# SD responds



## dleier (Aug 28, 2002)

PIERRE, S.D.

South Dakota will help North Dakota defend against a lawsuit alleging that North Dakota's laws discriminate against visiting Minnesota hunters, a lawyer said Friday.

But details of the help have yet to be worked out, said General Charlie McGuigan, an assistant attorney general.

McGuigan participated Wednesday when Attorney General Larry Long talked with North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem.

"We consulted with North Dakota and have pledged to assist them to the extent we can," McGuigan said. "Whether we're going to become an active participant or take some other action has yet to be decided."

Minnesota filed a lawsuit on Wednesday contesting a North Dakota law that places restrictions on visiting Minnesota hunters and other nonresidents. The lawsuit says North Dakota discriminates against Minnesotans who hunt there.

The Minnesota suit focuses on a North Dakota law that keeps nonresidents from hunting the first week of the waterfowl season and restricts them to certain zones.

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch noted that South Dakota and other states also restrict nonresident hunters.

"I think the next lawsuit will be against South Dakota," Hatch said. "But we'll take this one lawsuit at a time."

South Dakota's hunting laws for nonresidents have survived a couple of challenges in federal court in recent years, McGuigan said.

An Ohio resident who owns land in South Dakota went to court because he could not get a nonresident license to hunt ducks and geese when he wanted, but he dropped that lawsuit, McGuigan said.

The operators of a western South Dakota hunting operation also challenged the validity of state laws when they were charged with crimes in federal court, but a federal judge rejected their attempt to use that as a defense in their criminal case, McGuigan said.

South Dakota now issues 4,000 general waterfowl licenses for nonresidents. Each license is good for 10 days.

The state also issues 2,000 licenses good for only three days that can be used only on private land, mostly in central South Dakota. Five hundred of those three-day licenses can be used in northeastern South Dakota on either public or private land.

Nonresidents can take part in the special early season for Canada geese held in September and in the spring hunt for snow geese.

South Dakota does not limit the number of out-of-state pheasant hunters, but it holds a special three-day season for residents a week before the regular pheasant season opens.

In the late 1940s, the South Dakota Legislature banned all nonresident waterfowl hunters after wealthy people from other states bought or leased all the good duck-hunting locations in South Dakota, state Wildlife Director Doug Hansen said. Nonresidents were allowed back to hunt ducks and geese about 30 years ago, but only a limited number of licenses are issued.

South Dakota officials believe there are valid reasons for the restrictions on out-of-state hunters, Hansen said.

"This is an issue that has been motivated by resident sportsmen and concurred in by the Legislature," Hansen said.

"I think the issue still today is that South Dakota has a lot of really good wildlife resources and good places to hunt, and if we're going to maintain the quality of it, those restrictions have to stay in place," Hansen said. "That's been the argument of the resident sportsmen."

Chris Hesla, executive director of the South Dakota Wildlife Federation, said the organization's members strongly support restrictions on nonresident waterfowl hunters.

South Dakota hunters do not want waterfowl hunting to become like pheasant hunting, where residents have trouble finding a place to hunt because of commercial hunting, Hesla said.

"The reason we have such good waterfowl hunting is because we do limit it," he said.


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

Yes!

Love the last two paragraphs.


----------



## Blake Hermel (Sep 10, 2002)

Good Post


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

I couldnt have said that last bit any better myself. I am happy to see SD step up on this one. If they sit back, they will be next on the list, and I do not want to see that happen.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

If thats what it takes give all the chinese chicken shooting they want here & cut em off at the knees for waterfowl :beer: Heck!!! I'll be generous & let double what SD lets in :roll:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

"


> I think the issue still today is that South Dakota has a lot of really good wildlife resources and good places to hunt, and if we're going to maintain the quality of it, those restrictions have to stay in place," Hansen said. "That's been the argument of the resident sportsmen."


