# Feelings..... & testosterone..... & MRN's analogies



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

Fetch,

This is in response to your post and for reference I will post it here:
"what is it that you think anyone here, or even in ND are against NR's ???

Where does that feeling come from ???

Seems you have fallen for what many people (that have listened to the SPIN by the commercial Hunting side) has been trying to use for sometime ???

You seem to miss the main points & reasons for things & why we are where we are at in all this ???

Tell us what you are really feeling ??? (In a new post would be fine)

Prioritise the top ten things & list them ???"

My responses:
...against NRs
I dont think you or anyone here is necessarily against NRs, actually I have pointed out a few times that SOME of the things you have been stating havent been that bad to NRs. I do feel that some (not all) people on this board are simply out to make it easy for them to have great hunting at the expense of the NR. NRs are way down on the priority list.

.....feeling comes from?
reading this board about every other day.

....SPIN from commercial interests...
Absolutely not. There is probably nobody on this board that abhors commercial interests as much as I do (and I know there are some people on this board that have pretty strong opinions on this). Although I will say this, they do have a point or two here and there as much as I hate to admit it. People on this board should maybe consider that from time to time.

....main points & reasoning...
No, I dont think I am. Times, they are a changing.

My very own Top Ten List:

1. Affordable access. I consider $85 affordable, but that is getting fairly high. Access for everyone.
2. Bigger roosters. Mebbe some in that 10-15 pound range. Would #4s be enough or would you have to use deuces??
3. A focus on habitat. There is so much more that can be done.
4. Never to miss an easy shot again. Why is this only my fourth priority??
5. Conserve the resource. If this means reducing the bag limit or limiting the # of hunters, I am for it if needed. A fair split between residents and NRs would be necessary. 
6. My dog never eats poop again.
7. Thru hunter ed and policing our own, we reduce the number of slob hunters. I dont know that we can rely upon the budget strapped state and overworked conservation officers to do this for us.
8. I have actually accomplished this one, but I would love to hear this again. When you ask permission, a landowner says "sure, there are too many roosters, we need to thin them out".
9. Other upland game opportunities. Let us not forget about huns, sharpies, etc.
10. Skunks, porkys, and ***** are not encountered on my hunting expeditions. Did I say skunks? Cuz I really mean it about skunks. So does my dog.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Dino


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Dino, I am really not trying to "start" anything with you but I just don't see how you or anyone else could feel that there would ever be a time when ND says, "ok...we need to reduce the number of hunters here in our state, lets cut back the number of res. and nr. hunters". Can you really see a scenario where there would be some residents that are not allowed to hunt while non resident licenses are being sold!!??? I just don't understand the logic of that. It would make no sense for anyone in our state, legislators or game and fish people, to shut out a resident and let in a non resident at the same time. These people are elected by us to represent us, at least the legislators are, and they would not have much chance at re-election while giving preference to someone not from here. We are the ones that live here year round and we pay taxes here all year. How could you ever think to shut a resident out while a non resident were allowed to hunt. Certainly, as they say.."membership has its privelages"
That being said, I want you to know that I am not anti non resident, I just don't understand your logic. Would you ever sit still if MN decided that out of staters get a higher walleye limit in MN than residents do, or if you were unable to fish your home state when I was? I really doubt that would sit well with you, and it shouldn't!


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

DJ,
I was really refering to some type of big game lottery type licensing where that happens all the time. You have some good points though. But, yes, I could see at some time a limit on upland licenses, and a split of residents vs NRs.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

For big game I could understand it but I just don't ever see it happening with upland or waterfowl. We have to have some advantage for living here and paying taxes.


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

djleye,
you mean "some MORE advanages", right? You make it sound like it is even steven at this point, and residents have no perks over NRs, which they do (I am not complaining, just pointing out that it is not even). I dont think you really meant it how I took it....

I have asked the question before, but nobody ever answers, how much is enough in this game of resident vs NR?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

What you ask is not a simple answer. I would have said as little as two years ago that I would not support any limits on nonresidents, however in todays world and hunting climate the balance has swung in favor of the commericaliztion side of the scale. The nonresident is a contributing factor to this problem, not the sole issue. That alone is enough reason for most of us to seek limits. The other reasons pro and con have been discussed many times on this and other sites.

Reality today is that we have as a group taken a stand for preservation of quality hunting, wildlife management[ stopping maket hunting in its new form], hertiage perservation, retention of our young people, protection of our begining farmers from recreation dollar competion,The required fullfiment of our state constitution in its responsiblity to uphold the Public Trust. These are just a few things that you are asking when is enough, enough.

The nonresident is a non guarenteed seasonal benifit. The Above list is a year around hard numbered fact that is vital to the growth and stablity of the rural settings. Your personel wants may be infringed upon, but pale in value, to the needs and benifts to the entire state and its residents.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I would not think it would be "even" if I were to go hunt another State or Canada - Residents of those places do & should have substantial advantages always over Non -Residents.

