# letters to the editor



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Good to see that the Forum finally has some letters that intelligently explain the other side of the subject. Well done to all three authors!

*Other views: Hunter Pressure Concept best compromise for all
By Daniel A. Bueide* 
The Forum - 01/31/2003 
The Jan. 29 letter from Connie Krapp is the latest installment of misinformation from those wishing to exploit North Dakota's hunting resources at all costs and expenses. Krapp, who operates an outfitter business catered towards nonresident hunters, has greatly mischaracterized the Hunter Pressure Concept and the goals of sportspersons who support it as a compromise on the contentious waterfowl issue.

Conspiracy! The truth is that HPC was developed by the North Dakota Game and Fish in response to the Governor's (not sportspersons groups') request to develop some innovative, permanent solutions to this difficult issue. Of the concepts developed, sportspersons gravitated towards HPC, even though it produced nonresident numbers higher than some of the other concepts and higher than past sportspersons' poles have indicated as tolerable. HPC was favored because of its logic and fairness for all parties involved, and its true compromise quality.

How can you argue against a system that matches hunter numbers with anticipated hunting opportunities, so that all participants have an opportunity to experience a quality hunt? Further, it's a permanent solution, that self-adjusts based upon wetland conditions and resident use, which made it attractive so as to put behind us the political and emotional blood-letting this issue has spawned for the last several years.

Loopholes/manipulation! The HPC, in part, uses statistical sampling of resident and nonresident hunters to determine a cap for any particular year, and opponents would have you believe resident sportspersons will go out of their way to cook the books. Nonresidents, on their own or at the behest of outfitters, could also manipulate the HPC by under-reporting harvest. We're confident that all waterfowl hunters, regardless of their home zip code, will act like adults in the future just as they have in the past.

Anti-nonresident/anti-tourism! At the end of the day, the goal of North Dakotans should be to maximize all that a quality hunting resource means to all of North Dakota. This invaluable asset brings important seasonal dollars to rural North Dakota and keeps and attracts many thousand residents and their year-round dollars. The focus should be on balance and sustainability, so that North Dakota remains a desired tourism destination and a desired state of residency. This should be true for all types of hunting, but when it comes to waterfowl, balance and sustainability is what HPC is all about. The numbers of waterfowl only partly contribute to quality hunting.

A two-mile beach occupied by a million people is less enjoyable than a half-mile beach occupied by 50,000 people. Even in periods of high waterfowl numbers, over-crowding and excessive pressure greatly degrades quality hunting (as we're hearing from an increasing number of nonresidents who have hunted for many years) and prematurely pushes birds out of state, thereby reducing hunting opportunities for everyone.

Sportspersons hold no hatred towards nonresident hunters and fully appreciate their contribution to the North Dakota economy. We, however, also favor a resolution that recognizes our contribution to the North Dakota economy and encourages us (and others like us) to be North Dakota residents.

I also ask you to contact your senators at 1-888-635-3447, but urge a DO-PASS on 2048 (HPC). Let's sustain and maximize all the quality hunting asset means to all North Dakotans, today and for all future generations.

Bueide is a Fargo attorney.

*Jason Stafslien letter: Quality hunting will keep people in the state*
The Forum - 01/31/2003 
In an opinion written in The Forum Jan. 29 by Connie Krapp, she stressed the importance of non-resident hunting dollars to North Dakota's economy, and she, like many other outfitters, continues to demonize the resident sportsmen. I find this unjustified, and I thought I'd provide another side of the story.

I am a high school student who loves to hunt. I always planned on living in North Dakota mainly because of it's great hunting and fishing. In just the seven years I've been hunting, I have noticed a major increase in non-resident numbers. This has caused a major problem in accessing land to hunt on. Connie claims there is no overcrowding, I invite her to come see for herself. This is seriously degrading the quality of hunting in many areas and needs to be dealt with reasonably.

The quality of hunting will definitely keep suffering if something isn't done to slow the number of non-resident hunters. I understand non-residents bring money to North Dakota, but there is another side to the economic issue brought up here.

