# Cannonball Company



## DG

This was in the latest issue of Field and Stream. In 1992, using words CRP and hunters in the same sentence around the farming town of Regent, ND., was like shouting gun and control at an NRA convention. You were asking for trouble. 
Folks in these parts were fed up with seeing their prairie turned into free-fire zone. Slob hunters from big cities wre to blame. And the Conservation Reserve Program, which had allwed the land to blossom with pheasants, was the cause. So 10 farming couples held a meeting tp stop the madness. Fifteen years later, saying CRP and hunters in Regent is more akin to saying money and bank. The CRP land in the surrounding country helps produce record pheasant hatches, and people in blaze orange receive friendly hellos.

What happened? A company called Cannonball-and one of the nicest convservation stories of the last few decades.

*REVIVAL BY RINGNECK*
[/b]
"We realized all the pheasants that wre bringing problems also represented a marketable resource, "says Barb Mayer, who was at the intitial meeting. "Our community desperately needed economic development, and manged hunting could help solve the problem of being overrun by strangers, but at the same time provide income. We had the ingredients to make this a positive."
In their struggle to perserve wildlife habitat, conservationists always search for "win-win situations"-occasions when doing something good for fish and wildlife also turns a profit for landowners. Thier victories are few. But every so often the right factors come together at the right place to make that win-win a reality. Regent is such a place. Covering six blocks of prairie in the southwest corner of the state, Regent is like a hundred other North Dakota farming communities: a collection of families in love with the land yet facing a grim future as new generation leave for bigger cities.
Vern Mayer, a Regent native, moved back in 1976 with his wife, Barb, and their threee kids, abandoning a tenure-track posistion at Iowa State University because "you can't educate the land out of your blood." But they didn't represent a trend. When their first child graduated from high school in 1986, his class had 16 students. By the time their third child got his diploma, he was one of seven.
"That pretty much tells you what was happening in Regent," Barb says. "The popluation went from over 400 to just above 200."
The hard times were only aggravted when hunters from bigger cities suddenly began overruning the farms during pheasant season. That was due to the Conservation Reserve Program, which debuted in the 1985 Farm Bill and paid landowners a subsidly not to plant acres considered marginal for crops. The native prairie grasses that reclaimed those acres provided ideal cover and food for wildlife, especially upland gamebirds. By 1990, the exploding pheasant population was drawing record numbers of hunters.
North Dakota as a long tradition of "open lands," allowing public use of private property, trusting in the good behavior of the majority to make the rudeness of the few a irritant. But the sheer volume of the influx led to an alarming rise in the number of ugly incidents.
"Fences were being left open, trucks were being driven across fields, litter was being left in a lot of places," Barb recalls. "You might be sitting down to a meal and you'd see guys in orange caps walking through your yard.
"It was by no means the majority, but it had gotten to the point where it was really unbearable and dangerous. So in March 1992, 10 couples sat down to discuss this and how to change it."
While agreeing that the new wave of hunters was aggravating, they also admitted the money they brought to town was welcome. So the question became: How to keep the good while removing the bad?
Managed hunting was the answer, giving birth to the Cannonball Co. (cannonballcompany.com), an appropriate name, as business boomed.

*CAPITAL GAINS
*Cannonball developed a business model designed to involve the community. Landowners who signed contracts with Cannonball would be paid a fee for each bird taken from their property. Hunters could not use their land without a local Cannonball guide, and had to stay in local farmhouses that doubled as B&B establisments.

That first season, 1992, Cannonball offered sportsmen guided hunteds for $125 per day, which included room and board. The hunting grounds consisted of 15,000 acres prooled by eight landowners who recieved $2 per pheasant.
"None of us knew what to exepct," says Pat Candrian, now the manager of Cannonball. "We just decided to try and see what happened."
Success happened.
Last year, Cannonball had 60,000 acres, quadruple its original size, 40 landerowners, a stable of 24 guides, and a total of 11 farmhouses in the B&B program. Another record pheasant hatch attracted some 800 hunters who paid $175 to $400 per day (depending on packages and time of year) and killed about 5,500 birds, each of which earned a landowner 423.
Candrian estimates the annual economics imapct of Cannonball on this small town at more than $1.5 million. The land has proposed as well. The new industry made wildlife management a higher priority for local landowners. Some 15,000 of Cannonball's 60,000 acres are in the CRP.
*UPSHOT*
Not everyone is so happy about Cannonball. Hunters who once enjoyed "freelancing" private land don't appreciate being locked out by forhire companies. While Cannonball landowners can withdraw their property for private hunts anytime they choose, the days of endless miles of unposted land are ending.
And no one can claim hunting who once enjoyed "freelancing" private land don't appreciate being locked out by forhire companies.
And no one can claim hunting has caused a population boom Regent. The industry is seasonal and lasts just three months.
But there can be no denying Cannonball's beneficial impacts. When grain prices skyrocketd last year as a result of the interest in ethanol, talk here wasn't about asking out of CRP contracts to cash in-but concern over rumors Congress might begin slicing into the CRP budgets.
"Sure, (wheat) is over $12 a bushel now, but world commodity prices can change in the blink of an eye." Candrian says. "Hunters will come as long as we have birds. So, as long as you have that CRP check, plus the money for the birds taken on your land, you can keep up with those grain prices, and even beat them.
"Cutting CRP? That would be a disaster," Candrian continues. "The would hurt the land, the birds, and us."
And that's the type of coalation that conservation needs. You could say it's a real win-win.


----------



## DG

For the past 25 years we've had 25 CRP and 3 dollar wheat. We now have 11 dollar wheat. That is going to change everything. Land rents will double. Will the federal government pay 50 dollars for CRP? Probably not. Is Field and Stream suggesting that fee hunting is our new best friend?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

What I can't figure out is how in the he!! can they get by with selling a public trust? They admit to selling pheasants for $2 a piece.

The landowners in that area have been sucking on both ends of the teet for long enough. Getting a government check and selling public wildlife for their own profits. uke:

What's even worse is the out of staters that have bought up land out there and are doing the same thing. While Joe Blow from ND who contributes to the local economy year round gets shut out!


----------



## curty

DG said:


> *CAPITAL GAINS
> *Cannonball developed a business model designed to involve the community. Landowners who signed contracts with Cannonball would be paid a fee for each bird taken from their property. Hunters could not use their land without a local Cannonball guide, and had to stay in local farmhouses that doubled as B&B establisments.


I wonder how much tax revenue is being generated by this?


----------



## hunter9494

canon ball is nothing more than a pay to hunt preserve operation. anyone stupid enough to pay $400 a day to shoot 3 pheasants deserves to be ripped off. furthermore, i wouldn't take a free copy of F&S......it is 1/4 the size of the original publication with nothing but ads....

anyone connected with CB should be ashamed! :eyeroll:


----------



## Dick Monson

Odd that the majority share holder of Cannonball wasn't mentioned. :lol: But then he never is. Bad for business. Or the North Dakota Centurty Code which isn't enforced:

CHAPTER 20.1-04
BIRDS, REGULATIONS
20.1-04-01. General penalty. Any person violating a provision of this chapter for which a penalty is not specifically provided is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
20.1-04-02. Game birds protected. *No person may* hunt, take, kill, possess, convey, ship, or cause to be shipped, by common or private carrier, *sell, or barter any game bird or any part thereof taken in this state,* except as provided in this title.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's one way to get economic developement. Blind eye to the law. :wink: When CRP goes out of SW North Dakota I wonder which part of the state Cannonball will move to? Think about it.


----------



## g/o

Dick, You've been crying this tune for years, why not do something about it? Hell your in bed with the game and fish, and you've got an attorney doing your fair chase bs. Plus we have a number of ambulance chasers on this forum, why not go after them. Or could it be you don't have a leg to stand on!!!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Dick Monson

g/o, I don't think private money should have to be spent to enforce a public law. I believe elected politicians sworn to uphold the law of the state should do so, including the governor. We could agree that is what law enforcement is for. We could also agree that Cannonball harvests wild birds, espesially since their web site says so. We can also agree that Cannonball buys wild birds since Pat has confessed to it several times in print in North Dakota newspapers.

The crux of the issue is no enforcement of trafficing in publicly owned wildlife. Since money exchanges hands for wildlife. It's not a private commidity like you believe, it is public property.


----------



## g/o

Poor excuse Dick and you know it. If their was a chance of getting them you would go after them and you know it. You have plenty of politicians in your pocket and they would go after them. Problem is you haven't got a case :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

Dick, it's a shame isn't it. I don't think most sportsmen realize that when anyone is selling wildlife they are stealing from everyone else. Your right, we shouldn't have to pay to have laws enforced. When laws are not enforced there is only one explanation. Corruption in the system. I wonder what political figure is tying the hands of law enforcement?


----------



## Dick Monson

I'll call RAP again, then g/o can rest in peace.


----------



## g/o

> Your right, we shouldn't have to pay to have laws enforced.


You know something Plainsman I agree with you. Problem is that is the way it is. If I wanted to go after the Game and Fish I would have to hire my own attorney. Now I suggest that instead of calling RAP, I would call Bob Timian head of enforcement. Here is his number 701-328-6324

Good Luck :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## DG

Dick, I have read Century Code 20.1-04 forward and backward. There is nothing there prohibiting Cannonball. The law refers to dead wildlife or market hunting. Teddy Roosevelt saw the birth of market hunting. Huge armies of man camps Building railroads etc. There was no refridgeration gardens or stores. An army marches on its belly. The railroads etc. needed protein for its men. Times have changed. Today legally shoot 20 snow geese then go door to door and try to give them away or worse sell them. Can't be done. Todays housewife prefers chicken beef or pork. A friend of mine shot a mule and was at my place using the garden hose to rinse it out. My dad came along and was watching. My freind said it was his second deer of the season and asked my dad if he would like this deer. My dad replied no thanks I don't have a dog. Wildlife belongs to no one and everyone at the same time. Get a lisence, shoot a deer or pheasant and it then becomes property of the hunter when it hits the ground. Cannonball is not selling dead wildlife that they harvested. They are selling limited access to walk about on their property. It is their property and we must respect that. ND Century Code 47-01 Ownership Defined. The ownership of a thing shall mean the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusions of others.


