# Commercializing Kansas (Heed the Lesson)



## Dick Monson

http://www.kansas.com/sports/outdoors/s ... 75716.html

Probably nothing has changed the face of Kansas hunting as much as allowing out-of-state visitors to hunt our deer.

It has brought many millions of dollars to the state.

It has also left many Kansas hunters scrambling for places to hunt and fearing for the health of the deer herd and the future of hunting in the state.

*The revenue, and consternation, has only intensified since 615 out-of-staters visited to hunt in 1994. This year, more than 21,000 are expected as legislative mandate says enough permits must be issued to meet visitor demand.*

The number of permits offered has more than doubled in the past five years.

Here's a look at the impact non-resident deer hunting has brought to Kansas.

Big Buck$

According to Southwick Associates, a firm that tracks the economic impact of hunting and fishing in America, hunters from out of state were responsible for adding more than $140 million to the Kansas economy in 2006. The figure would now be substantially higher.

Hunters wanting to up their odds for a trophy routinely pay $4,000 for fully-guided hunts. Some top-end operations charge more than $8,000.

Much of that money spreads through rural economies, many of which have been stressed for decades.

Landowners often get $5 to $10 or more per acre to lease their lands for hunting. To some, hunting revenue is as depended upon as much as crop and cattle incomes.

Millions are also spent paying local guides, plus eating and lodging establishments.

Visitors' deer permits have become a major source of income for Wildlife and Parks. Last year, the more than $5 million in out-of-state deer permit sales made up about 26 percent of Wildlife and Parks wildlife fee fund incomes.

That's about a 300-percent increase in the past five years. And it's not like the agency's ever been rolling in dough.

Mix in the sales of regular non-resident hunting licenses and it jumps to about 65 percent of wildlife revenue.

Keith Sexson, Wildlife and Parks assistant secretary, said non-resident fees pay a major portion of many popular programs many residents use.

The 1 million-plus acre Walk In Hunting Area program has benefited greatly from non-resident funds. Other programs designed to educate and create more hunting opportunities have also grown.

Sexson said that since out-of-state hunters will pay $322 for a permit, which is about 10 times the amount charged residents, deer permit fees haven't gone up for Kansas hunters in several years. Kansans already pay some of the highest prices for deer permits in the country.

Herd impact

Kansas' annual deer kill has remained fairly constant after falling from a spike about nine years ago, when multiple game tags were first issued.

The newness of it quickly wore off.

Kansas' deer population continues to have hot and cold spots. Out of state deer hunters probably have minimal impact on overall numbers.

Their impact on trophy deer, however, is highly debated.

Some Kansans have been saying the sky is falling on trophy deer populations since the first non-resident season. But Kansas still produced some of the best trophy hunting in the nation.

Would that change?

Sexson said KDWP surveys show Kansas still has a good percentage of trophy bucks.

Pope & Young and Boone & Crockett clubs are still getting plenty of entries. Judging from photos circulating the Internet, great bucks continue to be shot.

Some claim that's only because we have more hunters and it won't be long until the state's trophy potential is hurt drastically.

Hunting access

As numbers of visiting deer hunters have increased, so has competition for good hunting grounds.

Leasing annually becomes more prevalent as outfitters and hunters - from inside and outside Kansas - pay for access.

Likewise, more lands are being purchased by hunters wanting to insure they have a place to go.

There's also justified concern the growing difficulty in finding a place to hunt, and increased visitors' permits, has lead to more trespassing and poaching problems.

It's not like any of this came as a surprise. Commercialization in hunting has been spreading across the nation for decades.

Kansas was one of the last states to be consumed and leasing was growing in popularity even before the first non-resident season.

Now difficulty in accessing good deer lands is the most common complaint heard from Kansas hunters.

Kansas ranks near the bottom for public hunting lands, complicating the situation. Complaints of public area overcrowding by resident and non-resident hunters grow annually.

All is not lost for Kansans refusing to hang up their rifles or bows. Many have gone to creative ways to access private land. Some have traded labor for hunting. Others guide paying hunters on the land in exchange for their own hunting rights.

I've met many middle-class hunters who have scrimped and saved for years to buy their own place.

Some, though, have simply given up the sport rather than expend the energy or money needed to find good hunting.

Wildlife and Parks and every hunting-based sporting group is working hard to get more kids into hunting. But it is becoming increasingly difficult for budding hunters to get involved because of access issues.

On many leased lands, even family members aren't allowed to hunt. This fall I wrote an article about a teen who only had one day to hunt his grandfather's ranch. Paying hunters had it the rest of the year.

But I can cast no stones at someone wanting to hunt in another state. Nor can I blame a landowner for reaping the profits from leasing, especially in hard economic times.

A person who works hard to buy land and maintain great habitat owes nobody else access. But I worry how well the next generation of hunters will be able to access good Kansas lands.

I guess there is no real blame to be spread, only the reality of challenges to come.

Eagle outdoors writer Michael Pearce has hunted in other states and in the past was a paid bird-hunting guide. Reach him at 316-268-6382 or [email protected]


----------



## AdamFisk

What do some of you oblivious people have to say about this??????

DISTURBING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## AdamFisk

Is there an easy way to email that article to every state legislature member?


----------



## AdamFisk

Dick Monson said:


> http://www.kansas.com/sports/outdoors/story/1075716.html
> 
> Some Kansans have been saying the sky is falling on trophy deer populations since the first non-resident season.
> 
> Some claim that's only because we have more hunters and it won't be long until the state's trophy potential is hurt drastically.
> 
> As numbers of visiting deer hunters have increased, so has competition for good hunting grounds.
> 
> Leasing annually becomes more prevalent as outfitters and hunters - from inside and outside Kansas - pay for access.
> 
> Likewise, more lands are being purchased by hunters wanting to insure they have a place to go.
> 
> There's also justified concern the growing difficulty in finding a place to hunt, and increased visitors' permits, has lead to more trespassing and poaching problems.
> 
> It's not like any of this came as a surprise. Commercialization in hunting has been spreading across the nation for decades.
> 
> Wildlife and Parks and every hunting-based sporting group is working hard to get more kids into hunting. But it is becoming increasingly difficult for budding hunters to get involved because of access issues.
> 
> On many leased lands, even family members aren't allowed to hunt. This fall I wrote an article about a teen who only had one day to hunt his grandfather's ranch. Paying hunters had it the rest of the year.
> 
> Eagle outdoors writer Michael Pearce has hunted in other states and in the past was a paid bird-hunting guide. Reach him at 316-268-6382 or [email protected]


Does any of this sound familiar guys???????

You people that think our "the sky is falling" attitude is rediculous, need to wake up. EVERYBODY needs to wake up. This is where we are headed.


----------



## DG

Eagle outdoors writer Michael Pearce likes to promote this commercialization he writes about. Check it out:

http://www.ringneckranch.net/

The piece is written by Michael Pearce. Maybe he didn't hunt there, just wrote the piece for "money."


----------



## bigblackfoot

This is exactly where we are headed. Before you guys that are going to come on here and say that "you hunted for a week and didnt hear another shot" or "There is no pressure in ND." That is what Kansas thought and now look at what they are dealing with. Dont blame us for wanting to be ahead the "8-ball" rather than behind it. We dont want our state to end up like yours! Once our CRP is gone and there is no ducks, most of you will be gone looking for somewhere else with "NO PRESSURE". Well good luck with that.

Adam i couldn't agree with you more about sending that to our legislators.


----------



## AdamFisk

DG said:


> Eagle outdoors writer Michael Pearce likes to promote this commercialization he writes about. Check it out:
> 
> http://www.ringneckranch.net/
> 
> The piece is written by Michael Pearce. Maybe he didn't hunt there, just wrote the piece for "money."


So, does that make his article false????????

Nope. Just a hypocrite, or, part of the problem.


----------



## g/o

> Visitors' deer permits have become a major source of income for Wildlife and Parks. Last year, the more than $5 million in out-of-state deer permit sales made up about 26 percent of Wildlife and Parks wildlife fee fund incomes.
> 
> That's about a 300-percent increase in the past five years. And it's not like the agency's ever been rolling in dough.
> 
> Mix in the sales of regular non-resident hunting licenses and it jumps to about 65 percent of wildlife revenue.
> 
> Keith Sexson, Wildlife and Parks assistant secretary, said non-resident fees pay a major portion of many popular programs many residents use.
> 
> The 1 million-plus acre Walk In Hunting Area program has benefited greatly from non-resident funds. Other programs designed to educate and create more hunting opportunities have also grown.
> 
> Sexson said that since out-of-state hunters will pay $322 for a permit, which is about 10 times the amount charged residents, deer permit fees haven't gone up for Kansas hunters in several years. Kansans already pay some of the highest prices for deer permits in the country.


Hmmm


----------



## gst

I wonder if anyone asked Grandpa if it weren't for the extra income from these hunters wether he'd even own the ranch yet for his grandkid to possibly some day have.

Maybe someone in Kansas will start an initiated measure to end the funding of this 1 million acre walkin program by these NR tags like is being done in Mt. If this happens in reality the average hunter will HAVE to pay for access thru increased license fees. Back to the old give and take arguement again and somes unwillingness to give. 1 million acres plus federal and state lands plus a percentage of private lands still open to access. I wonder how many resident hunters Kansas have.


----------



## Drakekiller

If the money Gramps made off NRs leasing his land was what kept him on the farm, maybe he should not be farming anymore. I wonder if Gramps declairs it as income or just stuffs it in his overalls?


----------



## TK33

Drakekiller said:


> If the money Gramps made off NRs leasing his land was what kept him on the farm, maybe he should not be farming anymore. I wonder if Gramps declairs it as income or just stuffs it in his overalls?


What happens when the wildlife numbers go down and there is no resource to make money off of?

gst, I don't want to rehash the other topic here but what middle ground are you advocating here?


----------



## DG

I don't know guys,

Michael Pearce is an outdoor writer who makes a living selling columns he writes. Looks to me like he is telling everybody to come and get 'em. Here is another:

http://www.texassportingjournal.com/con ... .php?ID=96

Texas Sporting Journal - May/June 2009

By Michael Pearce

Texas Sporting Journal - May/June 2009 
Keith Manca was hundreds of miles from his Danbury, Conn., home. Back east his buddies were probably reveling in some great whitetail rut activity. But early on the morning of Nov. 7, 2007, he saw something that would have made him gladly crawl to Harper County, Kansas.

He watched a buck he said "looked like a tower of tines" as the legit 7X7 crossed several hundred yards of prairie, stopping about 15 yards from his bow stand. His arrow was on the money.

Manca soon walked up on a buck that carried just a 15-inch inside spread but six tines between 10 and 11 inches long. Because of so many typical points the buck grossed 195 4/8 inches. Great symmetry let it net 193 4/8 inches. According to the Boone and Crockett Club record books it was the largest typical taken in the world, by any weapon, in 2007.

Not far behind, a buck netting 192 inches, gun-killed by William Fickling Sr. of Hughes Springs, Texas, in Lyon County, Kansas, ranked as the world's second-best typical for the same year.

During that year James Livingston of Junction City, Kansas, shot a non-typical that netted 240 2/8, B&C's third-best of its class for that year.

The final figures aren't in for the 2008 seasons but Kansas certainly did well again. Bow-kills of 185 typical and 230-plus non-typical inches were taken. Gun hunters again racked up numerous whitetails that beat B&C book minimums.

Then there are the mule deer in the western part of the state. Thirty-inch bucks aren't common, nor are ones that net over B&C minimums, but Kansas produces some of the best of the best in America every year. Most trophy mule deer are long on mass with 170- to 180-inch typical frames, and enough "treasure" points to beautify the gross but hurt the net score.

All things considered-trophy-class whitetails and mule deer, as well as hunters per trophy buck taken-Kansas may be the best deer-hunting state in the nation.

But before you book your vacation and tell your taxidermist to reserve a spot for a life-size mount of your very own Kansas Booner, there are some facts to consider.


----------



## DG

It seems a few years ago Micheal Pearce was in the midst of a fight to open Kansas to more non-residents:

www.huntingreport.com/hunting_article_d ... cfm?id=627

HuntingReport.com Kansas Non-Resident Hunter Fight

Published: December - 1997

Continuing subscribers will remember The Hunting Report was in the midst of the fight to get the state of Kansas to open up to non-resident deer hunting several years ago. Since then, we've chronicled the highs and lows of those first few seasons when a combination of unrealistic expectations and inexperienced outfitters meant some visiting hunters headed home empty-handed. Well, Kansas correspondent Michael Pearce says things are finally looking good up his way for non-residents. He writes: 
"The first good news I have to pass along is, the outfitter problem in this state is finally beginning to right itself, as witness the fact that some high-quality whitetail and mule deer bucks have already been taken this year as of late November. For example, outfitter Jim Aller of Wolf River Outfitters, who hunts Unit 10 in the northeastern corner of the state, had good success for early-season bow hunters (October 1 to December 2) and muzzleloader hunters (September 20 to 28), with plenty of bucks in the 140 to 160 range. Also, John Doty of Shadow Oaks, who hunts Chautauqua County in Unit 12, produced an impressive number of Pope & Young-class whitetails for his early-season bowhunters.

The outlook in 1998 looks good for non-residents to be able to draw buck whitetail tags in 14 of the state's 18 hunt units next year. That's because there were leftover resident tags in these units this year, which gives the state a rationale to open up hunting there to non-residents next year. One of the units where non-residents will likely receive more permits for both gun and bow is Unit 14, a huge area that encompasses the legendary Flint Hills. The tallgrass prairie unit is noted for producing a lot of bucks in the 150 to 160 or better range. I'll follo........(continued)


----------



## gst

Drakekiller So what should Grandpa do sell the ranch and have nothing for the grandkid down the road???

Read the whole article, and the "middle ground" should not be that hard to tell. 1 million acres of private lands open to the average hunter to walk on without having to get permission. This doesn't even include private lands not enrolled that are open. Monies to improve habitat and maintain the resource itself. This is done without them (res) having to "pay" anyone, the NR is doing it for them. Yet a few whining residents want to take away the ability of the NR's to do the same. I don't know what a plots pymnt is here in ND but lets say for sake of arguement it is $4 dollars in Ks. Thats probably between 2 and $4 million dolars the average sportsmen will have to pay if the NR deal goes away to continue this private lands program like some on these sites wish it would. Before anyone comes on here claiming the sportsmen of any of these states will "gladly" pay increased license fees I'd like to see a little proof that this few speaks for the majority of hunters. I'd guess the underlying factor a few on here have a problem with that they don't admit is the fact that any private land is closed and that any fees are going to access lands on which to hunt this "public resource" they feel they own. No one wants to admit this so the "greedy commercializer" and the NR gets the blame. I suppose here in ND we could shut down all NR hunting, and then Mn. would respond, Mt. ect......It appears many of the agencies that manage these states game animals are doing their best to balance NRs with some regualtion, and yet provide access for residents thru these programs, and generate monies to maintain the resource and habitat, yet for some, it's not good enough. Go figure.


----------



## g/o

AdamFisk said:


> Is there an easy way to email that article to every state legislature member?


Go for it http://www.legis.nd.gov/


----------



## djleye

> ......It appears many of the agencies that manage these states game animals are doing their best to balance NRs with some regualtion, and yet provide access for residents thru these programs, and generate monies to maintain the resource and habitat, yet for some, it's not good enough. Go figure.


GST. What agencies are regulating ND. Too bad it was the legislature that changed the way that the G&F wanted to run the state and the amount of NR duck hunters. Look back at it. G&F wanted to do HPC to figure the amount of NR hunters per year, the legislature, which has about zero years of wildlife experience, changed the way they wanted to run it. Let the experts decide, not a bunch of politicians. That would be my only gripe.


----------



## g/o

djleye said:


> ......It appears many of the agencies that manage these states game animals are doing their best to balance NRs with some regualtion, and yet provide access for residents thru these programs, and generate monies to maintain the resource and habitat, yet for some, it's not good enough. Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> GST. What agencies are regulating ND. Too bad it was the legislature that changed the way that the G&F wanted to run the state and the amount of NR duck hunters. Look back at it. G&F wanted to do HPC to figure the amount of NR hunters per year, the legislature, which has about zero years of wildlife experience, changed the way they wanted to run it. Let the experts decide, not a bunch of politicians. That would be my only gripe.
Click to expand...

Then why not let all these agencies in this state control everything, get rid of the legislative process. Think about it Packer Breath. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## djleye

Yea, you wouldn't want a bunch of trained biologists running the game and fish dept., that would make waaaaayyyyyy to much fricken sense!!!!! Makes a lot more sense to have the untrained legislature making game and fish dept. decisions, right??!!!
:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Drakekiller

GST
How many resident hunters lost the land they used to hunt because they could not afford what big buck NRs offered these land owners? They will not make that up in plots. Plus, I am sure not all these NRs can pay to lease land. So they will be hunting the public land also. Just like ND,the people own the wildlife with in its borders. They should come first. I see way more NRs on plots than residents. Not even close. The plots program was not intended to be a cure all and it never will. The more that money is involved in hunting the worse things will get. Our four fathers did not want us to be like England. Where only the rich could hunt.


----------



## Maverick

It's funny how some can read an article and only see what they want to see!

I am 100% with you DJLEYE! It would make way too much sense to let the trained professionals make the decisions! So instead we will leave it to politicians ! :eyeroll: :eyeroll:



> The more that money is involved in hunting the worse things will get. Our four fathers did not want us to be like England. Where only the rich could hunt.


Amen!



> This is exactly where we are headed. Before you guys that are going to come on here and say that "you hunted for a week and didnt hear another shot" or "There is no pressure in ND." That is what Kansas thought and now look at what they are dealing with. Dont blame us for wanting to be ahead the "8-ball" rather than behind it. We dont want our state to end up like yours! Once our CRP is gone and there is no ducks, most of you will be gone looking for somewhere else with "NO PRESSURE". Well good luck with that.


Amen!!


----------



## AdamFisk

Packer Breath.......That's a good one. :lol:

G/O, I don't know you. But the things I've heard about you are good. Apparently you only guide on your property, that is AWESOME. I know you do a kids hunt. I know you manage your land for the better of wildlife. You give back. That is AWESOME. If this state was filled with more operations like you run, we'd all be better off.

The fact is though, there aren't many guys like you out there. There are "greedy commercializers" out there that will, and are, going to turn this state in Kansas. I keep hearing about out of state operations moving in and setting up shop (THIS HAS TO END). Now how much good can operations like these bring back to the state? They come here to whore out OUR, North Dakotas, resource, and move on.

Now, they can't take all the blame of course. We huntes are a greedy bunch as well. I will admit there are lots of hunters who only care about "getting theirs" and not the big picture. There are becoming more hunters, R and NR alike, leasing up more land year after year. I maintain that hunter/landowner relations are going down the pooper, for many reasons. This is not good. We keep going in the direction we are, and the hunting as we know it right now will never exist again. We need to preserve what we have right now.

How do we do this? Where is this middle ground that GST speaks of? I am willing to make some sacrafices to keep what we have. People keep talking about initiated measures on here. Well, just for ****s and giggles, we all should try to come up with an "initated measure" that both sides can be happy with. When I say both sides, I'm referring to ND sportsman, and ND G/Os. Frankly, I don't give a **** what NR's think as they have no say in this fight. It's not their state...... I think it would be VERY INTERESTING to try to find this middle ground. Just pretend it's legislative season and the State has put it on us, the residents, to come up with a bill that we all think is in the best interests of ND.

If we are going to stop ND from turning into the next KS, or TX, we need to take action, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Guys like you G/O, GST, DG and guys like me need to work together to come up with a solution......I don't know, maybe you guys don't see it like I do???? Maybe you don't think anything needs to be done???? In that case, there will be no middle ground reached and we are screwed. Maybe I'm naive to think that people like you and people like me can work together?

Come on now, I know there are people out there with good ideas. If we are going to ***** back and forth at each other, let's at least try to make it productive, at least once in a while  . Who knows, maybe by the next legislative session we can all go to the state with a bill that both sides agree on. Now wouldn't that be something!!!!!

Where's that middle ground?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> I keep hearing about out of state operations moving in and setting up shop (THIS HAS TO END). Now how much good can operations like these bring back to the state? They come here to whore out OUR, North Dakotas, resource, and move on.


That would be a huge start. Make them be a resident of ND! I mean not just the "outtfiters" whos name is on the business card. But everyone who "guides" for them. So this way they pay taxes in ND.


----------



## AdamFisk

Chuck Smith said:


> I keep hearing about out of state operations moving in and setting up shop (THIS HAS TO END). Now how much good can operations like these bring back to the state? They come here to whore out OUR, North Dakotas, resource, and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a huge start. Make them be a resident of ND! I mean not just the "outtfiters" whos name is on the business card. But everyone who "guides" for them. So this way they pay taxes in ND.
Click to expand...

G/O, GST, DG, your thoughts?????


----------



## g/o

Chuck Smith said:


> I keep hearing about out of state operations moving in and setting up shop (THIS HAS TO END). Now how much good can operations like these bring back to the state? They come here to whore out OUR, North Dakotas, resource, and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a huge start. Make them be a resident of ND! I mean not just the "outtfiters" whos name is on the business card. But everyone who "guides" for them. So this way they pay taxes in ND.
Click to expand...

Chuck I keep hearing this also, but where is this happening? No one seems to know all here say. A little past info for you, origanally that is the way ND was, you had to be a resident. Along came Nodaks favorite outfitter and challenged the game and fish on this. They didn't even put up a fight because they knew they were wrong, we are a right to work state. So instead they put in place higher prices for N/R


----------



## TK33

gst-
you keep calling people who want to put ensure access and the resource whiners. Yet you acknowledged that only about 60% of the land in you area is posted and there is little or no outfitting. Maybe you should check some of these areas before you start calling everyone a whiner. It is way different than it was even 2 years ago in almost every area besides yours apparently. It is going on whether you want to believe it or not.

Combine outfitting, or under the table fee hunting with wet years and the access issue is magnified. If the places that I NR hunt and fish decide that the rules are unfair for their residents and want to change it, I have to deal with it. What is different here???

The commercial hunting lobby has the legislature in their back pocket. The legislature looks at the revenues and that is it. The average hunter takes a back seat.


----------



## g/o

djleye said:


> Yea, you wouldn't want a bunch of trained biologists running the game and fish dept., that would make waaaaayyyyyy to much fricken sense!!!!! Makes a lot more sense to have the untrained legislature making game and fish dept. decisions, right??!!!
> :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


Funny djleye when it comes to limiting N/R hunters the biologists are correct. Last session when the biologists wanted to pass a baiting law you were against them because you bait. Would that be maybe called hypocritical? Or how about this a limit on N/R hunters but I see you only fish in MN. Oh thats right I forgot apples to oranges



> 2006 Lund Fisherman
> by djleye » Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:41 pm
> 
> I have a 2006 Lund 1700 fisherman for sale. 115 (2006) 4 stroke Yamaha on it. 72 lb. minnkota PD/AP bow mount and an Minnkota x-55 bow and minnkota x65 dash mount. It comes with the travel cover, top set and side curtains. ALso has an ez loader (2006) trailer with oil bath hubs as well as a spare tire. Boat is loaded, used only on MN lakes locally. Some sticker scuffs, but the boat is in great shape.
> Asking $21,500 OBO. PM with any questions or to see pics.


----------



## Bobm

I hunt Kansas every year sometimes 3 weeks or more and their WIHA program is similar to your Plots system

The problem is the guides keep locating the WIHA areas with good cover for Pheasants and outbid the state program I've lost 10 good spots in the last three or four years to this.

Private hunting clubs are also picking them off

So like ND there are a lot of very marginal WIHA spots being leased by the state

I also have been approached many times by ranchers trying to sell me deer hunting I think landowners get tags I dont know the specific I just politely decline


----------



## djleye

g/o said:


> djleye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, you wouldn't want a bunch of trained biologists running the game and fish dept., that would make waaaaayyyyyy to much fricken sense!!!!! Makes a lot more sense to have the untrained legislature making game and fish dept. decisions, right??!!!
> :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny djleye when it comes to limiting N/R hunters the biologists are correct. Last session when the biologists wanted to pass a baiting law you were against them because you bait. Would that be maybe called hypocritical? Or how about this a limit on N/R hunters but I see you only fish in MN. Oh thats right I forgot apples to oranges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2006 Lund Fisherman
> by djleye » Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:41 pm
> 
> I have a 2006 Lund 1700 fisherman for sale. 115 (2006) 4 stroke Yamaha on it. 72 lb. minnkota PD/AP bow mount and an Minnkota x-55 bow and minnkota x65 dash mount. It comes with the travel cover, top set and side curtains. ALso has an ez loader (2006) trailer with oil bath hubs as well as a spare tire. Boat is loaded, used only on MN lakes locally. Some sticker scuffs, but the boat is in great shape.
> Asking $21,500 OBO. PM with any questions or to see pics.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

hey Numnuts!!!!!!

Where have I ever put out bait.........SHow meone spot where I have baited a deer. I guarandamntee you that I have never baited in a deer.......EVER!!!!!! You assume so much **** Jim that it just is ridiculous!!! When did I say I was for or against baiting?
Oh yea, hunting and fishing is exactly the same, once the damn fish grow wings and can fly!! Also, I have said all along that if all the NR fishing MN have hurt the fishing, then by all means, they should restrict NR. No doubt about it!! They should do what is best for their state and the NR should come second!!!
Talk about people talking out their *** Jim, that about takes the cake!!!!!! :rollin:


----------



## gst

Drakekiller, I'm not talking about someone not having continued hunting opportunities, I'm talking about a family not continueing ownership of the land itself for future generations if certain choices were not made. Big difference.

TK, We hunt in areas occassionaly that are heavily posted (SW) and have never had a problem finding opportunities to hunt and have never had to pay a dime. It's because we have established relationships, have ideologies similar to these folks that own the land, and adjust our hunting to when it works for these folks and don't demand or expect everything to go how WE think it should. We have great firends and hunting experiences and we aren't doing anything more than what anyone else in this state could do if they so choose. So if you are complaining because you have "no place to hunt" or "hunting has gone to hell" here in ND, in my opinion you are whining.

Adam, I really don't know, outside of GO's point about ND being a right to work state, why there would be a problem requireing ND outfitters and the companies that own them to be residents. Even though we have this designation, in this case it does seem to make some sense, so if you can figure how to accomplish it, I wouldn't oppose it. What I have a problem with is the people that claim they want to reach this "middle ground" but don't seem to understand what is required to do so. In a compromise each side has to give up a little to gain a little. To me these walk in programs are a PERFECT example of this. The landowner gives up the ability to control who is accessing his land and gets a small compensation. The resident hunter gets access to a million acres of private land and the opportunitythat goes with this without having to ask or pay and in return gives up a small amount of the resource to NR. The NR hunter gets opportunities and in return gives up a amount of money that pays for this whole program. Yet apparently their are small groups of people unwilling to go along with THIS middle ground in Ks, Mt, and even here in ND. Hopefully it doesn't turn into another initiated measure here in ND. :wink:

I suppose we could ban all NR hunting and see how long it would take for other states to respond. It has been suggeted that the resident hunter would gladly pay to continue these programs thru increased license fees. Yet no one has done the math to show what they would have to pay or shown any actual proof of this. The G&F agencies goals are to continue expanding these walkin programs , how will they continue to be paid for if they were to double. Everyone wants to stay the way it was in the "good old days" when it comes to hunting, while EVERYTHING else in the world changes. It's not going to happen.

djleye I'm not really familiar with this so hopefully I'm not too far off base. As I understand it there are 3 ways revenues are generated to provide funds for the agency in charge of managing game. The sale of licenses, appropriations thru the legislature and certain taxes paid by sportmen. The G&F largely is in charge of managing the resource, while the legislature plays a part in determining how to fund it. The costs of managing this resource continues to grow like most all other costs have. So there is always the question of how to pay for these management programs especially in a fiscally conservative state such as ND. As more and more programs for the resource, habitat, opportunity ect.... come up they have to be funded somehow, when the G&F are unable to do so thru current existing license fees, they go to the legislature for additional funding and there begins the compromise to decide how to accomplish this, and the give and take process begins. Is it perfect? Probably not, but few things are.

Adam, I really don't know where this "middle ground" falls, but I do know demanding more and more regulations will not accomplish it. I'd imagine some people might think them one sided, but heres a couple examples of a start. 
1. When there is a drought and ranchers are faced with liquidating their herds or cutting less than 30% of the total CRP acres in the state (no more than 50% of a contract, and only a portion of total contracts) don't oppose it and come on the radio or these sites whining that there will be no place left to hunt and the resource will be decimated. (CRP has been cut and there are more deer, pheasants, grouse ect... than ever).
2. If someone suggests a depredation tag program in an area that has too many deer that is run as follows, the individual has to allow access on a certain percentage of their land, the tags are for unantlered deer and have to be given away, not sold, and it is being done as a solution to too many deer instead of a bandaid such as deer proof fences, possibly support the idea.
3. Instead of believing that your tax dollars thru these govt ag progrms give you the "right" to come onto private land, realize that these programs benefit to the consumer are many times more than what is paid to the ag producer thru the cost you pay for your food. 
4. Quit starting initiated measures that open the door to the nonhunting public as well as anti hunting groups to further regulate hunting activities or methods after you can't get your agenda passed after several tries legislatively. :wink: 
5. Understand that everything, even hunting, changes and there is more than just your side in the debate and actually compromise towards proactively keeping it better for those future hunters.
Are all the programs perfect, I'd guess not, so if anyone has other ideas how to poactively offer a solution rather than ban this or ban that feel free to give specifics.


----------



## barebackjack

Must.......resist........temptation.........to post!



g/o said:


> djleye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, you wouldn't want a bunch of trained biologists running the game and fish dept., that would make waaaaayyyyyy to much fricken sense!!!!! Makes a lot more sense to have the untrained legislature making game and fish dept. decisions, right??!!!
> :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny djleye when it comes to limiting N/R hunters the biologists are correct. Last session when the biologists wanted to pass a baiting law you were against them because you bait. Would that be maybe called hypocritical? Or how about this a limit on N/R hunters but I see you only fish in MN. Oh thats right I forgot apples to oranges
Click to expand...

The G&F stance on the baiting issue last session was based on that of the unsubstantiated, overblown, and unproven "disease issue".

It was NOT based on N/R hunters.


----------



## KEN W

g/o said:


> Chuck Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing about out of state operations moving in and setting up shop (THIS HAS TO END). Now how much good can operations like these bring back to the state? They come here to whore out OUR, North Dakotas, resource, and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a huge start. Make them be a resident of ND! I mean not just the "outtfiters" whos name is on the business card. But everyone who "guides" for them. So this way they pay taxes in ND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chuck I keep hearing this also, but where is this happening? No one seems to know all here say. A little past info for you, origanally that is the way ND was, you had to be a resident. Along came Nodaks favorite outfitter and challenged the game and fish on this. They didn't even put up a fight because they knew they were wrong, we are a right to work state. So instead they put in place higher prices for N/R
Click to expand...

Not quite right Guidy......right to work had nothing to do with it.Keeping out of state G/O from coming here is against interstate commerce.I was at the Advisory meeting where this was brought up and explained.


----------



## Maverick

> Chuck I keep hearing this also, but where is this happening? No one seems to know all here say.


Remeber UGUIDE from this website? There is one, and there are 3 others that have been turned in, in my area! One is being investigated as we speak! Why haven't you heard yet? Think about it!

:eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## indsport

Let me just add a couple of clarifications. Hunters do pay for the PLOTS program with their habitat stamp and license fees. Depredation programs already exist through NDGF. Read http://gf.nd.gov/maps/docs/pli-brochure-2007.pdf which covers plots and all the private lands programs, almost all of which come from funds collected from hunters. So yes, we do pay for the privileges. 
On the other hand, at least within the area where I have hunted the past 2 decades, it won't make much difference by next year as there will not be much to hunt. As an example, 20 of the 24 CRP fields a quarter section or larger within a 20 mile radius were plowed, 100% mowed or planted to beans or corn this year including 2/3 of the PLOTS lands and most of that PLOTS lands is being removed from the program. Some of the areas were in grass going back to the late 70's, enrolled in CRP, and have now been plowed up and planted. By 2012, our local USDA office estimates that 90% of the CRP will be removed from the program and planted to crops. I don't know how it is where you live, but here it is going, going, gone.


----------



## gst

indsport, Prior to this last legislative session what depredation programs were avalible that delt with reducing numbers, the only true way to reduce depredation problems? Here in ND a portion of hunters dollars goes to the plots BOTH resident and NR. The loss of CRP is driven by a few different reasons. Economics and people simply being fed up with the "changes" that have happened to the program are probably the primary ones. Could we simply be repeating what has happened in the past? Possibly so. But some are suggesting these lands will be needed in the future (20 -30 years) to produce ehough food to feed the growing world population. So what suggestions of compromise are out there to keep hunting what everyone thinks it should be down the road while the primary use of lands (food production) continue.


----------



## TK33

gst-

this is exactly the thing that I am talking about. Pair habitat (CRP) losses with commercialization and it is a recipe for disaster. Less habibat, less available hunting land, and everyone will be hunting on top of each other.

Like you I have no issue with access, yet. I don't take for granted how good the hunting is here and how important it is to keep landowner relationships, but I see it changing. You had a good point earlier about banning NR's and the other states following suit. I have seen the same or less NR's in the areas that I hunt over the last few years but access is way down. As it continues to worsen more people will want more NR restrictions instead of paying attention to what the actual probelm is.

If it makes you feel better to call me a whiner, fine. Take a look at other states that have ag, oil, and good hunting and you will find that history is on my side. Hopefully I am wrong on this and in ten years the hunting here hasn't changed too much, but I doubt it.


----------



## gst

So TK what do you propose be done???????? If the experts that are saying going into the next 50 years food production will have to increase by 60% to feed the world, where will it come from? If this is truly the case, what is more important, wildlife habitat or ag production? Take away monies from NR licenses and what more will have to be generated by residents? Push for more regulations to "protect" opportunity and what do you expect will happen??? Even though it is the favorite thing to blame the 'greedy commercializers", in reality what percentage of the states private land is leased???? What percentage is posted but not leased? I think the numbers would surprise you. I would guess the second segment is growing much faster than the first, and why do you think this is? Everyone wants hunting to stay the way it was in the good old days but as everything is changing around it, the most common way this is being done is by pushing more and more regulation. See where that gets you. So how do you suggest reaching a middle ground????? Lets hear some specifics.


----------



## TK33

we have been down the road of ag having priority over hunting before. I have never once advocated hunting over production. I am still surprised that you don't see the inevitable and already happening increase price of pasture land due to hunters bidding on it as a bigger problem.

A good start would be eliminating third party outfitting and this broker nonsense. Too many people making money without putting anything back into the system. I know you think that this will take a business away from someone but the problem here is where does it end? You, me, or anyone else could start a business right now, all you need is a website, a phone, insurance, and some first aid and cpr. Pay a few hundred bucks and you are an outfitter. One of the esteemed sponsors of this site just boasted a few weeks ago that he has acreage that he locks up and doesn't even use. That was not in ND but is still a indicator of what is coming, his posts have been deleted.



> What percentage is posted but not leased? I think the numbers would surprise you. I would guess the second segment is growing much faster than the first, and why do you think this is?


I have only had a few landowners tell me no due to anger or protest. In fact it is less now than it was back 20 years ago when there were the "posted in protest of swampbuster" signs. Most of what I see is posted because the landowner wants to know who is on his land. The overall land in the state percentage would not surprise me, the percentage of land leased in certain areas may surprise you however. The part that surprises and concerns me is how fast it is happening and how unchecked it is. Especially given the "bona fide farmer" license exemption.


----------



## gst

TK you were the one talking about this "middle ground" so lets hear some examples where this is achieved while accomplishing what you want. Where's the middle ground for the landowner that doesn't want to be an outfitter in your banning of 3rd party outfitting?

I realize firsthand the increased costs in some areas because of hunters pushing up the price of land. In many cases the surrounding landowners choose to lease or require pay for access to offset this increase in costs. So who is really the cause of this? Why aren't you advocating regulations to end the buying of land for non ag purposes such as hunting????? So which side of this middle ground will these regulations you speak of needing fall on????


----------



## TK33

> So who is really the cause of this?


Outfitters and those who want money to hunt their land. They are the ones who are increasing the costs and denying the access. 


> Why aren't you advocating regulations to end the buying of land for non ag purposes such as hunting?????


I am sure you are talking about DU and PF buying up habitat land. The governor already has to approve that, so that is taken care of. The people buying up land and making their own little hunting preserves out of it is not a good thing either. Another problem with all this commercialization is people buy up land and then post it for their own use. It is not commercialized but it is locked up. Again, access lost. This is the scenario that some people that I know are in now. They have no relatives who farm, they have lost the land they used to hunt to pay hunting, most cases under the table cash, so they are forced to buy their own. I would rather buy land and rent it out and hunt it than pay an outfitter. In the long term you are money ahead. We know this isn't good for agriculture either. This brings me back to my point that no one is thinking down the road, just looking at how much money they can put in their pockets now. Seems to me that the landowners who are outfitting or leasing are actually driving up the costs in their own area.

Another thing that I think would help is if all land was treated as posted even if it isn't posted. In other words, you can't sue the landowners.



> Where's the middle ground for the landowner that doesn't want to be an outfitter in your banning of 3rd party outfitting?


Do you wear a green suit with question marks all over it? One riddle after another. :-? The middle ground is the landowner still has the chance to outfit, it is not the outright ban on commercialization that some, maybe even a lot of people want. Third Party outfitters are profitting off of the resource, that is it. They have nothing invested in the land, do little or no work for habitat or the resource. No one is going to pay 600 bucks a day to come out and lay in black dirt or pasture with no wildlife. Another question is where do they pay taxes to? One more question, what happens if the migration changes or the numbers go down? They will go elsewhere. Just here to turn a quick buck and bolt.


----------



## AdamFisk

gst said:


> I realize firsthand the increased costs in some areas because of hunters pushing up the price of land. In many cases the surrounding landowners choose to lease or require pay for access to offset this increase in costs.


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

So your saying farmers are charging $50/gun to kill geese or $800/week to kill deer because we hunters are outbidding them on their farmground??????? :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

Bull****!!!!!! It's the other way around my friend. Hunters are fed up with increase in leased and posted up land, increased "pay to play" hunting, ect. THAT IS WHAT IS CAUSING LAND TO BE PURCHASED BY HUNTERS. I myself would buy land right now, if I could afford it. Why????? So I could take comfort in knowing I'll always have a place to hunt, no matter how bad (commercialized) it gets.

Where's the middle ground?????? I would support not allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry hunter buying up land IF we could put an end to this bull**** pay to play access. How? I dont know. That is for people smarther than I to figure out.


----------



## AdamFisk

I beleive there are a lot of farmers/landowners on this site who are also big sportsmen. It would be nice to hear from more of you guys as well, no matter what your thoughts may be. :beer:


----------



## gst

TK, You missed what I said, where is the middle ground for the landowner that DOESN"T want to be an outfitter, Apparently your idea is to ban him from making any money off the habitat he has on his own land that this resource comes to. As you said, no one animal or hunter is going to be in a plowed field. You aren't happy with people posting land and closing it to access, you aren't happy with people allowing limited access to land for a fee, what do you want????? So when a law gets passed prohibiting the leaseing of hunting lands and paying for access and more land is bought, posted and closed as a result, how long before a regulation demanding private lands be open because the "publics" resource resides on them shows up??

I wasn't talking about DU, PF coming in and buying up land that is a whole other issue in itself in which hunters are DEMANDING certain things. What I am talking about , and Adam it is happening wether you want to call bullsh!t or not, is some resident HUNTERS with more money than they know what to do with are coming in and buying land not because there is no place to hunt, but rather because a particular piece of land is exceptionally good to hunt because of habitat, animals avalible ect..... How many rich ND's (hunters)have bought land around the badlands to be elgible for the gratis elk tags? There are thousands of acres of great public land to hunt and yet ND (hunters) are buying land out here all the time. I know several ranchers that have lost pasture land not to NR's or leased land or G\O but to ND's (hunters)that pay twice or more than the productive value of the land and post it and don't allow anyone else to hunt or to be used for pasture. So in return they look to something to make up the revenues they lost with the land. The same rich fella(hunter) that bought the land comes to them and says I'll pay you so much an acre to lease your land beside the stuff we bought. The farmer then looks at it ands says well if this fella will pay me to have this land to hunt, maybe the other fellas wanting to hunt on my land should as well. IT DOES HAPPEN. So I suppose we could sit and have a what came first the chicken or the egg arguement all day. But to say resident hunters aren't the cause as well is simply another example of coming to the table with a onesided ideology which is the problem in and of itself.

So TK according to what you said"another thing that would help is to treat all land as if it was posted even if it isn't posted" you would support a no tresspass law????? You say you would rather buy land, rent it out and not post it and hunt on it yourself? After taking your kid out to hunt it and not seeing anything because everyone and their dog has already hunted it because of the habitat you worked to develope, I wonder if you will still feel this way. Adam, you said if you could afford to buy land for hunting you would. Why should other people be denied what you want? If you did buy a quarter of land would you leave it unposted for everyone else to hunt or would it be posted up tight and become part of the problem as you see it?

The reason I ask the questions is to hear your answers. I'm not the one coming on this site claiming hunting in ND sucks or will because of no access, greedy commercialization, NR's ect.... then demanding more and more regulations on the people that own the land that holds the "resource" you want to hunt. For every hunter on this site that is whining, and the whiners are those that don't seem to understand a give and take approach and only want things their way, there are dozens that have established relationships and approach hunting with the type of ideologies that ensure them access and opportunities now and in the future. Of course I realize hunting, like everything else, is changing and not always for the better. What it ends up being is dependent on how everyone involved choses to go about things. Not being willing to change with it and demanding things stay the same and trying to regulate this into happening probably won't get the results some want. Allowing or supporting certain groups of "hunters" to push personal agendas banning things and regulating private landowners, ie. HFH measure, without saying anything probably doesn't help. So lets hear some proactive COMPROMISE solutions to the problems you percieve that has benefit to BOTH sides, otherwise it sounds like whining.


----------



## DG

You guys are more predictable than Pavlovs dog. Dick Monson pitches a story and the landowner, G/O, commercializer bashing begins. The writer Michael Pearce laments:



> The revenue, and consternation, has only intensified since 615 out-of-staters visited to hunt in 1994. This year, more than 21,000 are expected as legislative mandate says enough permits must be issued to meet visitor demand.


At the very bottom of the piece:



> Eagle outdoors writer Michael Pearce has hunted in other states and in the past was a paid bird-hunting guide. Reach him at 316-268-6382 or [email protected]chitaeagle.com


Well look at that, he was a bird hunting guide!!! Does he take responsability for bringing in NR's, probably not? He reminds me of the late Tony Dean. Sell hook and bullet stories (for money) about the wealth of resources here. Take "money" from advertizers to endorse their products from Pugsleys sandwiches to the latest super fish flasher to hunting lodges (who give them a freebie) to fishing guides to hunting and fishing equipment. They made a living selling hunting and fishing. A lot of non-residents were reading those stories and dreaming of the day when they could experiance what Michael and Tony were selling.

However, Tony and Michael now complain about how when they get to they favorite fishing or hunting hole there are ten non-resident chevy suburbans already there. Overcrowding everywhere. Why the switch? For that one you have to follow the money. Before big money can come from Uncle Sam a problem or perceived problem must be created. These forums help that process along. Here is just one source of that money from Uncle Sam, 50 million annually. WOW!! There should be enough taxpayer dollars here to employ a brigade of technical service providers, biologists, ecologists and wildlife managers. You know the ones, "highly intelligent wildlife professionals." Government is GROWING!!!!! They know what your "desires" are!!! Free Enterprize, G/O's, NR's, ACCESS are the whipping boys. People need to stop inviting government in to resolve their problems.

https://conrad.senate.gov/issues/statem ... 1017-2.cfm

IssuesFrequently Asked Questions About the
"Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program Act of 2003"

Why is this legislation needed?

Does it make sense to create yet another federal program for USDA to administer?

What if USDA tries to force states to impose long-term agreements or easements in order to receive funding?

If some farmers and ranchers begin receiving payments to allow public access, won't other producers react by restricting hunting on their land?

It would seem that $50 million is not very much money when you consider the vast amount of private land in the United States. Is $50 million worth the effort?

It is realistic to think that a new program can be funded in the current budget environment?

Some landowners are unwilling to open their land to the public because of concerns about liability. Does the bill do anything to protect landowners in such cases?

Is this legislation only about hunting or can the states allow other outdoor recreation activities such as birding or wildlife trails under their access programs?

The last section of the legislation repeals a specific provision in the Farm Bill. Can you explain what that is about?

Why is this legislation needed?

Many states, including North Dakota, face growing controversy over who can hunt in the state, and under what conditions. The debate has pitted resident hunters against out-of-state hunters and the rural businesses that increasingly depend on these non-resident hunters for their economic survival. The issue has even put states at odds with each other. In addition, more and more agricultural land is being bought up for personal recreation by outside investors who often pay more than the land is worth for agricultural purposes and then close the land to public hunting.

At its core, the hunting debate is about demand exceeding supply. Quite simply, the public desire for hunting and other outdoor recreation opportunities increasingly exceeds the amount of land available for such activities. The problem is growing worse each year, and states are in a quandary as they seek to resolve it.

This legislation is an attempt to address the root cause of the problem by providing a voluntary, incentive-based program, administered by the states, under which farmers and ranchers will be encouraged to make their land available for access by the public. Building on the success of limited state programs in this area, the legislation is designed to grease the wheel, rather than re-invent it, and in the process provide an additional means of supporting farm income in the future.

This legislation is an attempt to address the root cause of the problem by providing a voluntary, incentive-based program, administered by the states, under which farmers and ranchers will be encouraged to make their land available for access by the public. Building on the success of limited state programs in this area, the legislation is designed to grease the wheel, rather than re-invent it, and in the process provide an additional means of supporting farm income in the future.

Does it make sense to create yet another federal program for USDA to administer?

USDAs role would be limited to allocating program funds to the states, while the states would actually implement the program in the field under terms set by each state. But the program would be entirely voluntary and incentive-based, and each state would have the flexibility to build on what works and what is acceptable in each state. Funds are provided under the program to encourage public access, and are not intended to duplicate other federal programs that provide funds for habitat enhancement or conservation generally.

What if USDA tries to force states to impose long-term agreements or easements in order to receive funding?

The legislation specifically requires the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate state programs based on clear indications of landowner acceptance within the state. In North Dakota, for example, it is apparent that contracts with terms similar to those under the Conservation Reserve Program have been well received by farmers and ranchers, while longer-term agreements or easements have not. Current experience would indicate that, to be successful in encouraging acceptance among North Dakota farmers and ranchers, a public access program should feature shorter-term agreements.

If some farmers and ranchers begin receiving payments to allow public access, won't other producers react by restricting hunting on their land?

Experience in the handful of states that currently sponsor modest hunter "walk- in" programs indicates that those programs increase the amount of private land accessible by the public, without discouraging those land owners who already provide access from continuing to do so in the future.

In addition, by targeting voluntary programs to private land with proper wildlife habitat, a common-sense threshold is established for entry into the program. The land must have appropriate habitat, as determined by each state.

It would seem that $50 million is not very much money when you consider the vast amount of private land in the United States. Is $50 million worth the effort?

As with any new initiative, this program should be forced to prove itself. And $50
million annually should be sufficient to demonstrate whether this program can generate the benefits and public support necessary for the effort to be maintained or expanded in the future.

It is realistic to think that a new program can be funded in the current budget environment?

There are two major arguments in favor of public funding for this new program. First, the program is offered to address a major and increasingly divisive public policy question: Who should have access to wildlife habitat?

Second, on-going trade negotiations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) are almost certain to limit further the ability of the United States and other countries to provide traditional means of farm income support. This proposed new program, because its payments are not based on the price or production of agricultural commodities, could provide one means to support farm income in a manner consistent with the new, more stringent WTO rules likely in the future.

Some landowners are unwilling to open their land to the public because of concerns about liability. Does the bill do anything to protect landowners in such cases?

This is a real concern, but its also an issue that is best addressed at the state level. Indeed, some states have apparently already protected landowners against litigation involving personal injury or property damage (but not gross negligence), provided the landowner does not charge the public a fee to enter the land. Hunting regulations are generally set on a state-by-state basis, and the liability issue should also be resolved by the state. In fact, the bill includes a clear statement that nothing in the legislation preempts state liability law.

Is this legislation only about hunting or can the states allow other outdoor recreation activities such as birding or wildlife trails under their access programs?

Although most of the discussion about this legislation is likely to revolve around hunting, states are free to design their own program when providing access for wildlife-related activities. Thus, in developing their own program, many states are likely to recognize that birding and nature-based tourism are increasingly popular recreational activities. Supporting wildlife-based recreation through positive voluntary landowner incentives can help to expand these other outdoor activities.

The last section of the legislation repeals a specific provision in the Farm Bill. Can you explain what that is about?

The 2002 Farm Bill includes a provision stating that acreage enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and "any other...conservation program for which payments are made in exchange for not producing an agricultural commodity" shall not be included in calculating a farms acreage base for purposes of farm program payments.

It is logical to exclude land enrolled in the CRP and WRP (and potentially other federal conservation programs) from a farms acreage base, since payments are provided separately under the CRP and WRP programs. However, USDA has also ruled that farmland enrolled under state "public access" programs that provide a modest payment for establishing habitat rather than growing agricultural commodities should also be excluded from a farms acreage base. Unfortunately, in these situation, the loss of federal farm benefits greatly exceeds the incentive payments from the state, imposing a harsh penalty on the farmer and undermining state programs. This section would repeal that Farm Bill provision.


----------



## TK33

gst-
In order for there to be comprimise people have to realize that private land is private land and that wildlife is in fact public property, as the state defines it.

I don't know about the no tresspass law, a lot of farmers I know don't like to be bothered when they are working, so they don't post until deer season. Although I do think that no tresspass would benefit people who want to put in the work.

Yes I would post hunting land. You have no choice, as I said above. It is not right but if this continues that will become the norm, actually already has in some areas.

What I am advocating gst is far from what I want and does make concessions to landowners, it just doesn't make concessions to outfitters that do not own the land. They are profitting on something that is not theirs to profit on. The landowner should be the only one who can make money on it. I would like to see a better payment for PLOTS, if it means increased license fees for all, so be it. The best way would be to get rid of exemptions and charge more for guide and outfitting licenses and getting rid of under the table money. HIgher fees and taxes paid on the wildlife equals more revenue to game and fish. This way the landowner that doesn't want to outfit could actually get something for enrolling in PLOTS.

DG-
I agree that the states should handle this not the federalis. I also agree that the USDA and other agencies have poor policies and some bad agendas.



> People need to stop inviting government in to resolve their problems


Who else is going to solve this?? The G/O's in ND have an association and a lobby don't they?? If you think the state government shouldn't solve this then why does the g/o association like to work with the tourism people to sell their agenda to the legislature. Things like increasing NR tags, lengthening seasons, etc?? Once again it seems like the g/o people really love the government when they are on their side, but when the legislation would benefit the non paying hunters the g/o industry is up in arms.


----------



## DG

> People need to stop inviting government in to resolve their problems


Permit me to clarify what I meant. "People need to stop inviting the fedgov in to resolve their problems."

TK33, What I'm gathering from your many posts is the tourism dept., other state dept., the legislature, and all the people of this state who elected and appointed these officials to these positions are not the people who should be managing wildlife. So I was thinking maybe you are promoting more fedgov technical service providers with their agenda. But then you said,



> I also agree that the USDA and other agencies have poor policies and some bad agendas.


It's very hard to figure out what you "are" for.

If you don't like guides who you feel commercialize the resource then a good place to start is Dakota Country Magazine. Bill Mitzels son Jon is a G/O. I don't believe he owns any land. They even have a link to this site.

http://dakotacountrymagazine.com/?p=links

It is a great rag mag for those who like to bash the legislators, access, baiting, CRP, you name it. The writers have an agenda.

A few years ago the president of Czecheslovkia was in the U.S. I believe his name was Valclav Haval. He advised us to embrace free enterprise and cautioned that our environmentalists are the new age communists.

That makes sense to me. Everytime I put down an issue of Dakota Country Rag Mag, I can't help but think of the columnists there as watermellon heads. Green on the outside and red on the inside.


----------



## TK33

> It's very hard to figure out what you "are" for.


What I am for is limiting commercial hunting to landowners, and having all those landowners be licensed so that the state who is doing what and how much. I am for getting rid of all liability for landowners who allow the public their land. I am for scientists managing the resource with input from landowners and hunters, not the tourism and g/o industry. I am for keeping hunting around for everyone to enjoy. The federal government has to be involved in waterfowl. Right now they are involved enough, or maybe even too much.



> He advised us to embrace free enterprise


 Whoring out a public resource that is managed by the state is not free enterprise.



> cautioned that our environmentalists are the new age communists.


throw in animal rights activists and he is dead on accurate.

Didn't know that about the Dakota Country, that is interesting to say the least. If he is not a landowner he shouldn't be outfitting. Every writer has an agenda so I am not overly surprised by that.


----------



## gst

TK, So the landowner can guide, but to do so he has to choose between guiding and continueing to be involved in govt ag programs under what you were for in another thread. So you would rather this landowner be forced out of govt programs which in the case of ranching most are designed to enhance habitat that help the resource and conservation? Would they be able to enroll acres into the CRP ag program and recieve payment for this?? 
"Another problem with this commercialization is people buy up land and post it up for their use. Again access lost." In regards to your own land "Yes I would post my hunting land." So on one hand you are saying this is a problem, yet you are saying you would do it anyway??

Here's another one of those dreaded riddles for you. Will fishing guides be excluded from guiding(commercializing) on waters they don't own under your only landowners can guide regulation?? Where's the outrage over fishing guides ("greedy commercializers") operating on the public waters of the state????

The state has spelled out the wildlife are "property" of all residents of this state. So in your compromise scenario I believe this is clear and most realize this. What I believe isn't clear is wether people think G/O are selling the actual animal itself, or the opportunity to hunt these private lands that hold these animals. There is a reason that outside of a HF most outfitters don't offer guaranteed success, because they aren't selling the animal, they are selling the hunting opportunity. So it appears you are claiming you are for the landowners right to use their property, but yet in essence wanting to limit them from doing so thru further regulation.

In a perfect world, perhaps this "commercialization" of wildlife wouldn't occur. But in the real scenario of trying to find ways to continue to fund habitat programs, access programs, maintaining the populations of game animals and fisheries,ect... at the level hunters are demanding,it will probably have to continue to varying degrees. The problem is how people justify it. When the G&F sells one of a handful of sheep tags to the highest bidder, it's not commercialization, it is being done to protect the resource for the next generation. When DU buys land and sells hunts off it, then sells it to an individual to raise more money to buy more land, it is being done to protect habitat for future generations of duck hunters although not necesarily the public. When the RMEF buys land and closes it to public hunting so they can raise big monies to buy more land thru the hunts they sell on it, thats protecting the future of elk hunting. But when a rancher leases out his land or guides so he can generate enough monies to stay in business(protecting his livelihood for himself and the next generation) he becomes a "greedy commercializer" "whoring out the resource" . Who gets to make these distinctions???? Apparently a few vocal ND hunters that don't really care about any "middle ground".

Do I want this state to become over run and every acre "pay to play"? Of course not. But ask most landowners what they would rather have, a NR that is glad to have and appreciates the opportunity to hunt on his land and that may or may not pay him for doing so if asked, or resident hunters demanding unlimited access and opportunitiy and pushing for more regulations to accomplish this. So find the middle ground with a little real give and take, or the trend you say your seeing will probably continue.


----------



## tumblebuck

DG said:


> If you don't like guides who you feel commercialize the resource then a good place to start is Dakota Country Magazine. Bill Mitzels son Jon is a G/O. I don't believe he owns any land. They even have a link to this site.
> 
> http://dakotacountrymagazine.com/?p=links


Huh???? That's news to me. I can't find anything that links Jon to a guide service. He has been outwardly vocal against guides in his writing. Please tell me which guide service he operates.


----------



## DG

TK33 wrote,



> I am for scientists managing the resource with input from landowners and hunters, not the tourism and g/o industry.


Do you mean like the north dakota chapter of the wildlife society and the north dakota wildlife federation?



> Whoring out a public resource that is managed by the state is not free enterprise.


Free enterprize pays and pays to manage this public resource. Here is another source of funding that does not make it into the general fund.

http://www.teaming.com/
The proposed Teaming with Wildlife Act would provide a reliable and increased amount of funding for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. The bill would dedicate a portion of existing federal revenue from on-shore and off-shore oil and mineral development activities to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program.

Congressional Champions Calls for Increased State Wildlife Grants Funding!
In a strong show of support for America's wildlife, Representatives and Senators crossed ideological, regional, and partisan lines to sign a letter urging funding for the federal State Wildlife Grants, the nation's core program for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered in every state. The letter, addressed to the Chairman and Ranking Member of both the House and Senate Interior Appropriations Committees, supports a funding level of $85 million for the State Wildlife Grants Program in Fiscal Year 2010.

TK33, Look at that, 85 million bucks. So let me understand you. You think you are going to sit down with a couple landowners, some legislators, no G/Os, a bunch of resident hunters and some NR's, no tourism and more than likely the G/F. Small time small meeting, sounds good. But how are you not going to include these assoc. listed below? They are stakeholders. They have scientists. They have enough suction to get 85 million bucks out of the taxpayers. They have partnerships with big government. Before your little meeting is over they will lower you into so many fever swamps you will come out with Dick Monsolaria.

http://www.teaming.com/pdf/Teaming_with ... n_List.pdf

Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee
American Fisheries Society
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Association of Zoos and Aquariums
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Izaak Walton League of America
National Audubon Society
National Wild Turkey Federation
National Wildlife Federation
The Nature Conservancy
The Wildlife Society
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Wildlife Conservation Society
Wildlife Management Institute


----------



## Old Hunter

DG What is your sourse of information that prompts you to state that Mitzel is a G/O ?


----------



## Jon-Mitzel

I need to correct the fact that I am not a guide or an outfitter. We support any respectable business. I also don't own any hunting land. People need to get their facts correct.

Jon Mitzel
Dakota Country Magazine


----------



## DG

Hi Jon,

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, you "used" to be a G/O. I'm asking. Is that a fact????


----------



## Jon-Mitzel

Yup... I did guide, something like 10 years ago.
Jon


----------



## Old Hunter

10 years ago you must have been a fuzzy faced kid. Most young guys think guiding would be a wonderful job.People have no idea until they do it.


----------



## Maverick

Old Hunter said:


> 10 years ago you must have been a fuzzy faced kid. Most young guys think guiding would be a wonderful job.People have no idea until they do it.


He wasn't too bad of a hockey player either!


----------



## TK33

gst- there are very few people who are "demanding" unlimited access to private lands. I have never once advocated this. People post their land for various reasons, that is their right. As I have said numerous times, there is a need for some responsible and ethical outfitters. This system we have now needs some adjusting otherwise this will be a pay to play state before we know it.

I fail to see what this teaming group has to do with access in ND. Would this not be the federal gov't interfering with state issues?

You know this has nothing to with the wildlife federation or any other group. You keep trying to make this about HF but that is not what this is about. Once again it is about access and coddling to your so called free enterprise businesses.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how using a publicly funded and managed resource is a free enterprise business. The said business is not providing the desired product, the government is. The only ones who are close to a free enterprise business are the actual landowners because they have made the investment in the land to have the desired product.



> TK, So the landowner can guide,


not guide, outfit. They are two similar but different things, I should have been more clear on this.



> Will fishing guides be excluded from guiding


Fishing guides are not posting up lakes and rivers. This is about access.



> So it appears you are claiming you are for the landowners right to use their property, but yet in essence wanting to limit them from doing so thru further regulation.


Limit them? By making them pay for a license? If you are going to outfit, I don't think the license fee to the state is going to stop anyone from doing it. In some cities you have to pay more for a single day liquor license than what they charge to outfit 5,000 acres for the whole year. The purpose of the license would be to get rid of under the table cash, which is already illegal anyways. So in essence the only landowners that would be adversely affected are the ones who are already breaking the law.



> So on one hand you are saying this is a problem, yet you are saying you would do it anyway??


I am saying that is the road we are on now. More people will be forced to buy land or quit hunting, supply and demand.

As far as the subsidies go, what I am more in favor of is outfitting being treated like a non commodity production business. Because it is a non production business. If you are subsidizing land for commercial hunting, that is not the intention of the subsidy programs. Where does one draw the line. What if the local car wash owner goes out and buys 30 chickens and puts them on the same land as his carwash. Is he now a bona fide farmer or eligible for at least some subsidies? :wink:

gst- you seem like you think that it is only hunters who are going to lose if these trends continue. Hunters and outfitters are going to continue to bid up land, no matter what the commodity prices are. Seems to me if nothing is actually done soon the ones who will lose are the freelance hunters (R and NR) and the guy who just wants to farm.


----------



## TK33

Here is the definition of free enterprise business:



> Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy. also called free market


Once again profitting of off wildlife is anything but a free enterprise business. While outfitting does follow supply and demand it is restrained, regulated, and subsidized by the government. Always has been.


----------



## indsport

A little fact check I had posted elsewhere on Nodak Outdoors. Teaming with wildlife money does not go to any of the organizations listed but rather are grants to the states in the state grants program. No money goes directly to any of the organizations listed, they just supported the concept. Any organization or individual can apply to the states for grant money. The State Wildlife Grants Program provides federal dollars to every state and territory to support cost-effective conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. Congress created the program in 2000. Funds appropriated under the State Wildlife Grants Program are allocated to every state according to a formula based on each state's size and population. Further note: the National Wildlife Federation in 2005 received 147k in government grants out of a total income of 99 million dollars, less than 0.2% of the total.


----------



## gst

I wasn't going to comment anymore on this, but I just couldn't help it. TK you have to stop and read what you are posting. I hope you still don't think I'm posting under 2 ids.

You claim that no hunters are demanding access and that landowners have the right to post their land, but right below it you claim it is not about HF but rather about access. You have stated that posting land is commercialization and part of the problem. You continue to reference land being posted negatively thru out your posts, yet you don't want us to think this is about posting land??????

The reason HF was brought into this discussion was as a reference to the attitudes of some vocal ND hunters that ARE trying to limit what a landowner can do on his property and the affects this can have on land access.

"not guide, outfit. Two different but similar things" ???????????????????? Yes you should be more clear on this one.

"Once again it is about access" "Fishing guides are not posting up lakes and rivers. This is about access" 
OK. I thought it was about the commercialization and "whoring out" the resource not about the posting of land and someone controling access. Which one is it TK, this statement as well seems to contradict your claim you are not against the landowner posting their land to control access.

As to the fishing guides, aren't they making money(whoring out) on a publically funded ( fish are being stocked) and managed resource, as a form of free enterprise? They are doing exactly what any other guide is doing yet simply because they are not "posting up lakes and rivers" you will allow this commercialization to continue, and yet you want us to believe this is not about posting land????????? I guess you are one of those hunters that want to pick and choose what you deem appropriate to regulate.

Heres the logic I really don't understand you think that someone that is already breaking the law by recieving "under the table cash" will suddenly stop because another regulation is put in place for them to not follow as well???????? I suppose maybe if they're afraid of it adding up to the 7 misdemeanors get charged with a felony deal, but otherwise what would it accomplish with these operators.

