# New speaker"Rick Berg" sticks it to resident hunte



## Ladyhawk (Dec 6, 2002)

New speaker of the house Rick Berg from disrict 45 of Fargo appoints Jon Nelson district 7 to chairman of nat. resouce committee.Looks like our new speaker of the house from Fargo is going to keep going against resident hunters like he has in the past.Look up his voting record.Instead of appointing someone from middle ground or a pro resident hunter like rep. Todd Porter who also wanted the job.Instead Rick Berg appoints a well known anti resident hunter a pro outfitter Jon Nelson. I don't know about you but I am going to tell Mr. Berg that he made a very poor choice!I wonder how many outfitters live in his district which he is working for?


----------



## jlang (Oct 20, 2002)

Jon Nelson is from District 7, up in the DL basin. Does he have a direct connection to fee hunting or leasing for duck hunters?


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

If this is true ???

Politics & lobbying at it's finest 

Maybe he will either get educated, or be so busy doing his job - he won't have time to be a the commercial sides pawn ???

But this is why the ND Game & Fish Dept. & the Director has to come forward & be the strong voice for the hunters. I think they know the super majority are freelance & not pay hunters & should do whats best for all of us (NonResident & Resident) - if not ??? ??? ??? We can only hope some (most) have seen & heard what the real problems are & potential solutions ???

I'm hoping some New & Real Leadership will emerge this session.


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

From my understanding, Jon Nelson is the one guy in the state that ND hunters DON'T want for that position. He's very close minded on hunting issues, as he's self serving to his own agenda.

This is not good for ND.


----------



## hunt4life (Mar 7, 2002)

Jon Nelson is working on trying to generate income for his community. He has helped me gain access to goose and duck hunting spots many times, and I haven't had to pay anything yet.

It is a very complicated issue concerning the non-residents and Jon Nelson is trying to do what is best for the small towns near his farm. Those communities are struggling to survive.

If any of you stopped and asked to hunt on his land, he would very likely allow you to hunt.

I don't like outfitters at all, but I would not say Jon Nelson is close-minded. He would be willing to consider anything that would help the small towns in North Dakota to generate income and keep their people in place. He is reasonable and very willing to discuss all options.

Cramming legislation down the throats of small towns hasn't helped me gain any access to hunting land. in fact it has hurt more than it has helped.

Some limits are probably good, but some of the hunter-backed legislation has given us the opposite results of what we are looking for. I think the farming people are pretty intelligent people and they probably know what is good for them.

I know many of you dedicate a lot of time toward trying to make things better for North Dakota hunters and I applaud you for your efforts. I am just not sure it is good to take sides against the people we need to allow us access to our hobby.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Then tell him ONE Simple thing 95% (or more) of all ND Hunters (both Residents & Non-Residents) are Freelance hunters. & over 1/2 are Non-Residents.

We are the ones spending money in the towns- & buying licenses - When he has to decide what is best - Think of this - Not what is Best for the commercial side - They mostly do not hunt.

Pass Laws to make Hunting Better for the Freelance Hunters & pass laws to spread them out - create opportunities for more Bed & breakfast type hunting opportunities - without being locked into guides & pay to hunt. Find ways to educate the landowners that are truely worried about their towns. To open up hunting in their areas. Not shut it down - or sell it to less than 5% of the hunters coming to the state. Support ways to increase public (Freelance) Hunting & at the same time give extra income to landowners.

But at the same time there has to be ways to better manage the 30,000 NR's coming here to hunt. It can't just be a Free for all. This should be left to the G&FD - Not the Legislature(who also don't hunt or really understand all this). But then the G&FD needs to be left to do their job - without any Govenor, or Politicians threatening them & micro managing them. & beware !!! there will be efforts to weaken the G&FD even more - at a time we should trust & insulate them from politics. If anything make the Directors job a Elected Job - But not placed under a commision of appointed political clones of any Govenor (so the deck does not get stacked with Commercial people - or those that really don't hunt - or Land Rights extremists.) This job is way to important, to tie the hands of this person. Ask him to solve this problem & alot of the issues would go away & the right things would be done.

