# Senator Conrad Meeting with Outdoor Enthusiasts



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

> Senator Conrad will be meeting with hunters, farmers, fishermen and outdoors enthusiast to give an update on his 'open field' legislation.
> 
> The Senator's program would provide financial incentives to farmers and ranchers who open their property to the public for outdoor recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, hiking and bird watching.
> 
> ...


Sounds interesting. I'll actually be in town this week...anyone else thinking of going?


----------



## NDMALLARD (Mar 9, 2002)

I'll see if I can fit it into my travel schedule this week to be in Bismark for this meeting. Do you think he will have a Q & A?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Chris is this a sit and listen program or will it be a forum open to questions and answers? If you know I would like to know!


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

I would do anything to be there except loose my job, that is! I can't go so if any of you can, please go. If we don't have a showing we all know who will.

TC


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I was under the assumption that this program had died.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

From Senator Conrads Website.

Here is what Open Fields is all about

Why is this legislation needed?

Many states, including North Dakota, face growing controversy over who can hunt in the state, and under what conditions. The debate has pitted resident hunters against out-of-state hunters and the rural businesses that increasingly depend on these non-resident hunters for their economic survival. The issue has even put states at odds with each other. In addition, more and more agricultural land is being bought up for personal recreation by outside investors who often pay more than the land is worth for agricultural purposes and then close the land to public hunting.

At its core, the hunting debate is about demand exceeding supply. Quite simply, the public desire for hunting and other outdoor recreation opportunities increasingly exceeds the amount of land available for such activities. The problem is growing worse each year, and states are in a quandary as they seek to resolve it.

This legislation is an attempt to address the root cause of the problem by providing a voluntary, incentive-based program, administered by the states, under which farmers and ranchers will be encouraged to make their land available for access by the public. Building on the success of limited state programs in this area, the legislation is designed to grease the wheel, rather than re-invent it, and in the process provide an additional means of supporting farm income in the future.

Does it make sense to create yet another federal program for USDA to administer?

USDA's role would be limited to allocating program funds to the states, while the states would actually implement the program in the field under terms set by each state. But the program would be entirely voluntary and incentive-based, and each state would have the flexibility to build on what works and what is acceptable in each state. Funds are provided under the program to encourage public access, and are not intended to duplicate other federal programs that provide funds for habitat enhancement or conservation generally.

What if USDA tries to force states to impose long-term agreements or easements in order to receive funding?

The legislation specifically requires the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate state programs based on clear indications of landowner acceptance within the state. In North Dakota, for example, it is apparent that contracts with terms similar to those under the Conservation Reserve Program have been well received by farmers and ranchers, while longer-term agreements or easements have not. Current experience would indicate that, to be successful in encouraging acceptance among North Dakota farmers and ranchers, a public access program should feature shorter-term agreements.

If some farmers and ranchers begin receiving payments to allow public access, won't other producers react by restricting hunting on their land?

Experience in the handful of states that currently sponsor modest hunter "walk- in" programs indicates that those programs increase the amount of private land accessible by the public, without discouraging those land owners who already provide access from continuing to do so in the future.

In addition, by targeting voluntary programs to private land with proper wildlife habitat, a common-sense threshold is established for entry into the program. The land must have appropriate habitat, as determined by each state.

It would seem that $50 million is not very much money when you consider the vast amount of private land in the United States. Is $50 million worth the effort?

As with any new initiative, this program should be forced to prove itself. And $50
million annually should be sufficient to demonstrate whether this program can generate the benefits and public support necessary for the effort to be maintained or expanded in the future.

It is realistic to think that a new program can be funded in the current budget environment?

There are two major arguments in favor of public funding for this new program. First, the program is offered to address a major and increasingly divisive public policy question: Who should have access to wildlife habitat?

Second, on-going trade negotiations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) are almost certain to limit further the ability of the United States and other countries to provide traditional means of farm income support. This proposed new program, because its payments are not based on the price or production of agricultural commodities, could provide one means to support farm income in a manner consistent with the new, more stringent WTO rules likely in the future.

Some landowners are unwilling to open their land to the public because of concerns about liability. Does the bill do anything to protect landowners in such cases?

This is a real concern, but it's also an issue that is best addressed at the state level. Indeed, some states have apparently already protected landowners against litigation involving personal injury or property damage (but not gross negligence), provided the landowner does not charge the public a fee to enter the land. Hunting regulations are generally set on a state-by-state basis, and the liability issue should also be resolved by the state. In fact, the bill includes a clear statement that nothing in the legislation preempts state liability law.