----------



## hunter9494

then it is back to land ownership or private access......he who owns the land owns the game and will sell the harvest rights for a price. more cannon bums to come, folks.


----------



## Bob Kellam

ND century Code
Game Fish section
Ownership Of Wildlife

20.1-01-03. Ownership and control of wildlife is in the state - Damages - Schedule of monetary values - Civil penalty.

The ownership of and title to all wildlife within this state is in the state for the purpose of regulating the enjoyment, use, possession, disposition, and conservation thereof, and for maintaining action for damages as herein provided. Any person catching, killing, taking, trapping, or possessing any wildlife protected by law at any time or in any manner is deemed to have consented that the title thereto remains in this state for the purpose of regulating the taking, use, possession, and disposition thereof. The state, through the office of attorney general, may institute and maintain any action for damages against any person who unlawfully causes, or has caused within this state, the death, destruction, or injury of wildlife, except as may be authorized by law. The state has a property interest in all protected wildlife. This interest supports a civil action for damages for the unlawful destruction of wildlife by willful or grossly negligent act or omission. The director shall adopt by rule a schedule of monetary values of various species of wildlife, the values to represent the replacement costs of the wildlife and the value lost to the state due to the destruction or injury of the species, together with other material elements of value. In any action brought under this section, the schedule constitutes the measure of recovery for the wildlife killed or destroyed. Notwithstanding the director's schedule of monetary values, an individual who unlawfully takes a bighorn sheep, elk, or moose is subject to a civil penalty for the replacement value of the animal of five thousand dollars for a bighorn sheep, three thousand dollars for an elk, and two thousand dollars for a moose. For a male bighorn sheep, elk, or moose over two and one-half years of age, the civil penalty for the replacement value of the animal is an additional fifty percent of the penalty. The funds recovered


----------



## Plainsman

hunter9494 said:


> then it is back to land ownership or private access......he who owns the land owns the game and will sell the harvest rights for a price. more cannon bums to come, folks.





> No person may hunt, take, kill, possess, convey, ship, or cause to be shipped, by common or private carrier, sell, or barter any game bird or any part thereof taken in this state, except as provided in this title.


I think some people misunderstand the law. No one including landowners or outfitters, or John Doe is allowed to sell wildlife. I know one game farmer who captured a wild animal for his own herd, and got whacked for it. Another big no no.


----------



## Plainsman

> then it is back to land ownership or private access......he who owns the land owns the game and will sell the harvest rights for a price. more cannon bums to come, folks.





> No person may hunt, take, kill, possess, convey, ship, or cause to be shipped, by common or private carrier, sell, or barter any game bird or any part thereof taken in this state, except as provided in this title.


I think some people misunderstand the law. No one including landowners or outfitters, or John Doe is allowed to sell wildlife. I know one game farmer who captured a wild animal for his own flock, and got whacked for it. It was a migratory bird, and the feds showed up on his door step, after two weeks of surveillance. Another big no no. I can't wait until the IRS starts watching door steps to see how many of these guys are paying taxes on those $100 per gun lands.


----------



## angus 1

WOW another landowner bashing topic. Doesnt really surprise me I guess. While everyone is here complaining about access for the past who knows how long how many have come up with a solution to the problem ? A realistic solution. While you are here comlaining over who owns the animal one thing is clear , the landowner owns the land and can keep you from accessing it. Buy complaining about who own's what , government payments , NR's paying to hunt you are doing nothing to help the problem . Leasing and pay to hunt is the only way you and your kids will be able to hunt in the future all because you did nothing but complain while it happened. As a landowner I'm getting kind of tired of it. I post very little of my property but in the past few days the landowners have been bashed from every angle and posting is looking to be a good way to get even. I'm just ******.

Give me a few days and I'll like you all again I can't stay mad very long no matter how hard I try.


----------



## Plainsman

> Give me a few days and I'll like you all again I can't stay mad very long no matter how hard I try.


I know what you mean. Isn't it disgusting? 

angus, I don't see it as landowner bashing. As I mentioned nobody can sell wildlife, nobody, not teachers, not policemen, not game and fish biologists, not me, not you, not landowners or outfitters, nobody. Just because cannonball and some landowners do doesn't mean we are bashing landowners. It just happens that those breaking the law are outfitters and landowners. I can't speak for everyone, but I am simply bashing law breakers. It's sort of like the illegal alien thing. Some people can't grasp illegal.

I was a biologist. I'm not going to stick up for some biologist if he beats a woman. Why the heck do landowners stick together if one is a bad apple? That I think is something that is left over from the third grade. No one ratted out little Johnny if he put a tack on teachers chair. Were adults for crying out loud get over it. Every occupation has some bad apples. That's the real world.

Sticking up for people who break the law doesn't vindicate them, it taints your integrity. That's true in all cases, not just the one we are talking about.


----------



## g/o

Plainsman, Again no laws have been broken,except in your mind.



> I can't wait until the IRS starts watching door steps to see how many of these guys are paying taxes on those $100 per gun lands.


Some more generalization by your part, I like many other outfitters pay our taxes. I just finished sending in my sales tax. I also report my income,plus just sent the game and fish a pile of money for licenses. I know it's hard for you to believe but the majority of "licensed outfitters" are law abiding.


----------



## jdpete75

> by eight landowners who *recieved $2 per pheasant*.





> and killed about 5,500 birds, *each of which earned a landowner 423. *


Sounds like a direct sale of a wild bird to me. Why cant I sell the feathers from birds I have shot as fly tying material?

As far as making sure they are paying taxes, just ask for thier tax ID number because you are going to claim your hunting expenses on your taxes (entertainment), see what they say.


----------



## Ref

DG....In your original post, under Capital Gains, the article stated that the landowners would be paid for each bird that was taken off of their roperty by Cannonball clients.

Then later in another of your posts, you said that you have read the Century Code back and forth. The law is refering to dead wildlife.

Aren't the pheasants that the Cannonball clients take off of the property dead? Isn't this selling dead wildlife? Did I misread something here?


----------



## jdpete75

> Then later in another of your posts, you said that you have read the Century Code back and forth. The law is refering to dead wildlife.


We know that isnt true or every tom, dick, and plainsman (substituted plainsman for "harry" pretty clever of me, haha)  would be out trapping pheasants, deer, ducks, etc and selling them. Sound like a high margin business to me. If its true I am going to order the equipment online today and quit my 9 to 5.


----------



## Ref

JD...your answer didn't convince me yet. :wink:


----------



## jdpete75

How about this.

Part 30 from the small game proclamation.



> 30. Other Restrictions
> It is illegal to go afield with a firearm or archery equipment while intoxicated.
> 
> It is illegal to possess or use an electronic or recorded call while hunting migratory game birds.
> 
> Use of night vision equipment, electronically enhanced light gathering optics or thermal imaging equipment for locating or hunting game is prohibited.
> 
> Hunters may retrieve game that has fallen into a state wildlife refuge if they leave their firearms outside the boundary. They may not retrieve game that has fallen into a federal wildlife refuge unless there has been a retrieving zone designated by the refuge manager.
> 
> It is illegal to shoot harmless birds. All hawks, owls, falcons and eagles are protected by state and federal law.
> 
> It is illegal to use live birds as decoys.
> 
> No person may possess or *sell any live wildlife* or release said wildlife into the wild without a permit from the Department.


[/b]


----------



## hunter9494

i don't think anyone said the landowner actually "owned the game", but guess what? if you own the land and the access to it, then effectively, you own the game that is on the land!

how hard is it to understand that concept? and someone explain to me how, in reality, this is not a true statement.

pay to hunt will be the only game left in town, coming soon to a weed patch (if you can find one) near you!


----------



## g/o

> Why cant I sell the feathers from birds I have shot as fly tying material?


Oh but you can sell your pheasant feathers. Jd

Again these guys are doing nothing wrong they are not selling wildlife.


----------



## Plainsman

There is a way around this that does not challenge landowners. Make the law applicable to hunters. We need to simply make it illegal for hunters to pay to hunt. Much like putting the monkey on the John.

Now watch some idiot say I was making a comparison.


----------



## jdpete75

Hey g/o, are you sure about being able to sell the hackles and the tail feathers? If so could you point me to the law (or lack thereof) that permits it?

Hunter9494: I believe you are right. A couple years after it happens the city folks (the place with most of the votes) will lose touch with the family farmer and will be less inclined to vote for someone that will "bring home the bacon" for agriculture in favor of someone that is more interested in bringing manufacturing, industry, etc (things that create jobs for city people), soon thereafter family farms will fall by the wayside to Huge corporate farms that pay crappy wages but are streamlined to produce food as cheaply as possible. 500,000 acre farms with no families to support, only minimal employees most of whom make minimum wage really cuts costs. Small towns fold because corporations buy large quantities of stuff from thier own dealer networks. If the custom seeding digging or harvesting crew is only in the area a few times a year there is no need for a bar, cafe or even the coop elevator. Predictions could go on and on, maybe Im wrong, but I dont think so. It happened to a small degree when CRP came, less ground getting steel is less money going into the local economy for operating costs. Then again when cars got better, the 8 mile grocery trip to Roys became the weekly trip to County market in Jamestown, now its the Saturday and every rainy day trip to buy everything but essentials in Fargo. Even cities like Valley City will feel the sting of the surrounding communities out-migration to cities like Fargo or out of state for decent wages.

In closing, I agree with you because it is part of a bigger trend, and the days of the family farm and small town are also over.


----------



## Dick Monson

It is a matter of "form" versus "substance", the same criteria used by IRS to decide tax deductions.

Form:
Cannonball claims the per bird payment is the access fee. Yet there is no payment if birds are not shot. How is it an access fee if no payment is made?

Substance:
However there is a per wild bird payment made to the farmer for each one killed. And only for the kill. How is this not selling wild birds if it is the only payment made?


----------



## Plainsman

Dick, every reasonable person knows that when Cannonball pays $2 per bird it is not an access fee, but payment for a bird. Some people just don't want to admit it, and others would argue the sun is black if you said it was yellow. Anyone come to mind?


----------



## Dick Monson

:wink: The last published fee I saw was $17 per bird and I believe that has gone up to $20 per bird. Possibly there was zero left out of the article.


