# State Senator Andrist speakes on hunting issues...



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bismarck Tribune
Sunday, February 6, 2005

We shoot ourselves in the foot
By JOHN ANDRIST, Crosby 
Re. your Jan. 28 story, "Ruling sought in N.D. hunting dispute":

It's a weird feeling to find yourself in the middle of the crowd of visitors, cheering against the home- town team. That's where I find myself in regard to the Minnesota lawsuit asking a federal court not to permit North Dakota to discriminate between resident and nonresident hunters.

I made that comment to a state official, a friend and member of my own political persuasion, and he looked at me incredulously. "We can't give up our own sovereignty and control," he said.

You are hard-pressed to find any state that has special rules for tourists that don't apply to the locals. Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem insists that North Dakota's rich game reserves should be off-limits to anyone we want to keep out. Does Minnesota own the Twins and the Vikings? Does Arizona own the sun that shines over its sand in January and February?

I haven't seen Stenehjem wrong on many things; nor North Dakota, for that matter. But the state is dead wrong on this one, and we deserve to lose. Waterfowl that fly over our state twice a year don't become our exclusive property just because they choose to park on some of our water holes for a couple of weeks each spring and fall.

It is the shift in Game and Fish policy -- the choice to try to manage hunters, rather than wildlife -- that has created North Dakota's hunting wars. It's narrow-minded, punitive, self-serving and destructive to North Dakota's economy. Hopefully, the federal court will also find it unconstitutional.

In reaction to Gov. John Hoeven's contention that "states should be able to manage their own wildlife resources," Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch has responded that North Dakota hunting restrictions aren't about managing game but about selectively managing hunters. He's right on.

A victory in this lawsuit would send a powerful message to state Game and Fish, which continues to heel to the special-interest eastern North Dakota hunting clubs -- to the detriment of the hundreds of rural communities that stand to benefit so much from increased hunting tourism.

(The writer is a Republican state senator. -- Editor)


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I rest my case with the letter that I posted in the Legislative Forum :eyeroll:

I wonder if everyone in Mr. Andrist's District feel the way he does?? Do we have anyone from Crosby Represented here???

Unbelievable


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

Wow


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

> "It's narrow-minded, punitive, self-serving and destructive..."


Much like this article will be to the Senator's political career. What a maroon.

When will this lot of people stop viewing hunting as a "tourism" industry. Sure it has some aspects of that, but it also has so much more. And comparing hunting to going to a baseball game or football game? Apples to oranges. If I go to a Twins game, there will always be the opportunity for everyone else to go, if they can afford a ticket. The resource is always there, assuming the Twins aren't contracted or relocated.

Do I ***** and whine that I have to pay $34 for a fishing license that costs me $10 in my home state, just 60 miles away? NEVER.

Oh wait...that's a special rule that applies to non-residents. Hmmm...is the good senator suggesting that Minnesota should remove their restrictions on out of state fishermen? I didn't see it anywhere in his drivel. Maybe, like a typical politician, he's plugging a double standard here...I never thought I'd see the day. 

Glad to see the Senator looking out for the good of North Dakota. Dick...would you kindly send him the PDF I drew up last year detailing resident/non-resident hunting expenditures in ND...maybe that will clarify some of this for him.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Nothing will help this guy....He has a narrow minded view and it will never change! I'd like to join one of the "eastern ND Huntng clubs" Does any one have address?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

The conduct and thinking of some of our representatives this session is beyond embarrassing. How did some of these people get elected?

I don't even know where to start? 
I have zero faith in the intelligence of many of the people in our house and senate. I had originally thought that these people were just set in their ways. I now believe they do not have the mental capacity to see the whole picture. We simply have people in office that are not capable of making the correct decision even if the facts are laid before them.

