# NR Restrictions?



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

In light of some of the things discussed on another thread, I want to pose a question to Nonresidents who have or might travel to ND for bird hunting. *If* there are to be further restrictions in ND to reduce completion/pressure, what form would you prefer?

Please accept this question in the spirit in which it is intended. It is not intended to inflame, spark a debate about the need for or legality of restrictions or otherwise "stir the pot." I'm genuinely curious what forms would be seen as the most acceptable (or maybe put another way, the least unacceptable) if the goal is to reduce pressure and yet make your time here the most enjoyable.

So here goes, and please list them in order of preference:

1. One or more closed shooting days on the weekends.

2. One or more closed shooting days during the week.

3. Closed shooting hours, e.g. can't hunt after noon.

4. Shorten the current allowed hunting periods (i.e. the 10 days/license for upland and the 14 days total for waterfowl).

5. More zones - have to stay in them.

6. More zones - can only spend so much time in any one of them.

7. Caps, without any of the other stuff above, even if it meant possibly someday you couldn't hunt ND every year.

8. Higher license fees to the point that it would discourage a material number of people from coming.

Serious responses only, please - ornery people need not apply. Also, ND Residents please stay out of this one - let's see what the Nonresidents have to say. If your location does not show up with your name, tell us how far you live from ND. Also, not sure what it might mean, but how many years have you hunted ND?


----------



## magnumhntr (Sep 18, 2002)

I would be all for a cap on the total licenses sold. So what if I couldn't go EVERY year. It's ND's state, they should be able to make the rules as they want. Also, they should limit the amount of people and or land G/O can tie up. From what I understand coming from MOST of the resident comlaints is that the G/O are most of the problems, or at least a large majority.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Mag, thanks for the reply. I would guess sportspersons will make continued efforts to be sure o/g does not become the norm. Almost all of us will agree there.

What I truly want to find out is what hunter pressure mitigation techniques NR's find the most and least acceptable.

Could you please order the items above, most acceptable (least unnaceptable) first?


----------



## camolund (Mar 27, 2004)

Dan,

I would list them the following way, from acceptable to unacceptable: 7, 3, 1, 2, 4, 8, 5, and 6.

And I echo magnumhntr's sentiment on the guides, outfitters, and leasing for waterfowl hunting. I believe this activity should be severely restricted, and perhaps even prohibited.

Hope this helps.

Brad


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I guess I've already beat this to death but 1,8 (higher but not high enough to keep people from coming). just provide more Plots or other habitat based on the Game and Fish dept's judgement of where the money is best spent. I'm against the rest of the choices for Upland hunters and don't know enough about the waterfowl side to comment. I think 1 and 8 would cure most of the upland issues because the upland hunter has more total productive land area to hunt. I do think your question should differentiate upland and waterfowl hunters just like the licenseing does.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Brad, it does, thank you.

Bob, lots of subissues and twists and details that may bear; I'm just looking for some generalities. Just for the sake of argument, I would like people to assume that the goal of whatever is done is to reduce hunter days. There's lots of ways to do that, and I'm looking for thoughts on what would be perceived as "better".

But, fair enough on the species issue, if anyone wants to do two lists, one for waterfowl and one for upland, or would rather just do a list for one or the other, that's cool.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I think the main goal should perhaps be not to reduce hunter days, but to spread them out. By spreading them out I mean spreading out hunter numbers accross the state more evenly and distributing hunter days throughout the season instead of just the first two weeks. Even if we can reduce the amount of hunter days afield I don't think it will solve anything if everyone uses their fewer amount of days at the same time; which I think will continue to happen. It only took the opening weekend for NR's to literally push the majority of the birds out of the area I hunt. Then with the unseasonably warm weather nothing came down for weeks. We have plenty of ducks and geese raised in ND, that would provide weeks of quality hunting if we can spread out hunters and keep them in state longer than residents week.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Matt, I don't know a single R waterfowler not somehow connected to commercialization who says "we could take more pressure in our area." More common is degrees of too much pressure. Also, keep in mind that as the season goes along, birds tend to concentrate, there are less "piles" to go around and they get more sensative to pressure.

But, you're right that the next attempted solution may not focus on a reduction of hunter days alone, and that's why I originally included the zoning options. I mispoke in my message to Bob.

Again, just trying to find out from those options what would be considered "better" or "less worse".


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fellow Nrs, heres our chance to tell them what we think is reasonable lets here it :lol:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

> ornery people need not apply


 :roll: How about idealistic pheasant hunters ???

I say shut down pheasant season & 1/2 the problems would be gone

PS I agree with Matt

& good luck asking a question like this & not expecting us to reply --Remember it's not up to them & why would we take the wimpy way out in trying to solve our concerns ??? Seems we have been going down that road too long :******: It's time to do the right things & those will not be easy - but they will get over it


----------



## SJB (Jul 2, 2003)

Dan: Thanks for listing some great ideas.

I get about eight or nine days to hunt in ND. *I like #3 the best*. Why? Look at all of the posts in the past about protecting the "roost." Ending the waterfowl shooting hours earlier (1 PM, or 2 PM or 3 PM) to protect the roost would be good.

I don't particularly care about closing a day during the week or weekend because I don't want to drive 880 miles an not be able to hunt a whole day.

For what it's worth:

In the past four seasons, some NWR's in Colorado have gone to a lottery system for the first two weeks of the duck / goose season. The NWR simply had way to many hunters per acre. The lottery system brought that number down and consequently lifted the quality of the hunt.

I hope ND can work something out.

Sam


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Fetch, do you ALWAYS need to be a royal pain in the keister?  Now that you've had the chance to "pee on the fire hydrants" in this thread, please (pretty please) make all future comments on this specific topic here, which was designed to gather the input of R's: http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/members/ph ... &start=120 And your further input and assistance is also most welcome at the spring advisory board and Grand Forks Wildlife Federation meetings and through one-on-ones with your legislators and by letters to the editors and by recruiting more etree'ers and.......... 

Back to the requested commentators........ NR's, '05 legislative agenda items are now being developed. IMHO, the goal should be to reduce/spread pressure and improve hunting for all. There are many different ways of doing so that depending on the degree used will essentially accomplish the same result. IMHO, ND should pick a format that is effective but doesn't make things unnecessarily complicated or miserable for visitors. Maybe the KISS principal applies here, maybe not, but the intent of this thread is to get your thoughts.

SJB, thanks for your response. SJB and the others, I'm really interested in what you see as "best" and "worst", so if you could do the ranking like cl, that would be great. Anyone who doesn't want their thoughts out on the forum, PM me.


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

Caps on the total number's allowed would be the most palatable for me, next the closed hours, morning or afternoon. I don't think the closed days would work for me, especially on a weekend as that would be the most convenient time for me to come and hunt with my brother-in-law.

Raising the license cost would just punish the average guy and probably put it out of their reach, but you would continue to get the guys driving shiny burbs with dog trailer behind em looking like they just stepped off the cover of a Cabela's catalog.

Don't hunt waterfowl in ND just roosters, get enough ducks and geese here in Central MN to keep me happy, like to shoot em but not eat them, so usually just hunt the first weekend over decoys on a small river here, handful of ducks and maybe a goose or two with my son and his buds.

Would guess that some kind of new regs will come about as a result of this mess on both sides of the border. But really do think that the raising the costs will hurt the average guy this most, both sides, hunting and fishing.


----------



## DuckBuster (Mar 18, 2003)

I agree with Rangers on the price of licenses going up. Not that I couldn't afford it or wouldn't want to pay it, but it would take hunting away from some of the average guys. (guys with 3 kids suddenly can't afford to bring them... A step in the wrong direction for our sport). If the licenses were to go up, it would be nice to be sure the extra $ is going to help improve habitat.

Is there any option for more zones with a cap on NR per zone. Anybody think this would be a good option? It is a better option for me because I am not meeting family or friends out there. For some of you this could present a problem. It could be a long, difficult process to figure out what a particular zone would be able to handle. The zones would have to be set by G & F ( based on Biology, not what some G/O wants. :eyeroll: ).

I've been hunting in Nodak for about 8-9 years now. Last year was the first year I was not able to hunt the same area all year. Being forced to switch zones, I was able to see MAJOR problems in concentrations of hunters in one area compared to the next. I know I'm stating the obvious,but the zones were set inncorrectly the first time.

I'm no expert and I certainly don't have all the answers. I guess whatever happens, I hope Nodak is able to do what is right for the resource and not what is right for some G/O. (If it wouldn't be too much to ask, maybe not punishing NR too much for the actions of a certain couple of knuckleheads that are trying to get re-elected :eyeroll: :******:  )


----------



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

Ok, here's my 2 cents.

8.) Raise the price, I'll come anyway. It's still worth it and it might discourage less fortunate. Sorry some of you poor folk, It's a dog eat dog world.

4) Shorten the periods is ok too because I'm only hunting 7 days anyway. Careful though, if you shorten to less than that nobody is going to pack and unpack, drive 10 hours or more to hunt a few days. Guys from out of town gotta have at least a week with scouting involved. Otherwise you may run into hunters setting up any old spot they can find to justify the trip. Even if it's close to another group of resident hunters.