----------



## Turner

If Cannonball is in fact breaking the law, state or federal and this has been reported to our state Game and Fish Officials and nothing has been done why hasn't any body brought this to the attention of Federal Officials, or has it? I am sure they would be very interested in this and why our state Game and Fish department has not acted on this.


----------



## Plainsman

Federal officials will not get involved with nonmigratory wildlife. Nonmigratory is state jurisdiction.

With cash on the doorstep I think the IRS should get involved. I will bet you dollars to dimes these people are not paying half the taxes they owe. How will they prove it if they don't set up surveillance on a few of these tax evaders. I like lower taxes, but I don't cheat.


----------



## DG

Ref, Your question to me was, Aren't the pheasants that Cannonball clients take off the property dead? Isn'nt this selling dead wildlife?

Answer

A man is out hunting. A pheasant flies up. Who does it belong to? The public. He misses and it sails across the road, it still belonds to the public. But if he connects, in the blink of an eye, it is no longer a public resource, it belongs to him. Provided he has a lisence.

Whether he is standing in the middle of a fee hunting preserve or on private land that the federal government has rented in the form of plots or coverlocks it matters not.

The end result is still the same.


----------



## DG

Bob Kellam, Thank you for posting ND Century Code Game and Fish Section 20.1-01-03. Lets take a look.



> Line 1 The ownership of and title to all wildife within this state is in the state for the purpose of regulating the enjoyment, use,disposition, and conservation thereof, and for maintaining action for damagesas herein provided.


Line one is obvious. Wildlife belongs to the state and they manage it as public trust.



> Line 2 Any person catching, killing, trapping or possessing any wildlife protected by law at anytime or in any manner is demmed to have consented that the title thereto remains in the state for the purpose of regulating the taking, use, possession, and disposition thereof.


Examineing Line 2 I think we can agree no one at cannonball is catching live, killing without a license, taking live, trapping live or possessing birds.



> Line 3 The state, through the office of the attorney general, may institute or maintain any actions for damages against any person who unlawfully causes, or has caused within the state, the death, destruction, or injury of wildlife, except as authorised by law.


On line 3 I believe these words, except as authorised by law, to mean licensed. After a license has been obtained can a man shoot a pheasant on his land, his neigbors with permission, plots or public land? Yes.

Can he give his neigbor one hundred dollars in exchange for access? Can he help his neighbor work cattle, give him a gift certifcate, or a gratuity in exchange for access? That could be construed as barter.

If the answer is no then please show me were it says that.


----------



## hunter9494

DG-

your first quote is totally erroneous and is nothing but inconsequential verbiage at best.

the game that resides on private land, by which only paid access will allow the opportunity for harvest IS NOT game available for the public.

cannon ball is practicing the art of selling access to wild game, then rewarding the landowner by paying him for each wild game bird taken by a hunter who can only gain access to these birds by paying a fee to cannon ball. they are in the business of selling access to wild game, residing on private ground, period.

preserve hunting is one thing, as pen raised and purchased birds, by cannon ball, would fairly represent a resource that does no exist in the wild for public pursuit. i have no problem with that.

the locking up/leasing/contracting of the land and restricting access to those who only pay large sums of money for the access to shoot game that belongs to the public (what a joke) should be illegal. it goes against the grain and the very intent of the suggestion that the game belongs to the public, which is no longer the case, at all!


----------



## Plainsman

Hunter9494, that of which you speak is why our founding fathers made wildlife the property of all. Those who came from Europe were distressed over the wildlife being horded by the aristocracy. Unfortunately our founding father unintentionally left a loophole called access which they surely would have corrected if ever they could have imagined a landowner selling access. I am sure it was overlooked because those kind people could not perceive the greed we see today, but God bless them they tried.


----------



## hunter9494

plainsman-

agree, i don't think they ever thought things would deteriorate this badly.


----------



## Savage260

> There is a way around this that does not challenge landowners. Make the law applicable to hunters. We need to simply make it illegal for hunters to pay to hunt.


Plainsman, that is the best thing I have ever read on this site!!!! I don't make enough money to pay $100-$400 per day plus a "per bird" fee, nor do I make enough to lease hunting rights. I will never pay a dollar to hunt private land. I would push for a law making pay hunting illegal as hard as I possibly could.


----------



## Skip OK

May I ask a coupe of questions abouot this? As a non-resident, and as someone whose experience with private land access is probably 180 degrees out of phase with what appears to be the norm in North Dakotans' this story and the repsonse to to don't seem to add up to me.

first let me say that I assume the Magazine story isn't lying. If they misrepresent the facts then the whole thing may make more sense. That said...

Is the situation that, prior to the Cannonball organization being formed, the landowners in the area were fed up with wide open hunter access? If so what was to prevent them from simply saying NO (in the form of posting land or what ever the state requires) to hunters?

If THAT is accurate, and most/all of the land was in danger of being put off-limits to all hunters, then how did Cannonball do ANYTHING to hurt the freelancer?

It seems to me that what Cannonbal did was to facilitate access for SOME hunters but certainly NOT at the expense of all.

This is not the ideal case, I agree, but it certainly beats having the entire acreage posted. If nothing else the people that pay to hunt (however it ends up being characterized) will be THERE, rather than competing with other hunters on Public and/or unposted lands

From the way I read the article, it sounded like we have our own to blame for this situation; if hunters had not abused their priveledge, the farmer woould not have gotten mad.

Am I wrong with this?


----------



## KEN W

That story is BS.....it was always pretty much posted land.You had to ask permission.Now you still have to get permission,but you also have to pay big time.

For instance now when you drive into a yard the farmer will tell you he has his land with Cannonball and you should talk to them.....before he just said yes or no.He could charge you if he wanted to.

Cannonball is basically doing the same thing as a real estate agent does.....they are the middle man.All hunting on that farmer's land goes through them.So not only are you paying the farmer,but also Cannonball.

As far as economic developement goes....Cannonball hasn't done a whole lot for Regent.They provide everything.You don't even need to go into town.When free lancers were there....they put money into Regent....motels,gas stations,resturants etc.....now that all goes to Cannonball.

What will be interesting is .....what happens if the pheasant population gets wiped out?What happens when all those farmers can't or won't put their land into CRP?


----------



## Savage260

The main key here is the almighty dollar. If that many hunters were really so terrible, all the land owner would have to say is "No". That is a complete cop out. This isn't about making ends meet, it is about making money end of story. No farmer or land owner is dependent on getting $$$ for hunting access to live. They found a way to exploit public property(the animals) to make personal gains. Since they own the land there is really not much to be done about it. I would rather give up my guns than pay some one to hunt an animal that doesn't belong to them.


----------



## Dick Monson

Ken is right on all counts. Spent many years there pre-Cannonball. Cannonball actively solicited landowners who didn't care who hunted and didn't post anything. They had to corner the access market. Once they got over the curve on acres, the few remaining acres were swamped with hunters that were squeezed out from the leases. A major advertising blitz by ND Tourism fueled the rush. And there were state grants of tax payer money to set up these type of operations. Our tax dollars at work.

Cannoball is protrayed in the article as local boys. Not so. It is a private corp. that is not required to list shareholders with the Sec. of States Office and there is and has been a lot more than local money behind it.

I believe the guide that runs each days hunt tallies the birds taken and the landowner where the birds were killed is then paid on a per bird basis.

So my question has always been if you can't sell-buy wild pheasants by law, why is it allowed?

CHAPTER 20.1-04 BIRDS, REGULATIONS

20.1-04-02. Game birds protected. No person may hunt, take, kill, possess, convey, ship, or cause to be shipped, by common or private carrier, *sell, or barter any game bird or any part thereof taken in this state, *except as provided in this title.


----------



## cwoparson

> before he just said yes or no._He could charge you if he wanted to_.


Then nothing really changed did it!


----------



## Ref

Yes, it has changed. Now the answer is always "no" because Cannonball has locked up the land.


----------



## hunter9494

i suspect cannonball may fall on their ***, with the price of corn and wheat constantly moving up, a lot of the land sitting in CRP (even some leased by CB) will eventually fall back into production again, leaving this pay-to-hunt business with a shrinking business model.

eventually the pay to hunt operations will have to supplement the bird population with early release hens (in the spring) or adult roosters (in the fall) to keep their clients happy. their revenues will likely fall or their labor and stocking fees will significantly rise. either way, they could shrivel up and die as far as i am concerned.


----------



## 4590

I suspect Cannonball and every landowner involved would say they are not selling wildlife, only access. Landowners are paid a base per acre fee for enrollment in the company program. The per bird fee is an incentive paid to the landowner to improve his land to hold more birds.

I suspect every court in the state would agree with that arguement, and I tend to agree. The whole public trust on private property question has been hashed to death on this site. Contrary to what has been suggested, I don't see any violation of NDCC.


----------



## Centerfire

The negatives of Pay Hunting have always outweighed the positive. 
The economic argument about bringing money in to the local economy always makes me sick. Wild life does not owe anyone a living.

Then again maybe I'm soured by the fact that some day I won't get to go afield because my pocket book isn't large enough to keep up with the rich boys.


----------



## water_swater

Making paying to hunt illegal would be the best solution, however, I see it as unrealistic. There is really only one way to regulate an industry, taxes. A farmers land is his land and he can choose what he wants to do with it, but wildlife is public property, why should someone using public property not get taxed. For every guided deer killed or bird, there should be a replacement tax for anyone generating income from that public property, for both landowner and guide, anyone making money? Imagine the dollars that would generated, we could use them to enhance habitat and expand plots ground.


