# When is there going to be too many NR's



## Styx99 (Oct 4, 2006)

When is there going to be too many people running around ND chasing the ducks? I hear stories about farmers getting angry about the # of people asking for permision and things like that. I see people are going to come to ND from California and Virgina just to name a few. They are going to come even if all the reports are saying it's tuff hunting or even bad. In my last 10 years of hunting ND as a NR we have seen a very large influx of people from everywhere in the country. We used to have very little competition for fields ect. seems now NR's are everywhere. I had a post on here from our NR opener and said it was the worst I have ever seen it and for that fact we have decided to stay home and hunt S. MN because it is better this year than ND. This is a very touchy subject for residents but even I as a NR that has hunted ND for a long time think there has to be an end. I think it is probably a $$ thing but sooner than later it is going to wreck ND because there will be a truck in every field. Just my 2 cents as a NR.


----------



## Cando (Oct 14, 2006)

If I recall right, the number of NR's hunting in NoDak has dropped from several years ago. They had approximately 33,000 one year and limited to 30,000 the year after. I forget how many there were last year but it was under 30,000. I am a NR NODAK hunter and have been for approximately 20 years. I am also new to this site and laugh at some of the comments. My guess is this is a topic that gets blown up and has been discussed for years before I started looking at this site. As a avid MN deer hunter, I hunt with approximately 500,000 others. I do not care if they are residents or non residents. It is all about doing your homework and preparing. Yes, sometimes others step in and ruin it. Then you should by your own land. There will always be someone that does not do it right and give others the bad name. I hunt the North Country and have never been mistreated by anyone in Nodak. Then again I do it right and have done my homework. I have taken the time to meet landowners and have permission several weeks before the season. I was up on the opener and saw the least amount of NR's in several years. If I recall right, these discussions started when pheasants became popular and news spread to the NR's about Nodak. Well I want to say thanks to Nodak for what they share. I could care less if I shoot a duck or not. I like your country and enjoy visiting. I will be back at the end of the month.


----------



## Fossilman (Mar 12, 2006)

After seeing that top post about the NR bust-I'm having second thoughts about NR's.... :******:


----------



## shae1986 (Sep 28, 2006)

Fossilman, 
I read that too and it made me sick but i am also a NR. Believe me there are Residents that break the law too. But it doesn't matter i was sick. To say to bend the rules, wow, i couldn't believe it. Then to say they shouldn't have been ticketed, no they should have had teh book thrown at them, the hole thing. Please dont take that to all NRs, bc not everyone is like that guy.

Now back to topic at hand, i this comes up all the time and i know that if it was up to ND they wouldnt allow any NRs. If you did we would do the same with fisherman with NR. and i have some facts from 2002 on that, only bc thats all i can find on short notice. 
Nonresident individual angling: 55,591
Nonresident family angling: 30,213
Nonresident 14-day couple angling: 29,350
Nonresident 7-dat angling: 74,731
Nonresident 72-hour angling: 46,615
Nonresident lifetime angling: 11


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

What the hell does nr angling have to do with nr hunting. Nothing!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

As stated on here before....the numbers are misleading.

Yes there were 30,000 non-res a few years ago.And the number has dropped to around 25,000 lately.

Our GNF has come out and said the reason for that is that in 2002 the legislature split the waterfowl and upland into 2 licenses.Before that the waterfowl part was only $10 so a lot of non-res. bought the waterfowl part just in case but really had no intention of actively huntiing waterfowl.

So the number of waterfowl hunters has basically stayed the same the past 5-6 years.It will be interesting with the word out about the drought....if the number of licenses will go down this year.

As far as the question of..."when are there to many?"Not until resident hunters convince the legislature that there are to many.


----------



## Waterspaniel (Oct 10, 2005)

I too am a NR. If gas hits 5 bucks a gallon, folks will stay home I bet. Problem is, the people who DO come will be able to afford leases and outfitters. I really appreciate the fine folks we have met, the wonderful land we have access to, and the wardens that are keeping the bandits in check. I know that this will not last forever. I fear my 1 year old son wont get to walk the praries with me. I retire in 15 years and pray to God my wife will buy into my dream of buying a litttle land and a home in NoDak. Gonna be a tough sell...Not much there for here, even though she was a farm girl. Anyway. Count your blessings, thank your landowners, and take their kids hunting. We May be nearing the end of a wonderful era, with the pothole region being the last strong hold of that bygone era. I would welcome NR lottery even if I had to stay home and hunt ruffed grouse every few years.


----------



## wiscowilly (Oct 19, 2005)

I just want to thank the people of ND for all the land they let me hunt on when I visit their state. I wish we were as lblessed here in Texas. In Texas most of the land is leased. Even the Federal Wildlife Refuges are charging fees for daily hunts. Some of them are charging $45 nonrefundable just to enter a lottery for hunting spots. Last year I arrived at a spot that charged $10 at 3 oclock in the morning and had more than 60 cars in front of me. I'm glad ND isn't like that. I now spend most of my hunting time in ND or Arkansas.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I was absolutely dumbfounded this weekend. I went to Minneapolis for the Bison/Gophers game and I kid you not when I say that I saw 50 obvious waterfowl hunting rigs between Fargo and Barnesville! That doesn't include trailers that I wasn't sure they were waterfolw hunting, only the ones with boats! I know that a fe wof them will end up in Canada but a lot of them will also end up in ND. I can't even guess tha #'s of hunters that must have been hunting ND this weekend. I was dman glad, for once, that I wasn't one of them from some of the stories I gave heard!!

I would say now there are too many!!!


----------



## Straycat (Mar 21, 2005)

I usually won't comment on a topic like this, however after what I saw the past week here in central ND with the number of NR waterfowlers and the pressure on the resource, we're there now boys.

The drought conditions have really concentrated the birds and the pilgrims trying to hunt them. I've always welcomed the NR's, helped them when I can and have hunted with many. It's too much now.

Keep the wind at your back.


----------



## itchy (Aug 15, 2006)

Off topic, I have heard angling can't be compared before on this site, however, it takes 6-8 years for a walleye to grow to 22" and only 6 months for a harvestable duck, so if you think fishing pressure can't be compared I believe you are wrong. A lake can be "fished out" just as easily as ducks can be blown out by hunting pressure.

If ND has a lengthy drought, R's probably won't have to worry limiting NR's. Instead of complaining about NR's, let's all pray for a lot of snow this winter and rains next spring/summer.

ND is not unique in their situation, in my area G/O's have most of he good goose feilds leased up and a lot of their clients are NR's. Our farmer friend has had multiple offers from G/O's that he has turned down because he likes going out with us.


----------



## shae1986 (Sep 28, 2006)

djleye,
Your assumption that all those vehicals going to ND could be way off. There is a lot of big lake hunting around the barnsville area. A lot of hunters actaully hunt around there. Are there some that will go to ND, yes. Come up by crookston and sit along highway two and see how many people come by going toward ND, not as many as come from East Grand heading toward Thieif River Falls. Not every pick up with decoys and a boat is heading to ND.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Stop comparing hunting to fishing. They are NOT comparable. Ducks can and ARE blown out of an area literally overnight. Fish are NOT fished out overnight.