6,5,3,2,1,7

7) I've always gotta make the trip Dan. The rest of those options are not good for my hunt. As far as the cap, I wouldn't care if you cut it to 15,000 or 10,000, but give the early planners a first come first serve chance at say the first 10,000 and maybe lottery off the next 5,000. If you can't plan well enough in todays world you should pay the price. I'm booked early every time out. It's not that hard.

Well that's my opinion anyway. Thanks for the question and opportunity to voice. 8)

:beer:


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

None.

I will work (in my little ways) to ensure nothing more is put into place. Nothing on your list is acceptable.

MN can not tell ND what to do (lawsuit is wrong), but ND people can.

balance ....

Problems -- only with the outfitters holding more and more land.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Guys, thanks for the input, keep it coming.....

One general comment about caps. In all likelihood, a lottery format would not be necessary - only if the number of applicants in the first few days exceeds the number of licenses. But, if there was to be a cap, and if license sales were split to better accommodate early planning, it's at least theoretically possible that there may need to be some element of a lottery at some point in the future if demand is heavy for one or both blocks.

PH, a few questions:

1. Initially you were against HPC, then you favored it and now you oppose again. What gives?

2.


> I will work (in my little ways) to ensure nothing more is put into place


  Any chance we can get you to part the Red Sea again while you're at it?


----------



## walker870 (Aug 25, 2003)

Dan, I would favor number 7,This would be the fairest way of doing something to protect the number of Nr's coming to ND. If I didn't get to hunt some years, That would be the price you have to pay to play in ND. I beleive that raising the price would only hurt your state.The people buying the licences wouldn't be the freelance hunter anymore.Only the people with big time money would be coming. The G/O would be the the people getting all the business. ND has a major problem with the guides operations. I can't beleive that they need to have so much land leased to make their operations work. This takes land that both residents and Nr's were able to hunt out of the resource. This has had negitve effect on pressure. Places where people were able to hunt are gone to G/O now. You folks of ND should be able to hunt the state before any of us NR's show up. That is the right of living in ND.I didn't like the idea last year that I didn't get to hunt opening weekend, but you know what it worked out ok by coming out after the opening of your season.We saw 9 hunters the whole time we were there. So I guess where we hunt, I haven't seen the pressure issue.We moved away from the areas that had all the pressure so that we could find area's by doing our homework.We were very pleased with our new area. Hunting is something that you can't gripe about, you still have to do the work to have a good hunt. I think the idea of the lawsuit is just wrong.I know that many people in your state will put all of us in the same mold as the people who filed the lawsuit. I just needed to express my opinion on the issue.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

#7 all the way. It is the only way to reduce the influx of NR buying up tracks of land, protect the resource and maintaining quality hunting. unfortunately it is the least favorite of the small communities. who cares what the outfitters think. they started this mess. I wouldn't mind if I had to wait a year or 2 to come and hunt if I knew that the hunting was going to be good and I didn't have all the blue license plates pulling in at sun up :wink:


----------



## Guest (Mar 29, 2004)

2,1,7,5,4,3,6,8

Two's and one are at the top because I see it as if you're gonna go, stay a while. Drive and scout your one day "off", do your homework and find the birds, check into a motel, etc.

GP, My :2cents: on why # 8 is DEAD LAST!!! Not everyone going out's rich dumbass, people with three kids wanna bring them out, average guys not gonna pay the extra cash to let their kid hunt, thus, they're missing the whole "experience." Our #1 thing to be doing in THIS DAY OF AGE is introducing the children to the outdoors. :eyeroll:


----------



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

#1 waterfowl: So what if I don't care if the price goes up. What concern is that of yours anyway??? Wanna do some name calling do ya?? What's up with that?? If you don't like what other people think then don't read the sh*t!!! If you wanna dance, pay the band!!! :jammin: If you can't scratch up a few extra penny's to go then stay home and squirrel hunt.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

#7 for me, the rest if they also apply to ND's. The remaining items seem like an enforcement nightmare.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Greetings Dan,

I would prefer to see the following restrictions/changes for NRs.

1) Cap the 1st two weeks at 10,000 Nrs.

2) Charge more for those 1st two weeks. Maybe $150.

3) Allow three five day periods as an option for NRs choosing
dates after the 1st two weeks.

4) Make Fetch pay NR rates and restrictions for 1 year!


----------



## Bigdog (Aug 13, 2003)

Dan,
I am located in central MN and have hunted North Dakota in 1998-2002 for both ducks and pheasants. All but three of my trips were combination hunts, the remaining were late season upland hunts in 98/99. My duck hunting is restricted to small potholes, I rarely field hunt and have not used a duck boat in ND. I have never hired a guide.

I think it best to address waterfowl and upland as seperate issues. To avoid pressuring waterfowl out of the state they need places to rest. I would suppport #3, no afternoon hunting, on a trial basis to evaluate the affect. Suspect it would help, but only if applied to both resident and non-resident alike. I don't think you would get much help from a full day closure if the birds get pressured the rest of the week, so a no to #1 & 2.

To lighten pressure in popular areas I would think that smaller zones, not politically based ones, would spread the non-residents hunters out. So items 5 and 6 could have benefit. A possible pitfall of these if they were made too small could be that a guide would lease more land to cover additional zones. Just something to keep in mind.

License cost is already fairly high and I would hate to see fees used to limit access. Effective yes, but it would mostly affect the folks that most here have expressed an interest in protecting, the freelancer. Another 100 for a license would not add much to a guided hunt package.

Cap's would control non-resident numbers, that is very clear. But they do not address issues of access, density of hunters or pressuring birds out of state. Unless one takes the opinion that all of those ill's are attributable to non-resident hunters. I suspect that cap's will be used but hopefully in conjunction with #3, 5 or 6. If cap's are used I would hope that you could avoid a lottery, that would be difficult for those that do not hunt alone.

Tough thing that I foresee with cap's and with zones is to keep things focused on the resource and issue at hand, not politics. Difficult to achieve regardless of what state we discuss.

The only thing that was not addressed was the amount of leased/posted land that is due to fee hunting. Not sure what your options are there and I am not sure what the greater problem is, guides or the guy that charges folks to hunt his land. Baring controls on either of these activities about all you can do is open more land to public hunting. This would help for upland but does not do much for the field hunters.

Although not listed above I would like to see the upland/waterfowl license time periods match since I like to hunt both on the same trip. Has nothing to do with the issues at hand, just a side note.


----------



## Buckshot (Nov 5, 2003)

I would say #4 and #5. But, if I own land in ND (Its not bought for hunting in mind, just porfolio diversivication) if someday I want to hunt it, and can't get a license in that area. The land will be posted and no one will hunt it. (Makes a wonderful bird sanctuary if the trespasses stay off!!) Well, maybe somebody will hunt it, but not without permission from the owner.

I wouldn't be against #7 either, many states with a sought after resource use this method. Make it seem like you really win something big. Take all the application fees collected and use it to subsidize the winners license fees, but no less than twice the resident fees. You could figure out some method of awarding party hunting licenses via lottery.


----------



## Vtgunner (Nov 24, 2002)

I will except any laws voted on and put into place by North Dakota residents, as a guest, I will abide by the rules and laws accordingly. I will then have to plan my trip, to accomadate what is set forth by residents. Coming from Vermont, its a long trip but would be one with much planning involved. I am still not sure I have a say in what North dakota decides to do with its resources. It wouldn't bother me if they adopted all the rules of South Dakota, after talking to people from that state,what they are doing must be working, because the residents are happy with their waterfowling opprtunities. Its up to me to adapt to their rules to hunt there.

Planning on making one of the Dakotas home in the future, It will probably be South, because of their rules. I would feel more protected as a resident in what I love....Waterfowling!


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

1) Caps? Would HPC as almost passed (1 vote away) turned anyone away last year (2003)?

Either way - the numbers are about right from a compromising perspective - so leave it alone. 

2) Do you mean the Red River? Hatch is already doing that one.

Focus on guides and outfitter leases - that is the ONLY competition I EVER saw last year in 10 days or so of waterfowl hunting in ND. :sniper:


----------



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

Don't want to be a prick here Dan, but the residents on here always bring up the point about how great it is to hunt all over. (Don't buy land and commit to one spot etc.) Well how do you expect a guy to do just that with all this zonin' sh*t. :huh: . I'd love to go anywhere, wherever and move around but with this "stay in zone for so many days" how do you expect that to happen??? You are almost encouraging an inexperienced NR to hire an outfitter. You are taking away the access necessary for some hunters to find birds on there own. Don't you agree???


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2004)

:withstupid:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Goldy, if these zone rules apply to residents you will really see some crying. Zones also present a problem if the water levels become too low to hold birds, some zones will be boom and some will be bust, how is anyone going to figure that out when planning a trip. Last year there were ND's that were complaining that NRs didn't drive around and scout out new areas enough, now they want to restrict people to smaller zones.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Goldy and James, thanks, that's the whole purpose of this thread - to get comments about and debate which techniques, while impacting many, are viewed as more or less of a pain to work around, and why. IMHO, to hold down competition and keep birds around, some more restrictions are necessary, but if multiple avenues are available that can produce the same result, why pick one or more that are viewed as unnecessarily burdensome or just plain punitive or actually counterproductive?