Of course our G&F could never say that in public. Because of Hoeven's 
*GAG ORDER*! It must be grand to work in a state where the 1st amendment is still in effect. But then swearing an oath to the constitution doesn't carry much weight in North Dakota. :wink:

Fetch just give them our governor and we keep the pheasants here.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

No kidding Dick. I'm really geting tired of never hearing what our game and fish department thinks about certain issues...rarely anything in the paper, rarely a press release from them on anything. Are there any meeting notes or a review of what was talked about when the DNR representative met with our GnF recently and what exactly was said when Pawlenty met with Hoeven? Are we sure we're not being sold down the river....who really knows?


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Article in the paper this morning with Peterson from MN stating that he'd like to see ALL the restrictions on NR's removed from all the states. I guess there should be no doubt that they're going after more than just the early waterfowl seasons. The names of some of the guys that pushed Peterson and Hatch are coming out. You guessed it, border guys that are ****** that they have been restricted. As I said before, Everyone will need to start tying up land because if the suit passes there'll be more leasing by NR hunters than you can ever imagine.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Tell you what...if Minn wins that suit...if I know ND farmers...leasing or paying to hunt will be the only way they will be hunting here.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

& people wonder why I have the ideas I do --there are really few options to stopping all this and doing what is best for ND Residents - No more Compromise - We need to follow SD's example & get tough & stay tough or we wil Lose Lose Lose

Yeah don't "always agree with Fetch" How many times have I heard that lately & the past couple years :eyeroll: (& I admidt part of that is my cornball / sarcastic style & blunt attitude)

This Lawsuit may be the blessing we need to get people woke up & finally do what needs to be done - it may hurt everyone somewhat (for personal & selfish reasons) But we have to get our G&FD (mainly Director) out front & speaking up & mad as Hell about how they have been silenced. & NOT having the clear vision of what should be done & what is happening (or do they ???) Either tell us were wrong & the farmers are right or the small towns or the commercial sides, You can't be trying to make everyone happy & hope it all goes away & solves it'self - If thats the case we will slowly erode into a Texas or Arkansas - But at least I can get over it & find new things to love. & most likely get to heck out of this fridged Ice Box & only come back in the fall - like everyone else :******:

It's time to either Gag the Govenor & save our ND passion of Hunting & fishing, Or for him to stand up & listen to the staff at the NDG&FD or better yet let them be the Great Department they are & can be.

Once again what we have here in ND should Not be for be for sale or be a political chess piece & if you want to share - take your turn & wait - if you want to be in on the best, that we still have here in ND - move here. We are going to protect what is ours & not let it be used up & ruined by one generation.

The dividends will be more valuable than any of us can imagine


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

Why don't you ND guys get a head of the game here and buy some property for hunting for yourselves. It would seem that would be the simplest thing for you to do. Invest in your future, and your kids and grandkids future. Or maybe do some long term leasing with some ND farmers that you have established a rapore with. Cause it don't look good, no matter what side of the border your own right now. Man, sell the lake cabin in MN re-invest in ND.

Like Larry the Cable guy says " Get it done"


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

Not everybody in ND can AFFORD to lease land. And if I COULD AFFORD to lease land I wouldn't. I have hunted in ND since I was born, never had to worry about the whole issue until recently. I will quit before I ever pay to hunt. Shooting is shooting, hunting is hunting.

Great idea, lets just throw more money at the problem. That will solve all our problems :eyeroll: At what point will every animal with a pulse, have a price tag around its neck??

ND is one of few states left, where a hunter (NR or RES) can freelance successfully. Why do commercial interests always HAVE to ruin that.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Rangers, buying ANY hunting land for average ND Joe is not a practicality. The only way I could do it is to move back the the Cities to make the kind of $ that would create enough additional disposable income. How would anything in that scenario be good for ND?

And, depending on what you hunt dictates how much ground you'd really have to buy even if you could. Pheasants are the easiest. Barring miserable winters/springs, a productive piece properly managed in the right area, is almost an annuity.

Deer, you'd need more ground.