----------



## Burly1

Access to areas where we are able to hunt for "free" is becoming more elusive. That is a given. 
For the average family farmer in ND to make a good living is, and has been nearly impossible, for many years. One need only look at the long list of forclosures on the books in recent history to see that this is true.
The current high commodity prices have eased this problem, for the present. The increasing costs of fuel and equipment may, in fact, leave things static, in many cases.
Economics, pure and simple, drive the actions of the family farmer. Few, if any, are able to leave land fallow, plant shelter belts and nesting cover or develop springs for wildlife. Even if they have a love for native wildlife (most do, of course) they can simply not afford to do so.
This is where the Cannonball Company has found its niche. Through their programs, they offer the landowners monetary incentives to manage their farms to benefit wildlife. I will certainly grant that the CRP programs have contributed greatly as well. With many of those acres going away, we will see if, in fact, the farmers have been truly, "farming for wildlife".
I will counter the prediction that Cannonball will fall on it's ***, when CRP acres are tilled. I predict that as long as there are hunters with disposable income, that like to travel and hunt pheasants, Cannonball will thrive. Cannonball has been subject to intense scrutiny of their operation. Undercover operations have proven, time and again, that Cannonball, and it's guides run their operation within the law at all times. Future audits may prove otherwise, but for the time being, they are as clean as a whistle.
The law allows that wildlife on private property is, in fact, under control of the landowner upon whose property said wildlife resides. As long as the landowners are acting within the law, they can allow access to whomever they desire.
The only solution open to those who disagree with Cannonball and it's shareholders, is to either change the laws, or cause their interpetation, to show that the outfitter organization is in violation. 
Saying that something is wrong is easy. Proving such wrongdoing is something else entirely. I suggest that those with such strong opinions about a single organization take positive action. Prove that your opinions are more than simple lip service. Right now, it's just *****ing.
Morality isn't even a consideration here. Morals have nothing at all to do with modern economics. If it did, gas would be seventy-five cents a gallon and prime beefsteak would be a dollar twenty-nine a pound. 
Oh yeah, I long for the good old days too. But fuel injection replaced carbeuration and cellphones have caused pay phones to become nothing more than a memory. Men and women who would have been dead thirty years ago, are living still, because of heart stents and chemotherapy. 
Maybe, just maybe, there will still be wildlife available to our children and grandchildren, because a farmer could afford to leave the grass grow in that little creek bottom that crosses the back forty. Maybe the Government will set aside enough little parcels for us to go out and shoot a deer, or a bird, and all we'll have to pay is taxes! Just Maybe. And that would be a good thing.
Burl


----------



## pheasantslayer

I happen to agree with burly on this one, as long as there are people with disposable income there will be guiding services. CRP losses might have a small effect, but a lot of the hunting over there takes place on the cannonball river, or perhaps a grass waterway going through a field. It doesn't take much to get a limit out of a simple fenceline. It is hard to find a place around there to hunt, but it IS possible. I know that there will be some CRP losses around the area, but I ask the question do you know how much of the CRP around that area is controlled by people who are not farmers or ranchers. I do know of quite a bit of it that is controlled by older gentlemen who do not need addition income, but only have it for their love of hunting. Do you think they will rent it out to a farmer to break it up when they don't really need the money and only bought it for hunting in the firstplace. The only way that I can see this land getting ripped up is if we have a blizzard/icestorm during hatching that wipes out the entire population not only a few.


----------



## hunter9494

you have got to be kidding, right? $11+ bushel wheat, $5.50 + bushel corn and these old guys are gonna sit on their hands and take $20 for every bird Cannonball sez was shot on their ground?

unless these old guys love hunting more than making an extra $50,000 -
$100,000 or more each year, i suggest they will be putting their ground back into production and soon.

and the reason you can find a few birds along any fence row is simply because they have been able to hatch/survive and thrive in thousands of acres of CRP, which if you have read the stats, is going to be reduced by 95% or more over the next 3-4 years.

as someone said here before, before CRP there were a lot less birds around Mott and that soon is going to be the case once again, only it won't just be the Mott area that will experience drastic declines in the bird population.

reality check, boys. it will soon be here and then, for the most part, put and take hunting preserves will be the only way to enjoy hunting as you know it now.


----------



## pheasantslayer

Yes, wheat is at a good price right now. Corn is at a very good price. The next question how long will these prices last before the supply is built up and the prices go down again. I will also go as far to say that the land around the cannonball is not the greatest for corn. Most years you will not break even on it.

Quote
"unless these old guys love hunting more than making an extra $50,000 - 
$100,000 or more each year, i suggest they will be putting their ground back into production and soon. "

Yes believe it or not some people do not care about money as much as the experiences they can have with family, friends, grandkids etc. I would also like to point out that the only way they could make the money you are talking about is to rip up about 1,000 to 2000 acres of CRP. Most just own a quarter of 160 acres. Yes you lose some money but not that much.

Now if I can ask you a few friendly questions.
Have you been hunting in southwest north dakota before?
Do you think CRP is as detrimental to the pheasants as the weather has been the last four or five years in the sw part of the state?

If you think the doom and gloom of hunting birds will be in the hands of game preserves in the future then why don't you keep that to yourself? There are alot of people on this site who get off their butts and find contacts, find good public land on maps to hunt, come later in the season when permission is better. Here is my reality check to you, North Dakota is the best state to hunt in and it will always be. Our population has embraced the hunting culture and always will. This may not be true in other states, but here it is. Opportunities are abound, you just have to go out and grab them. Perhaps if you are down in this part during the season, I can show you a few birds and we can talk about hunting stories over a few beers. :beer:


----------



## Burly1

While commodity prices are at their highest level, so too is the equipment and fuel required to not only plow and disc under small plots of CRP, but that needed to plant, fertilize, spray and harvest as well. 
The reality check is yours sir.
Those who continually preach and rant about gloom and doom, are likely to harvest "their own" realities. 
As hard as it might be, finding and embracing what might be good about any situation is a lot better for your psyche in the long run. 
Pheasantslayer makes a great point about those relationships we've cultivated over the years being more important than ever. Turn your energies to that sir. You'll certainly gain more than you will with that depressingly negative attitude.
Burl


----------



## hunter9494

i would be most happy to do that and i have cultivated some relationships for hunting, but the fact remains, so much ground will not continue to be eligible for CRP payments. when you talk about taking 95% of it coming out, what do you think the average guy is going to do when the payments stop?

that's the same guy who is now paying $3 for gas and his groceries and general cost of living have gone up as well. he is going to rent the ground out and it will be farmed. with the misguided efforts of government, there is so much ground dedicated to corn now, that wheat production has fallen off and with the drought in some foreign countries, commodity prices have sky rocketed.

with world demand likely to grow, it is doubtful we will every see the grain glut some fear. the reality is guys, stop with the denial, the whole thing is going to change drastically. what i am suggesting is not doom and gloom, but what the landscape will eventually look like. sure there will be a few exceptions, but i can assure, mild winter or bad winter, the birds have got to have survival AND nesting cover. the significant reduction is inevitable.


----------



## pheasantslayer

If one thing is for sure, history repeats itself. Prices for grain commodities will go down as they have before. Prices will go up as well as we are seeing that now. I can go into farm economics forever and still need more time to explain it.

Getting back to the facts though, if you are farming and own the crp and the contract expires then yes, you probably will rip it up. However, can you tell me who owns quite a bit of the crp land in Hettinger county. You can look it up and most of it is to some out of stater who bought up this "cheap land" in ND to hunt on. Do you think they really care about money. This is an investment to pass on to kids, or else a tax write off, or a 1031 exchange, the list goes on and on.

A lot of pheasants nest in CRP and use if for cover. I will absolutely agree with you this assumption. It has been a wonderful benefit to have and has improved hunting. A pheasant can find other nesting alternatives though. All they need is a fencerow, a tree belt, a lot of land out there has river and waterway cover. Another thing you might realize is that Ducks Unlimited has money incentives to put in winter wheat for duck nesting. Hmm, lots of winter wheat is getting planted around that area. Put two and two together and that is another excellent place for nesting cover. As for survival cover, go look into a few of the hay yards and homesteads around the area. When the weather gets tough and the CRP fields fill in with snow go see where the birds go, its into the farmsteads.

I know one thing we have in common is seeing that there are going to be challenges that lay ahead. I can see your concern for a problem that will happen with CRP and it will happen, but I don't think the world is going to end for all wildlife when it happens. There will always be opportunities, you just have to go out and find them.


----------



## redlabel

KEN W said:


> That story is BS.....it was always pretty much posted land.You had to ask permission.Now you still have to get permission,but you also have to pay big time.


This statement is pretty much BS.

I lived in Dickinson from 1979 til 1987 and there was very little land posted. Pheasant hunting was very good in selected locations and you could hunt to your hearts content on unposted land. We hunted from Scranton to Alexander and from Glen Ullin west. About the only thing posted was areas of very good pheasant hunting. Most of this was posted for the very reason, landowners didn't want to be overrun by hunters.

I would assume that the article is accurate, just told from a point view that most on this site don't agree on. Just because you don't like something, or someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right. It just means there are two sides to the story.


----------



## d2jlking

Hello. As a non-resident I was wondering if any opinions have changed since this topic started? I have hunted Regent, ND twice in the past 10 years.....once with a independent local guide, and once with Cannonball Company. I am going back again this fall, taking my kids. Anyway, it seems to me that the locals make lots of money off the hunters coming to town. I can't imagine those Regent shops are that full any other time of year. The homeowners also rent their space for lodging.

Surely, not all of the results of an operation like this are good. They can't all be bad either. I can tell you this, those two Regent area hunts I have been on have been two of my best hunts ever. The scenery, wildlife, number of birds and kind local people are unmatched in my opinion.

As for the legality of it all, I admit my ignorance. I can tell you folks this......there are not many places left in this country where you can walk up to a farmhouse and get permission to hunt birds or deer or turkeys. Land that isn't leased is usually already spoken for by family members or friends. Also, landowners have to worry about liability issues in our society that is rampant with lawsuits. It would be great it everyone could just drive to some open country and go hunting. I myself have harvested ducks on PLOTS land in ND. Also, great hunting.

However, I completely side with the landowners on this. It is too hard to make a living in this world to let the self-righteous complaints of non-landowners interfere. Our government already encroaches on our private property rights enough, lets not, as hunters, encourage them to get involved any more. I make enough money to buy the occasional hunt on quality ground. That wasn't always the case. But that doesn't make me a bad guy.


----------



## d2jlking

hunter9494 said:


> canon ball is nothing more than a pay to hunt preserve operation. anyone stupid enough to pay $400 a day to shoot 3 pheasants deserves to be ripped off.


