# MINN looking to retaliate?



## Dino

A good article in Outdoor News (a MN outdoors publication that is very popular) about Minnesota potentially retaliating against ND's new laws. One thing I found interesting, the license fees generated by resident pheasant hunters in ND is $20 * 56,000 = $1.1 million. The license fees generated by NRs pheasant hunters $100 * 23,000 = $2.3 million. Now I cannot hunt PLOTS or state land the first 7 days. Boy, let me tell you how good this feels. Last year we booked a place for the tuesday after opener for a week. We are basically screwed without public land. I don't know what to do. We have already arranged work schedules, etc.

By the way, MN legislators are looking at a very similar law for nonresidents to MN for fishing. No opener and limiting to 2-7day periods. I think I predicted this about a year ago. For those of you who stumped for the NR lockout the first 7 days, you can only thank yourself if MN does this.


----------



## dosch

Dino,
I'm a ND resident and I think it is great if Minnesota goes ahead with this. Protecting the resource for the residents is what the state should do.


----------



## ChrisP

Dino, what your source on MN looking into changing its nonresident fishing rules?


----------



## Dino

The above mentioned article in the Outdoor News that came out yesterday. Our Deputy DNR Commissioner was quoted in there as saying they are trying to work with your people to find a solution, as they really dont want to retaliate. But there was mention from legislators that they will introduce bills to do that very thing. You know what happens when legislators get involved in these deals....


----------



## Fetch

:roll: :lol: :crybaby:


----------



## Dino

Typical Fetch response.


----------



## gandergrinder

I have to be completely honest with you Dino. I am a former resident of Minnesota and also have parents who have a lake home and grandparents who have a lake home in Minnesota, all of them are residents of Minnesota. Now I am not trying to be an *** nor am I trying to start a fight with anyone. This is just my opinion on the whole issue.

For me Minnesota can have all of its hunting and fishing to itself for the entire season. I grew up hunting and fishing in Minnesota and it will never ever in a million years come close to the expierience I have had in North Dakota in one season. For Minnesotans to be upset over the fact that North Dakotans wish to enjoy the state to themselves for one week of the season is completely uncalled for. One week of the year for a pheasant season that lasts almost three months is not to much to give up for a few locals to hunt with family members and friends and not feel like they have to run around and compete with everyone. Minnesota in my opinion does not hold any of the cards in this game. I will gladly go to my families lake home enjoy there company and never cast another line into Minnesota waters and be just as happy as I was before.

Instead of trying to pass legislation that will stop people from coming and fishing how about trying to pass legislation that would give more funding to the DNR. Or they could have opener for walleyes for residents only. It would only seem fair to me. If you live in the state and pay taxes then that is a right you have earned.

Living here I have realized that the people of North Dakota genuinly care for the outdoors. This starts from the very bottom all the way to the top. The farmers, the sportsman and the game and fish not only talk a big game when it comes to wildlife and its preservation they also back it up.

Many people have been upset by the fact that North Dakota has tried to limit some of its activities to outsiders. If I were to move away from the ND next week and could no longer hunt as a resident I would still back them up on whatever they decided.

The people of North Dakota realize that they really have something special and it is worth fighting for. North Dakota has something every other state wants but will never have. Can you blame them for wanting to keep that forever and maybe enjoy it for one week a year by themselves?


----------



## jimboy

Goodluck Dino, your state is 3x as comercialized as ND. The resort owners and outfitters will have 3x as much pull as you. Just like they do here. In other words, your dreaming.


----------



## Dino

Yes, GG, I do have a problem with that. Why? Where does it end? What if a county decided to do that? Pretty soon, there will be no intrastate hunting opportunities. How sad would that be? Or, if not it will be only for the rich. None. If you dont live in a state with a particular type of hunting, you are SOL. That is a sad day for me and a sad day for hunting in general. NRs have paid for most(?) of the PLOTS land for residents. That just isnt right. A question for you, how will the people you know with cabins like what MN is contemplating doing? I feel sorry for them. They have probably worked their butt off all their life to have a cabin at the lake and now this is dropped on them. Just a question, I am not trying to flame you, but are you thinking (speaking?) only of yourself?

Also, I am not looking for an argument, and nowhere have I said I support it, I just reported what I read. As for MN vs ND. In my humble opinion, ND has the upland (other than ruffed grouse), the waterfowl (although MN has some pretty decent canada goose hunting), the muley and antelope hunting. Whitetail hunting is slightly better in MN (many parts of the north are untouched and we have a lot of variety to whitetail habitat), although both states have their good and bad spots. Fishing? I have fished both ND and MN and MN is better. Sak is ok, but certainly not above what Minnesota offers. Mille Lacs, Leece, Vermillion, Red, Lake of the Woods, Rainy, Cass, Winni, Superior just to name a few and we obviously have way more. Those are just my opinions.


----------



## Dino

jimboy, 
I am not dreaming. I only reported what I read. Sorry if people are having a hard time understanding that. Let me clarify my position.

I hate the escalating screw the nonresident mentality whether it be MN or ND. It will hurt us all in the long run. ND laws have personally affected me for the worse this year and I do not like that. I think it sucks from a personal level. If I was in your shoes, from a personal level, I would like it, but from deep within, I would not.


----------



## dblkluk

Dino, Instead of being upset with the ND regs this year, you should be happy things didn't go as they should have! (SB 2048). The regulations this year are a joke, other than shelling out a few more bucks for a license. But hey, thats why alot of sportsman live in MN, they make a better living and are still within a days drive to the best outdoor opportunities in the country. My in-laws own a cabin on Winnie and it wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if there were caps. I've been there 2 times in 7 years. I'd rather stay in my backyard and have 10 times the quality of fishing!


----------



## mallard

Sak is OK but not what MN has to offer,SAY WHAT? :rollin: .You obviously havnt experienced what ND lakes have to offer.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Dino your point is valid and so are those of us that have been active in preserving the quality of hunting in ND. See one huge difference between our state is perception. MN residents feel put upon by the new rules, that ND is shafting them. Turn the table around and most of us would feel that limits or regulations that will enhance the quality of the outdoor experince would be worth the price.

I witnessed a group last fall sitting by a PLOTS area at 5:30 in the morning, thinking they where getting ready to go set decoys I stopped to say hi and find out how hunting was going for them. The first thing out of there mouth was we where here first. My response was no problem just stopped to shoot the breeze with a fellow waterfowler. They then went on to say they where going pheasant hunting. This scene and many more like them are what drove this law. It allows the resident parent to take there children out with less chance of confrontation and disappointent.

Now you may not have seen this on the fourth or fifth day as the pressure had subsided but to see the furor and stupidity that grown men display in an effort to chase a few chinise imports is appauling. Should a young hunter be subjected to this kind of behavior?

I feel for your loss, but this info is not new and has been in the news since passage in March, plus it only applies to land that is leased by the G&F or lands they pay tax on. It does not apply to federal or private land.
You are not been shut out from hunting just being limited to some degree as to where you can hunt.

Heck tell your Reps to make certain lakes resident only the first week of walleye season. Target those area's that are having the same issues as this. I would bet that most members on this site would gladly support your efforts.

I take no offense to the posting and I realize you are sharing something of interest. Do not take offense to those of us that defend this new rule.


----------



## Dino

mallard,
yes i have fished sak. no it is not as good as MN has to offer. it is a damn good lake however. I am not ripping it. I would rate it over Winni, but c'mon, LOW is in another league. As is Rainy, Superior, and a few more. And it is but one lake. Minn has 6-8 or more in that category.


----------



## Dano2

Dino, dont get caught up in it man.
It doesn't do a bit of good.
Even though everything you say is true,
you wont have one person agree with
you and you'll just end up getting more
and more up tite, I never post here anymore,
but DO like to see whats going on every once in awhile,
usually I just get alot of laughs outof it now :lol: :lol:


----------



## KEN W

Dino...you are wrong in your money figuring.All the money collected does not go to PLOTS.Only the habitat stamp money is required to go there.We have to buy that habitat stamp also.The pheasant season is almost 90 days long and you can't hunt it only 7 of those 90.

You are talking about 2-7 day periods out of a Minn. fishing season of 365 days.Here you get 14 days out of a 60 day season.Your season is 6 times longer.SO...then to be comparable you should get a 2 day license here to be the same as 14 out of 360.


----------



## prairie hunter

25,000 MN nonresident fishing licenses were issued to ND natives. This does not include the children of these anglers. Success or not, ND spend time on vacation/fishing in MN.

I have found the fishing to be great in both states. SaK, DL, and all those hidden perch lakes make ND great. MN has very good fishing if you know when and where. Walleye, Muskie, Bass, trout, and panfish are all easily found and fished in MN.

A cap/time limit would not be a good fight for either state to get into. Still I could see the opener shut-out to NRs or* possibly a resiprocity * law placed into effect. Turkey hunting, access to public land, etc... would be allowed only to hunters from states that have equivalent regs or access.

Remember though : If a MN hunter can not hunt in ND, then there is a chance that he would hunt that weekend in MN, thus helping the home economy. MN hospitality industry can not be too upset.

Wait no caps in ND this year .... Rambling. Good night.


----------



## Fetch

I'll trade you 10,000 fishermen for 10,000 hunters :roll: Both Minn & Wisc. & 10,000 Misc.

& I will never be one of the ones wanting to go to Minn.

Actually this might help ND if 15,000 had to stay here & fish

If Hoven gets re-elected then you can gloat & continue to rape our resources & turn us into another pay to play State :eyeroll:


----------



## Dino

Fetch, your comment "...you can gloat & continue to rape our resources..." is the most idiotic statement I think I have heard on this board. I consider this a personal attack. I am the farthest thing from raping the resource. I am calling you out Fetch, what do you do for the resource? Let's here about all you do. I think all you do is sit and complain. A smart mouth and no dedication to the resource/conservation/habitat. I think it is hunters like you that are causing all the problems in ND. There are some great resident hunters who have great attitudes (some on this board in fact, Dan B, Prairie Hunter, Ron G, amongst others), but then there are those like you that put in no effort and yell and scream if you can't have everything your way.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Dino said:


> By the way, MN legislators are looking at a very similar law for nonresidents to MN for fishing. No opener and limiting to 2-7day periods. I think I predicted this about a year ago. For those of you who stumped for the NR lockout the first 7 days, you can only thank yourself if MN does this.


Good for MN. You live there, and should have the right to make changes where you see fit. If I can't fish in MN a couple weekends a year, I'll fish in ND....no big deal. Both states have great lakes, I don't know where a "my state has better fishing than yours" argument will get anywhere, but...

In my opinion, like someone had stated earlier, is that the resorts in MN will fight this until the end, and I don't think it'll go.


----------



## Dino

Yes, Chris, I think you are absolutely right, the vacation industry and resort association is pretty powerful and they will fight it. I had a conversation with a US F&W guy the other day. He is frustrated as they have no hand in the game. He thought it would be a good place for the feds to help out, but they are on the sidelines.


----------



## Field Hunter

I started out this post somewhat negatively then deleted it and just have to say, hunting season's right around the corner and I'm looking forward to getting out in the country side to enjoy North Dakota once again. The same as everyone, NR ad resident alike.

Just one thing, however.......it's amazing how SOME and I'm sure a SMALL minority of hunters who appear to be from MN are the ones talking about repercussions on NR hunters and fishermen visiting their state. (I wonder if any of them own a bait shop or resort)

By the way, I hope your kids have fun on the younth waterfowl season in MN. After calling your DNR, I found that my sons, ND residents, weren't able to hunt the youth opener. Let's see, I own property in MN but my family is locked out of enjoyig all of the outdoor activities.....I didn't complain....just accepted it. I guess it's a perk for living in MN.

Some NRs just have to be able to switch away from "the hunting of public land only" concept for 7 days.....remember 99% of the land in ND is still open to hunting during Oct. 11-17th. I wouldn't let the PLOTS restriction bother anyone planning on huntng ND that week. You may have much less competition that week than any other.


----------



## prairie hunter

Dino: Thanks for the compliment, but I am now a Minnesotan. Spent the first 25+ years growing up in ND. I enjoy both states and what they have to offer.

Those hunters that are set hard in there ways often become discouraged, mad, and/or give up. Fetch was a die hard snow goose hunter. The snows are gone - he is mad. Whether is was weather, grain crop selection in Canada, and / or hunting pressure - the simple fact is snows do not stage in ND like they did 10 - 35 years ago.

Fetch finally figured out what many other good ND goose hunters did 10 years ago. If the geese do not come to you - go to them - MB and SK are the prime places to play with snow geese now.

So Fetch is now a NR hunter on a prairie province.

Those of us that continue to hunt ND and learn to hunt MN will be successful by chasing game that is abundant, using intelligent techniques, scouting, scouting, trying new places and locations, scouting, and hunting the right game based on the day's weather.

No matter how hard and long Fetch scouts snow geese in early October in ND - he will likely return home mad, discouraged and chose to blame everyone but himself.


----------



## prairie hunter

Field Hunter.

1) Where in the MN regs does the law state what you say?

2) While MN youth can hunt the ND youth waterfowl weekend, the rule clearly states that they must be accompanied by a properly licensed parent or guardien. That means I would burn one of my two seven day splits just to escort my children or I would need one of my relatives to escort them (hunt with us). Not a problem for me - but it certainly excludes most NRs that lack ND connections.

Watch the land ownership comments. Plenty of NRs that own land in ND appear to be in similar shoes. IE. My relatives have fantastic turkey populations that I can not even try to pursue - yet NDs can chase turkey in MN.

Quite a few ND people that now live in MN have inherited ND land that they can only hunt ducks for 7 days due to new zoning. Last year they may have been capped out - if they did not plan ahead.


----------



## Field Hunter

I couldn't find it in the regs either but when I called to confirm with the DNR I was told it's only for resident youth. On the other points...I was trying to point out what you refered to.....there are rules in effect both ways from ND to MN and vise versa that are looked on in a negative manner...not just things that hurt MN NR hunters as others are implying. The fact is NR youth can hunt NDs youth season not the point that it would burn up one of the fathers weekends. Oh, I'd love to be able to spearfish northerns in front of my lake place also, I'd like to spear suckers in the Spring, just as there are things you'd like to do more of in ND.


----------



## Dino

Field Hunter, exactly my point. Where does it stop? Do we really only want to be excluded from every state but our own? If this keeps up, people on both sides will be hurt. Nobody wins. Hunting in general loses, it divides us. Well, maybe the anti's win.


----------



## Dan Bueide

Dino, when this frequent debate goes around to the point where your last post is at, my line of thinking becomes as follows. It doesn't need to be this way, but if it did, I'd say fine, lock us out of MN. For that matter lock us out of every other state too. If it takes sealing every border to preserve the quality of hunting and fishing in ND then so be it.

I live in ND largely because of the quality of hunting that existed up to a few short years ago. If I wanted to make a bunch of money, have easy access to world class theater or other performing arts, year round golf, premiere down hill skiing or whatever else, I'd live somewhere else. Among about 4 other factors, it was premiere wingshooting that caused me to relocate here 5 years ago, and give up some of the other things. So, if it must be that I have to spend the rest of my days only hunting/fishing in ND to get the necesary adjustments within ND, I can live with that.

Of course it doesn't need to be that way, and there will always be room for a significant NR presense and still maintain a very high quality outdoors, just not the heavy use trending towards heavier use the last few years have brought. But this " if you do ....., then we'll do......." doesn't play real heavy with me, because frankly I'd be perfectly content to do all of my hunting/fishing in ND if that was the only answer.

Can you say the same? Would you be content to spend the rest of your outdoors days in MN? See I don't think MN really has the winning poker hand here and not many of us are going to sweat the bluff too much.


----------



## Dino

Dan, let me answer it this way. If I was forced to pick a state to hunt/fish only within its borders, it would be MN in a landslide (Colorado/Montana would be #2/#3). However, that doesnt mean that I want to limit myself. Nor do I want to limit others. A BWCA canoe trip should be mandatory for every kid in the USA in my mind. Why would anyone want to limit each other? It seems like a very self serving type attitude. These are *states* we live in, not independent little countries.

Careful what you wish for....


----------



## Dan Bueide

Dino, I don't wish for anything other than a little recoginition that the wingshooting in ND is extraordinary and an absolute gem, and that it can't be milked for all it's worth in the short term and expect it to remain so. For me and many thousand others, this gem meant ND picked up or didn't loose more population.

And I do not wish for border sealing, but neither would it take away my birthday, so the threats of retaliation just don't play with me. It will never come to that, so it's really pointless to talk about, but at the end of the day I could care a less if that was the end result.

BWCA would be neat, but I have other outdoor activities that I find neater, so I've never been. If BWCA floated my canoe, really floated my canoe, I'd live in northern MN. World class wingshooting floats my canoe, really floats my canoe, so I live in ND.

It isn't just wingshooting that causes people like me to live here or causes people like you to travel here, it's the fact that it's some of the very best wingshooting in the world. Those that oppose reasonable restrictions either don't see or ignore that it's the quality and the relative affordability, not just the opportunity to stand in some slough wearing waders, that attracts residents and tourists.

Quality has already degraded a great deal and will continue to do so without limitations. Once the quality degrades enough (and in this sense quality has many characteristics like numbers of critters, how long they stay, how easy and how much it costs to get to them, etc.), ND will have lost this very valuable resident and tourist gem, or at least it won't play as big a role in residency and tourist destination decisions.

Given the huge increase in demand for the ND hunting resources, preserving and sustaining will mean some limitations on hunters, and as with virtually every species in every other state that gets heavy demand, that will mean more restrictions on nonresidents.

This is neither greedy nor unamerican. Just the way highly sought after resources get allocated by states - some level of extra benefit goes to those who hang their hats in-state. Outside the realm of hunting, states very often favor their residents over nonresidents. In our system of govenment, we give states a large bearth in governance inside their borders. Yes we live in states, and that's precisely why these independant governments we call states can favor their residents in many areas. If there was to be equal treatment for all US citizens, we'd abolish the states and operate only under a Federal govenment.

Self-serving? To many of us it seems self-serving to want to be able to get all you can/want out of living one place and then expect the same level of treatment as the "homies" in other places. I think the self-serving argument cuts both ways.


----------



## Maverick

I fish it 5-10 times a year in MN.For a $40 liscense and catch 1/2 the fish, I would be saving money just not getting one and not fishing there!
ND lkes are way more fun!!My personnal experience!!!
and I've been to LOW, Detroit, Millacs, Pine City( for those damn Skiiez)
and still haven't pulled fish like Devils lake, or that damn Slew Lake that everyone keeps hearing about!!!!

Mav....


----------



## Fetch

Dino it was not a personal attack - :roll: Get over it (the changes)

& PH I quit SOB hunting ND about 7 years ago

I have already posted before what I have done in & for waterfowling - I have forgot more than either of you have attempted to do & have been doing things long before you got your 1st BB guns

- You are a trouble maker & whiner & cry baby & would rape our resources (or at least take advantage of them) for your own personal reasons - Stay home & do us all a favor - especially if you cannot read for meaning what I have posted in the past :roll: I'm so sick of listening to guys like you try to tell us what we have tried to do - is so bad & so unfair etc etc etc - you fuel the negative & get what you give :******:


----------



## Rem700

Can't we all just get along?

I hope MN does this, I won't miss their 10,000 plus lakes cuz we have a whole? two of them here in ND, and if it weren't fer da gov't we'd only have one that if it weren't fer the gov't would only be about half the size it is today. (Just so ya all know the rest of what you NDans call lakes here, MN would just call a slough). Oh ya I bet those two lakes would be just full of eyes with out the gov't's fishery being just below the fake one. Maybe ND should think about importing some MN eyes, then it wouldn't take a whole day on the H20 to catch a meal, like it does here. But oh ya you guys would rather spend that time to catch that limit of scrawny eyes.

Indivisable we stand!!!!?????


----------



## Dino

Another typical Fetch post. You just dont do anything for the good of the resource, so you complain and make personal attacks. Nobody else here criticizes my intentions, only you. You finally have been called out on your hypocritical ways and you have no rebuttal but to slam me?

I propose this, I will abstain from personal attacks and take the high road with you if you post all that you currently do for the good of hunting/conservation, etc. Now political stumping does not count as you are only looking for your interests, but if you must list that as well. Something where you are giving and not getting anything or verrrrrry little in return. Put up or shut up.

Dan, I certainly enjoy your posts. Well thought out from your boots--I might not agree with all of it, but I can certainly respect it. I expect there will be some (monetary?) concessions by NRs. That I dont have a problem with--unless (and I am sure we are on the same page here) it turns it into a rich man's only sport. Yes, ND has awesome wingshooting. But how do you know that your kids wont grow up wanting to do a canoe trip? or shoot a moose? or fish muskies? or..... I also think that managing for the good resource should include both resident and NR management. Restricting access to public lands is a slippery slope. we have focussed on MN/ND, but we both have other borders as well.

I believe self serving is trying to enact laws that preserve only what we personally partake in and the heck with it if that has implications for everyone else--everyone else meaning our kids, our neighbors, other residents, NRs, etc. Many are trying to keep the fantastic wingshooting all at expense. That is pretty narrow, I think. Do you actually think it will stop with MN's retaliation?


----------



## Dave Brandt

Dino,

I agree that every youth (and adult who has not done so) should take a trip to the BWCA, and thank you for mentioning a great comparison to the current state waterfowl hunting in ND. It seems to me that recently (in the past 10 years) there have been fairly severe restrictions placed on use of the BWCA. Why do you think this was? Because many complained that their experience was being degraded by too much use. These restrictions were enacted with one goal in mind, to regulate the use of a world-class resource thereby maintaining it for future generations. If you want to look at some of these rules and make your own judgments as to why they were put into place go tohttp://www.canoecountry.com/plan/rules.htm).

Make no mistake, nothing is unlimited and everyone must make sacrifices sometimes to preserve that which benefits all. The key is coming up with something that is satisfactory to the majority of users allowing maximized opportunities without causing deterioration of that which is so highly prized.


----------



## Dan Bueide

Dino, with a waterfowl cap and the first 7 days of state land res-only pheasants of an approximately 110 day pheasant season, and with the recent license cost increases, ND would still offer the most affordable and NR accessible quality wingshooting in the country.

I don't think there's much to retaliate for. I've only traveled out-state once to hunt big game and have turkey hunted in only three other states, but I hear those that regulary travel out-state to hunt talk about the nonresident restrictions/costs for various species in various states. Many of these, long-standing.

What are the non-res implications for hunting elk or mule deer in Montana? - very spendy tags. What about turkeys in Iowa - $180 for the tag, can't hunt the first period and only residents can get two tags. What about bears in Alaska? Montana caps total pheasant hunters at about 50% of our current total. You know SD's waterfowl program.

The point I'm trying to make is that ND is by no means ahead of the curve in trying to deal with (or one could agrue take advantage of in certain respects) excessive demand, and even with the modifications already made and those additional ones sought by most ND sportspersons, ND will still be quite "open" for it's world-class offerings compared to other species/states. I think that gets lost sometimes in the debate, because until recently ND was just too good to be true.

I don't hear anyone banging on SD for its effective 4,000 nonresident waterfowl licenses. Why? Because it's been in place for many years and people have just come to accept it. 4,000 - roughly 13% of the current level of nonresidents in ND. And SD has had for many years an almost identical upland format to that adopted by ND. It's only because ND has "taken away" as opposed to SD never have given that ND is drawing all of the fire right now.

There will always be opportunities for folks to experience different hunting opportunities in different states. If, in order to preserve the opportunities for those who live in those states, I have to que in a lottery program or pay a little more, or if I can't hunt the "opener", or there are certain areas I can't hunt, that's okay. Just stuff to deal with in terms of total trip planning.

Some of the bills we pressed and passed or worked to kill I suppose could be viewed as self-serving to resident hunters. Some actually made it easier or kept it from getting harder for nonresidents. Don't forget that many of us have nonresident family and friends who travel to ND to hunt with us each year. Yes, we're pressing for measures that will keep ND a premiere hunting state, and yes there will be some consequences mostly to nonresidents from those measures, but we also want to keep hunting with family and friends and have made no attempts to effectively seal the border.


----------



## Dino

Dave,
I looked at those rules and they are rules for using the BWCA. Take out your trash, etc. I do not understand how they relate to our converation.


----------



## Dino

Dan, that is an excellent point. The reason for this discussion is that ND is doing it now. I certainly dont like the SD rule either. My point is this, I am scared of where this road is taking us. Really scared. It sucks on a personal level, but I can deal with it (at least I will be able to in '04). It is the whole thing in general that I hate.