Your car wash owner buying chickens scenario is simply not accurate, no he would not be a "bone fide farmer" or "elgible for at least some subsidies". As I have stated before in our conversations there is a form one has to fill out to be elgible for govt ag programs where you have to state and prove if checked that a majority of your yearly income comes from ag sources. It would be a pretty slow car wash to have 30 chickens be the "majority" of your yearly income.

As long as they have the money, hunters will continue to bid up land to ensure as Adam suggested they have a place to hunt or because a particular piece of land is better habitat and as such better hunting. So until you choose to regulate who can buy land and for what purposes it will continue. Good luck with that. Pushing more and more regulations to try to insure your access will not get the result you want short of regulating away the ability to even control access onto private land itself, which as I said before seems to be the underlying ideology that is simply not being admitted to. I'd guess most that read this thread with an open mind will realize this.


----------



## DG

This thread started with an article by Michael Pearse who says about Commercializing Kansas:



> The revenue, and consternation, has only intensified since 615 out-of-staters visited to hunt in 1994. This year, more than 21,000 are expected as legislative mandate says enough permits must be issued to meet visitor demand.


Fact is he used to be a guide who helped bring in out of staters. Not trying to pick on Jon Mitzel too much but he does the same thing. Out of staters read Dakota Country Magazine. "Free enterprise" vendors advertise with Dakota Country such as: restaurants, bait shops, optics, fish houses, covention centers and visitors bureau, troller trailers, meat markets, fishing tackle, lodges and motels, c-stores, ice augers, prop repair, resorts, stink baits, truck dealers, dog kennels, long tail pheasants.

These advertisers have an "interest" in wildlife. Everyone is contributing to the success of Dakota Country Magazine and trying to get the most bang for their buck. Are they commerciallizing the resource? I don't think so. I have been a subscriber to Dakota Country for about 20 years. Read it from cover to cover. Have even used the services of some of the vendors. What's my gripe? There is a small group of people who are allowed to use Dakota Country Mag as a launch pad to forward "their" agenda. It's a disservice to the mag to read all the bashing of one form of hunting and fishing over another.

Hey Jon, just read about your accident, sorry to hear that. Get well


----------



## Nick Roehl

All of the things that have happened in States around us are a sure sign of what is to come if we don't do something about it, and when I say we I mean the sportsman that hunt ND. I have hunted Kansas for pheasants and the walk-in land looked really nice but didn't hold many birds. I asked a local why and he said, "there isn't enough public land for the numbers of residents". By the time I got to Kansas(the 2nd weekend of pheasant hunting) the birds had been pushed so much they were crazy. The wildest birds I have ever seen. This is back when Kansas was supposed to be the top state for pheasants too. 
I definitely think that guiding and outfitting should be restricted, as well as letting in so many people to hunt( NR caps ). If you don't like what I am saying then you truely don't give a crap about the future of hunting in ND. Guiding just leads to more land being leased and out of the hands of the average hunter. 
ND needs to find another way to make money, how about pulling in some businesses and creating some actual jobs??


----------



## Jon-Mitzel

DG,
Dakota Country welcomes views from both sides of any interest. In the upcoming January edition, for example, Brian Dahl of Berthold, ND in his Letter-to-the-Editor headlines: Let Landowners Do As They Wish. I'm sure you can guess the direction of his piece from the headline. If Dakota Country was strictly used to push or "launch" specific agendas this piece would obviously not appear within its pages. Dakota Country welcomes views to be published as long as they are done tastefully and in a respectful manner. If you wish to put thoughts on paper to appear in Dakota Country I welcome you to do so.
Jon


----------



## DG

> Dakota Country welcomes views from both sides of any interest. In the upcoming January edition, for example, Brian Dahl of Berthold, ND in his Letter-to-the-Editor headlines: Let Landowners Do As They Wish. I'm sure you can guess the direction of his piece from the headline.


OH OH, The Jan. issue should be in the mail soon. Shouldn't have to hold my breath too long.

One of these days I'll stop in and we'll visit. It's a hellava story. I got on the path that I'm on because I started reading your mag 20 yrs. ago.


----------



## Nick Roehl

Jon-Mitzel said:


> DG,
> Dakota Country welcomes views from both sides of any interest. In the upcoming January edition, for example, Brian Dahl of Berthold, ND in his Letter-to-the-Editor headlines: Let Landowners Do As They Wish. I'm sure you can guess the direction of his piece from the headline. If Dakota Country was strictly used to push or "launch" specific agendas this piece would obviously not appear within its pages. Dakota Country welcomes views to be published as long as they are done tastefully and in a respectful manner. If you wish to put thoughts on paper to appear in Dakota Country I welcome you to do so.
> Jon


Ok let them do as they wish. But then cut them off from fed and state funding.


----------



## TK33

gst-
you can mince words, try to twist around what I say, and read more into it than what is there. The fact of the matter is that outfitting is not a free enterprise or capitalistic business, if anything it is a socialistic business. You are still advocating production rules for non production business. There is a difference between posting your land for your use and locking it up so that a few can turn a profit off of wildlife. You keep trying to make this about landowner rights when this is about business practices, and using the government to support and back it. You say that you don't want ND become a total pay to play state, but your positions are not only helping commercialization, they are making it too easy. I don't believe that people should start telling landowner what they themselves can do with their land, I am not advocating this. What I am advocating is banning 3rd party outfitters, not the landowner themselves. If the farm is going broke and the farmer needs to outfit then they can do it themselves.

As far as the guides go, read the NDGF laws or the century code and you will see the difference. Guides are different than outfitters, fishing guides are different than hunting guides, and the outfitter is the only one who is taking away access. Outfitting, access, and the whoring out of a resource that is backed by the public is all tied together-it takes hunting opportunities away from the average citizen.

You made my point for me on the chicken/car wash thing, and it is accurate. With some good accounting you can move money around and hide revenues to make the few chickens look like your primary income. It would take more chickens though. People do this with commodities to get tax deductions that are only supposed to apply to bona fide farmers. It is wrong and also should be hooked but it never is. As far as the under the table cash goes, if it is defined clearly the person demanding the compensation would know that the other person probably knows that it is illegal. Money has to go through the channels legally. I am no fan of taxes either but they have to be paid.

There have been some land auctions in the SE where the seller stipulated that the buyer has to be a farmer, maybe that will help things some. I know a few people who have had great relationships with landowners, thought they were good friends, only to lose the access to a 3rd party outfitter. The bottom line is that their relationship was not worth enough. gst you say that you don't want to see ND become a pay to play state, you are very good at saying what won't work, what do you think would actually work??


----------



## gst

TK I really don't have to try and twist around what you are saying, or read more into it than what you are saying , you do that quite well on your own.

Your justification of the fishing guides still doesn't change the fact they are using a public resource that is funded and managed and govt regualted in their "free enterprise" business, no different than someone guiding for deer. The only difference is acces, and yet you want people to believe this is not about access.

As to what I think will work, I've repeatedly said by coming to the table with a TRUE willingness to GIVE a little to get something. A couple specific examples 
1.When there is a drought situation and CRP was opened for haying or grazing by the landowner, I can't recall many , if any at all, hunters coming on this site and making an arguement why this should be allowed. Virtually every post was from hunters complaining that this would ruin THEIR hunting and shouldn't be allowed. There are lawsuits by wildlfie/hunting orgs. that have changed the parameters of this ag based program because of this one sided ideology. 
2. The DU purchases of land, they are regulated here in ND by a long standing policy that itself has done more to protect habitat in ND than any wildlife group has as well as protecting ag, and yet hunters are demanding this be dropped. There are lawsuits by wildlife/hunter orgs trying to change the intent and parameters of this policy because of one sided ideologies.
3. The HF measure, yes here it is again, but being used in a context of why land may be being closed. Once again a group of hunters want to change or regulate and BAN what a landowner can do on his own property. Regardless of failing to accomplish this legislatively this is now moving forward because of this one sided ideology. 
4. Hunters themselves buying land for inflated values or offering landowners money for leasing. There is probably more land leased by hunters for their own use than by outfitters. If the demand for wether you want to call it outfitting or guiding, most will consider that splitting hairs in this disscussion, or leasing was not there, it wouldn't be happening. You come on these sites blaming the "greedy commercializers" that are "whoring out the resource", while never saying a thing about what is driving the whole issue. Hunters wanting it. And don't try to blame it all on NR hunters coming into this state and ruining it, because there are plenty of ND hunters demanding this in ND as well as going out of state and doing that very thing, using outfitters and guides in these states as well. You want to effectively regulate this from happening here in ND but do nothing about addressing the fact that hunters will continue to buy and close land, something you and Adam admit to wanting to do yourselves. What is the difference between land closed to hunting because of leasing or you buying and closing land for hunting? Either way the public loses the ability to pursue THEIR resource on either land????? You want to do one for your own benefit, but yet regulate the other away for the "publics" benefit. You want to take away the opportunity from someone that maybe able to afford to pay say $100 a day to get access for 5 days to go after his once in a life time elk on private lands, while keeping the ability of the person that can pay $10,000 a year to buy the land to do the same thing and yet claim you are aginst the commercialization of hunting and are preventing ND from becoming a pay to play state???? All you are doing is reducing the people that will be playing to those with the most money.

You continue to push the fact that these game animals are a "public resource" but yet that "public" out side of a handful of weekends that they want to USE this resource do very little to actually maintain the resource itself. This falls largely on what the private landowners of this state do themselves. Yet when the agency in charge of managing this resource that understand this gives this fact some consideration in their policies, this vocal group of hunters are the first to start whining. The complaining about the walkin programs is a perfect example of this.

You continue to push this landowners can guide as long as they don't recieve any govt ag program payments ideology which will force the landowner to choose between guiding and participating in these programs, which will in effect prevent the landowner from guiding because of the what these programs are designed for. Disaster protection, base price protections ect... designed not only to protect farmers, but ultimately benefit the consumer as well. Either you are familiar with these programs and know why this regulation will prevent 99.9% of farmers or ranchers from guiding, furthering your agenda to stop all "greedy commercializers" that are "whoring out the resource" or you simply don't understand the complexities of what you are demanding. Which is it? I thought I knew, but your 30 chickens and the car wash thing is making me wonder.


----------



## DG

Wingmaster said,



> Ok let them do as they wish. But then cut them off from fed and state funding.


By ERIC AASMUNDSTAD
Thursday, December 3, 2009 12:42 PM CST

president, North Dakota Farm Bureau

"We favor the elimination of all farm program payments."

I have been fortunate to serve the members of North Dakota Farm Bureau for the past 12 years; this is the strongest statement of principle I have been privileged to witness.

While this statement speaks to the elimination of farm program payments, it is so much more than that. Coupled with other statements in opposition to cap and trade and health care reform, along with an adamant position of not supporting any tax increase, our members have made it clear government is playing too large a role in our lives.

As we see the dark cloud of socialism spreading across this land, our members have said this has to stop. All people, including farmers, need to look to themselves rather than government as the solution to what is wrong in the United Sates today.

Our members realize that just about everything that is wrong in this country, and our state for that matter, is a product of government penalizing the productive sectors of society.

This statement also says it is time the public realize that nearly all farm program spending goes to social welfare programs and we (agriculture) can get along just fine without the government.

I believe the delegates to our convention are tired of government taking over industry so they can - in the words of government officials - "more fairly handle and distribute services." I believe our members, like many that aren't Farm Bureau members, are sick and tired of government passing laws and regulations that hinder our ability to decide for ourselves how to best use our energies and money.

From this simple yet powerful statement, I believe our members have said they are fed up with phrases like equality, fairness, and spread the wealth being used to further legislation to separate productivity from the rewards of the productivity.

Farm Bureau and our members believe in the principles that made the United Sates the greatest nation in the history of the world. We need to get back to those principles and grow our country instead of watching some trying to tear it down.

Wingmaster also said,



> ND needs to find another way to make money, how about pulling in some businesses and creating some actual jobs??


Whats the matter wingy, in this marxists socialist utopia, aren't the poor people hiring?


----------



## barebackjack

gst said:


> 4. Hunters themselves buying land for inflated values or offering landowners money for leasing. There is probably more land leased by hunters for their own use than by outfitters. If the demand for wether you want to call it outfitting or guiding, most will consider that splitting hairs in this disscussion, or leasing was not there, it wouldn't be happening. You come on these sites blaming the "greedy commercializers" that are "whoring out the resource", while never saying a thing about what is driving the whole issue. Hunters wanting it. And don't try to blame it all on NR hunters coming into this state and ruining it, because there are plenty of ND hunters demanding this in ND as well as going out of state and doing that very thing, using outfitters and guides in these states as well. You want to effectively regulate this from happening here in ND but do nothing about addressing the fact that hunters will continue to buy and close land, something you and Adam admit to wanting to do yourselves. What is the difference between land closed to hunting because of leasing or you buying and closing land for hunting?


gst, I agree with you here. Its a bigger problem than just NRs and guides/outfitters.

But you fail to address WHY the resident "casual" hunters are buying and leasing more land now than ten years ago. The "why" here is because they feel threatened. They feel threatened by the increase in leased/tied up acreage due to guide/outfitter outfits, they feel threatened by the increase of the "pay to play" mentality amongst many landowners, among other reasons. They feel threatened because in another ten years, perhaps only those that own the land itself, or own hunting rights to land will be able to hunt. (Yes, we have lots of public land, some of its really good, a lot of it gets the crap kicked out of it), on average though, the better hunting opportunities are found on private stuff.


----------



## barebackjack

DG said:


> Wingmaster said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let them do as they wish. But then cut them off from fed and state funding.
> 
> 
> 
> By ERIC AASMUNDSTAD
> Thursday, December 3, 2009 12:42 PM CST
> 
> president, North Dakota Farm Bureau
> 
> "We favor the elimination of all farm program payments."
> 
> I have been fortunate to serve the members of North Dakota Farm Bureau for the past 12 years; this is the strongest statement of principle I have been privileged to witness.
> 
> While this statement speaks to the elimination of farm program payments, it is so much more than that. Coupled with other statements in opposition to cap and trade and health care reform, along with an adamant position of not supporting any tax increase, our members have made it clear government is playing too large a role in our lives.
> 
> As we see the dark cloud of socialism spreading across this land, our members have said this has to stop. All people, including farmers, need to look to themselves rather than government as the solution to what is wrong in the United Sates today.
> 
> Our members realize that just about everything that is wrong in this country, and our state for that matter, is a product of government penalizing the productive sectors of society.
> 
> This statement also says it is time the public realize that nearly all farm program spending goes to social welfare programs and we (agriculture) can get along just fine without the government.
> 
> I believe the delegates to our convention are tired of government taking over industry so they can - in the words of government officials - "more fairly handle and distribute services." I believe our members, like many that aren't Farm Bureau members, are sick and tired of government passing laws and regulations that hinder our ability to decide for ourselves how to best use our energies and money.
> 
> From this simple yet powerful statement, I believe our members have said they are fed up with phrases like equality, fairness, and spread the wealth being used to further legislation to separate productivity from the rewards of the productivity.
> 
> Farm Bureau and our members believe in the principles that made the United Sates the greatest nation in the history of the world. We need to get back to those principles and grow our country instead of watching some trying to tear it down.
Click to expand...

Only when ND farmers stop voting their pocketbook, and start voting their actual principles will I believe this. Your average ND farmer is pretty conservative in his views, yet time and time again they vote democrat when it comes to our national representation.

Perhaps their scared of Obama. After seeing what he did to GM after giving them some of that "free" money.


----------



## AdamFisk

barebackjack said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Hunters themselves buying land for inflated values or offering landowners money for leasing. There is probably more land leased by hunters for their own use than by outfitters. If the demand for wether you want to call it outfitting or guiding, most will consider that splitting hairs in this disscussion, or leasing was not there, it wouldn't be happening. You come on these sites blaming the "greedy commercializers" that are "whoring out the resource", while never saying a thing about what is driving the whole issue. Hunters wanting it. And don't try to blame it all on NR hunters coming into this state and ruining it, because there are plenty of ND hunters demanding this in ND as well as going out of state and doing that very thing, using outfitters and guides in these states as well. You want to effectively regulate this from happening here in ND but do nothing about addressing the fact that hunters will continue to buy and close land, something you and Adam admit to wanting to do yourselves. What is the difference between land closed to hunting because of leasing or you buying and closing land for hunting?
> 
> 
> 
> gst, I agree with you here. Its a bigger problem than just NRs and guides/outfitters.
> 
> But you fail to address WHY the resident "casual" hunters are buying and leasing more land now than ten years ago. The "why" here is because they feel threatened. They feel threatened by the increase in leased/tied up acreage due to guide/outfitter outfits, they feel threatened by the increase of the "pay to play" mentality amongst many landowners, among other reasons. They feel threatened because in another ten years, perhaps only those that own the land itself, or own hunting rights to land will be able to hunt. (Yes, we have lots of public land, some of its really good, a lot of it gets the crap kicked out of it), on average though, the better hunting opportunities are found on private stuff.
Click to expand...

I feel Gst knew that already, but didn't want to say it out loud......Here we are in the blame game again.....Fact is, I admitted to you Gst that I would love to purchase my own little chunk of hunting heaven so you would get an idea on how frustrated some are getting. You then use that against us to make it look like we are the problem. Point taken. I agree with you to some extent.

I can't afford to buy land, but there are many others who can, and are doing that. It's a BAD by product of the direction we are headed. You are right, hunters outbidding growers on land and then locking it up for hunting purposes is not good for anybody, but what can you or anybody else do about it???? We can't stop that BS by any means, but you know what I think would help??? Keep a good quality of hunting going in ND, for ND residents.

If you admit that hunters buying up land is a problem, and you can see that it's a by product of the direction we are headed, then you must beleive something needs to be done about the direction we are headed eh? So we are in agreement than??? :wink:


----------



## startown

I see this argument come up, and I see the "cannot afford to buy land" quote in many discussions. Obviously, not everyone can afford to buy land, but some can afford to, but choose not to. They pay $30,000 for a brand new truck, but they skip out on the 40 acres that is for sale down the road. Now, I realize 40 acres in one county may sell for $500 an acre, and could go for $3000 an acre in another county. Look into buying land, it may actually be possible. The first parcel I bought, I put $4000 down and financed the balance with a bank, it had CRP payments which made my annual payment. I still drive an old truck, I would rather have hunting land instead. North Dakota has land out there with crop and CRP that can provide an income or help make your monthly, quarterly, or annual payment. You may have to work on making that parcel into a better hunting property, however, there are several government programs that will help you do that...

I sell real estate for a living, and yes, I have seen several "cannot afford to buy land" situations change to I love my 80 acre property, just by doing a little research, phone calls, meeting with bankers and cash flow assessments.


----------



## gst

I'm just guessing on this as I don't know how you would find out, but I would bet there is probably as much better quality habitat(opportunity) land that is leased and bought by hunters for their sole hunting or a small group of peoples hunting as there is leased to outfit off in ND. So what is the difference between opportunity being lost by g/o leasing and closing land, or hunters buying or leasing land and closing it. So who is contributing to the "fear" that there won't be any place left to hunt? The g/o industry is built because of a demand for it by hunters themselves, not just NR but residents as well. Take away this demand and you have no G/O industry to blame. So when you have regulated away the g/o industry, or the pay for access, and left the buying and closing of land and leasing of hunting rights by hunters for themselves, which both Adam and TK admitted they would do themselves, who have you "protected" here, the "average joe hunter"?

So once again, we can sit here and play the what came first the chicken or the egg game. But the point I'm trying to make is that when you come to the table trying to solve this problem and only blame the "greedy commercializers" "whoring out the resource", without admitting or calling bullsh1t on the fact hunters themselves are as much of the problem as anyone, how do you expect to get a willing participant from the "other" side to come to the table to constructively solve anything? Then top it of with the fact some hunters don't care about compromising (giving to get alittle) they just want to simply regulate this "other" side anyway they can into getting what they want? (If you can't figure it out the HF group is a good example of this) If you can't see this will only continue to make the issue worse, rather than reaching some kind of balance or middle ground, I don't know what more I can say.


----------



## barebackjack

gst,

I acknowledge the fact that hunters buying land or leasing land is also a problem. But YOU consistently fail to acknowledge WHY they are doing this.

Every year in this state, "average joe hunters" go to hunt the land they have perhaps hunted for years. Only to find it locked up by a guide, outfitter, or another hunter. After several years (try a good decade) of this, they get scared, and buy their own piece.

Ten years ago, VERY FEW "average joe hunters" owned or leased land specificaly for hunting. The guides/outfitters started this "land race" we are experiencing, the "average joe hunter" is really a relatively new player in this game.

Chicken or egg.......I dont give a damn about poultry. The guide/outfitter, the COMMERCIAL business started this.


----------



## gst

bbj There are multiple reasons why this is happening, if you address one you have to address them all. For every hunter that buys land because he is "afraid of not having a place to hunt", there is a "greedy" one that merely wants to tie up the best habitat, opportunity ect... that has enough money to never not have a place to hunt. It is NOT just the "greedy commercializers" that so many like to villianize that is causing this problem. If ANYONE comes on this site and says there is no place to hunt unless they buy one in ND they will get little credibilty from me. And what I am suggesting to keep this from actually happening down the road is the old "give and take" idea that some are not willing to accept. Secretly I'd guess quite a few hunters may want absolutely no G/Os or posted land and that is what drives their ideologies. Some even come out and admit it. The reality is to accomplish the goal of keeping opportunities for ALL to continue hunting out there, some of this will continue. To try and regulate it until it is gone to accomplish these secret agendas will more than likely continue to worsen the problem.

So answer this question if you would. If there were no HUNTERS wanting to pay someone to guide them, would this industry even exist????????? So in reality what is driving this whole issue???? the hunter.........Yet some are not even willing to accept this and come to the table seeking a solution. They demand an end to something someone can perhaps save for a couple of years to go and do, but advocate and accept something(buying land themselves and closing it to the public)that takes a significant amount of money to accomplish.


----------



## barebackjack

gst,

I dont see many statements on this thread implying that an all-out abolishment of guide/outfitter operations. What I see, is many arguments supporting some extra restriction on these operations, and perhaps making it more difficult to start and operate these operations. You have to admit, the number of guide/outfitter operations in the state has dramaticaly increased in the last decade. Many of these are johnny come lately fly by night operations. We all know the type, walking around with their chest puffed out playing big shot guide. Here one year gone the next. Only to be replaced by another of the same type. They tie up alot of land, which than fuels the fire of the land race on down the line.

If you want to address a problem, it is best to address the root of the problem. In this case, the root of the problem are the commercial operations. They have been the main cause the snowball effect that we have seen.

Look at other states that have gone down this road. IA, IL, OH, among others. Sure there are MANY "average joe" hunters that lease land. But why did this begin? How many acres are tied up in oufitting operations? What caused what? You can argue it all you want, the more outfitters/guides that are leasing up land will directly increase the amount of land tied up by "average joe hunters".


----------



## DG

BBJ wrote,



> Only when ND farmers stop voting their pocketbook, and start voting their actual principles will I believe this. Your average ND farmer is pretty conservative in his views, yet time and time again they vote democrat when it comes to our national representation.


Actually Farm Bureau leans republican and Farmers Union is predominately democrat. Pomeroy is vulnerable and Dorgan isn't all that safe either. Remember the thread I started about Battle Brewing.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=71341

More info has come to light. Dorgan proposed this legislation. At the federal level he can direct taxpayer money to a pet project.
The Fort Abraham Lincoln Foundation gets federal taxpayers monies and then gave $62,000 to the Northern Plains Heritage Area. The NPHA foundation used your tax dollars, 8,500 to fly to D.C. and lobby congress for 15 million more of your tax dollars. That is illegal. There is more impropriety surronding this story too lenghty to mention here. It will be on the news soon enough. Dorgan has a few worries.

What is interesting is indsport writes:



> A little fact check I had posted elsewhere on Nodak Outdoors. Teaming with wildlife money does not go to any of the organizations listed but rather are grants to the states in the state grants program. No money goes directly to any of the organizations listed, they just supported the concept. Any organization or individual can apply to the states for grant money. The State Wildlife Grants Program provides federal dollars to every state and territory to support cost-effective conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. Congress created the program in 2000. Funds appropriated under the State Wildlife Grants Program are allocated to every state according to a formula based on each state's size and population. Further note: the National Wildlife Federation in 2005 received 147k in government grants out of a total income of 99 million dollars, less than 0.2% of the total.


indsport, Look at the date on what you wrote. Did you know Sen. Dorgan was one of only two senators on that appropriations committee in 2005? That kind of money can buy a lot of influence.

Once politics becomes a tug-of-war for shares in the income pie, decent government is impossible.
--Friedrich von Hayek


----------



## indsport

You are repeating the same mistake as the last time you responded to the same post. Dorgan is just one of one hundred senators who could vote on teaming with wildlife appropriations. The money is then sent to the states in proportion to the population, so the amount sent to North Dakota is quite small. The states then receive and review grant proposals from individuals and groups. Anyone can apply for them, even you. As to the federation, they have to apply to each state just like everyone else and the amount they actually received in 2005 and for the years since, as a proportion of their budget is miniscule. Political favoritism/Dorgan? pure balderdash unsupported by facts.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Another reason why Land is getting purchased is one fact nobody is saying.....INVESTMENT.

Now they buy land, rent the crop out or lease to hunters. People are making better return on the investment than wall street. Then if the person buying the land is a hunter.......that is just bonus for them if it has habitat. I mean think of it. If a person can buy land at $500 an acre and rent it out for $25 an acre the investment has paid for itself in 20 years minus taxes. Look what rent is going for in area's. $25 would be on the cheap in some places. So to just blame guides, hunters leasing, NR leasing, etc. Is not 100% accurate.


----------



## gst

Once again, So answer this question if you would, if there were no HUNTERS looking for someone to guide them would this industry even exist????? If there were no HUNTERS willing to pay money to get on the better hunting ground would there be any leasing????? If there were no HUNTERS to pay for anything related to hunting would there be any commercialization of hunting?????

"Greedy commercializers" and "whoring out the resource" are a couple of catchy phrases meant to instill a sense of outrage at one segment of this issue. But ask yourself this, can a whore be a whore if there is no one willing to pay her for her services???


----------



## AdamFisk

gst, 
I'm pretty sure everybody here is smart enough to figure out the answers to your questions.

No, g/o's wouldn't exist if it weren't for the HUNTERS.


----------



## gst

I figured if anyone wanted to honestly answer they would know what the answer was. So here's hopefully one last question. What is to be gained by slamming the "greedy commercializers" while not addressing what is truly driving this issue, hunters themselves. It's hard to solve a problem without admitting what is the cause.


----------



## AdamFisk

gst,
I think I, and the others, have maintained that hunters are PART of the problem. Simple economics; if there wasn't demand for a guide service, there would be no need for guides. And we've said that, or at least I KNOW I and TK have said that, there is a need for GOOD HONEST RESPECTIBLE g/o's....... Am I lying??????????

Just re-read this thread and you will get a list of many other problems contributing to the big picture. On that list would be "greedy commercializers" who "whore out the resource".

You see, there are many factors or problems here that are contributing to the big picture. To place blame soley on hunters, which it appears you are trying to do, is BS. I think you know that though.

And around and around we go......... oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith

In regaurds to Kansas... The main problem is the issue with HORNS and the prize of INCHES. People are horn crazy and are all about what does that buck score (ie inches). That is what is driving the start of "leasing" of land. This is what is happening all over the country. So if people don't make so much hoopla about "inches" or score. You would see less of this.


----------



## TK33

> TK I really don't have to try and twist around what you are saying, or read more into it than what you are saying , you do that quite well on your own.
> 
> Your justification of the fishing guides still doesn't change the fact they are using a public resource that is funded and managed and govt regualted in their "free enterprise" business, no different than someone guiding for deer. The only difference is acces, and yet you want people to believe this is not about access.


It is becoming clear that you have not read the laws and do not have any clue what you are talking about here. The state laws define guides and outfitters. They are two different things. They have different rules, different regulations, different fees, different licenses, and different roles.



> Either you are familiar with these programs and know why this regulation will prevent 99.9% of farmers or ranchers from guiding, furthering your agenda to stop all "greedy commercializers" that are "whoring out the resource" or you simply don't understand the complexities of what you are demanding. Which is it? I thought I knew, but your 30 chickens and the car wash thing is making me wonder.


There is no way that you can justify non-ag businesses operating under ag laws. The chicken and the carwash comparison is simple. Take your non-ag profits, run them against your ag losses and you can make it work. It happens, why do you think that people invest in cattle? Or people that used to farm now keep a few acres going or a few head around the homestead even when they work non-production jobs.

A very small percentage of hunters are going through g/o's. A large and growing amount of land is being locked up (not just posted) for this small percentage of hunters to hunt and a few people profit. If it keeps going the way it is now hunter numbers will continue to decline, land value will continue to climb, and it will continue to become more of an elitist sport.



> From this simple yet powerful statement, I believe our members have said they are fed up with phrases like equality, fairness, and spread the wealth being used to further legislation to separate productivity from the rewards of the productivity.


great, super, outstanding. Except that this little quote fails to mention all the government involvement in the past. Both in subsidies and in marketing and exporting. Typical garbage, you love the government when they are on your side but want them out when they are not. Yet no one can figure out that the further we move into a two class system the more socialism you will see.



> Once politics becomes a tug-of-war for shares in the income pie, decent government is impossible.
> --Friedrich von Hayek


von Hayek was against the government being involved in business. Yet your side profits off of a government managed, regulated, and subsidized resource. :rollin: :rollin: UNREAL


----------



## USAlx50

Nicely said TK.


----------



## gst

Adam, OK so you ad TK claim you want "respectable" G/O. Who is it that is hiring these remaining "greedy commercializers" that are "whoring out the resource"??? HUNTERS, who is it that is driving this to exist??? HUNTERS So who has a big share of any blame in "whoring out " this resource??? HUNTERS. Yet show me one thread that is started claiming hunters themselves are the problem. By the way, what is yours or TK's definition of "whoring out the resource"?? Can any G/O do this "respectabily" enough to satisfy you??

TK, no I haven't "read the rules" nor do I really care about the technical distinction between a guide or outfitter. For the sake of this disscussion, guides and outfitters have been lumped into one catagory of "greedy commercializers" "whoring out the resource" not by me but by you and others on this site. I really could care less what the differences are. You claim one is "whoring out the resource", pheasant,deer,elk, ducks ect.... by obtaining money for providing opportunity on a publically owned resource, what is the difference with what a fishing guide does? Aren't fish a publically owned resource as well?

Your insistance on this chicken and car wash deal is starting to make me think that you really don't understand what you are talking about when it comes to how these govt programs factor into this equation and the rules behind them. People "invest" in cattle to hopefully make a profit plain and simple, not so they can reap the govt program payment of which there are very few in the cattle business. Legally these non ag "investors" are NOT getting govt payments, because a majority of their income of which they are investing a part of is non ag, so they legally can't. There are all ready rules in place to prevent this, but apparently they are not restrictive enough for you. People "keep a few acres going or a few head around the farmstead" to supplement their income and because they like it, not to "cash in" on these govt programs. If more than half of their income is non ag, they can't paticipate. Apparently once again this is not restrictive enough for you and you want increased regulation on the landowner or farmer/rancher. You apparently don't understand how these programs work and the rules that govern them, nor why they are in place. If you want to continue claiming you understand this process one is left to simply believe you want to regulate landowners that are guiding or outfitting out of business. Are there people abusing this system, of course, just like anything else, but not in the context you want to make it seem in your arguements. So TK continue to push this agenda you seem to have about ag production folks not being able to participate in any govt programs if they recieve any non ag based revenues and see how that improves access and opportunity for hunting on these private lands. Way to meet in the middle with a little give and take.

As to twisting words, I never made or posted your last two quoted statements, but yet apparently you are contributing them to me?????? TK your very last statement in the above post defining these "sides" clearly indicates where your true sentiment lies, and it doesn't appear middle ground is any where near by.

