# Letter from GNF Commissioner Steinwand



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This is a copy of a letter from another site from our GNF Commish.

Thank you for the your e-mail of August 23 regarding hunting and fishing in North Dakota . I can't tell you how much I appreciated receiving it. Having grown up and been provided an education in the state and being an employee with the Game and Fish for 25 years has provided me with not only a deep appreciation for what we have, but also a hunger to preserve what we have left. At times I feel like you stated in your message, i.e., that some take for granted what we have. Maybe memory isn't past reality but I have some youthful memories of going out after school (and sometimes during school) to hunt-and with great success. While we currently have a great resource, and some would say these are the 'good old days', we need to continue to fight hard for what we have left. I remember my younger years when it was nothing to go out of the house and within five minutes be hunting. Within 10 minutes I could be fishing. While these can still be commonplace in some rural areas, it's becoming less frequent and the habitat for those animals and fish we cherish is following the same course. And we need to jealously guard those opportunities and habitats. But it's not always within our reach as a department to be able to do that. That's where people like you come in. We need your continued support-but that also takes continued communication from us as to what it means to hunters and anglers and the state of North Dakota .

You mentioned that some other states seem to have taken a commercial role in their hunting and fishing responsibilities. While I recognize the commercial aspect of our business, i.e., we need sporting goods stores to provide the equipment, bait shops, etc., we need to always be careful how far the commercial aspect enters into our business. We will not have any of the external advertisements in our magazines, hunting or fishing guides, or brochures so long as I'm the director. I'm old enough to know that once a commercial aspect 'buys it's way in' they gain more control-and you'll see the recurring theme in this response that the resource of the state belongs to the public. They should have the major say in how it's managed.

And we will always do our best to keep the regulations as simple as possible so long as it does what's right for a balanced resource. I've been criticized for making the statement of keeping regulations simple based on the rationale that it 'speaks down' to the hunting and fishing public. I don't look at it that way. I don't believe we need complex regulations in order to correctly or adequately manage our resource. If we'd ever go to trophy management for a species it will undoubtedly take more complex regulations but I don't believe we need to go that route. I've always had the philosophy that in a correctly managed and balanced population a select portion of the population will contain some 'trophy' individuals. If we begin managing for larger, 'trophy' individuals they lose some of their uniqueness and the mystique that goes along with it. If everyone had a 12 pound walleye on the walleye, or a whitetail buck that scores above 160, it would no longer hold the same intrinsic value. For me, that value is knowing I worked hard and outsmarted that individual critter at it's own game-or got very, very lucky.

While there is some truth that in some cases it's been made more difficult for non-resident hunters, there are still multitudes of more opportunity here than in other states. One example is the first week of pheasant season. A conscious decision was made by the legislature to not allow non-resident hunters to utilize Game and Fish managed or leased land for the first week of season. But this still leaves millions of acres open for non-residents to utilize and enjoy. But it also provides the resident who live and work here on a year round basis to have the 'first shot' at the resource. And while we are somewhat of a business, our objective is not necessarily to make a profit. The objective is to bring in enough funds, whether it be through state or federal sources, to continue effective management of our fish and wildlife populations, which belong to the citizens of the state. There are those that want to raise fees but ostensibly to restrict the number of applicants for some species. I can only assume the idea is to increase chances for obtaining a license. We should never use license fees as a vehicle to lessen opportunity for any segment of society. Again, the fish and wildlife belong to all citizens of the state and as such all should have equal opportunity to utilize that resource. I recognize this isn't always the case since even $20 can be a large amount for some. But it still isn't much when compared to the gas it costs to go hunting. While we have to be concerned with our funding base, it has never been the over riding factor.

Now to get to your questions. You asked about our stance on out of state hunters, fees, and revenues. I think I partially answered all of those questions in my previous 'ramblings' but will either reiterate or expand upon them. I have the same philosophy as my predecessor, Dean Hildebrand, had on non-resident hunters. That is, I believe our residents should have some advantage when it comes to the opportunity to utilize the great resource our state provides. After all, we live here year round. Pay sales taxes year round. Pay property taxes if we're fortunate enough to own property. And the list goes on. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a place for non-resident hunters and anglers in the state. After all, the Game and Fish is a state agency and has some responsibility for the economic well being of the state. And non-residents bring new money into the state. But there has to be a balance. And that is sometimes difficult to achieve, especially when residents and non-residents alike buy land specifically for their own personal recreational use. There is certainly nothing illegal about that but when access to the resource becomes more limited than it has in the past, there are repercussions. It becomes a matter of access to a public trust resource. That is one reason we have consistently opposed the 'no trespass' bills when that has been introduced into the legislature several times. While the private property owner certainly has the right to restrict access on their property, they shouldn't have the exclusive right to the resource it contains. At least no more so than any other citizen.