Great comments, guys. Keep diggin' in and hash 'em over.

PH, the version of HPC that received a majority of votes in the House two days in a row, but failed each day to receive the requisite 48 votes for passage, probably would have produced a cap number almost impossible to reach. The version that could have come out of conference committee - who knows? Even the Senate version would have cut a few (very few) this year, but this year would have been one of those "aberration" years for HPC - where we were quite wet in the spring and quite dry in the fall - and license numbers under HPC, especially the Senate version, would have been too high for the fall conditions. However, the model is based upon 27 years of data and over time would produce as intended on average.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

Been out of town for a few days, so just got a chance to answer. Dan, I have been hunting Nd for the last 4 years. My brother in law was stationed at Minot AFB so we came to hunt with him. We are from Illinois and it is about a 18-20 hour drive, depending on how many stops we make. Living that far away, we have to plan for about an 8 day trip to be able to hunt for 5 days, with the 5th day, being only a few hours in the morning and then on the road, so I would not want to have one of those days being a "closed" day. 
I agree with the point of having hunting hours closed in the afternoon, but for NR and resident hunters both. Wouldn't do much good to lessen pressure if residents were still out hunting all day.
The non resident zones idea for spreading out the number of hunters in a certain area is IMO a good idea. It might make some upset, but not everyone is going to be happy with any idea. It a certain area is more populated and has more resident hunters, then they have to restrict the number of non resident hunters that can come into a certain area to hunt. Once that zone reaches that certain number then no more license can be issued. Non resident hunters should then be told that the zone is full, and can apply for a different zone if they wish. Good solution to spread out hunters. 
The idea of a CAP is needed too, and would go hand in hand with the above idea of zone restrictions. Each zone would have a certain number of non resident license to be issued, based on resident hunter populations and bird populations and the amount of land available to hunt. Once a zone is full then they would not issue any more licenses for that zone. 
I agree with some of the others posts about the cost of licenses. I don't thing what you want to do is raise the prices out of the reach of the average hunter coming up there. Then all you have is the wealthy people coming up there, that are used to paying to "hunt' in their own state and wouldn't think twice about paying a guide in ND. With the price where it is now, along with paying to stay up there somewhere and the gasoline for driving a full size truck loaded down with decoys, waders,etc etc etc, and food for a week, is just at the top end of my limit now and I have to save any extra money I get leading up to the time fo the trip to be able to do it now.
Ok, sorry so long. got on a roll. :roll:


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Uh, ok I'll bite. In order of preference from highest to lowest

7- Caps are good. Some sort of system of caps during specified time frames would be better. That way you can avoid the onslaught during opener and MEA. Try to spread the pressure throughout the season. This will improve the quality of the hunt and relieve some of the pressure on the birds. Divide the season into three time slots, early, middle, and late. Have fairly restrictive caps on the beginning and slack off to a free-for-all (no caps) for the latest part of the season. It would be a gamble for those who came in the middle of the season, but people would put more thought into planning their trip. Open it up in the late season. Pressure is low, opportunities abound, and die-hards deserve a break/advantage over fair weather hunters.

8- A marginal increase in license prices for NR and residents with the larger increase for NRs. To fund additional PLOTS and enforcement. I actually agree with Bobm on something (and Toyotas too) 

3- If it applied to all. Use the afternoon to scout and give the birds a break. This will keep them around longer making everybody's hunts better. Plus, with the downtime maybe we all can go shopping in town! 

6- Difficult to enforce, but would allow freedom of movement throughout the state rather than being stuck in one place.

2- If applied to all. Once again you could increase opportunities by resting the birds. Days off shouldn't count against time allowed by license though.

5-Kinda takes the free out of freelancing. Perhaps a small price to pay for a quality hunt. It could be considered

1- They have this in NC. No hunting on Sundays (It is a sin :withstupid: ) It sucks.

4-Uh, nope.

RC


----------



## Ripline (Jan 10, 2003)

Here's my groups' perspective.
#7 caps are good as long as it becomes first come first serve. Eliminates the last second decisions. Only takes a little planning
#8 Increase will take the weekend warrior out of the picture. ND is still the best deal in the country.
#3 Noon closing would take the pressure off the birds and "force" scouting to pass the day away.
#4 Shorten NR season. Allows more people to hunt if the MN boys can't perech for weeks on end.
#6, #5 Zones take away from the freelance spirit and would be terrible if a NR landowner couldn't hunt his own land. (No I don't own land in ND)
#1and 2 Closing days would increase pressure by forcing the hunter to "concentrate" their hunt on specific days. Could create more of a problem.

Good thread. It's interesting to see the various perspectives.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

7 and 3. 1, 2, and 8 are not part of the equation. 1 and 2 would put more pressure on the birds on the remaining opening days and 8 is playing the rich mans game. I can afford the price increases since I am single and unmarried but my brother with a wife and two kids would not be able to go and I'm more able to buy land if I like the area (I wouldn't, but that is something to look at when you raise the price to restrict numbers).

IaHunter


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

C'mon R guys, just PM or take it to the other thread, please. Just humor me, and let this thing work out as intended for NR comment. We may not get some perceptions or thoughts, whether you agree or not, if the R's keep plowing in.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Ok...Dan...cleaned it up for you.


----------



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

Well then, As I posted before the street cleaning, I just don't want more restrictions bottom line. Why would I want less freedom to go where the birds might be?? Maybe they aren't in the zone I'm supposed to be in because of DROUGHT. Maybe I'd like to check out a different part of the state while I'm there. Hell I drive 10 hours to get there what's a couple more here and there?? I don't care about how your deer hunting zones are set up and never will. I can shoot all the deer I want in my back yard. I come out for ducks and geese. I want to know what other parts of ND might have to offer me for birds so maybe the next year I could do it different. Zoning eliminates this possibility for me. I can guess what areas might be good with a drought monitor but for the most part I'm not sure where the birds are until I get out there. Hire a guide?? Not me, but restrict more here and there and more people will. Plop my a$$ in the center of a zone would be the logical thing to do but if that zone is a bust I'm screwed. Was there any resident hunters last year who had trouble finding birds without putting on more miles than ever?? YEP, I read about it for months. If it makes all the residents happy to restrict my hunting more than it already is, hell restrict me to 1 or 2 shots instead of the standard 3, put me in a little corner with no water around and make me wear blaze orange. Would you want more restrictions slapped on your hunt?? I doubt it. I was asked what I thought so this is it. If raising my cost a bit allows me fewer restrictions why not?? It's still a cheap trip compared to a lot of other trips I could take. I could argue with resident hunters on here until I turn blue because you guys want more restrictions and I want just the opposite. I'm through. If there is any part of this you don't understand, send a PM, I'll be at home. 8)


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

What is this All ??? how can so many of you think any additional restrictions on Residents is Fair ??? Were not the problems - we live here !!! Our Laws are already Unique & Special as well as our Lands & Resources - why do any of you think we should compromise or Lose what we have or had ??? If we Residents ever get to a point that we are part of the problem in the HPC concept then it will be time to reduce more & more NR's until the NR's are gone - then it can start on us (like deer season is now)

If you really feel that way ??? Then your the enemy & part of the biggest problem, we have & have had in recent years, in doing the right things & should be put in your place at every & any opportunity (because we are & have been listening to too many that are doing all they can to mislead & confuse those that should listen to & do what is best for North Dakotans)

I don't get this thread ??? or won't allow it to go unanswered - Or watch some go rah rah rah for the wrong team :******:

Man I never thought our problems were possibly some of us ??? & how we are approaching solutions :eyeroll:

Dick I need to know if you understand what I'm saying & feeling ???


----------



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

I don't want restrictions with zoning fetch. Cap the sh*t out of the NR, I don't care. Who said anything about restrictions on residents??? Where did that come from?? I just would like to hunt where I want. Don't you?? I already know I'm the biggest problem, I've read about it for quite some time. I was asked what I would prefer as far as restrictions go for NR's. I gave it to ya!! I didn't think or expect you to like it. You don't have to.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

even the most severe cap will not help if all come at the same time to too few places - we are sorry (not really) that to you this seems like the best hunting on the planet :roll: It will never be acceptable to many of us

If you understood HPC & I would even consider more things to address fairness to those that get a license (thru a lottery) & there are no birds there - the last few weeks then they could consider letting some zones merge or refund your money - just before season starts - if thats what you wish - the rest of your post before last (MOVE HERE !!!)*.*

PS even with out Zack we are always going to be good from now on - I think he would have been a fool not to take the offer - we have always had to deal with this - as good as Zack was both ways & the hustle he has - he is not the best we have ever had offensively or defensively - He maybe could of been, but not now - but he is good enough to go pro & will help any team & only get better.  (you asked)

& YES Zones & a Lottery will solve one of the biggest problems next to really start effecting Residents - Those that buy lands just to hunt - This has got to be stopped - will as many buy or keep lands if they are not assured a license ??? I have already addressed the big difference between those that have owned land here for years or forever & how that could be made more palatable for those folks


----------



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

I'll pray for summer rain and a statewide 7 day NR hunt. There won't be 90% of any of these words if that happens. I don't want to buy or lease any land out there. :huh: Get back in the resident thread where you belong. 8)

p.s. I edited out Parise leaving ND. in my last post. Didn't think it was relavent, but I guess we can always BS on that anytime.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Fetch with your antics I think my comment on my 1st thread is 
a good idea. To me you are nothing but a poultry pop!


