# Outfitter Opinion in the Forum Today



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

The Pingree outfitter, CK, who always forgets to mention that her family runs a commercial hunting operation, had a long opinion in the Forum this morning urging everyone to call their legislators on SB2048.

Good idea!!! Everyone that supports a fair and balanced way of setting limits needs to CALL or EMAIL their leg and senators TODAY to urge a 
DO PASS!!! Don't wait call ASAP! I'm going to try to call 5 friends, at least, that I know that waterfowl hunt and get them to call. I bet everyone knows someone that hasn't called or emailed yet. Tell them we also "embrace" tourism and commerce for our communites only at a level that ensures everyone, NR and resident a quality experience.

1-888-635-3447 Message Center.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I believe MS. Krapp is full of herself, if you know what I mean. She talked agout new money and not about how much residents spend!!!


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Call the number and urge passage of SB 2048. Only takes about 45 secondes.

Other views: Hunter Pressure Concept is too easy to manipulate
By Connie Krapp 
The Forum - 01/29/2003 
An article on page A5, and continued on A10 of the Dec. 2, 2002, issue of The Forum indicates that Sandy Barnes and Larry Knoblich of the North Dakota Sportsmen's Alliance say their group will "eventually turn its attention to limiting nonresidents who pheasant hunt and fish in the state."

If these sportsmen have their way, we may as well put up a "NO TRESPASSING" sign on all borders of North Dakota! Where will this madness end? It certainly will not end if the Senate Natural Resources Committee votes to pass a piece of legislation that it will be considering Thursday and Friday. The legislation would limit nonresident waterfowl hunters from entering the state.

Senate Bill 2048 would implement the Hunter Pressure Concept, a plan that would read the water index and come up with a formula that would set the number of total waterfowl licenses allowed. It would allow resident hunters first crack at waterfowl licenses and then offer nonresidents whatever was left. The bill could be easily manipulated. It leaves a big loophole: resident hunters could easily sew up all available licenses by purchasing licenses for family members who have no intentions of participating. Unthinkable? Consider the distribution of deer licenses in North Dakota!

To pretend that North Dakota Game and Fish came up with HPC on its own, for the express purpose of managing wildlife, is a sham. It came up with the plan after months and months of intense political pressure from sportsmen's groups. These sportsmen insist that, despite unprecedented duck numbers and fewer TOTAL numbers of hunters (in 1975, North Dakota had 74,000 hunters hunting 2 million ducks. In 2001, we had 66,000 hunters hunting 5.4 million ducks), they just can't get a quality hunt in North Dakota.

Rather than seeking workable solutions to their perceived hunting quality problem, however, the sportsmen have set their sights on one target: the nonresident. If there REALLY is a hunting pressure problem in North Dakota, wouldn't you think that other solutions could be considered? Changing the length of the season, changing daily limits, shortening the length of a daily hunt for residents and nonresidents - there are other ways to address the issue. Even if we DID have a hunting pressure problem, there are options other than turning away nonresidents and the $34 million in direct expenditures (NEW MONEY) and $79 million in gross business volume that they bring to the state.

If you believe that North Dakota needs commerce from nonresident hunters - if you believe that we should embrace tourism and commerce in our communities - please contact members of the Natural Resources Committee before Thursday. That is when the seven senators will be discussing Senate Bill 2048. A phone call to 1-888-635-3447 or 701-328-3373, or a fax to 701-328-3615 will allow you to leave a simple message to these senators. Please call them today and ask them to vote "do not pass" on Senate Bill 2048.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Ms. Connie, (I am an outfitter, but forgot to mention it), Krapps article can be read at http://www.in-forum.com/articles/?id=26656

Salient points she forgot to mention:
The Alliance promotes *ASK BEFORE YOU ENTER POSTERS*.
Outfitters, like Ms Krapp promotes NO HUNTING WITHOUT PAYING.
The Alliance promotes good relationships with farmers.
Outfitters promote the radical backlash outlash just trash option.
The Alliance, the NDWF, and United Sportsmen of North Dakota promotes the Hunter Pressure Concept, SB2048 that was passed 15 for-2 against, by the Judiciary B Committee.
Outfitters always forget this vote, too much to remember.
The Alliance believes there is too much unregulated hunting pressure.
Outfitters say there is no hunting pressure, lots and lots and lots of room.

Ask yourself this. Outfitters say there is no pressure problem. Why is land posted? Because farmers want to know who is on their land. But if there is no pressure problem the land would not be posted because no one is hunting. If there is no pressure problem, why do outfitters lease 100,000s of acres? If there is no pressure why spend the money for the lease? Hummmm. Anybody see the holes in this water can?

Field Hunter is right-zip a message to your legislators NOW and ask them to not only support SB2048, but also to promote it to their fellow legislators.
And send a message to the Forum boys at Lou Ziegler, [email protected] and Jack Zaleski, [email protected]
They would just love to know what you are thinking.


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

Has anyone wrote an editorial in response to CK yet?