Someone made a point that only the stamp cost goes to PLOTS programs or something, thus it is the same amount for NR or res. Then where does the other money go? Is this true? I am just asking. Where is my NR license money going? My math was right, NRs are contributing more money via license fees than residents, does anyone know where it is going?


----------



## Dan Bueide

Dino, NDG&F is "self-funded" through license fees and related sources, not from a general fund appropriation. The $5 increase in habitat stamp was designed to help defray the PLOTS increases. Because more resident licenses will be purchased for which a habitat stamp is required, the intent of the law is NOT to put the PLOTS increases on the shoulders of the nonresident. Further, while your license may cost more than mine for any given species, the total resident license fees for all species greatly exceeds the total nonresident license fees, at least for now.

But $ are $, and of course sources and uses don't track for each dollar. The legislature also allowed the hiring of three additional wardens, and I'm sure there are some other new G&F funding requirements. So, I think you can fairly say that you and I (but more total res than nonres) are improving the PLOTS on an equal basis through the habitat stamp bump, but your increased license fees may be headed towards a warden or some other G&F use, including I suppose any shortfall in the PLOTS program.


----------



## Fetch

I'm only stumping for my personal interests ??? :******: Right !!!

You and others can't debate or take any criticism so you whine

You are constantly trying to personally attack & make snide remarks about me & the State I Love & the very foundations why it is so special - I think I'll (a paid member) complain to Chris about your attitude & ask him to moderate you :roll: :lol:

Grow up & take it to some board that will side with you :roll: I'm starting to think alot of you want this to be a NR's hot topics site ??? Your crap about Minn retaliating is OLD & insignificant uke:


----------



## Dave Brandt

Dino,

I don't think you read far enough. Let's see... maximum group size, maximum number of nights camping allowed, must have permit to enter, enter only at designated entry point and date shown on permit, a quota of permits issued, etc....... Try this link it says it in plain English (http://www.superiornationalforest.org/i ... ermits.stm)
it says:

"The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is the most heavily used wilderness in the country. In order to protect the wilderness ecosystem and ensure that each visitor has the opportunity to experience the quiet beauty and solitude of the BWCAW, a visitor distribution system has been established."

Also, regulations such as permits and limits also have the side effect of turning away casual users who see it as an added hassle (kind of like having to actually plan a hunting trip to ND because of limited licenses or having to deal with zones once you get here).

I do think it is a valid comparison and see many parallels to ND waterfowl hunting. One of the components of Wildlife management is people (ie pressure and harvest) management.


----------



## prairie hunter

Fetch.

In your dreams boy - in your dreams  . Just because you have 10 or so years on me does not mean you .... :eyeroll: A few of us considered guiding in the 80s but we did not sell out. We knew the clientele that would contract with us.

I am not that vain to realize that many on this board (10 years my junior) are better hunters for some species or techniques. Youth has its advantages ... while experience certainly helps ... enthusiam, energy, and ingenuity can quickly lead to success.

By the way I did finish off a nice adult snow goose with my BB gun at the ripe old age of 10 or 11. Belly crawled throught the decoys and popped him in the head. Thanks for triggering the memories. 

I have seen your type - like some of my father's friends - the ones he rarely hunts with. Drive around in the truck - drink coffee (or something else) and complain about how the good old days are gone. They just simply can not drag their *** out of the truck.

Now if you have health issues I apologize for the comment above. I hope that I am healthy (legs, heart, etc...) as I age and can continue hunting like I do now and have in the past.

Otherwise if you are healthy quit whining and go hunting. Game populations and hunting opps in ND have never been better!!!


----------



## Dino

Dave, yes I think it is a VERY valid comparison. Nowhere do I see it limited to residents. It is managed in a way that is good for the resource and ensures quality access for all. I would love to have ND, MN, SD, IA, all states do something similar.

Fetch, go ahead and tattle if you want. I stand by what I have said and notice again you fail to list one single thing you do. I will be more than happy to talk to Chris about any of my posts. I am done with you, go whine and complain and waste other people's time. The rest of us are having a good discussion.


----------



## Dan Bueide

Across the board game populations have never been better in my ND hunting days. Opps, on the other hand, were far superior from about 92-99, even when populations may have been lower. Still good, especially relative to other states, but not "never better."


----------



## Fetch

How ya doin Dan??? let me know if you need me to change the diapers on either of these youngins :wink:

:crybaby:


----------



## prairie hunter

:roll: About the answer I expected Fetch. :eyeroll:

Guess the bullet hit the mark. :sniper:

Dino: What you have handed out to Fetch can not even begin to be taken as offensive or obsene. Fetch has taken much worse and actually has been kicked off sites so he can obviously hand out much, much worse.

What is the point of all this?

No caps : bad, bad, bad - anyone on this site disagree?
Zones : not so good as designed
7 day resident only duck season : guess it is good, doesn't matter to most NRs
7 day pheasant NDG&F land NR lock-out : must be a better way
MN retaliation : not going to happen, does not matter to Fetch

Hunting in ND : damn good
A little more hunting pressure in ND : get over it and get out of the truck and hunt


----------



## Fetch

PH I am glad I don't hunt with your Dads friends or kids either


----------



## prairie hunter

:crybaby:


----------



## Dan Bueide

Hunting in ND: damn good

By the standards existing in many sates for many generations, yes.

By the standards existing in ND for many generations and up until a few short years ago, no.


----------



## goosehtr4life

Dan, not sure how you could state that hunting is not at an all time high..I have lived in this state for 34 years and hunted for 24 of them..growing up in the early 80's you could shoot 1 Canada goose, 3 ducks, 1 or 2 pheasants..and had to work to find all three...now Canada's all over the state, even in Fargo. The duck hunting is world class, when hunting geese they never stop coming in..and pheasants, growing up in my home town of Turtle Lake you saw very few...Today you can't drive a road without seeing them....so please clarify how hunting is not at an all time high..


----------



## Ron Gilmore

I for one can agree with what you are saying as to quanity Goose, but as far as quality it does not compare to the 70's. thru the late 90's. We never dreamed that anyone would turn hunting into the commerial whore it is today. None of those that I hunted with back then would have considered buying land just for hunting in ND, today some have. I expected to sometimes lose a spot to another hunter, because he asked first or got up earlier. Not becasue the night before some G/O drove in and leased the field after the owner had granted me permission.

These things put more marks in the neg side than more birds in the field or slough do on the positve. IMHO. You may or may be able to relate, but most of the guys I hunt with are concerned less about numbers but more about the hunt.


----------



## prairie hunter

Dan, You said you are from MN, so you are basing your comments on hear say?

Third generation ND hunter here (yes my siblings still live in ND and are resident hunters). Nephews (4th gen) are experiencing fantastic hunting turkey, deer, geese, ducks, pheasant, sept Canadas, antelope ........

Changes in snow geese migration patterns and absence of huns are the only thing missing.

Things have changed in ND over the past 20 years, but people in 1983 could certainly have said the same thing too!

Outside activities (sports and jobs) do more to reduce youth hunting activities and success than any NR pressure or G/O activity.


----------



## Dan Bueide

This is going to be one of those inane arguments again.

I've hunted ND 83-90 and 92-present. Most years a great deal, some years less. A little more than 50/50 as a resident. Grew up in Moorhead, a stone's throw from God's state. I know and have come to know many multi-generation ND hunters who I trust for descriptions of ND hunting when I was not. "Hearsay?", I suppose technically, but silly. Hear the same things over and over in sufficient detail from enough people and it becomes reliable in my book.

As far as game populations, I've been through the good and bad times. Maybe your perception of how "good" things are depends on how you determine "good" or "quality" in the first place. I'm not one who really enjoys sitting in a slough or field if there are no critters around, at least for very long or repeatedly, even if I'm the only one in the county hunting. Neither do I enjoy easy limits shot from the ditch, because I successfully cut off another platoon walking the same field or when surrounded by other hunting groups who I outfoxed by getting there extra early and setting up in a down-wind-proof spot. Anyone who's hunted with me knows I work and enjoy working very hard for my hunting experiences and opportunities, before, during and after the hunt. Increasingly, you need to make the choice between being in heavy critter areas and fighting the crowds or looking for some quiet and hoping you find some critters or they find you.

I don't need to "kill" things to enjoy myself, but I don't enjoy myself if I'm not reasonably sure when I start the day that I might be in a position to harvest critters and have some (not total) peace and solitude along the way. I'm not being very articulate here, and that's a pretty broad generalization that leaves out many details, but that I think in 50 words or less, that sums up what "good" means to me. I think more pressure will mean less "good" for even those waterfowl hunters that don't mind standing shoulder to shoulder, as the birds will find their way to relative peace and solitude too, outside ND borders.

Only total hunters and game populations track from the peak of previous boom periods. The change in hunter mix (more weekday hunting so less rest for birds, more boats, etc), the 500% or better increase in the number of outfitters, the information sharing opportunities, species concentration among watefowlers (no longer 50% or more primarily chasing geese during the regular season) and the amount of land through the "commercialization" process that has become unavailable (yes, access is one component, but not the only one), all contribute to a different paradigm than previous cycles. These aren't factors noted by unreliable conversation but rather by reliable data and easy observations.

Have other states that trended all the way through the commercialization process cycled back out of it for the average joe? Tell the Texas joe-hunters that different challenges just mean different opportunities.

I'm finding the rate of my "good" hunting experiences decrease each year, while game populations rise or remain steady and the amount of work I put into the process continues to increase. I hear the same thing from most other ND hunters too, rural and city alike.

Becuase I've adapted and learned to work harder, my waterfowl bag totals have actually increased the past several years, up to last year. Maybe a fluke, maybe the beginning of another trend where the birds are starting to decide the issues, but last year even much adaptation and work yielded a fair share of mediocre and bust waterfowling days. Even with high bag totals and success two of the last three years with much adaptation and work, the best of "good" came years earlier when bags were smaller and less frequent but there was some level of peace and civility that accompanied the process.


----------



## Fetch

:eyeroll:

I guess you find hunting golf course geese to be better :roll: & yes it is :-?

But the problems are the overcrowding of areas that have services & huntable lands for freelance hunters. - which is what the vast majority are. This has become terrible - more so each & every year. Plus some areas & towns have over sold the availability of opportunity within 50 miles of those towns - so the combination of the two things have really affected residents who used to go to those areas. :eyeroll:

Sure to many, ND is far superior to where they come from - (because it's absolutely terrible there)- & were heading in the same direction - too many all coming at the same time - too much leasing & buying the better lands - forcing too many into ever smaller areas, or places to hunt.

What is needed for NR's - is for our G&FD & Tourism Dept. to do some serious studies of where the REAL problems are (not based on politics) or $$$ - then create more zones & limit the # per week per zone (lottery if nessessary) Not just allow the market or politicians to decide these things :******:

Plus then maybe regions & communities will do more to open up Areas / Lands & Services, to entice freelance hunters. NOT just promote more pay to hunt or see wealthier traveling hunters come in and buy up all the better areas (& not share)

This is what is deteriating the quality of ND hunting *GET IT NOW ???*


----------



## james s melson

Can someone tell me where ND's catch all the fish I've been hearing about? I have been looking through web sites trying to see what ND has to offer in the way of fishing, all I can find is some stuff on Devils lake and a few misc. on smaller waters that are called "lakes" but are potholes. I hear there is close-by state that has more than 10,000 of them.


----------



## stevepike

James,
North Dakotans are so adept at catching fish, we can do it in a pothole, slough, river or lake. We do not need 100, 000+ acres of water to consider it a lake and worthy of fishing.
If you ever need any pointers on fishing the smaller waters, just ask. There are plenty of friendly folks on this site.

(Sorry for the off topic post all, back to your regularly scheduled forum)


----------



## prairie hunter

That is a new arguement Fetch. Not. 

Simple fact is the 30K cap is gone. While many on this site sought 15k - 22K - not even maintaining status quo was achieved. 

I am very disappointed too about this turn in events. 30K was a legit compromise - now there is nothing.

Elections in 2004 may be interesting in ND. Maybe less NDs care about this issue as a *top* issue than many on this site want to believe??? I do not know - you tell me.

Back to MN. For those willing to plan - hunting opportunites are good (not gone). Maybe not as reliable as ND, but I am not complaining nor is my dog.


----------



## goosehtr4life

Fetch, I agree with some of the things you are saying...I have said all along only a certain number of people per week should be able to hunt(non-residents)..this would prevent 50,000 hunters opening weekend and nobody three weeks from then...Perfect example last year we went goose and pheasant hunting the first sat. after deer season...We hunted a non-posted field that geese had been feeding on for over three weeks...hunted had a great hunt...then went pheasant hunting, again non-posted fields without a hunter insight..if fact the entire day we saw exactly three other hunters.....

Also, have I ever been kicked out of a field by a g/o...no 
Have I ever been told by a farmer he has his land leased out to somebody else...no
Have I ever had trouble finding a place to hunt..no
So personally I can't relate to the troubles your having...the last five years have been the best and I can't wait for this year.....

Should we have stricter reg on G/O...absolutely...limit on land then can lease unless owned...pay a high tax....have strict licencing requirements..

Should we make non-res freelance hunters get multiple upland licences and not hunt plots opening weekend...I don't think so..
Should we have a res only pheasant season...yes, every year..
Does the above change hurt G/O...no it hurts the non-resident freelance hunter.....

If the desired effect is less nonresident freelance hunters..yes this will happen this year...I personally would rather have weekly caps(opening two weekends) and more restrictions on G/O's....just my two cents..


----------



## Dan Bueide

GH4L, so a residents-only week of pheasants at the beginning would be less obtrusive to and for all than taking the PLOTS our of play for the first seven days? What about the many nonresident "favored sons" who return home to ND each fall to hunt with family and friends on the opener on private land? I certainly wouldn't oppose a state-wide residents only week of pheasants, but I think you'd hear more grousing about that.


----------



## goosehtr4life

Dan, they still could come on the official opener for everybody...no limits....then residents could still enjoy a week just like what has worked for Goose/Duck early opener...I think you would have a lot less *****ing then what is going on right now....


----------



## Dan Bueide

GH4L, "opener" is "opener". In the world of waterfowl, the residents didn't pick up an extra week that would not have been available to all until '02, the nonresidents lost one. In pheasants, unless you were willing to always open a week earlier the the recent traditional opener (itself a devisive issue), same would apply; the traditional "opener" week would be residents only, and the nonresidents, all of them and as to all ground, would loose a week.


----------



## james s melson

The name of this post is "Minnesota looking to retaliate", stevepike, my post is more in-line than most that are listed. The only reason ANYONE goes to ND is for the fine fall bird hunting. If you people want to compare the two states lets do it. ND lakes don't compare to any ONE of the World Class fishing lakes in MN, the ND deer herd is a joke in comparison, there are so many black bear that they have become a problem as of late. Everyone knows the flyway has shifted to the west , hurray for you, time to screw the other guy! Go ahead and do what you have to with the laws of the land, you can't enforce them anyway, I did'nt see a single fish and game officer last year when the laws were pretty straight foreward, I know I won't see one this year with how messed up they are. Unless it's bird hunting, ND is still good ole ND, the way it has always been, struggle to keep its population and continue to be one of the least inhabited states in the U.S.. Minnesota should retaliate to all its border states until an agreement can be reached to insure fair opportunity for all sportsmen, hunters and anglers. This should get the 20 people in ND who own PC's fired-up.


----------



## Dino

Well boys, looks as if there is an inkling of support for my thoughts after all. I would like to clarify something, I forgot about Devils Lake. Sorry about that. ND has 2 great lakes.

I have seen it posted that it is only 7 days that NRs are locked out of a 110 day season. How about we change it to the last 7 days? This is the one that really binds my undies.

I just sent off a gift like I do every year to the landowners who let us hunt. Boy, I hope I can still hunt their land this year, cuz I am screwed with that PLOTS lockout this year as my reservations have already been made. We are staying in Glen Ullin, anybody have any suggestions which direction we should look for getting on private land? There is a big G/O just south of town, that doesnt work.

I hope 5 years from now, this has all blown over. Imagine if Sask, MT, IA, MN, and ND all just keep leapfrogging each other in terms of gouging the NR. I think we will all be sad.

I talked to a US F&W guy the other day and discussed this. He said the migration has really shifted west for waterfowl, but if there is a drought, it may shift back east (to MN). Now I dont hunt waterfowl, but that would be kinda ironic, wouldnt it?


----------



## Ripline

Well said Fetch


----------



## Field Hunter

Sorry,

Just can't bite my lip any longer. As a ND resident, I'd like to say, If your "inkling" of support comes from the likes of one of the last posters who has nothing but derogatory remarks I'd have to say it's a little weak.

Welcome to the world of most of the resident pheasant hunters....we've been "screwed" for about the last 2 years when we show up on PLOTS land and it's over run with NR hunters the 1st 3 weeks of the season. I'd have to say you won't see much of a drop in pheasant numbers on PLOTS land after the 1st week...as someone else stated here....most residents will hunt the PLOTS land the weekend only, most one day, unlike many NRs who'll hunt it a week straight as long as there are birds available.

The reason there are so many G/Os in the Glen Ullin area and generally people who are charging to hunt is the great influx of NRs with $$$$ who are willing to pay....it hurts the residents as much as you. Get over the 1st week "lockout" as you have so eliquently phrased it. The 1st week of the season is good...but it's not the best!! There are thousands of pheasants left after the 1st week of the season and the hunting only gets better and better....evidently you have some idea in your mind like many pheasant hunters that the majority of the birds are shot on opening day. I believe there was a study done in SD some years ago that found that of all the birds that died in one year 1/3 are shot on openeng day, 1/3 are shot through the rest of the season and 1/3 are killed during the winter.

Mr. Melson, hunt all the black bears, fish the world class lakes, which by the way have mostly undersized fish and are getting smaller by the year, the deer herd....we have a 80% fill rate on tags compared to about 33% in MN.....what joke? I doubt that you actually hunt...but if you do it seems that ND would be the last place you'd ever want to visit. With the attitude that "we can't enforce" the laws anyway, then I'd suggest you stay home.
One of the reasons that NRs have to purchase licenses over the phone or internet, along with a greater information sources, was that MANY NRs, not all, were purchasing multiple waterfowl licenses simply by buying them from more than one outlet. Well, I guess we can "enforce" that now.
One thing though, you're right, we are the least populated state....many of us like it that way. Plenty of room for pheasants.


----------



## Dano2

Undersized fish? Thats a joke! :lol: 
80% fill rate on tags compared to whatever?
GEE IWONDER WHY :roll: 
If you need to ask, then I guess
you have never been to MN, (Gods State)


----------



## james s melson

Mr. Field Hunter, no one is asking you to "bite your lip", that is what this forum is all about. You make several good points, people buying multiple licenses to get around time limits is one of them. The main thing I am trying to say is that there are ways to insure everyone gets fair treatment, some may be left out, but a system needs to be set up...a uniform one. If you read all the posts in this forum, you will see a disturbing "screw them" attitude that will ruin everything for everyone. After I bought my ND waterfowl, I found that areas will be closed to me and my kids during MEA week, stressing the hunt we were looking forward to for over a year. I know the land pinch you are talking about, I have to also consider a smaller window of time. The enforcement problem I was talking about was'nt meant to be a "catch me if you can" thing, I was trying to point out what the by-products of complicated rules can become, we see it in other states we visit in the fall. We will have to dissagree about the deer herd. MN puts as many deer hunters in the field each season as ND has living in ND, they shoot more than 200,000 each year with an additional 100,000 lost to cars. The kill would be much higher without restrictions such as bucks-only and special zones, blame MN DNR for that. As far as population, I was only giving facts that can be verified on the web anytime, the population of ND hasn't changed since 1920. Keeping that in mind, there is alot at stake when a state of 600,000 tries to restrict others the way it appears to be trying to do. ND's haven'nt paid for all the fish and game projects out there, we all have.


----------



## djleye

Mr. Melson, You have just skipped right over the fact that we are trying to get across to others. Certainly there is room for probably 60,000 out of state hunters. If that happened though, it would seriously degrade the quality of your experience. You probably would see a fe wmore people in your hunt but you wouold see many less birds because the waterfowl will move back up north or head directly south where there are caps and much less harrassment of the game. It is the resource that we are trying to protect. they don't have to stick around and with an unlimited supply of hunters consantly popping at them they will invariably go where there is less noise and commotion!!! Ducks are not like pheasants and deer , they are migratory and will be gone so no one can utelize the resource!


----------



## Dan Bueide

jsm, since we're being blunt here, I put you in the classic "best of both worlds" kind that show up here from time to time. You choose to live one place for whatever reasons, and because you pay your US taxes, send in your DU dues and bless other states with your tourism dollars, you feel cheated in not being able to hunt what you want, where you want and when you want to. You want to get what you can from living one place, and no one has the right to differentiate you from their own when you're somewhere else.

This, of course, runs contra to the game management practices of nearly every state, including yours, for decades. ND is just one of the last to make some changes that will affect many, and taking these things away from those that have been used to the gravy train has caused quite a stir among them. And it's important to note these actions weren't in retaliation to any other state's action. These were and others will be done to deal with demand that many view as too intense.

MN isn't bashful about its nonresident fees, but NR restrictions are less than many states. But MN isn't lilly white here either. No nonresident spearing, and no nonresident prairie chickens.

Why stop the ban against preferential res/nonres treatment at game management practices. Why not make all public colleges set one tuition level, rather than cut breaks to their residents. Why limit social service programs to residents. Hell, most of these see Federal dollars, and I pay Federal taxes, so why can't I get the same benefits as ________ residents. I may even spend money in and pay sales taxes in some other states with programs/benefits that I'd like to take advantage of. I'm being unfairly discriminated against!

Fact is, many of us live in poor, old, broke-down, decrepit, backwards, sparse ND not because we don't have other options, but because we kind of like it. Believe it or not, some of us moved away and were doing just fine in the more glamorous parts of the county and actually chose to move back - heavens forbid! We don't want to see Fargo become the twin cities, Bismarck become Madison or the quality of hunting to go the way of many other states in terms of quality and accessibility.

And along with about 4 other factors, the quantity and quality of hunting/fishing opportunities was what brought me back and keeps many here. Poor old ND would have been 4 residents less but for the hunting/fishing quality that existed 5 years ago. And it's not just my family. Outstanding hunting and fishing is just that much more important to many thousands of us that we decide to be closer to it year round rather than sample it once in a while. That is why were fighting so hard to preserve it. That a quality and affordable outdoors, not just an outdoors, is important to ND from a tourism standpoint too, creates another reason to try and get a handle on this gold rush.

I fully recognize that a person's perspective on these things depends a lot on whether you're on the inside looking out or vice-versa, and at the end of the day we all tend to be biased in favor of that which benefits us, but there's a lot more at play here than just some sort of "screw you" attitude and some selfish attempt not to share toys. Restrictions will affect all differently and some more, but it needs to be repeated over and over that a great deal of us hunt with NR friends and family each year, and many of these are on the same page on these issues as us, and if we were out to "screw" someone it would make for some very uncomfortable holiday dinners.


----------



## Ripline

Mr Melson,
One word, ADAPT. Get in you truck and start looking for school land, fed land and private land open to hunting (ask first). Laziness is no excuse for complaining.


----------



## james s melson

Mr. djleye and Dan B. I appreciate the views you both expressed, it's nice that name calling and insults were left out of this disscussion. I hope you know where I'm going with this, I appreciate the fact that you thought of me when talking about how things impact the hunt. One of the most beautiful things about ND was the fact that almost all land was accessable, you did'nt have to drive around with a map on your lap like SDAK, its easy to say "go find other places", if you have trouble it's because you are lazy.


----------



## Fetch

PH read this http://www.ndwf.org/legislative.html


> Even though SB 2048 (HPC II, governing nonresident waterfowl licenses) failed, the philosophy of it is still "out there."