Waterfowl, a whole other game. Waterfowl biologists will tell you there is very little that can be done to ensure ducks will return to a small wetlands system from year to year. A quarter full of sloughs and mallards one year may not see a pile of mallards again for many years. How many quarters would you have to own or lease to be assured there'd actually be ducks to hunt any given weekend?

"Quit belly-aching and just buy your own land" is a way too simplistic unrealistic way to solve these problems.


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

Buying or leasing land for waterfowl, in addition to compounding access problems, is an incredible gamble. In the last ten years back home, I have seen marginal waterfowling areas become spectacular, and traditionally great waterfowl areas become large lakes with some good fishing. How would a long term lease, especially with wet/dry cycles dictating whether they will be great or not, possibly solve any problems? How would you feel if your long term hunting lease you set up ten years ago was under twenty feet of water right now? It just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Capt. Kevin (Mar 1, 2004)

Well guys minnesotans dont understand that you cant kill everything in sight, that it has to be managed. They obvisely dont understand this concept and since the migration dosent stop there anymore they think its their "right" to shoot these ducks in our borders with the same rights as us. South Dakota should be used as a model 4000 ten day max. tags works for me and their really gunna b!tch if they dont win this lawsuit.

I got an idea they can boycott coming to north dakota and the outfitters can go on strike. :lol:


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

I've been reading these posts for a while, and finally have to weigh in on this issue.

It is safe to say that the majority of nodaks care about the environment and want hunting preserved. So how can there be such a negative response to non-residents using their money to buy and preserve a piece of your state for hunting? How can you justify telling a non-resident who buys and improves the habitat on a piece of property that he cannot take a few birds (and heaven forbid a deer) off of that property during every part of the hunting season that you can hunt?

I understand that paying to hunt sucks, and overcrowding of hunters sucks-- but you are only being greedy to deny others a chance to invest in your state, give their money to your DNR, and strengthen the hunting tradition of their family.

Money, money, money. It is easy to say that money does not belong in the wildlife management and conservation field, but that is simply not true. Game and fish departments could always use more money for staff and habitat improvements. The fact that hunting is a user-pay system has made game the perfect example of a renewable resource that helps conservation. Your laws that limit revenue are directly hindering this process. The laws against non-resident hunters are not due to wildlife biology. They are purely political.

This lawsuit from Minnesota has my support, and you may be suprised that some of your G and F folks support it as well.


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

Widgeon,
You are telling me that by buying a piece of land and preserving it for hunting is going to help everyone? You want to tell me that non residents are going to spend the time and effort it takes to manage a piece of property all year so they will be able to use it? Do you honestly think that the non resident who buys the land is going to let residents hunt it when he or she is not around? I believe you are sorely mistaken, because the whole idea of leasing land is to keep others off it. I have seen too much of it in my own state, even for waterfowl when the one who is leasing is not even certain that he may hunt waterfowl there from year to year. Does this mean that the farmer will let anyone else hunt even though they know the guy who is leasing is not coming back to hunt waterfowl all year, what do you think? I hear alot of, "they will be back to hunt pheasants, so it would be best if you didnt go out there," HUH??? How is going out for two or three days in a row to hunt ducks and geese going to affect their pheasant hunt in two weeks in any way? You also think that buying
or leasing is going to bring in more money for wildlife management? I want to know how that will happen, because I am not so sure that it will. Do you think that this land that gets bought solely for hunting is healthy for this state or SD. I will tell you right now, NO!!! How can a family farmer who wants to buy a piece of land possibly pay as much as somebody from out of state who has the means to buy it solely for hunting. It just drives up the price of land all around, taking most farmers out of the equation. As far as hunting tradition, that can be strengthened anywhere, because hunting should be about teaching your son or daughter how to hunt, spending time with friends and family, and having fun. It should not be about limits of birds. I am not buying your argument, because I have first hand experience of what buying and leasing for hunting can do.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

