult, and listen to some real experts on waterfowl management and arrive at a correct conclusion, and also until you show me that you fully support caps on nonresident waterfowl hunters in South Dakota.

All the rest is largely insults directed at me and others here, some in retaliation for some I and others aimed at you, but many originating in your article and early replies. Further insults serve no purpose, although I think most here will agree that you have reaped exactly what you've sown. It's clear that neither of us has walked in the other's shoes, but I'm not quite as naive about your business as you think I am because I was involved in filming a couple of hunting shows last year. You'll get to meet me and find out more about me this weekend at the Minnesota Waterfowler's Association Symposium, if you'll be there. Harvey Nelson asked me to speak on effects of hunting disturbance on waterfowl energetics, even though I'm not an expert. And you and everyone else, please call me Bobby.


----------



## djleye

Waunderer, I just want to say that it was great to hear from someone like yourself that puts in so much time and energy for the wildlife and lets others enjoy some of the fruits of your labors, while not asking anything in return!! What a breath of fresh air. Thank you for all you do for the wildlife of ND sir!!! :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## economics 101

Bobby,

Unless you have a copy of Randy Frost's job description, DO NOT comment on it or criticize him or his work. Randy does a wonderful job on all his duties. He is paid by us, the business owning dues paying members of the chamber. He is by no means ruining anything for any hunter. He is only trying to preserve our region and see some growth. And, by the way, you are also a non-resident and should, in your own opinion, keep out of this debate. You left rather than stay and fight what you say you believe in. North Dakota has plenty to do and many opportunities if one is willing to stay and work for them. Most members on this sight truly believe in their cause and are staying to stand up for their beliefs. You did not.

Most do not agree with me on this sight, and that is fine. I respect their opinions and will continue to state mine when the time is right. We live in America and are allowed to disagree with each other. Our men and women in the military are seeing we can still do so as we speak. All the issues on this or any other sight pale incomparison as to what is going on in Iraq.

Tony,

Thanks for weighing in one last time. We appreciate all your imput.

FREE ENTERPRISE-----THE AMERICAN WAY


----------



## Josh Cox

Economics, to give a short & sweet reply. My family, father mainly, didn't run away from the issue. It was the piss poor duck hunting that angered my dad to the point that he'd rather live in another state than watch the resource that we moved there for to get commercialized, go to waste, and basically be ruined. I personally don't like hunting much at all, but I know enough about it to realize what's right and what's wrong. Being able to have a good time with friends/family because you have more money than a group that lives in the state is definitely one of the things that is wrong. My dad knew this, and helped get the NDSA to where it is, helped compile surveys and results, all for the cause. Unfortunately, it became too much.

My comments aren't as well thought out as my father's, sorry for that. I would go on more, but I'd like to have his permission to unleash some stuff that may put his points in danger of invalidity.

Josh


----------



## Fetch

Hey Tony beings you like to drop names ??? How about - Who is economics 101 ??? & cootkiller ??? - northwind ??? are they malcontents too ??? You would think they could stand up & be recognized too ??? Why do I have the feeling you don't see their posts as negative ???

Could it be ??? The reason you like names so much, is to attempt to blow your own horn ??? :roll:

PS...I forgot grizzley & ND Gander too & our good Buddy Prairie Hunter ???

Honestly!!! I don't care, But Tony seems to think it is critical to a Forum :eyeroll: & Like FOX News - we want to be Fair & Balanced :-?


----------



## GooseBuster3

Grizzly, look at your posts you have been the one that has been attacking people, so watch WHAT YOU SAY!! :******:


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Considering how many people have weighed in on the issue, and how civil it's stayed recently...I would like to keep it going. There has been some very good thoughts from a lot of people that all should respect.

But yet another reminder...stay on the topic and try to post without blatent attacks.

Thanks guys.


----------



## GooseBuster3

By the way waunderer ,that post was very inlightning to here, form the stand piont of a TRUE land owner. It makes young guys like me feel that we will always have a place tro hunt no matter what happens.


----------



## redlabel

Mr. Cox: I read your posts here and have a question about one of your statments.

While you stated that you hate to see wetland drainage, you also mentioned that wetlands can be restored.

I'm wondering to date what percentage of the wetlands that have been drained in the United States has been restored?

I'm not an expert but it seems the process is mostly irreversible and efforts should be made to discontinue the practice if possible.


----------



## tsodak

I too was happy to see waunders post.