:******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******:

Does this guy not understand the management implications of this lawsuit when it come to wildlife? Maybe we could have good hunting for years to come if we let our Game and Fish do its job free from politcal intervention and maybe the small towns would benefit over the long term? Stop introducing self serving legislation. :eyeroll:


----------



## Boy (Jan 24, 2005)

Right after I read the letter yesterday, I commented to my wife that if this guy doesnt lose his next election, something is wrong. The problem that I foresee is that too many people are concerned only with taxes and they are convinced that if they elect a democrat, their taxes will go up.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/media/Overview1_NDGF.pdf

*2001-02 Overview of Hunting Expenditures: NDGF Survey

TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES IN ND *
Resident Total $132 million 
Nonresident Total $34 million

Res. Small game $67 million 
Deer $48 million 
Furbearer $15 million 
Other $4 million

NR. Upland $11 million 
Waterfowl $21 million 
Other $2 million

Expenditures by Resident Hunters Generated: 
$154 million in secondary economic activity 
$287 million in gross buisness volume 
$8.6 million in state tax collections

Expenditures by Nonresident Hunters Generated: 
$45 million in secondary economic activity 
$79 million in gross business volume 
$2 million in state tax collections


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Mr Andrist wrote: "It is the shift in Game and Fish policy -- the choice to try to manage hunters, rather than wildlife 
How do you manage wildlife WITHOUT managing hunters? Deer, Mooose, ect. all have management/ hunter #'s in line with each other. I think that is the reason they set DAILY BAG LIMITS on other game. 
Mr Andrist is from Crosby, a area with VERY LITTLE TOURISM! He is looking to sell OUR wildlife from the few bus. owners in the area that will make a little profit from it.
Lets give him his unlimited hunters then, BUT REDUCE THE DAILY BAG LIMIT ON NON RES. :beer: Two ducks a day and one rooster a day. By doing this Mr. Andrist will get his "tourist" to stay in the area longer and spend more money


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I always try to see both sides of the coin and agree to disagree with pretty well anyone, but when I read about his little spiel in the paper I was disgusted and shocked! Sure, he's elected to represent the locals in his community, and I understand that, but he's so far out on this one he's not even credible to either side of the hunting controversy!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Mr. Andrist doesn't understand 2 things.

1.Regulating hunters.....If we went with his suggestion,everyone who wanted to get a moose,elk,antelope and sheep license should get one.The motels would be full here at Bottineau during moose season.Course it wouldn't last long before there wern't any moose left....but money is more important right now.

2.non-res. should be treated the same as res.We should all let him know we will all then move to a state with better wages and come back for a week or to to hunt.I would then contribute less to ND's economy than when I live here year round.But the motels would be full in Oct.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

NJSIMONSON

Of course you dont bi=ch about paying 34 bucks for a fishing license in Minnesota.

I bet you would bi=ch like crazy if Minnesota said that you have to pay $100.00 per person to fish. You have to pick two 7 day periods to do it in...and...by the way you cant fish the first week of the season.
When you are here, you also need to have papers on you stating that you paid $90.00 to take your poodle to the vet.
Oh...and you have to pick a zone. And you cant hunt both of your time periods in the same zone.
If you are thinking about buying lake property here, be prepared to be shunned by the Minneapoleans and beat up on the internet.
You already have lake property? Oh well. Hope you like jigsaw puzzles because your two weeks is your two weeks.
And...all of these new regulations were not driven by the locals but by a group from Mpls. St. Paul and other big cities where there are no fish but plenty of fishermen.

I know a ton of Nodakers with cabins over here who would throw a royal fit if anything like that came to pass. Heck, they cant even understand why they have to pay non homestead taxes.

I wouldnt bi=ch about paying 100 bucks to hunt ducks in ND. IF I COULD HUNT ALL SEASON and were ever the heck I want!

Nobody ever said that NRs should have equal rights in ND or anywhere else. It is just hard to swallow when fewer are allowed in and for less time and these sanctions are driven by people who dont own the hunting land in question (much less the birds) in the first place.

The guy's point is this:
You are trying to exclude NRs from hunting migratory birds. They fly to ND and they fly away from ND.

Minnesotas fish (exluding boundry waters) are where they are.


----------



## smalls (Sep 9, 2003)

Bert said:


> NJSIMONSON
> 
> If you are thinking about buying lake property here, be prepared to be shunned by the Minneapoleans and beat up on the internet.