widgeon------Holy smokes. Listen real close. We have enough birds to watch, enough game to watch. The idea that NR land purchase is doing us poor primitve nodakers a favor fries me nineteen ways to Sunday. We already invested in ND as residents, YEAR ROUND. The blood and bones of my generations are buried in this ground. For the last 120 years. That's an investment. Volunteering for every g-d-m- committee from here to breakfast because there are not enough people who care is an investment. Trying to improve your community year round when you'd sooner be some place else is an investment. Working for your state is an investment. BRING A BUSINESS TO ND--BRING A SKILL ON THE JOB TO ND--BRING YOUR FAMILY YEAR ROUND--THAT'S AN INVESTMENT! My wife is a teacher. By staying in ND for 33 years it has cost us close to 3/4 mill. That's an investment. Get the picture?

Hunters who come waltzing in here, drop a little pocket change on the ground, pat the local yokels on their dusty heads, "aren't they cute, and friendly too", and then go someplace else for 51 weeks of the year fry my... ..Like they really gave us something!!!!!! They did. Trouble.....

If you had a clue, at all, you wouldn't believe what is going on in NDGF right now. Not pretty. At all. I know NDGF and the only support for your position there are the mouth pieces. uke: 
[/quote]


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

T-shot,

Let us say this lawsuit is successful, and non residents are allowed the same freedoms in their country as North Dakota residents. Some land prices may increase -- especially pieces that contain decent woodlots and wetlands. These crucial habitats would be conserved because the landowner's yield (game) directly relies on them.

Farmers who lease land may find it profitable to take a more active role in wildlife management. Right now, the goals of wildlife management and farming sometimes compete with eachother. Even though farmers care about the resources, sometimes wildlife loses because the farmers need to increase their yield.

So, if non residents are allowed in-- the farmers can make more money on their land, non residents can enjoy the freedom of their country, and the wildlife wins because their habitat has more value than ever.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Dick,

Not real sure what to make of your post. So you lost a lot of money by staying in North Dakota year-round. I would pat you on the back if it was because you really cared about the state's natural resources, but I sense that you care more about something else (.Listen real close. We have enough birds to watch, enough game to watch...). You want to keep it all to yourself. North Dakota has some of the most valuable habitat in the country for many species of migrating birds (from neotropical migrants to waterfowl). Reducing habitat destruction is a major goal of many conservation agencies. This goal of saving habitat is hitting a speed bump because there are "sportsmen" like you that don't see the big picture. You think that the guy with Minnesota tags is your enemy, while he is your closest ally.

I could stay in your state year round too. The fact is that it would be irresponsible on my part to do that. A few weeks in the spring for land management, and a week or so in the fall is all I can (responsibly) do. North Dakota isn't exactly known as the place to get jobs.


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

Geez widgeon,You sound like the guys we see every fall that look down upon the locals,and make fun of them while drinking cocktails in the local pub.See it every fall!Oh,of course,Your one week a year here makes you an expert on North Dakota and our problems.Take your ideas to Texas and Arkansas where hunting by the common man is allready a thing of the past.


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

Widgeon,

You talk to me as if I am your ten year old son who has no idea what is going on. "Everybody wins if we lease son, believe me..." What a crock. I grew up working on farms in NESD, do not tell me how it works. Sure farmers slash and burn cattails every once in a while, but where does that get them? Its gotten me stuck deep in the mud more than once the next spring, and it grows back soon anyway. Fire is a natural process in the prairie ecosystem. Although I do not agree with burning sloughs off all the time, its a part of farming. And do you really think the farmers who are doing this really want to work around things like that if they are in it for the money? Do you think that they will not try to squeeze every bit of profitability out of their land even if some non resident is leasing it? Suddenly the non residents are the saviors who help to bring tranquility and save mother nature, how does that work? Do us residents not know what habitat does for wildlife? And no, it doesn't drive up the price of some land, it all goes up. As far as leaving the state for a job, I will soon have my degree in Architecture from NDSU. The way I see it, I have two choices. I can move to Minneapolis where the "big" money is, or I can stay here and get paid less but enjoy the natural resources. Does that mean I will be practicing what I went to school for? Who knows, but its my decision. One more thing widgeon, we do care about natural resources, and if you don't believe me, I can show you a few pictures of a massive amount of snows resting during the day in a pasture a mile south of my house around Watertown last spring that were not bothered at all by me or anyone else. I enjoyed watching them more every day for a week than going out and busting them after one day. I guess maybe that makes me selfish because I could have pushed them on to others.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> North Dakota isn't exactly known as the place to get jobs.