Is this legislation only about hunting or can the states allow other outdoor recreation activities such as birding or wildlife trails under their access programs?

Although most of the discussion about this legislation is likely to revolve around hunting, states are free to design their own program when providing access for wildlife-related activities. Thus, in developing their own program, many states are likely to recognize that birding and nature-based tourism are increasingly popular recreational activities. Supporting wildlife-based recreation through positive voluntary landowner incentives can help to expand these other outdoor activities.

The last section of the legislation repeals a specific provision in the Farm Bill. Can you explain what that is about?

The 2002 Farm Bill includes a provision stating that acreage enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and "any other...conservation program for which payments are made in exchange for not producing an agricultural commodity" shall not be included in calculating a farm's acreage base for purposes of farm program payments.

It is logical to exclude land enrolled in the CRP and WRP (and potentially other federal conservation programs) from a farm's acreage base, since payments are provided separately under the CRP and WRP programs. However, USDA has also ruled that farmland enrolled under state "public access" programs that provide a modest payment for establishing habitat rather than growing agricultural commodities should also be excluded from a farm's acreage base. Unfortunately, in these situation, the loss of federal farm benefits greatly exceeds the incentive payments from the state, imposing a harsh penalty on the farmer and undermining state programs. This section would repeal that Farm Bill provision.

This is strikingly similar to HB 1189. I will not be able to make the meeting due to my schedule. This is going to be an important meeting! If you have any chance to make it and ask questions please do!
Bob


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Once again is this going to be a open forum for exchange of questions and anwsers or simply one to gain face time on a issue that has our interest!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

QA will be with the press and the public


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

What I was told:



> The intent for the meeting is for Senator Conrad to brief the community on
> the latest events regarding Open Fields. While we are limited in the amount of time
> that we have for the briefing, there should be an opportunity for people to ask
> questions. I hope to really set this event up as a discussion with community
> members.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Added it to my calendar. I should be able to make it unless a conflict arises.


----------



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

I'm going. Any other's gonna be there?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

FYI from NDWF:

_The same Members of Congress who introduced the "Open Fields" hunting and fishing access legislation in the last Congress, in 2003, are getting ready to introduce a new version of the bill in the new Congress. An improved form of "Open Fields" will soon be introduced in the U.S. Senate by North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad and Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, and in the U.S House of Representatives by North Dakota Congressman Earl Pomeroy and Nebraska Congressman Tom Osborne. Passage of this legislation will mean opening up millions of acres of additional private lands for hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. The more people who know that sportsmen support his bill, the better the chances are of passing of "Open Fields." There will be lots that sportsmen can do in the coming months to help "Open Fields" -- there is one thing in particular sportsmen can do this week.

North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad is hosting an "Open Fields" event in Bismarck at 2:00 on Thursday, February 24, at the Ducks Unlimited Great Plains Regional Office to announce the pending introduction of "Open Fields". Strong public support of "Open Fields" at this event will send a very clear message that hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts need and want this legislation to be successfully passed in Congress!

If you can bring some friends, contact a few members of your hunting or fishing club about this event it, will make a difference!

Thursday, February 24 - 2:00 PM
Ducks Unlimited Great Plains Regional Office
2525 River Road
Bismarck, North Dakota 58503
Phone: (701) 355-3500 _


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Cannot make it to the publicity shoot. So anyone going can you if possible ask how it will be paid for,when we can expect to see it brought forth if they are really serious over this and it is not some political stunt like before because Conrad is running for reelection!

They should have answers to these two questions if they are serious, if they don.t I hope the cookies and cool aid where tasty!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Ron

I copied this from above on the thread

_*USDA's role would be limited to allocating program funds to the states, while the states would actually implement the program in the field under terms set by each state. But the program would be entirely voluntary and incentive-based, and each state would have the flexibility to build on what works and what is acceptable in each state. Funds are provided under the program to encourage public access, and are not intended to duplicate other federal programs that provide funds for habitat enhancement or conservation generally. *_

I have talked with Senator Conrads office twice, They aooear to be quite serious about getting adopted. Only question I have is what strings will be attached.

Bob


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bob no issue with the concept or even the fact the Dorgan and Conrad are offering this up. My point this time and the last time we had this idea bantered around is the seriousness and commitment they really have.