Like I've stated earlier, what agendas you push to "regulate" your way to opportunities here in ND won't have much of an impact on me, my family or most of my friends when it comes to hunting opportunities. Most of my friends have them already, and my kids are being raised with the ideologies that will allow them to make relationships that will provide them with opportunities because they have become friends with people and understand the issues involved, and aren't trying to demand or regulate this priveledge that is hunting on private lands.

Regardless of what people may think I too would like ND to remain as it was in the "good old days", my sons have started hunting in the middle of this which is the last few years, but I realize hunting like everything else changes. About a year ago I started posting on these sites primarily to provide an insight that many farmers and ranchers that don't even look at these outdoor sites have wether anyone wants to admit it or not. I thought perhaps this "middle ground" that some claim to want could be easilier achieved if some knew what many on the farming and ranching "side" ideologies are when it comes to some of these issues. Yet it has become clear that an increasingly vocal segment of hunters here in ND are going to continue to push agendas that will further alienate people on this "other" side of the table. These same "hunters" are not willing to admit their part in driving these issues and the consequences that happen because of it, that affect all other hunters wether they agree with these agendas or not. TK stated earlier in another thread a reason for land being posted is so farmers/ranchers know who is on their land. Why do you think this is suddenly happening in the last few years?????. So I guess even though some come on here claiming to want to prevent ND from becoming something most don't want, many are not willing to do what it takes to accomplish this, or accept the responsibilities of their actions when they try to regulate it. I have better things to do with my time than continueally rehash these issues with these kinds of people.


----------



## DG

TK33 wrote,



> Yet no one can figure out that the further we move into a two class system the more socialism you will see.


Do you want more socialism?



> Yet your side profits off of a government managed, regulated, and subsidized resource.


So where does the money come from to manage, regulate, and subsidize this resource? Most sportsmen will say it simply comes from their license fees. Last year the NDG/F had 59 million dollars in its account.

Actually, it isn't my side because I'm not even in this business. Nor am I in the business of creating more business for people involved in this business.


----------



## TK33

> Your insistance on this chicken and car wash deal is starting to make me think that you really don't understand what you are talking about when it comes to how these govt programs factor into this equation and the rules behind them. People "invest" in cattle to hopefully make a profit plain and simple


We are talking about two different things, I am talking more about tax breaks and writeoffs and taking gov't aid in the from of disaster payments and prevent, my mistake I should not have called all of those plans subsidies.



> Do you want more socialism?





> TK your very last statement in the above post defining these "sides" clearly indicates where your true sentiment lies, and it doesn't appear middle ground is any where near by.


I do not want more socialism, I do not want more government (especially federal), and I do not want to see any more rights taken away from landowners. If you look at how quickly commercialization is taking over you will quickly see more and more people wanting more restrictions and to strip more rights away. Limiting who can outfit, freeing up more public lands, and giving landowners more protections, even no tresspass would help. If outfitting was limited there would be a better chance at middle ground. Once again, there are some good outfitters and they fill a need, there are also some "hunters" who are doing everyone a favor by using an outfitter.

gst, I will be a landowner someday through inheritance and purchase. More landowner rights being stripped away is not in my best interest either. As I said above if hunting and other things important to people keep getting taken away and made things that only the rich can afford you will see more socialistic laws and regulations. Nobody ever cares about the future though.


----------



## swift

GST to answer one of your questions about fishing guides. Fishing guides do not set up artificial habitats, (baitpiles, food plots ect) to keep the public property from being accessed by the public on the publics ground. Fishing guides fish the same waters next to the other "public" fisherman day in and day out. That is the difference in hunting guides and fishing guides. The very idea of setting up a barrier on private land with the intention of preventing public owned animals from leaving that land is akin to robbery. A huge baitpile or foodplot is functionally the same as a high fence with wild animals caught inside.


----------



## TK33

Another thing I would like to add gst. At the rate we are going at now soon upper midwestern hunter numbers will be at the national average soon. Then when people come along with measures or laws whether they be hunting, production, landowner rights, water rights, mineral rights, etc there will be naturally be less people involved with rural areas to actually care what happens. What happens then? The continued urbanization of upper midwestern states says that they will follow suit with MN and vote liberal. Who wins then??

As I said above and in other topics over commercialization is a lose/lose for everyone in the end.


----------



## gst

OK here goes one last comment. TK you still don't seem to understand, the write offs and tax breaks are part of the tax code which has no connection to govt. programs, the prevent plant and disaster aid programs you refer to have the same restriciton placed on them as do all govt programs in the fact you have to be deemed a farmer by the FSA thru their requirements that a majority of your income as to be from ag production to be elgible.

The difference here is that when you become a landowner thru inheritence will you be making your living off what can be done productively with these lands? Or will your job or 401k be your primary income and this land just something you use for recreational purposes or to supplement your income thru renting it out. How one looks at this is different when this becomes a factor. If you ever get to the point where your kids college and family living and retirement are paid for by what you can earn off this land then tell me what your ideologies are. I doubt they will be quite so restrictive.

Swift, so you would support G/O's operating only on public lands???? I'm not going to waste my time replying to someone that equates putting out a bait pile to robbery. Your comments are a fine example of the mentality of more and more hunters which I have been talking about. Thanks for making my point. I tell you what, you come get your public resource off these private lands and maybe everyone will be happy. :roll:

Keep placing more and more bans and restrictions on the people whose land this "public resource" resides on in an attempt to regulate opportunity or ideologies and see what it gets you. Good luck.


----------



## TK33

> The difference here is that when you become a landowner thru inheritence will you be making your living off what can be done productively with these lands? Or will your job or 401k be your primary income and this land just something you use for recreational purposes or to supplement your income thru renting it out. How one looks at this is different when this becomes a factor. If you ever get to the point where your kids college and family living and retirement are paid for by what you can earn off this land then tell me what your ideologies are. I doubt they will be quite so restrictive.


I hope they aren't completely restricted by then. I have a feeling that they will already be restricted by then, unless people start looking at the big picture. Like I said before gst my opinions are generated from living in the city but having an ag/rural upbringing.


----------



## swift

GST, guiding only on public land only would be just fine for me. It seems in all your posts you want your cake and to eat it too. It is too plain in your posts that you have the belief that the game animals on your land belong to you. Lets work together and get along as long as we do everything your way. Manipulating the game to keep them from roaming onto other area's is depriving another person of access to that game. Taking something that someone else is entitled to, or manipulatin it so as to keep it to yourself is theft. In this case it is legal theft so far. I am not advocating that private land should be opened to public access. You asked the question about fishing guides, full well knowing the answer, and when I typed it out to you, you took offense. It't typical of your posts you like to play the victim.

Now as TK has said why should land used by a hunting outfitter continue to be taxed at an Ag rate? Hunting, as you have said is recreational. Recreational land is taxed at a higher rate. If you farm/ranch and host an outfitter then you should be taxed at the higher rate. Also if your receiving Ag programs based on farming and that land brings in more money through outfitting/minerals and whatever that additional money should be deducted from the program money.

I work in medicine, which is highly "subsidized" by the government, All the money we make as a business counts at the end of the year against our government payment. So even though we have a workout facility in the building that has nothing to do with patient care we have to show all the membership fees in out bottom line which are then deducted from our yearly medicare payment. We barely scrape by as a rural hospital/clinic but we don't have the luxury of double dipping like you do.


----------



## swift

> [I tell you what, you come get your public resource off these private lands and maybe everyone will be happy.
> /quote]
> 
> If that means your taking all the posted signs down and opening your land to everyone great I underestimated your sense of community.


----------



## g/o

> Now as TK has said why should land used by a hunting outfitter continue to be taxed at an Ag rate? Hunting, as you have said is recreational. Recreational land is taxed at a higher rate. If you farm/ranch and host an outfitter then you should be taxed at the higher rate.


A little info on this, all buildings on my farm that are used for the outfitting are taxed commercial.


----------



## swift

g/o I wish the others in the business were as responsible and forthcoming as you are. You are what is good about the outfitting business as is Kyle Blanchfield in DL. Unfortunately you guys are the exception more than the rule.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> GST, guiding only on public land only would be just fine for me.


Swift if you really are alright with this....something is wrong. So you would like guide just able to pound PLOTS, WPA's, etc. So for the people who can't get onto private land have a poor place to go? Another angle on this is that guides would be making $$$ off of land paid for by taxes (fed land and state land).


----------



## DG

Check out these listings of land for sale in Kansas. What are the sellers selling? What are the buyers buying?

http://www.resultsre.com/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=58

80 acres with sand pit, beautiful crystal clear water, 30-40 feet in depth, stocked with large mouth bass, crappie, bluegill and channel cats. Property has been leased for fishing for many years and offers tremendous fishing. Waterfowl hunters will love the location next to thousands of acres of farm ground drawing green heads and geese. Close proximaty to Wichita, Newton, McPherson and Hutchinson. Seller was the operator of the sand pit, they used great foresight using topsoil rather than sand for confinement birm which has produced a abundance of trees, schrubs and grasses which has stabilized the banks. This is a true trioph property with lost of opportunities, minerals are intact and will pass to new owner. If you are looking to build your dream home, develop or just enjoy the water, you need to take a hard look at this. Shown by appointment only 
Pratt County 160 Acres

Sawyer SE110th Street & SE 130th Ave 67134 KS $136,000 
Pratt County 160, CRP contract, 13 acre native grass pasture with sand hill plum thickets, big hill over looks the whole quarter. Great bird and deer hunting with income. Mineral rights are intact and will pass to new owner, this is priced to sell and has great income, only 850 acre. 
Edwards 145

Kinsley 0000 Hwy 50 67547 KS $108,750
SOLD 
145 acres Edwards County, Hwy 50 splits the property, **** Creek runs through the North side, lots of timber and close to Kinsley, CRP contract and sellers mineral interest transfer to new owner, priced at only 750 acre, 
96 Acres Sylvia

Sylvia 0000 N Brownlee Rd 67581 KS $88,800
SOLD 
Duck Hunters - large pond with well floods approx 2 acres - Close to QNWR. 
0000 S Mayfield Rd

Haven 0000 S Mayfield Rd 67543 KS $165,000
Under Contract 
0000 S Mayfield Rd, Haven 75 acres Haven area, level fertile soils in very desirable area, tree row on the south side of the property, minerals are intact and will pass to new owner. Investors will like the return on this parcel, only 20 minutes to Hutchinson, 35 to Wichita. Offered at only 165K 
Borth 240

Avery Rd 0000 67583 KS $276,000 
SW Reno County - Langdon Area, 240 acres of Tillable, CRP, Native grass and timber. Rolling terrain, farm fields have CRP strips in between, perfect bird hunting. Heavy timber in several locations, live water creek cuts through the corner, good income from the tilled acres and tremendous deer, turkey and upland bird hunting. Very well balanced property, minerals intact and pass to new owner - Offered at 1150 acre. 
Brown Reno 320

Sterling 0000 95th St 67579 KS $512,000 
Quivira National Wildlife Refuge adjoins this spectacular property on the west border. Trophy whitetail hunting and unequalled water fowl hunting make this THE BEST SPORTING PROPERTY on the market today. Look at the pdf file for more details about this property. Duck & Goose population on November 15th, 2008 was 51000 + total ducks and over 1.2 million total Geese counted at the refuge. 
Premer 320

Marquette 0000 Quivira Rd 67464 KS $760,000 
320 Acres McPherson County - this is a special property that has been intensely managed for whitetail deer. CRP with tilled ground adjoing and lots of timber make ideal habitat to hold deer. This parcel feels like 1000 plus acres with the hilly terrain of the Smokey Hills and the heavy timber and under growrh of sand hill plum thickets and shumac. This parcel also has a 2000+ Sq ft home that was new in 2007 on a stemwall foundation, 3 bd, 2 ba that sits quietly off the road and has a tremendous view to the east. Minerals are intact and will pass on this parcel, east end had blacktop frontage and is only 4 miles to the south of Marquette. This is rare find as land does not come on the market in this area very often, take a look at the pics of the deer the owners have taken and also the video clip and you will agree that this is a trophy propery. 
Valley View

Haven 18519 S Mayfield Rd 67543 KS $1,100,000 
800 contiguous acres, native grass, tilled, irrigated ground, 3 ponds with springs, rolling terrain, absolutely beautiful property. Minerals intact and will pass to new owner, if you are looking for a investment property, or a trophy recreational property with income, look no further, this property is just north of Cheney Lake and has great waterfowl traffic, timber, water and food source makes this a tremendous whitetail propery. Offered at 1.1 million 
Brown Rice 320

Sterling 0000 1st Rd 67579 KS $448,000 
Quivira National Wildlife Refuge adjoins this property on the West side. Food plots, sand hill plum thickets and cedar trees make tremendous Whitetail habitat. If you are looking for a true trophy property for huge Kansas Whitetails - This is it. Please look at the pdf file for more information.


----------



## AdamFisk

I can copy and paste too.

http://www.killdeermountainoutfitters.com/index.php

http://www.coyotecreekoutfitters.net/

http://www.loggingcampranch.com/

http://www.svlodge.com/

http://www.bigvalleyadventures.com/

http://www.cedarridgeelk.com/

http://www.deepcreekadventures.com/

http://www.badlandshunt.com/

http://www.swrbiggamehunts.com/

http://www.thebisonranch.com/

http://www.rollingplainsadventures.com/

http://www.audubonoutfitters.com/

http://www.prairiepotholelodge.com/

http://www.cannonballcompany.com/

http://www.ndhuntershideout.com/

http://www.prairiesmokeranch.com/

http://www.huntingtripsrus.com/redir.php?page=3247

http://www.tttranch.com/

http://www.mitchellhunting.com/

http://www.blackduckoutfitters.com/northdakota.htm

Just to name a few........


----------



## alaska

do you guys ever get tired???
I type slow...so this will be quick...... Residents of nodak, you have hundreds of thousands of acres that is STATE land...you know, all the blue stuff in the plots guide.. Imagine for just a second,if that acreage was managed for habitat...ie,protect the riparian zones, cross fence and requre grazing rotations, a few food plots of standing corn for those rough winters..etc., etc. You get the idea...Now there would be something to write about.....and to fund it, all of us die hards would be more than willing to buy an annual access stamp...think of the legacy you would leave your grand children....
just some food (health) for thought....happy holidays


----------



## gst

Adam, so if you truly believe there is a need for outfitters and only the "greedy commercializers" are the problem, would it be safe to assume your list is the ones you believe are the problem "whoring out the resource"??? If not why were they posted?

Swift, As I've said before, I really don't take offense to what people post on here, as I consider what is being said alongside who's saying it. So apparently you are saying that by planting food plots, using bait, planting habitat, raising crops that certain wildlife like to eat ect...... I and thousands of other landowners are commiting legally defined theft when we don't allow anyone that pleases to come onto our private property and shoot whatever they want whenever they want??????????  Because apparently we are "holding" these poor animals against their will and this outrageous greedy illegal personal usage of this public resource meets your definition of theft????????. The mentality of your posts is exactly what I am talking about more and more hunters having that end up alienating landowners. And yet people wonder why more and more land is being posted.

As too getting your "public resource" off private lands, I'm talking about all year, not just during the couple of weekends each year you want to use them. If you want to claim them as a public resource during hunting seasons, step up and take care of them all year. Kinda ridiculous isn't it. The simple fact is this can't or won't happen, the reality is a vast majority of this "public resource" lives and thrives on private lands, all year because of what thse private landowners do to provide habitat and food sources. A consideration which many overlook in their expectations of unlimited access and the types of opportunity already avaliable to this "public resource" in their demands to use "their" resource those couple weeks a year. So keep up pushing to regulate opportunity or access with this mentality you apparently have and see where it gets you. ND has virtually unlimited hunting opportunities on both private and public lands that don't cost a thing and yet you guys are on here whining all the time or going to the legislature about NRs, G/O's, posted land, leased land, lanowners ect.... all the while not being willing to look in the mirror to see where a good deal of the problems lie. Honestly, what the hell WOULD make you happy????


----------



## TK33

> As too getting your "public resource" off private lands, I'm talking about all year, not just during the couple of weekends each year you want to use them. If you want to claim them as a public resource during hunting seasons, step up and take care of them all year. Kinda ridiculous isn't it


Game and Fish funding is from licenses and the general fund. So if you are paying taxes, or buying licenses, or involved with wildlife groups both big and small you are helping take care of them all year. If it wasn't for game and fish we wouldn't have the wildlife numbers we do now. Keep in mind that there are only some landowners who take care of the wildlife on their land, not all. As stated before, I don't think anyone here is saying that we should put hunting in front of agriculture.


----------



## Bug Guy

Unfortunately I believe ND will have hunting commercialized just like TX, KS, WY, AZ, CO, and the rest of the states with good hunting. Why? Because when someone has something (good hunting) that someone else wants, there is an immediate "value" created. In this case it is good hunting. When more people want this limited item (good hunting) the value goes up. More people are discovering ND and the great hunting we have. Guides and Outfitters are actively advertising it and the common hunters are passively advertising it by putting photos up on the online "brag" boards. To think other hunters aren't paying attention to all information sources is just plain ignorant. More hunters (resident and non-resident) wanting better hunting in ND results in g/o's coming in to provide the requisite services. This leads to leases and round and round we go in a spiral that leads to a situation like TX. Do I like this idea? NO, but I don't see how adding more legislation on any facet of this issue will "Devalue" good hunting. If someone smarter than me can find and then tell me a way, I would love to hear it. Diamonds would be just another rock if nobody would buy them. If you value your hunting future and that of your children, I would try to buy some land, because that is the only "insurance policy" you can realisically have for hunting. I'm sorry, but this is the way I see it.


----------



## Dick Monson

What BG said is true that scarcity creates value. The difference is in the commidity. As owners of public wildlife we are under no obligation to sell it to the highest private bidder. It is no one's to sell. As Kansas is doing with deer licenses. As ND does with upland, waterfowl, and archery.

I am not against NR sportsmen visiting here and I don't believe most R sportsmen are against them either. But I do believe that there needs to a "restriction mechanism", a law, that controls the flow. The flow should be controled to where sportsmen have a resonable opportunity for sucess.
Montana and other western states do this with big game licenses. ND does the same for most big game.

If the answer is to buy land most sportsmen will quit. Then support for hunting will quit too.


----------



## gst

Dick nice to see you join the discussion. Maybe you would like to join in the HF disussion as well :wink: So who determines this "reasonable opportunity for success"? If ANYONE can not have this "reasonable opportunity for success" here today in ND, they simply are not trying. And it seems as if these are the folks that want to push more regulations to ensure their "reasonable opportunities for success" rather than earn them on their own. What you and others apparently don't understand is in instances outside of the HF deal the animal is not being sold, the opportunity to hunt it is. And yes there is a difference. And that opportunity which is what's being sold, is not a public resource when it is being done on private lands. As the opportunities here in ND become better known as was mentioned, and more NR hunters do come in and hunt resident game such as deer and upland birds, it becomes the G&F's responsibility to factor this into the management of this game, and perhaps limits will be needed. However whining sportsmen that aren't willing to find opportunities on their own shouldn't play a factor in these decisions. Bug guy pretty well hit the nail on the head, and pushing further restrictions in an attempt to prevent this will only make access even more difficult short of completely regulating the ability of the landowner from controling access on his private lands to this "public resource" away, which is as I said previously what most complaining on here would truly like to see if they were honest enough to admit it.


----------



## TK33

> , is not a public resource when it is being done on private lands


Really??? Then why can a game warden enter private property without a warrant?



> If ANYONE can not have this "reasonable opportunity for success" here today in ND, they simply are not trying


This is true, but the key word in your statement is today. What happens tomorrow? The federal duck stamp, wildlife funding from the general fund, and things like the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 were not put in place for hunting to become an aristocratic sport like it was in Europe. Remember aristocracy was one of the principles that put this country in motion.



> Then support for hunting will quit too.


This isn't the only thing that will lose support.



> and pushing further restrictions in an attempt to prevent this will only make access even more difficult short of completely regulating the ability of the landowner from controling access on his private lands to this "public resource" away, which is as I said previously what most complaining on here would truly like to see if they were honest enough to admit it.Dick nice to see you join the discussion. Maybe you would like to join in the HF disussion as well :wink: So who determines this "reasonable opportunity for success"? If ANYONE can not have this "reasonable opportunity for success" here today in ND, they simply are not trying. And it seems as if these are the folks that want to push more regulations to ensure their "reasonable opportunities for success" rather than earn them on their own. What you and others apparently don't understand is in instances outside of the HF deal the animal is not being sold, the opportunity to hunt it is. And yes there is a difference. And that opportunity which is what's being sold, is not a public resource when it is being done on private lands. As the opportunities here in ND become better known as was mentioned, and more NR hunters do come in and hunt resident game such as deer and upland birds, it becomes the G&F's responsibility to factor this into the management of this game, and perhaps limits will be needed. However whining sportsmen that aren't willing to find opportunities on their own shouldn't play a factor in these decisions. Bug guy pretty well hit the nail on the head, and pushing further restrictions in an attempt to prevent this will only make access even more difficult short of completely regulating the ability of the landowner from controling access on his private lands to this "public resource" away, which is as I said previously what most complaining on here would truly like to see if they were honest enough to admit it.


Right now there are 105 licensed outfitters in the state of ND, and farmers do not have to be licensed, this also doesn't account for leased alnd. In other words, no one, including the legislature and G&F has any clue how much is locked up, not just posted. Until you realize this and the laws that apply to this this industry it is really condescending and ignorant to call anyone a complainer.

gst usually you have a good grasp of the topic but this time I think you are underinformed and choosing to call people names to make up for your lack of understanding of how serious this is. As Alaska said


> think of the legacy you would leave your grand children....


----------



## gst

TK, part of the legacy I hope I'm leaving my children is don't demand the govt regulate something for you you can get on your own with a little hard work and effort. And as to what Alaska suggested, it is dead on, and it would be a worthwhile endeavor to improve these "public" private lands. But yet stop and think who would be the first to complain if any NR funds were used to do this and NR's were allowed to hunt these "improved" "public" private lands.

You might want to check into what a warden can and cannot do when it comes to entering legally posted private lands. Regardless, are you suggesting that this opportunity to pursue game on private lands is still a part of this "public resource" everyone has a right too just because of what a warden does??????

TK I'd guess I have a pretty good grasp of this issue and what most that are on this site complaining about "greedy commercializers" "whoring out the resource" and posting and leasing and farmers double dipping ect... really want. And as well as your veiled threats/suggestions that if the farmer/rancher/landowner doesn't start to toe the line the urban populace want now, this majority will make sure they do one way or another in the future. And if so, yet another step towards socialism in this country will have happened. And as to calling people names, I don't believesd I've called any one individual anything, however I'll stick to what I believe is the truth in what I have said that if someone is on here complaining of not having anywhere to hunt in ND or enough opportunities, they are a whiner. With that I'll wish everyone a joyous Christmas and best wishes this holiday season.


----------



## DG

Alaska did have some good things to say,



> and to fund it, all of us die hards would be more than willing to buy an annual access stamp...


No, for most here, NRs are not welcome.

Bug Guy had some good things to say,



> Diamonds would be just another rock if nobody would buy them.


That was my point for posting Kansas land for sale. Would the advertizers put it out there, land for sale good hunting, if the desire wasn't there by the purchaser?

Dick Monson wrote,



> What BG said is true that scarcity creates value. The difference is in the commidity. As owners of public wildlife we are under no obligation to sell it to the highest private bidder. It is no one's to sell. As Kansas is doing with deer licenses. As ND does with upland, waterfowl, and archery.


By archery I assume you are talking about hunting deer? In the spring of -08 I was at an advisory board meeting. At that time in 2008 there were too many deer. Yet Brandon Mason, former G/F and now regional director for the federally created federally funded Mule Deer Foundation was there crying about how the big bucks have become nocturnal and he hasn't been able to get one in five years. Hasn't punched his tag in five years. He said it is all because there are too many hunters putting pressure on them. When he goes to his favorite spots there are more hunters than deer. He wants a cap or "restriction mechanism" on NRs and residents. Going so far as a lottery. He whined for ten minutes straight. Toward the end he caught himself and admitted his motives were selfish. He got no support from anyone in that room.

I couldn't help thinking to myself back in 2008, I have too many deer on my land. I give permission to several people to hunt and they had better kill some deer. What I don't need is someone like Brandon, sitting in a tree, tying up my land for five years and then he doesn't shoot anything. The winter kill of -08 -09 took care of the problem.

Dick wrote,



> But I do believe that there needs to a "restriction mechanism", a law, that controls the flow. The flow should be controled to where sportsmen have a resonable opportunity for sucess.


Dick, So who do you think should be involved in writing these "laws, that controls the flow?" Will restaurants, bait shops, optics, fish houses, convention centers and visitors bureau, troller trailers, meat markets, landowners, fishing tackle, lodges and motels, c-stores, ice augers, real sportsmen of N.D., prop repair, resorts, stink baits, truck dealers, dog kennels, and people who sell long tail pheasants have a seat at the table? Or will it just be the highly intellegent wildlife professionals at the Wildlife Society and the wilma whiners at the North Dakota Wildlife Federation? You and I know they are both top heavy with fedgov employees.

Last and not least Adam Fisk,

I see you can cut and paste too. So you posted that list of outfitters to offset my list of Kansas land for sale. What is your mission? To demonize, discredit, turn the the public against and or smear? At the beginnig of this thread about commercializing Kansas you said,



> Is there an easy way to email that article to every state legislature member?


So which one would you like to make the poster child for your attack? Lets start at the top. Killdeer Mountain Outfitters. It is owned by Tim and Sally Dvirnak. They do not sell access to wild upland, waterfowl or gun hunt wild big game. Nor do they lease out or lease from. It is a private preserve. You would be hard pressed to find two people more genuine. The ranch isn't big enough to support them so Tim took a job on an drill rig up north to keep the family farm in the family. He works 24/7 two weeks on two weeks off. He wasn't home for Christmas. Tims parents live with them. Tims dad is 93 had cancer and was given 3 months to live one year ago. Sally takes care of them at the ranch 24/7. Their son just got home from his second tour in Iraq. So there you go Adam here is your assignment. Take this to your legislator and tell him you want more regs and restrictions to drive Tim and Sally out of this business and possibly off their ranch.

On the flip side is the the guy who started this thread, Dick Monson. Let's use him as an example. He doesn't like "commerciallizers." Yet he rents his land to plots or in other words he is charging hunters to access his land. According to E.W.G. he collected about 23,000 dollars a year from taxpayer subsidies on his farm. Combine the two and it is about 25,000 per year in subsidies. I don't think Tim and Sally net 25,000 on their ranch per year. However according to some peoples math on this site Tim and Sally are greedy.


----------



## AdamFisk

DG, I read about 1 sentence of your post and quit......I wasn't going to reply to this thread anymore, but...

Let me make this as clear as it can be for you and Gst. I didn't post them websites to "smear" anybody. I don't have anything good, bad, or otherwsie to say about any of them operations. I have no idea who 95% of them even are.

Jesus, you guys are breathing too much into it. I simply copied and pasted some links.


----------



## swift

GST, once again you can't see the forest for the trees. I never said people should have the run of private property, I actually said the opposite. In your case as you have explained it you have a working ranch. Not a refuge for deer and pheasants. But I'm sure you know the guys that do try to keep animals on their land by means as simple as food plots or huge bait piles and as drastic as heading them off with pickups before they can leave the land. Also I'm sure your not one of the lovely landowners that patrol their land, the neighbors land and the public roadways and the public land adjacent to private land harassing people as they come and go. If you don't think this happens get off the farm once in awhile.

Another thing I wonder is, why when Dick adds something to the conversation that you agree with you attack him about a completely unrelated topic? Is there anything that makes you happy?


----------



## gst

I was hoping to put this to rest, but figured I'd better answer swifts question. What would make me happy in regards to Dick Monson would be as a SPONSOR of an initiated measure that is designed to ban an activity which takes place on private property with no connection to the management of wild game, if he would actually debate the issue by answering a few simple questions when asked, rather than coming on occasionally with unproven disengenuous statements then not sticking around to back up his claims or answer questions. Attacking him????? Hardly, just expecting someone that believes enough in an issue to sign on as a sponsor of a measure designed to become law to be willing to answer some questions about the issue on these hunting sites. Not to much to ask really, especially when they claim to be speaking for hunters themselves.

As to what you said, what you left unsaid was just as clear in regards to this issue. Sometimes you can actually pick out the tree within the forrest. I'd have more respect for someones position if they came on here and actually stated I think it's wrong that a private landowner can keep the public from pursueing the resource that is theirs on their private lands, rather than claiming to be for "landowners rights" all the while pushing for legislation or regulations to take them away bit by bit.

TK, will the plots payments (nonag related income) that a landowner recieves preclude him from participating in any ag programs as you suggest???

Adam, given your histroy of blaming the "greedy commercializers" how is one suppose to take your selective posting of this list of guides and outfitters in regards to this issue.


----------



## TK33

> TK, will the plots payments (nonag related income) that a landowner recieves preclude him from participating in any ag programs as you suggest???


Plots is funded by the public so I would say not.



> rather than claiming to be for "landowners rights" all the while pushing for legislation or regulations to take them away bit by bit.


The right to outfit is not being taken away in the plan here. Who can outfit is being regulated by the government, who manages and for the most part develops the resource. If your ranch or farm is in trouble you have the option to outfit your land. This option is better than the outright ban on commercial hunting that a lot of people want and is catching more support every year. If anything this idea would benefit the guys who already have lodges or hunting ranches or preserves here.



> And as well as your veiled threats/suggestions that if the farmer/rancher/landowner doesn't start to toe the line the urban populace want now, this majority will make sure they do one way or another in the future.


Threat/suggestion? It is already happening in other parts of the country. Keep taking from people and they will take back, one way or another. Usually thorugh government. Once again it is like the financial crisis, if the wall street and investment people would have been happy with returns in a year or two things would have been fine. Instead they wanted returns in the first quarter or two until the bubble burst. Now the government is in control, their greed has reaped more socialism.


----------



## DG

TK33 wrote,



> The right to outfit is not being taken away in the plan here. Who can outfit is being regulated by the government, who manages and for the most part develops the resource. If your ranch or farm is in trouble you have the option to outfit your land. This option is better than the outright ban on commercial hunting that a lot of people want and is catching more support every year. If anything this idea would benefit the guys who already have lodges or hunting ranches or preserves here.


It's all carrot and no stick.


----------



## gst

TK, it is how I figured, the non ag moneys that may have a benefit to you as a hunter will be allowed, but the non ag moneys of leasing that do not benefit you will not. And you claim others want things only when they benefit them. It's funny how you pick and choose what you want to regulate and what you want to allow.

Here's the deal you don't seem to understand with this regulation you propose. A vast majority of these farmers/ranchers that maybe guiding or outfitting( I don't know your distinction between the two) are only doing this as a suplementary income, in conjunction with ag production and programs. If you force them out of the current ag programs with your prohibitive regulations they will have to choose between not guiding, or not farming and go full force into the G/O business. Try getting an operating loan while not participating in govt farm programs. So you are either going to make the problem worse, or you are going to regulate it from existing, which I'd guess is the intent all along.

As to the govt "developing" the resource??? BS, if it was not for the private landowner and how the resource thrives and is "developed" on these lands, there would be little to no resource for the public to own. And yes I realize the govt regulations maintain population levels thru "management" of the resource, but develope it, for the most part, they play a relatively small part in this.