Widgeon, there's plenty of jobs in ND, just not a lot that pay like they do elsewhere. In ND, we also have really nice people, good schools, a sense of community, less traffic, more elbow room and up until about 3-4 years ago, the most unbelievable hunting a person could imagine.

Most of us don't HAVE to live in ND - we choose to. We've traded one lifestyle for another. We've chosen to prioritize things differently than you. We willingly trade lower wages and other lifestyle features which are aparently most important to you for the things mentioned above, including a quality hunting resource.

Now, you're not satisfied with outdoors opportunities you have where you decided to call home and you support suing ND to get more of ND's resources than ND feels is prudent to give you.

Greed? I'll call your "greed" and raise you an "arrogance."


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

ND adopted the 2 weeks only for NR's many years ago when out of State Hunters (like in SD also) started to come & they hunted & saw all the birds & started to buy up all the better places - That is why they put a cap of two weeks - By the way, it worked back then - But today there are more people with lots more $$$ than sense & in recent yrs even this law has not stopped the land grab - If it were appealed - ND would be like Texas or Arkansas in short order - There are so many things that are connected in all this that so many of you don't think about (or care about) but this will be the thing that will push us over the edge

Many others have also said "why we don't want to get to where we all have to have our own little plot to hunt on" - If you cannot understand this it is because you have never really hunted in a State like ND & know & respect our unique Laws & had the freedom (& in the past trust between landowners & hunters) Now you all want us to become like most other States - I pray our Politicians don't take us down that road - This has been a new expirence for many. But I do think people in ND are smart enough to see the bottom line & figure out what is best for us & our resources (they are ours unless they fly over the border & land in another State - If you don't like our laws stay away or move here - I think you would have a different attitude if you lived here & could see from our point of view how fast things are trying to change & that really who benefits from letting unlimited #'s of hunters come & upset the balance we once had.

Many thought this could be a economic good thing for ND - others are proving that it is not & that there are better ways for ND to go (mainly improve on what we have had & have done for along time) If it ain't broke don't fix it - many are doing all they can now to break up the only really good State left for Freelance hunting - Be careful what you wish for - winning this suit could make you Big time losers in the end :eyeroll:

Unless your one of that very small minority that wants to pay a Guide or Outfitter to hunt or see ND carved up into thousands of little private hunting places (& the problem with that is money talks & eventually only the wealthier folks will control the better (or majority) of places over time - & what is really sad is so many can't figure that out :eyeroll:


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

We've seen how other states manage their resources, it scares ND to death. We know what not to do!!

Money isn't the answer for all of the world's problems.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

Widgeon, you are so completely and utterly clueless on this that it is unbelievable. You are the complete embodyment of what all the ND sportsmen on here are against. Your whole above post does nothing but talk about how the "farmer can make more profit" and the G& F can make more money" and how everything is about money and the out of state dollars that will help the ND G& F. Their G & F obviously doesn't need the extra money to run effectivly. THEIR STATE is the one that has plenty of wildlife ALREADY. 
Widgeon wrote:

Let us say this lawsuit is successful, and non residents are allowed the same freedoms in their country as North Dakota residents. Some land prices may increase -- especially pieces that contain decent woodlots and wetlands. These crucial habitats would be conserved because the landowner's yield (game) directly relies on them.