If you go back and look at the posts I made on the last thread on this issue, you will find I was pretty much on target with what I said would happen and why! I do not take any pleasure in being right about things like this! I would much rather be wrong!

I am not a pessimist but we can no longer afford to go on hope alone where outdoor issues are concerned. They need to have those two hard questions asked and be held accountable for the answers they give.

Until the bill is being discussed on the floor of the Senate it is all window dressing designed to attract voters.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Maybe this will take over when CRP goes down the tubes. Alot of attention being directed to the Farm Bills lately concerning spending, this could be a horse of a different color.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

If they can get this passed it would go along way to enhance everyones experiences......although as Bob mentioned, what strings would be attached? Would it be seperate from PLOTS or would it be rolled into the PLOTS. If it became PLOTS would the USDA be able to dictate use of the lands or would it stay with the states. Would they be targeting deer, upland or waterfowl habitat only? Could Outfitters use the land? Who gets to make the decisions on how the program is worded....hopefully not the Mississippi delegation! Lots of questions.

I think we should listen to and support this....even though it's more than likely a way for a couple of our congressional delegation to get their names in the paper. It might have merit...might not.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

We can all post until we our fingers are raw. If you have suggestions or problems with the legislation contact Senator Conrad as I did. They are very easy to contact and speak with.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

So Bob IYO is it best if we don't discuss this or what?? 8)


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

At the first announcement of this program Sen. Conrad had all partys concerned involved. ND Farmers Union, ND Farm Bureau, NDGF, various habitat based organizations, NDWF, Alliance, etc. All were in agreemnet and on the record for their support. All of them. Very refreshing for a change. At that meeting, Sen Conrad said that the funding per state would be passed to the G&F departments of the states that had PLOTS type progarms of public access, to be used at their discretion, only for those programs to accenuiate public access for outdoor tourism.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bucks
No Not at all.

We need to discuss this. I just do not want information get lost in translation, Different views on this issue will surface by contacting the source. What I understand as being important may not be a big deal to someone else. I have had a couple of long conversations with Conrads office. I was just trying to let people know that his office is willing to discuss issues and they are very reachable.

Sorry if my above post was taken in the wrong context

Later
Bob


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Thanks for the responce Bob. :wink:

Then with PLOTS attached to CRP this could possibly be used to preserve Plots after CRP runs it's political course. Damn I hope o/g's are not allowed the tourism dollars this would bring.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bucks

That is was one of my concerns also. Who will receive funds, The loophole is there for an og to allow access to a POS chunk of land while keeping the prime areas to himself, and collecting the funds. We need to stress to our Federal Legislators that commercial hunting operations should not be able to benefit from this.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

A couple of points/questions worth making:

1. *Confirm* that acres secured can remain subject to whatever NR restrictions a state invokes - i.e. not *that *string attached.

2. Remind him (and everyone else for that matter) that access isn't the *only *issue - the end all, be all. If the right habitat is secured and/or created, you can "build" pheasant and deer hunting opps, at least to a limited degree, up to the point where excess use pounds everything out of it. Currently, however, access in not the biggest problem with ND waterfowling. Yes, sometimes it's hard or impossible to get access to this or that bunch of birds, depending on circumstances. But, the biggest waterfowling problem we have today is too much pressure, causing way too many birds to leave early and making for cramped quarters around the fewer that are here. More access isn't going to fix that in any material way.

Once in a while, you can find a good waterfowl hunt on a WPA or PLOTS parcel or the like, but because a duck's preferred hangout is so much more random than a pheasant and because their sensativity and reaction to pressure is so different, very little can be sone to "build" quality waterfowl opps in any material way by creating public access. The right PLOTS parcel may produce 20+ days of good uplanding. Even the best WPA or other public waterfowling area may produce 0 days of good waterfowling any given year, and if it produces at all and gets hit, won't likely produce more than a couple before it's burned out for that year. You can certainly "build" ducks by improving habitat, but "building" quality duck hunting opps through access is a far different proposition. Public access programs can secure many places to stand in waders over a set of blocks, but by and large, such programs will not produce much in the way of additional quality waterfowling. Only a check on NR demand and the o/g industry, in combination, will do that in any material way - period.

3. Ask him what he and Dorgan and Pomeroy are doing to promote and pass S 339 and HR 731 - companion Federal bills that will confirm management of game within a state is up to the state. This legilation, if passed, is the anti-venom to the 9th Circuit Montoya decision and the current suit by Hatch/Orvik against ND. These bills are no less important to the hunting opps of Average Joe than the Open Fields proposal, and in the long-run, probably even more so.