----------



## Mr. B (Mar 16, 2004)

I guess I am having a problem with everyone ticked at the non resident that buys land in ND. If the land was not forsale NO ONE would be able to buy it.

Maybe instead of trying to figure out how to keep people away from your state you should figure out a way to buy it back for the non residents that already own part of it! Then you can do with it as you see fit.

As far as the restrictions it is up to the State.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

PSDC I've broke no rules - You just did


> Fetch with your antics I think my comment on my 1st thread is
> a good idea. To me you are nothing but a poultry pop!


 I don't know what your 1st thread was ??? But I will gladly debate it with you - But I bet it is misguided & & shows your true colors :roll:

Mr B

ND stopped NR's from buying up the lands in this State several times in the past & for good reason - If they had not we would be be no better than most other States that once had abundant wildlife & freedom to hunt

Selling lands in a free for all inflated prices - becoming like Texas or Ark or Louisiana, where a small plot or field can cost 10 of thousands of dollars, is just Not Right for the Residents of ND & how it effects taxes & land prices for our Farmers & Programs like PLOTS is wrong for ND Residents. & there is always many with more money than the rest or last one - where does it end ??? - I know you think Free Market & Capitalism is the answer - well let me tell you ND has always been Unique & different in that respect & that is why we still have what we have.

If folks like you were to prevail (& it was near happening) - then the last State of it 's kind will change forever & I truly think it would effect the Wildlife in a Huge way too. & that is not acceptable to me & if our STATE will listen & understand the truth & facts in all this, I'm confident we will choose to keep ND as it is & maybe even improve on what we have & find better ways to make it (Hunting) help Small Towns & Businesses Economically --- why should we even think about letting NR's come in & take over - I'll challenge you to debate with me, one thing that is truly a benefit to ND Residents (& thats what it's really all about) Unless a few can be successful in selling out what we have & have had. I will never stand by & let that happen without comment - Pretty please or not - No more fooling around from me - this is serious !!! - but I'll play within the rules - give it your best shot & I invite anyone else to join the conversation - this is a free speech board & I won't be silenced unless Chris thinks it breaks the rules, or Dan can convince me what benefit this could have for Residents of ND

I used to care about NR's --- NO MORE for SOME !!! - I have tried to come up with so many ways to please all & solve problems - Most NR's will never get it or really care - so why should we - It's time to make our Stand & Fight for what is ours - It won't make many of us popular - but I have no political plans or agendas beyond really caring & understanding the pro-& cons & all sides in this, than most (because of my last 30 yrs being involved in all sides) I feel I'm totally right - good luck convincing me otherwise. My goal is to try to wake up Residents & show them the time is now to get mad & stay mad until this is over.

Were the STATE Not You


----------



## mfeining (Nov 2, 2002)

FETCH,
I NOMINATE YOU FOR GOVERNOR. I JUST WROTE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR IN THE FARGO FORUM. I HAVE A FUNNY FEELING IT WILL BE SHOWING UP IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. KEEP THE PASSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DONT LET THIS ONE GET AWAY. IT IS MY HOME. PROTECT AND PRESERVE IT SO THAT MY OFFSPRING CAN FLOURISH AS I HAVE. NATIVE NODAKERS WILL PREVAIL.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I'll listen to Residents (Regular Hunters) tell me I'm wrong & how & why I'm wrong & what will work better ??? - But not NR's & especially johnny come lately - go back & read & figure out what this is all about or ask questions - But don't give us BS & SPIN - unless that is what Dan is trying to show & prove :huh: how unknowing & self centered most of you are :roll:


----------



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

Fetch; Do you think it's possible some NRs could vent out our opinions on the restrictions proposed without you flippin' out?? We have heard it 1,000 times if we heard it once about how special and different North Dakota is. It's nice to hear what other NRs think about these issues. How can this thread continue with battles like this in the mix of sh*t. Maybe you'll learn a little something about the other people in the country. You know, "THE ENEMY!!!" Or are you just full of such hate towards NRs you can't stand it???


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Fetch,

What is the beef with Nrs. This is not your state, you are only a 
resident of the state. You have special tax preferences and social
benefits. Other than that, you make it sound like you own the state
parks, plots, state land and other entities of the state. I will give you
the state mental hospital. Go back and answer my first thread, do
you see these restrictions as future options.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

what battle ??? if there is one we intend to win it & should before it really gets going again - We have had battles that in my opinion did not turn out very well - & it is so hard to get the right people in this State involved & to care & take action - that I don't see any room for monkeying around with any more of your opinions unless they Help ND Be special & unique & remain the best place to live for outdoor recreation.

Keep counting my friend - it can't be said enough oke:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

PSDC it's mostly all here http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/members/ph ... um.php?f=3

see at the bottom where it says next & 2345678 etc. If you have kept up fine but I am not going to try to repeat all thats been said -

It is my State & 600,000 plus others & 130,000 plus outdoors hunting & fishing Resident Licenses buyers & ND Tax payers - Don't like it Move here

Inferring I need the State Mental Hospital is only trying to bait me into a personal attack - I don't need to do that (but your messing with a expert) so lets not go there


----------



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

What battle?? How about you telling us NRs where we sit in the residents sh*tter. I swear sometimes when I read your pointless dribble I think you won't be satisfied with anything unless there is a civil war with ND and the rest of the USA. :eyeroll:


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

All right Fetch,

Please answer my first thread in this forum. Do you agree with those
restrictions for NRs in the future? Other NRs may not agree, but it 
comes down to pressure. That is the BOTTOM LINE. Page 1.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

> Greetings Dan,
> 
> I would prefer to see the following restrictions/changes for NRs.
> 
> ...


is this the one ???

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 . I have mixed feelings if they bring kids no way !!! but if it (for individuals brings more money to PLOTS & PLOTS could help waterfowling more sure - why not - but if these kids just grow up & act like Goldy :roll: then I'm all for All Minn kids left behind :wink:

3. - naah 2 weeks is more than enough & the split is nice for those that can

4 is kinda extreme :roll: - I used to kill masses of birds & get paid to do it - but I saw the light & went into it & left the darkside - I would still hunt if we could only shoot one bird per species per day. & make it Fun - Heck I would still go if it was one of each species per year & enjoy it more than where we are heading & thats the truth


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Fetch,

Why pick on Goldy and the kids from Mn?

Those comments only verify you are a

poulty pop!


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I don't don't know what a poulty pop is ??? is that a new flavor in Minn :roll: :huh: :bartime:

Chicken Poop I'm not :lol:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Come'on guys...I already deleted some posts off here...this thread is for ideas...take the argueing to another thread.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Don't pick on Fetch, I happen to enjoy his long winded dribble and cartoon inserts.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

This thread on NR's opinions WAS interesting....lets get back to it. As a resident, I can understand both points in the few preceding posts but there has to be many more NRs still to give opinions. Also as a resident, it's interesting to hear the other point of view....I already know the resident view point.


----------



## Mr. B (Mar 16, 2004)

Sorry if I sidetracked the thread. I just happened to be on this one when I had to vent a little. Let me try to get it back on track.

I am not sure about the exact order of preference of all the ideas but I am sure that 1, 4 and 8 are at the bottom of my list.

I do have a concern about being limited to a zone when I am hunting ducks. Since the birds could move to any place I would like to be able to follow them. (Maybe the zones are large enough that that is not a concern?)

My feeling is that once I pay more for my license I should have the same rights and privileges to hunt as the resident. My penalty for not being a resident is to pay more for my license. I do not mind paying more for a license, but to price them so high that the average hunter can't afford them I feel is wrong. I also feel that then North Dakota would just end up with all the big money hunters that seam to be the real concern anyway.

I have never hunted in North Dakota even though I have friends and family that live there. I have been thinking about making a trip there to experience the tremendous hunting. But after reading the forums on this site and others I am not sure if I will take a trip to North Dakota now. Since I have found that most of the people on these forums are ethical, follow the laws and basically are just average people I find it very disturbing all the negative comments about seeing nonresidents hunting or for that matter just driving through the state.

For those of you who are thinking that great another non resident that will not be coming to our state just remember that I am probably the type of non resident hunter that North Dakota should be welcoming. I do not want to but land, I can only afford a short trip due to work and I do not mind spending a little extra on licenses.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Why do you guys keep saying we are against you & don't want you ??? We want to manage you so you don't wreck what we have. That BS has been used for too long & even our Dumbest Legislator - by now has heard it all :roll:

Show me a example here why you feel so effected & abused ??? Or unwelcome ??? If the only way you feel welcome in ND is to have equal unrestricted hunting privileges, than sorry stay home - this is not about what is best for NR's - sure it's OK to say what you prefer in a constructive way that could help - but to say ND is somehow going to be punished or lose anything if your restricted --- Were Not going to lose anything by managing all this properly & this, " you won't get our money" is not really going to hurt anyone over here :roll: --- there will always be plenty of NR's more than willing to follow our laws & still appreciate what we have & are trying to save. & it is in no way unfair for us, not to have too be as restricted as NR's - If we are restricted or lose anything that we have - then we don't need you & you are the problem !!!