I am a youth of North Dakota, and I constantly hear about the "out migration" of our youth. I always ask, "What does North Dakota offer us to stay?" It certainly doesn't offer much for job opportunity, or pay for that matter, but it does offer great hunting and fishing. Believe it or not, many residents live here just for the outdoors.

It seems like North Dakota's economy will be hurt when myself and others like me leave North Dakota, because there is no longer any reason to stay here.

I think North Dakota citizens should consider what impact us resident sportsmen have on the economy and what will happen when people start leaving the state. This will begin to happen if something isn't done to limit non-resident hunters. SB 2048 is NOT banning non-residents, but it is putting a reasonable cap on them that was thought up by the Game and Fish Department.

Please consider supporting SB 2048, and contact your legislators if you feel resident sportsmen are important to North Dakota.

Jason Stafslien

Minot, N.D.

*Dick Monson letter: Writer did not reveal she is an outfitter*
The Forum - 01/31/2003 
When Connie Krapp wrote her opinion article (Jan. 29), she forgot to mention she is an outfitter, fee hunting only, kind of gal. She forgot to mention that Judiciary B Committee overwhelmingly passed the Hunter Pressure Concept, SB-2048, on a vote of 15 for - 2 against. She forgot to mention that outfitters lease hundreds of thousands of acres for fee hunting.

If there is not too much hunting pressure, why do they lease up all that ground? Just trying to stimulate the economy?

She forgot to mention that resident outdoorsmen account for 80 percent of outdoor expenditures in rural areas. Of course if those dollars aren't in her pocket, they must not count.

She forgot to mention outfitters are actively promoting a gag order from the governor on North Dakota Game and Fish testimony during the hearings (how does that play for free speech issues?).

Can anybody smell PHEASANTGATE wafting in the air?

Dick Monson

Valley City, N.D.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Yes, a kudos to all three.

M.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

i can't believe i made the forum... nice to see they are posting our side too


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Good letter Rap...did you send it to the Minot paper too??


----------



## SiouxperDave (Sep 3, 2002)

I thought Dan Bueide had a well put together letter that pleads his case in a very professional matter.

I think Dick Monson's letter is going to do more harm than good. His is one of those letters that people should think twice about before hitting the send button. It really comes off as whiny and depicts hunters as me-first people. I'm actually quite embarrased that it was submitted and published.

Rap's letter brought a different perspective but I don't know if many non-hunters will buy his arguments.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Super Dave,

Go Sioux, beat CC this weekend!!!!!

Nice to see someone else thought Mr. Monson's letter was in poor taste. Even though we all don't agree, and probably never will, we must all still try and be civil. I would actually like to thank Mr. Monson for his type of letter, it should help get 2048 put away as it should be.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Luckily, you two will find yourselves in a distinct minority, both here and on mainstreet. Both Dick's and rap's letters were clear, articulate, and direct. They made very effective and pursuasive points. Perhaps that is the source of your latest disingenuous comments.

M.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

nope i didn't send anything to the minot daily, but might in the future i guess. the minot daily seems to be fair for both sides and i wrote to the forum to see if they'd actually post our view.. 
sioux: atleast they get another story of this economic issue which is very true, i and many others like me that i know are dead serious about considering leaving nd if hunting goes down the drain... i don't expect non-hunters to write in for support of us to the legislature, but atleast public opinion will be hearing two sides to the issue


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

rap,

If the only reason you will consider staying in ND is for the hunting and fishing but will leave because you don't get your way then I question how much you really do enjoy your activities. Seems to me you and a bunch of others are crying wolf to scare everyone in to thinking if they don't do what you want you will leave.

If hunting is the only reason to stay, you need to broaden your horizons and realize ND has much, much more to offer. We have low crime, good neighbors, strong family ties and we have one of the best education systems in the country. These and hundreds of other reasons are why we stay in ND. Not just the hunting or fishing.