As to your claim guiding is not being prohibited, I guess maybe your'e right as long as they follow swift and your regulations of recieving no govt progam payments in their ag business, not being able to bait or plant food plots or habitat which "keep" these public resource animals onto this private land that is closed to the public :-? Maybe even down the road the numbers of NR will have be limited or stopped completely as well. :roll:

And finally the true drive behind this issue comes to light. Either do what we want now, or it will be forced upon you down the road. It took abit, but there it is. The reality is, unlike the financial situation you keep refering to, a vast majority of the public that are nonhunters care less about these "hunting" issues (access, opportunity, hunter pressure ect) as it doesn't directly affect them. But this small segment of whining hunters knows this and that is why you see these initiated measures popping up to regulate these issues. Hunters, not the public are what is driving the push for these regulations. They are willing to involve the nonhunting public in these issues to get their way regardless of what may come back to bite them by doing so. At least you finally admitted to it, I'll give you credit for that. It's always nice to have that in your back pocket while one claims to be seeking this "middle ground".

You talk of what is happening all around the country, it is also happening in many parts of the country that these anti hunting groups which are starting to outnumber hunters are convincing the public thru these public measures that they should not allow hunting of certain types of game animals which are their nonhunting publics resource to protect. So keep using this "public resource" arguement and see how it "protects" hunting in the long term when the nonhunting public want to regulate how THEIR "public resource" is used.


----------



## swift

Once again GST what "legislation" am I advocating? I have not said anything about legislating anything period. I was hoping to open yours and some others minds to how I as one man sees things. Greed is bad whether its on the landowners or the nonlandowners side. Not so many years ago the norm was to be welcomed by strangers to hunt. Then money got involved and more land wore posters that said fee hunting or XXX guide service. As the open areas diminished competition for the remaining areas increased causing greed from the hunters. Then hunting TV shows got popular and QDM got a hold and more people had to be removed from the woods and the fields so a few could micromanage the deer or what ever game animal. Again greedy hunters pushed their own off to even tighter areas compounding the problem further. All the while a few landowners sat back and watched and figured out that they could make a dime for doing nothing and more land got leased further worsening the problem. The whole idea that one group is responsible for the downward spiral of hunting access in ND is laughable. Hunters need to get back to what hunting is really about instead of inches of bone and fastest limits. Back in the 80's landowners I got permission from would routinely say "go ahead and hunt, there not my animals". Now landowners put parantheses' around the words public resource as a poke in the eye to point out they control them. Greed and something for nothing is the new American way as proven by our latest Presidential election.

So Yes GST, you are to blame as am I, and everyone else sitting in the church pews next to us on Sunday's acting like good people for an hour a week.


----------



## Plainsman

Swift I have not read any of these posts on this thread for a couple of weeks. I think yours is the only one I read on this page, but I must say you are 100% correct. Greedy hunters and greedy landowners are both a problem. The other problem is you can get many hunters to agree, but landowners try to bring up landowner rights and throw that into the mix. It's smoke and mirrors. The ones who throw that into the mix are the ones that are the problem. They want an excuse to gouge the hunter, and the greedy hunters go along with that bs for their own benefit.
I would venture to say that every landowner and every hunter on here that whines about landowner rights and gets ticked about it when someone points out that animals are a public resource are part of the problem.


----------



## gst

Swift, the last legislative session, how many bill were introduced by hunters to regulate , limit, or ban something. Baiting, days NR's could hunt, ect........ I was refering to this vocal group of constantly whining hunters trying to legislate their way to opportunity. Your comments on the use of baiting and food plots being legal theft made more than me I'd bet wonder if you weren't one of this group. Not knowing me, you have no idea wether I am part of the problem or part of the solution. The reason why the words"public resource" were put in parentheses is that hunters want to "claim" these animals as much as anyone else for their use. People seem to forget landowners are a part of this public and have as much right as anyone to hunt these animals so for a "hunter" to "claim" these animals as theirs is as out of line as a landowner doing the same. The difference is the landowner owns the PRIVATE property these animals live on, and more hunters all the time are vocally saying that doesn't give them the right to keep them from pursueing this "public resource" . Some are even on here quietly suggesting it in their comments all the while claiming to be for "landowners rights"

And the kicker no one wants to stop to think about is by the same constitutional decree that makes this "publc resource" yours and mine to hunt, it also makes them the "public resource" of that segment of society that doesn't want animals hunted for recreation. So when a majority of this nonhunting public somewhere down the line decides they don't want their "public resource" killed for someones recreational amusement or even for management purposes and some or all forms of hunting are banned, will everyone using this "public resource" argument on here now be so supportive of societies plan for this "public resource" then????? Your "public resource" sword has two edges. You'd better be ready when it cuts both ways.

So plainsman, are you saying "land owners rights" shouldn't be part of the "mix" when it comes to opportunity and access??????? Once again, yet another comment that provides a little glimpse into the true ideologies behind some on these issues.

You guys come on here saying that leasing and outfitting is the primary cause for access being lost, I'm here saying that how hunters attitudes have changed has more to do with it than anything. In both leasing, guiding and land being closed out of disgust. I'll wager you a pretty good bet if you took the entire state, significantly more land is posted that is not guided off or leased than otherwise. Why do you think that has changed so much in the last few years?? Ask any legislator that has been around for several years how many more hunting related bills come up each session than ever did say even 10 years ago. Why do you think that has changed so much in the last few years. Please honestly answer those two questions with something other than the old standard "greedy commercializers whoring out the resource".


----------



## Plainsman

> In both leasing, guiding and land being closed out of disgust.


Your right, and support for agriculture is going down the tubes parallel to the posting. That is also in response to disgust. You see it's like a puppy chasing it's tail. One bad hunter ticks of ten landowners, and one bad landowner ticks of ten hunters. We are in a downward spiral that I don't think we can stop, and swift was 100% right. The fault belongs to the greedy on both sides. No if and or buts about it. 
In the end the only winner is the outfitters. Hunters will have no access, and landowners will have no support. We will not be hunting, we will be fishing, and landowners will be bankrupt. We all loose. Only one type has a real interest in continuing down this road. The landowner who likes what is going on is his own worst enemy. 
Wildlife is not a landowners right, but the more landowners keep harping on their rights the more they are going to loose. It's much like the medical industry. The more they screw us the more likely they are to loose everything and this nation will go with socialized medicine. The more landowners shaft the people the more likely they are to loose all rights, perhaps even land ownership. It's happened time and again in the past. Russia, China, East Germany, Viet Nam, etc. You keep whizzing down everyones leg and no one will care what happens. I don't like that since most of my relatives farm, but that's where it's headed and your pushing it over the edge. The question is will you make a buck doing it?


----------



## barebackjack

Some on here I think are longing for the day when landowners have the title "lord" tacked on in front of their name. :roll:


----------



## TK33

> As to the govt "developing" the resource??? BS, if it was not for the private landowner and how the resource thrives and is "developed" on these lands, there would be little to no resource for the public to own


Get real gst. If the government wouldn't have stepped in decades ago wildlife would have been history. Hence things like swampbuster, the federal duck stamp, hunting groups, and legislation like the Pittman-Robertson Act. Some landowners work hard to ensure the resource stays around, others definetely do not. As I have said several times, I am not saying that hunting should come before farming.

I posted the speech from Teddy Roosevelt on here to prove to you and people that think like you that for decades the government has spent taxpayer money and resources to keep hunting and fishing around for EVERYONE to enjoy, not just the modern aristocrats. Through not only words but legislation and policy our past leaders have clearly stated that.

And spare us the complete garbage crap that outfitting is a free enterprise, capitalistic business. It is the most socialized non-essential business I can think of. People only want to take from the government and the public, but when the public wants something back you so called "conservatives" call everyone a whiner. :rollin:



> So when a majority of this nonhunting public somewhere down the line decides they don't want their "public resource" killed for someones recreational amusement or even for management purposes and some or all forms of hunting are banned, will everyone using this "public resource" argument on here now be so supportive of societies plan for this "public resource" then????? Your "public resource" sword has two edges. You'd better be ready when it cuts both ways.


Now explain how less people hunting, less people ranching due to inevitable increased land costs, and less people spending time in rural america benefits our side??? Did your ag groups protest to our DC reps the appointment of Cass Sunstein? I know the hunting groups I am involved with did, along with most of the actual hunters that I know.



> Why do you think that has changed so much in the last few years??


I have been clear as it gets that sloppy hunters and people with an attitude of entitlement to private property have contributed to the problem. You can see the attitudes of landowners have changed too. Bottom line is that a fair number of younger farmers don't understand that the public has been there for their family business for decades. Especially here in ND.



> Why do you think that has changed so much in the last few years


 The fact that there is now a lot of money to be made. You think that outfitting your land to save the farm is good, no one here is saying that you can't. You have to own the land and pay for a permit to get it. We have no where near the public lands open that other states with good hunting do, I think that Colorado has 30 million acres, ND has 1,015,000. Yet the commercializers say the state and public do not need or deserve anymore public lands, including Aaron Krauter. He is a state rep and a part of the Cannonball Company, the Bismarck Tribune quoted him as saying something along the lines of "there is no need for public land west of the Missouri River."

You wonder why these bills and initiatives have come along? The answer is that no one is looking out for average hunters. The outfitters are organized and have a lobby, some of the ag groups are against a lot of the things that could help hunting, they too have a huge and powerful lobby, as you know.


----------



## TK33

my screen started bouncing so I will finish my post on a new post.



> TK, it is how I figured, the non ag moneys that may have a benefit to you as a hunter will be allowed, but the non ag moneys of leasing that do not benefit you will not. And you claim others want things only when they benefit them. It's funny how you pick and choose what you want to regulate and what you want to allow.


It is not how you figured, PLOTS is public funding for the benefit of the public. Unlike outfitting which is private money benefitting only a few people. PLOTS payments are about the same thing in theory as subsidies.



> A vast majority of these farmers/ranchers that maybe guiding or outfitting( I don't know your distinction between the two) are only doing this as a suplementary income


What I am proposing still leaves the door open for them to have a business. It is a non ag business and should be treated as such. If that means ineligibility or prorating subsidies than that is what it should be. The biggest threat to hunting here is not the guys who own their land and have a lodge, IMO. To me it is these guys who have a website and a telephone number, then go lock up a bunch of land, turn a profit on it and then leave.

Since you haven't read the laws on guides and outfitters yet continuously post on this topic I will do it for you. Here is how the NDGF classifies them:


> Section II: Guide and Outfitters
> A. Who is a Guide or Outfitter?
> "Guides" are defined as "an individual who is employed by or contracts with a licensed outfitter to help the outfitter furnish personal services for the conduct of outdoor recreational activities directly related to the conduct of activities for which the employing outfitter is licensed."
> 
> An "Outfitter" means a person that holds the person's business operation out to the public for hire or consideration; provides facilities or services for consideration; maintains, leases, or otherwise provides compensation for the use of land and which receives compensation from a third party for use of that land; or otherwise uses equipment or accommodations for consideration for the conduct of outdoor recreational activities, including hunting animals or birds and fishing on lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams. An outfitter may act as a guide.
> 
> State law creates two categories of outfitters- a hunting or a fishing outfitter. An individual can be licensed as both a hunting outfitter and fishing outfitter.


----------



## g/o

> State Sen. Aaron Krauter has resigned from the Legislature, six weeks after he was named as North Dakota director of the federal Farm Service Agency.
> 
> The Legislature's research agency said it received the Regent Democrat's resignation letter Monday. It was dated Sept. 14


TK, You need to keep up a little better on your current events   Please post the definition of what a "commercializer" is. Thanks


----------



## gst

Plainsman, Your statement "wildlife is not a landowners right" is exactly the ideology that I'm talking about more and more hunters having. Apparently you and others don't understand that even as a landowner you are still part of this public that "owns" this public resource. And as a landowner, you have the ability because it is private property to control who may access your land, not the "public resource" on it. There are laws preventing me fom putting up a barrier that will keep the "publics resource" from leaving any private property. It seems as if there are those on this site "longing for the day" when landowners can not control who has access to their lands, even though they are not honest enough to admit it.

Even though you didn't answer my question as to wether landowner rights should be involved in the "mix" of this issue, you are right about the puppy chasing it's tail , or as I said earlier the chicken and the egg as to what came first. But when it comes to what is continueing this spiral, lets stop and take an honest look.

Are there greedy landowners simply looking to make a buck, of course always has been, always will be. As I have said there will always be someone abusing any system. But take an honest look at what changes have taken place in what hunters have demanded over the last few years. There have been enough discussions about how the parameters of CRP has changed over the years because of what hunters demanded and got thru lawsuits and regulations so that I shouldn't have to go into that again. Now people wonder why CRP is disappearing. Hunting groups such as DU, PF RMEF, NWFect... are using the courts and judges to attempt to regulate their way past anti corporate farming laws, private land usage, swampbuster/sodbuster regs, long standing grazing agreements ect...... to achieve agendas without any concern to the consequences. Groups are repeatedly coming to the legislature like never before trying to regulate one thing after another with hunting. When it doesn't work legislatively they go to other methods. You have groups like this Hunters for Fair Chase that are pushing personal agendas that directly negatively affect some landowners and in reality all landowners, as well as hunters themselves in the long run, and are doing it with misrepresentations of their version of the "truth" and no concern as to possible consequences. Go back to the legislative report that was posted on this site and see what percentage of hunting related bills were pushed to be introduced by "greedy commercializers whoring out the resource", groups of hunters trying to regulate hunting opportunity and access, or landowners(farmers/ranchers). What I have repeatedly came on here trying to get across is that by continueing to do these things in the accelerated pace and manner they have been in the last few years, hunters are only going to cause this puppy to chase his tail even faster.

And to continuely blame this on only one segment of this circle ( go back thru the archives of this site and find me ANY threads claiming hunters themselves are responsible for any part of this spiral of loss of opportunity) only serves to keep the puppy chasing his tail even faster. I joined into the discussions on this site about a year ago to give a perspective of a rancher/farmer/landowner that is shared by many that I had not seen being made on some of these issues, hoping to give some hunters pause to think about how their own actions and ideologies maybe causing exactly what they are "suggesting" are the problems. After a years time, it appears that some on this site(and in the hunting community in general)are less willing to take a step back and actually try to get this puppy to stop chasing its tail by finding middle ground thru a little give and take and honesty in their own ideologies then they are in simply blaming someone else and continueing to try and regulate an answer. If anyone takes the time to read this thread in it's entirety it becomes pretty easy to see. As long as this continues, so will the problem. I've enjoyed the debate, but I really don't know what else that can be said that hasn't been.

So unless Dick or Jim want to continue a debate on the HF thread as sponsors, I don't have much more to add :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Even though you didn't answer my question as to wether landowner rights should be involved in the "mix"


I don't know how much clearer I could get. Are we playing games? NO, no, no, no will that do it?



> Groups are repeatedly coming to the legislature like never before trying to regulate one thing after another with hunting.


Of course they do. When you take a buck from someone there are strings attached. The only reason some of these programs get support is because they will benefit other portions of society. Then along comes the ag lobby and guts the intent of the program. The program goes through without any benefits to anyone but agriculture and interested parties take it to the courts or the voters.



> hunters are only going to cause this puppy to chase his tail even faster.


Your very posts on this form will have landowners chasing their tail. Your quote above is sort of self richeous, and to me proof your not serious in solving the problem only perpetuating it.


----------



## gst

So there it is in black and white. When asked wether the landowner whose property this "public resource" resides and thrives on, and that hunters want access to should have their "landowner rights" be a part of the "mix" in this issue, Plainsman's answer is a clearly emphatic "No, no, no, no."

And yet apparently people won't admit this ideology exists or is driving this problem :roll: At least plainsman is being honest in voicing his true beliefs. Actually the whole post prety well sums up what I've been suggesting. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> "public resource" resides and thrives on


Some wildlife thrives on it, but more often than not the exist on it in spite of agriculture. If that were not true do you think this area of the world was a great void before agriculture was introduced? I have a friend that when he buys new land bulldozes the one rows, burns and buries the farmstead, and plants to the center line. I like him, but not the way he farms. I have a cousin the same way with over a dozen sections or something like that. Wildlife is not thriving because of either one of them. I help them when they need it because I like them, but I am realistic about their farming practices. It's rip rape and run. 
I respect farmers because they are people, not because they are landowners. I can get my food cheaper from other countries, but like to support American agriculture. Why do you keep trying to talk me out of that? The more I read your posts the closer I come to disliking landowners. You call hunters whiners, but the old joke is "what do you call a basement full of (fill in the blank)? The answer is a Whine Cellar. Respect is supposed to go both ways gst, you can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## TK33

> It seems as if there are those on this site "longing for the day" when landowners can not control who has access to their lands, even though they are not honest enough to admit it.


I won't admit because it is not what I am in favor of. You keep trying to make this about something that it is not. If you want to post your land that is your right. If you want to make money off of your land that is your right, you should have to play by the exact rules that everyone else does. I do believe that there are still lots of landowners who are more than willing to let hunters on their land provided you are respectful enough to ask and treat their property like you are a guest on it. You can talk about building relationships and the like and you are correct on this. The trouble is when someone comes in and offers someone 10, 20, 30 grand to hunt the land relationships change. Until this happens to some people directly apparently they won't see it. Furthermore when their is profits to be made people have a tendency to lose track of the big picture and worry about the future.

[quoteState Sen. Aaron Krauter has resigned from the Legislature, six weeks after he was named as North Dakota director of the federal Farm Service Agency.

The Legislature's research agency said it received the Regent Democrat's resignation letter Monday. It was dated Sept. 14

TK, You need to keep up a little better on your current events Please post the definition of what a "commercializer" is. Thanks


> State Sen. Aaron Krauter has resigned from the Legislature, six weeks after he was named as North Dakota director of the federal Farm Service Agency.
> 
> The Legislature's research agency said it received the Regent Democrat's resignation letter Monday. It was dated Sept. 14


TK, You need to keep up a little better on your current events   Please post the definition of what a "commercializer" is. Thanks
][/quote]I heard that he was now the FSA director, didn't know that he resigned from the legislature. Thanks, that made my day.

My definition of a commercializer is someone who makes a profit off of hunting while taking opportunities away from away from the general public. What is your definition of a commercializer? I do believe that some of the hunting groups are not helping things too. Seems like they are looking out for their big money donors a lot of the time. Although when they try to get land for public use people protest that too, like your buddy Krauter said, no need for public land. One thing that gst eluded to is the hunters driving the demand, he has a point here. There are more and more lazy hunters who want everything ready for them so they just can just go out and shoot. This is part of the problem here, of course some of these people are your customers. :wink:

I gave you an honest answer g/o, now I have one for you. Does this trend of people just taking money for outfitting/leasing and not putting anything back into the system and the resource seem like a good idea? I have been told by two outfitters, one in ND and one in SD that you cannot make any real money if you are releasing birds and maintaining habitat. So once again it is just a rape and pillage job in the name of greed and lacking any foresight what so ever.


----------



## hunter9494

maybe it is where i hunt (i doubt it), but while pheasant hunting, we kick up huge deer every year. they are everywhere, the CRP is full of them and many farmers could care less if you hunt them. i saw several huge bucks, during rifle season, feeding in broad daylight in full view from roads and even highways......i can't believe Kansas residents are concerned, hell they can always slip right over to Missouri and shoot monster deer any where, and even hit them with the truck while traveling the roads at night...this is an insane post.


----------



## DG

bbj wrote,



> Some on here I think are longing for the day when landowners have the title "lord" tacked on in front of their name.


No sir you don't have to lord me or sir me. I have had a lot of fun with hunters pursueing their resource across my property in the past. One time I came upon a vehicle parked at a weird angle on the road both doors open and vehicle running. I stood there on the road looking around. Finally two guys stood up in the tall grass about 100 yds in. They had seen some pheasants and charged in after them. I laughed at them. No need to call the Game Warden. Never saw them again.

Another time there was a pickup parked by my trees and a guy standing there. He asked me if I owned this land. Boom a shot went off in the trees. He started apologizeing for his friend. Boom another shot. He was on his third I'm sorry when boom again. I told him when his partner comes out tell him it's posted. I drove off laughing to myself at how this guy was trying to apologize and his partners gun kept going off. Never saw them again.

Another time I was working in the garage when an S-10 slid to a stop, the kid bails out runs down into the ditch and flushes a pheasant. He missed his first shot but hit it when it was way over my land. I jumped on my dirt bike and headed out. He was running like crazy with the bird but when he saw I was going to be on him like a flash he started walking. He started telling me how he shot it in the ditch. I pointed at the no hunting sign and told him he is a lot less then 440 yds from my garage. He hung his head and said what are we going to do now. I told him that was a hellava good shot. I started laughing to myself because he had a confused look on his face. I told him I'm not going to call anybody but the next person might. Never saw him again.

But there is one incident that I'm not going to let go of. Opening day of pheasant. Two guys posted at one end and four of us started from the other. A guy driving down the road bails out of his pickup, runs into the middle of the field and starts shooting. Picks up a couple roosters and runs out. But his dog would not come out and was still flushing. The guy was standing on the road screaming at his dog to come. A friend of mine who arrived late was parked behind him and took down his license plate. Eveyone who witnessed it thought I should call the Game Warden. I decided there is lots of pheasants and it's opening day let's move on and not let it ruin our day. This guy got on some property south of me and we saw a lot of him. Road hunting. He finally got kicked off of the property south of me. But then his name appeared as a "sponser" of the fair chase petition. If I ever catch him on my property again, he can sir me or even lord me and it will do him no good. I'm going to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm still not going to take it out on all sportsmen. I don't hunt deer. Most people who ask are given permission. Here is my policy. Answer me this, do you belong to the north dakota wildlife federation, wildlife society, DU, PH, rocky mountain elk foundation or mule deer foundation? If you do, then ask them to find you a place to hunt.


----------



## g/o

TK, I have no definition for commercializer that's why I asked you. It seems to be the new buzz word, I wondered what it meant that's all.

As far as your question goes I take it you are referring to pheasant hunting. I don't know of many that will be in buisness very long if they are putting nothing back. I don't know of many "succesful" operators that don't. I work 12 months a year at this and it's not easy work. Yes some nomad guides follow the waterfowl and put nothing back, but how many sportsman put anything back? How many of the so called sportsman do anything but go to country and the fall and expect everything to remain the same? You and I have different beliefs and I'm sure we are not going to change eithers opinion. So we will leave it at that.


----------



## TK33

> I have no definition for commercializer that's why I asked you. It seems to be the new buzz word


It is a catchy word and one that is used here. Maybe it is too broad of a term.



> I take it you are referring to pheasant hunting


Pheasants, waterfowl, and apparently now predators. From what I am hearing all of this will pale in comparison to what the deer bow will be within a few years.



> Yes some nomad guides follow the waterfowl and put nothing back,


These nomads are exactly the problem, and they are the ones who need to be reeled in or eliminated in my opinion.

I'm sure you are right about not changing each other's opinion.


----------



## Plainsman

> Pheasants, waterfowl, and apparently now predators. From what I am hearing all of this will pale in comparison to what the deer bow will be within a few years.


To late, the NR bow license have already gone from 404 in 1990 to 2886 in 2009. I would bet that mule deer license will be harder to get every year because I think that's what they are concentrating on. I see more NR ever opening archery season in the badlands. A couple of years ago I had one try to kick me off private land that I had permission on. He wanted to see my written permission. He was from Colorado. He threatened to call the game warden. I said go ahead I'll wait. He was spouting all kinds of rules and regulations that I guess they would have in Colorado, but we don't here. I told him to read his proclamation before opening his big mouth again.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> Pheasants, waterfowl, and apparently now predators. From what I am hearing all of this will pale in comparison to what the deer bow will be within a few years.
> 
> 
> 
> To late, the NR bow license have already gone from 404 in 1990 to 2886 in 2009. I would bet that mule deer license will be harder to get every year because I think that's what they are concentrating on. I see more NR ever opening archery season in the badlands. A couple of years ago I had one try to kick me off private land that I had permission on. He wanted to see my written permission. He was from Colorado. He threatened to call the game warden. I said go ahead I'll wait. He was spouting all kinds of rules and regulations that I guess they would have in Colorado, but we don't here. I told him to read his proclamation before opening his big mouth again.
Click to expand...

Its not just the NR bow licenses that have skyrocketed since 1990. Everybody and their mother is a bowhunter now.


----------



## gst

TK, not trying to start another go around here but just asking you to step back and look at what you have been saying. You say you have no problem with someone posting their own land and guiding on it, but then you define a "commercializer" as "someone that makes a profit off of hunting while taking opportunitys away from the general public". Exactly what someone guiding on their own posted land is doing, and you believe the commercializers are the problem and must be stopped. Can you see why some might question what you actually are for or against? I'll take your word for it that you don't want to regulate away the ability of a landowner to control access, but an increasing number of hunters do, you'd be hard pressed to deny that. Your policy where by farmers/ranchers would have to choose between participating in federal ag programs and guiding would effectively end almost all landowners from guiding or outfitting. Either you can't understand this or it is the result you are looking for all the while you are claiming you have no problem with them guiding on their properties. As I said before I started posting on this site to provide a different opinion then what was being shared on here that is not to uncommon out in the country. This was done to perhaps provide a little insight into why what is happening is. Apparently instead of looking at it with an open mind and realizing there are two sides to this issue that are not always simple black and white answers, some on here are content to continue not to accept that their very actions and words are contributing to the problem. I guess that's the way it will probably always be, and why these issues never seem to get solved.


----------



## TK33

From the start in the other topics I have said that only the landowner of that land should be allowed to outfit in my opinion, a lot of farmers that I know feel the same way. Get rid of the 3rd party outfitters or nomads as g/o called them. I know that these nomad types of outfitters are into pheasants, deer, and predators along with waterfowl. I think to tell the landowner himself that he is not allowed to outfit his own land would be infringing on landowner's rights. Even though past legislation and funding has been there to insure that hunting is there for everybody, not just the wealthy and the landowners. If you own the land and need or want to profit off of hunting then pay for the outfitter's license and hire some guides and do it yourself. To me eliminating 3rd party hunting is middle ground because it is more of a business practice regulation with wildlife instead of a ban or something more restrictive that many people want.

As far as the payments go, outfitters should have to follow the same rules as any other non-production business. If the land is dual use then it should be treated as such, no payments or pro-rated payments, and paying the appopriate taxes. Prorating might be a better way to go. Just because it happens from a farm on farmland doesn't mean that it is agriculture. One has to admit that if the land is in prevent or crp it is ridiculous that anyone should have to pay to hunt on it. That is double dipping. Should you have to ask permission, yes, even though government payments are being made it is still private property. The farmers that I know don't want to see the increased prices of land, don't want to have to get into more arguements with their neighboring land owners over water, farm practices, and wildlife, and they don't see where alienating the public benefits them. They also let people hunt their land, as long as they treat it the way they should.

You people have made a few good points that shouldn't be ignored, hunters need to clean up their act and attitudes, hunters need to be more willing to contribute to the causes that help both landowners and wildlife, and have to work a little bit to get access.


----------



## TK33

> Apparently instead of looking at it with an open mind and realizing there are two sides to this issue that are not always simple black and white answers, some on here are content to continue not to accept that their very actions and words are contributing to the problem. I guess that's the way it will probably always be, and why these issues never seem to get solved.


You have to realize that the other side of this has been on record as saying that there is no need for more public land. The other side has also tried to sneak through legislation using their lobbies and the CVB. So if anyone thinks that it is just hunters causing the problems here they are sorely mistaken


----------



## gst

TK, You see when it comes to farmers/ranchers guiding and recieving payment for participating in govt programs unless their nonfarm income exceeds that of the farms income they are following the rules when it comes to being elgible to recieve program payments. I don't know how I can better explain that. You want to change these rules to YOUR benefit. Where's the middle ground here? As to your statement that recieving a payment to hunt on CRP or prevent plant being double dipping and should not be allowed, these are govt program payments as well, so how can you justify different rules for each. You don't seem to be understanding these programs, their rules, or why they are in place. You say you don't want hunting to come before agriculture, but yet you and others advocate more restrictions placed on those in agriculture for the benefit of hunting. That ideology has closed far more land to public access across this whole state than has all the leasing and outfitting combined. And from these discussions, it appears that is not about to change. So I'd guess plainsmans puppy is going to get pretty dizzy chasing it's tail. Oh well at least he can buy some of that cheap imported Chinese dog food to feed him!!!! :wink:


----------



## TK33

> more restrictions placed on those in agriculture for the benefit of hunting


Who is the one(s) benefitting? You see I feel that the government should not be helping any non-production business. In my opinion crp and prevent are different from the other programs because they are not "production" payments. They are payments for non-use, so to turn the land into another use, like outfitting is in fact double dipping.



> You want to change these rules to YOUR benefit


Once again, they are for the benefit of the public. I understand taking public payments for production. I do not understand taking gov't payments for outfitting, and there is no justification for it. To allow this could and will open other industries to try to hide under agriculture. This is an issue that goes way beyond hunting and gets into workmen's comp, taxes, unemployment payments, etc.



> I don't know how I can better explain that.


You and I have way different views on this, you also have way different views than my friends and family that farm, past that I don't know what to say. I guess times have changed for everyone.


----------



## gst

TK, your ideology that the govt should not be helping any nonproduction business is a noble one. However it is unrealistic, as the govt is in reality "helping" most any business there is out there. I'd just as soon the govt not be involved in ag, but the reality is if you are going to be involved in ag you either have to participate or lose economic parity with your neighboring producers that have become competitors for land and opportunity. Thats the reality of being involved in ag, particualrily farming, and the govt is slowly dragging ranching into that mix.

Prevent plant is actually a production based program, which unfortunately was/is abused past what it's intentions were. CRP is different in that it's payment can go to someone whose majority of income is not derived from farming. However regardles of what some on here may claim, CRP was designed as an ag based program to increase soil conservation while decreasing production to in theory stabilize production revenues. Which in the long run was supposed to protect farmers and consumers alike. Wildlife benefits where something that has become the driving factor behind how and why CRP is being implemented, it is no longer an ag based program. So under your new rules, why should anyone be able to participate in CRP payments and the ag production payments?

These rule changes you are advocating in reality are not "for the public" as a whole, but rather a relatively small section of the public (hunters)which I don't know if proportionally is any larger than the portion of the public(production ag) that it would be affecting.

I also don't like people taking more out than what they are putting back when it comes to hunting, that is why we operate the way we do in regards to our farming and ranching operation. This is a significant cost to me, but one I willingly take becuse of what I and my family get in return. You see in a way even I as a landowner/farmer/rancher am "paying" for the opportunity to have the kind of hunting I do on my very own land. Far more than the fella paying say a hundred dollars a day to hunt for 5 days, or even the fella paying his license fees. And because of the habitat, food sources, management I do at a direct cost to me, this public resource that is not confined to my land benefits as does the public that hunts them. I know as well as anyone on here how agriculture and the people involved in it has changed, but answer this if you would if these "family farming" type operations are slowly weeded out because of more and more regulations and restrictions being placed on what they can do to continue making a living off thier lands while doing what I described above, who do you think will end up farming them. What types of habitat will be left avalible for wildlife, what kind of access will be left when the operation is soley focased on maximizing production? Look at the discussion on this site in regards to overturning the anti corporate farming laws and the safeguards this maintains just so a wildlife group can buy lands here in ND, and the short term demands most hunters were advocating on here. Once you start changing these rules where will it stop? You may simply want to keep these "nomad guides" from using the resource without putting anything back, but the reality is more and more hunters are not content to stop there. I'll bring it up again, look at this measure to ban HF, where will this push for more restrictions stop? Figure that one out and maybe, just maybe I'd start agreeing with some of your ideologies.


----------



## TK33

> Once you start changing these rules where will it stop?


Fair question, that is the risk. I think that not doing anything at all is more risky. I think that it will be like every other issue, people and leaders do nothing until it explodes and then there is an overreaction. If this overreaction happens what I think will happen will be the stomping of landowner rights and socialized regulations that will hurt the actual hunters, not just the fair weather types.



> who do you think will end up farming them


The government or corporations with even more government help. That would be real bad, which furthers my point of why we need to keep more people hunting and more people in touch with the rural areas of the country.