I'm all for Tourism & could promote & grow every aspect of ND Tourism & Good Economic development & still not hurt any segment or interest of those that live here (In fact I believe it would be easy to expand & grow all special interests without hurting residents interests) - What has been happening is special interests are trying to manipulate the outcome that does hurt Residents & it's time for it to quit


----------



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

* APRIL FOOLS FETCH!!*

8)


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Good Lord, this is exactly what I was hoping we'd avoid, but frankly I surprised it took this long for Fetch to hose down the hydrants again.

Maybe, just maybe, if policy makers can be made aware of the real heartburn of those affected and start to tailor restrictions that are both effective but a little more visitor friendly we can keep the B-52's on the ground in Minot and the F-16's on the ground in Duluth. When I'm about to be affected by something, I always feel less shafted if I had a say, the process was well thought out and I was not unnecessarily burdened when equally effective and less obtrusive alternatives were available.

There are no ulterior motives or double-secret agendas with this thread. My sole purpose is this: I tend to agree with much of the letter in Ken's thread, and I think it applies to other policy makers as well. Some have been scared-off the "c word" and other straightforward, decisive measures and have instead made tentative, indirect and complicated choices to the point they have contributed to the lawsuit and the border war.

ND has a license cost structure and hunting period structure very comparable to SD, no waterfowl cap and 26,000+ NR waterfowl hunters compared against SD's 4,000 cap. ND also has poorly designed zone restrictions and the res-only waterfowl opener and the waterfowl exclusion on PLOTS the first week of pheasant season for PLOTS grounds where there isn't a pheasant within 100 miles (I'll take my fair share of "credit" for that one). Who gets sued?

If I were an NR again, I would prefer a format that offered more flexibility when I was there even if there was a _*possibility*_ of missing a trip to ND once every other, third or fourth year (depending on then-current conditions). I wanted to see how others felt so policy makers can be made aware of all options and begin to fix the problems in more effective and productive ways.

NR's, please keep offering comments.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

How about this; let the people of ND decide what is best for them and the rest of us will just have to live with it. I live in Ohio and it is a freakin joke here. I will never hunt waterfowl here. I do not know anyone and the people I do know are not looking for new hunting buddies. talk about protective. hunting spots here are treated like gold claims. ND needs to stay open for the freelance hunter even if it means a 4000 cap like SD. Raise the property tax on non farming/ranching land owned by NR. Call it a luxury property tax since they obviously do not earn an income off of it. ND could bank alittle more cash to dump into plots or state hunting ground. Anything to stop big wigs from from buying it up and closing it off to the regular guy. After all MN charges NR lake home owners extra. Why not return the favor. just a thought :beer:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Tomorrows my birthday - my momma had me C section & totally refused to have a April Fools Baby - But then I have always lived with the old "Aprils Fools has just gone past - your the biggest fool at last" :homer:

You may return to regularly scheduled programing :justanangel:

PS .....your not a NR ....what have I said that is not true ??? or the time is right to go for - I still say go for what is totally best for ND Residents (PERIOD) & if somethings get compromised fine - but to start from a compromising position (like last time what did we get ) :roll:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Thanks alot Ohio, MN must be the root of all evil, lets all figure out a way to "return the favor" and screw the next guy.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Mr. Melson sorry if I offended you. Just stating a fact. You have to admit the lawsuit does not help strengthen the bond between MN and ND. I see it like making somebody invite you to dinner. Kinda rude don't ya think? And the only people getting skrewed is the average joe and it doesn't matter what state your from. ND needs to do whatever it takes to ensure freelance hunting remains a quality sport in ND.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

Eureka!!


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

I guess you are right, the lawsuit is a byproduct of of the ill-thought-out regs that were put into place last year by ND and the ongoing one-sided regs that SD has gotten away with for years, I guess it was time for a "return of a favor". I might not be in favor of how MN is going about it but it was time for something to happen.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

I for one am sick and tired of listening to disgruntled Minnesotans complain about us in ND who are trying to preserve what ND has and MN lost years ago.

Due to mismanagement and pure idiocy, Minnesota lost the majority of its prime waterfowl hunting do to exploitation of its waters that held waterfowl. Yes there were probably North Dakotans on those lake too but it was the Minnesota DNR that ALLOWED it.

If a mother leaves the cookie jar on the floor, do you blame the child for taking a cookie, I think not.

Now the yahoos from the east are trying ot bully us here to open the floodgates and allow them to do the same to our resources here.
As far as I am concerned they can take there little lawsuit and shove it you know where.

If their lawsuit wins not only will farmers start asking hunters what part of ND you come from but also whethter or not you are from MN. Or signs will start saying "If you are from MN, do not ask".

I guess I could care less because I never need to go to Minnesota because everything to do in the outdoors, we have it better here.

cootkiller
:lol:


----------



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

Haven't heard that one before. Another quality opinion from a NONRESIDENT in DEVILS LAKE. :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

James...obviously your opinion of the new regs being "ill-thought-out" is because you are a NR...do you see any of us saying that?Just because you don't like them...they are ill-thought-out?

I could also say that letting as many NR as possible come here,hunt as long as you like,anywhere you like is "ill-thought-out," couldn't I?

These were compromises...more of those ill-thought-out regs coming in 2005.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Goldie,
I am a Resident of ND and therefore I worry about my own states problems and concerns. Maybe you should follow the lead of someone who is a little wiser than yourself and do the same. CLean up your own state before you attempt to pollute mine.

cootkiller


----------



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

Goldy's Pal said:


> Well then, As I posted before the street cleaning, I just don't want more restrictions bottom line. Why would I want less freedom to go where the birds might be?? Maybe they aren't in the zone I'm supposed to be in because of DROUGHT. Maybe I'd like to check out a different part of the state while I'm there. Hell I drive 10 hours to get there what's a couple more here and there?? I don't care about how your deer hunting zones are set up and never will. I can shoot all the deer I want in my back yard. I come out for ducks and geese. I want to know what other parts of ND might have to offer me for birds so maybe the next year I could do it different. Zoning eliminates this possibility for me. I can guess what areas might be good with a drought monitor but for the most part I'm not sure where the birds are until I get out there. Hire a guide?? Not me, but restrict more here and there and more people will. Plop my a$$ in the center of a zone would be the logical thing to do but if that zone is a bust I'm screwed. Was there any resident hunters last year who had trouble finding birds without putting on more miles than ever?? YEP, I read about it for months. If it makes all the residents happy to restrict my hunting more than it already is, hell restrict me to 1 or 2 shots instead of the standard 3, put me in a little corner with no water around and make me wear blaze orange. Would you want more restrictions slapped on your hunt?? I doubt it. I was asked what I thought so this is it. If raising my cost a bit allows me fewer restrictions why not?? It's still a cheap trip compared to a lot of other trips I could take. I could argue with resident hunters on here until I turn blue because you guys want more restrictions and I want just the opposite. I'm through. If there is any part of this you don't understand, send a PM, I'll be at home. 8)


Fine, You want to play your broken record, kick your heels to mine. We all know how residents feel. I'm not as stupid as you look.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Maybe not, but still stupid.
And personally I think I LOOK pretty intelligent.

Goldy, maybe you should go to www.minnesotaoutdoors.com Oh wait, that is a website on jet skis, WEFEST, and how to totally eradicate Minnesota of all quality waterfowl hunting opportunities.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I know it really hurts when you are wrong Goldy, but look at it this way, we all forgive you because we realize that you ARE from Minnesota and most of us here in ND have seen how you guys hunt.

cootkiller


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

I am also a non resident, and I did not have any problem with the new regulations that were put into place last year. The only minor problem that I had was that the Upland license and Waterfowl license were made seperate. I come up there for the waterfowl, and the other was a bonus, just in case we came across some upland game while we were in the field. Not realy a big deal. The 14 day time period, or two 7 day periods, no problem. So,,, I guess what I am asking is, what was the part that is "ill- thought out" about the new regulations. SO it may have been a little inconvience. Once again, IT is THEIR state. Don't like the regulations, go somewhere else, or stay at home and hunt. Pretty simple. I really have a hard time believing that people are having such a hard time understanding that as what they are acting like on this sight. I think that some must just like to argue.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

They were ill thought-out, no consideration for NR's during the MEA, ND's thought too many (no cap) were allowed in, no thought to what would happen if it all blew up (part time legislation to save money) now it will be hashed out by "the vocal hardcores" who don't know all the facts,(myself included) meanwhile the G/O's who have been getting off easy right under ND's nose sit back and watch with little or nothing to fear. The person who started this topic had the right idea but it is being poisoned by the residents who can't stand to sit back and let this topic play-out.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Minn & MEA have always been one of the biggest peeves to me in all this - same with Wisconsin (way before many of you knew ND had all the ducks :roll: ) - I'm sorry but that still needs major management & limits & zones would help keep the cap as high as it could be

If you think were the ones that don't get it all - Your big time mistaken - It is the NR's & politicians & tourism & hospitality & small towns that really don't hunt that don't get it - we are doing our best to help them get it & I doubt your opinion is really going to help - so I will continue to always give a better point of view, from a residents perspective (Because I really care) & believe it or not in the long term feel I'm looking out for you more than you realize (if your a freelance hunter) but if you keep thinking it is ever going to be fair from your perspective - I can only do what I think is best to counter that & stop it - because that would be totally not fair. If we are not successful many of us will maybe someday join you as a NR - but to me that will be a last resort. & a really Sad day for ND

& if you really think what we all say here is all that important to the lawmakers & those that should know & understand better - than your nieve & if we are reaching some - your constant going back to step one in what you think would be best angers more than you realize


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Well James...we solved your problem...PLOTS will be open in 2004 to NR from Minn. for your MEA convention.It will be closed the week before.