If this (all things should be even) is the statring point, from your point of view, on weather Non-residents are welcome - than we will always be far apart


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

No Fetch, I do not think they should be even and have stated that many times. I feel frustrated that many people on the board do not comprehend what I have said. I do disagree when people imply that residents need SOME advantages (implying they have none) cuz in reality they already do have some advantages. Again, there is nothing wrong with some advantages, it is where you draw the line that concerns me.

Ron, good post. Unfortunately I agree that my personal wants will probably be infringed upon. I guess the only thing that I can ask for is that residents really think about the nonresident freelancer average Joe and do not price him or restrict him out of the equation. Take on the commercial side, I fully applaud and support that. But don't overly restrict the rest of us. And although I know that residents make up the biggest part of the economy, don't minimize the impact that NRs make. One bad law and it could be gone.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dino the average Joe is what this push is about. Pricing of all freelance hunters out of the game is what will happen if we do not start here. I personally will maybe lose a hunting companion of many years if this gets put in place. He adds money to the local economy when he comes to hunt. He however ios adament thatthis needs to be done know because he has seen the effects of doing nothing. The long term effects of this need to be focused on. I am sorry if that means you can only hunt in ND every other year. The long term benifit outweighs the imediate want. I have waited for 7 years to hunt for a whitetail buck in my unit of choice. I have a chance every year. I would like a tag in that unit evey fall, however I am satisfied with the chance for it. The same outlook need to be applied to your situation, and I hope you understand that the good of the whole is the focus not the effects on the few.

To explain a little further, if everyone could buy a tag in our unit, the pressure would increase to the point that land would be leased and purchased to eliminate competition. The hunting quality would go down, the number of people forced to use public land exclusivly would in turn drive new and begining hunters out of the sport, leading to a explosion of the deer herd beyond capacity, putting the entire herd at risk due to illnesses born out of overpopulation. If you think I am exagerating this look to the east in WIS. Deer population growing and growing, CWD now threating the entire herd. Less and less people hunting deer due to poor quality hunting.

We are at the same crossroads with snow geese. Why less people having the opportunity to hunt them on traditional grounds, due to leasing and recreational purchases. We have a spring conservation hunt that is needed because not enough can be taken during the fall flight.

The average Joe has been cut out in most states regardless of the number of licenses avalible, we are trying to keep that from happening here. The price of the future is what we pay today!

This is nothing personel to you or your views, I am trying to anwser your question, not belittle it. Keep asking for that is how we all learn.


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

Ron, I have no problem with working to save the resource, in fact, if you look at my responses to other posts, you will see i put the resource first when others put the opportunity to get easy hunting opps first. You are singing to the choir when it comes to protecting the resource. It troubles me that nobody on this forum thinks any habitat work needs to be done, they are all about access. In fact one guy went so far as to say that joining PF will do nothing for his personal access. That attitude is really troubling. The resident only weekend on the PLOTS land is nothing more than a "me first" mentality that I do not agree with. Should residents have some benefits, sure, I have said that many times but apparently no one seems to comprehend that. But I think that is going too far. Nobody really liked it when I mentioned that maybe MN should limit NRs to two 7 day periods for $200 and they can only fish after July 1. Ridicoulous? Sure, and I would not support it. But it is really not that far away from PLOTS only to residents. I can say that opening fishing on the traditionally good lakes in MN is really crowded and frustrating. It is virtually impossible for me to fish the prime areas due to the crowds. I guess what you are all saying is that we should pass my proposed changes, right? No NRs can fish MN lakes until the residents have had the pick of the good fishing days. Guys, please answer, would you support this type of bill in MN?


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I really don't consider a crowded lake a danger as much as I do a crowded slough or CRP field when there are shotguns involved. I know that sometimes there are wall to wall boats in some of the spring hot spots, I have been there and seen that. It is, easier to move on out and fish the edges or find another spot that produces. You can't really hunt the edges of a spot because you might get shot. Just my opinion. I really don't think that fishing and hunting compare.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Dino:

Your comparison of hunting to fishing cannot be more off the mark. All waters are held in the public trust. Therefore, if public, State, or Federal land exists anywhere on the shore line, then anybody can access that water. It is simply and I might add emphatically not the same comparison.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I don't ever see the # of residents being cut until all NR's are cut sorry that is not even or will ever be considered - I hope :roll:


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

Bioman, I think you are completely off the mark. First, for clarification, where do other state and federal lands fall in respect to the 1st weekend resident only hunt? Irregardless, PLOTS have PUBLIC access just as any lake does. It is a state funded access. Public access is public access. But this really isnt an access issue, when you get right down to the nitty gritty. The law doesnt say I as a NR cant be on the PLOTS land, it says I cannot HUNT it. Same with my hypothetical fishing deal. You, as a NR, can be on the lake, you just cannot FISH it. Same deal. Hunting and fishing are very comparable. It is a privelege/right that you need a license for.

As for the safety factor, I dont buy it at all. If it was a safety factor, they would have limited access already and they may need to with only resident access. That is simply not true. What is to stop residents from overflowing the area? That is hogwash (in terms of the reasons for the law), although in reality there may be some safety issues, they can just as easily happen with residents as NRs.

dj, why cant you move out and hunt the edges? I do it all the time. If someone is on a public area, I change my plans and hunt in other areas that may not be as desirable just like I would with fishing.