----------



## SiouxperDave (Sep 3, 2002)

Dick Monson said:


> Ask yourself this. Outfitters say there is no pressure problem. Why is land posted? Because farmers want to know who is on their land. But if there is no pressure problem the land would not be posted because no one is hunting. If there is no pressure problem, why do outfitters lease 100,000s of acres? If there is no pressure why spend the money for the lease? Hummmm. Anybody see the holes in this water can?


I don't agree that all farmers post their land just so they can know who is on it. My Dad posts his land to keep other people off it so that family members or friends from out of town can hunt on it. It doesn't have anything to do with hunting pressure. It only takes 1 person to screw up a hunt.

My Dad's land is exactly that, HIS land. He can do what he wants with it regardless of what anybody thinks. If he posts every acre and doesn't let anyone hunt, that's his choice. If he wanted to lease it to an outfitter, that's his choice. I would strongly argue against that but in the end, it's up to him. It's not up to me. And it's definately not up to somebody that doesn't own the land.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Miller, bury them in responses! Six feet deep.

Siouxperson--NOBODY.....NOBODY....is telling landowners what they can or cannot do. Where are you reading that? Where does this off the wall statement always come from? Outfitters. Outfitters. Would you put up a STOP sign if there was no road? If hunting was completely outlawed, do you really think you would see NO HUNTING signs?


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

has anyone seen any opinions on our side or are they choosing not to put those in the paper??


----------



## lasalle (Jan 15, 2003)

Dick,

You don't think indirectly you are telling landowners what they can do with their land with a cap? Let's say a more restrictive cap is enacted next year. Let's say a farmer leases out his land to hunting to either a non-resident or an outfitter, happens all the time in ND. Let's say that the non-resident or outfitter no longer leases that land from that farmer as a result of the cap. It's a win for residents potentially as the land is again available for everyone in ND, assuming of course that the farmer doesn't harbor ill-will towards resident hunters after maneuvering them out of a second income. I think a cap directly dictates what they can do with their land in terms of leasing. Simply stated, it reduces their available pool.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I sure as hell am glad I don't get the forum. After reading all the stuff you guys have posted I don't even think I'd use it to wipe my A$$. :******:

Time to get on the phone and call my reps!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

That's kind of a stretch. Nobody has ever said they are trying to tell the farmer or rancher what to do with is land. What some of you seem to fail to understand is the concept that the ducks are not an unlimited resource.
The people stepping up that are against the caps either lack an understanding of how many ducks there are in ND at any given time and how fragile that resource is during the migration or are outfitters in it for a buck and don't care about the resource. It's frustrating sometimes hearing about all the "economic" input hunting does for ND but it seems very few if any of those people care how long the "party" is going to last, either from a yearly or resources stand point. It seems it's just full speed ahead without any regard to the resource or the quality of the sport. I just can't see, in terms of duck hunting, why the local communities wouldn't rather have the ducks around longer, with hunters supporting the communities longer, than to presure the ducks constantly and drive them out of the area entirely. Or maybe it isn't the local communities but the outfitters who are commercializing the sport who are doing all the complaining. 
I wonder?

While I'm on this thread which started out talking about an outfitter, I have to say that I don't hear the outfitters talking any compromise. Many of the bills on hunting seem to be a direct link to making the outfitters more money with little regard to the resource. Hopefully we have some legislators that will be able to see through to the real issues at hand.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

lasalle, if the only issue was a second income stream for a farmer I would agree with you. However now that income stream is totaly dependent on saturating the available market with hunters, forcing the highest paying customers to use an outfitter or lease. The remaining hunters will leave the sport, or reduce their days in the field, which will impact the businesses that depended on free-lance hunting. Do not these businesses also have a standing position? As verticaly integrated outfitters replace the main street business is not the economic impact merely an economic displacement? The voters decide the game law and are under no obligation to facilitate customers for one business or another. If a farmer-outfitter provides an exceptional service he will still be in business. If he intends to flood the market to get the best nuggets for himself I do not believe the people who own the government and the resource inventory will allow it.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

And one more "nugget" for nonresidents to contemplate. When Connie Krapp forgot to mention she is an outfitter, she also forgot that her husband and other outfitters, during testimony last week on HB 1307, requested that NR hunters be *required* to use a guide. I believe he went so far as to target Minnesota residents. This was at the same time she testified for no limit on nonresidents. Hummm. Sounds like a deal.

Another prominent outfitter in south central ND proposed the same idea at the Pheasantgate advisory meeting in Jamestown last winter. Proving if you boil it long enough, it floats to the top.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

well i just wrote a response to the forum, probably won't see the light of day tho...