Zones were redrawn instead of caps.

That was easy...so now they aren't ill-thought -out.

But Fetch is right....come to think of it...maybe we should go back to closing them during MEA...after all isn't it logical to put more restrictions on when the most people are here,rather than when no one is???


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

I will quit going back to step #1 if people on this site take at least some of the blame for what is going on, but no one can take a deep breath , think about it and admit it. Ken and Fetch ARE right, they are ALWAYS right, they are part of the founding fathers of this site.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Thank you that was so kind of you :-?

We have been here since the begining - But Chris is the Big Daddy-O

I don't see what that has to do with what is right or wrong - start your own site :roll: if you feel you can't rant without another opinion - The Hooz tried to have a site like that & eventually no one posted but him :lol:

I'm not getting sent to my room :huh: are you Ken ???

Or does anyone here claim to be my long lost siblings ??? 

There are a couple I'd adopt if they let me hunt with them  But thats about it :wink:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

No....I'm wrong a lot...but not this time.

Our laws are not ill-thought-out...they are compromises.


----------



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

Well I've spoke more than my 3 cents on this topic and on a few others for that matter. That's what this thread was for according to the introduction. Am I dissapointed a lot of NRs didn't come out with more and stronger voices??? Yep. This was supposed to be a fair chance to let it out on the slab and I did. When NR regs hit don't piss and moan then either. Sure, it's real easy to sit back and let North Dakota decide how to manage NRs. For the most part they are going to anyway. But why are some NRs on this topic at all??? If you are so satisfied with everything that is proposed you must love being told what to do, where to do it, and for how long. If I'm invited to dinner, let me eat at the big peoples table. I'll pay for my own meal and bring some good wine to boot. Sorry if I offended anyone trying to make my point of view along the way.

I've got fish to catch.


----------



## mfeining (Nov 2, 2002)

Fetch, here is a copy of the letter I wrote that will be in the Forum sometime next week. It's basically what I believe and through the smoke and mirrors and trying to stave attacks, what I am reading in your posts "in a nutshell."

Nonresident Hunters and Fishermen Should Respect Restrictions

I am growing very tired of the saying "a few selfish residents who want ND's game all to themselves". In light of
the recent lawsuit MN imposed on ND, I have yet to hear that " a few selfish residents want the fish all to
themselves." Why are we being persecuted? I, for one have talked to many Minnesotans who say they feel it is in
the best interest of game and fish populations to impose caps and restrictions on nonresidents and that they support
them in their plight. I feel support should be given to Minnesota by North Dakota residents who support
preferential treatment for residents to close the first two weeks of opener to residents only. However, I feel that
closing the opener to "states who restrict nonresidents" is simply mudslinging that will accomplish nothing. At
least North Dakota doesn't single out states who don't allow them the equal rights to residents. I feel that if you
live and pay taxes in a state, you should have the right to pass legislation regarding natural resources that anyone
who utilizes from other states should respect and abide by. I am on my best behavior when I "cross the border" to
fish. I wholeheartedly support any legislation Minnesota introduces which promotes conservation and
improvement of its fisheries, such as reduced bag limits and a residents only opener. Minnesota needs to start
protecting its shoreline from development and its fisheries or fishermen will start going to Canada, just as many
Minnesota hunters are hunting snow geese in Canada as a result of recent restrictions we have imposed on
nonresidents to preserve our quality and our heritage. In my opinion, what it really boils down to is that to
maintain quality, restrictions must be implemented. There are too many people with the idea that "there is enough
for everyone." There is enough for everybody to enjoy in moderation is what I say. When I go fishing, I keep
enough for one meal, whether I catch five walleyes or twenty-five. If only everyone had that mentality, our natural
resources would be plentiful. Unfortunately, rules must be implemented to restrict the antithesis. We need to
protect and preserve for those with the true passion to enjoy natural resources in an ethical and low impact manner.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Very Good --- will they print it ??? the foolum is strange :bart: (always wanted to use that smiley :lol: )


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

hey jimboy, 
What is the extra tax MN places on NR cabin owners? I would be interested in knowing just exactly what this is. 
Put the caps on.
Nix the zones, freelance WF hunters have to follow the birds.
Small increase on licenses ok.
Deal with the G/O tying up all the property
Increase the possession limit for Roosters to 15 for the 5 day hunt.
Give the birds the afternoon off for WF, for the first couple weeks, although this would restrict the kids trying to jump a few ponds after school.
Fetch - Remember the golden rule, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. PS if you can't say something nice......


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

"Sure, it's real easy to sit back and let North Dakota decide how to manage NRs. For the most part they are going to anyway"

Goldy, you said it all right there.
If you have been reading this forum at all in the last couple years,
you'd be a fool to think that these guys are going to take anything you say into consideration.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Naaah !!! With me it's you get what you give 8)


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

Goldy, other non residents did answer the question from the beginning of the thread. They apparently just dont have the same opinion as you do. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, some are just able to understand that if you don't live there you SHOULD expect to be treated differently and pay more to go there and have to go by what ever rules that are in place. That is the way it is if you go hunting/fishing in any state that you don't live in, not just ND. To use your "being invited to dinner" analogy, they are not really "inviting" you to dinner, it is more like ND is simply saying you are welcome to come to dinner, but you have to go by our rules while you are a GUEST here.


----------



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

Dan Bueide said:


> In light of some of the things discussed on another thread, I want to pose a question to Nonresidents who have or might travel to ND for bird hunting. *If* there are to be further restrictions in ND to reduce completion/pressure, what form would you prefer?
> 
> I'm genuinely curious what forms would be seen as the most acceptable (or maybe put another way, the least unacceptable) if the goal is to reduce pressure and yet make your time here the most enjoyable.
> 
> ...


These are my two rules that I find LEAST ACCEPTABLE, plain and simple. It was just part of Dan's question. Just because some rules apply to NRs wherever it may be it doesn't mean that you have to like them does it?? You are right, everyone is entitled to there own opinion, and this is just mine. I will always respect guidelines and restrictions, but the more freedom I can have, the better. Just surprised more don't feel the same.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

Well, said that way, seems our opinions are a lot closer that it looked like before. I completely agree with you, that the less restrictions and more freedom I have the better it is, but they have to take care of the residents of the state first, and even more important than that they have to take care of the resourse.


----------



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

That's ok by me gaddy, but when the grass IS greener on the other side of the fence (WATER) and you can't legally go there, your waterfowl hunt in NorthDakota just turned into nothing more than a camping trip. That's how I see it. Put the guns away and get out the cooler and lawn chairs. 8) HMMMM, can't possibly imagine any resident hunters liking that idea. :roll:


----------



## mfeining (Nov 2, 2002)

GP, There you go again threatening to take away overdeveloped shorline fishing in Minnesota. Let me tell you something. If it would come down to where we Nodakers weren't allowed to fish in Minnesota at all and Minnesotans weren't allowed to hunt in North Dakota at all, we wouldn't be sitting on a desert in search of an oasis. We have water too. Granted, there's not a cabin on every 100ft. of lakeshore, but I happen to like that. Basically what I'm trying to say is shut your piehole and work on Minnesota's politics and we'll take care of ours. Why are Minnesotans so obnoxious??


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

I, myself would favor caps,but it would have to be set up so a nr could only hunt every other yr. or something like that.A few individuals would take advantage of the process otherwise.Maybe a point system? I only hunt snows there anyway,but just a thought. SHOOT 'EM IN THE LIPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



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

mfeining said:


> GP, There you go again threatening to take away overdeveloped shorline fishing in Minnesota. Let me tell you something. If it would come down to where we Nodakers weren't allowed to fish in Minnesota at all and Minnesotans weren't allowed to hunt in North Dakota at all, we wouldn't be sitting on a desert in search of an oasis. We have water too. Granted, there's not a cabin on every 100ft. of lakeshore, but I happen to like that. Basically what I'm trying to say is shut your piehole and work on Minnesota's politics and we'll take care of ours. Why are Minnesotans so obnoxious??


What the hell is that???? :huh: Shoreline fishing??? :lol: Do you understand when I'm talking about the otherside of the fence I'm refering to a zone you can't legally be in and it is full of birds and water??? I'll use bold print and speak slower if it helps you. If you would have read any of my previous posts on this subject you would understand what I'm talking about. Just probably couldn't wait to jump down my throat I suppose?? And by the way this topic is for nonresident opinions asked for by one of your fellow residents, so shut yours!!!!!