Explain how ND is unique to the nation in it's laws & resources (that is why so many want to come & hunt here) & we should do all we can to protect them & keep quality of life & hunting as high as possible. - Explain to him that Siding with the guides & commercial people (that have been sold on thinking the Pay to hunt people are their salvation) is the wrong direction, that ND is heading. - Have him trust our paid professional people at the G&FD (Not just listen to the Gov. & Director) but the staff at the G&FD. If he wants a good source of honest information & opinions on what to do.

Don't let the commercial side turn this into a us against them battle. The tone of your reply, says to me, you are believing the negative stereo types, they are trying to label us with.


> Cramming legislation down the throats of small towns


 also


> Some limits are probably good, but some of the hunter-backed legislation has given us the opposite results of what we are looking for


 and


> I am just not sure it is good to take sides against the people we need to allow us access to our hobby.


 all sound like things the guide Assn Loves to hear ??? ??? ???


----------



## hunt4life (Mar 7, 2002)

I guess I should have expected that might stir things up. You make good points.

I don't advocate a free for all for non-resident limits. I am sure some limits are needed.

I just wanted people to know that I know the man and he is not close minded. He is gracious to the hunters he meets and welcomes them to his community. I don't agree with all of his politics, but he is trying to help the people in his struggling community. I don't expect that all hunter's groups should embrace him and his politics.

I really don't know what the right answer is. I sincerely wish I was as certain about these issues as you are.

I have never used an outfitter and I am not trying to place us against them. I am hoping for some sort of legislation that doesn't place the hunter against the landowner, which seems counterproductive. Although, I am sure some hard battles need to be fought for anything that is worthwhile.

I am not trying to point out that I think anyone is wrong, or resort to labeling or name calling. I posted a message and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

No Please don't take that wrong - we need you & Jon Nelson to understand some of the facts in all this.

Please re read what I wrote (as I added a few things ) 

Then please invite Jon to come & read what most of us believe in.

That alone would be a major thing, to help be sure all sides are being heard.

PS.... you (or anyone) have my permission to copy & email or mail this to anyone who will listen.


----------



## hunt4life (Mar 7, 2002)

You could e-mail him at http://discovernd.com/government/officials/elected/ just like I could, but neither of us lives in his district.

As a freelance hunter myself, I would like for him to hear your side.


----------



## hunt4life (Mar 7, 2002)

I don't seem to have an edit button, but I would add that the search for Jon Nelson on http://discovernd.com/government/ resulted in his e-mail address of [email protected].

I suppose all resident freelance hunters could stop into Wolford ND (Nelson's town) and spend some money there next hunting season and let people know where it came from. That might change his views. Just a thought.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

hunt4life; like you I wish every small town in ND could make it, but commercial hunting isn't going to save them. Our rural communitys were layed out by the distance you could drive a team of horses with a grain wagon in a day. A semi truck covers that distance in twenty minutes. The land grant railroad settled ND with a promise of agriculturial paradise during a wet cycle. It's dry again. John Wesley Powell did the original survey of Dakota Territory and recomended 12 counties. We have 53. The list of bad decisions is endless. Commercial hunting left unchecked is another.

I am an old farmer. Market hunting isn't going to save rural ND. It WILL concentrate more land in fewer hands thus fewer farmers. Left unchecked it raises cash rents and land values so only the well heeled can afford the land. Leasing affects young farmers like a spike thruogh the ears because they are under capitalized and cannot compete to rent or buy. A farmers average age in ND is 60. Who will step in when these guys die? ND will be down to a few big farmers per county and they are not going to shop in Wolford or any other small town. They bypass them already. As more land is purchased by NRs the CRP payments and cash rents flow out of state. Another loss.

I don't know but I strongly suspect there are some very big players in the market hunting community. I doubt very much that the biggest commercial hunting operations are value added co-ops owned by local folks. They spread a little pocket change around but the bennies don't land in rural ND.