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Did anyone on this sight take any economics or business classes? Where do we live, in Communist Russia????? I can't take it any longer and must respond to your idea that you are not telling a land owner what he can and can't do with his land. Anytime you limit someone from making a living off his land you are limiting its use and the owners ability to make a living. Yes, I agree that it is too bad out of state people purchase land and only allow themselves to use it. I do not like this, but I am sure not going to tell the original land owner who he can and cannot sell to. This is America and the *FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM* does work and should be let to run its course. Same goes for the land owner who leases his or her land to an outfitter. It is there choice as to do so and no one, not even the state, should tell a private land owner who they can and cannot rent to. If I were a guide, I would be fighting all limitations on my right to rent land ect. The USF&W service does an amazing job on limiting the "resource" and mother nature will dictate when and how much hunting is done each and every year. Why doesn't everyone quit *****ing and start looking for good hunting land next year right now. Sure would be easier to get good spots with "honey" than with all the vinegar being spread on this sight.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

economics 101-I view it a little different, just because we live in America does not mean that you can do anything you want with your land. There are a lot of activities that landowners are restricted from doing on their land that if allowed could provide a lot of money to them. You cannot grow marijuana on your land even though this would be a lucrative crop, you can't run a brothel, you can't open a casino except on Native American Reservations, and on and on and on. By your argument, this is infringement on their rights since we are limiting them from earning income on this. Now I know your argument is that these are illegal activities and you are right. My only point is that people have never been allowed to do anything they want with their land. I personally believe that any commercialization of wildife is an immoral act. Selling access to wildlife should be just as illegal as selling sex, drugs, or any other illicit activity. Landowners still have the right to allow people to hunt on their land or they have the right to allow absolutely NO ONE on it if that is their prerogative. It crosses the line when they let you on for a fee. It is essentially selling a public resource by charging for access. Am I radical on this stance? You bet, but I would argue that a large amount of hunters in this state have similar views. We would never have wildlife populations where they are today if it wasn't for actions of sportsmen in the early part of the last century. By their demands of wildlife laws and being willing to foot the bill, we have the wildlife populations we have today.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Muzzy,

Remember then, morality cannot be legislated. It has been tried many times and always fails. Your argument is purely, as many have and are stating, one of personal preference and not one of science or biology. This, by your own words, shows why SB2048 is about managing people and not biology.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

The examples I listed have no legal basis other than morality and they have been deemed illegal. I fail to see the difference here.


----------



## JackB (Jan 22, 2003)

Nor should they. I have an inlaw that used to have some good cover on his land, and any dry season he gets the chance, he plows it all up (many times slough bottoms), then complains that the land holds no moisture, or floods easily. I always hear about how much farmers and landowners respect the land, but don't believe it much anymore. Come down to Ne. where a jackrabbit does not exist. I though they could live anywhere when I lived in ND.

Anyway, I think that is a poor statement about being able to do anything you want with it. You may own the rights to farm it or whatever, but at one time nobody owned it.

j


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

Dear Mr. Econ, you are correct in saying the landowner has the right to lease/charge/whatever with their land. It may not be right or morally sound, as muzzy pointed out, but until deemed illegal, they still have the right. However, I am a sportsmen of this state who has just as much ownership in our wildlife resource as the farmer/rancher who may be leasing/guiding etc, it is not my responsibility to make sure he is supplied with a single file line of hunters from Wis and MN. Wildlife is managed by our state wildlife agencies, not landowners. Until that management is turned over to landowners, this will never be and never has been a "landowner rights issue." If your case is true, we are severely violating landowner rights with ND's deer hunting licenses? But we all know that is not true. You must have been employed with enron when you took econ 101?


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

You are right, you do claim this is not a landowners rights issue and hide behind the idea it is a biological plan. This is bull and you, Frosty, know it. Your real reason is access. And access is the only thing the landowner is charging for. He does not charge for what you shoot, he charges you to keep up his land and feed EVERYONES birds with his crops eaten and not compensated for. If you truly believe your wildlife statement of ownership, then the waterfowl issue should be put away since it is the Federal Government who regulates waterfowl limits ect. and not the state governments.
Why has no one commented on the issue I raised about starting NOW to get land to hunt next season? I might start thinking it is because you think it is your right to hunt and you do not need to build relationships. Possible?????
Again, this is America and we live in a *free enterprise economic system *and sometimes you must pay to do the things you enjoy. Things change and so does hunting. 
And, by the way, I was too young when ENRON was hiring, but thanks for the compliment.


----------



## HuntnLab (Jan 24, 2003)

I just cannot beleive econs arguments. I mean isnt this all about protecting the resource? Which the resource being the waterfowl, I really hope the HPC passes and we get a handle on this virus that in a time of plenty has growen out of control. Also has anyone done some checking on the taxes on people who for 2 weeks out of the year claim to be great economic impacters with there old farm house they baught and use for a hunting cabin? I mean if say a ND resident goes to MN to buy a lake cabin they sure as hell get taxed to death? I just hope that rural ND dosen't pin all there hopes on saving ND for a few weeks in October.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Huntnlab,
If this was just about protecting the resource, then we would not be having this conversation.

1970's total of approx. 75,000 hunters approx. 2,000,000 ducks

2000's total of approx. 65,000 hunters approx. 5,000,000 ducks

simple math shows this is not about the resource.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

The guides have arrived.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

I am not a guide. I am a concerned citizen of ND just as the rest of you. If you can't take my opinions and ideas, then you shouldn't be arguing this case at all. I love ND and do not want to tell anyone we do not want them to visit.


----------



## HuntnLab (Jan 24, 2003)

I am not here to argue about it but the waterfowl system seems to work just fine in SD. There it works just fine and they only allow well right off the top of my head 4500 NR's to waterfowl hunt. So getting control of it here in our state something should be done. I am all for Nr's hunting we just need to get a handle on it and control outfitters to some degree. Just my opinion. As they say opinions are like ahole's.. everyones got one. no pun intended.