I won't forget & I think the residents are slowly learning the truth & by election time, & another season or two, all should be hopefully better informed & tired of the ignorance that has been perpetrated by sides in this that think they are winning ??? I hope the attempt to ask NR's to join us in reasonable restrictions is not too late - The next powers that be - may not be as easily persuaded by BS & $$$ - just something to think about - Enjoy while you can - Because either way you may lose (Quality or Opportunity)

How bad does ND have to get ??? To make NR's realize how great it really was ??? :eyeroll:


----------



## djleye

Lets not forget... I pay $146.00 for a two day season of deer hunting so I can do it with my Father-in-law and brother-in-law in Minnesota. Please don't tell me about unfair license fees!!!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:
And I also help pay for CRPwith my tax dollars so I am very happy to know that I now can hunt anywhere I want where there is crp land in SW ND!!! :beer:


----------



## Chesador

I grew up in Northcentral PA when there was a whitetail behind every tree. Great upland hunting also. After a career in the Marines now I choose where I live. While I'd love to live where there are more "outdoor opportunities", I live in VA, 30 miles from Washington DC because the job market is stong here. Okay, who cares about this? It's a choice many adults make. So I gladly pay the $100 to $150 in out of state hunting licence fees to Maryland, and ND! IMHO if a state restricts non-residents from state public land for the first week of a season, that's a good thing! Why should anyone who chooses to work in a city for a good salary be able to swoop into ND and deprive the locals who tough it out all year long? Give the local guys a week with competition from us darn NRs! This should help residents keep a good opinion of us non-residents and may result in local farmland continuing to stay open to us!


----------



## james s melson

I talked with the people we stay with during our waterfowl hunts, we rent a small farm house. They have about 5000 acres of fields and CRP with small potholes. This is the first season they have EVER posted their land. Last year these people gave me and my hunting buddies a huge laugh at the mention of it. It is a sad thing, because I have experienced being on the other side of the No Trespassing sign in SD and MN. Now what has happened is, we will be the only persons allowed on those acres during our stay, good for us, but bad for people with kids .looking for spots during MEA.


----------



## Field Hunter

Melson, you know it's guys like you that come in and "talk" to the landowners and get them all upset at the ND hunters. Why not talk to them about opening it up again to anyone that wants to ask....or is there something else involved?


----------



## Dan Bueide

Melson's just another symptom of too much pressure. When demand gets excessive, folks start seeking some exclusivity. Some through NR restictions, some through informal arrangements such as his and others through buying, leasing and the use of outfitters. Excessive pressure/demand is what drives the whole deal. Check it or we're on the road to Texas.


----------



## redlabel

Saying Melson is a symptom of too much pressure, is making a generalization and trying to turn it into a fact.

One can never simplify the reason a landowner posts his property. Last year in the area I hunt, two landowners (one of them very large) posted their property with signs that stated the property was open to Non-residents only. The signs also included his name and phone number.

I was able to hunt the property later in the season after asking 3 times. The first two times he told me he had relatives hunting the area, but each time when I asked if he would mind if I called back he said that was fine. The third time we had a discussion about where I was from, what organizations I belong to and in the end the real reason he let me hunt is because of my 14 year old son.

He was boycotting a group whose ideas and statements he did not like or agree with.


----------



## Fetch

Did you enlighten him of the truth - (or just hunt) ??? :-?


----------



## redlabel

Actually, I don't know if I know what the truth is, I just know what my opinion is.


----------



## james s melson

The owner of the land we will be hunting did the posting of their land as a result of what they saw going on around them, I did'nt "talk" them into doing anything. In the small town they live near, we spent 500 or so on fuel, groceries during our stay on top of what lodging costs were. The town and the landowners want us to return, and others like us. The reason I called was primarily to stay in touch but also ask if any of the property was enrolled in PLOTS or other programs that would affect my upcoming trip, if it were I would have to do some plan changing quickly. Maybe using me as an example of symptom of too much pressure is correct, but the pressure may be on the small town folk that welcome some out of town friends and what they offer, they seem to be concerned. The day may here soon when the fields will be closed to the guy that asks during the season instead of months in advance, that is the way MN and SD are now in most cases.


----------



## Field Hunter

I can see your point when it comes to $$$'s spent in ND in the Fall...We all appreciate your contribution to our local economies. What gets me is some of the farmers thinking that because you and others that visit the state have out-of-state plates on your cars that you are the only ones contributing to the local economy. Many of us hunt most weekends Sept first through Mid January. Most of us spend MANY more dollars that any NR visiting the state....and we have to put up with the Winter...another story.

Maybe when visiting the state this Fall you can do what many of us are doing on an ongoing basis...instead of disagreeing with the structure of the hunting seasons and laws, try to educate the farmers on both your point of view and the point of the resident hunters. This happened to me a month ago when I stopped in to secure land for the upcoming hunting seasons....contrary to some peoples views, there are many of us that seek permission well before the season, even on traditionally unposted land....Anyway, a farmer of a rather large farm that we deer hunt and waterfowl hunt told me he was upset with the number of NRs that were driving on his land in search of waterfowl...nothing illegal on un-posted land...but it still irked him that they took the privledge without asking. He was going to put up no huntng/ no trespassing signs. After discussing the issue he came to realize that since no one was doing anything illegal he should just modify the type of sign. He'll now be posting but with a "No Hunting w/out Permission" sign which will have his name and phone number and he won't limit to just residents or NRs.

There IS room for everyone....let's ALL help keep it that way.


----------



## spud

I have lived in Detroit Lakes for the last eleven years, and have hunted and fished the lakes in the area since my grandfather took me with when i was just little. What i dont understand is why nr's complain here of slot limits which thank god have been put on some area lakes. For a few years locals complained too, but now the fish are bigger and this works better for everyone including nr's. Yet they still complain about some of their taxes on their lake cabins (homes) going to schools in mn. We have Nr's here pretty much through labor day, then it tapers off, to just some people coming to ice fish in winter. We do not close our stores in winter because nr's are gone. It slows and thank god it does. We appreciate the business, however it also raises the prices for us who live here year round. Don't think that you are the only people that get raked over the coals. Take a look at some of the ads in the grocery stores in fargo and compare them with ours, some things close but more over we are higher. Also there are a lot of nr's that feel that they own a place on one of our area lakes, so therefore why should they buy a license. Not right. If i owned land in nd that doesnt give me the right to do as i please. This is the reason we have laws.

I hunted two years ago in southwest nd for pheasants, never in my life have i seen the numbers of birds you have there. absolutly amazing. However not all of you residents were very nice to our group. We hunted private land, followed the rules just as we do here. Yet with my Mn license plate we were told on more than one occasion, (while driving around and looking at the thousands of birds), that if we didnt have permisssion to hunt the field we coudnt hunt the ditch. We knew that, but told the people ok just to please them. We didnt have any problem spending about $400.00 a piece (there were 6 of us) for 4 days of awesome hunting, which noone there complained about. Now this. Maybe we should pull over boaters on our lakes and ask them if they have a license, how many fish they are taking home, etc,etc. I agree that two wrongs dont make a right.

Next time the nr's drive to the lakes country down highway 10, think of how many people down here bend over backwards for you people, and take the complaining about the jetskis and speed boats on the lakes........ Its very quiet and serene on these lakes during the week when you are at home. And very good fishing.


----------



## spud

One other point, us minnesotans and nr's can blame cabins and lake homes for the decrease in ducks in minnesota. 20 to 30 years ago the lakes in this area were absolutely unbelievable. But thanks to owners who up root vegetation and put sand in the lake for pristine swimming the ducks have no nesting and places to hide. Yet we put up banners and flashing ribbons to keep them out of the yards. I myself would love to wake up in the morning and see geese and ducks with their little ones sunning themselves on the grass. Who cares about a little goose poop. Wouldn't you rather see them there or complain about them being gone? Also it's a proven fact that if you leave some taller bushes along the shoreline geese will not come through it to get to the grass. A very simple solution.

Now we see lots of ducks later in the season when they pass through and land in the lakes for a rest on their way south. Also another reason for decreased numbers of ducks in Mn are the limits in the southern states. They are able to take many more ducks than both Nd and Mn hunters can. Ask your local DU chapter about this, I have and they say that it is political and they cant do anything about it. So it seems up here we rasie them, get some good hunting for a few weeks, then let the southerners shoot the heck out them, only to have them come up here to repopulate themselves again. A viscious cycle that needs to be broken. A good idea.......... same limits state to state......across the board. only fair i think.


----------



## sniperboy

I think I have to agree with you on the state to state same limit thing. With a little pressure put on Fish and Wildlife that could happen, but then they would probably just keep the season open even longer down south!!


----------



## Dan Bueide

Sorry for the long post, but I've been laying back on this one for a whuile. On the issue of resource hording, retaliation, etc., here's some info I gathered from the information services of NDG&F and MDNR over the past copuple of weeks.

1. Fishing Stats. In 2002, ND had 170,230 licensed anglers. Of that number, 40,177 or 23.60% were nonresidents. Of the nonresidents, 10,850 were MN residents. Thus, of all anglers licensed in ND in 2002, 6.37% were MN residents.

Also for 2002, MN had 1,082,265 licensed anglers. Of that number, 267,193 or 24.69% were nonresidents. Of the nonresidents, 26,600 were ND residents. Thus, of all anglers licensed in MN in 2002, 2.46% were ND residents. In fact, ND isn't even in the top three states whose residents purchased 2002 MN fishing licenses, and lags a fair distance back: IA, 50,435; WI, 45,592; IL, 37,958.

MN has more fishing waters than ND, and the gross number of ND's utilizing MN fishing is higher than the reverse. However, as the above numbers illustrate, ND is sharing her more-limited but quality fishing resources with MN residents on a greater than 2.5:1 ratio as compared to the reverse, and ND fishermen only very nominally affect the overall MN fishery.

2. Hunting Stats. Here, the statistics are even more pronounced.

In 2002, ND had 146,579 total licensed hunters. Of that number, 47,681 or 32.53% were nonresidents. Of the nonresidents, 50% or 23,850 were MN residents. Thus, of all licensed hunters in ND in 2002, 16% were MN residents.

In 2002, MN sold 835,230 hunting licenses. Of that number, 23,142 or 2.77% were sold to nonresidents. Of the nonresident sales, 2,502 were sold to ND residents. Thus, of all hunting licenses sold in MN in 2002, .3%, three-tenths of one percent, were sold to ND residents.

Yeah, I realize the hunting and fishing info is a little apples/oranges in that some is licensed participants and other is licenses, but that's the best I could do. I'd be very surprised if getting all the info on the same plane would affect the analysis much, given the large disparities noted by the info, but by all means do some more digging and prove me wrong.

3. Fishing/Hunting Comparisons. When it comes to ND nonresident hunting restrictions, some from MN will threaten North Dakotans with retaliation to MN fishing resources. As the above statistics bear out, there's nothing to retaliate for, as MN residents already use ND fishing resources on a 250% higher proportional basis. But, neither can you equate fishing to hunting - they're apples to oranges.

When fish get over pressured, they quit biting. Contained to their home water, they can quit biting but they cannot leave. Waterfowl, of course, are different. They can and do react from too much pressure, and when over-pressured they vote with their wings. SD currently has 43,000 total (res and nonres) licensed waterfowlers. Saskatchewan has 23,000 total waterfowlers (res and nonres). Last year we had about 65,000 and this year likely more. Some feel the snow goose migration through ND has already been affected by relative hunting pressure, and ducks appear headed in that direction too. Those that have hunted SD in recent years have marveled at the number of waterfowl in the North 50 miles of the state beginning shortly after the ND opener and until freeze-up. Ducks have options, and too much pressure means less birds in-state for less days. This does not benefit anyone having any interest in the ND waterfowl resources: resident hunters, resident tourism folks or nonresident hunters.

Further, to a certain extent, you can "stock" your way out of heavy pressure in the fishing context. Fishery stocking programs, while expensive, are feasible. When it comes to pheasants, this is greatly more difficult and largely ineffective. When it comes to waterfowl, only limited pressure can produce "stocking", as they just plain leave when they get too much pressure.

Finally, no matter how many North Dakotans (or fibbers, or sconies or iowegeins or&#8230;&#8230; use MN lakes or buy MN lake cabins, "exclusivity" to the MN fisheries can never be obtained. Lakes are accessible to everyone, and access cannot be denied irrespective of lakeshore ownership. In our situation, the heavy pressure and crowding has caused many who are able, nonresidents and residents, to seek "exclusivity" through buying or leasing hunting land or through outfitting services. When this occurs, almost without exception, this ground becomes inaccessible to the majority of hunters and has become the exclusive domain of a few.

4. Quality, Quality, Quality. There's a reason why 15,000 MN hunters travel to ND to hunt ducks (not to mention the thousand more who drive through MN to get here) and thousands more for pheasants and virtually no ND hunters travel in the opposite direction. There are ducks and pheasants in MN and there are plenty of public grounds on which to hunt them. It's not just the opportunity to stand in some slough with a duck call around your neck and wearing waders that's unique in ND. Rather, it's the larger number of birds and the relatively more elbow room in which to hunt them that's unique and special enough to draw tourists and some residents here.

It seems to me ND has a choice. Squeeze everything possible out of this hunting asset in the short run creating a "gold-rush" free-for-all that burns itself out, or manage and sustain the resource so that ND continues to have something that is both a tourism and residency draw for the indefinite future. If we choose the management route, ND will always be able to share these resources with thousands of nonresidents (and their tourism dollars) and provide the kind of hunting opportunities that mean enough to forgo higher salaries and other opportunities elsewhere to keep and attract residents and their year-round dollars.

On the other hand, once we loose it, once commercialization has fully trended, ND will have lost one of her very unique drawing qualities, and looking at other states for guidance, once lost we'll never get it back.

5. Access is not the only issue. Bob, you seem like a good egg and I'm not trying to pick a fight, but your focus on additional public hunting grounds and further g/o restrictions seems a little self-serving. These solutions take you out of being part of the problem.

With an effective 4-6 week average waterfowl season (yes, there are exceptions in terms of very small but pretty reliable late season areas within the state and unreliable extended Falls in larger areas), and assuming every inch was "public" and every g/o was side-lined, we still wouldn't be able to absorb unlimited pressure. The waterfowl just won't take it, they'd either stay out or move on.

Ideas are great, and hopefully we'll find some new ones, but additional "public" acquisition has very harsh limits. County commisioners, a very strong political force in ND, HATE and strongly oppose any form of federal acquisition, lease or buy. These guys go bonkers when one quarter goes WPA. This takes land off the tax roles, and try to convince them it has only a very immaterial impact on the tax burden of other properties. In fact, to accomplish some larger "public" projects, pollitically, Feds have to partner with NDG&F where the latter agrees to pay "in-lieu" taxes. So, any massive access aquisition program is going to require funding not only to acquire the ground but also indefinitely pay the taxes. This would severly increase funding requirements, and any quess how the county assessors might view one piece of ground or the other?

Add to that the general perception by many in rural ND what it means to take ground out of production. In this respect, many in rural ND aren't overly enthused (understatement) with the CRP program. Less tilled means less seed, fertilizer, tractors, equipment and related dollars that would cycle through the local economies. And right or wrong, the perception is that landowners of idle ground (and their dollars) tend to migrate out of the area when ground comes out of productions, compounding the effects to local economies. Again, right or wrong, I've had several rural folks that have said CRP, not low ag prices, have hurt rural ND the greatest. I raised the idea of some sort of additional stamping to acquire access to one of our Senators a few years back, and got a quick education on several points I hadn't before considered.

There are no easy, single-faceted solutions. There are political land mines and forces of inertia everywhere. Being realistic, we're not going to reverse the g/o's (unless someone charges hard with an initiated measure), but we may be able to contain the industry to about its current level. The PLOTS program and other access-improvement programs can allow for improved upland hunting opportunites for the average hunter, but you can't acquire enough access to satisfy a limitless number of even upland hunters. With watefowl, additional access in the name of allowing more hunters and their corresponding pressure will only mean less bird-days in ND for all. At the end of the day, the resolution package is going to take some curtailment of demand too, in the form of caps. Even many NR's recognize this, especially those who have hunted ND for many years.


----------



## MResner

Dan,

Thank you for your very articulate and TRUTHFUL insights. It was refreshing to read your objective analysis of our sad (and worsening) situation.


----------



## Ripline

Dan,
Very well written.


----------



## Crabby

Dan,

All your numbers neglect one important thing. Virtually nobody lives in ND. Try using percentages rather that just a gross percentage based on total numbers and I think you'll find a great percentage of ND fisherpeople affected by MN fishing regs and policy. Personally, I could care less what the numbers are, as long as you are treated the same as us. Remember the golden rule? I'm not sure you do!

Also note that I think you're wrong about restricting ND access to MN public waters. Isn't ND telling NR's that they cant't hunt public lands? I think MN may well tell you the same about our waters. It's been discussed at the appropriate level.

Also note that I'm real close to cancelling my ND hunting this year. An out right boycott may be in the works with much more harrasment.

Have a nice day! I'm off to Friendly Ontario to shoot some birds. Way cheaper that you folks, and I have to say, they greet us most kindly. Come to think of it, it's prettier there too.

Crabby


----------



## Ripline

AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!! All over ONE measely week closed to NR's. Doesn't anybody realize that the season has fifty three more days. Go ahead and go to Canada, It's YOUR loss. :withstupid: uke:


----------



## prairie hunter

Nice post Dan.

This esculation of the MN / ND border war will not do much good for the average NR hunter in ND. It could cause many ND people sitting on the fence to jump into the resident hunter camp just to fight the "enemy". Nothing like a common enemy to insite the masses to fight.

Imagine CK and Fetch in the same camp 

Anyway ==> ( I will not be as elegant in my hastily written response, but here it goes).

I keep hearing a number closer to 45,000 ND residents buy fishing licenses in MN. I was one of the first to post the 26K number on this site and I received that number via MN DNR. Still the 45K number if valid would change your %s by quite a bit.

Roughly 1 in 3 (or 1 in 5) ND anglers fish in MN too (assuming that all ND anglers fishing in MN also buy a resident ND license). I doubt it. *Less than 1 in 70 MN resident anglers also fish in ND. *

Many of the ND nonresident fishing licenses are short term licenses. I believe your number is a combination of all NR licenses sold. One week anglers would have a smaller impact on the resource. ... what about total number of days fished?

It would be interesting to see if MN hunters use more days/season or less than other nonresidents in ND. Is their impact on the resource greater? or do they tend to hunt weekends more and are thus more visible to the ND hunter? Do not know? Not sure if it even matters.

Lastly, you could limit some pressure on a lake by closing all public access points to nonresidents for part of the season. One idea would be to close all DNR public boat launches to nonresident anglers for the first week or two of walleye season and bass season.

How about a NR boat launch pass required to use public access points in MN. Use a window decal. Use funds to keep up sites.

NR anglers that own cabins or stay at resorts would still be able to fish and thus not impact the "industry" in a negative way. Pressure on the boat launches and hopefully on the water would be reduced.


----------



## ND decoy

Crabby,

I live here and I love it here. You can make all the little threats you want I don't think you will be missed.


----------



## rap

i don't see why north dakota is at the front of the firing squad? what about south dakota's limit of 6000 nonresident hunters? i wanted to go back this fall with a buddy from college to hunt on his land in SD, but then i remembered the cap on hunters and found out i couldn't get a license. hey, they have a cap, i can't hunt there this year, i have to live with it. i really would have enjoyed it because the hunting is awesome in that area. should i go whine all over the place about it, no. quit the whining


----------



## Crabby

I'm not whining -

You reap what you sow.

Treat others like you'd like to be treated.

An eye for an eye.

Reality is that this has little to do with rural ND. They're glad to see us! It has to do with ND urbanites who feel the rural folks should suffer a lack of enterprise to save something for their consumptive city butts. When in reality, there's no difference in a traveling hunter from Fargo and one from Minneapolis. I'd suggest the farmers take notice of who's "nicer".

Crabby


----------



## ND decoy

Crabby,
You are right reap what you sow. I have had alot of calls already from non residents (some that have been coming to our land for a long time) to hunt our land and when I tell them that our pot holes are dry and that I am not giving permision for pheasant hunting yet, some people can't hang up fast enough now that I am of no use to them.

I don't really care any more if people get ****** about us trying to protect our resource or our way of hunting. The way I look at it is if you don't live here your just a guest and residents should have first priorty. Maybe if Minnesota didn't drain there potholes or allow cabins to go up on every little piece of swamp land in the state they wouldn't be in the situation that there in now, begging and crying and making useless threats about getting even with us. (Like you said "reap what you sow")

Why is Minnesota the only state that seems to be upset over this?


----------



## gandergrinder

Your right Crabby there is no difference between Fargo and Minneapolis hunters except I've already spent more in Rural ND during early goose than most out of staters will for a week of hunting. I'll keep spending money the rest of the hunting season also and the rest of the year. I would be willing to bet that the farmers I talk to think I'm just as nice and friendly as any out of state hunter too.


----------



## Bobm

Hey Dan, don't worry about picking on me I find the discussion extremely interesting and I've learned a lot. You're obviously a lot better informed about whats what in ND. However I've got to insist that aquisition of lots of public land is the only true insurance you've got to prevent the total loss of no pay hunting in ND. Unfortunately I've watched this process unfold in two states I've lived in ( I'm 51 Years young) and I know whats going to happen. I'm not informed about waterfowl issues but I've enjoyed learning about them. I don't hunt ducks or geese. I guess my frustration is because I keep getting the feedback from you guys that its impossible to aquire public land because your politicians don't like it for a number of reasons. I ask you aren't there a lot of resident hunters that vote and would they be sympathetic to this. You guys got to get tough with your politicians and thats going to take organization on ND hunters part. If you have a large enough voting block a lot of things could change. You all have to quit worrying aobut what your politicians think and make them worry about what you think. You"re in a fight and you better hit hard. 
And there may be a limit to how many upland hunters North dakota could absorb but if you had one hell of a lot more public land that limit would be awful high. There is no doubt that there is going to be some rationing the resource as it pertains to water fowl because as I understand it waterfowl are more or less concentrated and causing a lot of hunter conflicts. The area I hunt upland doesn't have these concentrations I've never felt crowded. And I guess I should keep my mouth shut about where that is. And your right about one thing I am a "good egg" . Thanks for keeping me informed. I can't be to much of the problem I've never had a run in with anyone yet.


----------



## Dan Bueide

PH, 26,600 was the response from the information services guy at MN DNR following my request. Can't explain the 45,000 number bantied about. Either an error or maybe some interpolation for the children on family licenses or something else. I saw a number on the MDNR of 1.6 MM MN anglers (not licenses). If this is true and the 45,000 represents an estimate to include unlicensed anglers, ND's role becomes 2.81% instead of 2.46%

I suspect fishing days and term of license may tweak the results somewhat, but I don't think they'd produce glaringly different results. Are the respective license cost structures such that there's a bigger "break" for short term licenses in ND? I guess fishing days would be the best comparison, but I don't know whether either/both states do any sampling in this regard.

To me the numbers are most relevant as an examination as to who is using who's resources. MN has much more productive water I'd guess. The fact that ND's only account for 2.46% of MN's licensed anglers (and not even in the top three of nonresident states) and MN's represent 6.37% ND's anglers in my mind dispells the myth that ND is having it's way on fishing issues and shutting down the border on ND hunting. If we want to examine fishing, let's examine fishing. If we want to examine hunting, let's examine hunting. Mixing the two, and inferring that ND's are hoarders and plunderers, was a convenient opportunity until we dive into the numbers.

If MN has a fishing pressure problem to the detriment of its residents, it should be addressed by boat ramp stickers, exclusivity periods or other means. I'll deal with it and get an early jump on the summer's work at the folks' cabin. I guess the point I was hoping to make is that if there is a MN fishing problem, ND's contribution shouldn't be viewed as a very material part of it or the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone - threats of retaliation in hopes of an ND hunting policy change and MN fishing pressure management. The numbers just don't support that ND plays much of a relative role in the overall MN fishing picture.


----------



## Crabby

:withstupid:

You likely are very "nice". But I'd love to spend more in ND - Somebody won't let me stay that long?
Maybe you wanted that?

Crabby


----------



## gandergrinder

If you really want to spend more money here and support ND why don't you move here. You can't have the best of both worlds. MN wages and ND hunting rights.


----------



## Field Hunter

"You reap what you sow."

"Treat others like you'd like to be treated."

"An eye for an eye."

I think my NR MN family license was $42.00 this year. Each of my sons was $35.00 each. (over 15 years) I'm not complaining. It's well worth the price....maybe MN should raise it....it would be still worth it. Restrict NRs to not being able fis the first week of the opener.....on all state waters or maybe pick 1% of the good to marginal walleye waters.and restrict it for a week...you know like the PLOTS lands that have you all are so upset over.

NR MN "portable" fish house license, approx 35.00/year. I've got two of these that need to removed every day, as NRs can not have a permanent house. I'm not complaining, its worth the money.