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

If its federal money running the program it should be open to NR, as much as residents.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Thanks Dan... come on people educate me!!

ND4 I wish that were true, almost. If it were that way I could travel freely around the whole US and have resident hunting privleges in every state. All states get Fed $$$$. 8)


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

4,

We've kicked this around about a bazillion times in the past before you entered the debate. A couple of analogous things to consider:

Because a State University receives Federal funds, should it be required to apply the same admissions standards and tuition rates for R and NR students, giving no preference to R's?

Because a State's public welfare programs receive some Federal dollars, should they be available to residents from another state with less generous programs?

If Colorado gets some of these funds and uses them for elk access, should an NR be on the same footing as an R for a bull draw?

Open, yes, but subject to a State's NR restrictions.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Just like CRP should be open to everyone, Sorry ND4life In a perfect world you may be right but the reality is federal money paid for CRP has not allowed public access unrestricted for anyone resident or nonresident.

Bob


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

I challenge you guys to step back and look at what your saying. And how it comes off to outsiders.

You live in a great outdoor state, your hunting access rivals few other states. Thousands of acres of WPA, State land, if private and not posted you can hunt it. an your asking for MORE? I have no problem with more hunting oppurtunities in any state, and have no problems with this Bill, in fact I like the idea, but again step back and listen, you guys sound like a bunch of crying babies. I am not saying you are, but thats what it sounds like especially when asking NR restcictions in place allowed with this Bill. It sounds like you don't wanna ask permission or work for your hunting, whats the big deal with asking permission on land? Its NOT yours, a lot of you live in larger cities, and have no more right or priveldge to rural land as does someone from Alaska.

ND doesn't seem to have a solid land rights ethic, fine, but this Bill is worth much more in others states than yours. Federal spent money should be open to all, even NR. CRP should NOT be open to hunting, this program is worth much more than the cost of opening it to the public. CRP would have NEVER been going as long as it has, had this been a stipulation. CRP provides valuable habitat that benefits more areas than just that parcel, and most waterfowlers have overwhelmingly benefited from it, and so have the bird watchers, but they aren't asking it to be open.

Dan your school things doesn't apply, all the school is asking from a NR is more money, I am not aware admission standards being tougher for a NR.

Colorado, No not on the draw, but the land should be open to them. Again Elk, deer upland, can have restctrions on NR, but not waterfowl.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> You live in a great outdoor state, your hunting access rivals few other states. Thousands of acres of WPA, State land, if private and not posted you can hunt it. an your asking for MORE?


So we should settle for less because others have less. Makes sense to me?? :eyeroll:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ND4life

First, you chastise us for asking for more from our state, Have you ever wanted more from your home state. Government is not shy about asking me to pay taxes. I will not be shy about trying to see that a portion of my tax money is used for something I am in favor of.

You always like to call us a bunch of "Crying Babies" Sorry but the underlying theme to just about all of your posts is that you feel restricted as a NR by North Dakotas Laws.

You make it a point to bring up asking permission to access land. I ask all the time and so does most everyone else that hunts North Dakota. What is your Point?

Your CRP reasoning does not fly CRP is federally funded, You seem to want it both ways? How do you propose to determine which federal funds should allow NR accesses? If it is to your benefit as a NR then federal money is OK? In North Dakota, the vast majority of land receives federal funding or subsidies of some sort through the Federal Farm Program.

Do you feel that North Dakota should have the right to make their own laws?

Why do you want to Change North Dakota Laws to benefit you? Do any of us here try to change the laws in Maryland? No because for the most part we try to mind our own business. I hunt three other states as a NR. I would not think of asking them to change their hunting laws to benefit me, I pay the license fees and go enjoy myself. Why can't visitors to our state do the same?

Bob


----------



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

Anyone from the site going to the meeting? I'm heading there barring any glitches.


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

MIGRATORY BIRDS ARE A FEDERALKY REGULATED RESOURCE, individual states should not be allowed to limit access to them.

You didn't really look at it from the outside did you? The opinions, don't reflect that you ask permission, all the stances most take point to the opposite. We want MORE land open to us! just because its posted DOESN'T mean its not open to you.

I have no problem that my federal money for CRP doesn't allow me to access it. I have no problem with this Bill, but NOT with restcictions for waterfowl. Again MIGRATORY BIRDS ARE A FEDERALKY REGULATED RESOURCE, individual states should not be allowed to limit access to them.
FYI I hunt upland as much as I do do waterfowl when in ND.