> These rule changes you are advocating in reality are not "for the public" as a whole, but rather a relatively small section of the public (hunters)which I don't know if proportionally is any larger than the portion of the public(production ag) that it would be affecting.


Anyone can hunt, not everyone can farm. The number of hunters that are effected I think would be a lot greater than the number of landowners who would have the desire to outfit or even have the land available to outfit.



> Look at the discussion on this site in regards to overturning the anti corporate farming laws and the safeguards this maintains just so a wildlife group can buy lands here in ND, and the short term demands most hunters were advocating on here


This is another area that could use some tweaking in my opinion. The anti corporate farming laws are good but when DU or PF wants to put land into public hunting it is almost always opposed. Granted some of the areas are better served for production ND always opposed this. Once again a little middle ground and common sense could help everyone.


----------



## gst

Ok, here's my last 2 cents on this issue.
So TK you are suggesting that your solution is to slowly start putting more restrictions on farmers/rancher/landowners even though you have no idea where they will stop because you think eventually we will wind up there any way?????? And we're suppose to think this is a good idea????

The problem is you try justifying your ideologies of more regulations by saying anyone can hunt, so it may possibly affect any of the public. The reality is only a small percentage of the public does hunt, and that percentage is probably pretty close to the same percentage of this public that is involved in ag. The reality is that these restrictions and regulations by themselves DO affect ALL landowners/farmers/ranchers when they become a spiral of one after another after another. The reality is most of this nonhunting public cares less wether hunters are getting access or opportunities. The reality is a growing percentage of them would just as soon not have hunters. The reality is that as long as this public is being provided the safest, cheapest, most readily avalible food supply of any country in the world, they in all likelyhood will not rise up and take away landowners rights and turn this into a communal farm system if hunters are not granted their every wish like you suggest.

The reality of these issues is it is even a smaller percentage of the public(the hunter that can't or won't try to find opportunity on their own, or have these personal agendas) that is continueing to push to regulate these issues that are looked at by most landowners as an infringement on to their rights. (the HF measure wether you are tired of hearing it or not is a perfect example of this as is the NWF lawsuits pertaining to CRP usage, as is any number of other agendas designed to restrict, regulate, or ban things landowners have always had the "right" to do previously.) The lawsuit by the NWF in regards to the haying and grazing of CRP is a perfect example as to how these pushes for restrictions never stop. It started out as being able to hay or graze CRP every third year, then the lawsuit changed it to one in five years, then it went to one in ten years, and now it is seeking to prevent haying and grazing completely in the new contracts. So your limited restriction has evolved into a complete ban. And yet people can't figure out that this is a significant factor in why CRP is dissappearing. And NONE of these hunting orgs will admit it.

If leasing of land and posting of land were stopped volantarily tommorrow do you think ND Hunters for Fair Chase would drop this measure? Do you think the NWF and PF would allow the parameters regulating CRP haying and grazing to go back to what they were originally under the ag based program? Do you think DU would quit pushing for permenant easements on the lands they purchase and resell to other private holders? Do you think other wildlife and hunting groups would quit pushing to eliminate or restrict grazing agreements??? Do you think other wildlife hunting groups will stop pushing swampbuster/sodbuster rules to become further restrictive???? Of course not. So what are we in ag suppose to do???? Sit back and just take it???? What effective tools do we have avalible to get people to stop and look at these issues from a different perspective so that this spiral of more and more regulations and bans doesn't continue???

If I was to come into any industry anyone else is involved in (perhaps one you work in)and start demanding more regulations, restrictions and bans simply because thats what I or a small group of vocal people want, how do you think I would be percieved by anyone in that particualr industry???? Yet those of us in ag are suppose to just go along because thats what a few hunters deem right. Do the realities I listed above mean that hunters and ag producers shouldn't work together to ensure both are able to enjoy what they do, of course not, but small groups of hunters pushing these types of restrictions, regulations and bans onto the people that own the land this resource hunters want opportunity to pursue is probably not going to get the outcome most hunters want. Until enough hunters step up and tell this minority that are pushing these agendas to stop and to find some way to work together short of regulating, restricting, or banning their way thru these issues, this downward spiral will in all likelyhood continue. I don't know how much plainer I can say it.


----------



## swift

The same old rant GST. CRP comes with CONTRACTS, If you sign a contract that says no haying then there is no haying. If your contract says hay every three years or 1/3 every year after a certain date then that is the rule. Because a draught comes along and you want to break the contract you signed and the NWF stood up to hold you to that contract you are going to hold everyone hostage. Real classy there.

I laughed when I read in your post to TK something to the effect of changing the rules to benefit yourself, when you have been crying about this NWF lawsuit for two years.

DG, I would have more hunting access to land supplied by DU if this socialized state would allow DU and RMEF and PF to buy land when it comes up for sale. But since you and GST and the rest of the vocal minority keep allow the legislature to prevent the conservations orgs from having a fair shot at buying land, I don't get that benefit. The legislature needs to repeal that law and allow all land sales go to whomever the seller wants to sell it too, Afterall isn't that the RIGHT of the landowner to sell his land to whomever he chooses? Afterall you DG and GST are always preaching ABSOLUTE landowners rights.


----------



## gst

Swift, you really don't understand the NWF CRP lawsuits, we've been thru this before. But with people like swift and plainsman posting it should be pretty easy to see exactly what I'm talking about :wink: Have fun, I'm done.


----------



## TK33

> So your limited restriction has evolved into a complete ban


This is a complete stretch and not even remotely close to the same thing. Anyone who has CRP signed a contract with the government. In the case of outfitting the government, the public, and recently landowners have built a resource that a few people are now profitting on while taking away access, no contracts, only some very loose regulations.



> Afterall you DG and GST are always preaching ABSOLUTE landowners rights


 :rollin: No, they are preaching rights when the government is helping them out.


> If I was to come into any industry anyone else is involved in (perhaps one you work in)and start demanding more regulations, restrictions and bans simply because thats what I or a small group of vocal people want


Too late, it has already happened. You see there were problems that needed to be corrected but instead of small changes that made sense there was an overreaction brought on by insurance companies and safety types. Now there are so many rules and regulations that it isn't even funny. This is what happens when people get too protective and narrow minded, common sense goes out the door and the government steps in.

Let me ask this, what happens when the CVB and the goverment turn their back on farmers like they have the average hunter?


----------



## DG

Swift wrote,



> DG, I would have more hunting access to land supplied by DU if this socialized state would allow DU and RMEF and PF to buy land when it comes up for sale.


Then you are not opposed to the Humane Society of the United States from buying land too.

http://www.wlt.org/conservation_options.asp

TK wrote,

[quoteLet me ask this, what happens when the CVB and the goverment turn their back on farmers like they have the average hunter?][/quote]

http://ncseonline.org/2008conference/cms.cfm?id=1909

It is a big website. Have fun. When I hear you repeating slogans such as the bit about we don't want this to turn into another Europe where only the rich can hunt it reminds me of what the social planners call "embedding." Tk you are outsourcing your marbles.


----------



## gst

TK don't fall into swifts misunderstandings. The comparison is exactly the same. The NWF CRP lawsuit was used as an example of how once rules are started to be changed under these wildlife/hunting groups agendas, often times they don't stop anywhere near this "middle ground". The CRP "rules" when they started, allowed haying every third year in this AG program. As this AG program progressed, these "rules" were changed in the contracts because of a lawsuit the NWF (a wildlife/hunting org)filed to change the parameters of what these contracts were and how they had been implemented. Over the course of CRP's duration these "rules" have been changed because of these continueing lawsuits a number of times until now in all likelyhood there will be no haying or grazing of CRP contracts at all, and it really has no AG basis. Becuse of these changes NWF has pursued in the courts under the ideologies of protecting wildlife and hunter opportunity, many people, ranchers mainly will not put their lands back into CRP unless significant changes are made, so the program is disappearing inpart due to the actions of these groups. So how has anyone benefited from this?????????????? Plain and simple, no one has, yet people like swift, plainsman and yourself do not want to admit this push for these further restrictions to this ag program by these wildlife/hunting groups have contributed to it's possible demise. In fact you come on here demanding changes to other ag programs. So once these changes in the "rules" start, where will they stop?????? If you can't understand or accept how these agendas being pushed in this manner negatively affect what you are trying to accomplish, you will never understand what is driving what is happening. And if you won't accept that fact, you indeed are going to continue to be part of this problem as it continues to worsen. And if you can't understand this I'm truly wasting my time in these discussions. At least maybe others reading it can. So carry on, I really am done. :shake:


----------



## Plainsman

> Swift, you really don't understand the NWF CRP lawsuits


Actually I have to commend Swift for his knowledge of that subject. From my point of view it looks like this. The government and landowner have a contract. Evidently the landowner thinks only the government is bound by this contract. It's like the wetlands north of Devils Lake. They lease them then drain within days of signing a contract that says no draining. Then they go to court and fight. Try leasing your pasture to a neighbor then plow and plant it. Do you think he will take you to court? A contract is a contract and when it's signed with intent to violate I think it's criminal. It's theft with a pen and signature rather than a gun and mask.


----------



## gst

Christ almighty, you guys and your inability to comprehend are making it impossible for me. Follow along, I'll type real slow. IT IS THE LAWSUITS BY THIS WILDLIFE/HUNTING ORG.THAT CONTINUEALY CHANGED THE RULES OF THE CONTRACTS, AND HOW THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED THAT IS WHAT IS THE ISSUE. Actually I might be a little slow myself, it just dawned on me you guys really don't want to "solve" anything, if you did what would you whine about on here. :eyeroll: I gotta quit wasting my time here.


----------



## TK33

> you indeed are going to continue to be part of this problem as it continues to worsen. And if you can't understand this I'm truly wasting my time in these discussions. At least maybe others reading it can. So carry on, I really am done.


The same can be said for you. Your mentality of not changing and adapting with the times is just as much of this problem as anything. People with your mentality will continue to push non-producers into buying land, push for more initiated measures, and continue the animosity toward farmers. None of these things are good for anyone. I don't want to have to buy land to hunt on but if it comes to that I will, then people with your mentality will blame the "city hunters" like everything else.



> Tk you are outsourcing your marbles


I think you have lost your marbles. What were you going for on that website? I couldn't find anything relevant here. As far as embedding goes, keep going on the rate we are going you will see what real embedding is all about. Once again you guys will just blame hunters though.



> Then you are not opposed to the Humane Society of the United States from buying land too.


What I think swift is going for here is that your values, principle, or idealogies have to be the same all the time, not just when they are good for you. Once again if there was some discretion used in some of these land deals there would be more land open to the public.



> IT IS THE LAWSUITS BY THIS WILDLIFE/HUNTING ORG.THAT CONTINUEALY CHANGED THE RULES OF THE CONTRACTS, AND HOW THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED THAT IS WHAT IS THE ISSUE.


I will agree that alot of these crp rules are stupid. But what does that have to with outfitting and the government assisting outfitting? I, along with some other guys I know have voiced our condern over this with wildlife groups. Once again if some of the land purchases by these groups were allowed to go through and there was some give and take the wildlife groups wouldn't have a leg to stand on. If some regs were adopted that could bring some middle ground the people who want ot ban everything wouldn't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## gst

OK, I'll try one last time with a little different method. TK, Please answer each of the following questions. 
1. Do you think by filing multiple lawsuits that continueally changed the rules further restricting the haying or grazing of CRP in these contracts to the point where it will be discontinued entirely was finding middle ground or helped the farmer/rancher,wildlife or the hunter. 
2. Once you start to change the rules regarding ones elgibility to participate in ag programs based off wildlife issues(recieving money for hunting) as you suggest, do you think it will stop only with leasing or fee hunting, or will these rules continue to be changed much the way the CRP rules were by these wildlife/hunting orgs., and where will it stop?
3. Do you believe there are hunting/wildlife groups and individuals that believe because their "public" tax dollars pay for these programs that the farmer/rancher/landowner has no right to close access to them pursueing this "public resource" and would like to change the rules to disallow this if you are participating in any govt programs and would use the changes you suggest to justify theirs?
4. Do you believe pursueing these agendas in these manners will ultimately benefit anyone.

Four simple questions.


----------



## TK33

:rollin:

1. No. 
2. Yes, if it is defined as such and handled by the state, through the local agencies or state boards.
3. Yes, once again handle it by the state.
4. I think some sort of middle ground will benefit more people on both sides than continuing to do nothing.

Now I have some simple questions for you:

1. How do you justify ag business regulations, laws, and taxation for non agricultural business? Including not having to pay for an outfitter license
2. If the land purchases were for habitat and public hunting only, would you support them, would you also support the state going after more public land?
3. Do you believe that nomad or 3rd party outfitters are good for the entire state of ND?
4. How does increased land costs from hunters buying their own land benefit producers?
5. Why should the government be looking out for outfitters instead of the hunting public?


----------



## g/o

> The other side has also tried to sneak through legislation using their lobbies and the CVB.


TK, Give examples,


----------



## g/o

> [From my point of view it looks like this. The government and landowner have a contract. Evidently the landowner thinks only the government is bound by this contract./quote]
> 
> Not so fast Plainsman, Actually it was the governments idea, of course it was pressured by ag groups etc. If you and I have a contract to rent my pasture and break it without my blessings yes we have a problem. If we agree to break it is a different story, such as the emergency clause on CRP contracts. Contract were made to be broken


----------



## gst

g/o, plainsman and swift don't want to understand the CRP lawsuit issue, your wasting your time. 
TK, your answers to 2&3 prove you are not being realistic about what these wildlife/hunting orgs and some individuals on here are willing to do to accomplish their agendas or willing to admit it. They have proven time and again that when the states/govt do not give them everything they want, they will still pursue it thru these initiated measures or the courts such as was done in the CRP issue and the HF issue just to name two, to acheive their agendas regardles of the end consequences. And you end up back to your answer for the first question because of these groups blindly pushing these agendas. Thats my whole point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for answering those questions, I'll do my best to answer yours.
1. I've never once suggested someone should not have to pay for a license to outfit or guide nor that there shoud not be some common sense rules in place. When does what someone do become nonag? The current rules say that when over one half of their income comes from the non ag business they no longer can participate in ag programs or I believe get ag tax exemptions. The tax exemption on some things is even a bit more restrictive if I'm not mistaken. 50%, seems like a fair middle ground kind of rule to me. Apparently it's not to you as you want to change these rules. 
2. I'm guessing you are refering to groups like DU purchasing land? Honestly, probably not because of the permanant easements they want to have in place that effectively controls what can be done on this land forever. Why not come in with working agreements with the farmer/rancher for habitat that can be proven to be effective for both? DU has these programs especially in Canada and they appear to be better recieved and more effective in protecting the resource while working with the farmer/rancher then does competatively bidding up lands. They also then can't in turn sell these lands to one of their donors to be locked away from the public. In regards to more public lands, you tell me how much more you and other hunting orgs. would be satisied with and how you want the state to go about getting it, then I'll give you an answer. Buying land, probably no. Programs such as PLOTS, probably yes.
3. I've already answered this when I said I don't agree with people taking more out of hunting then they put back in. Find some common sense midle ground way to deal with this that won't continue to further and further restrict this ENTIRE industry out of existance and I'd probably go along. 
4. It really doesn't. However, short of starting even fruther down the road of regulating who can buy land, how will this change? The state has narrowly defined who they will limit from owning land in ND and why. I'm not advocating this be broadened just to prevent an individual from buying a piece of land to have for their own to hunt on even though it may negatively affect my operation. 
5. Ive never stated the govt should be looking out for outfitters rather than hunters nor advocated changing any rules to that effect. 
Please show me where I've ever suggested "doing nothing". Hopefully that answered your questions in a direct manner that everyone can comprehend.


----------



## g/o

gst, Actually I'm not worried, the whole issue of the lawsuit was not if the land could be hayed but the date. Because of the flooding in Iowa and other states the Gov wanted to let them hay early. They decieded to include a bunch of other states and thats when the Wildlife boys filed suit, they won. It's over, some got mad and it didn't affect others.


----------



## swift

Okay GST, My CRP contract ended OCT 1, 2009. I was enrolled under a wildlife habitat contract. I was not able to reenroll it at the time of it's expiration because the wildlife habitat based contract acres where full in our county. I could have gotten a new contract if I had a wetland on it. 6 weeks later I was notified I could sign up under a new contract that pays 40% higher if it's open to public hunting. I chose not to enroll it due to the small size 52 acres and it's close proximity to my house. I imagine this is the type of mettling by wildlife orgs you are complaining about, BUT this open fields doctrine was in fact written by your US Senator Byron Dorgan. (The same senator that co-sponsors your farm bill). I understood the ramifications of signing that contract and chose not to. If I went by your mindset I should have enrolled it then refused access because my house sits on that 52 acres. Then when I was forced to allow people on I could accuse DU, PF, NWF et.al for endagering my family by forcing me to allow hunters in my yard.

Anyone that signs a contract that does not have a clause for "emergency haying" then expects to be able to hay when they deem it necessary is irresponsible. The same person that has an irresponsible expectation then holds someone else at fault when they don't get that expectation is also a fool.

As much as it seems to you that I don't understand, it is clear that you want to have the ability to control your land regardless of any contracts you have signed. And when you are stopped you throw a tantrum directed at faceless organizations. Lord GST you have been given much by the people of this country when are you going to look at all you have gotten instead of the little that is restricted. Look at G/O's post regarding the lawsuit, like most of G/O's posts well written and meaningful.

DG's question about HSUS buying land. If a landowner chooses to sell land to HSUS why shouldn't they? Because you don't agree with their agenda? Of course they should be able to buy land.


----------



## DG

Tk wrote,



> What were you going for on that website? I couldn't find anything relevant here. As far as embedding goes, keep going on the rate we are going you will see what real embedding is all about. Once again you guys will just blame hunters though.


The National Wildlife Federation is not a sportsmens org it is an federally funded advocacy group.

http://ncseonline.org/WHPRP/NWF/Adaptation2009/

Here they are working with the Nature Conservancy. TNC wants to buy farmland too. And they are here working with Defenders of Wildlife. Plainsman in the past said defenders are bunch of half cracks and nut jobs. But he refuses to accept the fact his former federal employer USGS does work together on management, policy and research with those nut jobs. You guys can sit here, argue over the crumbs and rearrange the deck chairs all you want. These guys will determine the future of hunting, conservation and land use. Follow the money.

Adaptation 2009

Adaptation 2009: Safeguarding Fish, Wildlife and Natural Systems in the Face of Climate Change, was convened by the Wildlife Habitat Policy Research Program (WHPRP) and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) on February 18-19, 2009 at the Hyatt Regency in Washington, DC.

Participants included more than 130 professionals working on management, policy and research related to wildlife and climate change. These leading "thinkers and doers" came from across the U.S., representing a broad diversity of expertise and balanced participation by non-governmental organizations, federal and state agencies, academia, and the private sector.

The conference breakouts were organized around four major natural systems, including: forests, grasslands and shrublands, freshwater ecosystems, and coasts and estuaries. The "Adpatation 2009" conference made significant progress toward meeting its objectives:

Conference Objectives:

1. Demonstrate progress in research, management and policy approaches to climate change adaptation for wildlife and natural systems, and identify unmet needs.

2. Identify priority management and policy changes required at national and state levels to enable natural resource agencies to address climate change.

3. Develop estimates of the scale of adaptation funding required to safeguard fish, wildlife and natural systems in a warming world.

4. Connect leading thinkers in conservation practice and science with top experts on climate impacts and adaptation to foster knowledge sharing and networking.

Conference Summary Report
This document provides a synthesized version of the "nuts-and-bolts" of what happened at Adaptation 2009.

Adaptation Fact Sheets
A series of five fact sheets that summarize major findings coming out of the Adaptation 2009 Conference.

Pre-Conference Materials:
To ensure that all participants started with a common foundation of information, discussion drafts and executive summaries of two reports were provided. These included a literature review conducted by NWF, as well as a survey of 68 professionals in the field, conducted by Defenders of Wildlife, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and NWF. The two related documents assessed the current status of understanding of climate change adaptation for natural systems and efforts already being put into practice.


----------



## gst

Swift once again you are not comprehending. G/O's post was not exactly accurate. The reason this LAST lawsuit was filed was that the FSA, while doing what they had always done previously and had been allowed, did not allow a 60 day public comment period on the affects of opening up CRP to haying and grazing. There have been other previous lawsuits by NWF to force the govt to change the parameters of the contracts under which these acres were signed up which is the point I'm trying to get people like you to understand is why these continued restrictions that finally lead up to a total ban has not benefited anyone. We have gone thru this before and you don't seem able to comprehend it any better this go around. So one last time. IF SOMEONE SIGNS A CONTRACT THAT STATES THERE IS NO HAYING THATS FINE, IT IS A CONTRACT. THE ISSUE I'M REFERING TO IS THE FACT THESE WILDLIFE/HUNTING GROUPS CONTINUELY FILED THE LAWSUITS TO CHANGE THE PARAMETERS OF THESE CONTRACTS TO FURTHER RESTRICT THEN BAN WHAT WAS A BENEFICIAL PART OF THIS PROGRAM FOR EVERYONE, THE GOVT, THE LANDOWNER,WILDLIFE AND HUNTERS, EVEN DU AGREES WITH THAT. AND AS A RESULT THE PROGRAM ACRES ARE DISAPPEARING. SO WHO BENEFITED FROM PURSUEING THIS AGENDA TO PREVENT HAYING OR GRAZING????????I like you chose not to enroll land in CRP for various reasons, this being one of them, so how does this benefit wildlife or hunters????? The fact you don't seem to want understand this underscores why this will remain part of the problem when it comes to discussing these issues, and why it is a waste of time to continue these disscussions.

By the way I believe it was Sen. Conrad not Dorgan that wrote the open fields policy. And this is simply another step towards acheiving this agenda some have of taking away the ability of the landowner to control access. If they can't get enough thru this volantary sign up, eventually I'd guess the next step will be a lawsuit to restrict it. So maybe your part of the problem by not enrolling your lands in this open to the public program :wink: This new regulation in this contract was enough to prevent you from enrolling land in a wildlife program, so how does that requirement benefit wildlife or hunters???? Do you begin to see my point, now that you have chosen not to put your land in this program because of this regulation?? If you were dependent on making your living of this 52 acres what would you now do with this land??? 
By the way, neither of them are "my" Senators. I've never once voted for them.
By the way, this "farm bill" you refer to as mine actually does more for the consumer and the public than it does for me in the long run, a point which folks like you seem to not acknowledge or understand. Take a look to see how much of these farm bill dollars are allocated to production ag programs compared to other programs that fall under this bill.


----------



## DG

Swift wrote,



> Afterall you DG and GST are always preaching ABSOLUTE landowners rights


I never said ABSOLUTE. If you want to quote me than quote this.

"There is no environmental, animal rights or wildlife conservation movement, which does not operate in the interest of money, in the direction indicted by money, or for that period of time permited by money, and all this without the idealist in its ranks having the slightest suspicion of the fact."


----------



## Plainsman

There sure is a lot of disinformation (read bs) in this thead. 
First off, the North Dakota Wildlife Federation was not a party to the lawsuit so I don't know what the hate campaign is about.


> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
> AT SEATTLE
> NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; )
> INDIANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION; SOUTH)
> DAKOTA WILDLIFE FEDERATION; )
> WASHINGTON WILDLIFE FEDERATION; )
> ARKNSAS WILDLIFE FEDERATION; )
> LOUISIANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION; )
> KANSAS WILDLIFE FEDERATION, )
> Plaintiffs,


http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/353646-.pdf

Second, the plaintiffs were not trying to change the contract, they were trying to get the government to enforce the contract. Big difference.

Look at this site:http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp-eg

You will find that the emergency haying is once every three years. This is simply people attempting to lead us astray for sympathy so they can have your cake and eat it too. That my none greedy, tax paying, taken advantage of friends is the truth. Look for yourself.
Maybe a better plan would be that there would be no money of any kind for agriculture support on farms that did not have 25% of it's land base set aside in planted cover. To be alternated every ten years. Sounds good to me. You want my tax dollars? Do something for them. I don't think that is unreasonable. I would never ask that it be mandatory.


----------



## gst

Plainsman. If your going to accuse someone of lying(bs) at least have the decency to provide proof of the lie. Otherwise your credibility falls even further in these discussions. NO ONE claimed the NDWF was a part of this lawsuit. However in a conversation I had with Bob Kellum on this very issue he did acknowledge that while they opposed this ruling, they did not communicate it well and by not opposing it directly to their national affiliate, by default they supported it. As well as the OTHER lawsuits by the NWF which have changed the rules in each successive contract limiting the haying or grazing of CRP. Currently there are comments being accepted on these aspects of the "new" CRP program, but in all likelyhood because of the past lawsuits by the NWF there will be no haying or grazing allowed even for emergency purposes.

First there was a part of this last lawsuit designed to get managed haying and grazing every 3 years excluded under a ruling in the 2002 farm bill provisions. Second 2 parts of the latest lawsuit was to get the CHANGED rules regarding the requirement of a 60 day comment period enforced which the NWF knew would put the ability of producers to gain any real value from this haying or grazing past what it would be worth, there by greatly reducing the number of people taking part in this, which is exactly what happened, even though this 60 day comment period for EMERGENCY haying and grazing had NEVER been required in the past. OK you have an emergency drought (in some areas 5 years in a row)and need feed for your cattle now, MAYBE in 60 days after we talk about it we can start the process to provide you what you had for 20 plus years previously gotten immediately upon there being declared an emergency drought situation???????????????? And yet you still can't understand why the producer is upset and will not renew these CRP contracts???????. Even after if it had been allowed less than 30% of total CRP acres would have been grazed or hayed. Way to get to this "middle ground", you want your BS there it is, anyone claiming to want to find middle ground that supported this ruling is who is lying.

It appears that you do not have the ability to understand that it is the fact that the NWF lawsuits did change the long standing policy that was initially a part of the CRP program which benefited all parties. In the midwestern states it went from once every 3 years to once every 7 years, and in the rest of the western states it went from once every 5 years to once every 10 years. Now they are pursueing ending all haying and grazing in its entirety. If you don't believe this contact your FSA center. You and I have had conversations where you have indicated because of studies you did while a federal biologist you approved of limited haying and grazing, but yet you come on here in support of an org. that opposes it. Hard to tell what you do believe by what you say.

Your statments like being able to buy your food cheaper elsewhere and "if you want my tax dollars do something for them" shows your ignorance, and I don't know what other word to use here, about what these federal ag programs are designed to do. The US has the SAFEST, MOST READILY AVALIBLE, CHEAPEST FOOD SUPPLY OF ANY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY ON EARTH. The US citizen on average pays the least percentage of their disposable income on food of any nation. So as to the value your getting for "your tax dollar" I'd say it was a pretty good deal as the average person's amount of taxes that go into these production programs is in fact not much more than a few dollars. If you don't think so start buying your food elsewhere. You want food cost to rise substantially, take 25% of ag lands out of production as you suggest and see what happens. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about and yet you accuse others of misinforming these "nongreedy,tax paying,taken advantage of friends" I wonder what the over whelming majority of the public would think if their food costs were to rise by say 10% because of your ideology of taking 25% of lands out of the food producing total? What if their taxes rose to offset the loss of production payments that would have to go with this set aside program. So take your few TAX PENNIES that individually go into these federal ag programs and go to China and buy your melamene(or whatever it's called) laced food and quit your uninformed whining about what these ag programs really are designed to provide this nation. You wanted a rant, there it is.

If ANYONE can read plainsmans or swifts posts and not clearly see the exact mentality of todays hunters I have been talking about you have to be either blind or completely biased. And you wonder why farmers and ranchers that log onto these sites and read without posting (of which there are many)get tired of this constant whining. And why this problem only continues.


----------



## TK33

Thanks for answering my questions gst.



> Lord GST you have been given much by the people of this country when are you going to look at all you have gotten instead of the little that is restricted


Well said swift. That is the mentality that I was taught.



> TK, your answers to 2&3 prove you are not being realistic about what these wildlife/hunting orgs and some individuals on here are willing to do to accomplish their agendas or willing to admit it.


I don't think that it is unrealistic because it is handled by the governor's office. The governor would have the final say. The restrictions you are looking at would be the way to go.



> The tax exemption on some things is even a bit more restrictive if I'm not mistaken. 50%, seems like a fair middle ground kind of rule to me. Apparently it's not to you as you want to change these rules


It is not the same as what every other non ag business has to pay. It would be changing the rules, but it would be making the rules apply evenly, not in one person's favor. I have no trouble with the rules when they are applied to ag business, but when it is for a non ag business it is simply corporate welfare and an unfair business advantage for a non-essential business.



> And this is simply another step towards acheiving this agenda some have of taking away the ability of the landowner to control access. If they can't get enough thru this volantary sign up, eventually I'd guess the next step will be a lawsuit to restrict it.


This is the point that I have been trying to make. More restrictions and limits are probably inevitable, your side always operates under the give and inch take a mile fear. If something is not done soon you will see more lawsuits and more restrictions on your rights. I still fail to see where 3rd party outfitting is a right. If you don't own the land you are simply making money off of the wildlife and that to me is wrong. As g/o said, he works 12 months a year and puts back what is taken, that is a sustainable business, not one that is solely relying on the government and public to keep the wildlife there for their profit.


----------



## Plainsman

> I wonder what the over whelming majority of the public would think if their food costs were to rise by say 10% because of your ideology of taking 25% of lands out of the food producing total?


Yes I would pay more because taking land out of production would automatically push the commodities up. You would make more money on the market and not have to rely on ag welfare.



> The US has the SAFEST, MOST READILY AVALIBLE, CHEAPEST FOOD SUPPLY OF ANY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY ON EARTH


Not the cheapest by a long shot. The only reason they are not available to the consumer is because ag interest have gotten to our politicians who in turn created protection for agriculture. Stores in North Dakota get fined for bringing in milk from Minnesota. Not only can we not get it from other countries we can't even get it from neighbors. The ag lobby is doing a good job.



> So take your few TAX PENNIES that individually go into these federal ag programs


The ag program is so huge I think it cost more than defense. As a matter of fact I think it takes more money than any other program. I suppose you will whine that your not getting it.



> You and I have had conversations where you have indicated because of studies you did while a federal biologist you approved of limited haying and grazing,


I still do. I just don't approve of an emergency every year. I don't approve of paying and having it grazed. One or the other. I also don't approve of grazing to the dirt. If no one did anything every year would be a disaster. We need emergency hay and graze. Right. I don't mind when it's real, but I don't like people thinking they can tell me the sun rises in the west. When I have to pay blackmail to hunt or kiss up I will not hunt.


----------



## TK33

g/o said:


> The other side has also tried to sneak through legislation using their lobbies and the CVB.
> 
> 
> 
> TK, Give examples,
Click to expand...

Pheasantgate and adding waterfowl to HB1216 would be the first two that come to mind. Then the holding of G&F funds to try to pass pro-commercial (for the most part) legislation. These bills were initially wrote one way and then changed in committee. IMO that was intentional, get it through the first phase and then add to it at the end and get it to a vote as quickly as possible.


----------



## g/o

Swift, Interesting on your CRP I have never heard of a wildlife habitat contract. In my area we have wetlands but similar problems with FSA. I have 2 quarters that expired in Oct. 2009 also, I was offered $87.00 per acre plus if I wanted I could get an extra few bucks for open lands which I wasn't interested in. Funny thing is after it was offered they then said they would have to see if it would qualify. This can take over 6 months I was told, so lets see that could put me into spring and no contract. Guess what will happen, it will be put back into production.

Plainsman, I have to shed a little light on your anti haying and grazing attitude. It is still up to us as land owners on whether we want our land hayed or not. I have turned many down over the years, I like you do not think it was meant to be a hay bank. On the other side my CRP is CP-23 which only allows haying in an emergency. I can not hay it but can burn it every 5 years, in an emergency I let some get hayed now and then. I would rather it get used for feed than to go up in smoke.