NR Waterfowl License $83.00. I'd love to hunt with my sons on land my wife owns by inheritance....too much money for me to come up with for one or two weekends. The have many pheasants on the land but I don't care to hunt there. Maybe I'd waterfowl and pheasant hunt there more but there's the reason so many MN residents travel to ND every year.

I would have liked to hunt the wild rice and cattails that are in front of my cabin, not removed by the way, with my sons but the DNR said only resident youth were allowed. (ND allows NR youth on youth season).

I'd love to harvest some of the larger northerns along with some neighbors and friends at the lake by spearfishing....you guessed it, NRs are not allowed to participate.

Oh yah, there are some BIG bucks on my wifes land but approx. $161.00 for a buck license is a little high for me, not to mention 2 sons.

As far as not allowng you to spend money.....the waterfowl license is virtually unchanged from a year ago with the major exception being 2 new smaller zones. Hunt another area. I guaranty there are better areas to hunt geese and ducks. Also those areas are drying up more each day. The upland license.......buy another one when the first runs out....there's no limit on them and the time you are "allowed" to hunt in the state. If you want to hunt the dove season...I'd suggest spending your time at the MN legislature.....get them to vote you a season....I'd bet there are lot more doves in MN anyway. The grouse season......I think MN has fair to good numbers of grouse.....with lots of public ground to hunt them.

Please come and spend your money, we appreciate it, but know that your state has restrictions too....not just ND.


----------



## Crabby

:wink: Nope - But by example, I should be able to have Minnesota wages and keep my fish to myself. The lake would be a lot quieter without all those NR boats running around and my mental health should improve.

I don't believe the ND point that it's for the resource. All that's been considered by the urban ND hunting public is saving a little piece and quiet for themselves. Me too. And maybe keep a few more quality fish to boot. I don't hoard fish. Just get what I need and then eat 'em. No freezing for me.

Maybe that would be fair. A both sides rule that says "come and eat all you can. You're not taking any home".

Crabby


----------



## gandergrinder

Crabby,
The point about you keeping the fish to yourself is perfectly ok by me. If I could not fish everyday of the season in MN waters that would be fine by me. I do not live there anymore (I did in the past). There should be some perks for a person living in the state when it comes to the enjoyment of natural resources. They are resources that can be used at a certain level and maintained but they are not subject to unlimited use.

The problem is a classic case of Tragedy of the Commons. The marginal benefit of the use of the resource goes to the hunter or fishermen while the marginal cost of the resource does not. This leads to overuse of the resource because there is no cost of greater and greater use to the individual.


----------



## Crabby

Well Gander, on that we can agree. We might both have gains to be made by further restricting NR use of our resources.

So, to take the thread title one step further, why SHOULDN'T MN retaliate? We should just close the borders. That way we each keep what we have for our own. Frankly, I'm good with that, so I'll support Gov Pawlenty in his discussions.

Crabby


----------



## Bobm

Hey Crabby maybe you and Gander should have a duel," Paintballs at 50 feet". The when your over it you could have a beer together and start calling your representatives on both sides of the state line to get something good done for all of us. I do like you both though, your entertaining meand I appreciate that.


----------



## Springerguy

The 26,000 number you refer too is the number of licenses sold. However, about half of the licenses are family licenses so the DNR is estimating the number of people


----------



## gandergrinder

On a more serious note.

Do I think that non residents should be completely shut out, borders closed and never crossed for hunting or fishing? Absolutely not. That really is of no good to anyone.

The quality hunting that everyone loves about ND can be maintained but there are going to have to be some restrictions put in place. Here is my list of things that need to be done to maintain quality hunting for all people involved. Quality hunting does not mean a hunter in every slough and field. It means finding birds and not having to compete with five groups of hunters and it sounding like a war in the slough or field.

1) Restrictions on number of guides and outfitters and number of acres of leased land. If you break the law you lose your outfitting and guiding license. No exeptions. Higher fees for guide and outfitter licensing. No guiding on public land. Make it a legitimate regulated trade just like other business.

2) Limits on numbers of nonresidents based off of bird numbers. This should be done by biologists. When it goes dry and it is going to, there should be some adjustments.

3) More public land. This should help raise the capacity of #2 as far as pressure is concerned.

I know some of you don't like the restriction stuff but what you have to remember is that South Dakota, Manitoba, Sask, all have hunting on par with ND. If you can't go to ND try a new area. It is not very hard to do.


----------



## Crabby

:wink: And I don't necessarily disagree with your tennants Gander, what I disagree with is the scope and reasons for application.

I'm not hearing anything from the business (motel resturant hardware store saloon gas station) here. Maybe they've been scared off? Interesting thing is I have gotten a couple of "private" messages from rural ND. They say things like - "thanks" "call when in the area" "we do want you here". HMMMMMM. Seems like those with the most to gain or lose have little or no voice on this web board.

Remember, and since your versed in Econ you'll understand, there's no commerce without growth. Negative growth will kill the whole deal. What you want is "smart growth". Satisfies alll the clients and allows you to upgrade the physical plant.

Oh well, I'm off to fill a wetland! :eyeroll:

And keep those cards and letters coming!

Crabby


----------



## smokee

I understand why MN residents are upset because this came upon us late in the game this year. Hard to change reservations, vacation, etc.

However, as a MN resident, I think the people of ND have the right to set limits that allow residents to enjoy their own resources.

Would it not have been fair for the ND leg. to announce these changes this year to take effect next year?

Also, to Chris H.'s point, the big $ resorts in MN will fight any 'get even' law tooth and nail. But this brings up the point "How do the motels and restaurants in Zones 1 and 2 fair this year with a significant amount of cancellations? I feel really bad for the motel I stay at. They had cancellations coming in so fast they could only take a message and call me back to confirm later.


----------



## djleye

Hey Crabby, You stated before that you didn't believe that biology played a factor in our efforts to limit NR hunters(even though the plan was hatched by the game and fish), but then you turn around and talk about what motels, tourism people are syaing. Do you believe that they are real concerned about the biology of the situation or do you think perhaps they are more worried about the bottom line. You tell me who you think is more concerned about the resource, hunters or tourism officials, be honest now!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gandergrinder

I don't want the small town businesses to go under. I just want to see sustainable use of the resource and not exploitation of it. There can be a balance for all involved. There just has to be some sort of compromise. It may take a changing of the guard in the govt to get people who will look at all sides of the issue. Both sides need to sit down and look at the issue as a whole. I really don't know what to do or how to do it. Its going to take alot of people and alot of work. As a young person who loves the out doors the future of this states wildlife is frightening.


----------



## KEN W

Unless the allout onslaught of leasing ends it won't make any difference if there is a cap or any other restrictions on non-res.

It is really dry up here.The ducks will be concentrated on the water that still remains and G/O are leasing up what is left.If it doesn't rain in the next couple of weeks,freelancers will have a tough time finding a place to hunt.If those motel/restuarant people don't help push for some kind of limits on leasing they will not have anyone left to make money off of.They are in bed with the wrong people to save their busunesses!!


----------



## Dick Monson

Same thing here Ken. And something for our NR friends to think about-- this just in from the Dickinson Press:

Wednesday, September 10, 2003

Editorial -- Minnesota's Pawlenty should stay home

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty can stay home and save his taxpayers the cost of a trip to visit with North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven about hunting and fishing regulations in our state.

Whether Gov. Pawlenty's concerns focus around hunting and fishing access and opportunity for his residents, or whether his concerns address our non-resident hunting and fishing fees, our Gopher-state neighbor has no case to plead.

In regards to Minnesota residents having adequate access and opportunity to hunt or fish here, North Dakota still requires landowners to post their property to deny access. The posting requirement causes a North Dakota landowner to publicly display his/her name and telephone number so the owner may be contacted by anyone to obtain permission to access the posted property.

Mr. Pawlenty's state laws produce a "closed" state, as Minnesota landowners aren't required to post any information. The landowner information that's available on thousands of fence posts throughout North Dakota is nonexistent in Minnesota. The same holds true for South Dakota, another closed state.

North Dakota has created three zones for nonresidents to select when hunting waterfowl. This eliminates overdue pressure on particular areas of the state in regards to the natural waterfowl resource. The zone regulation also helps to spread hunting's positive economic impacts throughout a larger area of the state.

Nonresidents this year may not hunt on lands owned or leased by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, including state wildlife management areas and Private Lands Open To Sportsmen (PLOTS), for the first week of pheasant season on Oct. 11-17. This provision applies to all types of hunting, not just pheasants.

This restriction does not apply, however, to private land and other public land. Nonresidents can still gain permission to hunt posted land during this week by contacting the landowner, or they can hunt unposted property.

As for changes in North Dakota's nonresident hunting fees, we are very comparable to South Dakota, which has similar natural resources. North Dakota's nonresident fishing fees, meanwhile, are actually less than Minnesota, even though we have three of this country's premier walleye fisheries within our borders in Lake Sakakawea, Devils Lake and Lake Oahe.

The land of 10,000 lakes, Minnesota's state coffers and its businesses have long reaped the financial rewards of its natural resources. Thousands of North Dakota residents in the Red River Valley travel two hours or more to relax and recreate at the cabins they own on Minnesota lakes. These North Dakota residents dump millions of our dollars into the Minnesota economy each year for maintenance, food, beverages, fuel, utilities, boats, motors and other items. You don't hear Mr. Pawlenty, or Mr. Hoeven, complaining about these dollars being spent.

In many ways, North Dakota has been the last great American wilderness, as our clean air, low crime, abundant blue skies, natural resources, friendly nature and openness, were only known by the relative few who were bold enough to visit here. As with any enjoyable opportunity, however, the word eventually slips out and more people want to share in the bounty.

Mr. Pawlenty, North Dakota has done nothing this past year in regards to regulations, that our neighbors, including your own state, did many, many years ago. Most importantly, however, our state remains much more welcoming to nonresident outdoors enthusiasts than our neighbors. We hope Gov. Hoeven, our state agency officials and our lawmakers never forget that important fact.


----------



## Ripline

Good editorial. ND has got to get alot tougher to maintain the high quality of hunting that we now have the opportunity to participate in. I have discussed the whole ND debate with MANY of my duck hunting peers here in Wisconsin and ALL agreed that missing a year here or there to still get the quality ND hunt would be well worth it. Good luck to all ND hunters this fall. We will be duck hunting the week of 10/11 through 10/17 and hope the water doesn't totally disappear. Maybe we'll see you there. :beer:


----------



## Bobm

The big difference is that Mn has vast holdings of state and federal public land open to anybody. So even though its a "Closed state" there is an alternative for people that want to hunt. North Dakotans don't have much public land, so all hunters Res or not are going to suffer a total loss of access in a very short time if you don't start procureing public lands. You can't outbid them and when the money gets big enough even your neighbors well succumb to the money. Its happened in every other state already. The one thing that keeps it in check is large amounts of public land that compete with the leasing industy holding down prices because there is some alternative. Even with large public holdings the private land lease rates in my state ( georgia) are getting very steep. The rates in states( like texas) with no private land is unaffordable for most people. Unless you only want to hunt for a couple days a year.


----------



## rap

as someone mentioned before, a prime example of public land procurement is the elk horn ranch. that whole thing just ****** me off, i can't believe they are against that. how about we just park a few houses and a waterpark there instead? it's rediculous


----------



## bioman

Crabby:

As a former resident of both Minnesota (born in the Twin Cities and raised on a resort in Northern Minnesota) and North Dakota, I have to laugh at your spite. Minnesota has reaped what is has sown and then some.

My father was born and raised on a farm near Heron Lake. For those of you who aren't familiar with Heron Lake, it was one of the most renowned waterfowl spots in all of North America through the 1960's. Notice I did say "most renowned", as in past tense. As with most natural resources in Minnesota, farming practices primarily draining and tilling removed a significant amount of wetlands within the watershed and virtually destroyed the most important Canvasback staging area within the Central Flyway. This is just one example, there are many other more telling examples. The eastern reaches of the prairie pothole region extended into the northwestern portion of Minnesota along with vast stretches of tall grass prairie. Not much left in that region, as farming practices have removed almost all of the potholes and a couple of very small patches of remnant tall grass prairie remain. Once again, a symptom of the farming practices that Minnesota continues to practice.

As far as fishing goes, my family owned a resort for 12 years in Northern Minnesota. To say that Minnesota is still a world-class fishing destination is an abomination. Unchecked development of lakeshore property, weed removal, and the addition of sand for beaches have devastated this resource. Does anyone see a common link here, a great illustration of a symptom of the unbalanced growth that the state has been under and the lack of leadership within the State to retain their natural resources? Where were the sportspeople in the State to voice their opinions on the devastation of their own resources? Could these be the same people that are the most vocal about the changes occurring in North Dakota?

As far as North Dakota, I will agree with one point, 600,000 people does not readily allow for rampant development. However, one has to look no further than Fargo to see what development will do. The Red River Valley is one of the most fertile agricultural regions in world, but since Fargo is growing, where do you put the residential developments and service sector businesses? One logical place, agricultural fields because wetlands have most likely been removed and if you are a developer, previously disturbed lands are much easier to develop. Lastly, don't think for a moment that ND wouldn't sell its natural resources for growth. One only has to look at the proposed ethanol plants and the looming conversion to corn. All ND resident hunters should feel a collective chill and all of your hairs should be standing up on your collective necks.

I really have a deep sympathy for the people of MN. As far as natural resources go, the State was once a paradise for hunting, fishing, and trapping, probably only out equaled by what was once California. The natural resources of California have been destroyed by growth and the same pattern followed in MN. You can't have growth without the removal of natural resources. Places like Heron Lake have been so devastated that they do not even resemble a ghost of their former past. Look at the lakes in western MN, a significant amount have been so overbuilt and overrun with the new "speed technology" that fishing really doesn't exist. Matter of fact, recreation is one of the biggest pursuits on a lot of these lakes and fishing opportunities are limited to early mornings or late evenings. No different for any other area that allowed the over exploitation of their lakeshores.

My point, Minnesota has reaped what it has sown. Minnesota has always welcomed growth, and now look what you have left, a bunch of over developed lakes, drained wetlands, and hunting opportunities in different states. How you rationalize your point to belittle the people of ND who are actually making a point to save what they have left is beyond my comprehension? You should be applauding there efforts and looking to find ways to battle a much bigger force, the G/Os who are the by far the biggest detriment to this recreational pursuit.


----------



## Ripline

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dick Monson

WOW! bioman for governor!


----------



## cootkiller

Bioman,
I agree and disagree,
The fact that overdevelopment and population increase destroyed outdoor opportunities in Minnesota should scare the bejeezus out of us NDakotans.

However what better way to keep an eye on and to regulate out of state hunters, especially those duck boat toting minnesotans, than to have them go with the newly regulated G/O's. SOunds good to me, require that NR's have a guide or outfitter and we would eliminate many problems.
:lol:

cootkiller


----------



## fishhook

except for the fact that alot of nonesidents come back to hunt their old stomping grounds or with their family.


----------



## Bobm

Bioman, It is a good and interesting post. But what are Sportsman in ND going to do to keep the same thing from happening? I'm so tired of this process relegating hunting to the elite that I don't even care if North Dakota excludes NRs altogehther I just want the process stopped so I can see one success.


----------



## Ripline

The sprortsman of North Dakota are trying to impose limits on NR hunters and minimize g/o in the state buying and leasing prime hunting lands for the few. 
The obstacles in the way of preserving the quality of ND waterfowl hunting are well organized and g/o's and politics with respect to the almighty $ coming into ND. The businesses in rural ND are IMHO siding with the g/o and drawing the landowners into the equation who are ultimately starting to post their lands.
The landowners will become the biggest challenge to satisfy. Withouut ther support, freelance hunting to ALL goes by the wayside as it has in the rest of the country. It is EXTREMELY important to hear and respect ther voice. If they push hard enough, the tresspass laws will change to the way the rest of the country is today and then we all lose.
We (waterfowl hunters) need to get our Shi* together and stop shooting ourselves in the foot by bickering about changes that ultimately will preserve freelance hunting.
Just my .02 worth.


----------



## Dan Bueide

Bob, being fairly new to the site, you may not fully understand the level to which ND sportspersons have already organized on these issues. For an understanding, go back to the hot topics threads that were active between 12/02 and 4/03. Also see the legislative report card thread at the top of the HT page.

We need more folks involved and more needs to be done, but the level of sportsperson participation was unprecedented last session and continues. For example, at the two SB 2048 hearings last year in Bismarck, there were between 100-150 sportspersons (each hearing) that traveled great distances, got hotel rooms and/or took a day of vacation to be present. Those that have been at the hearings in past sessions noted that the previous attendance record was about a dozen.

Plans are formulating for future work/efforts. We learned an aweful lot in '03 that will hopefully make '05 even more successful.


----------



## Bobm

You're sure correct about not understanding, in a lot of areas. Its is heartwarming to see that the effort is being made (even if I don't like the non-res hunting first week idea) . I hope you guys are able to get this under control before you've lost what we have.


----------



## bioman

BobM;

Based on reading your posts on other sites, you and I have one thing in common&#8230; we are in complete agreement on the public trust doctrine. I believe it should be illegal to profit off of a public trust resource, especially the profit associated with taking. My opinion, simply outlaw the taking of wildlife for profit (enact language similar to that already penned in either the Endangered Species Act or Migratory Bird Treaty Act), and you have effectively eliminated the profitability and need for a G/O. Just my $0.02.

On another note, this year will be fascinating to see unfold. With the continued drought, a significant amount of the most huntable land should already be under the control of the G/Os. With 60,000 hunters pounding the remaining huntable areas with water, one can only imagine the encounters and conduct in the field.


----------



## Dan Bueide

B-man, completely agree on fears of dry conditions and hunter concentrations this year. This is why any dynamic cap must be tied to water conditions and thus likey bird dispersions as opposed to bird numbers. If there's only so many places to hunt them, doesn't much matter for pressure how many there are.


----------



## Bobm

Bio, I bet we have a lot more in common than one thing. And I wholeheartedly agree it is wrong to sell the publics game animals, its clearly market hunting. I also know from actual experience if its not public land its lost. The money pressure is too great for private citizens and spineless politicians to resist. And I am a conservative republican/ libertarian and rarely look at the government for a solution to anything. And Dan you're a smart guy and as usaul your last post proves it. It won't matter what the populations are if there is no where left to hunt and thats why I beat the public land point of view to death. And this is primarily a waterfowl issue in the western part of the state and the week I lost access upland hunting plots in the east part of the state is not going to change it one bit. But I am impressed with both of you and I will play by the rules until they get too unbearable. Which sadly I fear they will without public land aquisition.


----------



## Dan Bueide

A little different op/ed approach to that of Schara, and a little more in line with what many of us fear is a "give me my gnaw while there's still some flesh on the bone" mindset of some:

St. Paul Pioneer Press: Sun, Sep. 14, 2003

CHRIS NISKANEN: Chris Niskanen
Outdoors Editor

Pawlenty agenda off target

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty plans to meet soon with North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven to talk about hunting restrictions that North Dakota has put on nonresident hunters. The meeting is the latest twist in an escalating war of words between hunters in the two states about the 15,000 or so Minnesotans who drag their boats, decoys and dogs to hunt ducks in North Dakota.

In short, North Dakotans are tired of Minnesotans flocking to their state each fall, while Minnesotans, tired of poor ducking in their own state, feel they have a right to hunt in North Dakota because many of North Dakota's federal waterfowl areas were purchased with excise taxes paid by all hunters.

The storyline is great fuel for the outdoors press and even better political fodder for two governors, but here's what Pawlenty should be doing:

Fixing our own wetlands and improving hunting in Minnesota.

The dirty secret is that Minnesotans like to hunt in North Dakota because we've already ruined our wetlands in this state. Sure, I like hunting in North Dakota - it's one of the last great places if you love the outdoors - but Minnesota hunters wouldn't be so upset with North Dakota's new restrictions if hunting in Minnesota was better than it is.

Just a few years ago, only 3,000 nonresidents hunted ducks in North Dakota. Today about one out of six Minnesota duck hunters head to North Dakota to chase mallards. If duck hunting wasn't as poor as it is in Minnesota, we wouldn't have to send our govenor to Fargo to grovel for Minnesota-friendly regulations.

We should be embarrassed and ashamed.

To that end, the past four Minnesota governors and the Department of Natural Resources share the blame for not standing up and shouting the truth - that we're destroying our wetlands and not enough is being done to stop it.

I say shout the truth because for years DNR employees have been muttering about the declining state of our wetlands. There's no mystery to it. Farmers, using modern technology, are placing drainage pipes - known as tiles - in upland fields that direct water into deep ditches. This tiling has occurred at breakneck pace in recent years.

Meanwhile, budget cuts in the 1990s reduced the DNR's shallow lakes program to nothing more than a token presence in the department. While more shallow-lake specialists have been hired recently, the program isn't near what it should be, considering the trouble we face.

As a result, we've lost our most productive, shallow wetlands and are left with deep ponds that are increasingly degraded. Rough fish and minnows have invaded these ponds, eaten all the important insects and degraded water quality. There's no food or vegetation left for the ducks, which have found a better life in North Dakota.

Meanwhile, the job of protecting and enhancing our wetlands is scattered among a half dozen state and federal agencies, with no central focus or vision. There are a lot of hard-working and dedicated employees working on wetlands issues, but without any central leadership, we're left with an ineffective, helter-skelter approach to managing and protecting one of our most valuable resources.

If Pawlenty has enough time to drive to Fargo and meet with Hoeven over some piddly hunting regulations, then certainly he has enough time to elevate our own wetlands problems to cabinet level.

What Pawlenty should do, upon returning to St. Paul, is tell his subordinates in the soil, water, natural resources and agriculture agencies to formulate a plan for improving our wetlands. He should demand that they have the plan done in six months.

Then he should enlist every conservation group in the state, a few duck-hunting CEOs and prominent sportsmen in the cause. He should get everyone in a room and say, "It's embarrasing that we're groveling with North Dakota over duck hunting rules. Let's improve our wetlands here so we can keep our duck-hunting money in the state."

It's not like we don't have the ability to respond to an emergency.

The DNR has proven it can respond to a crisis with its chronic wasting disease strategy. In less than six months, the DNR has developed an emergency plan to fight the disease, instituted a major testing program and marshaled millions of dollars and hundreds of employees in that effort. This year, CWD testing alone will cost the DNR $2 million.

And all this for a disease that hasn't even been found in wild deer.

If the state can rally those kind of resources for a disease that's been found in only two farm-raised elk, why can't state officials use the same strategy to respond to wetland loss in the state?

The fact is, the DNR and other state officials have tacitly decided that wetland loss is too big of an issue for them to handle, that agribusiness is too big of a monster to fight and too few people really care about wetlands.

Minnesota, in effect, has said it's OK to ship our duck hunters off to North Dakota without dealing with our crisis here.

The dire conditions of our wetlands is not just my opinion. One of the nation's leading waterfowl researchers, Al Afton, a former Minnesotan and a professor at Louisiana State University, spent six weeks last spring visiting Minnesota wetlands. He walked in wetlands from Owatonna to the South Dakota border to Thief Lake. He drove 10,000 miles throughout the state, casting a critical eye on our marshes.

"I was surprised by the poor condition of the wetlands,'' said Afton, who worked in Minnesota in the late 1980s. "They (farmers) were putting in tile left and right in the farm fields, huge rolls of it. There was very little submergent vegetation in the wetlands, and most had carp in them. I think if the public is starting to talk about the poor quality of your wetlands, it's probably about time. Maybe it's tough for you to admit there's a problem."

Afton already knows there's a problem. One of his graduate students, Mike Anteau, has been studying bluebill ducks that migrate through Minnesota. Anteau has discovered that bluebills, a species that has declined significantly in the past decade, are in poor physical condition after their spring migration through Minnesota. That's because the food that they need to sustain their migration no longer exists in the state, a direct connection to the poor quality of our wetlands.

"The females are in terrible shape when they reach northwest Minnesota and Manitoba,'' Afton said. "They're just skin and bones."

That Minnesota has become such an unwelcomed place for waterfowl, in a state with 120,000 waterfowl hunters, should be an embarrassment to our state leaders and should motivate them to fix the problem.

Gov. Pawlenty, let's quit bugging those poor North Dakotans.

Let's take care of our environmental problems at home.


----------



## dosch

case closed.


----------



## Ripline

AMEN!


----------



## prairie hunter

Chris is a good guy with few alliances to the big boys.

*Anyone call the NDG&F department to see how many NR licenses (waterfowl and small game) have been sold to date?*

While there is no cap to push things along ... would be interesting to see where the numbers are.