There are not many states outside ND and SD that limit NR waterfowl hunting.

Of course there are things in my state I would like to change, but I know when I am the minority. And in most states, hunters are fighting anti's not other hunters.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

ND4 wrote



> There are not many states outside ND and SD that limit NR waterfowl hunting


They don't have to limit NR's in most states because there is no place for them to hunt witout paying someone. Their pocketbooks regulate them!!!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ND4life

Please Read
I did not see anywhere in the information below that says federal laws or federal funds should allow unrestricted access.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755) as amended by: Chapter 634; June 20, 1936; 49 Stat. 1556; P.L. 86-732; September 8, 1960; 74 Stat. 866; P.L. 90-578; October 17, 1968; 82 Stat. 1118; P.L. 91-135; December 5, 1969; 83 Stat. 282; P.L. 93-300; June 1, 1974; 88 Stat. 190; P.L. 95-616; November 8, 1978; 92 Stat. 3111; P.L. 99-645; November 10, 1986; 100 Stat. 3590 and P.L. 105-312; October 30, 1998; 112 Stat. 2956

The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the U.S. and Great Britain (for Canada) for the protection of migratory birds. Later amendments implemented treaties between the U.S. and Mexico, the U.S. and Japan, and the U.S. and the Soviet Union (now Russia).

Specific provisions in the statute include:

Establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird." (16 U.S.C. 703)

This prohibition applies to birds included in the respective international conventions between the U.S. and Great Britain, the U.S. and Mexico, the U.S. and Japan, and the U.S. and the Russia.

Authority for the Secretary of the Interior to determine, periodically, when, consistent with the Conventions, "hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any . . .bird, or any part, nest or egg" could be undertaken and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These determinations are to be made based on "due regard to the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times of migratory flight." (16 U.S.C. 704)

A decree that domestic interstate and international transportation of migratory birds which are taken in violation of this law is unlawful, as well as importation of any migratory birds which are taken in violation of Canadian laws. (16 U.S.C. 705)

Authority for Interior officials to enforce the provisions of this law, including seizure of birds illegally taken which can be forfeited to the U.S. and disposed of as directed by the courts. (16 U.S.C. 706)

Establishment of fines for violation of this law, including misdemeanor charges. (16 U.S.C. 707)

*Authority for States to enact and implement laws or regulations to allow for greater protection of migratory birds, provided that such laws are consistent with the respective Conventions and that open seasons do not extend beyond those established at the national level. (16 U.S.C. 708)*

A repeal of all laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. (16 U.S.C. 710)

Authority for the continued breeding and sale of migratory game birds on farms and preserves for the purpose of increasing the food supply. (16 U.S.C. 711)

The 1936 statute implemented the Convention between the U.S. and Mexico for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals. Migratory bird import and export restrictions between Mexico and the U.S. were also authorized, and in issuing any regulations to implement this section, the Secretary of Agriculture was required to consider U.S. laws forbidding importation of certain mammals injurious to agricultural and horticultural interests. Monies for the Secretary of Agriculture to implement these provisions were also authorized.

The 1960 statute (P.L. 86-732) amended the MBTA by altering earlier penalty provisions. The new provisions stipulated that violations of this Act would constitute a misdemeanor and conviction would result in a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment of not more than six months. Activities aimed at selling migratory birds in violation of this law would be subject to fine of not more than $2000 and imprisonment could not exceed two years. Guilty offenses would constitute a felony. Equipment used for sale purchases was authorized to be seized and held, by the Secretary of the Interior, pending prosecution, and, upon conviction, be treated as a penalty.

Section 10 of the 1969 amendments to the Lacey Act (P.L. 91-135) repealed the provisions of the MBTA prohibiting the shipment of wild game mammals or parts to and from the U.S. or Mexico unless permitted by the Secretary of the Interior. The definition of "wildlife" under these amendments does not include migratory birds, however, which are protected under the MBTA.

The 1974 statute (P.L. 93-300) amended the MBTA to include the provisions of the 1972 Convention between the U.S. and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction. This law also amended the title of the MBTA to read: "An Act to give effect to the conventions between the U.S. and other nations for the protection of migratory birds, birds in danger of extinction, game mammals, and their environment."