Wow! That seems harsh. First of all, the birds are wild, so how is it a preserve?? It's not put and take hunting. As for the rest of your comment, having been and continuing to be "stupid", one man's ripoff is another's bargain. I won't try and justify why I think a pheasant hunt is worth $300/day if you don't waste your time telling me how to spend my money.


----------



## jhegg

by d2jlking



> Wow! That seems harsh. First of all, the birds are wild, so how is it a preserve?? It's not put and take hunting. As for the rest of your comment, having been and continuing to be "stupid", one man's ripoff is another's bargain. I won't try and justify why I think a pheasant hunt is worth $300/day if you don't waste your time telling me how to spend my money.


Don't worry about it D2. Nobody has ever had any success telling a stupid person how to spend their money.

Jim


----------



## d2jlking

Jim- That's funny! Ironically, according to 9494 Cannonball and the regent landowners have been pretty successful at it. Oh well, it's the curse of our society. There is always someone around who is willing to tell you that you are wrong, stupid or unfair to them. Property rights don't matter, and individual freedom is sacrificed for people who can make enough noise about the prosperity of others. -----Scott


----------



## jhegg

Scott,



> Property rights don't matter, and individual freedom is sacrificed for people who can make enough noise about the prosperity of others. -----Scott


Hmmm.....What property rights are we talking about here? The "right" of a landowner or an organization to sell wildlife - which, incidentally, is against ND state law.



> individual freedom is sacrificed for people who can make enough noise about the prosperity of others.


 Just what and whose individual freedoms are being sacrificed?

Enlighten me.

Jim


----------



## d2jlking

Ok. I can see I made a mistake asking about this issue in the first place. It just caught my attention because I have hunted Cannonball before, and I am going again this fall. So much anger. Anyway, I'll respond to your questions, then I'm out. Sorry to have ruffled your feathers.?.?

Property rights- The landowners should be allowed to charge for access to their land. In my opinion it is not selling birds, but rather the right to hunt. Condemning them for the way they are compensated is just using semantics to confuse the point. They could easily be paid by Cannonball on a per hunt basis vs. per bird harvested. Either way, it is their land they are making money off of. They aren't selling pheasants, they are selling the opportunity to hunt them on quality ground and in good numbers.

Individual freedoms- How about the freedoms of the landowners to earn a living. What about the freedom of a hunter to choose what the market makes available? Why would someone want to outlaw an activity that doesn't affect them. It always starts like this......a few people complain in the right ears, and then petitions come out, politicians get involved, and laws get changed. Sounds like democracy, right? What gets lost is the original truth of the matter. A bunch of farmers decided to try and save their community and earn a better living. How does that hurt the public? It doesn't. Cannonball is open to the public, equal access for anyone who has the desire and money to hunt there. I guess I just don't understand why this particular leasing of hunting land is any different from deer leases, duck leases, etc.....across the nation.


----------



## TK33

> Cannonball is open to the public, equal access for anyone who has the desire and money to hunt there


What? Equal access as long as you have the money is not equal access. That is a complete contradiction.


> Either way, it is their land they are making money off of. They aren't selling pheasants, they are selling the opportunity to hunt them on quality ground and in good numbers.


Incorrect. If there were no pheasants on the land no one would pay to hunt the land. Undress it or sugar coat it all you want it is the pheasants that draw the money. Therefore they are in fact selling the pheasants.


> I guess I just don't understand why this particular leasing of hunting land is any different from deer leases, duck leases, etc.....across the nation.


Most people in ND, I would say a very large percentage do not want to see ND turn into the rest of the nation.


----------



## d2jlking

Ok. last post.

You have to have a license to hunt in ND, right? (with a few exceptions). The license costs money, right? Everyone has the same opportunity or access to hunting in ND. Youth pay less, NR pay more, whatever.....the access is equal, the cost is not. Really? Your argument is that because it costs money then it's not equal access? Even if the cost is the same to you or I? Everything in this country costs money in one way or another. I didn't hear that Cannonball was discriminating against anyone to keep them from hunting? I read no complaint that someone was being denied access to hunt with Cannonball. There is no contradiction.

Secondly, having land with pheasants doesn't guarantee a hunter will get his limit, yet the cost to the hunter does not change regardless of whether he kills zero or a full limit of birds. Therefore, they are clearly selling a hunt. NOT BIRDS. You buy birds at a pet store, or a game preserve, not at Cannonball.

Finally, I can certainly understand your desire (and anyone else in ND) to keep your state from becoming like the rest of the country. However, it takes about 5 minutes on the internet to find out that even your great state (and I mean that sincerely) sells hunting leases, guided hunts, guided fishing trips, etc......So again, I don't see that Cannonball is doing anything unusual.


----------



## jhegg

Scott,

You stated:



> The landowners should be allowed to charge for access to their land. In my opinion it is not selling birds, but rather the right to hunt.


4590 posted this:


> The per bird fee is an incentive paid to the landowner to improve his land to hold more birds.


So there is a "per bird fee" paid, but we are not selling wildlife here? I guess we could say that a pimp isn't selling sex, he is just selling access. Unfortunately, there is no end to the spin that the commercial users of wildlife are willing to use to justify their activities.

ps: gandergrinder - how are you doing?


----------



## d2jlking

Jim-

I'm trying to stop, but you keep making me laugh. Seriously, that was funny.

Anyway, a pimp guarantees sex, and therefore he sells sex. If he were selling access, he would stand outside a bar with women in it and charge you to go in. He'd be a bouncer, not a pimp.

I think a preserve is selling pheasants. You go there, you tell them how many birds to put out, and pay them for the birds. Your cost to hunt these lands doesn't change based on the number of pheasants you kill. I think maybe they should change the way they pay the landowners. Would that solve the problem? Just have Cannonball pay the landowner a flat rate...if so.....would that change opinions about the company and their endeavors?

Is the problem that the grounds are no longer unposted, and require permission to hunt? Is the problem that the landowners are making an extra buck? Or is the problem the way they are compensated?


----------



## Eric Hustad

Tough issue. With my wife being from Mott I have seen both sides and see how fee hunting does help some landowners during tough times like the drought a few years ago etc. Also saying that hunters coming and staying at a B&B is helping the local community is also bs. By staying at a farm and hunting very little is brought into the town and if you dont agree then talk to my father-in-law who lives there. I don't think we can tell a person who owns land what to do with it(legally) so I see a solution to be to increase the money for plots etc. Charge more for a license and give landowners an incentive to keep their land open to the public. More public land would put pressure on the some of the fee hunting as why would people pay when they can go and hunt for free. We would all have to sacrifice by paying more for a license but just think how much money would be saved on gas etc if you didnt have to drive all over to find open land? Stop CRP and use the money for conservation but with the plots element being open to the public like CRP should have been. Problem solved and access preserved for everyone regardless of income.


----------



## barebackjack

d2jlking said:


> I can tell you folks this......there are not many places left in this country where you can walk up to a farmhouse and get permission to hunt birds or deer or turkeys.


And that includes the Regent area!


----------



## barebackjack

d2jlking said:


> They aren't selling pheasants, they are selling the opportunity to hunt them on quality ground and in good numbers.


Thats like saying a titty bar is selling only the opportunity to view abundant and quality womens breasts, not the actual viewing of the breasts.

Sping it however you want. You could poll 100 people, the majority would say they are selling the bird.


----------



## d2jlking

Mr. Hustad- Thanks for the clear and reasonable post. That is the kind of discussion I was looking for on this topic. It certainly sounds like a feasible plan to increase public lands, and thereby affect the market. Cannonball Company would have to adjust to the change in supply and demand. To me, that is exactly how this whole thing should work. A company like Cannonball would not prosper if the re was ample land open to the public. Also, the managed lands that Cannonball offers have amazing bird populations. The hunting is good in other areas as well, but it takes management to produce the populations Regent has. People will still pay to hunt if the hunting is significantly better than on public land.

Mr. Bareback- Really? Breasts? Strip Clubs?, I'll add that to the earlier reference to pimps and selling sex.......not sure what any of those things have to do with upland hunting or pheasants or farmers, or private versus public resources. Anyway, I'm willing to bet the results of that poll you want to take would depend greatly on who participated in the poll. You think 100 landowners would agree with you? How about 100 ND Residents who have hunted on unposted lands their whole life? Non-Residents who are traveling great distances to hunt with Cannonball? I suspect that until the economics of hunting change as a whole, that these situations will exist. Some will choose to take advantage of what is available, and some won't. I hope everyone here has an excellent fall season.

Scott


----------



## barebackjack

Right off the Cannonball Company website:......(bold added by me)

Standard Package

- Private (your group only) full day hunt on any one of our 30+ parcels of prime upland game habitat
-* Daily limit of our legendary wild pheasants*
- Licensed, certified, and experienced professional guide
- Trained hunting dog when needed. Client dogs are always welcome
- Lodging at any one of our great local establishments

Deluxe Package

- Private (your group only) full day hunt on any one of our 30+ parcels of prime upland game habitat.
- *Daily limit of our legendary wild pheasants*
- Licensed, certified, and experienced professional guide
- Trained hunting dog when needed. Client dogs are always welcome.
- Lodging at any one of our great local establishments
- Breakfast, box lunch and dinner
- Bird cleaning and freezing
- All ammunition

Looks like the birds are part of the package. Thus, selling the birds.


----------



## d2jlking

wow...you are tenacious. Daily limit, yep, if you can find em, shoot em and retrieve em. What do you think happens if you don't get a limit? You think maybe they hit a few birds with a hammer and give you the bird? You can use all the quotes and semantics you want to twist it up, but the bottom line is you are paying for a hunt package. Somehow, I think you know that, obviously, this is not about paying for wildlife. What really bothers you about the setup there?


----------



## zogman

Related question:

Say I got all the money in the world and I am a pi$$ poor shot. All week long I never hit a bird.
Do I still go home with my limit or do I go home empty???


----------



## d2jlking

You go home empty.


----------



## Burly1

Yep. You will go home empty. The guides will bust their humps to get you the opportunities for shooting, but you still have to hit 'em. There's no party hunting allowed, and the guides are very careful about this aspect of the hunt.
I would like to second Eric's sentiments on increasing public lands. I hunt the Regent area once a year, because I can. The balance of my hunting at home is done primarily on public land, and I'd love to see more of it. If it took an addendum to my hunting license to get more good PLOTS, i'll gladly write the check.
Truth.
Burl


----------



## barebackjack

d2jlking said:


> What really bothers you about the setup there?