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

The thread is supposed to be for NR's, but quickly deteriorated and I see no hope of getting back on track. I would suggest we archive this one as it is just turning into a name calling contest, SA remarks and is way off the initial question posed by Dan.

whadyasaylescomupwidsumtinew?


----------



## mfeining (Nov 2, 2002)

GP, I just got a little fired up when I read what you said about the grass being greener on the other side someday and nodakers will have to hit the road to hunt ducks and geese :******: . If that day ever comes, I would love nothing more than to see Minnesota cap nonresident waterfowl hunters so when my chance to hunt there came it would be less crowded the way hunting should be  . I just find it hard to respect Minnesotan's opinions when the state is overrun with resorts and everything in MN that involves money rather than conservation is rammed through. If you want to concentrate your efforts in Minnesota where it should be critical for your concerns, right now a condominium complex is being proposed on the shore of Dead Lake near Dent, MN. They are proposing to build it on the shorelines of some critical waterfowl habitat on the lake and it will be detrimental to many species of game and fish that depend on it :eyeroll: . When I surf the web, why can't I find a website by forward thinking Minnesota sportsmen trying to fight such idiotic proposals? I think all of you guys who come on this site should start a site like this one. It is in your best interest to try to preserve your last remaining CRITICAL habitat before it's too late. I'm happy to see you tax out-of-state cabin owners higher because of the Homestead Act. I read a proposed bill recently that basically says that if I fish in MN once in a while it will cost me $70 a week to use a boat ramp. I have to admit it would limit my trips across the border, but I think it's a step in the right direction if the money goes to a worthy cause. *WHY AREN'T THERE ANY TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE ABOUT PRESERVING MINNESOTA IF SO MANY OF YOU ARE MINNESOTA SPORTSMEN?????????????????????????*


----------



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

Mfeining: I still think your totally confused. :roll: My post refering to the grass being greener on the other side is (more specifically) refering to a zone in North Dakota full of birds and water, and that I wouldn't be able to go there to legally hunt because of proposed zone restrictions on NRs. I don't care about fishing laws. I don't like the lawsuit. Come here and I'll take you fishing tomorrow. :lol: I have great fishing in the river backwaters 5 minutes away. 8) I've never been on a big lake and probably never will. :roll: As far as why we don't have a web sight. Good question. :huh: I'd probably get sick of writing back and forth to myself for one thing. It takes the Minn. DNR 3 days to write me back when I asked when they thought our waterfowl season starts next fall, and that was pretty much "Not sure". :huh: I Think my work would be cut out for me to tackle a web sight project. Now if you don't know where I stand by now you probably never will. I have no more, so just PM me or something if your still thinking anything different.

Heck with this, more NR opinions!!!


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Regarding the acceptable restrictions that would be acceptable to a NR, North Dakota had a great system in place 25 years ago when I first started hunting the state. It was really simple and worked well. The state was divided into three zones much like it was prior to last years sweeping change. 2/7 and 14 day hunts were the same also. There was a limited amount of licenses available per zone and when they were gone, they were gone. We hunt in the upper north part of ND and that section had an extremely limited number of licenses available and they never sold out. I don't recall the numbers anymore but I'm sure if the residents researched this they could be posted on this site. Problem was hardly anyone (NR's)came to hunt and the license limits were abolished. After a while some national sports magazines found out about this well kept secret and started writing articles about the great hunting ND offers with little or no pressure. Guess what.... feed them and they shall come and we came. So anyway, on to the suggestions:

1.) Get rid of your Department of Tourism. Their job is to make the state of North Dakota attractive to a NR so they come and spend money. Obviously, they've done a great job. Problem is the residents don't want the NR or the money.

2.) Stop inviting the national sports magazines, DU included, to write articles about your states great hunting. Tell them the truth, the marshes stink and are full of loon sh*t and it's a bear to move around. Most of the ducks that are flying are spoonies, widgeon and teal, you've really got to work your a$$ off for a limit of mallards and you'll never see a mature drake pintail not to mention chances are you're not going to limit out. The fields are beyond huge so if you want to hunt geese don't think it's a walk in the park to do it. You wake up at 3:00 in the morning to haul out 30 budzillion decoys, put them up under your truck lights IF the farmer let's you drive out in the field, otherwise add an extra hour to walk the decoys out, get a blind set up only to have a yearling goose or two enter your setup. Then you get to take the whole thing down. If it rains, the fields are like ice rinks and the mudd is stickier than molasass.

3.) Where we hunt (and I ain't tellin' where) we seldom have a problem with crowding. I've had numerous enjoyable quality hunts with little or no competion to speak of. Based on what I've been reading there must be alot better spots than what I'm aware of (Devils Lake, Lake Alice Wildlife Refuge, etc.) where there is a bigger concentration of hunters. Target those spots, zone them and limit the amount of hunters in those zones. It sounds like a challenge but we did it in Wisconsin with Canada Geese and it works great. We use to have firing lines around the borders of our refuges that looked similar to the beginning of the shark fishing seen in the movie "Jaws". How a goose ever got out alive was beyond me and how nobody never got shot arguing about who shot the goose is an even greater mystery. The rest of the state can be zoned like it was in the past and limit the amount of licenses per zone. It was not at all difficult then and it won't be now.

4.) Get rid of the Guide/Corporate land leases. This is by far the biggest reason for ND's congestive hunting problems. Way too much land is going in that direction and that shuts down alot of land. Last year we had to call Florida and Texas to obtain permission to hunt on private land in the upper north part of ND. Needless to say we were denied.

A word of advise... be careful what you wish for. I live along the shores of Lake Michigan and 20 or so years ago snagging king salmon was legal. We had more NR's lining our shores than seagulls on the lake. We P&M'd and finally did it enough that they outlawed snagging, not that that was such a bad thing. The economic affect was huge, much larger than you'd ever anticipate. Not that that matters to ND but the bottom line is NR dollars pay for a large amount of your wildlife programs and believe me the extra dollars help alot. As I said before, I've been hunting ND for 26 years enjoying it so much we even bought a house in one of the smaller towns. You're not going to get the "well I'm a NR and I pay taxes" lecture here but I'll tell you one thing. It's no secret that the residents in that small town rely heavily on NR dollars to make it through the year. Enough lecturing.

Anyway, there must be a middle ground that will work for everyone here. Both sides have good debates and really nobody's wrong. It's unfortunate that Minnesotas governor decided to push the issue and it's highly unlikely that they will win but let's say they do. The Federal Government then tells ND to stop the limits and allow the same benefits that residents now have. And ND residents and landowners suddenly revert to NOT granting permission for hunting which I would venture to guess would probably happen. Now there's a win-win situation ain't it?
_________________
Nothing will eliminate hunting faster than a division of the group. Ultimately, this is the goal of the anti-hunting public.


----------



## WhakGreenie03 (Feb 20, 2004)

I believe that this problem can be equally attributed to NR and R alike. There has been many of times when i have had plans of hunting my land and upon arrival i see R truck exiting with smiles on their faces and not a worry in the world as the plow over the blaze orange sign infront of them. I have also seen NR come in and out of our state like a young man coming in for a quikie. Ride Nodak hard and put us away wet, zippinng around the state with their canoes and boats longing to screw some resident hunter out of evening jump. 
Resident landowners who lease out hunting rights should be shot in the face. U are the ones promoting the state for its natural resources that will be exploited in DU and waterfowl mags world wide. Nothing worse than having to call texas to hunt land in your #$*&^%$ backyard. Just like their is nothing worse than some R who locks his land up only for himself to hunt. Does anybody remember when we were kids and all were thinking of what pond to jump after school?!? Now days kids have to jump through so many hoops just to manage to get a shot off. And they can pretty much forget to compete with guides and outfitters for flocks on weekends.
I believe in having the opening weeks to resident hunters. It is VERY nice to be able to hunt w.o seeing canoes, boats, and convoys of trucks polluting the ND roads and waters. I do however strongly suggest that us R hunters dont forget that income coming into the state during that opening duck season is what keeps the little man alive.  
I think that there should be a lottery for NR hunters. From reading previous post I believe that i am not the only one. Some are willing to wait 2 yrs to hunt the prosperous lands of Nodak. If any NR is willing to do that you know that they care and nurture the state of ND. DEEP POCKET! Everybody's doing it!  haha. Luxury tax the propery leased by the NR hunters. Make no loop holes for them. Stick them like they stick us the 3 mo. they hunt in out state. 
Age can be the major determining factor for our Resident tunnel vision. For when we sit down and respond to the quickly judged posts remember that a NR kid can remember a successful hunt just as long as us R kid can. And for that reason i dont question anyone with a kid to hunt on my land and state.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

, right now a condominium complex is being proposed on the shore of Dead Lake near Dent, MN. They are proposing to build it on the shorelines of some critical waterfowl habitat on the lake and it will be detrimental to many species of game and fish that depend on it :eyeroll: . When I surf the web, why can't I find a website by forward thinking Minnesota sportsmen trying to fight such idiotic proposals?