----------



## DG

Plainsman wrote on page 4,



> Maybe a better plan would be that there would be no money of any kind for agriculture support on farms that did not have 25% of it's land base set aside in planted cover. To be alternated every ten years. Sounds good to me. You want my tax dollars? Do something for them. I don't think that is unreasonable.


So what do any of us get for our tax dollars? A few years ago Pres. Bush wanted to cut funding for the United States Geological Survey. Too many biologist sitting around with not much to do. Look at these guys. They invented a salamander trap.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/herp ... /index.htm

Taxpayers need some relief. Time to cut the funding. I don't think that is unreasonable.


----------



## DG

On page 4 Plainsman wrote,



> There sure is a lot of disinformation (read bs) in this thead.
> First off, the North Dakota Wildlife Federation was not a party to the lawsuit so I don't know what the hate campaign is about.


There was a tiny blurb on the news that NDWF wasn't for this. But they sure like to get mouthy when the political wind is blowing the right way. Take a look at this and pay attention to how it works:

The reporter, Brian Gerhing wrote an OK piece about People charged with violating game and fish laws could face felonies for the first time under a new state law. Where the news goes south or takes a sharp left is his interveiw with David Brandt, federal employee at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown. It is part of the United States Geological Survey. He is also the president of the executive board of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, a grassroots wildlife conservation and advocacy group. An affiliate of the federally funded National wildlife Federation.



> Game and Fish crackdown
> By BRIAN GEHRING Bismarck Tribune | Posted: Sunday, November 8, 2009 2:15 am |
> 
> MIKE McCLEARY/Tribune Joe Wangler looks over a row of geese decoys outside the Bismarck AMVETS Club Post #9 before the Report All Poachers Auction in August. Up for bid at the auction were hunting and fishing gear confiscated by North Dakota law enforcement.
> 
> People charged with violating game and fish laws could face felonies for the first time under a new state law.
> 
> Most fish and wildlife violations are, by most standards, not serious, and carry misdemeanor penalties.
> 
> That is, until now. Coming out of this past legislative session, the worst offenders could face felony charges and penalties.
> 
> The wanton waste and destruction of wildlife is a serious matter for sportsmen and women, but in the past one would have to kill a federally protected animal before the case would get bumped into federal court.
> 
> Earlier this year, four men from western North Dakota were convicted and sentenced in what was the most high-profile case of wildlife violations in the state so far. A fifth man is still being sought in connection with the killings.
> 
> They were charged with killing more than 40 big-game animals, along with other small game, in Billings County. They were not charged with felonies.
> 
> As of Aug. 1, some of the more egregious game and fish violators could face felony charges in state courts. House Bill 1188 put some teeth into North Dakota's Century Code dealing with exploitation of wildlife.
> 
> Bruce Burkett is one of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department's lead investigators. He says the new law will allow prosecutors to consider the offense, along with past criminal history. He said the law has several tiers to it that could lead to more severe penalties.
> 
> Depending on the severity and frequency of the crimes, those convicted of "exploitation of wildlife" could lose hunting and fishing privileges for life in addition to monetary penalties.
> 
> Robert Timian, chief of enforcement for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, said he wouldn't comment on any pending cases under the new legislation, but it wouldn't change the way game wardens or investigators do their jobs.
> 
> He said investigations into violations come from a number of sources: game wardens in the course of doing their jobs, the Report All Poachers program or from the general public. In the case of the men from western North Dakota, tips from the public played an instrumental role in identification.
> 
> Occasionally, tips come from other law enforcement agencies or from out of state, Timian said.
> 
> "There are times something is uncovered that leads the investigation back to North Dakota."
> 
> Under section one of the new law a person convicted of certain crimes could lose their hunting, fishing and trapping privileges for three years.
> 
> How it works
> 
> Under section two of the law, the exploitation section, a person would face Class C felony charges if: convicted of five or more A misdemeanors in two years; aids a person who assists; or commits seven or more misdemeanors in two years, or commits a misdemeanor after having previously been convicted of seven or more misdemeanors within a 10-year period.
> 
> A Class C felony carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a $5,000 fine or both.
> 
> Under the new law, violators cannot be charged with a misdemeanor and felony for the same offense.
> 
> Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, was the primary sponsor of the legislation.
> 
> He said over the course of time while revising state laws pertaining to outfitter and guide services, it became apparent there was a hole between state and federal courts.
> 
> Porter said in the most serious cases, the backlog in the federal court system could take as long as three years before the case went to court.
> 
> "Some of the most egregious cases had to go through federal court - the worst of the worst - and it could take years," Porter said.
> 
> He said the intent of the law is to make it a narrow window between what would differentiate a felony offense from a misdemeanor.
> 
> For instance, someone charged with shining, or spotlighting a deer, would not be subject to a felony charge. But someone using an artificial light to take 20 or 30 deer would.
> 
> Porter said there weren't one or two cases in particular that prompted the change in the law, but there have been some high profile cases in North Dakota.
> 
> In the case of the four men in western North Dakota mentioned earlier, plea bargains were made in district court in Dickinson. One of the men was sentenced to 180 days in jail with all but five days suspended for two years, fined $15,000, with all but $1,625 suspended, and ordered to pay $6,000 in restitution and $325 court costs. He also lost his hunting and fishing privileges for 10 years in a plea agreement for two misdemeanors.
> 
> In federal court
> 
> Burkett said one example of a North Dakota case getting bumped to federal court came in 2007 involving the Sheyenne Valley Lodge near Goodrich.
> 
> In that case, owners of the lodge and guide operation, were ordered to pay $90,000 in restitution for guiding waterfowl hunters after clients had reached their limits, then tossing unwanted birds into pits.
> 
> In 2006, two Lansford men were sentenced for federal crimes after being convicted of killing numerous animals after attaching a point system to each animal and making a game, of sorts, of the killings.
> 
> They were sentenced to pay $500 and $800 in restitution and community service plus losing hunting privileges in North America for two years for one man and 18 months for the other man.
> 
> In 2004, nine hunters in the Valley City area were charged with illegally killing more than 30 deer.
> 
> Timian said he hopes the new law will bring more visibility to game and fish violations and become a deterrent for some.
> 
> Law supported
> 
> Wildlife groups in the state say the same thing. David Brandt is the president of the executive board of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, a grassroots wildlife conservation and advocacy group.
> 
> Brandt said his group supported passage of the new law for several reasons.
> 
> He said one of the group's concerns is with the growth of fee hunting and out-of-state hunters coming into the state, there is "a lot of big money in outdoor recreation."
> 
> Brandt said until now, many of those hunters were not phased by fines that could be imposed by state courts.
> 
> "A $500 fine is nothing for some of these people," Brandt said. "That's the cost of a gun or one hunting trip."
> 
> He said the new law more clearly defines what violators could be risking if they choose to engage in illegal practices. Felony convictions could result in losing the right to possess firearms as well as the loss of hunting privileges for an extended period of time.
> 
> Brandt said he thinks the law will be a strong deterrent for many. "We thought the lenient penalties were not accomplishing protecting the resources of North Dakota," he said. "The laws did not have a deterrent effect."
> 
> He said he also thinks the increased publicity of facing felony charges may keep some from crossing the line.
> 
> "We hope so," he said. "That's been one of our frustrations. A lot of these cases don't get a lot of publicity."
> 
> In other states
> 
> Surrounding states also have laws on the books making certain offenses felonies.
> 
> Montana has a statute making the killing of trophy big-game animals with a restitution value of more than $1,000 a felony. The value of a ¾-curl big horn sheep is set at $30,000, $8,000 for an elk and $6,000 for a moose.
> 
> In South Dakota, most big- game violations are categorized as Class I misdemeanors, carrying the same penalty as a DUI. Emmit Keyser of the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks enforcement division, said felony charges would kick in on a second or subsequent violation.
> 
> Those violations include taking big game at night, with no license or during a closed season. The penalty could include two years in prison, a $4,000 fine or both, and loss of hunting privileges for five years.
> 
> Important tool
> 
> In some cases, the public embarrassment would be a factor to keep hunters on the straight and narrow, but for those looking to cash in on the exploitation of wildlife, Timian said it likely won't have an impact.
> 
> If they are going to do it, they are going to do it, he said.
> 
> "In some situations we're talking tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars," he said. "It's just a cost of doing business."
> 
> But for some, the motivating factor could be the loss of hunting privileges.
> 
> In any case, Burkett said the new law is a tool in protecting a resource that is important to all North Dakotans.
> 
> "These (past violations) are shining examples of why the law is needed," Burkett said.
> 
> "These are criminal acts. They are stealing from all of us."
> 
> (Reach reporter Brian Gehring at 250-8254 or [email protected].)


Now did you catch it:

What did David Brandt say:

No.1 He said one of the group's concerns is with the growth of fee hunting and out-of-state hunters coming into the state, there is "a lot of big money in outdoor recreation."

(There's that shot at the nonresidents and guides again.)

No.2 Brandt said until now, many of those hunters were not phased by fines that could be imposed by state courts.

(Take the power from the state courts and give it to the feds)

No.3 "A $500 fine is nothing for some of these people," Brandt said. "That's the cost of a gun or one hunting trip."

(Don't we just love to hate the rich.)

No.4 He said the new law more clearly defines what violators could be risking if they choose to engage in illegal practices. Felony convictions could result in losing the right to possess firearms as well as the loss of hunting privileges for an extended period of time.

(That's also part of the north american wildlife conservation model. It says as long as you are a citizen in good standing. That could just about mean anything.)

So what is the definition of good standing? http://www.ndcourts.gov/publicsearch/CS ... 1800F80043

What I am questioning is all the sucker punching this guy was allowed to take so it could be put out there for public consumption.


----------



## gst

Swift you have no idea of the sense of community or gratitude I have for what I have been blessed with recieving not only from this country, but my family, friends, and my own hard work. That doesn't mean one sits back and allows themselves to be walked over. I'm not the one on here starting these whining threads.

TK, I don't agree that just because you think more restrictions are inevitable one sits back and allows it to happen without proactively being a part of it. Thats kinda like saying oh well we're going to lose the basketball game anyway so why even play it. You aren't seeming to be able to understand the rules have clearly defined that as long as a majority of your income comes from ag production you are considered an ag producer. Seems like common sense to me. Once it goes past this level, you are not and the commercial aspect of your regulations do kick in, and you can not participate in these production ag programs. Contact your FSA office and ask for the form you'd have to fill out to "prove" you are a farmer. and the regulations that go with it. I can't recall the number of the form off the top of my head.

MY "side" as you put it, has this if we give an inch, a mile is taken attitude because many of these groups and individuals have proven time and again that is what they will do, come to the table claiming to seek "middle ground" and push right past until their agendas are achieved. Once again the CRP issue is a perfect example. Regardless of what swift and plainsman try to tell everyone. So after watching this type of disingenuous, agenda pushing rhetoric and actions happen time and again, it starts to become clear even to the slowest folks what many of these wildlife/hunting groups want. And unfortunately as I've repeatedly said these agendas and how they are pursued regardless of consequence ultimately hurts wildlife, hunters, as well as farmers/ranchers.

I don't know where you think anyone is saying your 3rd party outfitting is a right.

g/o, CP23 CRP contracts are inelgible to be hayed or grazed even under emergency declarartion. Originally they were, but that is one of those changes to the rules the NWF lawsuits was able to acheive. I believe there are over 50 different type contracts CRP can be signed up under, and less than a dozen were even elgible for haying or grazing.

Plainsman, I don't even know where to start. The ideology behind the govt program system is to keep commodity prices stable to prevent large food price increases. While you from a conservation angle , and I from a production angle MAY see the benefits from this set aside program, the larger majority of the consuming public will not stand for their food prices rising. Nor does simply taking some land out of production drive prices up, when world wide , new technologies and increased production can fill the void partially or completely . You will end up with more imported food with less safety measures guarding how it is produced. Sell that to the American public. Please list the industrialized countries whose citizens pay a lower percentage of their disposable income for their food.then the US.

Plainsman,Your statement the ag program cost more then defense or any other program makes one wonder what the hell you're smoking, and really stretches your credibility even more. More than the defense program spending????? Wow. Even within the farm bill itself, these production ag programs are only a small percentage of the total cost. Are you even aware things like WIC, food stamps and the school lunch programs as well as many others are paid for out of the "farm bill" dollars???? I'd guess the average person has no clue as to what is included in this. But then that is much of the probalem, appathy of informing ones self before one comes on these sites spouting off.

As to the haying and grazing within the CRP restricitions, only a set portion of it could be grazed, it was not able to be "grazed down to the dirt" as you claim. If this was done you could be faced with having to pay for the entire CRP contract value as a penalty. And most times CRP was allowed to be hayed, A percentage of the rental payment from the govt,was paid back as it should have been. Most producers were not looking for something for nothing. And as to how the "emergency declaration" was determined, it is determined by the state FSA office in a formula based off US weather service data recording stations in these affected counties. Please don't come on here accusing others of spreading BS if your posts are an example of what you contribute to this discussion.

TK, I would guess that if you and others like you were to actually sit down with someone from "our side" and have a common sense, heres the facts and consequences type discussion, perhaps this "middle ground" and a beneficial result for all could be found. But it is the likes of folks like swift and plainsman (as well as many others on these sites)with their uninformed rhetoric and beliefs(ag/defense spending) and personal agendas(sponsoring the first HF measure) and mentality of how they look at things that are unfortunately the driving factor behind groups such as the NWF and others that repeatedly push these agendas with no desire to reach any "middle ground" that will if allowed continue by the hunters themselves, will keep this circle going in the direction it is. So if one really looks at what I'm trying to say, I'm not placing all the blame on hunters themselves, I'm suggesting they have the ability to offer the solution if they choose by stopping these groups and individuals pushing these agendas


----------



## Plainsman

> I like you do not think it was meant to be a hay bank. On the other side my CRP is CP-23 which only allows haying in an emergency. I can not hay it but can burn it every 5 years, in an emergency I let some get hayed now and then. I would rather it get used for feed than to go up in smoke.


No problem with that. I would only burn it to control some weeds or remove excess vegetation. I don't like waste either and have no problem with grazing instead of burning. If it's weeds that fire can control I would rather do that than use herbicide. A match is a lot cheaper also.


----------



## swift

> Swift you have no idea of the sense of community or gratitude I have for what I have been blessed with recieving not only from this country, but my family, friends, and my own hard work


Thats good to hear because your posts don't portray someone that is happy with much of anything. Not a dig just an observation.

GST you continue to claim that NWF and others have changed contracts that are already in place. I simply dont see that happening. Also this thread had nothing to do with the NWF lawsuit but I would bet everyone new it would end up there because when you get involved in a thread it almost always ends up there. It would help if you could understand that the lawsuit was filed and a judge felt there was adequate reason to rule the way he did. As did the appeals judge. It simply wasn't a witch hunt to screw over you and the rest of the folks in the agriculture business. What I'm saying is it wasn't personal so don't take it that way.


----------



## DG

Swift,

And what I am saying is when the NWF filed the lawsuit it would have been a golden opportunity for the north dakota wildlife federation to get aboard and tell the public what a bunch of subsidy suckers and double dippers our farmers are. But they didn't because the y knew the backlash would have been swift and sure. The only message "embedded", the NDWF is unpopular. That is why I posted that piece about People charged with violating game and fish laws could face felonies for the first time under a new state law. It is a very safe bet that the NDWF can get its propaganda into the middle of a piece like that without any backlash. Message "embedded."

And Plainsman is wondering where the hate canpaign is coming from????


----------



## gst

Swift, As it is really hard to know anything about someone on these sites, I generally try to refrain from making personal observations about people such as their happiness or community involvement, ect..... because , as in this case, they most often would be wrong, and accopmplishes nothing but making one look foolish. If you take the time to actually read what is wrote, you would have realized that several times I've indicated how fortunate I am in the opportunities I have with friends and family when it comes to hunting because of the relationships I've established over the years. I believe I mentioned it a couple of times in just this thread.

The CRP NWF lawsuits were only being used as an example of what you and others do not want to admit or accept, such as your last post indicates, nothing personal about it.


----------



## TK33

There is another problem here. There are at least a fair number of farmers that do not feel that CRP should be hayed or grazed except in serious emergencies. A lot of farmers that I have talked to feel that too many producers are using crp emergencies instead of raising or purchasing feed. Obviously this sentiment is found more in areas with less cattle, but I have heard a few ranchers say this also. The sticking point with some of the people I have talked to on this is the Aug 1st date or whatever to let the wildlife develop.

It is inaccurate to place the blame solely on hunting groups when there are at least some in agriculture that have the same views. The USDA, the ag industry, and hunting groups share in the blame for this problem. To take it out on hunters is not going to help anything. The hunting groups also need to get out in the country and find out what the issues are.

Have any of you guys ever talked talked to anyone from DU, PF, or NWF directly?


----------



## gst

TK. I as well feel CRP was not intended as a "hay bank", but answer me this, who filed multiple lawsuits to change the parameters of this program to where this is banned entirely???????????? The original CRP contracts allowed for managed haying and grazing every 3 years here in the midwest. A feature which those involved in designing the original program believed would be beneficial for maintaining a longterm healthy vegetative stand. It was also found to be a benefit to wildlife(DU supported limited haying and grazing). Yet this one group of wildlife advocates and hunters (NWF), with the support of PF, continued pursueing their agenda of disallowing this until we are where we are in regards to the CRP program. Once again I ask, who benefited from their agendas???????? You guys want to dance around stepping up and admitting a wildlife/hunting org. pursued an agenda right past any "middle ground" to the detrement of both wildlife and hunters even on just this one example. And yet you wonder why "my side" has a give and inch and a mile will be taken attitude???????


----------



## Plainsman

> "middle ground"


Maybe the whole argument is the different perceptions of where middle ground is at. Some of the last post, like that from g/o have softened my attitude some. Before his post it appeared the ag guys wanted it all and to heck with everyone else. It made me feel like they think I was put on this earth to serve them. Since you said:


> I as well feel CRP was not intended as a "hay bank",


 I am more open to listen. 
So where is that middle ground? I see CRP as a benefit to society through farm income, land out of production raising prices through the market, soil conservation so the next person on that land has more productive land, etc. Those are the benefits for the farmer. Now the other benefits are wildlife habitat for hunters and others who enjoy the outdoors. Everyone's tax dollars pays for it, and we all share in paying slightly higher for food through the slightly higher market prices. So it looks like the farmer is getting a little more out of it, but I'm ok with it to this point. 
So how often should they get to hay, and how much should they pay back. I would be ok with haying every third year. I would not expect them to pay everything back for every acre, but I would expect them to wait until August 1st they pay less because it's worth less. What is the value reduction about 30%? How would farmers feel about paying back 50% per acre. I think thats more than fair.
So how about land access? I would say that since everyone is paying for it, but the farmer owns it we need to work out a pay schedule. If they want to post it and keep people off I would say they take a payment reduction of at least 25%. If they are charging access fees then I would say take a payment reduction of at least 50%. After all you are reducing it's value to society significantly. So what's everyone think of those numbers. This is just a quick shot at it, so I have no problem if you shoot it full of holes.


----------



## TK33

That is why something needs to change. It is clear that some of the hunting groups and some in the ag industry aren't interested in that either. Once again I re-iterate, this doesn't apply to all hunters. The counter to the give an inch take a mile would be to let things be handled by the state, or through the state's federal offices.



> but answer me this, who filed multiple lawsuits to change the parameters of this program to where this is banned entirely????????????


Didn't all this start over too much (non-emergency) grazing and haying? An overreaction to a flawed policy. Once again, a lack of reason and a lack of rationality lead to the acts of a few having detrimental effects on everyone.



> So how often should they get to hay,


Depends on the area and the weather, this should be handled by wildlife biologists and crop scientists if you ask me. Cut the crp when its prime and when it will have minmal effects on wildlife. A lot of these policies that have been lobbied for are foolish, the crp becomes inhabitable. This is one of the things that bother me about the wildlife groups and why I think too many of them are operating at the behest of people who have no clue. That still doesn't mean that it is all their fault though. There does need to be a date set so that the wildlife doens't get run over but still doesn't cut anyone's throat.



> I would say that since everyone is paying for it, but the farmer owns it we need to work out a pay schedule. If they want to post it and keep people off I would say they take a payment reduction of at least 25%. If they are charging access fees then I would say take a payment reduction of at least 50%.


I agree there should be an incentive for allowing the public to hunt, like the "ask first" program in ND. And I would have no trouble if they upped all the license fees to cover some of the costs. There needs to be a payment system for land that is being charged out. Remove the value placed for the wildlife and habitat and just pay for soil renewal. That might not be much of a reduction though, it would be interesting to see how the whole appraisal process works for CRP.


----------



## gst

TK The rules regarding CRP were being handled thru the states federal office, until these lawsuits came along. I believe we cut CRP 4 times in the twenty some years this program has been around. There was never an option to hay or graze a contract anymore than once every 3 years, or 1/3 every year, and no more than 50% could be hayed at one time under the once every 3 years managed deal. And the contract holder had the say wether this was allowed or not. If someone didn't want it hayed it couldn't be. And if it had been hayed one year, you could not hay it the next under an emergency declaration. Most times there was a 25% of the contract payback required. There were far more regulations with this than I'd bet 99% of the hunting public knew. The problem with the late cutting dates is most CRP in ND is cool season grasses which lose their feed value rather quickly under hot dry conditions, so the value has to be weighed in determining wether it is worth cutting at certain times.

The point I'm trying to make is I'm NOT blaming ALL hunters, just the ones pushing these agendas. Take a hard look at the HF group and see what they are willing to push(Kaseman came out saying trail cameras are unethical). What I am saying is ALL hunters have the solution to at least slow this never ending spiral down by telling these hunting orgs and individuals pushing these type agendas to stop. It is apparent they don't listen to those of us in AG, perhaps they would listen to other hunters. When we do post our land, it is with no hunting without permission signs that say this land is closed to public access because of and there is a list of groups that have proven themselves unfriendly to ag. If someone asks to hunt the first question and usually the only one I ask is are you a member of any of these groups. If they are, they realize there is a direct cost to them for being a member and allowing these policies to be pushed forward. Sitting back and allowing these agendas to move forward often times is by default supporting them. Sometimes one does have to pick which side literaly of the fence you want to be on.


----------



## Bug Guy

I'm not sure how the commercialization of Kansas turned into a CRP discussion, but OK. All of the rule changes and fuss from wildlife groups concerning CRP land is exactly the reason I am taking all my land out of CRP. Years ago, the idea was that the govt. would "rent" the land and not produce a crop on those acres, thereby reducing the amount of crop being sold on the market. CROP REDUCTION PROGRAM. It had nothing to do with nesting birds, wildlife production, grazing, etc. This all came later as these benefits were realized. The govt chose to start this program, not the landowners. Just because it is paid for with tax dollars in no way implies open access to the public. That would be like me claiming ownership and access to everyones house that recieved a govt. stimulus check. Those were tax dollars too, weren't they????? Come on folks. These contracts were signed between the govt. and the landowner, not the entire population of american taxpayers and the landowner. If the taxpayers don't want to pay for this program, call your representatives and have it discontinued, just like any other govt. program. I as a landowner and participant in the CRP am required to perform weed control on all CRP acres. The options for this used to be clipping, mowing, spraying, and burning without any time frame provided. Now I can't clip or mow weeds such as canadian thistles until after Aug 1st because of nesting birds. This is after the vast majority of the thistles have already gone to seed, what good is that? Burning is also not allowed for the same reason. That leaves me with spraying. Now CRP is full of pocket gophers that make these really big piles of dirt that you can't see because of the tall grass. This really makes the ground rough and tears up equipment. I used to be able hire folks to spray my CRP, but not now. It is to rough on equipment. I don't own a sprayer so that leaves me with arial spray. (Remember, I used to be able to clip or mow, I have that equipment.) That is about $8 an acre just for the plane. That does not include chemical, which for canadian thistles and wormwood is about 7 bucks an acre, depending on what you get. Now my current contract allows $4 an acre for weed control. Do the math!!!!!!!! Now these wildlife groups come in and demand more concesions because tax dollars are being used or they have a pet agenda they want to push. Thanks, but No Thanks. I'm out of this CRP BS!! Sorry for the rant, but some of the posts on this thread are elevating my blood pressure a bit. I'm not alone either so don't think that landowners are just greedy money grubbers taking CRP out just to make more money because crop prices are up. It may also be that every tom, dick, and harry wildlife group wants to jack with the program for their own gain. Do I blame them, no, but don't expenct me to participate in the program either.


----------



## djleye

> These contracts were signed between the govt. and the landowner, not the entire population of american taxpayers and the landowner


Now, big guy, I am not for a free for all just because someone own CRP. I amfor you being able to post your CRP. But, that statement right there is saying the same thing. The gov't = all taxpayers. We are govt. We only elect representatives for us!!!. :wink:


----------



## swift

> [ It may also be that every tom, dick, and harry wildlife group wants to jack with the program for their own gain. Do I blame them, no, but don't expenct me to participate in the program either./quote]
> 
> Best statement in that entire post. If you don't want to live with the contract demands then don't enroll in the program. Regardless of whoever any of you choose to blame for the contract changes either live by them or don't sign up it's really is that easy. If you don't sign up then the govt will either reassess the contracts to make them more managable for you needs or the program will go away.
> 
> Still nobody will convince me that they signed a CRP contract and some outside entity came in and changed that contract after it was put in place.


----------



## Bug Guy

Swift, it was not an outside entity that altered the CRP contracts to include the Aug 1st date for haying,mowing, clipping, and burning. It was the govt. giving in to pressure from the wildlife folks. The govt. is not an outside entity in this agreement. However, the specifics aren't as important as the big picture IMO and to battle over specifics would be counterproductive to the discussion. I signed up for the program with nobody to blame but myself and I will stick to the rules. My point is that what started as a purely ag contract between a landowner and a renter (the govt.) has been bastardized into a wildlife/sportsmen/soil conservation/water conservation/carbon storage/tree hugging train wreck of a program quagmired in endless special interest red tape. When entering into a govt. program there is always strings attached, but the number of strings being added to this program have become so numerous as to be prohibitive for landowners IMO. Is the loss of CRP participation going to negatively affect hunting? Absoflippinlutely!!! I wish they (special interest groups) would've left it alone. It was a great program in the begining and the benefits for hunting and conservation since then have been well documented, but like most good programs, it wasn't broke, so they "fixed it".


----------



## swift

Not argueing with you Bug Guy. A matter of fact I agree with everything you wrote. The outside entity I referred to was the special interest groups you named. They certainly had a hand in the new contracts. But as you said you signed up as did GST. I commend you for understanding that you have responsiblity in signing up. GST just continues to blame everyone else.

Hunting will suffer with the loss of CRP. But hunting tradition has suffered with the commertialization of the overabundance of game since the inception of CRP. I guess I'd rather see the landowners in a situation where there farms and ranches can flourish without having being in a govt program. When you sign on with the govt you give up some of your personal soviernty, Bug guy you seem to get this others don't.


----------



## Bug Guy

Swift, Sorry for the misinterpretation! I got it now. (DUH!) Heavy on the loss of personal sovereignty when signing up with a govt. program. So much so that as soon as my CRP contracts are up, so is my involvement with all govt. ag programs. No more base acre payments, no more counter cyclical payments, nada, zip, zero. My land will be paid for and I will plant what I want, hay what I want, do what I want. No more asking for permission or checking the rules and regs. I guess I took an overdose of independence powder with my wheaties today! I wish all landowners could say that. Have a good one! :beer:


----------



## gst

Swift, you might want to think about changing your id , it seems like a misnomer. I've never once said if you signed a contract, that you should not have to abide by the contract. The point I've been trying to make is the exact same as the one bug guy just did, that it was these wildlife/hunting groups that kept forcing the govt into changing these rules of these contracts thru one lawsuit after another until these programs went from something that at one time benefited everyone to what they are now. I'm "blaming everybody" in these hunting groups that pushed these agendas past any "middle ground" to the point this program is disappearing. This was used as just one example of how far these groups will go in reaching their agendas with little care about any "middle ground" give and take in this discussion of why there is a growing problem between some hunting groups and individuals and ag/landowners. I thought by now even the not so "swift" folks would have understood this.


----------



## TK33

Let me play devil's advocate here, why did the appellate courts uphold these rulings? That is a real question.

Delta and PF have some programs where they pay the landowners to keep up habitat, this will probably never replace crp but this is a way that the groups support landowners oke:


----------



## gst

Christ almighty, you guys really don't want to get the point. I'm done.


----------



## TK33

gst said:


> Christ almighty, you guys really don't want to get the point. I'm done.


 :rollin: :rollin:

I get it gst, you are not the only I know who doesn't like some of the wildlife groups. You and Bug Guy are the most vocal landowners about it, that is why I asked.

I asked a question, just looking for an answer. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## DG

TK33 wrote,



> I get it gst, you are not the only I know who doesn't like some of the wildlife groups.


psuedo-wildlife groups.


----------



## swift

GST, Why did you continue to sign up under the wildlife groups influenced CRP contracts? You chose to, nobody held a gun to your head. The lawsuits were upheld on a legal basis. You are the one that's not so "swift" that you cannot understand that. Even when people that support your side tell you to get over it you can't. It is personal with you and you hold everyone else responsible without any inkling that maybe you have some fault as well. That's a teenager mentality there. You want to question my intelligence keep posting, your words tell the story of someone that is misinformed and either too mentally challenged to understand or too stubborn/proud to admit he has a hand in the awful problem he perceives. Good luck


----------



## swift

TK the appelate courts upheld the lawsuit because everyone is out to get poor GST. They don't base their rulings on the law. They rule just to make things harder on the poor victims. I'm sure you know that. The whole country is in bed with Ducks Unlimited and NWF and the recipients of the highest government subsidied industry are the victims. The people of the US that support the AG producers do so as a rouse to hide their real agenda of lining up behind DU and NWF and making things tough for GST.

Bug Guy you seem like a stand up guy I hope to run into sometime and buy you a beer. Happy New Year.


----------



## gst

Swift, just for you I'll try this one last time. Answer these questions if you would.
1. At the start of the CRP program could you hay or graze these contract acres either under a manged system or an emergency declaration?
2. Did the lawsuits filed by the NWF change the rules under which the govt maintained these contracts?
3. Are CRP acres disappearing out of this program?
4. Will this benefit hunting or wildlife.

Swift, I have only ever had one quarter in CRP, inorder to get it to quailfy at the time of sign up I had to agree to seed it to a native grass mix to get enough points to make it elgible. I knew at the time this would make it worthless for haying, so never had any plans to do so, nor have I. What you either don't seem able to comprehend or don't want to admit is the changes to CRP contracts are being used in these discussions as an example of how far these groups will pursue their agendas without any real concern as to the consequences. In this particular example of the CRP lawsuits, it ultimately ended up backfiring and hurt the hunters and wildlife they claimed to be protecting, while at the same time alienating many in ag. So why should ag believe these groups want to work with them??? So who benefited from blindly pushing this one agenda????? If anyone should be taking this personal, it should be that majority of hunters that don't belong to these groups or push these agendas, and only want someplace to go hunting with their kids, who now probably have less opportunities because of this groups agendas. I would guess that over the next 3 or 4 years there will be more hunting habitat and opportunities disappearing due to CRP coming out of the program and not being renrolled than there will be to leasing up of land.

So who will accept any responsibility for this????????? I'd imagine these same wildlife groups and individuals will turn around and blame those "greedy money grubbers" in ag as bug guy alluded to, or the "greedy commercializers" that are always popular on this site. And around and around we go.


----------



## Plainsman

Forget all the sly questions, the inaccurate accusations, and the knee deep bs. Here are the facts. 
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_Fi ... 3ebi06.pdf


----------



## swift

gst said:


> Swift, just for you I'll try this one last time. Answer these questions if you would.
> 1. At the start of the CRP program could you hay or graze these contract acres either under a manged system or an emergency declaration?
> 2. Did the lawsuits filed by the NWF change the rules under which the govt maintained these contracts?
> 3. Are CRP acres disappearing out of this program?
> 4. Will this benefit hunting or wildlife.