Fishing and hunting are completely different. So stop using your damn fishing as a comparison.

I got to witness the "changing of the guard" at the stamart in GF on the corner of Hwy 2 and the interstate. WOW, WOW, WOW!!!! I bet there were 30 NR groups at the pumps alone. All last weeks hunters heading home, all this weeks rolling in.

Probably saw 100-125 different NR groups this weekend in our area. Had one group of them sit in our laps saturday morning. Thanks alot. I guess the first in the field gets the field doesnt apply in Minnesota. You couldnt look at a flock of geese or ducks without having 4-5 other vehicles looking at the birds, or giving you dirty looks. (The next time a NR hunter drives by me and gives me that holier than thou look I think Ill rear end his ***).

Im sorry, im sure some of you are decent people, but I havent had the pleasure of meeting you, I seem to keep on getting the misfortune of meeting the a*#holes. So I say limit the living S#it out of NR hunters. I dont want to offend people, but damnit, ive been offended, stepped on, and s#*t on by NR's so many times its amazing I even hunt ducks or geese anymore.

Somebody spoke of what the hunting is like in texas, well guess what buddy, in 20 years ND will be just like that if we dont do something.


----------



## itchy (Aug 15, 2006)

barebackjack, pressure is pressure, you are talking about ONE season, the ducks will be back next year (i.e. migration), excess fishing pressure can affect a body of water for YEARS. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

If we ever run into each other, I'll buy you a beer and show you that all NR's aren't jerks, but some of us are ethical sportsmen that enjoy the same things you do.


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

We know most of you guys are good guys and it's just like here. Of course you always have your ***** whether they are R or non. I will say that I was out on Sat. morning and I was really surprised how many people were at the gas station in the am in an area where we normally don't see a lot of people. I don't know if there is that much more pressure or if guys are more spread out because of water, land etc. but it just caught me offguard. I hope it's just a situation unique to this fall, but this is one of the last areas I know of that's pretty quiet. As far as fishing Itchy I understand where your coming as my folks used to have a lakeplace and it bothered me to see people keeping every damn fish that came over the side of the boat. I say put in a catch and release deal for NR's to help from overfishing. Just my :2cents:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> but a lot of them will also end up in ND.


Shae, that is why I worded it this way. Also, you will notice that the biggest group of boats I saw was between Fargo and Barnesville on West I-94. I know they weren't all coming here but what I saw and with what I heard from fellow hunters it was a circus!!!


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

Heck, I'm one of them (not an a$$ I don't think)  and I think there are too many! Bad year with the water and everything that goes with that but still. I had a truck parked between our setup and the slough the birds were coming off of to the field we were in. I don't hunt that close to someone here in Minn.!! The birds had to fly over his truck to get to us and I parked behind a tree line behind us twice as far away and was there first! Cap it.


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

I too think we need to set some sort of limit. its getting to the point where it is becoming a circus. this is by far the most NR's I've seen in a year. if we don't do something now its only going to get worse. our kids will not have the opprotunites that we did. 10 years from now it will be like texas, a limit is necessary and in the best interest for NR's and R's alike, if we all want to have what we have now.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

How many NR licenses have been sold so far in ND this year? Does anyone know?

It sure seems to be way up from the past couple anyway.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

So are all you guys going to be contacting your legislators?As far as I know there isn't a bill going to be introduced in the next session to put any sort of cap on.


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

I'm not a real political guy, but how would one go about getting the ball rolling on this.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Find your legislators from this list
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/59-200 ... legis.html

Talk to them, Call them, email them, express your concerns and ask them if they will help try to find a solution. If they say they won't or can't help, the election is only a couple of weeks away. express your concern at the voting booth.

Everything should begin with one on one communication with YOUR legislators, the more people that contact them the more apt they are to listen, (at least most of the time).

Bob


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

GP.....It wouldn't hurt for you to also contact some people come legislature time. If they get the drift that there are NR that are getting fristrated as well, it couldn't hurt!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Now I just got back from Canada last weekend. To let you know I traveled the length of ND North to south. I hardly saw any hunters! I also traveled the same route north the weekend before and hardly saw any pheasant hunters!

So for people saying there is all kinds of pressure it escapes me. I travelled hwy 3 north and south and then hwy 11 east and west. I only saw four groups duck hunting in both trips (combined) and only saw two groups pheasant hunting (both weekends and one was the opener!). I passed many PLOTS lands and no one was hunting them! So again people talking about all this pressure, I don't see it. Also I was traveling at first light on both times. Perfect hunting time.

Chuck


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Chuck, most guys get off the highway to hunt, few will stay on them when looking for game. When is the last time you scouted for ducks on the highway????
Get out and hunt ND and then tell me that there is no pressure. And also compare it to ND, don't compare it to MN, or WI, or MT, or any other state. Compare it to what ND once had!!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I understand most people get off the highway to hunt......but don't you think I would see people going too and from hunting spots? I did not even see that.

I also saw many flocks of birds in feilds along the highway. Now I am not compairing pressure between states. I have hunted (phesants and not this year) in ND and have not ran into a group all day.

But I did talk with a few hunters in a bar last weekend and they told me they saw more phesant hunters in the feild. I asked did they get bumped or run into them while out in the feild. They stated no. They just saw them driving around. Also most of them had ND plates! They were not NR plates.

But again I did not see this it is what I heard from some R hunters in a bar. But again with habitat conditions and what ever reports people hear.....that is where they will go to hunt R or NR. I asked these same R hunters if they had seen many duck hunters out and about. They stated no. So again I am taking what I have see and what I have heard from people first hand not on line.

Chuck


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

I don't know Chuck, I mean sure it varies from area to area a little, but you shouldn't have to go to Northdakota and have guys hunting on top of you, it's just wrong. There is no need for it for one thing. In my opinion the NR this year, especially with the lack of water, probably found themselves without a plan B, or if they had one didn't get up early enough in the morning to let it be the other option if an area is already taken, so they just hunt there anyway thinking, why not, it's vacation, we hunt a lot closer than this back home and so forth. It sucks. I had to motel around plenty of out of state roost busters who did nothing but brag about getting their birds when they could, however they could, with not a thought about what it does to a roost what so ever. I listened to all of this with that one too many beers in their one hand and cigar in the other of course, and sucked up that good old boy accent to boot. Whatever, just not me I guess. Not saying this is everyone either, I am an NR obviously and to each their own, but some poor ethics were shoved in my face for a couple of hunts and if it wern't for the fact that we had already had some action before that and were pretty much on a pick out a couple greenheads/bird watching hunt I would have been furious as all hell. Anyway my point being is, I don't want to go out there and deal with this with my kids someday, it really isn't necessary, I could stay at home and pretty much deal with far less pressure, but that's the way it is now, and I can guarantee you those same guys will be back in their same roost next year blasting it ASAP and bringing along the buddy they called on the cell that couldn't make it this year. I now pretty much have to rule that field I had good hunts in for 4 days out or maybe just an option for next year because you can now count on guys crowding in on the water next to that field and screwing your day. You call that hunting? I call it a display of lack of respect that I don't need my kids to learn 9 hours from home.