Bottom line is this, they are very comparable, and the reasons that you dont like it is that it affects you the way your law affects me. The difference seems to be that I oppose both laws....


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Dino:

Good luck to you getting your message across, because it is lost on me and I believe most others reading your diatribe.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Dino, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see a comparison between hunting and fishing. ND is not trying to limit out of state fisherman, only the number of hunters. There has to be a hell of a lot more room between you and I if we are hunting than if we are fishing the same area. You see, that is the quality type of hunt we are trying to preserve. We don't want hunters stacked in there like cord wood! There is a thread here that has two wonderful letters from two gentleman from OOS. It is the fight the good fight thread. I hope you have read them, they are living proof of what can happen if we lose this battle. Take care Dino.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Sorry Dino, what we're talking about is access. I don't know where you've hunted the last couple of years but there is a great abundance of habitat in ND that you keep saying we need to improve. Unless the farmer is going to get paid to let the land go idle, CRP and wetlands in the CRP, he's not going to accept anything short of the same amount of money he could make by tilling the land. The days of leaving 20 foot fence rows are over, it's not economically feasable. And get off the fishing/hunting comparison. ND welcomes thousands of NR anglers each year and puts no restrictions on them. The state of MN historically harvests more pheasants every year than ND. Why don't you hunt the public lands in MN?....could it be they are over run each weekend with many resident hunters and the QUALITY of the hunting is somewhat diminished! I think the "Nitty Gritty" is this...if you want to be treated like a resident then move to ND, raise a family here, pay the taxes, and put up with the Winters. Don't complain about not being able to hunt the PLOTs ground for a whole week at the opening of the season, the solution is simple, move to ND.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Can someone change the subject line of this thread? 
Feelings? Feelings? Feelings a "Hot Topic" ?
Such vulgarity should be discouraged here.
You're sapping my testosterone.

M.

Thanks - I much better. 
M.


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

Hunting is a recreational pursuit.
Fishing is a recreational pursuit.

You folks think NR crowding is affecting your right to have an opportunity to hunt the best areas. It is well documented that the same thing occurs in MN fishing.

That is all there is to it folks. They are very similar in nature and there has not been one logical point as to why they are different. The bottom line is that you just dont want to admit it.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Everyone has equal access to the lake, a guide/outfitter doesn't lease up the best parts of the lake and make the rest of us beg for the scraps


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Dino:

Mountain biking is a recreational sport.
Snow skiing is a recreational sport.



> They are very similar in nature and there has not been one logical point as to why they are different.


 Same thing, I think not.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Dino...don't almost all the lakes in MN. have public access???Can you pay someone to lease the best spot on a lake???
You can't compare fishing and hunting...if you can't see the difference no one will be able to change your mind.
There are no caps or limits on ND fishing.

another difference...fishing season is 365 days...duck hunting is 60 days at best.
You want to compare the same thing...then put limits on Minn. waterfowl hunting for non-res.Comparing anything else is not the same.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

SEX a recreational pursuit.
I keep the opportunities and access to myself. 
Guess I'm greedy, although in college....

M.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

MRN:

First, you change the thread title and now the sex analogy :lol: . You are on a roll buddy. :beer: 8)


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

MRN, first time I broke out laughing in the hot topics for awhile. :idiot: :bartime: :biggrin:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Bioman,
Come on, didn't it make you wince to see "Feelings"?
I was scared to peek inside, frightened of what I might find.

Am I wrong about the SEX thing? It's recreation. That makes it just like fishing and hunting.... Tell me where I'm going wrong here....
(ya, it's a dumb argument, but see the 20 posts above too...)

M.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Chris, 
Is there any way to block my wife's IP address from ever logging on here???
M.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Sure....but it's gonna cost ya!!!! :lol: --some good economic development


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

Is paying for hunting PROSTITUTION?

Think about it...

You want to go hunting, but you don't want to develop a personal relationship to do it, so you hire a hooker, errrrr I mean an outfitter...


----------



## Dino (Jan 2, 2003)

MRN, you got me with the sex deal, I have no response and my monitor is full of Pepsi. Great post.

Scraper, I think you are on the right track. Someone should put together a list of how hiring an outfitter is like hiring a prostitute. Send it in to a few papers and see if they will publish it.

Folks, it was a good discussion, we won't agree and that is fine. I have learned a great deal about your ideas and hopefully you have at least given consideration to my viewpoint and if sol, I was successful. My intent was to just make you think about things from a NR freelancer point of view. If I changed your mind, great, but I really didn't believe that I would. If you take one thing out of this discussion, please let it be that Dino has a passionate interest in the resource and access for everyone (especially that of the freelancer). I am firmly on your side in the commercial hunting debate, never doubt that for a second. Also, we have talked about habitat a little and everybody seems to defend the habitat ND has, but you can never have enough, can you? You can always improve it. Please, think habitat. More habitat = more opportunities for all of us. :beer:

Oh, and I was surprised no one commented about the line about my dog eating poop. Nobody has this problem???


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Thank god, no, but that's the only thing he doesn't eat.


----------