----------



## HuntnLab (Jan 24, 2003)

Econ, sorry but I just feel that outfitters should be controled and HPC is passed and put into place.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Econ...I was here hunting in the 1970's.You are comparing apples and oranges.
To use your numbers...1970...75,000 hunters of which I would guess 70,000 were residents.We and most other residents hunted geese especially snows.
Now...65,000 hunters of which 30,000 are non-res....who come here to hunt mainly ducks,as the snows are staying in Canada.
Back in the 70's those 70,000 residents hunted weekends and went back to work on Monday.Which means that there was almost no one hunting during the week.Now most of those 30,000 non-res stay here for a week and the ducks are getting pressured every day.So...don't compare the 70's with today because they were completely different. Plus those 30,000 non-res have a larger impact on the resource.The GNF has stated that non-res. take 1.36 ducks compared to 1 for res. hunters.This is about the resource!!!


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Everyone keeps talking about the numbers of hunters hunting in 1975 versus the present time. What people fail to mention when using this argument is that in the mid 1970's most people traveling to ND were doing so to hunt snow geese. Totally different story now, people come here to hunt ducks now. Hunting snow geese was a whole different ball game then than hunting ducks are now.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Sorry Ken, we must have been typing the same post at the same time. Great thoughts though!


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Muzzy - kudos. It is simply being missed that this is a public resource. 
(But can I have a brothel, with a meth. lab in the basement?- for economic development you know, my economic development.)

Econ 101 - The HPC II bill has nothing to do with landowner. Wherein does the topic or issue of landowners appear? The issue is preservation of a public resource - quality hunting opportunities. This is the resource in question. Folks don't come to ND for animals, they come for the quality opportunities. It is the opposition to the bill that claims it is about landowner right. Game animals in the state are property of the state, not property of the feds.

Now, please understand the economic issue involved. The land, in and of itself, has no value to an outfitter, hunter, etc. It is only an asset if publicly owned games animals are present. Therefore, the value is clearly the publicly owned game animals, not the land per se. Another way to address it, the value of land to an outfitter varies accross the state. Not by location, services, utilities, soil composition, potential productivity for grain or livestock or any other agricultural activity. Instead, it is the presence of publicly owned game animals that determines the value to an outfitter. Therefore, it should be clear, even to you, that what is being sold is a publicly owned resource. That is why the state controls it, and, we hope, is given better tools to perform that duty - HPC II.

M.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

> 1970's total of approx. 75,000 hunters approx. 2,000,000 ducks
> 
> 2000's total of approx. 65,000 hunters approx. 5,000,000 ducks


This just proves that after hunter #'s fell to 5,000 NR's & nature cooperated - ducks shot up to 5 million.

Plus we had a terrible drought in there also.

It can't be an unlimited free for all

& for profit will never look out for the best interests of the resources or residents

What do the commercial sides of all this do for the resources to ensure we have quality ???

& to most NR's our worst is fantastic - why would we want to become like them ???

Funny how now that the SOB's and weather for hunting SOB's have not cooperated in recent years, the guides still want to try to sucker folks into coming & paying them for access to hunt ducks. & have misled small towns & rural landowners, that what they (commercial side) wants to pass in the Legislature, will be good for them. (Not true at all)

If tourism & small towns would promote Freelance hunting, they would never have to worry about getting their fair share of NR's (& residents) to come & spend $$$.

SOB hunters - If you want to hunt them go to Canada - It is so much better & you will have little trouble finding guides, or Freelance places to hunt them.

To turn ND into a Texas or Arkansas, so a small minority can profit & ruin our hunting heritage is beyond belief.


----------



## lasalle (Jan 15, 2003)

Field Hunter,

I don't think it's much of a stretch, a cap reduced what's available to a farmer or rancher, period. If there is a cap or 10,000 - 15,000 or whatever number, there would be considerably fewer options. As for the resource, isn't that the job of the USFW. We all can agree that maybe their numbers are incorrect, I personally was against the framework for this year. But let's leave it up to them to determine what the resource can handle.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

lasalle...so the USFW should make the decisions and our own GNF should have no input??The GNF has more knowledge about this than the Feds do...hence HPC.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Does anybody have stats on the number of guides/amount of leased land in the 70s compared to now? To me, that is the appropriate measure--not number of ducks or hunters.


----------



## lasalle (Jan 15, 2003)

No, I think first the USFW hands down the framework and the GNF bases their decision on that framework. Certainly the GNF should have a voice. But this getting away from the orginal point.

I'm sure the numbers of guides has increase beyond the point of control compaired to the 70's.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Quack,
What you say is exatly what I said, it is an access issue, not a pressure issue. Your question of how many guides and not the ducks is what you and your group really are saying. Give me my access as I am entitled to it!!!! Think about it.

*Why has no one still asnwered my comment on getting out now and securing access for next season? Do you want the legislature to do your work for you?*
Fetch,
What heritage? Do you believe nothing is allowed to change because thats how it was done in the past?