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

I just remember a few years ago when not too many NR's understood what we were talking about. now to see so many of you feeling the same way we do, we are all in the same boat. its a chain effect. jon tells mike who tells bob, who tells dick to all come to ND, when will the cycle end. there needs to be a cap, with a lottery system to get in. we need to do something now before it is too late.


----------



## bandman (Feb 13, 2006)

HERES A GOOD RECIPE ON HOW TO PREPARE "A VERY $H!TTY WATERFOWL SEASON"

(BIggest Ingredients First)
1.) Allow all the NR's that you possibly can to come in to this state. 
THIS IS A NO-brainer and something has to immediately done about this issue for the sake of North Dakota's 2007 waterfowl hunting season. Cap=5000 and a lottery system. If you dont live here its simply your loss. I am so sick of hearing how we couldnt survive and how u boost our economy blah blah blah bs. thats the only comeback you got and in all reality all thats been boosted this year has been our heart rates!!

2.) Make sure its a very dry season so these tens of thousands of hunters, and their tens of thousands of boats, can all fight over the same concentrated birds. Example: This is our vacation and we are going to get our birds at any extreme, even if it means ruining it for all the hunters around us. Sound Familiar?? yea ive seen and heard about it all season long.

3.) Allow the single outfitter (or land leaser) in the area youve hunted for umpteen years to make deals w/ the deer hunters in the same area. 
Example we ran into this weekend: You can shoot any deer on our posted land if we can post your land for the waterfowl season. Great deal for the (one) deer hunter, Very Very bad deal for the hunter(s) that dont want to have to stoop to pay for hunting where we grew up. Ive said it once and i'll say it again, the day i have to pay to hunt waterfowl where i live, i guess its the day i hang it up.

I went home to hunt on Friday and for the first time in my life i gave up and came back on Saturday. Everything that has happened this year that ive personally encountered is only the small beginning if nothing is done about it.


----------



## bandman (Feb 13, 2006)

forgot to answer the original question, 5001.


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

I'm not one to post on these kinds of topics, but it's interesting that so many are seeing the same things that I am, and I'm sure we're not all hunting the same areas. When you look at it from a numbers standpoint, sure maybe there were more NR hunters a few years ago, but there was also wayyyyyyy more water in the late 90's and early 00's. Personally I don't think there's any way that the NR numbers aren't at their peak now. In high school (6-10 years ago) we used to be able to go out and hardly see another hunter, even on weekends. Now even during the middle of the week I see several if not many. It, along with the dwindling water, has affected the quality of hunting greatly.

I can't blame the NRs really though, if I lived somewhere with poor waterfowling I'd probably come to ND too, who wouldn't. However I think it's getting to be pretty obvious that some sort of cap needs to be put in place, maybe something like deer hunting where you make a ton of zones and limit the number of licenses in each zone. Not trying to be selfish here, there's a good chance I'll be a NR after I graduate college but something needs to be done or the hunting is just going to become very average, and it's well on its way.


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

slough, I like that idea of splitting ND into more zones with a certain number of NR's in each zone. it would help spread out the pressure a little more.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

If that zone BS makes a comeback I'll be staying home and doing everyone a favor. Screw that, cut the numbers all you want but if I'm going to drive for 9 hours to North dakota I won't be put in a cage full of highways that I can't cross. The hell with it.


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

A hard overall cap would be fine too, maybe like 15,000? My thinking with the zone stuff would be that the pressure would get spread out more and whatnot. I guess I don't see why you'd be so adamantly opposed to the zone idea, I doubt many people hunt a huge radius of land when they're only here for a week or so anyway (Yes, I know some do). I'm sure none of it will ever get passed anyway so I'm not going to waste much thought on it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

First off pressure in some areas was little to nothing for waterfowl. Reason being no birds to speak off up until Sat and Sun and other areas where crawling with people because of cyber scouting!

We hunted a field on Friday morning and I had 6 different groups try and set up in the field with us. One was going to set up less than 150 yards from us.

Then in talking with a farmer today he commented that he has had the least amount of activity around his wetlands and fields for years. I left Fargo on Thur and returned today via the back roads and off highway routes. From the central part of the state to the Fingal area there where upland and waterfowl hunters everywhere.

We kick this issue around every year, and the P&M continues over the NR issue. Bring a viable solution forward that makes the rural towns happy,the farmers happy and the hunters of the state happy and it will pass. Otherwise all the talk is just that!!!!!!!!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

See, the thing is Chuck, that some areas receive more than their fair share of pressure, while others see little to none. I dare anyone to drive around ramsey county and tell me there arent that many hunters. Thats the problem, if we get 20,000 NR hunters, 19,000 of them go into five or six key counties.

I agree with Slough and Triple B.

Ive been saying it for years. Put a cap on the number, and make more units. Maybe go to something like SD currently has. Areas such as the DL region and other "sought after" ducking grounds should be a unit in themselves. Make it a lottery. We can guarantee you a license for these "crappy" units, OR......you can put in for a limited number of these licenses in "blank" county.

Ive been waterfowling for 15 years, and this is the worst pressure and competition ive ever seen. Yes, I know we had a mini drought, blah blah blah. But something has to be done to redistribute the pressure. Something has to be done in this state, or its not only going to be the "whiny, greedy" residents that lose it, its going to be you NR's as well. Think about that the next time you jump on the residents that voice their complaints about whats going on here.

You NR's on here that have had similar bad experiences with hunting pressure. I would be super ****** if I spent big bucks on my "vacation" only to have crap like that happen. You guys of all people should want a change also. Or maybe your used to being s#*t on. I know im not.

Im sure I could drive through many areas of this state and not see another hunter, but I probably wouldnt see more than two birds. The problem is, where theres birds, theres WAYYYY to many hunters.

1. Cap the # of NR hunters.
2. Make more units and put caps on the number of NR licenses allowed in each unit. Some may be on a lottery basis only. Sorry, but if you dont like it, stay home.

I say, lets make waterfowl hunting in ND a "once in a lifetime" type hunt. Something that can be truly enjoyable. (only not really once in a lifetime, maybe once every other year, or so).


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Going to pretty tough to get around the "zone buster license" that the last legislature passed.Hunt anywhere you like for an extra $40.Over 6,000 were bought last year so non-res. could hunt the whole time in zones 1 and 2.