HPC II. 
*Wasn't the HPC II based upon spring pond counts? *

Thus the late summer drought would not impact the number of hunters allowed into ND this fall anyway. Liberal season, high pond count this spring.

Drought would only change the cap number in fall 2004 if the wetlands were not recharged over winter.


----------



## Dan Bueide

PH, HPC II (and the orig HPC for that matter) were based upon spring counts. This year (and some where it's extremely dry in spring and then wetter as summer progresses) would produce single-season abberations. However matching the spring water counts consistantly conducted for 27 years with the total hunter numbers for 27 years produced a pretty strong relationship, statistically. Even the intra-season abberations, as you've suggested, would probably cancel themselves out over time. On the whole, over time, it was a good match.

Only spring counts have been historically conducted, and if you were going to use water as the variable, spring is probably the way to go because of necessary license and hunter planning. In the interests of creativity, I suppose you could do a late summer survey/adjustment, but there'd be no data from prior years on which to try and make any statistical correlations/adjustments, just lick your finger and stick it in the wind kind of adjustments (i.e. less objective and potentially more politically influenced).


----------



## redlabel

It seems to me that HPC is like trying to micromanage Mother Nature and it doesn't seem that it would have worked very well this year unless we get some monsoons in the next two weeks.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Redlabel on the contrary, spring brood counts would have shown that not all area's of the state had the increases the total showed. If zones and limits in those zones would have been implimented we would have had a balance of pressure on the lower water area's instead of the free for all it is shaping up to be. Go to the USFWS web page and read the sections based of regions of each state. plus with satellite telemetry year to year water conditions can be compared. So region 1 has a reduction in brood counts but Region 3 has a higher increase than R1 loss, it would show R1 could not support the same hunter numbers as R3.
It will work and is the only sound management solution to the issues we face.


----------



## Dan Bueide

RL, HPC doesn't micromanage Mother Nature - it's a reflection of how the hunter market has reacted to Mother Nature for 27 years. Anyone who hailed Mother Nature as the best form of resolution should have bought HPC hook, line and sinker.

You'd have to study the data from the 27 years included to see how well it actually fit, on the whole, maybe not for every year, but for all years over the course of time. Yes this year it appears it would have worked less well. Under the last form widely accepted by sportspersons, it would have produced something like 27-28K nonresidents. With the wet-early/dry-late year so far, that would have felt uncomfortable, just not as uncomfortable as the 32-35 we're going to have this year.

HPC is kind of like democracy. With both, there are detractors and naysayers - even some isolated justified points. On the whole, democracy is the the best "bad" form of government around, and no one has come up with anything better in 225 plus years. With HPC, I hear complaints and shortcomings, but no one has come up with an alternative to depoliticize the issue and create an objective capping method with the goal of keeping ND waterfowl hunting premiere for all, forever. HPC never was the only answer, it's just the only answer that's made any sense so far, and on the whole, is a very good system.


----------



## Bobm

Actually our government is not a democracy but a representative republic run on the rule of law. Democracy is mob rule with the only necessry componet being a majority of people being in agreement. This may seem like a fine point but its infact a very critical one. No democracy has ever lasted anywhere close to 225 years. Blacks, and other minorities like hunters and environmentalists would have very little power to get anything done in a democracy.


----------



## Dick Monson

The article posted by Dan from the Pioneer Press should be emailed ASAP by everyone to their local newpaper and district legislators. Give the ND public and your politicians an inside look at the truth right now.

The same message would make a good Sportsman's Alert on the ETREE.


----------



## Fetch

Dan B
HPC is kind of like democracy. With both, there are detractors and naysayers - even some isolated justified points. On the whole, democracy is the the best "bad" form of government around, and no one has come up with anything better in 225 plus years. With HPC, I hear complaints and shortcomings, but no one has come up with an alternative to depoliticize the issue and create an objective capping method with the goal of keeping ND waterfowl hunting premiere for all, forever. HPC never was the only answer, it's just the only answer that's made any sense so far, and on the whole, is a very good system.

Bob m
Actually our government is not a democracy but a representative republic run on the rule of law. Democracy is mob rule with the only necessry componet being a majority of people being in agreement. This may seem like a fine point but its infact a very critical one. No democracy has ever lasted anywhere close to 225 years. Blacks, and other minorities like hunters and environmentalists would have very little power to get anything done in a democracy.

I just thought these two were very good together

& need to be thought about some in all this & alot of other things :beer: :huh:


----------



## nohunter

I'm posting to this board because I happen to work with the guy who runs it and was stuck in a car with him for 15 hours last week as we traversed much of North and South Dakota between Fargo and Rapid City last week for work. These topics naturally came up as I watched him read post after post as we sat at the convention we were attending. I also am friends of several of the key "players". Although I keep such esteemed company, I don't hunt and only fish occassionally, so I probably have no business entering the discussion. On the other hand, perhaps someone with less emotion can contribute more effectively.

Here are the interests I see involved:

1. Hunters (resident and non-resident) -- who want the best possible hunting experience, much of which is defined by their childhood experiences and those they want for the children.

2. Land Owners -- who want the most value for the rights to their land.

3. Shop Owners -- who want as many people as possible buying stuff from them all year long.

4. Politicians -- who want to get re-elected.

5. Non-hunters -- who generally want nature preserved and don't want to spend a lot of tax dollars to do it.

I've read through many of the posts in this thread and have heard some really good arguments. However, the reality is that these competing interests are far too complex for any "regulation" to adequately address them and find any real equilibrium. While our legislative process is undoubtedly the best in the world at drawing fine distinctions among competing interests, the reality is that the political process is infused with human beings who are subject to "unfair" influences and the outcomes are more often than not poor balances.

In contrast, most of the resources of the world today are "regulated" by a presumed "fair" process called the market. Every day, goods, time, services, etc., are bought and sold in the market place and there is very little complaint about it being "fair" to one side or the other. Sure, there are large schisms in our society between the rich and the poor, but the fact that some can buy more than others is a long-accepted fact of the freedoms guaranteed by the great Constitution of our country.

I would propose that the competing interests outlined above could be well balanced by changing the licensing scheme for hunting, fishing, whatever, to a market-priced process. The resource to be priced is land access. The components to land access are: (1) what land; (2) what time; and (3) what purpose.

While there certainly are arguments against classical economics, the base principles have been proven to work relatively well by major economic changes over the last several centuries. (E.g., The collapse of the Soviet Union should prove that a few well-intentioned people trying to "legislate" scarce resources is not a long-term solution.)

Despite the success of market economies world-wide, our government continues to cater to the desires of key constituencies in ways that are ultimately doomed to failure. CRP is a classic example. In an effort to "preserve a way of life", the government has created market "bubbles" that simply distort the true costs of farming and producing commodities. These costs will be born, it is just a matter of time. The "tinkering" will only work for awhile and eventually the market will react.

The same thing is happening with hunting in North Dakota. The hunting is good, demand goes up. Because there is no "price" to land access (beyond the nominal license fee), the demand escalates beyond what the resource can bear. One consequence is that private land owners lease their land to outfitters who are able to charge the higher price to ensure the quality experience. Another consequence is that the quality of the hunting experience for the rest of the "open" land goes down. Without some sort of "regulation", the quality will continue to deteriorate until demand lessens.

This is known in economics as the "tragedy of the commons", which is an age-old story about a cow pasture in the middle of town that got ruined because the cow owners as individuals were not forced to bear the cost of their grazing. This also is known as the "free rider" phenomenon. The conclusion of these theories is that when people are not faced with the true "price" of their decisions, they will be greedy. You can see it in the arguments from all sides on this Board. Everyone wants their cake and to eat it, too.

You can argue the merits of any of these positions (residents, non-residents, land owners, outfitters, politicians, shop owners, etc.) until the cows come home (or don't). The reality is that they are "conflicting". They cannot be resolved on principle or "right" and "wrong". As mentioned above, my suggestion is that the "fair" resolution is to change the license pricing to a market-determined price. If a market for land access rights were created (and it would be a relatively simple web site that could do it), there would be little risk of over-hunting any particular area -- the prices would rise to prevent excess hunting. Importantly, the key to a successful market is adequate information exchange -- where is the hunting good, bad, resources plentiful, scarce, etc. This type of information could be catalogued but, again, it has been proven that price is an excellent conveyor of lots of disparate pieces of information. As people buy their hunting licenses, the prices will adjust to reflect in that decision and it will be quickly disseminated to everyone. Nice.

One of the keys to success of such a project would be let the market also decide the land size and time slots that are best. Creating "zones" or other false market boundaries are equally doomed to failure. The market, however, will quickly determine the best plot sizes and time slots that people are most willing to pay for.

Now, many of you may be saying, geez, this is exactly what we don't want -- To have to pay a ton of money to do something we've been able to do for free for years. First, if this is what you are thinking, you are making a mistake in assuming that the price will be high. It may not be, it may be very low. Maybe your family has been going to the same plot of land for 30 years and only on a specific weekend, and no one else wants to hunt there. Second, there is nothing "unfair" about the price being higher than it is now. If it is high, that means the true costs of your activity are high as well, when ALL the competing interests are taken into consideration. We let the market decide these kinds of issues all the time in other areas, why not land access? (Notice, the issue here isn't shooting the birds, it's land access. Someone earlier suggested that outlawing charging for shooting birds might help solve the problem. Possibly, but it more likely would just create lots of litigation over the definition of paying for "shooting birds" versus paying for access to land.)

My suggestion is to find a professor at NDSU or somewhere else who either already has done or would like to do a study on the impacts of using market prices for determining license fees. There have to be a lot of people who read this Board who would be willing to put up some dough to fund such a study. If not, there probably is some government grant available given the Bush administration's penchant for market force regulatory mechanisms. The other beautiful thing about a market based proposal is that it is harder for politicians to argue against -- it's almost un-American to say the market can't figure it out.

If it would work, any "excess" revenue could be used to "subsidize" local hunters -- give them money to "buy" the best possible hunting experience they so very much deserve for living here in North Dakota. (By the way, some of us love living here and we don't even hunt. Go figure.)

Sorry for interloping.

End of Post -- thank the lord!


----------



## OneShot

After a month or two here, its clear that you wont have to worry about me shooting your birds, spending my money there or wasting my life putting up with the bitter, petty attitudes.

I will spend my time and money elsewhere, I dont need you and I dont need your bad attitudes, if you think the earth ends at ND you had best wake up and smell the coffee. Your bitter attitudes towards Non Res hunters and fishermen will only spread amongst us and then you can eat goose all year long since you wont have tourism.

See how the goose call works when you sit on it, ND residents that are snotty little boys that resent non res hunters...we dont need you. My money spends just fine in So Dak, Manitoba or Sask...since you dont want it and you think your resources are worth alienating others over, go for it.

I for one am sick and tired of the piss poor attitudes displayed by residents in ND that think the geese, ducks, deer and game are THEIRS. Sounds like we need to go to Man and Sask and shoot our birds there,l before they get to ND...we will see you whining then.

Like I said...we dont need you. You need us.

This group is collectively the biggest group of whiners and babies I have run into in 10 yrs on the Net...wtf is wrong with you? Too much tractor fumes or what? Grain dust? Wind blow your sense of logic over to Montana?

Dont bother ragging on me because I wont be here to read it. I am sick of you punks and your bad friggen attitudes


----------



## Ripline

The ONLY people whining hear are from MN. ND waterfowlwers are trying to preserve freelance hunting that appears to be so0 near and dear to your heart. You haven't heard a word out of WI or IL or IA or SD or OH or IN etc. ONLY a FEW MN whiners.
This petty BS your spouting is uke: due to the closing of STATE lands for a measley WEEK. Grow up and don't let the border hit you in the a**.
Good riddence to all like you. IMHO :sniper:


----------



## muskat

With that attitude, im really sad to see you go


----------



## Miller

nohunter, welcome to the forum.A very interesting view on the whole issue.I would hope we all could skip over OneShots slanderous post and talk about it more, considering you've obviously put some time into it.

When you talk of subsidizing the local hunters, how would that really work?


----------



## Bobm

I liked oneshots line about sitting on the goose call, thats funny!


----------



## Dan Bueide

In the immortal words of the time-honored and beloved poet Vince Neil: Don't go away mad, just go away! OS, we knew you'd come back to take a peak. :wink:

To the rest of the NR's who recognize that to keep this thing special and different than you've got back home we need to throw a little water on things, we welcome you with open arms. With any luck, hunter numbers, critters and habitat will be such that we see you every year. If not, please keep trying; we'll see you, hunt with you and hoist a few with you when we can!


----------



## Ripline

Dan,
Your's is the typical reception we receive from ND residents. We've always been welcome and greeted like friends.


----------



## nohunter

Miller,

The "market" for land access could be run by anyone, similar to the NASDAQ or NYSE for stocks in companies. Undoubtedly, the current licensing bodies (the state and feds) would "regulate" the market a bit just like they do the stock market, but it would be just to set up the "ground rules", i.e., all trades are binding, no lying or cheating, etc. In exchange for the "rule setting" and enforcement, the government would get a "fee" from each transaction. They could use this fee to support current conservation efforts, additional land purchases, or funding of resident hunting.

The rest of the "price" (after the government tax) would be an exchange between the purchaser (the hunter or person wanting access) and the land owner. Of course, for public lands, the seller will be the government. The fees collected by the government for accessing the public lands (just like the fees for parks, public golf courses, etc.) could either be distributed to pay for more land purchases, DNR, etc., or, if the prices were going too high for residents, back to resident hunters to help them pay for the preservation of their experience. The important point, though, is that they would still be "paying" so that the market mechanism would have a chance to work and balance out the supply and demand to keep any one area from getting over-hunted by anyone.

In the case of private lands, the seller of course would be the land owner. This could potentially help address the problem of the big outfitters leasing up tons of land and locking people out. Currently, the outfitters are probably getting a premium price and not paying the land owner very much at all. That's because the outfitters have little or no competition on the "buying" side. If there were an active market, however, the land owners would have lots of potential buyers. On the flip side, the buyers would have more land available to them because there would be good reason for the land owners to participate in such a market.

This may all sound hypothetical but, with technology today, such a market could be set up easily and relatively quickly on the web, and I think you'd quickly see a number of "buyers" and "sellers" join the fray. Just like joe shmoe buys and sells stock on the web, they could be trading hunting access rights.


----------



## Bobm

When you guys make it residents only I'm going to steal a ND liscense plate get a fake ID, Talk funny, get a simple expression on my face and hunt anyway. I'll blend in better than your camo. And I'll buy the beer!


----------



## MRN

No hunter,

Welcome - nice to see a thoughtful piece - even if I disagree with the tenants.

While there is the "tragedy of the commons", the converse is being a "prisoner on an island" because someone owns all the land surrounding you. You can't leave without tresspassing. To prevent this, societies create public right-of-ways that become part of the public trust. The basic idea is that society does many many things for the benefit of society, but which restrict freedom of the individuals (laws, but I can't really explain lawyers as part of bettering society.....)

Like the roads, this public trust includes rivers and seashores, and the animals who live therein. More to the point of your argument, game animals do not belong to the land owner. They are property of the state. Can you come up with another instance when a private individual profits for "not denying access" to something publicly owned?

You could search some of the archives for more thorough discussions of Public Trust Doctrine (usually written by Bioman).

M.


----------



## MRN

oh


----------



## nohunter

MRN, the problem with the idea of "public ownership" or "public trust" is that it more often than not is confused with being "free". Nothing in life is free, even if it at first appears that way. The air is "free" and "public", right, except phone companies, radio stations, etc. pay dearly for access to the "airways". On the other hand, historically, humans have polluted the air without direct cost for years and now, in many parts of the country, even North Dakota, we're beginning to pay for that pollution or use of the public resource. Again, nothing is free. Many states and countries are now turning to market mechanisms to properly allocate and inform the affected parties of the "price" of using these public resources poorly. Trading in pollution, etc., is commonplace.

I don't see the hunting issue as being any different. You have a scarce resource that no one "owns" but there are costs associated with "access". Create a market mechanism to price these costs and you may see many of the arguments go away, and the hunting experience for everyone improve. More importantly, you are likely to see the hunting experience be sustained over the long term as opposed to being whipsawed by ill-advised legislation from well-intentioned people who believe they know best but are actually biased toward their own desired outcomes (this last statement applies to everyone with an interest in the debate, be they resident, non-resident, government, land owners, shop owners, etc.).


----------



## gandergrinder

no hunter,
Although I study economics and I agree on your premise of a market run system. I see a problem in the legislative part of the equation. We do not actually operate in a completely free market, therfore we cannot reach a perfect equilibrium.

The market would probably work but it runs into problems with special interests groups lobbying and changing the rules to their advantage. Then we end up with the problems similar to the agricultural problems that you eluded to earlier. Same thing, same problems. Economics wins in the end.

We are already seeing the invisible hand at work. G/O and leasing and farmers charging for access. They are already placing a dollar value on the resource.

I no longer fear the worst as I already know the outcome.  
The reality is we cannot beat the invisible hand no matter how hard we try.


----------



## nohunter

You're right, it's hard if not impossible to beat the invisible hand of a market economy. That's why you need to join them and not try to beat them. There are some powerful and persuasive people on this Board who could get the right legislation in place to create a clean market that would give the outfitters some real competition and drive prices to the proper place that will balance the interests of all involved. The "legislation" would not be used to strike the balance (the market would) but rather to create the basic rules for how the market would work -- make transactions enforceable, require honesty, free flow of information, etc. -- to insure a large number of buyers and sellers necessary to make an efficient market.


----------



## gandergrinder

I'm not trying to be a smart *** here. So please don't take it that way. But how do we get this idea past the legislative body and then tell then they can no longer play with it?


----------



## MRN

No, the air is free. 
The airwaves you speak of are electromagnetic bandwidths, and companyies pay government (society) for a right to monopolize them. Society thought that public control over these airwaves was more important than an individual's right to use them. Moreover, these companies use these EM's on individual's land, and landowners don't get payed sqwat for them -it's for the public good.

However, air, and the wind power it provides is free. So is solar energy (just more EM that the government can't control....)

As for game animals - the state owns them (not nobody). What is the REAL cost for access - if you could actually determine these you will realise it is very close to $0 (e.g., wear on gate wire - 200 opens to replace for $25 = $0.13; extra fuel to plow over footsteps in soil = 0.01 gal at $2 = $0.02).

However, the cost to society for paying someone to NOT deny access to a publicly owned entity is pretty huge. The problem is simply the competeing interests of property rights by title. Here, the best solution that I have seen so far is the model wherein landowners have the right to grant or deny access, but they may not profit from granting access.

M.


----------



## Fetch

Bobm - Your getting too real now - But I may join you in your time in ND Remember no one hardly lives in the rural anymore (& if it ever comes to all this) :roll: It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission :roll: ( Maybe Cheaper too :roll: ) To pay the fines ??? :eyeroll:

Nohunter - so Caps would not be in your Economic Plan ??? - What makes this any different than Texas & other States that have evolved to Pay to hunt ??? & what keeps the rich from dominating the best of the best ??? Who & how would the resources be managed ??? - We may as well apply these principals to Farming ??? The internet ??? Rural Electric ??? - Water??? Roads ??? Health care??? All services ??? Home Buying ??? Ahhhh!!! (now I get it) - I think I'll wait for the Crash & the clearance sale :roll:


----------



## nohunter

Market based regulatory models are created all the time where the legislature sets the rules and then lets the market control the outcomes. You're right, people can always mess things up through legislation but the market mechanisms at least create an opportunity for fairness.

MRN, the costs of access are not just the wear and tear on the fence, gas, etc. The resource is limited -- that's what everyone here is arguing about, residents versus non-residents, etc. -- so the cost must include denying other hunters access. You're not just paying for the access yourself, you're paying to keep others from accessing it at the same time -- so you get a good hunting experience without being yelled at by some fool. That "good hunting experience" is worth something, the question is how much? You'll never know until you have lots of people trying to buy and sell it. Too few and you get monopoly or oligopoly problems like you have now with the outfitters.

My guess, though, is that you are ultimately right -- the cost will not be very much. I seriously doubt with all the land available in North Dakota that if everyone knew the score and you had as much land in the market as possible (as opposed to being locked down by a few outfitters) that you would have such overwhelming competition for particular land at particular times that the demand would increase prices radically. However, the money will be flowing in the right directions and will place a natural limit on how many people can hunt in a particular location at a particular time so as not to wear out the resource over the long-haul.

You also are right that a legitimate approach would be to outlaw landowners from selling access to their land for hunting purposes. However, this again just creates a market schism and puts undo pressure on public lands leading to a stronger likelihood of depleting that resource. There are costs to hunting and finding them all is difficult -- that's why an effiicient market makes the most sense, because markets are very, very good at allocating hidden and actual costs.


----------



## Dan Bueide

Nohunter, you're going to have to translate much of your posts for the simpletons, including me, among us. I think I happen to know nohunter pretty well, and if any of you couldn't tell, he's a pretty bright guy. Also is, or at least was, pretty good at hoisting a few ales - oh the stories we could (or actually probably couldn't) tell.

From what I was able to glean, your model gives lip service to but I think in the end will find its shortcomings in one important detail - the relative spending power of the average joe, especailly the average ND joe. Just as we can't "public lands" our way out of today's crunch through PLOTS or any other public access program, your model will, in the end, leave the average joe, at first those from ND and eventually those from everywhere, scrambling for the scraps on the crowded, less-desirable, fringes - the same result of commercialized hunting in every other state under every other commercialization model. Not being overly familiar with competition for hunting generally, and its recent impact in ND, it is truly hard for many to imagine the seemingly endless stream of people willing to pay very large sums of money for exclusivity.

For you, it was ready access to the fine arts and the incomparable climate the caused you to make the Fargo-TC-West Coast-TC-Fargo loop - ha! (actually come to think of it, why did you come back?). For me and many others, or those who never left (including your in-house computer geek  ), it was to a large degree the hunting. To do so, we aren't a part of the economic circles that allow us to compete in this arena relative to the ever-growing and ever-more-mobile rest. As such, we will still eventually be largely excluded, more so over time, and for the State's interest in all of this, some will leave or not return as this unique draw that ND once had will no longer exist. You say, c'mon, how many can that be, and is it material? If you look at the average annual expenditures of resident hunters compared to tourists during their stay, and apply the typical multipliers, the number of tourists it would take to equal the economic impact to the State of even 1000 residents lost or not gained is staggering. While your model may make things more affordable for those who will pay to hunt for longer, even your model will eventually result in the consumer paying what it would have been willing to pay the middle man under the current system, and hunting will still become the sport of kings, albeit under a very unique system.

Given its other limited unique drawing features, and the known tradeoffs, for the state as a body, there is a purely selfish economic reason to make sure that hunting remains a drawing point for residents and tourism. As Lloyd Ohmdahl (sp?) pointed out during the "save ND" campaign last winter, in the interests and under the guise of avoiding what some perceive as unwelcome stagnation, we better be darn sure we know who we are, what we're hoping to become and not loose sight of the things that kept or brought most of us here in the first place. If ND, her cities and her residents aspire to become Texas, Illinois or even Minnesota, then the commercialization of hunting is a foregone conclusion and it's wholly unnecessary to preserve a "common man's" hunting resource as part of the grand economic plan. But, if we don't aspire to that, if we welcome and want to remain the kind of folks that welcome things like less traffic, low crime, relatively small communities, elbow room, etc., then I think we're going to need to continue to offer an affordable, quality hunting resource as part of the amenities package for a certain segment that are attracted by the other features and are willing to trade those amenities for others and economic upsides.

Knowing you, I can see the wheels turning already on how to get this schtuff up and running. At the end, except for a modern way of securing access and perhaps an opportunity to secure that access in a little more ala carte fashion, I don't think what you're proposing will have much of a different effect on ND resident hunters or the general ND economies than the commercialization process we're already in. Just allows you computer geeks a little cut of the action. 

As MRN pointed out, some "public" things in life are still and will always remain "free" or relatively so, and not subject to the pricing pressure that would occur in the private segments: fish in and access to lakes; hiking or riding horse on public grounds and for that matter public education. Game has been traditionally and always should be viewed more akin to those kinds of things than the commercial examples you've cited. The residents of a state, in common, own game, and it should be managed (and even regulated if necessary) for all of them, not one segment or the other. Given the population and demographics in ND, If we do this and do it right, there's plenty to go around for resident hunters, tourism interests, nonresident hunters, the State and everyone else involved. Not the max for any one group, but enough for all.