MRN,
If you truly belive that HPC has nothing to do with landowners, then you will be greatly mistaken if it passes. There is the major possibility that none of us will be able to hunt anywhere without major dollars. We won't be able to build relationships as you just told the landowner he doesn't matter. Also, if the land has no value to you or anyone else why do you all care so much what is grown on the land and the habitat on it? Seems to me you want it both ways. No value for your HPC and yet to be sure the habitat is not messed with so your resource is not damaged. Who pays the costs to see the habitat is what it should be? The landowner!!!!!

Ken W.
So you mean to tell me that no resident hunters hunt during the week? I am sure that is not true as I hunt most weekdays. Maybe Mr. Traynors idea of not allowing ducks to be hunted after 1 p.m. is a good idea. Then according to you this should lessen the pressure. But it still will not get away from your groups real cause and that is free access.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

lasalle, 
Sorry, I have to disagree with letting the USFW manage everything. In my opinion they have bowwed down to the commercial and political interests that control duck hunting in the South. Limits are way too high for some species and they are way too slow to react to environmental pressures.

Economics 101,
Good name by the way. The way you post it appears you have been lurking for a while on the site as you seem to know the issues. I have to say one thing concerning your posts. First, are you even a hunter? and Second, "Start now to get land to hunt next season" and "build relationships". You evidently weren't around when the guides started to proliferate in the early 80s. Many of us had developed relationships and land to hunt. Unfortunately, the outfitters and guides changed all of that. I remember being told by farmers in both the pheasant and duck areas that sorry, I know we've been friends for years but I just signed on with an outfitter. As recently as last year, I did my preseason scouting, met many farmers, and got permission to hunt only to be informed by many that a local outfitter was "day leasing" many of the areas and had leased entire farms in the area. This particular guide and one other leases the feeding fields day by day and then has his clients hunt WPAs many days.
Any wonder the sportsmen are upset?

"Free economic system". I guess we should repeal all the wetlands legeslation. I come from a farm background and my in laws are farmers.
I can tell you that if the majority of the farming community could drain all the wetlands they probably would. But hey, they'd be able to do what ever they wanted to with their land.

The sportsmen and women of the state are trying to reach a compromise
with the commercial side. Whether the HPC is an attempt to protect the reasource or limit numbers of NRs it's a compromise. As I said before, in previous posts, if the numbers are too low then maybe we should raise the base a little. I don't see ANY compromise coming out of the commercial side. Read the bills in both the house and senate, many are a blatant attempt to get as much as possible before restrictions are placed upon them. Got to like the one about making it a law that non-residents have to essentially hire a guide to hunt waterfowl as a legal description of the land they are hunting would need to be included on the license.


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

> Why has no one still asnwered my comment on getting out now and securing access for next season? Do you want the legislature to do your work for you?


Easier said than done.I spent 2 weekends early last summer away from my family to secure some contacts.Many were appreciative of my time and effort, and I was granted some permission in the fall.GREAT!

I showed up to hunt some of that land in the fall only to realize that an outfitter leased up one landowner, and a guy who showed up from out of state leased up the rest for the remainder of the season from another.Was it the landowners decision,you bet.Can I afford to compete, no, not on my salary.Maybe if I get a better paying job elsewhere I will be able to compete.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Lasalle and econ 101. I was not in favor of the HPC but I changed my mind with the wise words of Dan B. and others on this site I have long championed the control of guides and outfitters as it makes a huge negitive impact on the local economy for leased land limits to all the oppurtunity to participate in the hunting world. It does not limit a farmer or rancher from charging for access or posting for family and friends etc...
This type of activity has been around along time and does not impact the biological balance of nature in a negitve way. We are seeing large tracts of land that are leased causing limits on access for deer hunting thus not enough deer are being harvested causing more deer /car collisons higher insurance rates and more money spent on deer fences etc.. This is not only about waterfowl, but all wildlife in the state.

I will give you some info on waterfowl and HPC from a 30 plus years of keeping journals.I will give you some harvest figures and observations that will demonstrate the need for this bill and most of the others that are bding supported on this site.

1970-78 good water conditons lots of mallards no geese untill late in OCT.
5-duck a day limit 5 Drake Mallards 1-2 hens no redheads or canvas backs, no limits on pintails. average harvest of ducks 59 . days hunted 16.3. Majority of ducks harvested first 2 weeks of season. Hunting presure has pushed ducks out of area or on to big water requiring duck boat. Hunted geese after Halloween a few ducks with them.I wish season would run into Nov later than the first weekend.Would like to see less early season presure. Oct 24th 1976 went to Yankton SD for funeral was shocked to see the mallards and pintails in all the small sloughs along 281 haven't seen ducks in ponds since oct 13th. This started just across the ND/SD border.

1979-88
Water conditions continued to decline along with ducks and limits,opening of season pushed into Oct. switched to huntung NW part of ND for snows and blues very few ducks.Days afield 20..3 ducks average harvest of ducks 19.12 Snow and blues 50.6 Good access to land moderate hunting competion for geese saw absolutely nobody hunting ducks exclusively.