----------



## Perch_44 (Sep 21, 2006)

how would you guys like it if we split you up into zones for fishing. or only allowed so many over to fish our lakes. if the drought keeps up the way its going, you won't have as many nr's to deal with next year, cause the migration will shift to where there is water. and we have more over here. :lol:

oh, one more thing. hunted for a week in ND, didn't run into one other group of duck hunters. seen some pheasant hunters, no waterfowlers though.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I understand that other area's get more pressure than some. But the route I travelled had lots of water and birds! I mean I saw huntable numbers.....Huntable numbers to me are 200+ mallards in a feild or 100+ canada geese in a feild. Yes I saw about 10 feilds like this. Plus the ducks I saw on the water. Now that is just on major roads. Think of what I could have found if I did some scouting!!!

I think that if there is another year of "drought" you will see less hunters in the feild. With drought conditions is concentrates birds and thus concentrates hunters! Both R and NR hunters. So the major area's like DL and others were getting hammered. BUt by both the R hunt and NR hunters alike.

People keep talking about SD as a mecca for waterfowl.....There are more R waterfowl hunters in SD than both NR and R hunters in ND. So again why is SD such a mecca??? SOrry to get off course.

Again I agree with anything but a cap. If the State wanted to less the time.....10 days or change it so a NR can't hunt all days in a row. Make them have a 2 day or more split between dates. Have it that NR or hunters can't hunt on a certain day of the week....higher fees, etc. But a cap is not the answer...again IMO.

Off subject but also on that route I travelled.....I saw many cattails getting burned. What do you resedents think of this??


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> Off subject but also on that route I travelled.....I saw many cattails getting burned. What do you resedents think of this??


Hi Chuck

Would you mind please starting a new topic on this? Let's not get the thread moving in a different direction.

Thanks

Ryan


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

No problem.....


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

Perch

After this year I ALMOST wish the migration would shift into Minnesota. Than maybe you would understand what it is like to have to deal with thousands of NR hunters day in and day out like we do in North Dakota. It would nice, for a change, to go hunting in ND and only run into 2-3 NR parties A DAY. I miss them days.

I will make a deal with you, you never come to ND to KILL all the ducks you can, an I will stay out of MN for fishing. Hows that sound?

Chuck

I say burn all the cattails you can. Less for me to walk through when deer hunting.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

sorry about the cattail comment. Chuck and Ryan posted the previous two posts when I was in the process of writing my message.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Chuck Wrote*



> *People keep talking about SD as a mecca for waterfowl.....There are more R waterfowl hunters in SD than both NR and R hunters in ND. So again why is SD such a mecca??? *


Don't know where in the heck you came up with your info but you should do a little research before you post up.

ND had +/- 24,000 NR and +/- 26,000 resident hunters in 2005.

Read below you will find the answer to your question about SD being such a mecca.

*From The South Dakota Game Fish and Parks website*


> *In 2005, there were an estimated 24,133 active resident migratory bird hunters in South Dakota. From those, there were projected 21,108 active resident waterfowl hunters and 4,326 nonresident waterfowl hunters.*
> 
> When asked their satisfaction on the season, (1 being most satisfied, 7 being least satisfied), waterfowl
> hunters reported an overall average rating of 3.34 for residents, and 3.10 for nonresidents.


*Chuck continued*



> Again I agree with anything but a cap. If the State wanted to less the time.....10 days or change it so a NR can't hunt all days in a row. Make them have a 2 day or more split between dates. Have it that NR or hunters can't hunt on a certain day of the week....higher fees, etc. But a cap is not the answer...again IMO.


10 days one hunt would equal more pressure, NR not hunting all days in a row or certain days of the week would concentrate pressure to those certain days of the week, Higher fees why to price some people out of being able to hunt?

So what is the answer if a cap is not the answer, A lottery? Leg tags? a drawing? You don't believe there is pressure out there because you "drove through the state" pretty lame Chuck, I am very familiar with highway 3 and 11 I know highway 3 like the back of my hand and I hunt along 11 often, there is some water is spots but I don't know a single waterfowl hunter that is willing to set up along a major road. We tend to not hunt the highway roost areas and setup in a field a mile or more off the road. Sorry I was not out there to wave at you but I was busy trying to get some ducks to our spread after they ran the gauntlet of other hunters that invited themselves to join us.

It was a circus last weekend get in touch with me sometime and I will take you out and show you the world of hunting beyond the highwayand beyond the lakes region.

Bob


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

And here is my silly *** thinking the problem is too many RESIDENTS... :lol:


----------



## Traveler (Oct 24, 2006)

I hate to ruin such an emotional debate with FACTS, but here are the non-resident waterfowl license numbers as reported in the NDGF annual financial reports:

2000-25,165
2001-30,029
2002-30,000
2003-26,066
2004-24,375

Sorry, they don't have the 2005 numbers posted yet. I am no statistician, but it doesn't appear that the number of NR waterfowlers is increasing. Looks like it has stayed about the same (actually declining since 2001) for the last few years, regardless of how things APPEAR!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Traveler

Here are the ND license numbers for the last few years.

Year...... Res...... NR...... Total

1975... 67,267.. 6,043... 73,310 
1976 ...63,660 ..8,530 ...72,190 
1977... 63,117 ..7,933 ...71,050 
1978 ...64,081.. 9,044 ...73,125 
1979 ...59,053 ..8,682 ...67,735 
1980 ...55,508 ..8,262 ...63,770 
1981 ...52,079 ..6,931 ...59,010 
1982... 52,565 ..7,615 ...60,180 
1983 ...48,575 ..7,085 ...55,660 
1984 ...45,814 ..7,111 ...52,925 
1985 ...41,470 ..6,380 ...47,850 
1986 ...42,048.. 7,507... 49,555 
1987 ...40,890 ..7,505 ...48,395 
1988 ...26,838 ..4,222 ...31,060 
1989 ...29,394 ..5,778 ...35,172 
1990... 27,529 ..5,522 ...33,051 
1991 ...27,857 ..5,928 ...33,785 
1992 ...22,816 ..8,175 ...30,991 
1993 ...30,271 ..9,534 ...39,805 
1994... 35,329 ..10,316 ..45,645 
1995 ...37,054.. 11,997.. 49,051 
1996 ...39,009 ..13,750 ..52,759 
1997 ...36,953.. 15,561 ..52,514 
1998 ...39,513 ..19,191 ..58,704 
1999 ...39,118 ..21,873 ..60,991 
2000 ...35,992 ..25,165 ..61,157 
2001 ...35,310 ..30,029 ..65,339 
2002 ...34,138 ..29,992 ..64,130 
2003 ...30,771 ..26,066 ..56,837 
2004 ...28,336 ..24,375 ..52,711 
2005 ...28,331 ..25,455.. 53,786



> Sorry, they don't have the 2005 numbers posted yet. I am no statistician, but it doesn't appear that the number of NR waterfowlers is increasing. Looks like it has stayed about the same (actually declining since 2001) for the last few years, regardless of how things APPEAR!


You should know if you have been hunting here for awhile that the ND waterfowl license used to be a $10.00 add on to the small game license, That is why you have a spike in the numbers.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Traveler said:


> I hate to ruin such an emotional debate with FACTS, but here are the non-resident waterfowl license numbers as reported in the NDGF annual financial reports:
> 
> 2000-25,165
> 2001-30,029
> ...