The horror.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Well Smalls,

Everybody here was whooping up on ol Ron Schara (dont like him myself) until they found out the real story.

Its not a horror, but when you add up everything else I wrote, it paints a pretty accurate picture.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Bert,
If MN thinks that's what they should do because there are too many OOS fisherman then by god let them do it. You will never hear a word from me.

I would rather come to MN and fish for two weeks and actually catch fish on all the lakes consistently because there are still good numbers of fish in them, than have a whole season where it is difficult to catch fish because the lakes have been over fished. Even if that meant I had to pay $100 or even $200. I would say its pretty cheap for good quality fishing. I would willingly pay $300 for 7 days of waterfowling in Canada. $200 for all the licenses to hunt almost all small game in ND for 10 days is a bargain.

You can't argue the lakes in MN are overfished because they wouldn't need slot limits if they weren't. MN is about $$$$$ when it comes to its resources and ND will soon be $$$$ and it will soon have resource opportunities similar to MN if we follow the $$$$ mentality.

I will choose quality over quantity every time. If I wanted quantity waterfowling I would live in MN, put out my duck decoys and stare at empty skies, but since I want quality waterfowling I live in ND.

When I fish I want to catch fish and when I hunt I want to see game.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Having heard Andrist speak as well as read his editorials, I feel sorry for a person with such a massive ignorance of fact and feel sorry for the people who elected him. My comments on his article are in CAPS
"You are hard-pressed to find any state that has special rules for tourists that don't apply to the locals. " BLATANT LIE. ALL STATES HAVE SEPERATE FEE SCHEDULES FOR HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES FOR NON RESIDENTS EVEN MINNESOTA. Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem insists that North Dakota's rich game reserves should be off-limits to anyone we want to keep out. Does Minnesota own the Twins and the Vikings? "Does Arizona own the sun that shines over its sand in January and February?" WRONG AGAIN. THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE COURT CASES WHERE BLOCKING THE VIEW OR THE SUN BY PUTTING UP A BUILDING WAS RULED ILLEGAL"

I haven't seen Stenehjem wrong on many things; nor North Dakota, for that matter. But the state is dead wrong on this one, and we deserve to lose. "Waterfowl that fly over our state twice a year don't become our exclusive property just because they choose to park on some of our water holes for a couple of weeks each spring and fall." WRONG AGAIN. NORTH DAKOTA IS THE RICHEST DUCK PRODUCTION AREA IN THE PRAIRIE POTHOLE REGION AND MANY WATERFOWL DO NOT JUST PARK FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS BUT ARE HERE ALL SPRING AND SUMMER PRODUCING MORE DUCKS. SECOND, WATERFOWL BAG LIMITS ARE SET BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE STATES, BUT THE SETTING OF SEASON DATES WITHIN A STATE, IS THE WITHIN STATE POWER AND GOVERNED BY FEDERAL LAW. THIRD, DOES THAT MEAN ANDRIST SUPPORTS NORTH DAKOTA SUING SOUTH DAKOTA OVER ITS LIMITATION OF 4,000 WATERFOWL HUNTERS?

"It is the shift in Game and Fish policy -- the choice to try to manage hunters, rather than wildlife -- that has created North Dakota's hunting wars." ANDRIST SEEMS TO HAVE A COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT. IF WE DO NOT MANAGE HUNTERS, THEN WHY IS THERE ANY LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF DEER TAGS? WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT HAS ALMOST ALWAYS MANAGED GAME AND FISH POPULATIONS BY LIMITING TAKE OR THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS. FOR EXAMPLE, NUMBERS OF DEER TAGS ARE LIMITED EVERY YEAR AND THAT MANAGES THE NUMBER OF HUNTERS AND RESTRICTING THEM TO ZONES.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Take a look in your own backyard Bert, depleted habitat overrun by masses of hunters.
What do you have? Crap for most hunters, exception to the few who can afford to pay.
We are on the brink of the same thing happening here, if it is not managed properly it will be gone here to. No one here is asking for a total ban on NR (but the thought has been dreamt about) just some control to keep the quality for all.