Not trying to break hard on you hunt4life. There is a lot of propaganda being pumped by commercial hunting that is just a lie. Don't fall for it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I went back a re-read these posts and I thought of something I saw on another site, that had declared the new wetland rules bad for wetland and indicating that all the sloughs will be drained by year end. These new regulations have not even been released as of yet but the are*DEAD ON ARRIVAL.*We need to watch and see what is happening in the session that is coming up and get behind things that will not close more land to freelance hunters. We are at a point in the process that is called the feeling out process and I am aware of some very good compromises and laws that will benifit all involved if given a chance. We cannot polarize issues as this tends to turn land owners off. nor can we forget that we as hunters mostly do not own the land and are guest.

Give Mr. Nelson a chance, and look at the bills not the news clips or sound bites of TV or a web site.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Hardwaterman, I agree with with most of your points. However I had the opportunity to sit in on the Judicary B Hearings since Oct 2001, and not once did Mr Nelson, who was on that committee and a very vocal advocate for commercial hunting, say a positive thing about resident sportsmen, or admit that they had any redeeming soical or economic value. His landmark quote was "*nonresidents have more value to me"*. Every question he addressed to sportsmen was negative in content, and every question he addressed to commercial hunting was positive. I guarantee you. I believe he has had ample opportunities to present his position and it is one of bias for commercial hunting.

I also had the opportunity to sit on a pannel discussion about hunting issues with Mr Nelson and others sponsered by ND Farm Bureau, for the Devils Lake community in March 2002. He characterized resident sportsmen as"*greedy, selfserving, and radical"* and deliberately vilified people from Fargo and Grand Forks. Not once has he mentioned compromise, moderation, or the overall good of the state. He told the audiance that "radical sportsmen" will destroy farmers and rural communities to serve their own needs.

Tony Dean stated that he worked for the tresspass law in SD because a certain "farm organization" assured him that cooperation would lead to better relationships with land owners. That organization turned around and bit the sportsmen of SD as soon as the law passed. Tony said in effect, he would never trust that group again. This same group is Mr Nelson's power base. Extend them your hand and you will come back short fingers.

*Signup fro the "Sportsperson Mailing List" on the Home Page Today.*


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

Dick....you are right on. If people start believing Jon Nelson has any type of "good" to give to sportsmen, we will be in for a very long session. People.....stay focused!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

This position would most likely have been filled by Mr. Wanzeck from Jamestown, but his re-election was dealt a blow by polariztion of the hunting issues.. I said eairler that we should not polarize a single issue, as this causes discontent among many and solves nothing. The Sportsman Alliance has done this with hunters getting the raw end of the deal. Dick I also attended a number of these meetings and I felt that Mr. Nelson may have called a *whiner a whiner*.I do not know you and that was not directed at you. We have to realize that as passionate as we are about a issue, we may be in the minority. So what I am saying once again is don't see everthing as dead on arrival just because he is the committe chair. I will send my e-mails and make my telephone calls as all sportsmen and women should do and let their elected officials know how they feel. We may not get what we want but this is a democracy and still the best place to live in the world.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Hardwater- I like your posts here and elsewhere, good points. I don't neccessary believe dead on arrival either. Natural Resources will be under a microscope thru the hearings, which is good. Nelson may have been postureing for his backers, who knows. But I have my doubts. We will see.

I take issue with you that the Alliance polarized anything. They galvanized sportsmen and gave them a voice when too many of us sat on our butts hoping somebody else would do our work for us. Never once have I heard them say derogatory statements about farmers, yet the big lie pumped out from the commercial hunting propaganda mill still floats. If you repeat it often enough, uninformed people will believe that lie. They have always stood for moderate compromise, which is more than anyone can say of commercial hunting. The Alliance has consistantly backed the NDGF professionals, while commercial hunting has only sought to weaken and attack NDGF. As a matter of fact, I believe Nelson has signed on to some of those bills.


----------