Section 3(h) of the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-616) amended the MBTA to authorize forfeiture to the U.S. of birds and their parts illegally taken, for disposal by the Secretary of the Interior as he deems appropriate. These amendments also authorized the Secretary to issue regulations to permit Alaskan natives to take migratory birds for their subsistence needs during established seasons. The Secretary was required to consider the related migratory bird conventions with Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union in establishing these regulations and to establish seasons to provide for the preservation and maintenance of migratory bird stocks.

Public Law 95-616 also ratified a treaty with the Soviet Union specifying that both nations will take measures to protect identified ecosystems of special importance to migratory birds against pollution, detrimental alterations, and other environmental degradations. (See entry for the Convention Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment; T.I.A.S. 9073; signed on November 19, 1976, and approved by the Senate on July 12, 1978; 92 Stat. 3110.)

Public Law 99-645, the 1986 Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, amended the Act to require that felony violations under the MBTA must be "knowingly" committed.

P.L. 105-312, Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 1998, amended the law to make it unlawful to take migratory game birds by the aid of bait if the person knows or reasonably should know that the area is baited. This provision eliminates the "strict liability" standard that was used to enforce Federal baiting regulations and replaces it with a "know or should have known" standard. These amendments also make it unlawful to place or direct the placement of bait on or adjacent to an area for the purpose of taking or attempting to take migratory game birds, and makes these violations punishable under title 18 United States Code, (with fines up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. The new amendments require the Secretary of Interior to submit to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Resources a report analyzing the effect of these amendments and the practice of baiting on migratory bird conservation and law enforcement. The report to Congress is due no later than five years after enactment of the new law.

P.L. 105-312 also amends the law to allow the fine for misdemeanor convictions under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to be up to $15,000 rather than $5000.


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

ND4LIFE

How are you regulated, by a 14 day hunting period??? We do not have caps on our waterfowl season. How many out of staters would hunt more than the allowed 14 days?? I doubt many....Are you complaining about zones??? This should be a benefit to you so there are not as many hunters in the same area at the same time... I would think this would make sense. Or is it residents get to hunt a week earlier. This should not effect you because this week is before the Traditional opener, which means you can hunt the same time as you always have. This is also a benefit to you because a lot of residents will hunt then to avoid crowds which means less hunters for you on the opener.

Nobody I know complains about farmers posting their land. It is their land and they have every right to do with it as they please. You keep saying everyone on this board thinks they own the land...That is BS..no one has ever said that. They may be trying to come up with ideas that would benefit both the land owner and the sportsman/ both NR and Resident alike.

I personally don't need this fight, I own land, I have several friends and relatives that own land, so I will always have a place to hunt. But what you don't get is it is about a quality hunt for EVERYONE, not just residents.

I hunt with several NR every year. Some are from MN,SD,and Neb, ask them why they come hear. Their answer is simple, they do not have the hunting oppourtunities where they live. That is the reason why we fight, we do not want to become like these other states. Go try hunting pheasants in So.Dak and find out how much land access you come across that is privately owned. Good luck, from what my friends tell me if your not willing to pay big bucks your not getting on. The reason for this, simple g/o willing to pay the big bucks and have driven out the average Joe.

If you don't understand what I'm talking about, go hunt SD next fall and report back to us how you feel then..


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Good points GH4L! We must keep in mind this inividual most likely has suffered diminished hunting oppurtunities in his home state, therefore he flocks here every fall.

Also he has purchased land in ND for a sole purpose of raising and watching wildlife, personal wildlife refuge? He is not part of the solution, he is the problem!! Landgrabbin' OOS!! There is a young farmer out there that could use that land for something more than watching wildlife.

You sir are shameful!! :eyeroll:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

4curl wrote


> Also he has purchased land in ND for a sole purpose of raising and watching wildlife, personal wildlife refuge? He is not part of the solution, he is the problem!! Landgrabbin' OOS!! There is a young farmer out there that could use that land for something more than watching wildlife.


Now your not going to like this but here goes. He is not part of the problem he is part of the solution from the standpoint that he keeps the land out of crops and in grass and wetlands. I would personally rather see the OOS person buy the land and keep it in wildlife habitat and me not be able to hunt it then to have a farmer buy it and tile it and farm everything with little regard for wildlife. The farmer is going to farm the marginal acres as long as the marginal revenue is greater than the marginal cost. He won't farm marginal land if OOS people or anyone for that matter bids up the price where it is no longer cost effective for him to farm marginal acres.