This whole thread should be sent to Andrist!!


----------



## quack (Sep 29, 2004)

Bert,

I don't think we limit you in anyway in the amount of time you can fish here. Non resident fishing license is $35.00 and a husband and wife one is $45.00. Pretty similiar to yours... now quit your whining...


----------



## Goosepride (Sep 29, 2003)

Andrist does not speak on behalf of NW ND or Crosby for that matter, I can tell you that for a fact. He may be elected to, but he does not speak what many up there feel...I can also tell you that as a fact as well.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> I wouldnt bi=ch about paying 100 bucks to hunt ducks in ND. IF I COULD HUNT ALL SEASON and were ever the heck I want!


I guess if you want to compare hunting.......Maybe we could talk about my $156 OOS deer hunting for two solid days in MN!!!! MN needs to do something about their lakes problem as Jed said, but lets have it be done in the name of the resource, not because you are PO'd about ND hunting. What part of trying to keep hunting good in ND don't you understand????? We are doing this for everyone, not just for ourselves!!!


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Djleye,

Why do you always bring that up as an excuse?

Does your hunting buddies from MN have the same
restrictions in the zone you hunt?

The answer is YES!

If you don't like it, don't deer hunt in MN.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Okay, admittedly I was comparing apples to oranges, but the principle that the Senator bases his argument on is still just the same. He argues that states should not treat anyone any different just because the are from out of state. My argument is that at SOME POINT ALONG THE LINE, non-residents are restricted or treated differently; be it by cost of licenses, or zones, or days they can hunt. This occurs in EVERY STATE IN THE UNION!!!

The Senator's thinking creates a slippery-slope scenario which looks to erode state autonomy on a NATIONAL SCALE. These are the state's rights under the constitution, to regulate hunters AND wildlife. This is the whole idea behind the dual nature of this country.

Finally...if I didn't have my grandma's cabin to visit in Minnesota, I don't think I would fish there. And if it came down to paying $100 for a license, I'd probably think twice, and probably not even buy one if it was a limited days scenario. If there were "zones" of fishing, I'd probably only fish the zone that Becker County was in, and be fine with it.

The funny thing is...I have such great fishing in ND, that I don't know if I'd miss Minnesota angling all that much.

But here in the real world...I do appreciate the opportunity to fish MN and don't mind paying $34 for a license, and $33 for a non-resident portable ice shack license (which I do find ridiculous..but a law's a law), and $10 for a trout stamp each year. So don't get me wrong there either.

And by the way...Gunnar is a yellow lab. Not a poodle. Pointed his first bird at six months. He vehmently objects to your poodle reference. :lol:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

PSDC.........The money is certainly not the same, and I am not complaining. I am showing you and the like that there are restrictions and different monetary costs depending upon whether I am a resident or Non resident......AS IT SHOULD BE!!!!!! I understand that and am not the one complaining. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:



> If you don't like it, don't deer hunt in MN.


My point exactly.....substitute ND and waterfowl for MN and deer!!!!! :withstupid:


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

PSDC,
You hit the nail on the head. If you don't like it, don't hunt deer in in MN.

If you don't like ND rules, Don't hunt ND!!!! :thumb:


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Sorry Djleye,

Don't buy into your comparison.

MN only charges more for your deer license,
there are the same restrictions with regards
to zones and hunting periods for both residents
and non-residents. Could care less about 
comparing prices.

How about we compare ND to MN deer hunting
and see which state is more restrictive on 
non-residents!

Or do you want to continue with your poultry
pop philosophy.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Maybe you didn't see this......But............



> Quote:
> If you don't like it, don't deer hunt in MN.
> 
> My point exactly.....substitute ND and waterfowl for MN and deer!!!!!


Seems quite simple to me!!!!! :eyeroll:



> poultry
> pop philosophy.


I guess you will have to enlighten me??????