1989-1999 daily limits increased along with water. More land posted due to increase in phesant population.Still can find good places to hunt besides our own land. See very few locals hunting ducks still chasing snows and blues when they show up.had ducks later in the years than I ever remember other than a late flight of Northern ducks leaving ahead of a storm.Days afield average 18.8 77 ducks avg. haversted. better duck numbers on sloughs late in fall until freeze up. Canada geese increasing and becomeing my preferd field hunt over snows and blues.

2000-2002 Water conditions starting to changedrying up, seeing more waterfowl hunter resident and nonresident.OCT 8th 2002 First time I shared the slough out back of Dads' since the 70's Nice father and son and daughter,they were surpised that I let them stay. Father said the land {farmer died son lives in Florida took the extra money]hunted leased to guide wanted $45.00 day per person for a day of hunting. He said that they found the WPA's full of hunters. Gave him permison to hunt with his kids as long as they wanted. Good to see the kids out.
Oct 15th 2002 having a hard time finding ducks on any water, hunters all over the place ducks piled up on big water, wish I had a duck boat.

Oct 22 nd Drove to Mobridge SD waterfowl all over the sloughs south of Linton ND starting around Pollock area very dry wonder why no one was hunting. Started seeing less ducks as we hit ND border on our way home even though there was more water in ND.

These ramblings and writing should help underline the need for HPC the ducks just moved to less presured area,s even though food and water were better in other area's. I listed a reference to this eairler to this fact stating my hunting stayed good last fall as we had very little presure directly around us, friends saw the birds leave due to constant hunting presure.
I started hunting when I was 10 years old and keep a hunting journal with water conditons in a 10 square mile area and this has helped me understand the need for this legilation


----------



## lasalle (Jan 15, 2003)

Field Hunter,

I definitely agree that the USFW service has become almost a business, ignoring science bowing down to the business of waterfowl hunting, sad state of affairs. But as it stands now they hand each flyway the season parameters and the states build their season accordingly, each state must gain approval from USFW for their seasons.

If the HPC pass do the residents of North Dakota really think access will increase and/or if it does increase will it be for a fee? If a land owner was getting $5,000 a year for a land lease, what incentive will there be for him to allow ND residents free access after a cap is passed. From my simple mind, if I had land around say Devils Lake and was getting $5,000 from either a guide or a non-resident and this year they don't renew their lease because of a cap. I could possible harbor resentment towards the resident hunter, and would reluctantly give access especially free access. From my perspective a cap does not increase access, at least on private land, shuts out some non-residents and cuts at least a portion of the economic structure in rural ND.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Lasalle,

With the passage of the HPC I really don't see that there will be a drastic dumping of leased land by the outfitters. When you look at the HPC one of the factors is the amount of available water that is available in a given year. The outfitters are going to naturally try to lease more in wet years but when a drought condition surfaces as is happening now less land would be leased as less NRs would come to hunt. If you were or are a NR, would you like to show up expecting world class hunting only to find all the potholes are dry and you'll be competing for the every shrinking waterholes. Every pothole in the southcentral part of the state that I hunted last season and many NR's hunted also ARE going to be dry next season. We simply need less hunters in the dry years for the amount of water and the lack of breeding ducks that will use those areas.

I don't think that by capping we are going to see increased access. The land that is leased is closed to access now and probably will remain so in the future. There are other ways to increase economic activity through huntiing than by just having an outfitter lease all the land. Kenmare, for instance, used to put on a great goose fest that was a community activity, not just the sole activity of a couple of outfitters. I do think there will be a loss of revenue from the NRs in the short term but that most of that revenue may be made up by resident hunters and communities getting together to promote hunting in their area. Although, we seem to have a very short sited Tourism department that helps in that regard, I hope it will change in the future.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

> What heritage? Do you believe nothing is allowed to change because thats how it was done in the past?


ND is full of examples of why for profit is not the only, or best way to provide for, or protect our way of life.

economics is only one factor in quality of life (especially up here)


----------



## lasalle (Jan 15, 2003)

I agree that during the dry times there is a need for fewer hunters and I guess that will be handled by HPC. But I wonder if that wouldn't accure naturally. During the years where the season was 3/30 there seemed to be fewer hunters. I wonder what the resident duck hunter numbers were during the 80's? Maybe less?


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

It is in fact the Hunter PRESSURE Concept, not the Hunter Access Concept. I dont think that this is all abotu access, despite that being what all the politicians say. the amount of pressure is moving the birds out. Period. You addess that by lowering the pressure here, or raising it in Saskathewan and SD. Which to we have control over???? Allowing uncontrolled growth of leasing sounds like a great answer to me.

An economics 101: I was a farmer for a long time. We had people hunting our property who brought us a turkey at christmas or helped us out special with their business as a thank you. But when you start talking the cash that the leases mean, they just cant say no. And I dont blame them. Nor can I blame a starving girl from piss poor part of town for selling her body for formula for her kid. What yanks my chain is the pimp taking the big cut. IT IS THE SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

economics 101 said:


> Quack,
> What you say is exatly what I said, it is an access issue, not a pressure issue. Your question of how many guides and not the ducks is what you and your group really are saying. Give me my access as I am entitled to it!!!! Think about it.