Evidently you didn't read this entire thread....look at my explanation on page 1 of this spike as Bob says.This isn't our analysis....straight from our GNF.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob.....

I could not find the R break down for SD number of waterfowl. I only found R small game lisc. and that was something like 90,000. I understand many are just hunting pheasants but they still have the option to hunt ducks. Again Sorry for the inaccurate data. Do they sell just a Waterfowl lisc for R in SD or is this a research on just "Active".

Because in MN I would not consider myself and "Active" waterfowl hunter. I only hunt about 5 days a year. So what is "Active"? Because of the 90,000 +/- they still can go and hunt waterowl even if it is only a couple days a season. I am not trying to start an argument just wondering what "active" means. Or is "active" the number of state stamps sold?

I know that most hunters don't hunt along the highways. But I did not see hunters travelling on the highways either. I also talked with farmers and people in bars, cafe's, gas stations. They told me that they have not seen as many waterfowl hunters as in the past! I am just going on what I saw in two weekends of travel and then also talking with people for a couple of weekends. I am trying to get a grasp on the pressure issue everyone on this site keeps talking about.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I answered my own question!

Bob.....here is the website I have found some firgures on:

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Economic ... rtrend.htm

The rough numbers on this site are.....40,000 +/- R waterfowl certified and about 6,000 +/- NR waterfowl hunters.

So again my numbers are off but so are yours. Because anyone that buys the waterfowl certification can hunt waterfowl or be in the feild hunting waterfowl at a given moment.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> I could not find the R break down for SD number of waterfowl. I only found R small game lisc. and that was something like 90,000. I understand many are just hunting pheasants but they still have the option to hunt ducks.


They don't have the option to hunt ducks unless they get drawn in the SD waterfowl lottery which I believe is around 7,000 licenses. I may be wrong on this. I am going off memory here.

Now if you compare that. 7,000 waterfowl licenses in SD with the 25,000 or so for ND, then add in the environmental changes biologists are now collecting information on (ducks staging later on the Canadian border, shorter stay in ND, and longer stay in SD) and you have the answer about why we are argueing here on this site.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Chuck

Here is the waterfowl summary for SD

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/hunting/ ... mary05.pdf

And the full report

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/hunting/ ... ummary.pdf

Not my numbers this is the SDGFP Publication.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Since I was a kid in the early 70's the number of resident hunters has been cut in half and the number of NR hunters has gone up about 4-500%. The actual number of hunters has stayed about the same. So when you look at the data and then go into the field it would appear that NR hunters are taking over the resource. Now is that bad or good? Well that depends on your perspective. I would say that if you were to survey upland game hunters you would also find a big jump in both resident and NR numbers. All this results in more hunting pressure and for those who are trying to rationalize that doesn't affect hunting pressure you are quite frankly out to lunch. There is tremendous pressure on our natural resources period. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we are trying to do the best that we can for everyone but it is not an easy job. We are all victims of natures sucess! High bird numbers = high hunting pressure.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here are a few reasons why I say a cap is not the answer.........you have 25,000 lisc sold to NR. It gets capped at lets say 7,000.

1. The state and freelance hunters would lose $234,000 dollars going into PLOTS.

2. The state and freelance hunters would lose $1.4 million dollars going into NDGF programs. This includes enforcement, education, or any other state land programs that allow access or purchasing of new lands.

3. You will see the G/O industry get a manditory or granted a share of the NR licenses available.

4. You would see the NR freelance hunter being pushed to purchase land or lease land to make sure that they have a place to hunt when they get lucky and get drawn.

5. Because of #4....Land values will keep rising so the starting farmer can not make it....(again I think this is off but others feel this will happen.)

6. You will see more habitat loss during dry years because farmers will start to till it up cattail sloughs or other breeding grounds. Because programs that are funded by Hunters (all hunters) won't have the means to stop it or pay for the farmer to leave it.....SEE #1 and #2.

These are just some of the reasons why a cap is just a band aid on a bigger issue.

Here are some suggestions I think could help and you can keep the NR cash flow:

1.Make it so a NR can't hunt 14 days in a row. Make them split 14 days. 
2. Raise the fee's a couple of bucks....$5 increase on PLOTS fee for NR's (this could stop some from coming, but probbably not...just more $$$)
3. Leg tags for NR
4. Lower the daily bag limit
5. Lower possesion limits
6. Shorten the NR lisc to 10 days

Because I think that ND could use the NR hunter to fund many programs that help both but would effect the R more. Again IMO.

Edit: Bob I also look back at my data and it was from 2003. Sorry for the in accurate data.


----------



## Madison (Mar 1, 2002)

DJRooster said:


> :. There is tremendous pressure on our natural resources period. .


 :bowdown: :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob....

One thing I don't understand about that first link and its data.

They sold 34,000 +/- R licenses....How can they say only a total of 25,000 hunters. THey only got 74% of the people to answer the survey. Now I don't want to get into a whole stats discussion. But why not just use the figure of 34,000 R hunters. Because that is what really could hunt waterfowl at any given moment. Go on actual sales instead of "Projected" numbers. Again SD has about 39,000 waterfowl hunters a year (licenses sold to R and NR). That is about 15,000 less hunters in the feild than ND. Yes that is less pressure. Can not deny that fact.

Again I would like to apoligize for the bad info or dated info from my link in a previous post.

Chuck


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

DJRooster said:


> Since I was a kid in the early 70's the number of resident hunters has been cut in half and the number of NR hunters has gone up about 4-500%. The actual number of hunters has stayed about the same. So when you look at the data and then go into the field it would appear that NR hunters are taking over the resource. Now is that bad or good? Well that depends on your perspective. I would say that if you were to survey upland game hunters you would also find a big jump in both resident and NR numbers. All this result in more hunting pressure and for those who are trying to rationalize that is doesn't you are quite frankly out to lunch. There is tremendous pressure on our natural resources period. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we are trying to do the best that we can for everyone but it is not an easy job. We are all victims of natures sucess! High bird numbers = high hunting pressure.


The number of waterfowl hunters stayed the same.....hunting pressure has not.

1970's.......60,000 hunters....55,000 residents went back to work on Mondays.

2002-2006.....60,000 hunters.....a lot of the non-res. now hunt all week.

birds get no rest.....basically no one hunting them during the week in the 70's.

If I had a choice I would go back to the 70's

Plus no G/O anywhere....little posted land....basically only for deer.

No Leased land.

Even though the numbers are the same.....the dynamics are much different.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Right on Ken!!!!!


----------



## Straycat (Mar 21, 2005)

You nailed it Ken!

Thanks.


----------



## Straycat (Mar 21, 2005)

As to Chuck's discussion about caps, his suggestions make some sense. However without habitat, bird numbers, or access, it will all be a moot point soon. There's where we're going kiddies.

The NR contribution for plots is great and has been the past couple years, but the total area is not enough for all the growing pressure. With the growing bio-diesel and ethanol industries and CRP soon to come out of production to support these industries, I see a future lack of suitable habitat.