Sorry, nh, it's going to take a fair amount more sandpapering to convince me the "click-it" route will produce any materially different result that what we got going right now.


----------



## nohunter

Fetch, I was waiting for someone to make the rich versus poor argument, because it's a good one and goes to the heart of the debate in many ways. 
As Americans embracing the freedoms of our country, we've generally come to accept, I believe, that having the opportunity to become rich is okay. If that's the case, then being rich must also be acceptable. If you're rich, then you can buy stuff that other people can't. All these things are necessary causes of the original freedoms. The fact that some people could buy better hunting experiences than others under a market model is a possibility, but that is the case now. The rich can pay the outfitters and they're locking out the poor people who can't afford it. What a more open market model would do, however, is create more opportunities for everyone and the price would eventually get down to a reasonable level, that I would argue will be affordable to everyone. And, as I indicated in my prior posts, if it was really important to "preserve the lifestyle" (and I would argue it is) then the government could subsidize the hunting experience for those who can't afford it. But at least the true costs of providing limited access to the resources would be known.

Back to MRN, this isn't only about the private lands, of course. The government owns plenty of land and, again, only so many people can hunt it effectively at one time. A market mechanism may very well adjust to the proper level of hunters on both public and private lands to enhance the experience for everyone at the right price.


----------



## nohunter

Well, I've wasted the better part of a day on this pursuit (and I promise you all it will be my last day), but at last I got the guy I was looking for.

Dan, the arguments you make are simply cost shifting from one group to another among all the competing interests. The costs are there and real under every model. The question is simply how to illuminate and balance those costs fairly. Markets have been used successfully for years to solve complex problems like this. (Check out the licensing markets for SO2 pollution, which have been quite successful.) The fact that this resource allocation problem is complex is evidenced by the many good arguments you and others have made pro and con. My point is that well-intentioned people simply cannot draw these fine lines very well through regulatory schemes. As smart as you and others are on this issue, the "formulas" will inevitably end up with a problem, people just aren't that smart. The issues are too complex and the information too disbursed and changing for any single group of regulators to get a handle on it. Instead, you need some other mechanism to help distribute the information about the true costs of the resource allocation. Markets have proven to be excellent at this. We rely on them in virtually every other part of our lives, why not this one?

Moreover, I don't think it is lip service to say that the issue of "preserving the way of life" for hunters is better off separated from the debate of cost allocation. It is perfectly acceptable for a state to subsidize activities it wants to preserve for its residents. My argument is that we should know the costs of doing so first, and study after study (statistic after statistic) will not reveal those actual costs without a market mechanism (and even then it is quite possible costs will remain hidden). How much does it actually cost "society" to create the resident hunter benefits? No one really knows. It may be a little or it may be a lot. Again, we just don't know. That's why the legislature opted to go with a paltry 7-day limit. They don't know what the actual costs are to everyone involved (rural communities, citizens, etc.) and don't want to risk making a mistake with imperfect information.

By the way, I came back to Fargo to be closer to my family, especially my brother, who is an avid hunter and will probably be coming over tonight to beat the **** out of me for these crazy posts.

Now that I've had my say, when are going to get together to have a few?


----------



## Dan Bueide

mh, couple of things only, cause I'm clearly out-classed and out-watted in trying to go round and round with you on the finer theories of economics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your model is purely a systemized and ala carte method of the very familiar pay-hunt game. I don't understand how jumping on the web and bidding for a tract for a day is going to give us any more useful information to more rationally or differently approach the fundemental issues of affordability or exclusivity and the effects those things have on the general economics of the state. Maybe better, more definite, info on what willing buyers or willing sellers shall pay for access, but nothing particularly more useful.

Today through marketing literature, advertisements, ect., we readily know the "going rate" for paid access. We also know this because ND is in the process of heavily ramping up its PLOTS grounds. The PLOTS procurement guys have to compete with the guides and others seeking exclusivity every day, and I think they have a very good idea of the market access costs.

What we don't know, although I certainly have my arguments, and what we wouldn't know under your system either, is whether the state, as a whole, is plus or minus for allowing yours or any other form of commercialization to come fully to pass. There's economic impacts throughout all of these issues greatly exceeding in quantity and scope beyond what someone might be willing to pay for a day of waterfowl hunting on that quarter section.

While it would be really neat to be able to see and react to access values in real time, I think they tell only a very small part of the story of the economic impacts of what a relatively accessible, quality hunting resource means to ND. If less hunters using more land for a higher price means less general traffic to rural ND and costs ND residents and resident dollars, the cost shifting of access costs is pretty immaterial. How does your system track, recognize or even begin to account for these other larger economic effects of commercialized hunting?

At the end of the day, there's only two reasons to save the "common man's" hunting in ND. The first is the softer side, the heritage. This is enough for some, but not most. The other is given what ND is and likely wishes to remain, on the whole, is she more economically advanced by making sure that hunting remains generally affordable, high-quality and accessible for residents and tourists. Your model only addresses the latter two, by creating a means (and a darn good one) of making sure the same ground doesn't get doubled up and that you actually find some ground that is "available". The "market" componant will, with the heavy demand we've seen lately and apparantly haven't seen the end of, circumvent the first, and I would argue in the end produce less of an overall economic impact to ND than trying to find that difficult regulatory line where residents (hunters and tourists) and nonresident hunters are all gernerally, but not perfectly, included and happy.

Even under your system, the market will lead us to Texas where those that are willing and able because of superior spending power will result in less hunters using more land for less days and will produce a net economic loss over the potential.

Give me a buzz on the beer - I need one right about now.


----------



## Dan Bueide

nh, reread and you seem to suggest that through a cut of the process, the state can essentially provide affordability through subsidizing residents. Presumably this would be in the form of certain res-only ground or the state's matching resident hunter dollars in the bidding process or some other means. Doesn't this get us right back into the regulatory pressures/hassles/debates. Since residents still make up about 2 of 3 hunters, the subsidization and regulatory part of your framework would need to be pretty substantial, and the "market" would have to become seconday.

Now, I'm finally going to get that beer.


----------



## Scraper

I am also a simpleton when it comes to the economies of what is going on in nh's post. I am all for farmers in this country making a good living for the hard work that they all do. I don't think that they make enough.

However, there are some principles that are commonly forgotten in this issue. The first is that the game is owned by the state. The second is that farming is a subsidized business. We as taxpayers have been paying collectively for a long time to support the farm industry that we have in the country. The result is that we all enjoy cheap food. By the introduction of subsidies aren't the people of the U.S. already "paying" for some access to the state owned game eating the waste of federally subsidized crops.

Maybe the better route would be for hunters and farmers to lock arms in search of better farm policy.

Would that drop the argument from farmers that aren't making enough on their land?


----------



## Fetch

Rich must be OK ???

But most of the folks that came & settled here were not - some were luckier & better farmers & business men than others. The land was basically given to them - & really not all that long ago. - Now a generation or two & it's now mostly absentee landowners (or at least rapidly moving that direction) & everyone wants to change all the rules :eyeroll: & be like the rest of the country :roll:

Do you believe Capitalism is the best form of Government ???

I know it made many things Great - But it has & is making many things not so good  ???

Without Government & social programs most would not live here (anymore) Heck even the Farmers could not make it & without them & some oil & coal - what else is there ??? - Just about everything of any real need was supported by taxes & cooperatives ??? & they are not exactly capitalistic - are they ???

What is the main intent & purpose of a Referal Vote ???

I wonder how much of the Buffalo Commons Theory is playing out in all this ??? (early stages ??? Middle ??? - end ???


----------



## nohunter

Dan, the difference between an established market mechanism and the existing outfitters is the difference between an efficient market and a monopoly (one seller) or an oligopoly (a few sellers). Leveraging from your post and others to expand on the concept, you should lobby for legislation to create a market for "access rights" that is open to all where no one can create a monopoly.

I believe it was Bio who said the best approach he had seen was to prohibit re-sale of access (they could prohibit access but couldn't sell it). My proposal would be for the state to say they can sell it but they have to do it in a market that is open, not monopolistic. Under Bio's approach, the price would be mandated to zero. Under my approach, the price could be greater than zero (if that was what the market dicated) but people could be restricted to only being able to purchase (or sell) small zones for small time periods, representing actual usage and not huge blocks that exclude others irrationally thereby restricting supply and driving up the price.

Just as "access rights" can be the subject of a market, so too could the license fees granted by the state. One of the problems currently is that the license fee is flat, regardless of time spent, land hunted, etc. Shouldn't there be some difference between those who hunt every day and those who don't?

Back to access rights, currently, the prices are high from the outfitters because they are restricting supply. I agree with you and others who advocate that this is wrong; the "critters" are a public resource and they should be available to everyone who wants to hunt them. At the same time, however, land-owners and others have legitimate interests and want to see out of state hunters have access for one reason or another. They do own the land and the right to go on it is one of the sticks in their "bundle of rights", whteher that is for hunting, star gazing or whatever else someone wants to do. Again, the government owned land should fall in this same category. We pay to go into parks, why not public hunting land?

This leads us to the non-resident hunters. My main point is that you can try to "tax" or regulate this "outside" activity like crazy with one well thought out scheme after another, but, ultimately, such "tariffs" have proven to be less productive overall than market oriented approaches (with all interests considered). Are there winners and losers in markets? Sure. But there are winners and losers in every model suggested on this board. At least the market model is somewhat objective and generally in our society considered a "fair" way of distributing wealth.

(BTW, Fetch apparently does not believe capitalism works and so undoubtedly will be moving to France soon, where I am sure the hunting is well-regulated and, after a decade or so, he may have some sort of "residency" and actually get to hunt. Those French and other socialist/government loving/non-capitalists really know what they're doing, have fun!)

This is my last post. I've offered what I can -- that passable legislation that would help balance the interests of everyone should involve a market mechanism. In looking at some of your other posts, I see you're concerned about what hunting in NoDak will be like in ten years. Good concern. Predicting the future, however, is a tricky business. Don't bother, let the market do it for you. Established properly, the market will bring more land available to more hunters with less pressure on the resources in the long haul. There is no "free" hunting. That's an illusion. Protection has costs. The market will do the best job of accounting for those costs and distributing them fairly. (Either that or move to France. :-? )

I'll call you soon for that beer. Maybe I can drag that Hustad guy along with me after work some evening when you're both not scouting!


----------



## Fetch

That was not nessessary - you do not want to play that game with me (You will Lose I gaurentee it ) :roll: Reread for meaning, if not there - ask - I tell ya these Eggheads are tougher to crack than the red necks :lol:


----------



## Fetch

> "If I could only be
> President and Congress
> too for just ten minutes."
> Public rights come first...
> private interest second."


Teddy Roosevelt


----------



## Bobm

Hey Fetch we ******** resemble that remark! And after reading these posts I need a drink and I thought I quit drinking! Whew


----------



## Bobm

No Hunter You should stay in the discussion its interesting. if not I want to thank you for the contribution


----------



## Dan Bueide

A couple of last thoughts for our visiting brainiac. Let's say we fundamentally agreed to explore a system such as this (those of you who have followed along real closely realize by now it's not a whole lot different, just on a higher-tech scale, than the one proposed by FB). Now, let's look at the praticalities, or rather the practical limitations.

You can't do something like this without a comprehensive computer/web component. Because of a desire to maintain some control(e.g. who's actually on the land at any given time), that means linkage not only for the users, but all suppliers too. Is this remotely practical in the near term.

Speaking of suppliers. I'd be less worried about your brother beating you about the head for some of your suggestions than a midnight visit from some of the conservative land organizations statewide. Again, those that truly know and understand the players and dynamics know what it would mean to propose that no sale of access could occur outside this system. My god, the proposal of an exclusive state sponsored and organized access sales system would get the landowner's right flags running up the flag poles quicker than Panchot turns back into a Vikings fan.

And speaking of linkage. Past the politics, this could in theory work for pheasants and to some extent deer. With pheasants, they get pretty easy to pattern, and if you know the area and barring extraordinary conditions, you could from several hundred miles away and months in advance "make a reservation" on a pheasant tract. With waterfowl, you need boots on the ground and things change quickly. It's hard enough to get cell coverage in certain areas, now we're going to need wireless laptops and reliable laptop connections to make the frequent last minute arrangements? Hey, those infomercials weren't whistling dixie when they said those e-booths would be popping up everywhere, including every township corner?

And how does this system deal with continued ground purchase by exclusivity seekers. Again, the number of folks willing to do this seems limitless, and for supplier and consumer alike, it will be a simpler proposition to transact exclusivity once - in the form of a sale. The model may compete well with the guides and the lessors, especially if you essentially wipe them out by making this an exclusive pay access system, but will not compete well with land sales. Without caps and the spector that a license may not be available and/or time limitations, many will short-circuit the whole process and simply buy. And unless the definition of impermissible out-system access charges is very tight, this will include purchases by duck clubs and other non-individuals.

nh, thanks for showing up and offering some new thoughts, but we're going to need a little guidance on how to put your greenspanesque (wait a minute - even HE doesn't let the market operate freely) theories into pratice. I still say we need some good, old-fashioned, protectionist regulation. In many respects, that's the "American Way", and as Fetch most recently suggested, certainly in many more respects, the "North Dakota" way.


----------



## Bobm

Hey Dan I didn't say I agree with nohunter I just thought it was interesting. I dont agree with you either on this point. Protectionist type ledgislation will not work over the long haul. The market will erode the protection, it will find a way. Just like its going to in farming, ask Iowa hog farmers what the more efficient corp growers are doing to them. Its just a matter of time and this is why I'm am so painfully adamant about public land. You can make any argument you want about tax base, difficulties getting politician to go along ( screw them elect somone else)etc. But when the inevitable happens like it has everywhere else in this country, the states with public land will still have hunting available to the little guy. Mn, WI, Ga all still have lots of land for the average Joes to hunt on and Ga has 20 times the population that ND does. But none of them have much private land left that is accessible. And this is fact not some egghead theory as Fetch so kinldy puts it. Fact


----------



## Dan Bueide

Bob, lighten up. My "brainiac" comment wasn't directed at you, rather at nh. Nh is a good friend from quite a few years back, and it was just a little good-natured ribbing. In a back-hand sort of way, it was actually a compliment - as you can tell, he's got some wattage.


----------



## Bobm

I didn't intend it to be harsh I apologize if it sounded that way. I was teasing Fetch. Although I agree with fetch, sometimes I think this stuff get a little to deep, I do believe that keeping things simple is always best. I admire intellect and both you and nohunter show a good dose of it.


----------



## Bobm

One more thing, unfortunately, Nobody has ever called me a Brainiac But I have been called the opposite plenty of times!!!


----------



## Scraper

NH,

As part of your free market plan do the farmers that participate relenquish any support from the government?

I think another point that many are missing is that farmers like very much to know who is on their land. Not bidder #0345228766 from cyberworld, but Bob M from Georgia.

I think that a better more socialistic approach (I hate saying that) is to recognize as a nation the recreational value of farmland and add an incentive to programs like CRP that adds value to the farmer by paying him extra if he allows hunting access. Instead of $30/acre make the payment $35/acre. Tsodak would be bale to shed light on the "market value" of access for the PLOTS program.


----------



## Bobm

Scraper your idea is good short term, but long term the truly wealthy will outbid the CRP program or outright purchase the land for exclusivity. This again is why I am so much in favor of public land aquistion. The state could then set up a program of leasing the land back to the farmers which is exactly what many states now do with forestlands and paper companies. Thus insureing a market use for the land and access for the public for recreational purposes. I am not in favor of gov. in many things but in this case I do think its best. I know it works well here in Ga and in Wi


----------



## SHOOTINGGREENHEADS

Sorry to interupt, but I have some info on forest lands that are leased to paper companies. If any of you hunt in MN for deer or grouse on what you thought was state land you may come to find this year that it may not be. I have seen many new signs in Northern MN that say "No tresspassing leased hunting land Potlatch Paper."


----------



## Bobm

Potlatch and many other paper companies own land as well as lease it form state or county governments in many states. This is just one more instance supporting public ownership of land Thanks


----------



## Dan Bueide

Bob, I need to understand your emphasis on public lands a little better. Almost all of the large holdings (thousands of acres) of public land of which I'm aware, everywhere, have always been. I suppose WPA's are the one exception of which I'm aware that involves on the whole thousands of acres, but those are also scattered across the country.

It's my understanding that for the most part, the comprehensive public holdings in states other than ND (and within ND the Grasslands would be an example) weren't acquisitions, they were rather retainages from a hundred plus years ago as the Fed divied up land to first-time owners. You keep speaking about the need for more public holdings and I keep talking about the economic, political and other practical limitations of public acqusition. Do you have some examples from other states where vast amounts of public ground has been acquired (as opposed to retained) say in the last 40 years. If so, tell us how much land was involved and how it was funded.

In this regard, whether any one person belives it's an effective use of resources or not, the PLOTS program has been pretty amazing in terms of the amount of public access acquired, albeit only on a temporary basis. But this notion of massive modern, permenant access acqusition in one state, where are our recent models?


----------



## Bobm

Believe me I'm not slammin the plots program I'm am worried about its permanence in the face of competing elements wanting hunting land. I have also heard from a reliable source that in Montana their block management acreage is being looked over by guide services which out bid the state when it comes out of the system. These are the kinds of things that scare me. Plots would be great if it was a forever thing. And I'm not in this discussion for myself at my age. I just hate to see the hunting thing go to the European type elite only system. Maybe its inevitable .... to answer your question directly Yes the state of Georgia has recently aquired a lot af land for their WMA "s and its good hunting ( for deer and Turkey and ducks) in the last 15-20 years. I think its funded out of hunting liscense revenue and we have to buy a WMA stamp also or you can't hunt on it. I do think it could be done on a smaller scale to great benefit in North dakota because the purchase of farms could be islands of habitat to make winter survivability of upland game more possible. I also know that alot of the land that is county owned in Northern wisconsin was for tax liens however that may not be pratical given the recreational value of land today. Do you believe that many adult hunters would balk at a $100 or if thats too much a $50 WMA stamp for this fund if it was all used for the aquistion of permanent recreation land equally distributed around the state? Annually that could be a lot of farms over time. And again I know you are worried about tax base issues so just lease it to farmers around the area to pay the taxes. Farming is going to be a big corporate type business anyway the family farm is a dinosaur about to be extinct. The global economy will force the death of the family farm. Economies of scale will have to get bigger to compete with cheap foriegn labor. I'll try and find out the specifics of the funding methods they are using here.


----------



## Bobm

One more little tidbit to consider. ND could become the model, why be a follower, why not think outside the box as we like to say today? Good people can accomplish great things and ND is slap full of good people.


----------



## tsodak

Gotta run back out to the office, but all I can say is WOW! Some of you guys are thoughtful and insightful. Bob, that last is a great post.


----------



## Dick Monson

I have to take slight issue with you Bob, concerning corporate farms. The size is regulated by law, through the Fedral Farm Program. Unlimited payments=unlimited size. Denmark and other northen European countries have seen the folly of depopulating rural areas by limiting farm conglomerates. We can also if we have the will. Same with our hunting laws.

The law is a lump of clay and who squeezes it the hardest will get the shape they want.


----------



## Field Hunter

Bobm,

Great thinking. I just finshed watching a show on "Eco Tourism" on PBS. (very little about huntng) but much to do with promoting the state to the millions of tourists that spend billions of dollars annually. One of the guests on the show mentioned that when asked, most ND residents responded that they couldn't see why anyone would be interested in visiting ND. The fact is that most people now are looking for the "quality experience" to be found in ND that is no where to be found any place else in the country. We need to work to that end with the huntng as well....so we don't become just another place, like any other, to shoot a few birds. By working to keep the "quality" we can position ourselves as the state everyone wants to continue to visit.....even thought they may not all be able to come here every year. We have to come up with ideas on how to do accomplish that goal.

Has anyone ever gone and made a well thought-out presentation or offered to work WITH the state tourism department to sell the concept of "qulaity"? Maybe they might take up the banner, especially inlight of the shows that are now appearing and the other residents not associated with huntng that are bringing people for a great variety of outdoor "quality" experiences. (birdwatchng, mountan biking the badlands, dude ranching, the 62 wildlife reguges we have in the state, nature trails, etc.) If everyone could some how get together I think we could make everyone satisfied.


----------



## Bobm

Dick I have no doubt you know alot more about farm programs than I do. But in general you've got to believe that changes will have to be made to keep competitive. Those laws won't stand if we can't sell our products. And I am not necessarily wanting the family farm to dissappear I just believe they will have to change the way they operate just like other industries to keep competitive. I don't know squat about federal farm policies!


----------



## deacon

Go Twins, Win Twins!

At least most of us can get along on this topic


----------



## ranger1

I really get a kick out of these conversations!!! I can feel for you ND res. hunters - being overrun is no fun. Restrictions on the NR will possibly help this out a great deal. I also can appreciate that you are willing to accept restrictions in other states as well, personally I think MT should eliminate NR elk hunting on CMR or at least curtail it greatly. I can also see Dino's side quite easily. He, like myself likes to hunt new places and for different game, meet new people, see new things... To me its all part of the hunting adventure-next year I will be hunting in Alaska for moose caribou, and black bear --SELF guided. I would hate for that opportunity to cease to exist. I don't know the answer to this problem - it seems that overcrowding of some areas can really only be handled by limiting their use and of course it should be the non-resident that sees the most restriction. But as Dino says - Where will this end???
As a side note - Those of you that think that ND is a hunting paradise need to get out more!! I've hunted in ND (not anymore - I go to Sask. now)for waterfowl(outstanding) and upland(good) it has great wing shooting but it isn't SD in that respect and you certainly don't have anything on the neighboring states as far as big game goes. Mule deer...Antelope...Elk... Come on!! Representative populations at best!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Fetch

I can't disagree ranger - Our resources are more fragile than many want to admidt - & being thru the trophy stage - I have no interest in other States for that - & your right about Sask.   I'm like you & going to new places & new adventures are special - If I had to hunt the same place or area - even region - I'd most likely not go as much & that is starting to happen to me :eyeroll: - I so look forward to my week in Sask. now & will hunt around the edges of the best ND has to offer (I have expirenced her best & have a few connections - if the birds are there :wink: ) But it is dwindling & getting consumed by the Econ folks & angry landrights wackos all doing their best to confuse the "Freelance hunters" & NR's :eyeroll:

Would'nt it be better to know if you got a ND license that there would be plenty of places to go & the quality remained high ??? (& a weighted Lottery would make the odds of getting a license - at least every other or third year better)

One of the biggest problems in all this is what is quality ??? To most NR's our worst nightmares, are still better than where they come from. & even ND Residents that hunt - Alot only hunt around their town or farms or where friends & relatives take them - Even if they don't pay they are not what I think of as Freelance hunters. & then the vast majority of even ND hunters - are just weekend shooters - But so many think this is all it is about (just go out there & shoot some) & the commercial folks are hoping to continue to draw in more & more of the ones who can't get in on the easy pickins - especially as it gets tougher & tougher to freelance & be successfull. Many pay the fees & costs to come here, but go home with very little - especially when they read & hear how great & easy it is hear :roll: --- Yeah, if you have connections, it can be - for a weekend or two - but to me, thats just shooting, not hunting. Like so many of us Nodakers have been used to :eyeroll:


----------



## Dino

Some great posts here. I have read them, but stayed out of it for awhile. Fetch, I will be dog-goned, but I think you and I have a common idea.... "I'm like you & going to new places & new adventures are special - If I had to hunt the same place or area - even region - I'd most likely not go as much & that is starting to happen to me... "

Somebody said in an earlier post something to effect of dont try and predict the future. I think what we are trying to do is shape the future.

Think Habitat!


----------



## crete

Fetch you talk as though NR's have no idea about the good old days. My family has a long history of hunting in nodak as both res. and NR. I personally have hunted in nodak the past 22 years. The good old days werent always that good. Waterfowl hunting cycles with the water conditions and populations are affected much more by that than the number of hunters. Thats why we have limits on what and how many we can shoot.


----------



## Bobm

Your both full of beans 20 years ago was the good old days!!! I could see little things close up without these danged reading glasses, my knees didn't hurt, my head didn't get sunburn when I went fishing without a hat, and I could sleep all night without getting up to pee!!!!! And I could run down my shorthairs when they decided to act up. Now I just wait till they're done.


----------



## Dick Monson

Pioneer Press-----This guy is hitting all the bases.