MRN,

I cetainly hope you continue to keep this attitude as it will help tremendously with the legislature. They really love to hear things like this as is evident by the one member of your group calling all legistators idiots. I could sure tell they were impressed with that!!!!!


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

well hunting is very important to me, but i also enjoy many other things. These are things that a bigger city would definitely provide me. It is true though, what's different besides Mn and ND to me? they are both close to my family, both offer great fishing. if hunting goes away for me, then MN offers the family and fishing aspect of everything and i can also find alot more things to do in minneapolis on a weekend and i can see all my sporting events live! but i would rather hunt anyday than watch a twins/vikes game

whoaa... i forgot the most important thing MN offers! Good job opportunities, Alot better pay


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

economics 101 = cootkiller???


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

rap,

I don't understand your ?

If you'd rather hunt than watch the Twins ect. then why don't you quit making idle threats and continue to stand up for what you believe. Don't just leave because you didn't get your way. Tends to make people think your group really doesn't have a real passion for your beliefs. But if you must go because of a single issue, then so be it. You will be missed and I hope you stay and stand up for yourself. This is a great state and country and this is the reason why, we can all agree to disagree and yet we all still live and get along.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Rap,

Could be. He's a troll either way.

You done good son. Sure it sucks to have someone with an obvious commercial interest harrass you for your beliefs and what you wrote. Even if there were hundreds of them, you know what's right down in your soul. Your convictions are intrinsic, they come from inside you, not from an extrinsic influence like money. You said what's true for you. Again, you done good.

M.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Keep to issues or opinions - or some may have to take a time out


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

eco 101:
threats? i'm not threatening anyone, i'm stating my reality.. if i find a good job in MN that i can't find in ND, i might end up moving because ND no longer offers the one advantage that might outweigh the better job

MRN: thanks for the comments


----------



## SiouxperDave (Sep 3, 2002)

rap,

I applaud you for your beliefs and your willingness to share them with others. I am also an advocate of freelance hunting and enjoy the hunting opportunities in ND. I've never used an outfitter and don't ever plan to.

I lived in ND until 1999 when I accepted a job offer in PA. I moved to MN in 2001 and will be moving back to ND this summer when my fiancee enrolls in grad school. So I'm familiar with NR hunting. This past year I didn't buy a license because I procrastinated and they were sold out before I got around to it. That's completely my fault and I have no one to blame but myself.

I understand your desire to stay in ND after college. That's what I wanted also but it didn't happen. Let's say that you can't find a decent job in ND and accept a job out of state. If the cap is too low, you may not get the opportunity to buy a license and hunt in your home state. People's beliefs may change if they look at this issue as an outsider.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

econ 101,

This may be hard for you to believe but there are hunters out there who actually choose their job and/or state of residency based on hunting opportunities. And, for watefowl hunters, Sodak offers all of the advantages you stated that Nodak offers PLUS no income tax and tremendously better waterfowl hunting opportunities. I know of one family that has already relocated to SoDak from Nodak, one family that is relocating from MN to Sodak (in June) and four other families who are considering it. I know of no one who has moved to Nodak for the hunting. I'm sure there are many who have stayed because of the hunting, but if it continues to go down hill, they may decide to leave. What kind of economic impact do you think a family relocating to another state makes? Must be more than many, many non-residents who visit for a few days in the fall.

Rap has proven himself to be an intelligent young man from his letter and postings. If he says that he is going to take hunting opportunities into account when he makes his decision of where to locate, I believe him.


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

guys, after reading all the garbage the past day I think its best if everyone just ignores Economics 101. he's not here to do anything other than stir up everyone and try to divide.Heck,he even attacked a kid for wanting to stay in the state. (rap, I know you don't want to feel like a kid when you're obviously more mature, but please take it as is)

if econ 101 ticks you off, than tick him off and write and call your legislator again on another bill (rather than waste your time here arguing with him)


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Miller--good point. As a wise man once said, "never argue with an idiot" :lol: (hope that doesn't offend your thin skin there econ 101--the lol symbol means it was only in fun).