Another suggestion is to require all hunters (bird watchers too) using federal lands (WPA's, Refuges, etc.) to purchase a Federal Waterfowl Stamp.

My .02 worth.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Straycat.......that is my point exactlly!

We (R and NR) need to help protect the habitat that holds and makes the birds we love to hunt and watch. More CRP will be putting back into cropland. Loss of habitat will be at an all time high if they can get ethonal to produce more horsepower or become more economical. You will see acres and acres of habitat loss in all states. In ND if it stays dry for a couple of years you will see more sloughs getting put back into production land. I saw on my drive (hwy 3 and hwy 11) about 5 sloughs and cattails getting burned. Plus I saw a few others that were already burned. I also saw some smoke clouds off in the distant. Bob most of this was seen the between Hurdsfeild and Rugby. Again if I got off the road I wonder how much more I would have seen already burnt.

So people who preech "we need to do what is best for the resource"....how does cutting the NR license sales help when you will be cutting the programs and agency's that are there to proctect and manage the resource by $1.4 million dollars a year. Plus the loss in the PLOTS.

Like I have mentioned before use the NR dollars to work in your favor. Have an increase in PLOTS fee's (label it a waterfowl PLOTS fee for NR's). Increase it by $5. That would be an additional $125,000 plus a year. It is not enough to break the bank for most people. You could lose some NR hunters but it would be small. Most hunters would pay an extra $5 if they new it was going to a program like PLOTS.

I know that some of the stuff I have mentioned would be tough to pass. But IMO it is better than having a cap and losing all of the revenue produced to help out wildlife in your state!

Side note........I am a NR looking from the outside in. I have never hunted waterfowl in ND. I have only hunted pheasants. My observations are on what I have seen, heard from locals in bars, cafe's, resturaunts, R on the net, etc. I am trying to look at all this with an open mind. That is why I like coming on this site everyday and reading everyones opinions on all subjects. Sometimes things get heated but us sportsman are very passionate group of people. Good luck everyone this fall.

:beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

All the suggestions are worth listening to.But until resident hunters have a voice louder than the tourist industry.....legislature will not listen.

The 3 members in my district say a few of us up here are voices in the wilderness.They would be willing to do what we ask....but the chambers speak much louder.

Case in point......the new "zone buster" license for non-res.

It basically allowed non-res. who hunt in zones 1 and 2 to get around the law of having to go to zone 3 for 7 of their 14 days.I told my reps that it would bring a lot less hunters to zone 3 if it passed.And they agreed with me.But......the tourism industry up here wants no restrictions and saw the new law as bringing more hunters up here.

GNF figures.....more than 6,000 non-res. bought the new license....basically to be able to hunt both zones 1 and 2 or stay there the entire 14 days.

I gave my reps a big thanks for passing the new law.....meant less hunters up here in zone 3 and added $40 per hunter to getting more PLOTS....$240,000 extra.Of course if I lived in zones 1 or 2 ....I would be very unhappy with it.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Ken, I would also go back to the 70's for the waterfowl hunting and a lot of other reasons! As far as upland game, probably have to go back to the soil bank program of the 60's. Lot's of wide open spaces!!! But then again we live now and this is our reality!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Upland hunting in the 70's was awesome for Sharps....terrible for Pheasants.....daily limit of 2,poss. limit of 4.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

I think North dakota has planty of habitat and did before 20,000 NR pitched in for any of it. A lot of snow, and summer rains again along with 15,000 less guns would help the quality of hunting for everyone. Dry years like this should have a cut back on the licenses to help eliminate some of the overcrowding in areas that actually had some larger water. Just my take.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Your'e right Goldy....wait till next year if the drought continues.....hunting this year will be considered fabulous....


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Goldy I agree that the habitat was there before in the 60', 70's, 80's and even 90's. But farming practices were different then than they are now. Now farming practices have changed and farmers can put in more crop in the same amount of time. They can till up more land. Maybe some of the land back in the 60's-90's were not tilled up because of time, or marginal land. Now they can till it up in the same time. Because farms have gotten bigger and machinary has gotten bigger and better. Corn and beans have been hybrid enough so they can grow in different soils with simular results....90 day beans, etc. Remember the old saying "knee high by the 4th of July"....now most corn with a good growing season is about chest high! You will see more loss of land. Like many of stated that MN is a wasteland and could have been just as good or even better than ND for waterfowl. But they did nothing to save habiat. I would hate to see that happen to ND.

Chuck


----------



## MWC (Oct 1, 2004)

Add another NR to the list that SUPPORTS a cap... Born and raised ND'n then moved away for a variety of reasons after college. Everytime I come home to hunt my jaw drops a little further when I see the pressure and leasing.

The good old days are not quite gone yet. Cap this NR thing at 7-10 thousand and put it to a lottery system. Adjust it for dry years. I have a feeling the people that will b&tch most likely have never hunted North Dakota before the excess pressure and don't really know what it's like. It will suck for those of us that may only get to hunt every other year, but that is just fine by me. The floodgates need to be closed and closed soon before it is to late. ND already doesn't see the full migration it used to (due to numerous circumstances) and couple that with the local birds getting blasted south early on, the competition begins.

Its a no brainer in my opinion.... Follow SD's system or something similar.... it seems to work for them.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

THANK YOU MWC!!!!!

I dont understand why more NR's arent more upset about spending alot of money to come hunt a state that is extremely over pressured, where everybody is stepping on each other toes.

Would you rather be able to come every year, and have to put up with all the bullsh*t for a few birds.....or......come every second or third year, and have better hunting?

To me its a no-brainer.

And you still cant grow corn on crappy ground. Yes, there are fast maturing varieties, but they havent been able to make a "magic" crop that will grow well in crappy soil. Yes we will lose some CRP, but I dont think its going to all go away like some speculate it will. And I think theres alot more WPA's and such than there was 20-30 years ago.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I know that there is no "Magic" seedl. But with farming practices changing they are getting decent crops off of marginal soil. CRP took marginal land out of production.....now that marginal land is producing some decent crops! So farming practices have changed to make marginal land produce. So again just wait and see what happens....In my area back in the 90's you could find about 80 of CRP every 2 sections. Now you are luck to find 2 in the township! Now that land is being farmed. Just wait and see.


----------



## shae1986 (Sep 28, 2006)

There will still be a lot of land in CRP. Reason, if its not worth the money they will take the CRP payments from the government. THere is no wasted gas, no wasted time on trying to make a crop. Our land has allready been put back into the CRP program, and i never see it going out of it. Some farmers might take their land out, but i will say that many wont.

A. Shae

P.S. I believe that if ND went to a cap system they would also have to do some sort of preference point system also.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

South Dakota has an Excellent working model for NR Waterfowling. I think the ND legislature need look no further than the SD framework.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Chuck,

"Here are some suggestions I think could help and you can keep the NR cash flow:"

This is not the solution, it is the problem.

Jim


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

jhegg......