Posted on Sun, Sep. 21, 2003

CHRIS NISKANEN: Chris Niskanen
Outdoors Editor

Wetlands roundtable

Don't retaliate

Your article (Sunday) was exactly on point. What a waste of time and effort trying to retaliate against North Dakota while our wetlands continue to decline. Minnesota lies in a crucial part of two major flyways, and our habitat is vital to many of the birds that we want so badly to preserve, yet the duck hunters of this state don't seem to be able to "focus" our support and efforts where they are most needed. Let's urge the governor to take the high road and not be distracted just to please those who would rather have a lively controversy with one of our neighboring states. Our efforts (and dollars) should be spent as you have suggested; the DNR should be authorized and funded to treat the wetlands crisis as one of this state's top priorities this year and for as long as it takes to restore what we once had.

- Paul C. Steffenson, St. Paul

Save wetlands

The Izaak Walton League was in the vanguard 50 years ago when the original "Save the Wetlands Program" was undertaken. Today, we find it unacceptable that Minnesota hunters are increasingly relying on North Dakota habitat to pursue ducks and geese. Minnesota was once a waterfowl Mecca, and it is a crime our wetlands and waterfowl populations have degenerated to their current state.

Minnesota's Wetland Conservation Act is considered among the most progressive set of laws in the nation. Sadly, these laws came about after the state experienced an astounding loss of wetlands, estimated between 8 million and 11 million acres! WCA's goal of no net loss of existing wetlands is a goal some say is not being met. More discouraging is the lack of wildlife and dismal ecologic health of our remaining wetlands.

The general sense you get when talking to people is that the magnitude of damage to our wetland resources is too large to tackle - too expensive, too time consuming and too politically charged. Many people have written off our wetlands and our waterfowl-hunting heritage.

We feel this is the wrong way to think.

It took more than 100 years to decimate our wetlands at great expense to government and individuals. We have to accept that it will take decades and large sums of money to rehabilitate and restore our wetland regions to a reasonable level.

We support an effort to conduct a newly invigorated "Save the Wetlands" campaign. The Izaak Walton League can be counted on to provide leadership from the conservation community. We urge the governor and our legislature to make wetland protection and restoration a high priority.

We have faith in the creativity and earnestness of the Minnesota conservation community to pitch in and assist state agencies with developing, funding and implementing an aggressive "Save the Wetlands" effort.

We cannot just give up on our wetlands and wildlife, and we urge state leaders not to give up either.

- Steve McNaughton, Rochester

President, Minnesota Division, Izaak Walton League of America

Improve hunting

Your article regarding Gov. Pawlenty's agenda is right on the button. I was visiting my in-law farmers this past weekend, and one of the next generation of farmers told me in a comment how really effective drain tiling was in improving their fields. They still don't get it! This is near Wendell, Minn., which used to have lots of ponds and sloughs. Now they are few. Most of us agree that Minnesota, with a large duck hunting population, could do more to improve the hunting prospects.

- Jim Tobin, Woodbury

Reverse draining

Minnesota had some 20 million acres of wetlands (in the early- and mid-1800s). Since then, we've lost half of that - 10 million acres - according to various estimates. The vast majority of that has been in the intensively farmed region of Minnesota where 95 percent wetland loss is not uncommon. In addition to eliminating wildlife habitat, this destruction has degraded water quality all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, increased the frequency and severity of floods across the state, and deprived aquifers to the point that well water is no longer drinkable in southwestern Minnesota.

Although there are direct benefits to individual landowners who drain wetlands, often with government assistance, society at large pays a huge cost. This is manifested in things like emergency aid for floods, crop subsidies and disaster payments, loss of commercial fishing operations in the gulf and subsidized water systems in rural areas. Clearly, the private benefits from this drainage are more than offset by higher costs to the taxpayers at large.

It is critical that we not lose any more wetlands in the farmland area. Good laws, stringently enforced, are essential so we don't negate any positive gains. Second, if we have lost a conservative estimate of 5 million acres of wetlands in the ag region, let's try to reclaim 10 percent - 500,000 acres - as a modest yet ambitious goal. Third, recognizing certain ducks, such as mallards and blue-winged teal, require grass to nest in, I propose another modest goal of 500,000 acres of restored grasslands.

That would mean a total goal of 1 million acres of new wetland and upland buffers in the ag region of the state, an area encompassing more than 25 million acres, including 18 million acres of tilled ground. The cost for an effort like this would exceed $2,000 per acre, a cool $2 billion.

This fact might stop many people in their tracks and declare defeat. But I suggest that a number such as that only presents challenges. A range of approaches, undertaken by legions of public and private conservationists in a coordinated manner, can realize any goal, including the one I've described.

This need not be a pipe dream. But it will likely only be a reality if committed leaders, full of visions and vinegar, make it a life goal. Many conservation-minded people are willing to follow and support a vision like this. A governor with this passion could truly galvanize the forces to make this happen. I think the governor we have has this in him, and perhaps this dialogue will invite him to pick up the charge.

- Tom Landwehr, Shoreview

Minnesota Conservation Director, Ducks Unlimited

Stewardship lacking

I agree that the North Dakota dilemma should cause Minnesota to take stock. We have never in the time I have lived in Minnesota (since September 1955) reinvested anything like we should in order to protect our natural capital. We flirted in the Gov. Rudy Perpich years with the initial Commission on Hunting and Fishing and since then with the trust fund concept, etc., but we have very quickly fallen away from responsible resource stewardship in good times and bad times. We have fallen back severely. So, we have degraded habitat and it all needs help, but I don't know if there is enough interest in Minnesota's current leadership to reach beyond the micro and to attack the macro &#8230;

- Dave Zentner, Duluth

Reclaim heritage

I enjoyed and completely agree with your column about a wetlands campaign here in Minnesota. The concept of taking care of our own natural resources is something I've supported for many years. Unfortunately, there are many people who are looking to use (and abuse) a resource without putting anything back. We somehow need to get all those who are active in outdoor activities (people who hunt, fish, watch birds, etc.) welded into a super group that will work to reclaim Minnesota's natural heritage. I'm not a duck hunter, as a matter of fact I'm not a hunter at all, but I'd be willing to help (work, money, lobby) any effort to save and reclaim wetlands here in Minnesota.

- Jerry Sivets, Grand Marais

DNR not doing job

Just wanted to say thank you for the outdoors article about Pawlenty's agenda being off target. Last spring I listened to a politician (can't remember his name) from Minnesota who talked at a water conference in Moorhead. His speech to about 150 biologists, researchers and water-quality scientists was just what you talked about. He said the entire western and some central parts of Minnesota should be completely drain-tiled. (He said) that "wetlands need to be dry unless there is a flood,'' at least that's what I have in my notes. Bottom line is, the Minnesota DNR is not doing its job. Minnesota should be a haven for grouse, pheasants, ducks and geese. It is time for the Minnesota hunters to stand up for themselves and fight Minnesota politicians who are destroying the state for corn/soybean rotations.

- Dan Driessen, Fargo, N.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note: Last Sunday and Wednesday, I wrote columns addressing Minnesota's complaints against North Dakota about new laws restricting nonresident duck hunters. In light of Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's intentions to meet with North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven to talk about those restrictions, I wrote that Pawlenty should be spending more time trying to fix our wetland problems at home rather than worrying about North Dakota's nonresident regulations. I argued that if Minnesota's wetlands were healthier and duck hunting was better, Minnesotans wouldn't be inclined to leave the state to pursue ducks elsewhere. (More than 15,000 Minnesotans hunted ducks in North Dakota last year, triple the number of just a few years ago.) Also, I implored Pawlenty and other state officials to come up with a reinvigorated vision for fixing our wetlands, using past efforts, such as the "Save the Wetlands" campaign started in the 1950s, as a template for action. As a first step, I suggested that Pawlenty direct all of his agencies with a stake in wetlands to come up with a multi-agency strategy for improvement and protection of wetlands. I suggested that conservation groups, corporate leaders and hunters be enlisted in that effort. Judging by the heavy volume of mail I received, the columns struck a nerve with readers and conservation group leaders. With Minnesota's waterfowl season opening Saturday, here is a selection of their letters.


----------



## Bobm

Well Dick, Thats interesting and you should find it somewhat heartwarming!


----------



## Dick Monson

It's good to expect the best, but I'll believe this when I see it happen. Very doubtfull.


----------



## Maverick

and completely correct! Pawlenty doesn't need to put his nose in ND economy when he's not a part of our state. We haven't had Hoven put this nose in MN hunting and fishing issues. I wonder what he's thinking that he has the right? I wonder if he's ever been in ND?

Mav....


----------



## Dino

I believe this is a good thing to come out of this whole mess. Do any of you really think for a minute that Pawlenty thinks he can stick his nose in ND politics?? No way, but what he is doing is trying to peacefully resolve an issue that has the potential to snowball. He is trying to be proactive and come up with a solution before our legislature has a kneejerk reaction. He himself cannot pass a law, the legislature can. All of you who are chastising him for having a talk with Hoeven are really missing the boat. The only way to stop an escalating war between our states is for meaninful dialogue between them and this is a start. The type of attitude that I see here is exactly what is going to blow this thing out of proportion. I hope both govs have better sense than that.


----------



## Field Hunter

Actually the thing that has blown this out of proportion IMO, and you may not like this, are the few MN sportsmen that are ****** that the PLOTS restrictions fell during the MEA weekend, plan and simple. A few, not all, as evidenced by the posts in the last coule of weeks, can't conceptualize the fact that the PLOTS are less than 1% of the total acres n ND and that they can hunt the rest. (99%). I honestly think that so many MN hunters grew up with the No-tresspass law that some have gotten away from asking permission to hunt private land and have just gone to hunting public land as a much easier alternative...and now hunt the PLOTS in ND is a easy alternative.

Ok, I'm ducking my head now!


----------



## Bobm

Well Dick, I think this may be the last stand for hunting everywhere and by that I mean that if we all don't get involved politically with both our own politicians and nationally the whole system is going to go the way of Europe and our kids won't get the opportunity to enjoy the sport we love. We all from anywhere usa should be giving signals to our representatives to support exactly what the article you posted suggests. Or we will someday live with the realization we did nothing! We need to show solidarity on a national basis and we need to involve the commercial manufacturers of hunting products and the NRA both of which have strong oragnized lobbies and a dog in this fight. We also need to pressure the hunting media which I personally feel has become a running commercial for the G/O's. Have you noticed how many articles are really clever pitch for some hunting resort lately. And of course my big favorite public land aquisition for all of our futures. Whats news on your dogs leg??


----------



## Crabby

2003

North Dakota rules force duck hunters to change plans
SEASON OPENSuluth hunters angry about duck hunting restrictions say they will have to change their hunting routines and may even hunt elsewhere.
BY SAM COOK
NEWS TRIBUNE OUTDOORS WRITER

Duck season opens Saturday in both Minnesota and Wisconsin, but most duck hunters are talking about the North Dakota season.

North Dakota's duck season opens the same day -- Saturday -- but only for its own residents. Nonresidents must wait until the following Saturday, Oct. 4. The delayed nonresident opener is only one salvo among several that North Dakota has fired at nonresident hunters, most of whom come from Minnesota.

"It's so unnecessary, and on top if it, the whole thing is so complicated I think they'll set hunters up to unwittingly break the law," said Duluth's Mike Furtman, who has been hunting waterfowl in North Dakota for 30 years.

Additional restrictions include a ban on hunting on North Dakota's state lands or lands leased by the state from Oct. 11-17. A new zone system also limits how long nonresidents may hunt in some popular areas.

In addition, the state now requires separate $85 licenses for both waterfowl and small game, which affects nonresidents who also hunt pheasants or sharp-tailed grouse during their North Dakota duck hunt.

None of the restrictions has anything to do with duck or upland game biology. They are the manifestation of a general resentment that some North Dakota residents have toward nonresident hunters.

"I understand some (North Dakota) residents may resent the influx of nonresidents," Furtman said. "The fact is, hunting pressure out there is just a fraction of what it is elsewhere... There's nothing done by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department showing the pressure is excessive."

Furtman will still hunt North Dakota this fall but says he will have to be careful not to hunt outside one of the zones he has elected to hunt. The increase in license prices also frustrates him.

"If you're going to restrict access, you should do it by fairness in a lottery or by issuing a certain number of licenses," he said, "not by pricing people out."

Dave Schlossin of Rice Lake Township has been hunting North Dakota for ducks and upland birds since 1979. He hunts mostly private land, so he won't be affected by the state-land restrictions Oct. 11-17. But he's still rankled by North Dakota's attitude toward nonresidents and especially by talk of stricter trespass laws. Currently, hunters in North Dakota may hunt unposted private land.

"I'm heading to Canada if they introduce that lousy no-trespassing law out there," Schlossin said.

Duluth's Dale Johnson bought property and a farmhouse in North Dakota a few years ago specifically for duck hunting. Now his land is in one of the restricted hunting zones. He can hunt there, but for only about three weeks instead of six during the fall.

"We won't be able to have the get-togethers of other years," Johnson said. "Not everybody will be able to get there at the same time. From the standpoint of zones, I feel we got the short end of the stick."

Johnson resents the restrictions on another level, too. Ducks are considered a continental resource, not just one state's resource. Johnson and many others contribute heavily to Ducks Unlimited, a national conservation group, to benefit ducks.

"We're spending millions and millions of dollars of DU money to make a private hunting preserve for the 40,000 hunters they have out there," Johnson said.

Johnson plans to hunt waterfowl more in South Dakota than he has in the past to make up for the North Dakota restrictions.

Duluth conservationist and avid duck hunter Dave Zentner sees an even more insidious problem resulting from North Dakota's actions. He thinks it could affect the future of hunting.

"Time after time, when people get mad at someone, they take it out on hunters," Zentner said. "People begin to say, maybe tennis is more fun than this, or we'll get a junior golf membership, or we'll watch soccer. We lose hunters, and we lose potential conservationists."

North Dakota may have a problem with commercial hunting groups and hunting guides leasing large amounts of land, but the state should deal with those problems specifically, he said.

"But let's deal with it without punishing the common man or woman," Zentner said. "This has just been poorly conceived and poorly executed, and it's very, very unfair."

Zentner had planned to hunt North Dakota this fall, but will hunt South Dakota and Saskatchewan instead.


----------



## mallard

I guess I feel no pitty for the guy that bought a house and hunting land.Also,why is there no mention of South Dakotas tight restrictions when some of those interviewed say they are hunting out there now?


----------



## KEN W

Once again...nonresidents trying to tell us how to run our state.Every point in that article has been rebutted here.
The guy going to Canada to get away from no-tresspass laws is in for a rude awakening.Both Manitoba and Alberta require permission.And I have hunted in Sask. for 10 years.Everyone asks permission.If you don't have it you will probably get the boot.

The one going to both SD and ND will pay more than just hunting in ND.

I have no sympathy for a non-res. property owner who buys land here just for hunting.He is still a non-res.

As far as DU goes.They can stop all projects here and it won't make any difference.I have seen 1 DU project in driving all over the state to hunt.


----------



## Fetch

I agree Ken -

This is the kinda mess you get when the Legislature & Govenor tries to run your G&FD

But when you have a G&FD Director that is just going to do what the Govenor says it would not help if his Dept. where really in charge :roll:

Now watch the Govenor do things that even make things worse than they were before & the Legislature listen to stuff like this article & over react also

That last part is true & why alot of this got started :eyeroll: But they continue to work the "us against them" - to make the real problems - not 1st priority :eyeroll:

Too bad folks can't or won't listen to the truth

What a mess - but many will have to sleep in the beds they made

In the mean time things will be a mess for all of us :eyeroll:

Maybe we need a recall election - instead of a referal :roll: - we seem to have just as many colorful characters that could'nt do much worse

Thats it !!! if Gary Coleman gets elected Gov. of California - I'm running in ND :lol:


----------



## Qwack

The guys from Duluth complain about buying an $85 NR ND waterfowl license by saying they are going to protest and hunt in SD where the NR license is $105? OK . . ., ahh yah ..., I guess dat's purdy good logic der Sven & Ole! Vill show dem ND boys who's smart!! :roll:


----------



## Ripline

Ken, Quack and Fetch,
PLEASE, don't lump all the NR into the whining sniveling MN crowd. The vast majority of NR support the push to preserve freelance hunting in ND.
Thank you for your efforts and information you have provided throughout the year to keep us informed of the issues of waterfowling in ND


----------



## Field Hunter

What I'd like to know is how they were going to hunt 6 weeks and now can only hunt 3.....If you purchase a house and tie up land as a NR you're no better than the guides that tie up the resources......maybe you shoud look into the idea of purchasing a farm house around Streeter or Devils Lake...you'll find out why the resdient sportsmen are taking a stand.

Maybe the guy writing the article should do a little research. Evidently he thinks the sportsmen of the state are behind the no-tresspass law. And why would they care if there was one?......there's one in MN.


----------



## Qwack

Ripline,

I'm not lumping the NRs--in fact, I hunted as one for many years and will be one again soon. I'm just lumping the guys in that article in the group whos gene pool doesn't have a deep end.


----------



## Fetch

I know that & thanks Ripline - we do appreciate you guys - & we know you most likely out # us if a all out war does develop :wink:

I still think I should move to SD & hunt SOB's in Sask. - Then I could pick on Tony Dean all the time  He thinks were all a bunch of doom & gloom naysayers you know  Either that or help him get elected to Congress :idiot: Hey!!! then I'd be a NR here & could pick on all of you too :rollin:

I'm a equal opportunity Idiot you know


----------



## cootkiller

Fetch, it is bad Karma to say ANYTHING bad about the great statesman TONY DEAN.

That being said. Why are you guys even legitamitizing these Minnesota retaliation threats with a response. These are the same hunters that shot a guy out of a tree when they were deer hunting a few years ago. These are the same hunters that come hunting here for waterfowl, field hunt for 3 days, get their limt everyday, then complain because they never got their $10 duck boat wet. For the love of Chri$t and all things holy. Minnesota hunters have enough things to battle with(mainly their own brains) for us to have to even worry about 'retaliation' from them.
There are three types of hunters in ND, Residents, Non-residents, and Puddlejumpers(Minnesotans)

Question: Why is North Dakota so windy

Answer: Cause Minnesota Sucks and Montana Blows 

cootkiller


----------



## Qwack

Hey Coot, as long as we have your attention, can you clear something up? Based on your last few posts, I can't remember--did you say you TEACH 6th grade or you ARE IN 6th grade?


----------



## KEN W

I enjoy hunting with most non-res.Nothing gets a rise out of No-Daker's like someone from out of state trying to tell us what the laws should be.We don't do that to them.They should always do what is best for their resident sportsmen.If I don't like it I don't have to go there.


----------



## Qwack

It's also interesting that the guys in the article say what they are going to do because of the new restrictions in ND but not one mentioned making any effort to improve duck hunting in MN.


----------



## Bobm

Quacks last post hits the nail on the head!


----------



## Dino

I guess it is rip on the Minnesota guys, eh? I suppose I could be offended but I am gonna let it all slide. Why dont we get back on topic a little. Anybody have any ideas on what could/should/might be accomplished in the next legislative session with regards to NRs? I see a lot of people are pretty interested in this topic, which is good. I hope that something comes out of the govs meeting. If nothing else, maybe just an end to the escalation. Because if it gets any worse, it is really gonna hurt us all. Let's say MN passes a similar law in regards to fishing, do you have any idea the outcry that will occur from the ND folks who have cabins here? Most of you I know could care less about those folks, but if they scream loud enough, they may get laws passed that will hurt all of us. Something to noodle on.


----------



## frosty

Dino:
MN already has a law in place towards non-resident property owners around lakes. I have never heard an outcry about that, just something you have to live with if your going to play and enjoy MN as a non-resident. Each state has similar laws/rules that govern recreational use to favor voting citizens, it only makes sense. This is just a first step for ND, so it will take a little while before the screaming ends....but it will.


----------



## Dino

Oops Frosty, I didnt make myself clear. I meant if MN retaliates with a NR fishing license, $100 bucks, two 7-day periods and no fishing Opener, Memorial Day, 4th of July, or Labor Day weekends. Heaven forbid they do, but I can tell you, there are some worked up people here. Then ND retaliates with more restrictions and pretty soon interstate outdoor recreation is nonexistent.


----------



## Fetch

It is a myth that ND is purposely retaliating against Minn. or trying to hurt Minn. (even if the changes seem goofy) :roll:

ND is trying to do what is best for ND & the resources (but are still confused about what that is) because of some Minn. & NR's & commercial interests :eyeroll:

If they don't get that - then they won't be missed


----------



## Dino

Fetch,
I agree with your first point. I don't think they are doing what is best for the resources, otherwise it would be G&F making the decisions and not the legislature/gov. "They" might not be missed, but their license money will sorely be missed.


----------



## Fetch

Full is full - if a few bars lose some money - oh well - if they have survived this long they will make it awhile longer with or without NR's $$$ - who don't get it

Money is not everything :evil:

Our G&F Director is only going to do what the Gov. tells him to (big part of the problem in all this) :******:


----------



## Dino

Fetch,
Not that money. License money. To G&F. That will be missed. The G&F cannot survive without NR money.


----------



## Fetch

Yeah they have 20 million in surplus they don't know what to do with now :roll: - even they could live with less & keep ND special & unique(& I'm all for keeping them 1st class & expand enforcement)

I'm starting to get dizzy :homer:


----------



## Dino

You are saying that the Game and Fish has an extra $20 million dollars? Why wouldn't they put that into PLOTS or some type of program?


----------



## Fetch

Political BS - something about dedicated funds - I'm sure someone will enlighten us or BS us even more ???


----------



## james s melson

Minnesota should not retaliate by restricting all NRs during the fishing season, that would be unfair. A poll should be held at the time a resident buys his or her license, the poll should ask which 10 lakes should be resident ONLY during the opener and other selected dates, this would spread out the fishing pressure on the resource. I can see the need to cap the number of NR licenses, there are fishing heritages out there to protect. The reason some people move to MN is for the 10,000 plus lakes, to be able to explore new spots, enjoy the scenery, it's the reason people put up with the traffic in town. Sorry.... I was trying out the spin I hear on the ND side....seems to work.


----------



## Fetch

I could care less about Minn fishing - analogy : Minn -> 10,000 lakes with 10 fish per lake (home of the quarter pounder) ND -> 10 lakes 10,000 fish per lake & most are not overcrowded & surrounded by people & over priced everything :roll:


----------



## james s melson

You may not care about MN fishing, but many ND's do, the records show it. Your comparison of fishing is a joke, right? Go to the fishing section of this forum and look at the Devils lake fishing reports from winter til now, sounds like a different story to me. Good try, better use another comparison.


----------



## goosemn

Ladies and Gents,

I have been watching this topic for some time because of some expieriences that I have had since I moved to this wonderful state (MN)? There are three points that I would like to make concerning the ND issue. First, when is enough going to be enough fellow minnesotans? Since I have lived in this state I have yet to field hunt geese without being molested/making a new friend when setting up in the morning for the hunt. I have gotten permission on private land and had other hunters without legal permission harass me to no end. Even had someone call the sheriff on me. Just because you had permission to hunt last year doesn't mean it's for life. Second, how many birds and how many fish will be enough? I have yet to fish unmolested in this state......everytime I've gotten into fish on a lake I have people so close they smoke me out with their boat motor. I might as well have gone to the bar and gotten smashed. Back off and give people some room. Third, ethics/etiquette in this state are extremely different than other states and provinces.....in MN all of the above is acceptable and part of the hunt or fishing trip. Well, I have not found that this is not the norm in other states and provinces. ONLY HERE. I think it is a good thing that there is concern by ND residents over the # of non-resident hunters from MN invading and setting up a dictatorship. I'll pay whatever the cost is to hunt in ND just so I don't have to hunt in MN just because of this very reason and support whatever resolves the NR issue. If we come out on the bad end, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Hunt and fish at home for awhile and take care of business here. We are so concerned with what other states are doing that we fail to look at ourselves.....ethics.....land issues and management. uke:


----------



## Fetch

> Minnesota should not retaliate by restricting all NRs during the fishing season, that would be unfair. A poll should be held at the time a resident buys his or her license, the poll should ask which 10 lakes should be resident ONLY during the opener and other selected dates, this would spread out the fishing pressure on the resource. I can see the need to cap the number of NR licenses, there are fishing heritages out there to protect. The reason some people move to MN is for the 10,000 plus lakes, to be able to explore new spots, enjoy the scenery, it's the reason people put up with the traffic in town. Sorry.... I was trying out the spin I hear on the ND side....seems to work.