I think I've given you my philosophy on fees but a short reiteration is that we should only have fees at a level to continue effective management of the states fish and wildlife resources. Never as a deterrent or punishment to residents. While non-resident fees will always be higher there is likely good rationale behind that for the reasons stated previously, i.e., our year round residency and what we do to keep the state running.

As for revenues, it follows the same line of thinking. Again, as I previously stated, the Game and Fish Department is one piston in the economic engine of the state. We provide a service that creates some jobs, provides some revenue and most importantly provides a recreational opportunity to enjoy the heritage of hunting and fishing. I recognize that fact and take it into account. But we should never go the route where commercialization overrides common sense and begins to impact the public's ability to use their resource.

Our departments mission is "to conserve, enhance, and protect fish, wildlife and their habitats for the sustained public consumptive and appreciative use." That statement mirrors mine when it comes to the resource. But I also recognize that the departments employees and all of the hunters and anglers of the state are part of the resource base. As such, another part of my mission is to keep morale in the department as high as I possibly can. After all, satisfied employees will do their job much better. And I've always had the philosophy that I have to enjoy my job and allow employees to enjoy their job. If I can't accomplish that it's time to find a different job. But still with the ultimate goal of providing the best fish and wildlife resource within the constraints of Mother Nature that the public can utilize and enjoy.

That also provides an answer to your question as the departments central responsibility. Our first responsibility is to the fish and wildlife resources but not without consideration for the public that either supports or utilizes them. It's a massive circle of the resource, access and public. After all, having a resource without access, or access without a resource, doesn't accomplish much for hunting and fishing.

When I was hired as the director, the Governor gave me three directives 1) grow the resource, 2) balance the interests, and 3) communicate. I take every one of these seriously and will do my best to achieve all three. Kris, in summary (after a large amount of rambling) the Game and Fish Department has a great staff that will do whatever they can to continue providing the great fish and wildlife resource we've come to expect in North Dakota. It will not be without some hand wringing, and teeth gnashing. Nor will it always be easy. We have an uphill battle to continue with CRP in the new Farm Bill. We have an uphill battle for water in the Missouri River system. And we never know what cards Mother Nature will deal us. What we can do is provide the best habitat possible. And for me, it's to buffer staff and many times stay out of their way and let them do their jobs. They've shown time and time again that given the resources, they can provide the resource and access to it for all to enjoy.

Terry Steinwand


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Sounds like we have the right guy in charge.

The next session in January should be interesting.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I think the Gov picked the right guy. He obviously understands the issues and understands that the game belongs to all of us. Public Trust what a great concept.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Agreed...

I've always thought Terry was a very sharp guy.

Ryan


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

He definetely does sound like the right guy to have in charge. I hope his actions follow his words and if that happens our resource is in good hands.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Question is.....will the governor put a muzzle on the GNF in the upcoming session?


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

Does this guy have a day job? How long does it take to write a 1703 word email?


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

How long does it take to count the words?


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

less than 10 seconds. the computer does it for you.


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

that is part of his job ,public relations. He was asked a question he was obviously passionate about, and responded emphasizing this.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

Great reply...we need to keep this as a sticky somewhere and refer to it often!!!!!

:fro:


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

Powder,

I personally appreciated the time Mr. Steinwand took to draft that email reply. Shows he has some passion. It seems as if govt employees are always getting blasted for not responding or responding with very little information.

It's obvious this guy cares, and I'm glad he's in charge.


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

frosty said:


> Powder,
> 
> I personally appreciated the time Mr. Steinwand took to draft that email reply. Shows he has some passion. It seems as if govt employees are always getting blasted for not responding or responding with very little information.
> 
> It's obvious this guy cares, and I'm glad he's in charge.


Ditto :beer:


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

I agree with all of you. I think it was great too. I just was surprised at the length.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

He writes very non-offensive. Very eliquot. I have to like his style also anyone that skipped school to go hunting my kind of guy. I missed about 10 or so days myself in the autumn of 1964. (I was very sickly that year.) Lots of ruffed grouse, huns, and sharps back then. And it was called Soil Back not CRP.

Wish we could read the letter he is reponding to.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

That letter should have a Global Announcement. Bronze it with a hats off!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

If he (the GNF) follow what his letter states, ND is going to have the OPPORTUNITY to remain a great place for outdoor recreation. The residents (and those of us who hope to become residents again) need to stay on top of issues and have the b*lls to step up and do our parts.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

That is one nice piece of work.

I would have preferred that he address the G/O industry, but perhaps it is telling (and politically expedient) in what he did and did not say.

M.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

We'll make this a sticky so that Terry's letter gets visibility to everyone visiting the site for awhile.

Thanks for the idea Dick!

Ryan

.


----------