Answers
1. No, Way back in the beginning it was highly erodeable land set idle that could not be touched. Ironically it was DU that lobbied to allow some haying be added to new contracts, understanding that incremental haying was beneficial to wildlife. Hence the give an inch they will want a mile analogy you like to use against the wildlife groups.
2. No, NWF and such lobbied to change the contents in the CRP contracts not those already in place. The NWF may have a hand in the transformation of CRP but it's not by forcing you to follow new rules just those within the contracts you signed.
3. Yes But mostly due to the high rate of crop rent being more lucrative than CRP rent.
4. Yes and NO. Less production of game animals will help to reign in the exploitation of the game animals. It will return hunting to hunting instead of just shooting with very little hunt needed. The down side, for some people will be less game animals.

For the record I am not a member of the NWF, DU, PF, NRA but I am a member of the RMEF. 
Just like when my son comes home with a bad grade and wants to blame the teacher I try to make him understand that authority figures don't single you out routinely unless you give them a reason to. We all have a hand in what happens to us. Just admit it once in awhile and the sting doesn't last as long.


----------



## swift

> What you either don't seem able to comprehend or don't want to admit is the changes to CRP contracts are being used in these discussions as an example of how far these groups will pursue their agendas without any real concern as to the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who will accept any responsibility for this????????? I'd imagine these same wildlife groups and individuals will turn around and blame those "greedy money grubbers" in ag as bug guy alluded to, or the "greedy commercializers" that are always popular on this site. And around and around we go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What you finally admitted is that the wildlife groups pushed for changes in the contracts. Not for changing the existing contracts. The problem lies squarely on the back of the AG guys that signed those contracts. If they are so bad DON'T SIGN THEM. But for decades they were signed. The NWF lawsuit you like to use so much has absolutely nothing to do with this because it did not change any contracts it held AG producers to the contracts they signed. Period.

If you read my post to BugGuy you will see I said EXACTLY what you just typed. The contention is you blaming hunters for not supporting your wish to break your contract as you desire.

Responsiblity sits on those that signed bad contracts not on those of us that didn't.


----------



## gst

"So who will accept any responsibility for this???????? I'd imagine these same wildlfie groups and individuals will turn around and blame those "greedy money grubbers" in ag as bug guy alluded to or those "greedy commercializers" that are always popular on this site. And around and around we go. "

And I quote swift: "The problem lies squarely on the back of the AG guys that signed these contracts" "The NWF lawsuit you like to use so much has absolutely nothing to do with this because it did not change any contracts"

That didn't take long. :wink:


----------



## swift

Still can't accept any responsiblity for signing a bad contract can you. I stand by my statement IF YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT YOU DON'T LIKE, ONLY YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. Is that so hard to understand? I'm not blaming the AG industry just those that signed on the dotted line and didn't like what they signed. If I thought like you and DG, I would blame all of the AG industry, since they didn't directly oppose the new CRP contracts they are guilty by association. Thats what DG accused the NDWF for not fighting the NWF. I don't go that route, I believe in being responsible for yourself.

I have said many times the wildlife orgs have had major input into the changes in CRP contracts, for good and bad. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE CHANGES, DON'T SIGN UP. Through attrition the program will end or the contracts will be changed to support the wishes of the AG guys to get them to sign up. IF the AG guys continued to sign contracts laden with Wildlife orgs BS then they are to blame for where things have gone. It's that easy. That is what BugGuy also said and how he has chosen to stand by his conviction. I admire him for that.

And you can drop the "greedy money grubbers" quote that's not me using that term.


----------



## burns_312

I hope you guys stay out of our "commercialized" state. There is nothing in Kansas worth hunting anyway! :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

burns_312 said:


> I hope you guys stay out of our "commercialized" state. There is nothing in Kansas worth hunting anyway! :beer:


I might pass through. Will you have the coffee on and some cookies? :beer:


----------



## swift

Kansas is a great place to be from...................far from.


----------



## gst

swift, go back to the post were I told you I have only ever had one quarter enrolled in CRP and to qualify it had to be native grasses which I knew prior to signing up I would never hay. So no I have never signed a "bad contract" which I wanted to change. That's the part your having a hard time understanding, along with whose responsible for changing the parameters of these CRP cntracts themselves, and the consequences of this. Although you have done a pretty good job of demonstrating the problems I've mentioned how SOME individuals and groups in the hunting community approach these problems.

TK if you can honestly look at the position swift is trying to maintain and suggest it is not part of why what is happening to the CRP program to the detriment of wildlife and hunters as well as negatively affecting hunter,ag producer relationships and say it is not a part of the problem I have been refering too that is driving this seemingly never ending spiral, in my opinon you are not looking at this from a position that actually wants to reach this "middle ground" you spoke of so long ago in this thread. Here's your opportunity as a hunter I was talking about to speak up.


----------



## swift

GST, If you have never been bitten by the NWF's influence on CRP why do you have such hard stance? You don't get it. I will try to help again. IF you didn't sign a CRP contract laden with crap from wildlife orgs then you don't have a problem. If you decide to blame a group of people for problems you perceive that don't affect you at all, then you are a pot stirer or busy body. Middle ground is not all your way. Look at G/O's response and BugGuy's response both are or have been in recently enrolled in the CRP programs more heavily than one quarter. Both have essentially said this is not as big a problem as you make it out to be. Both have taken responsiblity for the contracts they signed. One has not reenrolled because it doesn't fit him. That's the way it should work. Why is your opinion more valuable as someone admittedly not affected, than those who are? Your credability is shot on this subject. You have an axe to grind with wildlife orgs either from Swampbusters back in the 80's or whatever but your arguement holds no water. (pun intended).

GST if you would have started a rant about how CRP acres were going to disappear because Wildlife orgs have influenced the new contracts so that they are not workable with landowners. I would have been right next to you on that. But you chose to blame orgs for changing contracts, and blame hunters for not standing up against a ruling based on law. You chose to attack hunters and hold them hostage with CRP as the ransom. That doesn't work.

I'm curious what you see as middle ground on the CRP controversy? Would you please lay out a plan you would consider "middle ground"?


----------



## Bug Guy

Plainsman said:


> burns_312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you guys stay out of our "commercialized" state. There is nothing in Kansas worth hunting anyway! :beer:
> 
> 
> 
> I might pass through. Will you have the coffee on and some cookies? :beer:
Click to expand...

I prefer beer and pretzels......... :beer: Can Swift come too????????


----------



## Bug Guy

TK33 said:


> Let me play devil's advocate here, why did the appellate courts uphold these rulings? That is a real question.
> 
> Delta and PF have some programs where they pay the landowners to keep up habitat, this will probably never replace crp but this is a way that the groups support landowners oke:


TK, in my experience the programs that you are refering to that offer "support" to landowners for retaining habitat always (this is in my experience) include access to the public for hunting. It seems to be a standard part of any of these agreements. So in a way they are not supporting the landowner so much as they are supporting themselves as hunters. This is the part of the agreements that precludes me from participating. Not that I don't let folks hunt, it's just that I have seen first hand what public access can do to a quarter of land. What I used to do is ask PF and DU for advice on how to improve my habitat. Unfortunately, more and more "strings" were being attached in return for information. Now I don't bother anymore. I do my own research and give my ideas a shot. Sometimes they work, sometimes not. That's what makes it fun. I don't have experience with Delta, so I can't and won't comment on that organization.


----------



## gst

Swift I'll try one last time as if somehow it will make any difference. I'm saying now, as I have said in the past when we had this same discussion exactly what you now claim you would be right by me supporting. 
The fact that an agenda pushed by a wildlife/hunting org. changed the rules of an AG progam that benefited ag producers, hunters, and wildlife to something that producers are now not reenrolling acres in partly because of these rule changes that took away much of ags portion of the benefits.
The fact that hunters are complaining about this loss of these acres are affecting their opportunities without understanding that the policies of this wildlife/hunting group and how they went about acheiving them had a great deal to do with this. 
The fact that this is another example of how, in blindly pursueing their agendas regardless of consequences, these wildlife/hunting groups and individuals pushing these agendas often hurt relationships between landowner/farmer/rancher and hunters themselves as well as hunter opportunity and wildlife.
The fact that because of a clear history of these groups pushing policies that only are aimed at acheiving their agendas regardless of cost (the loss of these CRP acres)they have proven time and again their unwillingness to work with AG to reach a mutually beneficial ageement(middle ground).
The fact that many are not willing to accept their responsibilities of these actions as negatively affecting these loss of hunting opportunities because of what these groups pursue and their willingness to stand back and let it happen. 
The fact this is what I've been saying all long but you don't seem to want to understand.

Everyone wants to blame the greedy commercializers , money grubbing farmers or NR ect..... (they do so quite regularly on here)for loss of opportunity because it's easy and popular amongst people that won't take the time or want to look at the big picture. I've merely suggested that there is plenty of blame to go around and perhaps one should start looking in the mirror before blaming everyone else or pushing for more regulations if your goal is to improve things. Not to hard to understand really if anyone wants to.


----------



## Plainsman

Bug Guy said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> burns_312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you guys stay out of our "commercialized" state. There is nothing in Kansas worth hunting anyway! :beer:
> 
> 
> 
> I might pass through. Will you have the coffee on and some cookies? :beer:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer beer and pretzels......... :beer: Can Swift come too????????
Click to expand...

Great, and I'll buy. If burns-312 wants to run up all the way from Kansas he is welcome also. :beer:

Also, on that wildlife habitat development. I can help you with some of that no strings attached. Well,------ maybe cookies. :beer:


----------



## swift

> The fact this is what I've been saying all long but you don't seem to want to understand.


The fact is this is not what you have been saying all along. You have been complaining about a stupid lawsuit from almost two years ago.

Your starting to understand GST, you have changed your arguement from the lawsuits by the NWF to enforce contracts that were already inplace being the problem, to what is really the problem of the lobbying of the NWF and others which changed the contents of the contracts. I'm glad you have finally admitted that they are two completely different things. Now we can likely work together to reach that common ground. (Which by the way you never answered my question of what is a good common ground plan).

BugGuy I don't know where your located but I spend alot of time around Minnewaukan and Devils Lake and if I can ever help out let me know. And I mean that, no strings attached not even cookies.


----------



## TK33

It seems to me that every side in this is culpable. There were some producers that took advantage of the crp program that lead to the lawsuits. Hunting groups got over zealous and pushed for some things that stepped on landowner's toes. Landowners in turn restrict access in protest over this. Hunters who lose access start feeling like they are entitled to things that they may not be entitled to. Throw in some outfitting and we have a road to nowhere. The problem is that no one in government wants to face it.

Hunters and hunting groups need to be more leary of landowners and landowners need to remember that these groups don't speak for all hunters and hunters are passionate about hunting. The more people that get locked out of hunting the more regulations will be sought.

There is a need for more public lands and for more programs like PLOTS and ask to enter. I still think that 3rd party outfitting needs to go. I also think that the crp, PLOTS, and ask to enter could use some more funding, in order to get this more revenue needs to be generated. Making all outfitters be licensed and getting rid of under the table cash payments along with license fee increases might be the way to go. I don't like taxes and license increases anymore than anyone else but it is a reality. I would rather pay $10 or $20 more for a license than $300-$600 per day for access.


----------



## Plainsman

> And I mean that, no strings attached not even cookies.


NO COOKIES????? Come on, I think he will go for it. :rollin:


----------



## Bug Guy

Plainsman and swift. I'm S of VC and what flavor cookie? My wife makes choc chip, pb, macadamia nut, sugar, m&m, choc chunk, molasses, oatmeal, oatmeal raisin, and the list goes on and on. She also does a 100% deadly apple crisp. No kidding, this stuff will harden your arteries just looking at it. I have been trying to create a wildlife mecca for about 5 years with trees and bushes, but want to branch out into food plots and water sources. I need a small to med sized tractor to do all this too, so that might come up as a topic too. AHHHH Habitat, it's to much fun. PM me and we can get the party started. I get back from overseas in about 7 months so spring of 2011 I would like to have a game plan. I'll just go preheat the oven.........


----------



## gst

TK, "Hunters and hunting groups need to be more leary of landowners" what exactly does that mean???

I got on this site a little over a year ago to provide an opinion that was not being included very often in these discussions, that of someone actually making a living in ag, and how many people that are making a living from the land itself think on these issues regardless of what many on here want to believe. What many don't want to realize is that myself and I guess a good percentage of farmers and ranchers in this state are not just farmers and ranchers, but hunters as well (probably a fair percentage of total hunters in this state) and our opinions in regards to issues concerning hunting matter as well, particualrily when they concern the ability to use the lands we own, operate and make our living from. That is something someone that is not dependent on making a living from their lands may not understand quite so well. It appears from many of these threads that some don't really care to and THAT is where the start of this problem lies.

The example of the NWF lawsuits(swift, notice I said lawsuits, there were more than just this last one filed by this hunting/wildlife org. that in fact changed the rules which governed the managed haying and grazing of CRP regardless of what you want to claim) was simply being used as one example of how far these hunting orgs. and individuals will pursue their agendas, and how the blind pursuit of these agendas often times ultimately end up doing more harm than good. And look at the types of denials and responses this one example generated. The vast majority of hunters are not a part of this vocal agenda pushing, regulation demanding, I know better than anyone mentality that drives many of these groups that are pushing these agendas thru the legislation and now the courts. But often times they feel the brunt of the consequences. So what I'm suggesting is perhaps they be more vocal in opposing what these groups are pursueing.

Take something I mentioned earlier as an example. People are on here calling for more regulations because of leasing of land for hunting and opportunities lost because of it. I'd guess there will be more hunting opportunities lost because of people not enrolling their acres back in CRP because of these NWF lawsuits and yet what hunters are coming on these sites demanding these groups be regulated to prevent their agendas from causing this to happen. What I'm suggesting is if you want to stop this spiral from continueing, deal with "your side" of the problems (these overzelous groups and individuals) before trying to regulate others and perhaps you'll start to notice a difference. How many hunters do you suppose contacted the NWF and told them to stop pursueing their agendas??? If hunters themselves are not willing to police their own, not much will ever change.


----------



## Plainsman

> deal with "your side" of the problems


Do you do that gst?

We live in a complex society. I like it when science determines the direction of some of these things. However, the perceived integrity or science has taken a serious blow with the manipulated data in global warming. I never did buy that pile of dung. Anyway, with dollars come strings. Sign up or don't sign up, but if you do expect to be told you have to comply with some regulations. I see landowners often trying to change contracts after they have signed them. I know some who drain wetlands the same day that they sign easements promising not to drain. Those types are common criminals in my book.

Perhaps my concept is wrong, but more and more it looks like a one way street. I feel like some ag people think I was put on this earth to serve them. If that's wrong I would like to see some one post something that changes my mind. Bug man causes me to ponder, and find common ground, but gst reinforces my frustrated thoughts.

The cookies sound good BugMan, but the truth is it would be great to simply get together with a few on here and bs. I'll have to run down to your place when you get home and have a look. Maybe we can come up with some fun things for you to do.


----------



## DG

Plainsman wrote,



> I like it when science determines the direction of some of these things.


Everyone who knows you, knows your science is a bunch of psuedo-science wrapped in fishpaper.


----------



## swift

Bug Guy that sounds great I travel the hwy 281 corridor and could detour east for a couple days. Late spring or early summer 2011 I'm taking the family to Namibia for a hunting/educational trip. My son will be 10 and will hunt for a few plainsgame animals. My daughter will be 6 1/2 and gets to shoot a Springbok. After we return we can definately meet up. Unless I get banned I will still have my PM on this sight. I hope your overseas trip goes well. Be careful we have work to do when you return.

GST, I will stop since you can't seem to figure out that lawsuits come after the contracts are signed. Lawsuits don't change the contents of contracts already signed. I believe everyone else understands what I have been saying but you. So I concluded that you do not want to understand it, therefore it's pointless to keep trying. Good luck with your witch hunt.

Plainsman what would you know about science anyway just because you spent a whole career in scientific research and have formal education in science, Oh ya, and you are a scientist. I guess we should believe DG that you don't know anything. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

Tony Dean Outdoors
Issues
NWF Sues to Protect CRP Program

By Tom France

Director, NWF Northern Rockies Natural Resource Center 
Missoula, Montana

The Farm Service Agency is implementing policies that could seriously hurt the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), one of America's most successful conservation programs for ducks and other game birds. Today, the National Wildlife Federation and six of its state affiliates filed a federal lawsuit in Seattle, WA, to put a stop to those policies.

When Congress passed the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in 1985 as part of the Farm Bill, it gave the country one of its smartest and most effective programs for creating habitat for ducks, pheasants and many other game and non-game bird species. The idea behind the program is as simple as it gets - pay farmers to create wildlife habitat by voluntarily planting grass and trees on parts of their croplands instead of plowing, haying or grazing them.

Putting that basic formula to work, the CRP has been a great success, and nobody's benefited from the program more than sportsmen. The CRP has created wildlife habitat on well over 30 million acres of farmland - roughly twice the acreage of all the National Wildlife Refuges and state-owned wildlife areas in the lower 48 states combined. This year, the program will pay farmers about $1.7 billion in conservation incentives.

Much of CRP-created habitat has come in the form of high-quality nesting cover that's become essential to sustaining America's game fowl population. CRP lands in Montana and the Dakotas alone, for example, added 12.4 million ducks to the fall flight between 1992 and 1997. The CRP has also helped increase the population of ring-neck pheasants, sharp-tailed grouse and other upland game birds.

From 1985 through 2002, haying and grazing on CRP lands was permitted only during drought emergencies. But in the 2002 Farm Bill reauthorization, Congress allowed managed haying and grazing for the first time. Congress passed this amendment because it recognized that occasional disturbance can increase vegetative vigor. However, to make sure the change wouldn't give a green light to damaging grazing and haying practices, Congress placed important restrictions on the new law. Grazing and haying would only be allowed on CRP lands, Congress said, where and when it was "consistent with the conservation of soil, water quality, and wildlife habitat (including habitat during the nesting season for birds in the area.)"

Unfortunately, the Farm Service Agency, which administers the CRP, is choosing to ignore the law. In most states, the FSA is allowing grazing and haying to occur too often - every third year. In the prairie potholes region of the Great Plains and in the West, this heavy use will seriously impair the cover value of CRP lands, which in turn will affect game fowl populations throughout the Central Flyway. In 2002, a team of experts - grassland ecologists - told Congress as much, saying that grazing shouldn't be allowed on the prairie of the Interior West and that regular haying shouldn't be allowed on CRP lands anywhere. But the FSA didn't comply with the experts' advice.

The FSA is also allowing some states to hay and graze during nesting season. So far, Idaho, Montana, New York, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming are permitting grazing and haying on CRP lands when birds are still on the nest and are just beginning brood rearing.

That's right - the FSA is allowing game bird habitat, habitat that $1.7 billion our tax dollars are supposedly paying to protect - to be cleared at the worst possible time for waterfowl and other game birds.

Each step of the way, NWF and other conservation organizations, along with state wildlife agencies, have tried to warn the FSA that it's making a major mistake for habitat conservation. But the FSA has not acted. So, after exhausting all other options, NWF and its state affiliates in Indiana, South Dakota, Washington, Arkansas, Louisiana and Kansas have taken legal action. NWF's lawsuit demands that the FSA stop implementing its current haying and grazing policy until its environmental impacts can properly be studied.

Sportsmen everywhere need to know that the CRP risks losing part of its immense conservation value because of the FSA's misguided haying and grazing policies.

The CRP is one of America's finest conservation programs - a real boon for sportsmen. It deserves to be managed accordingly.

Respectfully,

Tom France

Swift This letter was written in 2004. Notice where it states emergency haying and grazing WAS allowed under the original CRP contracts. Your answer to the first question I asked was wrong. In a FSA news letter which can be accessed if you care to dated Oct 2006 it states that because of a lawsuit filed by the NWF(mentioned above) the managed haying and grazing will be restricted to haying once in ten years and grazing once in 5 years. Your answer to the second question I asked was wrong. But yet you seem to consider yourself an authority on this subject. I have never suggested that these changes were implemented midcontract, that is something your inability to comprehend came up with on your own, if you chose to remain fixated on this rather than understanding why this example was used in this discussion, your wasting everyones time. But then that is what usually ends up happening on this site anyway, . It's obvious some on here are less concerned with solving anything than they are with simply complaining. Good luck in solving all of hunting problems.


----------



## swift

That is an opinion paper written without all the facts. Basing your arguement on someones biased opinion is foolish. I am not quite sure what your going for with that article. It clearly states the FSA offices and producers clearly abused the program and didn't follow the rules that were set. Since it is so poorly written and false information is construed as fact it really isn't worth the paper it is written on.


----------



## swift

Here a summary of the history of CRP.....

*1985 *Farm Bill
The Farm Bill of 1985 was the first act that officially established the CRP program as we know it today. Many changes were made in this Farm Bill as compared to the regulations of the program set forth by the Agricultural Act of 1954. One of these changes was changing the contract lengths from the previous three year commitment to anywhere from ten to fifteen years [7]. The rationale was that this would allow the new vegetative cover and other management practices more time to become established and produce the desired benefits. Also during the time of this Farm Bill, the amount of land allowed to be enrolled in the CRP program, which had to be specified as "highly erodible," rose from five million acres in 1986 to forty million acres in 1990 [7]. Additionally, this Farm Bill allowed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide up to 50% of the cost to landowners for installing conservation measures [7]. *This Bill also prohibited any farming or grazing on land that became enrolled into CRP, effectively removing any CRP land from agricultural production *[7].

The Farm Bill of* 1990 *included a major change to the CRP program by expanding the list of eligible lands to include marginal pasture lands converted to wetland or established as wildlife habitat prior to enactment of the 1990 Farm Bill, marginal pasturelands to be devoted to trees in or near riparian areas, lands that the Secretary may determine causes an environmental threat to water quality, croplands converted to grass waterways or strips as part of a conservation plan, croplands subject to an easement of the useful life of newly created wildlife habitat, shelterbelts, or filter strips devoted to trees or shrubs, and lands that pose an off-farm environmental threat or pose a threat of degradation of production due to soil salinity [7]. This large increase in the types of eligible lands allowed for lands that weren't really "highly erodible," yet not in production either, to be designated as beneficial to the environment around in the area.

Along with that alteration, there were other smaller differences between this Bill and the one previous. The Farm Bill of 1990 allowed limited fall and winter grazing on land enrolled in the CRP program, it allowed "alley cropping" between hardwood tree stands in return for paying less money to the landowner, the 50% cost share was expanded from only vegetative cover to include hardwood trees, shelterbelts, windbreaks, and wildlife corridors, and the Bill allowed for land already in the CRP that had been converted to vegetative cover to be converted to hardwood trees, windbreaks, shelterbelts, wildlife corridors, or wetlands under certain circumstances [7]. This was a fundamental change to the Farm Bill program because it shifted the CRP program's focus from agricultural conservation and production to more of a natural resource or general environmental conservation program.


----------



## gst

Swift, the Oct 2006 FSA news letter I refered to is an easily accessed document in which the govt agency in charge of the CRP program is reporting on the FACTS of the settlement they reached with the NWF after it filed a lawsuit on Oct 20 of 2004. This lawsuit was filed to change the rules of the managed haying and grazing of CRP which the govt was clearly following that had been put in place by both wildlife and conservations folks in 2002 as beneficial(you yourself refered to DU's approval) from haying once in every 3 years in the midwestern states to once in every 10 years. This lawsuit was settled to allow the midwestern states to hay one in 5 while the western states was 1 in 10.

The "biased opinion" largely void of FACTS is the letter written by Tom France which you use to wrongly determine that the FSA and producers were not following the rules that were set which they "clearly" were under the rules set forth in 2002. Which according to you basing your argument on is clearly "foolish".

The rules that established CRP in 1984 did allow for EMERGENCY haying and grazing of CRP just as did the Soil and Water Bank programs, CRP's predecessors. Setting many decades of precedence. Once again an easily accessed fact which I believe is even refered to in Mr. Frances letter regarding emergency CRP haying at the start of this program in 1985.

The rules established for CRP contracts in 2002 which prompted the NWF lawsuit in 2004 allowed for the managed haying and grazing aspect which once agin by your own admission DU was a part of supporting to be included in the rules governing CRP. Once again information easily accessed if you choose.

If you wish to continue your fixation on disputing these easily accessed facts regarding CRP instead of realizing these easily researchable facts were merely being used as an example in this discussion that is clearly your choice, but I have finally run out of patience .


----------



## gst

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_Fi ... 200610.pdf scroll down to lawsuit settled

IATP | Community Forestry Resource Center | Headlines
NWF threatens lawsuit over CRP haying rules. August 23, 2004 ... unaware to what degree Minnesota CRP enrollees are taking advantage of managed haying and grazing.

http://www.forestrycenter.org/headlines.cfm?refID=74789 Note the comment about changing the "3 year rule" in the eighth paragraph("which came out of nowhere" which the biologists at DU in fact supported and were involved in implementing, so where's nowhere?????) This comment about "changing the rule" would seem to imply the rules were being followed and the NWF wanted them changed. His statement that if they weren't changed "we'll see you in court" clearly suggests the NWF went to court to change the rules of the CRP program. The 3 states he listed that allowed haying and grazing during "primary nesting seasons" were Washington, Idaho and Utah. Utah, the duck producing capital of North America.  Can these disingenuous statements be construed as "facts"?

And yet another,
Denny Rehberg

Montana's Congressman

Written by rehberg 
January 24th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Posted in Environment, Native American Issues, Statewide, Wildlife
.Rehberg Announces Public Meeting on New CRP Haying and Grazing Limitations
without comments

WASHINGTON, DC - Montana's Congressman, Denny Rehberg, announced his agricultural field representative, Seth Broesder, will host a public meeting for producers to discuss an agreement between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to limit managed haying and grazing on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres.

The meeting will be held Wednesday, January 24, at 7:00 p.m., at the VFW Club, in Jordan, MT.

Under the agreement, managed haying on CRP acres will be changed from once in every three years to once in every ten years. Managed grazing on CRP acres will be limited from once in every three years to once in every five years. The settlement was in response to a NWF complaint filed in U.S. District Court challenging the frequency of allowed haying and grazing on CRP acreage as a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

 Note the date, 4 monthes after the "agreement" had been reached AG producers are asked for their comments. Where was the 60 day public input as to the impact of this settlement the NWF used the lack of as a reason for their last lawsuit in 2008?? :-?


----------



## TK33

> TK, "Hunters and hunting groups need to be more leary of landowners" what exactly does that mean??? /quote]Means exactly what I said. When pursuing regulations and laws people need to be leary of all parties and examine potential unexpected consequences.
> 
> That being said there is no way anyone will convince me that third party outfitting and under the table money has ever been or will ever be a legitimate business. It is simply a greed driven and resource robbing undertaking that will have lasting consequences for all parties. It is not a matter of rights it is a matter of business practices, you don't think so I guess, once again agree to disagree. Proper taxes and licenses must be paid in order to have proper management and to help fund other projects to insure that hunting stays around for everyone to enjoy, no matter who they are. The quality of hunting all over will no doubt take a hit with the loss of crp and increased commercialization, something has to be done, that seems to be something we all agree on.


----------



## gst

Tk Myself and many others I'd guess when refering to being "leary" of a group of people or person it is usually used because of a distrust of that particular group or person. Such as in the example : I'm "leary" that Mr. Kaseman will not be content to limit himself to regulating the HF industry thru initiated measures regulating ethics, especially when he has approached groups with a possible baiting measure and came out recently saying trail cameras are unethical. :wink:

As to this third party outfitting and under the table cash, you continueally refer to,where have I ever stated it was a "legitimate business"? If you could please show me.


----------



## TK33

No you never have said that they were, I am under the opinion that you think that getting rid of non-landowner outfitters would hurt some landowners or cross landowner's rights.


----------



## gst

If people are putting in as much or more than they are taking out I don't have a problem with someone outfitting on private lands. I'd rather see outfitting on private lands than on public land. How do you regulate WHO outfits on private land is a little more complicated. Figure out how to weed thru the good the bad and the ugly without having unforseen consequences come up and let me know. It's a touchy subject much like limiting the "right" to sell hunting "rights" on a piece of property. A particular ag group i'm involved with had this come up for discussion when it was in the last legislative session. Our consencense was based on several unforseen consequences that have happened through the sale of mineral "rights" so we opposed the "right" to sell hunting "rights". Not always "absolute landowner rights" as was suggested. Leasing is not as long term or permanent as selling, but regulating it poses it's own set of problems. Where do you start where do you stop. ie...I farm in partnership with my brother but we own land seperately, he has a son that outfits on his land can I lease my land to him? just one example.

You know I've forgotten who the heck even started this thread anyway :wink:


----------



## swift

The FSA was the defendant in the lawsuit. Right? The judges (more than one) ruled that the FSA was not following the contract. Right? Therefore since a Judge, that is a whole lot smarter than me, ruled that the "facts" presented my the FSA where WRONG why should I believe what is written in their FSA news?

My last post was from Wikipedia. A non-biased research tool. It does not voice any opinions in it's writing. There is more to the article including each additional farm bills changes to CRP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservati ... _Farm_Bill
Look at the increased benefits afforded to landowners with the changes in each farm bill like 1.early termination in 1996, 2. the large increase in eligible lands (1996), 3. the change was done to increase the eligibility of lands again in 2002, and there are many more.

GST you seem to be getting all your information from one place (the FSA). They, like you, will not admit that abuse of the program led to the NWF feeling the need to file the lawsuit to keep the FSA from illegally opening CRP to haying.

The Lawsuit was filed in 2004. The previous Farm Bill to revise CRP was in 2002. The next farm bill was in 2008. The lawsuit did not change anything about the rules of haying CRP. It forced the rules already in place to be adheared to.
Around and around we go. 
It's amusing to me that you post Mr France's letter. He is the spokesperson for the NWF. The spawn of Satan that you despise. It seems to me by your stance you wouldn't give a hoot what he has to say.


----------



## gst

Swift. No where in your "factual" wikepedia link does it mention the change for the allowance of managed haying and grazing of CRP under the 2002 Farm Bill, does this mean that it doesn't exist because wikepedia doesn't mention it??? There is no mention of the allowance for emergency declaration haying or grazing anywhere, does this mean it didn't exist???

Swift said "The lawsuit did not change anything about the rules of haying CRP." I provided you links to the following FACTS:
The NWF stated they were going to court to "change the rules".
The FSA reported the settlement of this lawsuit did "change the rules" regarding managed haying and grazing in the middle of the 2002 farm bill. From once every 3 years to once every 10. 
A US Congressman had a meeting to discuss these changes to these rules after they had been done.

Yet you continue to deny this wildlife/hunting org. filed a lawsuit to change the "rules" that even you earlier said DU was a part of implementing in 2002. Even going so far as suggesting the FSA is lying in their monthly news letter. :eyeroll: This blind denial of the facts is the exact mentality of the individuals and groups that I mentioned earlier in this thread that care less about consequences than their agendas. 
I was once told never argue with a fool, people might not know who is who. :wink: I'm done argueing.


----------



## rd51

I've been reading this post from the start and am wondering what has been accomplished. One fellow keeps saying he's done and a few minutes later, he's back. Others are "proposing" things. I think some of you guys need to run for legislative office and get your agendas on the table. Good luck guys, I'll check back tomorrow and see how much hasn't been accomplished.


----------



## gst

rd51, after giving this site a years time, I can tell you what has got accomplished, not much. Other than trying to continueally correct misinformation which with many ends up being a full time waste of time.


----------



## swift

Gst you are right, Not much will ever change when you have two stubborn know it alls like you and me. Keep your head in the sand and I will too, maybe someday the sand will erode away enough that we end up eye to eye.


----------