101--I'm not saying I'm entitled to anything. I'm saying that you and Connie Krapp's argument that ND should be able to support more duck hunters simply because there are more ducks now then there were in the 70s is idiotic. It's about like saying that the Metrodome could hold 130,000 fans if they would put 44 football players on the field at one time. When you take econ 301 you will learn about the law of diminishing returns :lol:


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Tsodak,

If you can really compare a landowner to a whore, then I question your objectivity on this issue. There are many programs for the young girl you mentioned and it is not even close to the same issue.

It, in my opinion, is not truly about pressure, as you claim. Look at all the entries listed above and you will plainly see most are asking for better access. This will not occur with or without the HPC unless the local hunter is willing to pay for the access. As you have admitted, the landowner is accustomed to the rental cash and will not want to give it up. My bet is it will only get worse or more expensive if limits are imposed. We are a small state and need everyone!!!!

No response to Mr. Traynor's idea of a 1 p.m. stop time for ducks also? This is an actual pressure idea and no people management.

Fetch,

Please enlighten me as to the examples you state. I lived in your part of the state at one time and the only reason to live in Grand Forks is economics. The weather is the best example there.

Field Hunter

Yes, I am a hunter. Not an avid one, but I do enjoy the 10 to 15 times per year I get out. I understand the frustration with leases ect. but I know it will not go away with or without HPC. The reality is we must all be willing to pay for our fun and adventure now days. I can remember growing up on the Missouri and never not having enough sand bars ect to go to. Now look at south Bismarck on the Missouri and what is there. Million dollar homes ect. While this is sad, it is reality. Those that have get. If you know of guided hunts on WPA, you should turn them in, I believe it is illegal to guide on federal land ect.

On your drainage issue, I believe the farmers and landowners would also drain all they can. But, don't most or all of these areas have easments on them? If so, there is no issue as someone was paid to keep these areas as water areas. Even if the current land owner was not paid, he or she knew about the easment when they purchased the land.

I do think there is a compromise proposed called the Nelson plan. I haven't read alot on it yet, but will soon.

The one on the have to have a guide is more detrimental than caps and I am sure will not even get a serious look.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Quak,

Name calling and demeaning others is the wrong way to go. I have to discount all you say when you do this.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Econ 101:

One simple question: name one other business or a successful business plan that pays no/zero dollars for its product (e.g., ducks)?


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

I didn't say that you are an idiot. I'm saying that your argument is idiotic. Very much like the implication you made when you attempted to put words in my/others mouth about what our argument is. Very much like the implication you made when you told us all that we need to "quit bitc****". And very much like the implication you made when you ended your post with "think about it". If your skin is that thin, you might not want to play here anymore. :wink:


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Bioman,

Are you saying the license we buy as hunters, the crops the land owner plants, and all of the other costs of hunting are not costs? I think we pay plenty for our product. ( We also pay USWL and NDG&F alot of money to manage out product )


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Econ 101 I did not say hunters, I stated name another business or business plan that pays zero overhead for its product. Go back and reread your Econ 101 textbook. The point being, you CANT! Outfitters pay zero overhead for the product which is owned by either the Federal or State government. That is why I believe it should be illegal. It is a public trust resource, which in my opinion, should not be able to bought or sold to the public at large.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Bioman,

Neither can you, including hunting


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Is that you Mr. Frost?


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

They are absolutely related in that they all involve selling something that is not your place to sell! That girls body is every bit as much hers to sell as the wildlife are the landowners to sell. It is a PUBLICLY OWNED RESOURCE!!!!! People who lease land soley to restrict access and make money are no better to me than the pimp who hustles that girls. They are both prostituting a resource. There are how many programs to help farmers as well.I know I was one until six months ago. I think if you could remove any leasing or payment for access problems, then the problems would solve themselves. Farmers can charge for access fees, that is fine, but when someone starts organizing that into a cartel, then the problems start. And if you think long term this is going to keep one farmer on the land, you need to finish your econ degree.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

tsodak,

It's too bad you relate landowners to whores. I am sure your second sentence is mis-worded so I won't comment on the ownership of the girls body or the wildlife. You have just demonstrated again that this is an access issue disguised as a resource issue. Again, I state, the HPC is all about people management for a precieved better access to hunting land by the sportsman. Thanks for agreeing with the access aspect. I don't think there is a cartel as you say as I am sure the farmer would listen to your offer for the access and make the best decision for him or herself.

MRN,

Who is Mr. Frost. Not me.

bioman,

Where do you get the idea that the outfitters pay zero for their overhead?? I have re-read my Econ 101 many times and can't find where there is no over head in any business including guiding.


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

> MRN,
> 
> Who is Mr. Frost. Not me.