Good try, better use another comparison

:roll: 

most of us don't shoot or catch & tell :wink:


----------



## muzzy

I don't know how much the G & F dept will miss the nonresident license money. What most people don't realize is that before we had the massive influx of nonresidents and the current guiding and outfitting problem we didn't need PLOTS lands and it was unheard of before we got to where we have been the last few years. This is not a cheap program to run, the nonresident money isn't all free and gravy, a very big cost comes along with it. They might lose some license money, but it would free up a lot of money to be used in other ways. The 20 million dollar surplus in the GF coffers is maintained by state law which says the balance cannot fall below that point. Interest off of it is used to fund PLOTS also. The department saves a lot of money by being the second smallest game and fish agency in the US.


----------



## Fetch

Good point muzzy - I don't recall 1/2 as many problems before PLOTS books came out ???


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Wait until those that have been coming here for waterfowl the last 4 years or so find out how dry it is in most of the state. Many will be disappointed and angry over the lack of water and crowed conditions on the big water. Field hunting will go to pot as the brds are blown out of the state.

Heck even the USFWS is encouraging field hunting this year, I do believe that is a first time I have seen this statement. For all of you boys coming here to hunt this fall reading this, unless you are hunting DL leave the boats at home and have some consideration for the other hunters coming to enjoy the fall.

As far as the article goes, it was poorly researched and blanantly biased. James more and more I find myself thinking that MN could be a Zanadu for hunting if it not for the over use of the lakes and wetlands. ND has a chance of preventing what has happened east of the Red. I would suggest if we are successful you guys should learn and try and reclaim and improve on what you have.

Reduce devlopement of some area's restrict some lakes and waters to boat hunting. Start restoring the wetlands lost in SW MN. Fund your own PLOTS program. Put the effort into improving your own state instead of complaining about those that are doing something to maintain what we have.


----------



## mallard

All of this bickering back and forth and still no mention about South Dakota.Come on Minnesota guys,is MN going to retaliate against SD also?There license fees and restrictions are much worse than ours.


----------



## KEN W

As I said above...retaliation is the wrong reason to restrict non-res.Minn and any other state needs to do what is best for THEIR sportsmen.Out-of-staters going to another state should be second.Residents always come first.


----------



## Fetch

Your welcome back anytime goosemn :beer:


----------



## goosemn

Ladies and gents,

I'm back to toot my horn once more. We all hunt waterfowl because of the experience we had the first time we went out and shucked the blocks on the water. The sun rose in the east, the sky became pink and the sillouettes of birds on the wing over the blocks paddles down hooked each and every one of us. However, everytime this old dog of mine heads to the marsh with me I see in her aging eyes what is right in front of me. GREED. Guiding and small/big business is in the driver's seat and back pocket of the politicians. Hell, look at what Mr. Trent Lott tried to do down south. That was OUR wake up call. Here's a a story from my own personal dark history. Iowa guy, killing geese before they knew in that state what killing geese was. Guide comes on the seen. Lures goosemn into the trap based on money. Wants goosemn to work for him i.e. let's eliminate the competition and wants him to take clients to his honeyholes while he back doors him. Well.....Goosemn learns a lesson quickly and tells him to stick it where the marsh muck can't even shine. Guide goes on and ruins it for all blue collar folks in the area and now when you ask the landowner the first thing they ask is how much do you want to pay. Well...Nothing. Sorry no deal. The end to the story ...... Blue collars organized and told the guide where to stick it and now he and his business are in the next state. Moral of the story.........Tradition and ethics are the only principles that will carry the sport into the future.....Not Money, electronic call and decoys and the lasse fare attitude that I can go where ever I want and do whatever I want.   :******:


----------



## goosemn

Sounds like all of my fellow Minnesotans have got this fishing thing in their back pocket dangling it over the heads of non residents coming here to fish. WHAT A JOKE. Let's talk quality, management and public opinion. I have fished in this state for 27 years of which 23 of those were as a non resident. In this time I have seen the quality of the fishing in the state go from great to crap. Did all the non residents in the state each year fish out the lakes? Or, did all the resident people with their septic polluting cabins and trailers and sanford and son structures/shacks over bag and fill their freezers while the waste from eating these fish polluted their waters; In addition to mowing the shorlines and creating the weed rollers to get rid of the mosquito habitat. Nothing like a golf course green in front of the cabin to drive golf balls out into the lake. Now....Mille Lacs Lake.....Success story in my opinion. Where else can you go and catch 3-5lb. fish all day long in a good year. Sounds to me like the old days on Lake Oahe. All the mean time groups such as PERM ***** and moan about the tribal agreements and on and on and on. I have fished SD just as long as MN as a non resident and seen what pressure does there because of non-resident fish mongers. But.....SD put special regs in place to protect the resource and the recovery is starting to show. Lake Francis Case is a good example. Starting to see the 3-5lb fish again. Sound Like Mille Lacs. We all preach here about all kinds of conservation but yet we are the first to criticize our own resource agencies for implementing extreme measures. So what do we/you really want? Public opinion in this state is that the MN DNR isn't doing the job. Well, what do most of you know about working for a state reource management agency. Public opinion and *****ing now days drives most agencies but look at MO. It's a priority of the residents of that state that the resource comes first and they voted for it with the half a cents tax. How many of you support this as a MN resident. So we're back to the beginning. What are you willing to pay for/do for the sport and tradition. It all starts with us.


----------



## Fetch

I think we found a Lt Gov. for you Dan ???

You better be ready to move here 30 days before the election to become a resident 

:beer:


----------



## Field Hunter

Hey Ron, have to back you up on the dry conditions......it is VERY, VERY DRY out here in ND. A word of warning for you guys from other states coming to waterfowl hunt, be ready to find other spots this year because most of the areas just don't have a lot of water. Not trying to be doom and gloom...just trying to give you a heads-up. I believe that, to large extent, if we don't get snow this winter and big rain in the spring that many NRs are going to not show next year.

A couple of nights ago a friend and I secured a spot to hunt for opening day.....the water was 3-4' deep last year.....it's down 3' this year. The mallards have gone to roosting in larger water close by but still should provide a good shoot as a transitional slough from roost to fields. Love to hunt the fields instead but due to a new G/O leasing most of the surrounding area this year, not many options remain.

PLEASE try to stay off the larger water roost areas this Fall.....if they get hunted with as many duck boats as I see coming down the interstate every year the ducks just simply are not going to be here very long. The mallards are grouping into large flocks now and a coulpe days of shootng a large water area will send them packing. Also, from experience last year....if someones hunting a slough and gets there first don't ruin the hunt by jumping the ducks from the road or settng up across the marsh.


----------



## deacon

I cannot believe all the comments in this forum, its appears hunters are now becoming each others worst enemies. Let's get along and respect each others opinion. Personal attacks are not necessary, we can disagree on opinions but name calling and pointing fingers show how immature people can be. Please respect each others opinion.

The economics of this world have hit ND hunting. Supply and demand will determine the restrictions and regulations set in place. If ND wants less demand there be more restrictions and greater fees on NR. Who suffers small town ND business and NR. Who benefits ND hunters. Therefore ND hunters and small town business need to find a common bond and work together on this issue.

If there are ducks and pheasants they will come. Restrictions and changes in regulations just need to evolve over a number of years not one year like so many changes this year.

Again, lets respect each others opinions in a civil manner.


----------



## Fetch

> The economics of this world have hit ND hunting. Supply and demand will determine the restrictions and regulations set in place. If ND wants less demand there be more restrictions and greater fees on NR. Who suffers small town ND business and NR. Who benefits ND hunters. Therefore ND hunters and small town business need to find a common bond and work together on this issue.


Sorry Deacon - you still don't get it - that is way to simplistic & wrong !!! it does not have to be like this - this is a big part of the BS & Spin in all this

IT COULD BE MANAGED TO do the right things & I'm not going to start all over & try to explain it to you :roll:


----------



## Field Hunter

Deacon, I see you joined Sept. 12...good to have you here but do your self a favor and read some past posts....you really have no idea what some people on this site have tried to accomplish. And another thing the way things are happenng in ND have evolved over time...a long time....some are just tired of seeing it evolve in terms of dollars for some and no place to hunt for others. As you don't mention where you are from, it's hard to know from what thought group you are basing your opinions.


----------



## Dan Bueide

You know, the longer this stuff drags out, it's more and more apparent how much unity among resident hunters there is on these issues. There are exceptions, and that's okay. It's also becoming apparent the surprisingly large number (50%?) of nonresidents on this site and presumably elsewhere who are on the same page on all or many/most of the issues. Goes to show just how wrong some of the hardest opponants were during the session and continue to be about this whole mess being the made-up fracas of the "vocal minority", "whiney" dozen or so "so-called sportspersons" from _____________[here, pick whatever ND city you need to use to best try and make some point at the time].

It doesn't get said often enough. Thank you to all of the residents and nonresidents that are trying to preserve quality hunting opportunities for this and future generations! If we can find some partners from the groups working the other side of the issues, we'll try to work things out. If we can't, let's roll up the sleeves and finish in '05 what we started.


----------



## deacon

Fetch and Field Hunter,

Thanks for the personal attack. How do you know what I read and did not read. Don't worry I will not participate in anymore discussion on these issues.

Good luck to all and be safe.


----------



## Fetch

that is not a personal attack - just trying to bring you up to speed - Don't be so sensitive :roll:

Supply & demand can be controlled & should be. Especially if Quality is taken into consideration & it should not hurt Residents "the people who live here" (we used to fill alot of those small towns before the NR's took over - especially in pheasant & upland country)

Full is Full & NR's all coming at the same time does not significantly help as much as you think, $$$ wise - Small towns (I think) are learning

But certain forces keep confusing them :roll:


----------



## james s melson

Anyone who posts on this site can be assured of a personal attack by the "regulars" unless you agree with their ideas, be preparred for it before your next post. These are the same people who praise the people who agree with them and invite them back but on the other hand are ready to gang up on the next poor soul who has a difference of opinion.


----------



## deacon

Fetch, get a clue, this is what you wrote to me and the second qoute is from field hunter.

"Sorry Deacon - you still don't get it - that is way to simplistic & wrong !!! "

This is what Field hunter said "Deacon, I see you joined Sept. 12...good to have you here but do your self a favor and read some past posts....you really have no idea what some people on this site have tried to accomplish"

If those are not a personal attacks, I would rather not know. I have never sad anything bad on this forum about you or anyone else, I simply give my opinion on the issue.


----------



## Fetch

then I (or someone) gives you their opinion - that how it works :roll:

So you are personally attacking me now ??? :lol:


----------



## stevepike

deacon,
I think you either mistook their posts or are just too sensitive. They were saying that rather than repeat what has been said time and again, that you could probably benefit from reading some of the earlier threads/posts.

Since you joined only 2 weeks ago, it would be hard to have read all the posts on the different subjects, Field hunter was just trying to point out it may be useful to research them. FH even said it was good to have you here (which I second).

Why don't you tell us a little about yourself and try not to take things so personally. Neither of the two called your names or insulted you, Fetch just said your "solution" was too simplistic and wrong.

Gotta get back to work (trying to line up a different babysitter for tomorrow, primary and alternate fell through). You busy tomorrow Fetch?


----------



## Fetch

If he is over 7 ??? No wed go hunting - if she is over 18 ??? wed go........hunting :lol:


----------



## Bobm

This thread is getting boring, round and round we go. Lets talk about something interesting!


----------



## crete

Why is it some of you feel its alright to lump all Minnesotans together and whine about how they are ruining your beloved "North Dakota" ducks? The fact is there are more resident hunters hunting ducks right? So dont blame all your problems on the NR's. I have hunted ducks in ND for 22 years and never once had a farmer complain about NR's or turn me down if i asked permission to hunt on their land. I hunt with a grounp of resident hunters and i can tell you to the man, they think its a small number of resident hunters who are crying about NR's. When are you all gonna get it and stop bickering and address the real problems with duck hunting instead of trying to blame them on NR hunters!! SEE YOU IN THE FIELD!


----------



## muzzy

Crete, just for the record, there are almost as many nonresidents hunting waterfowl as there are residents. Pretty much an even race.


----------



## ranger1

BISMARCK, ND-The stage was set for another international showdown Monday, when chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix confirmed that the remote, isolationist state of North Dakota is in possession of a large stockpile of nuclear missiles.

"Satellite photos confirm that the North Dakotans have been quietly harboring an extensive nuclear-weapons program," said Blix, presenting his findings in a speech to the U.N. Security Council. "Alarmingly, this barely developed hinterland possesses the world's most technologically advanced weapons of mass destruction, capable of reaching targets all over the world."

After initially offering no comment on the report, North Dakota officials admitted to having a stockpile of 1,710 warheads at two military sites and confirmed that the state has been home to an active nuclear-weapons-development program for decades.

Blix called the revelation a "terrifying prospect for the world at large."

Within hours of the announcement, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged North Dakota to abandon its program.

"This is clearly an excessive number of weapons for a place like North Dakota to possess," Annan said. "In this post-Cold War environment, we should be moving away from nuclear proliferation among developing states."

Above: Kofi Annan addresses the U.N. Security Council regarding the North Dakota situation. 
European leaders also spoke out in opposition to North Dakota's weapons program.

"North Dakota, still in its cultural infancy, cannot be trusted to responsibly handle weapons of mass destruction," French President Jacques Chirac said. "We are talking about a place that doesn't even have a Thai restaurant or movie theater that shows foreign films, but still they have the resources to build thousands of warheads. Do not believe their claims of being 'The Peace Garden State.'"

According to Chirac, North Dakota's development of nuclear arms "represents a grave threat to peaceful states the world over, none more so than its longtime neighbor and rival across the 45th Parallel, South Dakota."

"The South Dakotans, while a simple people themselves, are friendly, hospitable, and far more in touch with the outside world," Chirac said. "Many people, myself included, have passed through and seen the Badlands and Mount Rushmore. North Dakota, on the other hand, is a bleak, racially homogeneous state that few people ever enter or exit."

After a joint meeting of the French and German cabinets, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said the two nations "agree that this situation must be rectified" and implored North Dakota to cease its uranium-enrichment program immediately.

"We have opened the door to talks," Schroeder said. "But, unfortunately, North Dakota seems unwilling to engage with the world community at this time."

According to Blix, North Dakota is home to 500 Minuteman III ICBMs and 50 Peacekeeper missiles, giving it one of the heaviest concentrations of the weapons on earth. The biggest discovery made by U.N. inspectors, Blix said, was a missile field at Minot Air Force Base, where they found an "almost unbelievable" stockpile of warheads.

The rogue state was also found to possess enormous stockpiles of fissile material.

"North Dakota could have as much as 75 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium and 8 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium," Blix said. "Just 55 pounds of uranium are needed to construct a simple nuclear weapon. Do the math-the prospects are terrifying."

The man at the center of the controversy is North Dakota's leader, Gov. John Hoeven. Having risen to power in 2000 after amassing tremendous wealth in the private sector, Hoeven lives a life of comfort and excess inside the heavily patrolled North Dakota governor's mansion, a lavish dwelling paid for entirely by the state, while many of his people engage in subsistence farming.

Some suspect that Hoeven is using the nuclear program as a bargaining chip to gain badly needed economic benefits for his state. Hardly at the forefront of technology in other aspects, North Dakota has a largely rural population and a child-poverty rate of 14 percent-a fact critics have been quick to point out.

"North Dakotans live a horrible life of isolation and deprivation, struggling to grow crops in a hostile, sub-zero climate while their indifferent government routinely prioritizes bolstering the state's military might," BBC World correspondent Caroline Eagan said. "There are people starving there, and yet high-tech weapons laboratories and military bases abound. It's deplorable."

Added Eagan: "And, no big surprise, the U.S. played a major role in arming this place. I hear most of the missiles are American-made."

Many U.S. citizens have expressed fear, some realizing for the first time that North Dakota has thousands of weapons capable of reaching any major American city within minutes.

"It is absolutely frightening that there are all these weapons of mass destruction practically in my backyard," said Karen Stiles of Moorhead, MN. "Do we really know enough about these people who have their finger on the button that could kill millions?"

Added Stiles: "How did our elected officials let this happen?"


----------



## Fetch

I say (if nessessary) lets make some new potholes out of azzholes 

- Less people more ducks :thumb:

- I just wonder if we have any of the Neutron bombs ??? They kill living things, not blow up stuff - & beings Minn. only has too many people & not much else, :lol: it sounds like the right weapon for the times - :evil:

- Can you say ??? what was all this talk about retaliation ??? :lol: (imagine Minn. as a place to hunt pheasants & Canada geese for NoDakers that get tired of real birds) :roll: Walleyecommons or one big Boundry waters state of ND park :idea:

-France ??? FRANCE ??? you mean the new southern vacation resort State of NorKota - we can let Norway manage it for us. 
I bet we could export alot more Barley to Germany to keep us in Beer - I always liked Becks - (But way too expensive) Not any more :beer:

- :wink: :laugh:


----------



## Crabby

:roll:

You people are too far gone for my help. Just got back from hunting in Ontario and did quite well. We'll just stick it out up there for a week, Manitoba after that then back to the states for the rest of the run.

What you don't understand is your little world isn't in sinc with the rest of the world. Stick to your guns. I hear and understand what you're talking about, but you can't ignore the reality of economics and a market economy. I refuse to segregate 40,000 or so ND hunters from the rest of the ND population. When I count you all, there's too little to make a difference. Think national economy first, world second if you like. Put out or get out. If you decide to try and keep it for your few little selves, your a gonner. I'm tired of paying your subsidies. Produce something, or be prepared for a buyout. The only thing you have to currently produce (without a huge public bailout) is your seasonal tourism industry. Get it or starve.

I'll continue to hunt on 3 states and 2 provinces. Just not yours.

Bye bye.

Crabby


----------



## Fetch

Can we get your GPS coordinates 1st Crabby :lol:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

:beer: One down, 29,999 NR's to go!!!


----------



## Bobm

Make that 29,998 I'm still coming you'll never run me off!


----------



## KEN W

I forsee a lottery in the future.You may not have any choice.


----------



## Hunter_58346

Like in the past??? Either that or they can apply for one of South Dakota's 4500 licenses.


----------



## Bobm

I'll steal a license plate, get a fake ID put a stupid look on my face start talking funny and say I'm from Bottineau or Devils lake!


----------



## gandergrinder

Bob,
If your going to have to work that hard you might as well just move here. Besides that drawl yall probly got down er might give ya away.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

OK, Bob, It's cool if you come this fall to hunt your ditch carp ERRR, roosters but you have to quit picking on cootkiller like that!! Stealing license plates, fake ID, stupid look and talking funny come on he isn't all that is he? Well??


----------



## Bobm

I would love to move there and have been trying to figure out how to pull it off. And no I actually like poor old cootkiller he cracks me up. I admire his fire, he just has to learn how to channel it efficiently and he would be a force to recon with.


----------



## james s melson

Who the heck wants to LIVE in North Dakota, people just go there to hunt in October, don't they?


----------



## Bobm

How could anybody that ever watched the sun set in ND not want to live there? You guys don't know how lucky you are. My commute from my office is 24 miles and normally takes an hour and a half( on a 5 lane highway) if there are no accidents. Over 7 million people live within 50 miles of me, kind of gives you a little insight as to why I got so wound up when you made it against the law for me to hunt the plots opening week. I really :beer: need my "fix" of wide open spaces. You don't have a clue what crowding is and I sincerely hope you never do.


----------



## KEN W

You would never survive in Bottineau,Bob...It actually snows here and temps get to 40-50 below.Plus you would stick out amongst all these Norwegians.


----------



## cootkiller

You guys don't have to feel sorry for me. I have pretty thick skin. I also know that what I write is way off to one side of these issues but that is by design. In that I hope we can all meet somewhere in the middle.

One thing we must all remember, we are all sportsmen/women and are in this together and for the long haul.

Anyone who says bad things about living here in North Dakota obviously hasn't done so for at least a year, or is a city slicker who can't handle it.
I understand that the winter is too cold and the summers too hot for some but I couldn't live without the change of seasons. And here we don't talk about getting to one place or another in miles and which bypass you have to take to miss rush hour traffic and traffic jams. Here in Nd if you are going from Devils Lake to Grand forks its 90 miles, on any day at any time that is going to take you 75 minutes. The same trip in your smog infested, crime overrun, urban cesspools equals at least 4 hours.
I'll take ND any day, even on -80 windchill january days.

cootkiller


----------



## zettler

cootkiller,

I have to agree that they must be crazy to rather live in places that takes four hours (rhymes with horror) to drive a distance people in ND can do in 30 minutes or less. They miss so much, like there are sunsets you can see, and then there are those beautiful sunrises! Can anyone below ND describe the Northern Lights? Yes, the ND "wildlife" is carbon based animals, where its liquid based elsewhere.

Then there are the people! The second best natural resource in the state (I HAVE to award the abundant wildlife and hunting opportunities first place)!

I first visited ND in 1989. It was the first time for my Father and I and I have tried to come back as often as I can find the money, time and opportunity. That first year, I attended a meeting in Bismark and then went off on my own to hunt freelance from Garrison to Bottineau. While I was goggle-eyed over all the geese and waterfowl resting alongside the highways, my Father focused on the people.

On our two-day jaunt from Garrison, we met and became friends with people like Gideon Brandt in Kramer and a teacher from Bottineau, and many more in between. How the one day when I went simply ask permission to hunt the geese on Gideon's property turned into a five-hour visit instead, is beyond me.... I still can't believe I found more, or at least as much pleasure, in talking with Gideon that day as I do hunting. But that is what you find when you spend time in ND.

How three years ago, I met someone on the Net and ended up hunting with Chris and Eric on a Saturday morning outside Fargo that will still be talked about for years to come! And, that another person I met on the Net that same time (CaptHook), held me hostage for a week at his home to hunt all over the county when I just stopped by for some directions. Yes, they are all hunters but they also are long-time residents of ND, a state I now want to find a home in for those years after I retire - not just to hunt, but maybe even fish again, and, of course, continue to learn firsthand about how it is to be part of a community of friendly people - something you sure as H^&% do not find elsewhere like you do in ND!

Yes, there are arrogant [email protected]&s everywhere you look - even in ND - but for the most part, I truly love the people in ND. It is their beliefs, practices, philosophies and actions that make it a great state - to live in and visit. I hope that the almighty Rat Race in pursuit of personal wealth and the like does not take over and destroy what God and Mankind has created and held true to in ND...

Keep up the dialogue and discussions. Tell it like it is, not how others simply want to hear it. Hold true to the good and true beliefs that have been maintained for all these years and don't put a fence around the state, just make sure others get a chance to learn first-hand what I have and the others on this Forum have about the great State of North Dakota!

As he wipes away a tear....


----------



## Dick Monson

zettler----move here now. Every man goes to bed at night thinking he has another day tomorrow. Not so. Don't wait. Come now.


----------



## Bobm

DIck If you only knew how many times that thought has occured to me!


----------



## Bobm

Have any of you ever been to Georgia? If you get out of Atlanta 50 miles or so you leave the city behind and it really is a beautiful place, mountains, heaviliy forested hill country and the ocean. We also have more beautiful women in any county in Georgia than there is in any midwestern state. I'm a midwestern boy at heart and very well traveled and the last observation is factual, not that it does a old guy like me any good but you young guys would find it truly amazing. I have no idea why, I just know its true, must be something in the water....


----------



## james s melson

Don't be afraid to move to ND, the winters are not any worse or colder than any of the other border states, you will be a "city slicker" if you need to work for a living.


----------



## Qwack




----------



## Bobm

Hey quack you can have the women at UGA they are beautiful, I better stick with the hunting in ND. How come everything a guy wants has to be 1800 miles away??? I guess I could flirt with some of their mothers, my wife probably wouldn't approve though!


----------



## zettler

I am a single parent and that is why I will stay in IL until my son either gets free (he is 14 and only with me part-time) or chooses to go FT with me. My biggest issue besides being here for my children (my daughter has lived with me FT for almost five years) is that I act 19 but am over twice that in age!

I just cant say enough good about the people I have met and who have added me to their extended family in ND. From Fargo to Granville, and from Bismark to Bottineau, and throw in Kramer and Stanley, I have been blessed each and every time I have traveled and stayed in ND.

Then, there is Norge Fest in Minot - can you say VERY beautiful women there!

My desire will be to have a home (or domicile) in IL and ND. While I do not have any blood family left - except my children - I still call IL home and ND paradise on earth!


----------