I know many thing that is the problem. But one thing I would hate to see in ND is what has happened in MN. LOSS OF HABITAT!!! And if you can use the NR dollar to help maintain and start programs that help with habitat that is great!

Because all ND needs is a couple of dry years and you will see habitat fade away. It will start to be tilled up and planted. With biodiesel and ethanol being pushed and "Flex fuel" vehicles and what not.....you will see more marginal land being farmed....that will equal LOSS OF HABITAT!

Because Like I have mentioned before is that a Cap or more NR restricitons is only a band aid on a bigger picture....just some things to think about.

Can anyone answer this.....when did SD go to a cap and could u show me the number of lisc sold both R and NR a couple of years before the cap?

Thanks


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

SD did not allow any NR waterfowl hunting before the 4,000 cap.So there are no pre cap NR numbers.4,000 is it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Thanks for the info Ken.


----------



## Straycat (Mar 21, 2005)

South Dakota went to the current NR cap structure in 1975. Prior to that back to the 1940's, NR waterfowlers were not allowed to hunt in South Dakota.

This was the result of NR's buying large tracts of land and lakes for private hunting preserves in the late 1930's and early 1940's plus, drought, over shooting and hunting pressure. (sound familar to the present in ND?) I believe the SD legislature passed this restriction in the late 1940's.

It has been awhile since I looked, but doesn't SD allow a certain number of the NR waterfowl licenses to the g/o's?

I think it would be an excellent model for North Dakota to follow.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> This was the result of NR's buying large tracts of land and lakes for private hunting preserves in the late 1930's and early 1940's plus, drought, over shooting and hunting pressure. (sound familar to the present in ND?) I believe the SD legislature passed this restriction in the late 1940's.


Wow! Their legislators saw this in the 40's and yet ours still can't see it. When will their eyes finally open up.


----------



## Straycat (Mar 21, 2005)

This was before there was a Dept. of Tourism and Chambers of Commerce pushing hunting. Only the railroads would advertise hunting here in the Dakotas and, dare I say, even in Minnesota.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

> This was before there was a Dept. of Tourism and Chambers of Commerce pushing hunting.


Wrong, SD Game and Fish does not care about the Dept. of Tourism and Chambers of Commerce. They manage based on what is right from a biological standpoint. The evidence of this can be found in their fisheries management. Look at what they did on the Missouri River with regards to Walleye limits in different areas. Resorts were screaming bloody murder, but they were not listened to. The SD Game and Fish did what they felt was right, without regard to outside interests. Look at what SD Game and Fish did on Waubay - 2 walleyes per day. Resorts were screaming about that also, they said no one would come, but the Game and Fish simply did what was right. AND THEY ARE DOING WHAT IS RIGHT IN TERMS OF WATERFOWL HUNTING AS WELL.

North Dakota has the answer, they need only look south.


----------



## Straycat (Mar 21, 2005)

Hydro870,

I was referring the hypocrisy of these organizations promoting hunting as economic development in North Dakota. The South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks does a good job of what is right for the resource. They are doing the right thing with their waterfowl license cap and I hope they will continue to do so.

However it seems our legislators here in ND bow to the tourism, g/o and chamber interests and not to the sound biology of our Game and Fish department people or to sportsmen. We need to let them know in this go around.

Keep the wind at your back.


----------



## FLOYD (Oct 3, 2003)

Why wouldn't 7 days be enough for NR's? Basically they could have the option of splitting it once, so they could have 3 days and 4 days, or they could hunt all 7 days in a row. Surely a decent percentage of NR's will split their days up, and this would reduce some of the early season crap that contributes to marginal mid-season hunting. A group of NR's jumping puddles for 3 days is a lot better than 7. And if they choose to hunt all 7 days together, they are one less group to be out on the week that would have been their second trip. To me, there is no reason you should be able to hunt 14 days in ND as a NR. Hell if I am out for 3 days, that is enough for the week for sure. There is no way its necessary for someone to be here for 14 days in basically 5 weeks in most cases.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

More people competing for fewer hunting resources will accelerate. Cash rent ag land payments are running double of the CRP payment here in my county. The Federal farm program you pay for fuels the rush to convert CRP, wetlands, and native grass into cropland. Underground tiling was unprofitable in ND,.....not anymore. So have you talked to your legislator about matching pressure to the resource?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Yes, cash rent ag land payments are more than CRP payments. But you still have to find a renter who is willing to pour money into marginal land. Gas, time, etc. 
Now, in the marginal CRP land, yes, you will probably see that lost. But in poor soil, or headache land (lots of sloughs to drive around, etc), I think that will stay.

Alot of people are griping about farmers burning and tilling up dry sloughs. What do you expect them to do? They want to farm it next year if it stays dry. Hell, all the big sloughs were farmed in the late 80's. When the water comes back, so will the sloughs, theyre not gone forever.

Lottery for NR's. Of course, with a point system. Let maybe 10,000 in, rezone the state to take pressure off heavily hunted areas or drier areas, and leave it at that. Its our state, if we can get it passed, tough. Im sick of the rat race. If you want to hunt here every year, move here.


----------



## headshot (Oct 26, 2006)

> Lottery for NR's. Of course, with a point system. Let maybe 10,000 in, rezone the state to take pressure off heavily hunted areas or drier areas, and leave it at that. Its our state, if we can get it passed, tough. Im sick of the rat race. If you want to hunt here every year, move here.


I feel the same way about all the americans coming to hunt here in Sask.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

I haven't read any of the posts, just answering the original question.

3 YEARS AGO!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dick....

That is my point exactly......Things are changing with farming. And you will see lots of land lost. Those marginal lands that were wet the past 10 years could be gone......Look in Mc Intosh County....DRY LAKE.....I hope people know why it is called dry lake....it was once pasture. Now it will take years for this to be gone....but it could happen. How many other lakes are like this or pot holes. Then you take away about about 1.4 million dollars (a NR CAP of 10,000) in revenue to help promote habitat and other programs.....more habitat loss! Also your PLOTS lands....with loss of revenue and the PLOTS payment will need to be raised inorder to equal the rental prices and what not.....this will equal LESS PLOTS.

Again I don't blame the farmer at all for plowing up dry sloughs and what not. But ND has some good programs that help keep farmers from doing this.

With the potential loss of Revenue (caping NR's) and the out migration of people (more lost revenue in state taxes) these programs will be hurting for funding.

Again I say I am in favor of different or more restrictions but caping of NR's.

Also people state look at SD.....Also look and the revenue that SD gets from it's NR pheasant License sales! Now if ND would lose its NR waterfowl hunters would they beable to make up that money else where to help keep habitat and other programs alive? It is just something to think about!

_***All this revenue I am talking about is just in licenses sales. Most of this money goes into the Game and Fish Department and PLOTS._

Chuck


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Chuck: IMHO we won't loose that revenue because many R's have hung up their guns because there is just too many people out there and if they know the pressure is off and can hunt like they used to, I think you will see more and more R's coming back out of the closet to hunt.