I have said all along that if you need to enact restrictions to manage your game in MN then, as GG said, by God, doit!!! But, to do it only to spite ND residents, well, I guess you have to do what you feel is best. Good luck getting thru fishing restrictions in MN, you will find out that the tourist money is more important than managing wildlife, but I do wish you the best in your endeavor. Or maybe you will just sit and ***** about ND restrictions instead. We are being proactive instead of reactive!!!!


----------



## Mr. B (Mar 16, 2004)

I do not mind paying the additional fee as a non-resident but in my opinion once I pay the extra fee for the license I would like the same privlages as a resident. Maybe the fee structure for a ND and MN license need to be adjusted to make this work. As far as I know once you buy a license in MN the restrictions are no different for a resident or non-resident.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Hey Djleye why don't you quit adding to your posts!

Can't get your thoughts straighten' out, have a hard time
seeing the screen, know any good eye doctors in Fargo?

I never stated anything on this thread complaining about
ND non-resident regs.

I know better, when it falls on deaf ears!

I sure hope the tresspassing law passes in ND, that will
change many issues for both residents and non-residents!

You last thread is also quite hypocritical of non-resident 
restrictions in MN/ND, but nothing new on this site!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Mr B
How many NR licenses did MN sell last year? Not trying to start a fight or be a smart A$$, I just do not know.

ND had 26,000+ NR waterfowl Licenses 30,000 NR upland licenses plus 900+ second NR licenses.

Say we go with your proposal and let all of the above hunt with the same limits as a resident.

Currently waterfowl is 14 total days for NR, the Season starts here October 1 ends First part of December 60+ days so you end up with a potential of 46 extra days x 26,000 That is 1,196,000 possible extra hunting days I know that is not realistic but even 1/4th of the total would be 299,000 extra hunting days. Do you think that the population of waterfowl in ND could stand that much added pressure?

Now as an incentive to cut the number of guests. Lets raise the price as you suggest, what would happen then. We have created a system where it is the start of hunting by the wealthy only, why because I think we would have to agree that the resource will not take the sheer number of hunters that would show up so to control numbers the price would have to be monetarily restrictive right? or we could go to a system such as SD and limit the numbers to 4000. A snow ball has a better chance in he!! as that happening, with the legislature clamoring for "Economic Development" every chance they get. so what is the best answer? Restrict Numbers through economics, or by days they can hunt? or should we have no restrictions and just shoot the He!! out of everything today and the heck with conservation of the resource for future generations?

I think ND should be allowed the latitude to make their own rules, Just as MN is allowed to make their own rules.

Bob


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Why do all you MN's want to change our laws in ND? :******:

Why don't you concentrate on your own state first? :******:

I thought MN was the duck hunting capital of the world 60 or 70 years ago. What happened? That is what we're trying to stop in ND! :eyeroll:

If I don't like regulations in MN or any state for that matter, I would just stay home. Why don't you MN's do the same! :beer:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I would like to ask that this thread not turn into yet another NR, Resident bashing festival, Please! we have all been down this road before. Do we really need to go there again?

The issue is Senator Andrist wants the lawsuit to prevail, I think most North Dakota and Minnesota Residents are united in the fact that if Mr. Hatch wins this lawsuit we will all have lost a great deal. The implications of this lawsuit will have a far reaching effect beyond the borders of ND.

Mr. Hatch is acting on the wishes of a select few in MN, Mr. Andrist is acting on the wishes of a select few in ND. Why do the "select few" always feel the need to impose their will on the Majority? IF and If is a big word in this sentence, we can act together and rationally try to solve some of these problems as fellow HUNTERS, their side wouldn't have the smallest glimmer of success.

I will get off my soap box now :wink:

Bob


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

well said Bob, but you needed to add why do a select few of ND residents feel there greedy and self serving anti-NR laws need imposed on the majority of the state?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ND4life

Which Greedy and self serving anti-NR laws are you alluding to? give me an example.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Thats a very large area with few hunters. Its actually a well kept secret. Lots of game and less posting than any place in the state. So zones would be the answer. Move the hunters to the areas that 1 Have the game, 2 Have hunting opportunities, 3 Need the business. Its a long drive up to that country how does Mr Andrist propose that we entice the hunters to go that far? Did he vote against zones?