Economically speaking the only way we will maintain habitat is to have people buy it with the purpose of keeping the land out of production. Now the fact that people buy up the land to grow wildlife is not the problem. The problem we run into is the excusivity usually associated with people purchasing land. They may want to grow the wildlife but they also want to exclude everyone.

Now we have a catch 22. Private landownere are important for the average hunter because they help keep the habitat that grows wildlife. But when they exclude the general public to a point where they give up hunting, the funds recieved by the game and fish start to drop.

The ultimate solution to all of this is for conservation minded landowners to understand that average everyday hunter is your friend and letting them hunt is a benefit to their conservation goals because they help pay professional wildlife managers. The average hunter needs to view the private landowner who is interested in conservation as his friend too because he pays to keep that land in the production of wildlife and not crops. The average hunters votes are important politically and the wealthy hunters dollars are important economically.

Without one it is difficult to have the other.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> There are not many states outside ND and SD that limit NR waterfowl hunting.


There are not a lot of states worth hunting waterfowl beyond these two because there is no "open" land!!


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

gandergrinder said:


> He won't farm marginal land if OOS people or anyone for that matter bids up the price where it is no longer cost effective for him to farm marginal acres.
> 
> 
> > Do you honestly think they are buying marginal acres for an inflated price? If so this hurts the farmers who are trying to buy productive land in that area at a rate of feasability, not by going into a debt, too great to bare. This is bad for North Dakota.
> ...


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

yeah the local farmer is losing a lot of $$$ with my land, haying it every 2 years.

4curl you seem to know alot. have you read sand county almanac yet? if not, please don't respond with this type of post till you do.

frankly I have good hunting wherever I am hunting, its about the hunt not the bag limit. One of the best hunts in ND this year was hunting a big slough in the morning with my 1930 SxS and shooting a canvasback, then taking a walk and shooting my first Hun.

No problem with 14 days of NR hunting.
don't agree with early opener, but don't come at that time anyway.
Zones would be harmful to my quality of hunting.

No they don't say they own the land, I said take a step back and hear yourselves, that is what it SOUNDS like.

Bob, no it doesn't say that, but Waterfowl are federally regulated, not by state, becuase they migrate through states and are federally regulated I Beleive that states that limit their access is fundementally wrong. Unless the population would be at risk, that is why I don't have a problem with only 14 days a field for NR, but beyond that its about a few resident hunters and not the resource

djleye, I would disagree, it depends on the type of hunting, I think there are plenty of states that offer great hunting oppurtunites. Frankly ND hunting doesn't offer GREAT decoy hunting over sloughs, ducks just go to the next one, its good but not great like down south. ND doesn't offer seaduck hunting? Wood duck hunting? Hard to layout hunt over a rig of wood decoys? Black ducks? brant? what ND does offer is a good mix of duck hunting and upland hunting, in a beautiful setting, with exceptionally nice people, and no competion. I wonder sometimes how many of you actually have traveled outside ND for hunting???? or whether or not most of you are shooters rather than hunters????????


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Back on topic did anyone attend today and can you give us a brief report?


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Where is your land, not specifics, just general area?

What did you pay per acre?

How much land did you aquire?

Answer these and my guard hairs may come down.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> Do you honestly think they are buying marginal acres for an inflated price? If so this hurts the farmers who are trying to buy productive land in that area at a rate of feasability, not by going into a debt, too great to bare. This is bad for North Dakota.


My masters thesis is on ND land values and I have collected 500+ land sales all across the state from 2001-2003 and people are paying rates at least equal to good quality farmland for marginal acres (meaning wetlands and grasslands stuff that holds wildlife). In fact they are actively seeking them out. The highest and best use for some land in ND is not agriculture anymore. THIS IS GOOD. This means we only produce on high quality ground and are not wasting resources trying to produce crops that we can't sell anyway because the markets are flooded. I don't want to pay taxes to subsidize a farmer to grow crops we don't need anyway. The cheap food argument is bullshiat because you pay for it either through the market or by subsidizing it with your taxes.



> Do you honestly think the land is open? I don't know if it is or not, but if anyone pays an inflated price for marginal land I will have a hard time believing it not posted tight. I'd have to see proof


I don't think its open to hunting but it doesn't matter. At least it is being protected from the plow. Habitat = critters = hunting. Cut off the first part and you can say goodby to the latter.

The question is whether you want more wildlife or more grain production. Rural ND is in deepshiat no matter what. Why do we always want to protect the farmer?????? Who protests when anyone else goes out of business. The land is still getting farmed just by fewer individual farmers but at least some of it is being protected.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ND4life
My point was that migratory birds are regulated by federal guidelines. States may follow the limits set or they may lower the limits to what they feel are appropriate if they feel the Federal Guidlines are to liberal. It is a federal program but not totally managed at a federal level.