Because you werent looking in the right place.
Type in Deadlake.org and you will see the site.

Its not a condo complex. It is a "cluster development" which has been sold as being environmentally friendly.
Its basically a city of about 700 plopped down on a peninsula in the middle of an 8000 acre, shallow lake which is classified as an environmentally sensitive lake. 
The development would consist of 130some housing units, restaraunt, gas station, 3 marinas with dockside gas self contained water and a sewer system for the whole thing.
The 260 acre peninsula is surrounded by water that probably averages 3 feet but much of it is less and consists of wild rice, hard stem bull rushes, cattails and loon nests. There is also a bald eagle nest on the peninsula.
The lake is a traditional resting area for diver ducks.
The propery is bordered by two WMAs, some private hunting land and a parcel given to Moorhead State as a wildlife study area.
No brainer you say? That is what we thought. Tell that to the county commissioners, judges and other politicians in this state. (Believe me, many of them will be gone after the next election.

The idea behind a cluster development is that you can get away with packing more people into less area (and make more money).
The alternative would be to lot it off but that would mean that they could only sell 30 -50 lots which cuts into their greed.
They say that one giant septic has less impact than 40 small ones. 
The giant one only has to fail once and you destroy the lake. Smaller ones would be new and have to meet code.

My fear (and that of most others with half a brain) is what happens when you increase the population by 700 complete with speed boats and jerk skis on a lake that is mostly less than 15 feet deep?

I just so happen to live on that lake and have been very active in fighting that development. If you think that hundreds of people havent put in hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars doing what they can to keep zillionaires from selling out that lake, you are sadly mistaken. Our lake association is into our lawyers to the tune of over a hundred grand.

You dont see much about this on sportsmens forums. Normally, it is read and written by the same handful of people day in and day out and the opinions and attitudes of those people will not be changed by what goes on here.

The trouble is that the locals in this area are being overtaken by people from the cities who hear about how wonderful it would be to have a "boat up" restaraunt etc... and dont realize A. what that development would mean to the waterfowl and water quality (80 some % is less than 15 feet deep) and that to get to the "boat up"restaraunt, you would have to "boat up" for about 300 yards through 2-3 feet of water and weeds. These people have deep pockets and all that many of them know about waterfowl is that geese sh*t on their golf courses.

Money talks to 80 year old retired farmers who spent their entire lives not making as much from farming as they would off the interest generated by what they are offered for their property from developers.
Pretty tough for sportsmen's interests to shut things like that down.

You figure it out... when this went before the county planning commision, there was time for public input. 116 letters came in asking for and EIS to be done against the development. 1 letter came in in favor of the development. The USFWs sent a letter asking for an EIS. The DNR sent a representitive requesting an EIS. The board deliberated about 10 minutes and granted the go ahead. Same thing happened when it went before the county judge.
Now it looks as though it may end up in the Supreme Court. I hope it does because the county seems to be ready to sell their own mothers for the sake of tax base.

Property values have been increasing as have taxes to the point where the common man cannot own lakeshore anymore. It is only more valuable if you plan to sell and move somewhere else.
DU...the USFWS...MWA...MDNR are all against this thing as well as all other rediculous uncontrolled degradation of what brings people to Mn in the first place. Lack of County experience, planning and forethought is why this development is even a pipe dream.
Try to fight it at the township level and people say "I dont want government telling me what I can and cant do with my land".
They say that until a hog confinement building pops up in their backyard or they cant hunt ducks on the lake anymore.

You have your cross to bear and we ours, but dont say "why dont you just fix what is broke in your own state" because that is like me saying, why dont you just stop the GOs from tying up land in yours.
You, restricting the common man NR to get at GOs is like if we targeted the common man NR fishermen who come to minnesota to get at developers who are making their money off of rich people to begin with.
You can say you are making the effort and I can say that we are making ours. To date, I dont think your restrictions on NRs have made a dent in the GO business nor do I think they ever will because you are targeting the wrong people. It all boils down to politics and the almighty dollar and those are damn tough nuts to crack. The dirty work doesnt get done sitting at a computer telling the same people day in and day out what they have heard since day one. 
Believe it or not, not everyone who has say so in these things is a sportsmen. The sportsmen are generally all like minded.
I am against your restrictions on NRs but I am also against GOs tying up the land. Well, where are they getting the land? That should be the focus of your attention if in fact there is anything you can do about it.
Your GOs and our developers are equal evils.
Most of you guys are fighting GOs a hundred miles away, Im fighting literally in my backyard.

Hope this helps some of you understand that many of us in Minnesota are doing what we can to protect our resources and way of life but our problem, and yours is not as simple as people think.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Rangers, It does not have a name it is just a higher rate. If you want to know the details look it up yourself. but if my memory serves me correct it relates to having a second home and is taxed at a higher rate and that MN residents are exempt from it. this was ten years ago and maybe it has changed since then. But I doubt it. If you know something, please enlighten us!


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Bert,

Much wisdom!

Sad story!


----------



## mfeining (Nov 2, 2002)

Bert, I apoligize if I offended you. Your post was very enlightening and I support you in your plight. I sure hope you can somehow bring the genuises who drew up this plan to their knees. My hats off to you for trying and from an ethics standpoint, I think I can say that for every North Dakota resident I know.


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

jimbou,

It is called a non-homestead tax and it is imposed on anyone, NR and R that have a residence that is not primary in nature, so there is no addtional tax placed on a NR here in MN. It is the same for all. It has always been this way and does not make any diffrence if it is a lake cabin or a second home anywhere in the state.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2004)

Bert is totally right. I've been to at least fourty lakesthat should've neverhad developement plans pushed through legislature and approved. Northern MN is the worst! I almost feel sorry for the divers that reside there andhave to deal with human interaction every day.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Bert's example of Minnesotans fighting urban sprawl, lakeshore development, and agricultural expansion have been fought a thousand times over in Minnesota. Those are the BIG THREE in environmental degradation. Minnesotans have fought and fought but have usually lost the fight to the developers and agricultural interests. The state legislature, county commissioners, and even city council members have refused or have been legally restricted from stepping in front of the bull dozer, plow, and dragline.

North Dakotans are lucky! They have not had to fight anywhere near the battles that Minnesotans have fought - Garrison Diversion excepted. But, it is interesting that what happens in Minnesota impacts North Dakota. We are all more connected than we might realize at times.

P.S. Dan, I have given you my thoughts on hunting restrictions in a private message.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Perry,
I responded to your private message but am not sure if I sent it properly.
Let me know if you get it, ok?
To the rest of you guys, thanks for the support.
Please visit the website Deadlake.org if you are interested in lending a hand. What happens with this development will set precident not only in Ottertail County, but the whole state.

What attracted the likes of Bing Crosby, Clark Gable, Jimmy Robinson and Bud Grant (to name a few) to this lake will be lost forever if it is not handled cautiously, carefully and with money and politics taking a back seat to common sense.


----------



## mfeining (Nov 2, 2002)

Bert, I checked out deadlake.org. :beer: I hope an EIS halts the project. I lived in Wisconsin for 5 years, so needless to say, I love Minnesota. They really have their hands full. I think it might even be too late for them to save ANYTHING! It's too late. I have my hands full trying to work on ND's resources in my limited spare time, but I wish you the best. I happen to be infatuated with crappie fishing, so western Minnesota is near and dear to my heart. I went to NDSCS 10 years ago and found a wonderful lake near Underwood with limited development, which I prefer. I was past there last week and wow has it changed. The spot I used to crappie fish is now "adorned" with a "cabin" that looks to me near $500,000. I'm not interested in fishing where someone may or may not be watching me with binocs from the deck. I see MN is considering banning phospherous in fertilizers. I think it's a good thing.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

I have been reading the posts here and got to thinking about what the DNR does in my state. It seems that we have agreement with some of the adjoining states to allow fishing in both states with one liscense. And with some other states that have imposed a large hunt liscense fee the DNR has raised the NC liscense to match.

I hunted in ND the first time in 2002 for around a $100 bucks last year it nearly doubled. So I thought if any of you guys that don't want to hunt in a zone and be able to harvest 6 deer for $60.00 come on down.

I want to let you guys know that my two hunting partners and myself have met some mighty fine people in ND and didn't get turned down for hunting but one time.

I have relatives about 30 miles SW of Fargo and they loan us a travel trailer to stay in. We freelance and have a friend we met in '02 that hunts with us that lives near Verona. We are definitely on a budget and I don't know what the final answer is but you might check out what the other states are offering. You might come up with some ideas. :beer:

Here is the URL for the NC WRC

http://216.27.49.98/index.htm


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

Bert, great info. I will be visiting the site for sure. you should post this over at the fishingMN forum , I'm sure theres a buch that will take an interest, if they dont already know whats going on.

I liked your civilized post as well Perry and couldn't agree more.
Its the information from the last few posts that keep me coming back to keep up with things.
Then when I start reading the bulk of the rest, I wonder why I DO come back, heh, heh! :lol:


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

rangers, been gone for a while. thanks for the update. I guess that shoots my idea down. Kinda nice of your state to milk everyone equally :lol:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Hey, where's FETCH?


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

He is no longer with us. Only in mind and spirit.


----------