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

Ok, I dont understand something. Why is it so hard to understand? If you want to hunt in SOMEONE ELSE'S STATE you have to obey the rules and laws that the state has set. Period. You are a guess there, and it is a priveledge that they ALLOW you to hunt there at all. If you do not like the laws and rules that they have set for you to be a guest and allow you to hunt their state, stay at home. Pretty simple. Dont want to pay the 100.00 bucks for the oppurtunity to hunt, stay home. Dont want to pick a zone within the state, stay home. Cant decide which 7 day period you want to hunt, stay at home. Hunt your own state. Amazing how ignorant, and arrogant that some people are that they feel they should have the same rights to hunt as someone who lives and pays taxes there all year long. As a non resident, I would just like to say thank you for the PRIVELEDGE to come and hunt in ND for a week in the fall. That one week completely saves my waterfowl season.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Thanx Gaddy, you made my day!! 

As for the sotans who keep pissin' on the shoes of NoDak residents, your day will be coming!! dd:


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Old Hunter, I agree with you in a lot of ways. Sometimes I think we don't have an excess of hunters, but we have a maldistribution of them. I have pretty well given up duck hunting - used to hunt a lot around the Steele area of ND, but the problem is now that you go out to the many many unposted potholes that dot that country, or readily get permission on the few posted areas, set up your decoys, and after the early morning flight, sit all day, because THERE IS NOBODY ELSE HUNTING IN THE WHOLE AREA TO STIR UP THE DUCKS AND GET THEM MOVING! Rarely see another hunter! There has been several letters to the editor here in Bis from various parts of the state with the same complaint. Maybe making hunters spread out with more zones might help, but when driving around in those areas in the fall, you can't help but think that with the decreased numbers of ND out of state hunters compared to 10 - 15 years ago a lot of guys must have given up duck hunting and not because of out of staters, either. I actually went duck hunting this fall on the urging of a friend in the north of Turtle Lake area - we had great hunting but in three days, only saw one other group of hunters and these were from Minnesota. Somebody started a thread - why is it always such a battle to fight all these proposed bill with little support?" I think an underestimated part of the reason is that a lot of ND hunters have quit duck hunting and don't give a darn much anymore......The remanding ones must be concentrated somewhere - maybe we need zones for residents, too! Just kidding!!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Huntfhh
Here are some numbers related to the historical progression of waterfowl hunting, I do not know where you got the idea that there has been a decrease in out of state hunters from 15 years ago. I think the numbers below tell a pretty interesting story. Alot of guys did give up waterfowl hunting, The resident hunters. Any idea why?

The ND Game and Fish Department has published (Wildlife Division, Project W-67-R-42, Phase D, Migratory Game Bird Investigations, Job No. D-1-2: Waterfowl Harvest Survey, 2001) resident and non-resident hunter numbers and harvest data for the following years.

1985: There were 41,467 resident waterfowl hunters and 6,384 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 189,090 ducks and non-residents harvested 32,474 ducks. Non-residents were 13.3% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 14.7% of the ducks.

1990: There were 27,529 resident waterfowl hunters and 5,928 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 88,094 ducks and non-residents harvested 16,456 ducks. Non-residents were 17.7% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 15.7% of the ducks.

1993: There were 30,271 resident waterfowl hunters and 12,071 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 118,055 ducks and non-residents harvested 39,471 ducks. Non-residents were 29.6% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 25.1% of the ducks.

1996: There were 39,009 resident waterfowl hunters and 16,355 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 204,796 ducks and non-residents harvested 80,575 ducks. Non-residents were 29.5% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 28.2% of the ducks.

1999: There were 39,118 resident waterfowl hunters and 24,209 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 239,794 ducks and non-residents harvested 139,331 ducks. Non-residents were 38.2% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 36.8% of the ducks.