Are you really that oblivious, naive, and ignorant?

The whoring out of a public resource for private gain.
Another brick in the wall towards the European (or Texas) system of hunting where only the elite rich can "pay to play".


----------



## d2jlking

Actually, no...I'm not. At least there I would say you have a legitimate complaint. Why dance around the issue? Hell, I agree with that part of it. It really is too bad that the average guy is getting priced out of hunting. In my opinion it is better to face the issue head on. Why tiptoe around it saying they are selling birds?

The whole issue of hunting becoming a rich man's game is a real one. The only way to fix that is to address it openly, and try to get groups of like-minded folks to go into action. It might take legislation, it might just take more awareness on the part of the hunting public, it might never change. The bottom line is.......*****ing, complaining and calling people names is not going to fix anything. In fact, it just divides us further.

-Scott


----------



## TK33

> However, it takes about 5 minutes on the internet to find out that even your great state (and I mean that sincerely) sells hunting leases, guided hunts, guided fishing trips, etc......So again, I don't see that Cannonball is doing anything unusual.


The first part is sad but true, ND will probably eventually be just like everywhere else.

What the cannonball company does or at least did that is incredibly unusual is attempt several times to screw your average freelance hunter. A person by the name of Aaron Krauter, a cannonball guide and former member of the ND legislature is on record as saying that there should be no public land west of the missouri river. He was a part of a group of legislators that some feel held ND Game and Fish funds hostage in order to try to get looser regs on NR hunters. He is a real peach, this is where your money goes. This is why Cannonball gets the reaction that it does. I have worked out in that area a few times and I beg to differ with the whole notion that people love Cannonball, I sat in the New England bar one night and I quickly found out that the ones who love cannonball have a vested interest in Cannonball. The locals who don't have an interest in cannonball feel the same way about them as everyone else.

Pretty hard to free up more public land when you have people like krauter representing the commercial hunting industry and doing everything they can to stop more public land. Personally I am more in favor of PLOTS anyways but it is still BS that krauter, kerzman, dotzenrod, and froelich pull that stuff.


----------



## KurtR

I wonder how much wildlife there would be if it was not for the greedy people who have the land that feed and shelter the birds the rest of the year it is not hunting season. I would care to guess they have alot more time and money invested then the people who ***** that they dont leave the land open for everyone to run all over. I find it funny as ND has hardly any NR compared to SD for pheasants and i have no problem hunting and shooting lots of birds here on public land. The economic impact on the mobridge area is huge the chamber of commerce puts out stats every year and other than the fourth of july pheasant season makes a buissness year.


----------



## jhegg

by zogman:


> Say I got all the money in the world and I am a pi$$ poor shot. All week long I never hit a bird.
> Do I still go home with my limit or do I go home empty???


by Scott:


> You go home empty.


by Burly1:


> Yep. You will go home empty. The guides will bust their humps to get you the opportunities for shooting, but you still have to hit 'em. There's no party hunting allowed, and the guides are very careful about this aspect of the hunt.


I really hope you guys are saying that you will go home empty just for the sake of an argument. If you really believe zogman will go home empty, you are a prime candidate to buy some bridges or "prime" real estate in Florida.

Jim


----------



## Burly1

Believe it or not Jim. Those guys have been the subject of undercover audits many times, and have never been pinched, or even warned. I am personally acquainted with a few of their guides, and those clients that really can't shoot, or walk enough to get their birds are among their greatest frustrations. But realistically, if the guide isn't standing with the hunters, whose to say who really shot the bird. I wasn't born yesterday, I just naturally look really young :rollin: 
Best,
Burl


----------



## gst

Eric Hustad said:


> I don't think we can tell a person who owns land what to do with it(legally) so I see a solution to be to increase the money for plots etc. Charge more for a license and give landowners an incentive to keep their land open to the public.quote]
> 
> For some reason I don"t think jhegg, Dick, roger kaseman and a few others on here agree with your first statement here! :wink: Actually it seems to be a cornerstone of a petition they are circulating!
> 
> I've asked the G&F a couple of different times why they don't implement a block management program like Mt. where by you sign in to hunt private lands and the landowner receives compensation for every hunter. They never have liked the program. Don't really know why.


----------



## jhegg

by Eric Hustad:


> I don't think we can tell a person who owns land what to do with it(legally) so I see a solution to be to increase the money for plots etc. Charge more for a license and give landowners an incentive to keep their land open to the public


by gst:


> For some reason I don"t think jhegg, Dick, roger kaseman and a few others on here agree with your first statement here! :wink: Actually it seems to be a cornerstone of a petition they are circulating!


Wow Gabe,

You have included me in some pretty lofty company. Thanks!

Actually, I think Eric's idea of giving a landowner an incentive to keep their land open to the public is an excellent idea. Maybe then we could get back to where hunters cultivate personal relationships with landowners and their families. And then perhaps the hunters could go out and hunt the birds on their own rather than having to be spoon fed hunting opportunities by cannonball and their like. What do you think of that?

Jim


----------



## jhegg

Burly 1,
A wink and a nod is all it takes. 
Jim


----------



## TK33

> I would care to guess they have alot more time and money invested then the people who b#tch that they dont leave the land open for everyone to run all over. I find it funny as ND has hardly any NR compared to SD for pheasants and i have no problem hunting and shooting lots of birds here on public land.


I still say that it is an apples to oranges comparison Kurt. PLOTS has not caught on in ND like the SD program did, I forgot what it is called. From the outside looking in SD has done a lot better job at insuring that everyone has a place to hunt while commercial hunting grew. The ND Legislature needs to get on it, it should be easier now that guys like Aaron Krauter are gone. It is my opinion that the ND Tourism people have the legislature thinking that hunting could be as big of a business in ND as it is in SD. I don't know that that will ever happen.


> The economic impact on the mobridge area is huge the chamber of commerce puts out stats every year and other than the fourth of july pheasant season makes a buissness year.


Too bad there isn't a way to track the amount spent between freelance and commercial outfits. Like mentioned above, Cannonball is fully inclusive so it is hard to say, or believe that the commercial hunting pumps in more than freelance hunters. 


> I've asked the G&F a couple of different times why they don't implement a block management program like Mt. where by you sign in to hunt private lands and the landowner receives compensation for every hunter. They never have liked the program. Don't really know why.


It is kind of hard when members of the legislature don't want anymore public land. This is where the ag groups could throw some weight around and help out.


----------



## AdamFisk

Also off their website:

Prairie Dog

Our prairie dog packages are currently unavailable as *we are in the process of securing additional prime hunting ground*. We look forward to being able to offer you phenomenal dog hunts in the 2011 year.

SOUTH DAKOTA HUNT OPTION

Get your limit of North Dakota birds early? How about another limit in South Dakota the same day? We have expanded our hunting opportunities in South Dakota and many of our clients have taken advantage of this great add-on adventure.

$ 275.00 per person per day. (South Dakota hunting license required)

So, when are these people satisfied? I thank God I don't live in that little region of the state, or hunt there. Not only are they expanding into SD, they are now in the prairie dog business, once they lock up prime land that is. uke: uke: uke:


----------



## jhegg

Adam,
Greed can not be satisfied - ever!
Jim


----------



## gst

TK, if the G&F don't want the program to start with, it matters little what the legislature says. And remember, this is not "public" land per sey, it is "private" land open to the public thru a very popular access program Mt. developed. Where has the monies collected from the tens of thousands of extra deer licenses gone the last few years? The G&F has been 40,000 to 50,0000 licenses over their stated management goals for several years, If one does the math, that is a fairly substantial amount of additional revenues taken in over what their management goals would have projected. How much of that went to provide sportsmen better access as Eric has suggested?

Jim, are you no longer supporting the HF initiatives arguement they can control what one does on their private property or a part of colecting signatures? It appears from hs statement that Eric is not.


----------



## KurtR

TK33 said:


> I would care to guess they have alot more time and money invested then the people who b#tch that they dont leave the land open for everyone to run all over. I find it funny as ND has hardly any NR compared to SD for pheasants and i have no problem hunting and shooting lots of birds here on public land.
> 
> 
> 
> I still say that it is an apples to oranges comparison Kurt. PLOTS has not caught on in ND like the SD program did, I forgot what it is called. From the outside looking in SD has done a lot better job at insuring that everyone has a place to hunt while commercial hunting grew. The ND Legislature needs to get on it, it should be easier now that guys like Aaron Krauter are gone. It is my opinion that the ND Tourism people have the legislature thinking that hunting could be as big of a business in ND as it is in SD. I don't know that that will ever happen.
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact on the mobridge area is huge the chamber of commerce puts out stats every year and other than the fourth of july pheasant season makes a buissness year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad there isn't a way to track the amount spent between freelance and commercial outfits. Like mentioned above, Cannonball is fully inclusive so it is hard to say, or believe that the commercial hunting pumps in more than freelance hunters.
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked the G&F a couple of different times why they don't implement a block management program like Mt. where by you sign in to hunt private lands and the landowner receives compensation for every hunter. They never have liked the program. Don't really know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is kind of hard when members of the legislature don't want anymore public land. This is where the ag groups could throw some weight around and help out.
Click to expand...

I know of of 3 guiding outfits that use the a hotel in town here there come pic the people up and drop them off in the evening so i know they are putitng alot of money in. Also just the amount of people who use the air port they said on a average week 9 planes will come but during pheasant season that triples and on opening weekend it is full of planes. On ron sherra thread a guy went and looked at amount of public land avialable and SD and ND where almost the same so there must be alot of public land for ND. I think the difference is we have had a no tresspass law for ever and you guys dont so people still get ****** when some one posts there land. Which i dont understand if i was the land owners i would be pushing the no tresspass through with everything i have.


----------



## d2jlking

Hey guys, one more question. Do the landowners who work with the PLOTS program get paid by the state for being a participant?

Scott


----------



## Chuck Smith

Here is another issue people have to realize when talking about "access" and the need for more public land in ND... is the trespass law.