You may not like zones but it is a law that is in place and if you feel you are being restricted get on the bandwagon with all of the other NR that want to change the laws of our state.

There is no federal precedent that says North Dakota has to make waterfowl hunting meet the expectations of anyone.

Bob


----------



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

Ron Gilmore said:


> Back on topic did anyone attend today and can you give us a brief report?


I attended the "press conference". All Conrad did was promote himself and the open lands initiative. The DU lobby is where it was held and there were maybe 25-30 of us in the room. He said the goal of the legislation is to help state funding by matching funds with federal dollars to help supplement the landowners. It was a way to entice landowners to allowing people on their property because they do incur some risk/expense by having people on their land.

He was then asked directly what he thought about the land having to be posted or not in regards to access. He wouldn't comment and started talking about other issues.

All in all, I think it was a waste of my time being there........other than showing some support for what I believe in! OPEN LANDS FOR OUTDOORS ACTIVITIES! :beer:


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

Bob just noticed your signature, very nice, you always had it?

your partially right, but ND G&F with the exception of the 14 days, are not limiting the resource, they are limiting the hunter, with zones, first week res only, and plots laws. The intent of the federal oversight is to manage the resource not the hunter. The hunter should be able to travel and harvest migratory birds anywhere he or she sees fit within the framework that the resource is not harmed. This is whay I feel as a NR I have a viable interest in the laws that limit them in ND.

4 curl, not sure what it matters but

southern zone 1
less than $150
less than 150
in case you wanted more info
less than 7 years ownership
native grassland and water, water now has an easement, and planned for the grassland will be prescribed burning with a restoration of native grass's and forbs.

why anyone would by big tracts of land to soley hunt is beyond me, I am sure it happens, but in ND you can't rely on 100-1000acres constistantly producing great hunting. Now if I came across more land in a large peice that was similar, I would be interested because of the idea of retirement from May to Nov in ND has a great interest to me.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

If the funding participation has been changed from the original it would be very disappointing. Sen. Conrad said initially that the money would go to G & F Depts. for access programs, no strings attached. A little research is needed here.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

gandergrinder said:


> The question is whether you want more wildlife or more grain production. Rural ND is in deepshiat no matter what. Why do we always want to protect the farmer?????? Who protests when anyone else goes out of business. The land is still getting farmed just by fewer individual farmers but at least some of it is being protected.


No, the question is, do we want to sell the state off to the highest oos bidders so there is no chance for further generations of SMALL FARMERS or RANCHERS to stay in the game.

I too have some problems with grain farmers and there subsidies, especalially the corporate farms, but these are not the people that make rural ND go round anyways, it is the small family farms.

If we were short on wildlife I would stand there beside you GG and make your case with you, but that is not the case. The only part that is suffering is the wetlands, so goes the ducks.

Business from the farmer and rancher is what keeps this state a float, no matter how we feel about them, we need them.


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

I think the writing is on the wall for small farmers unforunately across the country. I grew up helping freinds milk cows and bail hay and its sad to see them go. Fincially even cropland at $500ac is not going to allow the first time farmer to get into farming and making a living on it. Talked with a USDA loan manager a while back, and said when he first started he had 50 accounts and in less than 10 years he was down to 20, said its just not finicailly feasible for the small or first time farmer to get going.

Grassland is the thing that is suffering and effecting the ducks. sharptails, huns, ducks are all down compared to historic levels, and ND is need of more land back into native grasslands to help them.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ND4life

No I change my signature every once in awhile. I like that quote very much as it fits my beliefs quite well.

Managing the harvesting of resources can not be done without managing harvester can it? In the grand picture Natural Resources have been managed by two entities Natural Events and Humans.

Natural Events are looked at as cruel and wasteful by humans in many cases simply because the human can often see no benefit to him/her. So we as humans, as we always do, try to control nature to maximize the benefit to us. We tend to look at any restrictions put on us as a serious implication that we are not in control or that we are being kept from fulfilling our wants and needs. States pass laws to maintain their grip of control over nature and the citizens of the state, as well as anyone visiting the state. Three choices exist, Follow the rules, Change the rules or Break the rules. Will nature benefit from the choices we make? only if we put nature first instead of ourselves.

Bob


----------