2001: There were 35,310 resident waterfowl hunters and 30,029 non-resident waterfowl hunters. Residents harvested 234,458 ducks and non-residents harvested 183,177 ducks. Non-residents were 46.0% of waterfowl hunters and bagged 43.9% of the ducks.

Bob


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> How about we compare ND to MN deer hunting
> and see which state is more restrictive on
> non-residents!





> I never stated anything on this thread complaining about
> ND non-resident regs.


Makes sense to me!!!! :withstupid:


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Yes Bob, I have seen those numbers, and that's why I said I am always amazed driving around in my area during waterfowl season. There never seems to be many other hunters out there, and as I said, this makes decoying ducks, other than the morning buzz, tough. I guess I sure shouldn't be complaining of a LACK of hunters! That's why I hope having more zones might serve to force duck hunters to spread out statewide, and maybe timewise as well, 'cause all those hunters have to be somewhere, either bunched up in some areas while leaving other good areas untouched, or perhaps all trying to hunt only the first week or two of the season. When I visit relatives in the Rugby to Devil's Lake area during the snow goose migration it is a different story, lots of hunters, but for ducks it's pretty quiet out there!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

That's because all the NRs have been there by then and there has been plenty of hunters "moving the ducks around". Unfortunatley they've been "moved" to SD by that time. "there never seems to be that many hunters out there"....geeze, are you saying you'd rather see a hunter in every pothole? The relative lack of pressure in ND is what people come here to enjoy!


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

I am from Crosby and Mr. Andrist is way off base. All he sees is dollar signs he has no clue what hunting even is. I hope if he gets his way that when he is out running in the morning all he can hear is shotgun blasts from every duck slough in the county and he can't even enjoy his run. Cuz he let everyone in that wants to come here. Also I don't think he even owns a shotgun I have never seen anyone related to him ever out hunting so what makes him think that he should be controlling our wildlife. Also why are our representatives all old retired guys that aren't in touch with todays topics. Maybe I will run for his spot next election. Anyone want to be my chairman. Maybe I can help get some outdoorsman logic into our governement.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

yep, only the city slickers with heartburn :eyeroll: thanks for the post dd.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Non Residents are EXACTLY THAT, *NON RESIDENTS* STAY OUT OF OUR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS! :******: uke:


----------



## p/b (Jan 29, 2005)

Bob Kellam said "Here are some numbers related to the historical progression of waterfowl hunting, I do not know where you got the idea that there has been a decrease in out of state hunters from 15 years ago. I think the numbers below tell a pretty interesting story. Alot of guys did give up waterfowl hunting, The resident hunters. Any idea why?"

Yes, in part. I did a detailed analysis on that data and other survey data in 2003. My analysis suggested that two primary reasons were a drop in rural hunters and an aging population. There is some correlation there: because so many young people left rural ND in the 1980s (obviously some of them hunters), the hunters left were older. There also appears to be a higher concentration of the remaining resident hunters in the four major urban areas.

I also have to wonder if the uptick in kid's activities in sports, and particularly fall soccer hasn't had an impact on the ability of the casual hunter to pursue the sport. I know it has in our family. I had hoped to encourage Larry Leistritz, NDSU economist, to pursue a more detailed demographic analysis, but didn't follow through with him.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

*p/b said:*



> A lot of guys did give up waterfowl hunting, The resident hunters. Any idea why?" Yes, in part. I did a detailed analysis on that data and other survey data in 2003. My analysis suggested that two primary reasons were a drop in rural hunters and an aging population.


p/b in your carefull analysis what part did massive leasing play? Rampant increase in outfitting? An outfitter driven "lockout" of access for residents?
Detailed analysis? Current reported leased acres fall at about 600,000, unreported would add that much more. :eyeroll:


----------



## p/b (Jan 29, 2005)

Dick,

Those were the areas of actual shifts in hunter numbers -- loss of younger, rural hunters. A higher percent of urban county hunters. I might have to go back and dig it all up if you want the particulars. As to the reasons why? Well, that's what all the arguments on this website are about. And most of it is pure speculation.


----------