Think about it why does ND need more public land when all land under the century code if it is not posted is open for certain rec uses? That makes people not in the know think all kinds of land is open or all kinds of land is great for hunting. Yet some portions of the state of ND is not a productive area of pheasants, ducks, deer, turkeys, etc. It is not evenly spread out across the state for abundance of certain game. Yet a non-hunter or outdoors person would not know this. They just look at numbers on a piece of paper and make a decision.


----------



## AdamFisk

Chuck Smith said:


> Think about it why does ND need more public land when all land under the century code if it is not posted is open for certain rec uses?


Because each year more and more land is being bought, rented or leased for hunitng purposes. Because each year more and more land is being posted for various reasons. Because each year more and more landowners are getting on the "pay to play" bandwagon. Because it's inevitable at some point that ND will be a no trespass state. Once that happens, it will be a lot easier for a landowner to deny permission to hunt. The question is, why not try to stay ahead of the 8 ball here? Plan a head for a change, not wait until disaster to get off our butts and get things cleaned up.

In the not so distant future, after the lands all leased up or bought up and locked up, and we become no different than any other state, where are we going to hunt? Either we need to get on the ball and create more public land, or do what we can to keep ND from turning into the rest of the country.

I like to think we have our own little hunting eutopia here. It is THE reason why I've not seeked or will seek employment elsewhere. As "outsiders" looking in, and have never lived here, you guys don't fully understand the situation. And it's not your fault, it's what your used to, leases and pay to play hunting and whatnot. But we are used to our ways as well. And by god we'll fight, and continue to ***** and moan about what we're seeing all we want. Maybe, eventually, the right people will wake up.

Now, like mentioned in another thread, just beacuse you're an outsider doesn't mean you don't have good advice and that we can't learn from you, but you must see things from our end as well. In order to do that, you must be here year round and hunt here more than 2 weeks/year.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Actually I am against the high fence groups as I think it gives the anti-hunting crowd more ammo to stop hunting. It is not hunting but just shooting that cheapens the sport and I have very little respect for those who claim it helps "diversify" their income. Just sell the damn animal for meat, but to charge money to have someone shoot it without the chance to escape puts a black eye on a sport that I love. How a person can look in the mirror in the morning and think that is right is beyond me.
That being said if we tell one group what they can and can't do on their land then where does it stop? I am a business owner too and cant see how the gov can say you can't do this because people don't agree with it. As far as guides etc. I can see where they do have their place as if I go up to Canada on a Moose hunt I am going to need a guide because I have no idea what I am doing and I am spending a lot of money so I want to have a chance. Groups from out state that want a place to stay and hunt too I understand but I dont want it getting to where the state turns into pay to hunt. Hence dump more land into plots and work on some other incentives for landowners. 
A couple of other things that I don't want twisted: there is no doubt about hunters from out of state having an economic impact but in place like Regent it isnt the boon that you think as the hunters tend to stay at the place they are hunting for pheasants. Again I go out west at different times during the year and the cannonball outfits and some of these reps are not popular and the towns like Mott arent seeing the benefit.
Second is maybe its time to take a hard look at crp. It has been a great benenfit for wildlife and for all of us who like to hunt etc. However using public money on something that the public can't use unless they pay again is a broken program. Tell some guy who likes to hunt that is barely scraping by working his butt off that not only does he pay tax for this but now has to pay again to use it and no wonder people get frustrated. Just my two cents and enjoying a civil debate on this...


----------



## d2jlking

Second is maybe its time to take a hard look at crp. It has been a great benenfit for wildlife and for all of us who like to hunt etc. However using public money on something that the public can't use unless they pay again is a broken program. Tell some guy who likes to hunt that is barely scraping by working his butt off that not only does he pay tax for this but now has to pay again to use it and no wonder people get frustrated. Wow. Never looked at it like that. Paying twice. You are dead on, that is a big problem. You know maybe the thing to do is mandate that CRP is open to the public. If you are in the program, then you must allow hunters, or the public to utilize the land. Obviously, this will lead to it's own set of problems with competing public interests, i.e. hikers, hunters, bird watchers, etc....

Also, the landowners may be less likely to take part in CRP if they are dictated to regarding the use of the land. It is a bad situation all around. It is going to take cooperation from all sides to keep it working.


----------



## AdamFisk

d2jlking said:


> Also, the landowners may be less likely to take part in CRP if they are dictated to regarding the use of the land. It is a bad situation all around. It is going to take cooperation from all sides to keep it working.


That is very true. I can understand where Eric is coming from. However, I don't know how I feel about the whole CRP thing. Part of me thinks, yeah, it should be open. Another part of me thinks the quality of hunting in ND would diminish if it were open to all. All the posted up CRP acres serve as quite the refuge for many critters. How bad would it affect the quality of hunting, I don't know. Something to think about.

I know, I know, in one post I'm advoacting more public land, and now I'm playing devils advocate. Just not sure having EVERY CRP acre open to the public would be the best thing for all.


----------



## TK33

Before CRP could be open to the public there would have to be some liability issues cleared up.

Another thing to keep in mind Chuck is landowners do not have to have a license to outfit, also a lot of state land in ND is posted. No real way to track it.

What I am seeing more of is under the table cash for hunting, that is wrong no matter how you slice it.

X2 on the civility of this debate.


----------



## d2jlking

TK33 said:


> Before CRP could be open to the public there would have to be some liability issues cleared up.
> 
> Another thing to keep in mind Chuck is landowners do not have to have a license to outfit, also a lot of state land in ND is posted. No real way to track it.
> 
> What I am seeing more of is under the table cash for hunting, that is wrong no matter how you slice it.
> 
> X2 on the civility of this debate.


TK- what do you mean "under the table cash for hunting" The landowner posts the land, then charges to hunt it, without advertising or paying taxes?


----------



## Chuck Smith

Adam...

I know what you are talking about. That was one of the hardest things that we faced in MN to pass the bill that aloted 1/8 of 1% of a sales tax going towards just the thing we are discussing.... Land and access.

The reason why it was so hard to pass was because people in the capital or cities who were not hunters were thinking why do you need more land when there is so much in Norther MN that is open to the public for hunting. Yet they don't realize that N MN does not hold turkeys, pheasants, etc. But all the see is public access acres. Not quality Public access acres. They did not know that in SMN there was a lack of public land vs population.

That is a point I am trying to make is with the Trespass law in ND. State Legislative people along with people who don't hunt or use the outdoors as we on this site do. Don't understand. They just look at a piece of paper with numbers saying X amount of land is in private sector and if 5% is posted...then why do we need more public land. (THESE NUMBERS ARE MADE UP). People don't get it. I am not saying get rid of the trespass law or anything like that. I am just making a point that people don't think about. Because All of the land in ND is open to people as long as it is not posted. So politicians think ND has an abundance of land open. With out really knowing anything.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Another thing to keep in mind Chuck is landowners do not have to have a license to outfit, also a lot of state land in ND is posted. No real way to track it.
> 
> What I am seeing more of is under the table cash for hunting, that is wrong no matter how you slice it.
> 
> X2 on the civility of this debate.


TK... I did know that. And I do know of a lot of the under the table stuff. I even called in a person I met in a bar years ago. I was pheasant hunting in ND. Was doing just fine. Anyway the bartender comes up to me asks how I was doing. I said ok, missed some, etc. He then tells me he will guide me for $100 and take me to a few prime spots. I asked if he ran a guide service? He told me no. He just does this on the side. I declined. The next day I was out and ran into him with some other out of staters. He was going onto land I just got done getting permission to hunt. Anyway I talked to him he said he was going in. I just let him go in. What he did not know is that I asked the owner (this was on posted land) if anyone else had permission in case I ran into them I would back away. He told me he has not given permission to anyone that year other than family and they were not around. So I went back to the land owner and told him others were going in to hunt and I backed away as a courtiesy. The farmer asked who it was. I told him. He got pi$$ed and ran him off the land and then we both called the game and fish to report an unlicensed guide. I don't know what happened with the whole situation. I know I get a call every fall to see if I am going to make a trip or not from that farmer.

That farmer liked the way I handled running into other hunters and not creating a fuss or competition. He also like I went back and notified him.


----------



## KEN W

The problem of paying twice for the same land can be dealt with......if you have CRP......then any added revenue from that land should be subtracted from the CRP payment.That way it is still up to the individual farmer to be able to keep out just anyone.It would eliminate leasing unless you can make more from people paying you to hunt than your CRP payment.

Isn't this the way it is done if a farmer allows another farmer to hay his CRP land????


----------



## gst

Adam, A fair portion of these lands that are being bought or leased are not by outfitters, but people looking for their own properties to hunt on. I am curious as to why as you stated you believe more and more land is posted each year. You state it is better to get ahead of the eight ball and I don't disagree. But when you have sportsmen orgs taking it upon themselves to do what groups like the HF initiative is doing and more sportsmen do not speak out against it, often times the landowners think that is how many sportsmen think. Many sportsmen may not sign it, but how many actively will speak out against it? Many of these landowners believe as Eric does that while the activity is not something they may agree with, it is indeed a property rights issue and how these orgs move forward on these issues claiming to be the "voice" of the ND sportsman, often times give all "sportsmen" a bad rap. Fair, probably not but that's the way it is with most everything, the old rotten apple, and before anyone spouts off it is a phenomenon of both sides of the equation. But when sportsmen sit back and say nothing when these orgs cross certain lines it is a negative to getting ahead of this eight ball as you suggest. .

The bottom line here in ND is 2 things. You would have to be one arrogant jack a$$ $OB before you couldn't find more private land to hunt on then you could hunt in a given year. It may not be as easy as driving outside of town any more but it can be done without that much effort IF people are willing to try.

And the second is that these wildlife or sportsmen orgs. constantly trying to push agendas (the HF deal is a perfect example) will get land closed quicker than anything else. I had several friends that farm and ranch go by the HF booth at the state fair. Some sat back and listened, wile others engaged in a debate. Every one to a person walked out of there ****** by the arrogance of the person in the booth. Some made the comment that if that is the attitude these groups are going to take they are simply going to close their land to public hunting. These groups claiming to be "protecting" hunting in the long run will do more damage than good. That is NOT a threat, but a simple observation from someone that knows a lot of farmers and ranchers from all over this state.