Goosebuster3, I know you did not mean it that way, but from a landowners viewpoint what you wrote is infuriating. Because this gentlement is willing to do this now, does not mean that no matter what that is going to be the way he feels in years to come. If the trend in dollars flowing from urban areas to rural areas to lease the areas up continues to grow as it has been, it may in fact become an absolute imperitive, as it has in Texas, for waunderer to lease his land out to remain competitiive with his neighbors and stay in business. We still need to be respectful of our landowners, and work all year long to build relations with them. I was glad to hear it to, but this could be messed up very easily. It does not guarantee you or your children will have a pace to hunt into the future. For us waterfowl hunters that cover so much ground I know that can be difficult, but all it will take is one disrespectful incident, and MR. waunderer will close his up as well. Although relationship building does not stand up to the dollars that leases provide, they do maintain millions of acres that are open now staying that way. Never forget that. Tom


----------



## administrator

Thread unlocked. I'm going fishing. :biggrin:


----------



## duxnbux

It is unfortunate that these two topics had to be combined into one article. I wish that the HPC issue would have been used to blur the real issue. The bottom line here is that the loss of protection for wetlands in the Clean Water Act and potential Loss of the Swampbuster act, could cause all waterfowl and waterfowlers to be in some serious trouble. It appears that the heated debates on this article have cooled, now it is time to take a closer look at the real GOAL of the article. **We must all work to ensure that wetland protection is ensured well into the future in the Dakotas. If we don't we could be in serious trouble.

On the heels of a wet cycle, the lost acres and hardships related to temporary wetlands are fresh in the mind of landowners. Without some sort of governmental intervention the decision to drain wetlands will be made the majority of time. I am just hoping that organizations like Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, etc can use their political power to ensure wetland preservation into the future. In my opinion $1 million dollars by DU is much more well spent lobbying to extend the swampbuster bill, CRP, Clean Water Act, etc. than on one wetland, slough, piece of property, DU PROJECT.

Each of these acts/bills mean millions of acres of habitat for all wildlife. When I drive in EastCentral MN, almost every lowspot in the fields has a flag and a drain. At one time many of these were wetlands. Without these governmental bills/acts the wetlands of the dakotas will be replaced by drains. Scary!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

I think that DU is limited in its scope of lobbying efforts due to it's nonprofit status I may be wrong but I remember reading it some time back.


----------



## duxnbux

Thanks for the insight Ron. Well I guess the main question than is who do waterfowlers and waterfowl have representing them in Washington? Who should we support to ensure the preservation of critical habitat?


----------



## cootkiller

WOW,
I cannot believe how much disrespect you guys are showing for one of the champions of the waterfowl world.
This is just crazy.
Tony, I agree conserving our prairie pothole region should be number one on all of our agendas.

I too feel some major JEALOUSY and HATE :******: here.

Can't we all just get along :beer: .

cootkiller


----------



## gandergrinder

Ron,
You are correct that tax exempt organizations cannot lobby or if they do so it may only be on a limited basis. The Internal Revenue Code requires that tax exempt organizations such as Ducks Unlimited must make an election to lobby. However the lobbying is subject to a ceiling (which is to complicated to go into on this board). Failure to make the election or if they exceed the ceiling will result in the loss of exempt status. For DU the exempt status is of greater economic importance than the ability to lobby.


----------



## Qwack

I think DU needs to form a political wing like the NRA's ILA


----------



## Fetch

http://www.sportsmenslink.org/

http://www.ussportsmen.org/interactive/ ... .cfm?ID=32


----------



## Qwack

Fetch,

I took a quick look and didn't see a thing about the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2003 on either site.


----------



## C Kiedrowski

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation http://www.sportsmenslink.org/ is an excellent interest group that is in need of growth and support. They have substantial influence with the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, which is the group of US Congressmen that push for legislation in the interests of American hunters and anglers. I've attended many of the Caucus' briefings on Capitol Hill and they show sincere support for sportsmen's concerns.

Many members of the Caucus are cosponsoring the legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (H.R. 962) also known as the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2003. I haven't seen anything on the CSF website indicating direct support of this bill, but they have done a lot of great work on similar issues.

These are the interest groups that are supporting this legislation: Trout Unlimited, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, American Rivers, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, U.S. Public Interest Group, Association of State Floodplain Managers, The Ocean Conservancy, the Izaak Walton League of America, and Clean Water Network.


----------



## Fetch

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/swanccnav.html

http://www.ducks.org/conservation/404_report.asp

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/function ... itizen.htm

http://www.nwi.fws.gov/bha/SandT/downlo ... TPaper.pdf


----------



## duxnbux

Kiedro,
-
Thanks for all the info, looks like you have definately acquired a lot of information while in Washington. Great to have some Nodak boys there to give the rest of us feedback on the process that really dictates the future of waterfowling and outdoor activities as a whole.


----------



## tb

I don't wanna be simplistic, but as I've said before its money. money, MONEY. Tony Dean is from my hometown. He's no biologist. He's a businessman. Randy Frost works for the businessmen. Blanchard is a businessman. Its money dudes, how do we battle that? Pool our funds. That's the solution. Let's get going on the stamp deal, We all throw in $50 or so for access, and we lease the prime spots. And no Sodaks allowed.


----------



## Qwack

http://www.iwla.org/conserv/actalert/al ... alertid=37

The Izaak Walton League has all kinds of info/action about the change in the Clean Water Act and how it affects small wetlands.


----------