I also think this would ease some access issues and with that comes more R's hunting along with their kids. Once the kids see how ND takes care of its people (like my Dad taught me), it will decrease the amount of kids leaving our state.

Third, I think with a cap it may even entice a few out of staters to move here, especially when they know they will be taken care of as a hunter.

IHMO we may loose 1.4 million from NR's, but could end up putting much more than that back in from R's coming back out to hunt. Remember that even with your two weeks here, us R's are still spending more money than you during the hunting season.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Lv2hunt....

I understand that R's spend more money. I never once stated about a NR spending money in the state or small town. *I am looking at just license sales* where most of that money goes to The Dept. of Game and Fish and PLOTS and habitat programs....for residents to make up $1.4 million the state would need 43,750 more hunters in the feild over the age of 16. (now that is based on a $32 combination license.)

Chuck


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Our hunter education classes are full around the state and many more adults have hung up their guns. I guess I don't know if it would be 43,750 more, but I would think it would be dang close.

If it insured more land to hunt with less pressure, we might all be surprised.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

With 15-20,000 less non-res wouldn't it stand to reason that we wouldn't need as much PLOTS.Farmers wouldn't feel like they are being overrun with hunters and maybe open up more of their land for hunting.

Also a lot of those thousands of non-res wouldn't be here feeding the G/O industry....sounds like more of a plus doesn't it?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

All I would see is a more of an increase in the G/O's.....because to gaurentee a License a NR would use a G/O er.....Like R have stated....Look at SD! G/Oer's get a chunk of the NR licenses in SD. So a G/Oer just leases more land. Or how about more NR's buying land to make sure they have a spot. Then that land gets posted tight.....no access. This way even though they only hunt every other year......they have great hunts and keep posting the land! Because since a lotto license is more of a specialty they will want to make sure they have a good year. More leasing!!! Now some NR's just chalk it up to poor timing or wrong location. You can bet if it becomes a draw they will want to make it count! Again more g/o er's,more land sales, more leases!!!

Chuck


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

Here is another thing to add.....You take about 1/2 the PLOTS land out and is turned into crop land.....that is 90,000 acres gone! No nesting habitat, no cover from predators, no access for hunting! Again 90,000 acres that gets turned into crop land that you need to ask permission to hunt (standing crops) to walk for pheasants and what not.

Then the WPA's start to lose money and get plowed under......more habiatat loss!

Then just the CRP acres that will get lost because of farming practices.

Like I have mentioned use the NR dollar to help save these lands. Use the NR dollar to start different programs.

Like I keep saying. Limit the number of days for a NR, limit possession, increase fee's (not too high), leg tags, etc. But don't put a cap because you will see a underfund department become even more depleted!

Because to add more money that means higher taxes.....and you know everyone loves to hear that.... :lol: especially farmers!

Again a NR cap IMO is not the answer. But other restrictions could help!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> Ken...
> 
> Here is another thing to add.....You take about 1/2 the PLOTS land out and is turned into crop land.....that is 90,000 acres gone! No nesting habitat, no cover from predators, no access for hunting! Again 90,000 acres that gets turned into crop land that you need to ask permission to hunt (standing crops) to walk for pheasants and what not.
> 
> ...


I don't understand your first paragraph....the 90,000 would still be PLOTS whether nesting cover or not....what does PLOTS have to do with it?GNF doesn't look at just nesting cover for PLOTS.

If 3 days worth of tags were issued with each license.....you wouldn't need a cap or a 14 day restriction or less of a possession limit or higher fees.Hunters could still come whenever they want,for as many days as they want,gift or take home as many as they have tags for,and have a good hunt.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

With a cap you would lose money towards PLOTS.....If the state would cap the NR to 10,000 hunters...the state would lose about $195,000 dollars that goes towards land payments to farmers for PLOTS. With the loss of money would mean the loss of land enrolled into the program....That would mean less nesting habitat. So I used the example that if you cut the PLOTS land aviable in 1/2. You would lose roughly 90,000 acres of habitat for nesting and what not over the course of the years. Then add the changing of farming practices. Then add the loss of funding to other goverment programs (programs that the ND G&F run) that would lose funding from the revenue of NR license sales. ($1.27 million....no zone busters in that figure) Which equals less money towards ND Game and Fish.

What I don't want to see is that the Game and Fish losses money like the MN DNR. Then you have to go to the state and try to get a bill passed to fund the habitat and what not......THE BILL STILL NOT HAS PASSED IN MN! So again use the NR dollar so you don't have to ask for the funding. Because in the State starts to lose $1.4 million a year to its Game and Fish department they will have to look elsewhere to help fund it....that is higher taxes or take away from other programs.

Again people say look at SD because they are doing everything right......I say look at MN and see what they did wrong!!!! And none of what went wrong was with NR's....it was loss of habitat, changing farming practices, urban developement, etc!!!!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> But don't put a cap because you will see a underfund department become even more depleted!


I wouldn't quit call it underfunded or depleted!!!!



> The Janurary issue of North Dakota Outdoors includes the financial statement for the NDGF. The game and fish general fund balance is 25,755,627.58. Its time to use some of that money for game and fish projects.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

If you want to see how to do things. Look to Missouri and their sources of funding. Minnesota is on the right track if they can get it passed.

Chuck,


> With a cap you would lose money towards PLOTS.....If the state would cap the NR to 10,000 hunters...the state would lose about $195,000 dollars that goes towards land payments to farmers for PLOTS. With the loss of money would mean the loss of land enrolled into the program....That would mean less nesting habitat.


This is misleading. PLOTS money is very minimal when you look at the CRP payments. Nesting cover is much more dependent on CRP payments. PLOTS money is just a bonus. Without the CRP payment you wouldn't have much land enrolled in PLOTS.

More Public hunting land will simply draw more hunters to ND and not address the crowding issue that has so many people up in arms.

In my opinion. The farm bill is a terrible place to look for funding for wildlife, especially for CRP. What we as hunters should be pushing is perpetual easements on marginal land. This would benefit every future hunter and conservationist. Why do we want to keep paying for land over and over and over again when we could buy it once? Especially when that land is highly erodable and should not be intensively farmed.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Yes it is time to spend some of that money!!!

The PLOTS payment might keep some of the land in CRP.....because the is a bonus. If they PLOTS money was not there some might take the land out of the program and then put the land back into production.

And again I agree that if the bill ever passes the state of MN will be on the right track. I would hate to see the state of ND have to get that far. Use the NR dollar to help.....do everything else but CAP the NR hunter. Have leg tags, have less days in the feild, lower possession limits, etc.

Chuck


----------



## TEALMAN (Sep 27, 2006)

In my opinion. The farm bill is a terrible place to look for funding for wildlife, especially for CRP. What we as hunters should be pushing is perpetual easements on marginal land. This would benefit every future hunter and conservationist. Why do we want to keep paying for land over and over and over again when we could buy it once? Especially when that land is highly erodable and should not be intensively farmed.

I agree with this 100% you have to go after land that can be wrapped up forever.


----------