How do you know he was talking to you???????BUSTED


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Sorry Econ, I AM a landowner (although not in this state). And I am not calling myself a whore. Most landowners are not, and you deliberately mislead and spin in your responses. It was not in error for words. The people who are are those who choose to sell something that is not theres to sell. And I most certainly was not agreeing with you that access is the problem. If I mispoke anywhere it was there. But if everyone would be on an equal footing, the pressure problems would equal out. Anyone has the right to restrict access to anyone for any purpose. The issue is Quality of experiance, and most will tell you that the Quality(in birds harvested, peaceful mornings, lack of confrontations) has been degraded these past years. And that has nothing to do with whether farmer Jones charges for access. It is whether the birds have been pushed into the next state by the numbers of hunters that want let them up. The 1 pm close might be an option, but realize you are stoping many HS age kids from hunting in the evenings after school.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Miller, 
considering his question was directly after one of my quotes, I believe he was asking me if I was Mr. Frost. So, again, I am not Mr. Frost.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

It seems to me we would have no roads, or railroads, or flood protection, or rural electric, or State Mill & elevator, State Bank, State Parks, CRP program, Weather Services, Sheriffs, or city police, or lots of other public services, if it were not what's best for people in general.

You see this has become a line drawn in the sand - The for profit people, want to have everything go their way. Only recently has the Genie been let out of the bottle & the Genie is the tax payers & voters of the State, that want ND to not become dominated by commercial hunting & their SPIN & Politics, to use fear & false information, to rally towns & businesses into thinking they are trying to help them.

Thinking People will learn & I have hope ND people will do the right things.

We(In ND) are different & proud of it. Most other States don't get it - that is why they don't live here. I don't think you can continue, to fool many - only those that are Hardcore Land Rights people & trying to make $$$ more important than what we Love to do. Which is why so many of us, not directly involved in Farming, stay here & want to live & work here.

Sure were a minority to - cause not many are real hunters. (most of the ones that pay- are just shooters) & sadly because of how other States have ruined their prospects to ever be real hunters. Alot of NR's are thrilled to come & shoot at one or two, of the same old places. That is not Hunting. I have never seen two areas / Regions have the same conditions year in year out (for lots of different reason) Too long to explain this post. If they do have consistant waterfowl they are most likely leased or No hunting allowed. & thats not all bad - many of these become roosts for waterfowl - that are needed. To hold birds in a area or not have them become easy pickings for shooters.

Because ND is the duck factory & so many ducks are raised here. It is sad that so many are allowed to come in & wipe out a significant amount of these birds, in the 1st few weeks of the season.

& I'll tell you - our region raised a significant amount of the birds in the Central flyway this year. - You would just allow ??? unlimited #'s to come in & shoot their limits (or above) & all will be fine. :eyeroll: SAD what you are trying to help us become (if you ultimately win) GOD willing that will not happen.

It used to be Hunters supported Rural ND & Farming (& I think most still want to) Because most of us came from rural ND & still have family & friends there. It's Sad to see this stuff Urban vs Rural (perpetuated by the commercial sides) doing all they can to keep us at odds.

There are & could be positive ways to mend our differences. But the HPC is going to be one of the main barometers of what's next in all this.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I will say once more that we need to call and have our friends call neighbors relatives and anyone that you know who lives and hunt in ND. We have reached the apex of issues on hunting this year. I believe that a lot of good will come from this in the long run. I called a number of the landowners that allow me access and told them why I supported or did not support a bill and asked them if they felt the same to contact thier Reps. The process is working and win or lose be thankful that you stood up for what you believe in. I will not be able to get out to Bismarck this year but I will follow the votes and call and I will remember the next time they run for office.

The issues are not urban verse rural as I said before this has been given to us by the GNDA tourism, FarmBureu, and th guides and outfitters. I believe from the comments I heard this past year that most rural people want controls understand the big picture, and do not want the state sold to the highest bidder.

Make the effort show up and support what it is that you believe. I have a hunting partner that disagree's with most of the rules for guides and nonres. and we argue discuss I may change his view,but I doubt it, we will still remain friends.


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

One question regarding HPC. How do you determine hunting pressure by the number of licences sold? I may buy a licence and hunt 20 days. My brother may only hunt twice. Also everyone keeps talking about how much pressure the resource can handle. Remember the birds are only here a very short time and are hunted in every state down the line. Just a few different thoughts..Also I keep reading farmers do not manage the resource. I have several friends that would beg to differ with that statement. They eat a lot of grain in the spring and summer months without the farmer being able to do anything. I think a lot of people forget about this.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

As far as hunting pressure is concerned, the waterfowl dont have any pressure in Canada, and due to the lack of NR hunters in SD, dont have much pressure to the south. These are two easy exits when they get pushed around all day long.


----------



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

You make a good point Muskat. One thng for sure, they definitely will not go east (MN). If the weather is decent the birds could easliy go and hang out in SD or Canada until they are forced out by winter. I am definitely one NR that is on your side. I would rather see ND be more like SD than the alternative, Arkansas, Texas, anywhere on the East Coast, or all of Europe. Meanwhile, I will keep reading the E-Tree and hope all goes well. I guess I could call the Reps and Senators and feign that I am a resident??? What do you think?


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Hey Robert,

Well...I know you plan on moving back to ND real soon...so it wouldn't hurt let them know why you plan on moving back!


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Just my opinion, but you may do more good by writing them all a nice email by a concerned NR.


----------



## SiouxperDave (Sep 3, 2002)

I've tried calling the toll free number but it won't work from out of state. I did send an email to the members from my hometown's district.


----------