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

no no no, the saying is: "arguing on the internet is a lot like the special olympics - it doesn't matter who wins because you're both still "handicapped" ."

m.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

That's pretty low MRN. Think I'd edit that if I were you.


----------



## Decoyer (Mar 2, 2002)

This just shows how much influence we are making. I was recently informed that my letter that I sent to the legislators will be a guest editorial in Dakota Country Magazine. Keep it up guys!


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

decoyer, i think i read your article in dakota country, the one sent in by a represenative you wrote to? very good letter.


----------



## Decoyer (Mar 2, 2002)

Yep. that is the one. I haven't got to see the issue yet. The Febuary issue hasn't come out on the newsstands yet, and I am not a subscriber.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Man, Econ, you just won't leave it alone.

I think rap's letter is the most important of the three and that you're missing his point, one that many other sportspersons are making too. Yes, there are other very good qualities about ND, including the ones you've mentioned, but most states/locales have positive qualities. For a bunch of us, the quality of hunting was or will be just enough to tip the balance to stay or move back. If world class bird hunting is your bag, and you are not wealthy, there's only a couple of states to choose from. Different strokes for different folks, but in ND you've got many thousand people who have given up or are willing to give up personal and professional opportunities elsewhere largely because of quality hunting, especially bird hunting. Maybe not you, but definitely me and a bunch others from what I heard last week in Bismarck.

I think rap's letter is the most important of the three because it shows that some of our youth, around whom these economic debates seem to be centering these days, also share these views and will base their decisions to stay/leave/come back to a large degree on the quality of hunting. You telling a sportsperson that hunting is not a large factor in being a ND resident is like someone telling you what motivates you to stay. I wouldn't pretend to understand what motivates you, and I'd caution you against pretending to understand my or others' motivations. To rap, decoyer and the other young adults who have shown some real gumption by getting involved, keep it up!

Also, Econ, you've been pretty aggressive the last couple of days. It's easy to post "fire" when using a "nick-name." I've chosen to use my real name because it makes me accountable and checks me against the temptation to get inflammatory. I'd challenge you to do the same.

SD, I have the nonresident perspective too. Hunted here as a nonres for six years until returning four years ago. Hunted exclusively as a freelancer, and had little in the way of ensured access. Lots of contacts, but nothing sewed-up. Perspective changes with license plates, but I think if I still lived in The Cities and was still in the freelancing mode, I'd rather come 3 of 4 years and have the kind of hunting we had up until a few years ago. Since I don't have any family who farms in the bird-belts, my only other choice would be to buy/lease land, and that model further hurts the general quality of hunting and general rural economies. Might be good for a few landowners, but bad for the general rural economies because most of the land owned by nonresidents (or resident hunters for that matter) is not available to others.

One thing that Econ and I will agree on, GO SIOUX!


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Quack, that is the edited version!!!
I've seen the "blunter" version used as sigature lines in other forums.
And I used a smilie thing - doesn't that absolve any perceived indiscretion?


----------



## catman (Dec 19, 2002)

WE NEED TO TREAT OUR NR LICENCES AS A PRIVLAGE NOT AS A RIGHT.I DO NOT WHINE AND CRY AND MAKE THREATS WHEN I ONLY DRAW A ANTELOPE LICENCES EVERY FIVE YEARS FOR THE RED DESERT,OR NEVER HAVE DRAWIN A MULE DEER PERMIT FOR NEVADA,OR REFUSE TO BUY A LAND OWNER ELK PERMIT FOR NEW MEXICO. I ASKED ONCE WHAT I COULD DO TO INPROVE MY ODDS. ANSWER WAS MOVE HERE. THAT IS MY ANSWER ( MOVE HERE). OUR WATERFOWL AND PHEASANT HUNTING IS VERY GOOD,LETS MAKE THOSE LICENCES A DRAW ALSO.

OH BY THE WAY GREAT LETTERS TO THE FOURM. SURPRISED THEY PRINTED THEM.

SOMETIMES I WONDER IF 101 IS AN OUTFITTER OR A MEMBER OF P.E.T.A


----------