----------



## TK33

> That is a point I am trying to make is with the Trespass law in ND. State Legislative people along with people who don't hunt or use the outdoors as we on this site do. Don't understand. They just look at a piece of paper with numbers saying X amount of land is in private sector and if 5% is posted...then why do we need more public land.


That is exactly the problem, certain groups tell the legislature and the governor that ND could make millions in hunting and that it will only close a small percentage of land and no one sees a problem. Matt Jones used to talk on this site about how sportsmen need to get proactive on this and he was also correct, no one does anything until it is too late.


> TK- what do you mean "under the table cash for hunting" The landowner posts the land, then charges to hunt it, without advertising or paying taxes?


 You got it. There are a few out in the Eastern half of the state that claim to make 6 figures. They too should be reported.


> And by god we'll fight, and continue to b#tch and moan about what we're seeing all we want. Maybe, eventually, the right people will wake up.


There is a session this winter, people need to start contacting their reps now through the fall, not when a bill is on the floor.


> Hey guys, one more question. Do the landowners who work with the PLOTS program get paid by the state for being a participant?Scott


Yes, they get paid based on the quality of the land.


> Which i dont understand if i was the land owners i would be pushing the no tresspass through with everything i have.


My relatives and a lot of my friends don't like being bothered during harvest. As long as people are being respectful, no need to worry about it.



> TK, if the G&F don't want the program to start with, it matters little what the legislature says.


Is that a fact or a rumor? It seems like it is the other way around when you look at how their funding has been threatened in the past sessions. I too would like to know where the money goes. If money/funding is the issue, getting rid of the landowner exemption and making everyone that collects money from hunting pay a higher license fee would be logical since they are the ones profitting off of it.


----------



## AdamFisk

Gst, of course you're not going to miss an opportunity to get you HF jab in are you? But yes, I agree, that is one of the reasons we are seeing more posted signs no doubt, among LOTS of other reasons. I think you know where I stand on the HF issue. That ship has sailed, so to speak. Or, rephrase, the damage is already done. Some guys started an initiative, some land is now posted because of it. So now what? What can we do to make it right? Probably nothing at this point. I'm curious, how we hunters who don't agree with the initiative could have done anything differently to keep them acres open? Some of us voiced our opinions on this forum. Well, I don't see that doing much good. Letters to the editor? Doubtful. Etc, etc. The land was going to be posted regardless of what was said or done. All one can do at this point is try to educate as many people as possible about the true motives of this initiative, and hope she don't pass, or make it to ballot, again.

TK,


> There is a session this winter, people need to start contacting their reps now through the fall, not when a bill is on the floor.


Same question to you. What can or needs to be done here to help our cause. I'll admit, Matt Jones ****** me off with his attitude before he disappeared from this forum, but he was right. People don't do nothing until it's too late. The public needs to be educated, my self included, on what we can do to keep this state from going down the pooper. How do we get people to take a proactive approach and start sending emails now? A few of us can only do so much.


----------



## jhegg

> Jim, are you no longer supporting the HF initiatives arguement they can control what one does on their private property or a part of colecting signatures? It appears from hs statement that Eric is not.





> I had several friends that farm and ranch go by the HF booth at the state fair. Some sat back and listened, wile others engaged in a debate. Every one to a person walked out of there ticked by the arrogance of the person in the booth.


I AM STILL COLLECTING SIGNATURES. In fact, I am leaving tomorrow morning to drive to Minot and help collect signatures there. You and your farm and ranch friends are more that welcome to stop by and chat. I doubt that we will ever agree, but that's OK. I should get there around 12:30 to 13:00.

Jim


----------



## TK33

> How do we get people to take a proactive approach and start sending emails now? A few of us can only do so much.


Step one would be calling or emailing them, some actually do listen, all be it not all. Emailing takes a whole 5 minutes. Less time than to post here probably. 


> It may not be as easy as driving outside of town any more but it can be done without that much effort IF people are willing to try.


It can be done now, but every year it gets to be less and less.


----------



## KurtR

I AM STILL COLLECTING SIGNATURES. In fact, I am leaving tomorrow morning to drive to Minot and help collect signatures there. You and your farm and ranch friends are more that welcome to stop by and chat. I doubt that we will ever agree, but that's OK. I should get there around 12:30 to 13:00.

Jim[/quote]

I hope that gst prints this out and takes it to everyone of his meetings with the ag groups. Maybe it would get people who dont even own any land to stay out of other peoples legally run buisness. Just wait till you piss enough land owners off and it turns into northwest SD can you say lock out time.


----------



## gst

Adam, one of those people I mentioned being ****** after listening to Roger K. at the booth in Minot also commented on the fact he heard a call in radio show where sportsmen were calling in opposed to this issue. So yes in fact your letter to the editor, calls to radio shows, comments on internet sites, do make a difference. Everyone talks about the average guy, not the one gathering signatures for a personal agenda, not the guy with a million dollars, just the guy wanting to take his kid hunting. If your letter to the editor in Dakota Country magazine or the Bismarck Tribune causes one landonwer to maybe not post one quarter of land or makes it a little easier for this fella to get permission and he takes his kid out and shoots his first rooster or deer, wouldn't that letter be worth the time it took to write? Believe it or not, that has a lot to do with why I bother posting on these sites at all.

MOST farmers and ranchers, even if they post their land, if that fella and his kid stop in and put any effort into it at all will give them some access, sometimes if a friendship developes, for the rest of their lives. But if sportsmen that are so concerned with disappearing opportunities simply sit back and say nothing when others push agendas, it becomes more and more difficult for that fella and his kid to get that chance.

Any time someone decides something has a value there will be someone willing to pay for that something. It's the nature of people. And hunting opportunities have a value to most everyone. Here in ND there will be those that place a dollar amount on this value, while MOST others will simply put a more personal value on it of the cost of respect and courteousy. For those sportsmen that know how to "pay" this, there will likely always be some where to enjoy the hunting experience here in ND. For the ones signing petitions and pushing agendas, maybe not. If you want things to remain the way they were in the "good old days" remember that not only was there no one doing the "pay to play" deal, there were no "sportsmen" groups pushing initiated measures or filing lawsuits either. As sportsmen you can't just work on one, ignore the other, and expect things to stay the way they were.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> MOST farmers and ranchers, even if they post their land, if that fella and his kid stop in and put any effort into it at all will give them some access, sometimes if a friendship developes, for the rest of their lives. But if sportsmen that are so concerned with disappearing opportunities simply sit back and say nothing when others push agendas, it becomes more and more difficult for that fella and his kid to get that chance.


GST..... this is 100% correct. I would beat most people on this site and are passionate about either the HF issue (one way or another) or land getting locked up do in fact go out and knock on doors and form relationships with land owners. Hell I am an out of stater who has land owners calling me and my family every year to see if one of us is making the trip out to ND.

The problem is the hunters who take for granted the ND trespass law. Or the ones too lazy (yes I mean lazy) that don't knock on doors to see who owns the land that they are having the privilege to hunt on.

My family and I always knock on doors and try to find the land owner before going on the land even when it is not posted. We get some strange looks from farmers. They are like, "you don't need to ask if it is not posted". We say we understand that but like to ask anyway just to be polite and also if my twin brother is with (he is handicaped and watches from the truck) if we can drive in and park him so he can watch the hunt or portion of it. You would not believe the response we get from just a 20 min conversation with land owners. We have had land owners talk to neighbors and then stop us and tell us to go see so and so. He will let you hunt. I am not trying to toot my own horn but if 90% of the hunters that hunt ND in a given year would do what many on this site i am sure do (ask permission all the time no matter if posted or not).... you would not see all the yellow signs.

The fact of the matter is that the hunting or outdoor community is cutting there own throats. We got people who think they are better than others. (trophy hunters vs non-trophy hunters) (HF vs Non-HF)(field hunters vs water hunters) (Bow vs Rifle) (Fly fishing vs Bait) etc. These groups some are at odds with each other and we are all hunters. Then the competition with other hunters for getting access to land. I have had people sprint into a spot to beat me too it. When in fact I was going to walk right by them. I have had a guy come onto private land I was deer hunting. He climbed up into a tree 50 yards from me with a climber. I got down out of my stand went over to talk to him and let him know I was there. He just said ok and did not move. None the less I was a little pi$$ed and I stayed and hunted. But that was complete disrespect and this person did not get it. I know if I was in that situation i would have said....sorry and left. But it is these attitudes that people have that are killing hunting and outdoor activities. A little respect for others goes a long way. And that respect is getting lost in the world.


----------



## AdamFisk

Chuck Smith said:


> The fact of the matter is that the hunting or outdoor community is cutting there own throats. We got people who think they are better than others. (trophy hunters vs non-trophy hunters) (HF vs Non-HF)(field hunters vs water hunters) (Bow vs Rifle) (Fly fishing vs Bait) etc. These groups some are at odds with each other and we are all hunters. Then the competition with other hunters for getting access to land. I have had people sprint into a spot to beat me too it. When in fact I was going to walk right by them. I have had a guy come onto private land I was deer hunting. He climbed up into a tree 50 yards from me with a climber. I got down out of my stand went over to talk to him and let him know I was there. He just said ok and did not move. None the less I was a little pi$$ed and I stayed and hunted. But that was complete disrespect and this person did not get it. I know if I was in that situation i would have said....sorry and left. But it is these attitudes that people have that are killing hunting and outdoor activities. A little respect for others goes a long way. And that respect is getting lost in the world.


You fricken nailed it with this Chuck. We are all the problem. Every hunter has their own beliefs and attitudes and only care about what affects them, personally. Unity is gone for the most part. Respect and pleasant "run ins" with other hunters seems to be a thing of the past. To try to get EVERBODY to come together for the greater good would, sadly, take an act of God.


----------



## KurtR

Moved to mobridge in 2002 and started helping brand, fence and just going and meeting land owners and now i have more places to go than i can in one year. Had people tell me that you cant hunt certain land but no one ever asked went and asked did a little work and made freinds. All it takes is a little respect and you will get on alot of places.


----------