You are already allowed the same "freedoms in their country" and you are allowed those freedoms IN YOUR OWN STATE. And you said that you have been reading a lot of posts on this topic, but apparently you were not paying attention. That is exactly what the residents of ND do not want to happen, and what they have a problem with now. Yes the land prices are going up, and just as you say it is the ones that contain decent woodlots and wetlands that are going up first because the wealthy people with the money to afford the land are pricing it out of the average hunters price range. And yes the crucial habitats would be conserved for the new out of state landowner to come and hunt, puting them off limits to more and more residents. Your post states what SHOULD happen is exactly what the residents on here state that they don't want. I think you are missing the whole point of what the ND residents on here are talking about. If residents and non residents are allowed the same hunting seasons/ license prices etc, the overcrowding problem that is occuring now will just get worse and worse and make ND hunting become more like other states. Just because you are jealous of the great hunting that they have (I am too because hunting in my own state sucks) doesn't mean that you have the right to go in to ND and hunt and do as you please and ruin it for them.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Why would I be jealous of North Dakota?
I have great hunting 20 minutes down the road, and could (if I wanted to) shoot dozens of deer/year legally with our current regulations. My state has many things to offer that North Dakotans could only dream of (gator hunts, redfish and tarpon fishing, tan women etc...). Hint: I don't live in Minnesota...

Just stay in your own state, you say. What will that get us? My kids will never have a chance to experience wild roosters flushing in their face, and your kids will never be able to harpoon a 200 pound gator or jump a 150 pound tarpon.

Hunting should not be a state vs. state type of activity. My state does not cap out of state licenses for anything to my knowledge, and welcomes folks from other states to enjoy a piece of America. I hate being crowded when hunting as much as the next guy, and consistently find areas on public land that produce excellent duck and deer hunts without feeling overcrowded.

North Dakota has more huntable land and fewer people, yet has laws to limit non-residents. This doesn't make sense.

If you think ND game and fish has all the money they need, think again. Game and fish departments nation-wide could always use more revenue. Call them and ask them if they'll accept a $100 donation. I'm sure they'll accept.

Gaddyshooter- You say that north dakota has plenty of wildlife already. So why the regulations? Oh yeah, the non-resident regs have NOTHING to do with the pheasant or duck populations-- and EVERYTHING to do with the sportsmen that want to shaft their communities, fellow hunters (who happen to live out of state), and the value of quality wildlife habitat.

I don't mean to be disrespecful at all. I do view any hunter as a friend, but really think non resident caps are a bad idea. As I have said before, it is difficult to fork money over to hunt -- but money is the reason why hunters have been, and will continue to be, the best conservationists in this country. We have always put our money toward our passion. Right now, North Dakota has many NR hunters that want to preserve a part of America, but do not because of these unnecessary laws.

Yes, I have a problem with that.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

A Freekin Texassan :roll:  :eyeroll: ..... :wink:


----------



## zaconb (Feb 5, 2004)

Good luck with your law suit guy's and I truly mean that. Do what you have to do to protect your resources. All I ask for is 3-5 days in your state to see my Shorthairs work their magic, hell I'll even just take a camera! :beer:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I think we should make NR's write an essay along with their License application & pass a polygraph -- zaconb guys like you would be welcomed & encouraged to come :beer:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

I question the arguement that ND's feel they don't have the same opportunities in MN that MN res. do, i.e. prarie chicken, moose hunting, spearing, ice houses. From what I read in this post it sounds as if ND's wouldn't come over and take part in these activities anyway because of the costs involved. I asked the local game warden about the restrictions on ice houses for non-res, he said one of the main concerns is the fact that these shacks would be abandoned if the weather went to heck and the owner could not get time to either remove it or move it, they don't have the resources to track down and contact out-of-state sportsmen. As far as I am concerned you can have a shot at prarie chickens, moose and have a ice house, it won't affect anything because there probably won't be much interest. It seems as if most ND's want to stay in their own state to do the hunting and fishing they do, which is fine but don't use that arguement.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Widgeon,

I don't know why you would think some people at Game and Fish would support the lawsuit. As a game and fish employee, I don't know of one employee that supports it. The underlying sentiment with the Game and Fish department employees is that the legislature didn't go far enough with it's restrictions and should have implemented the hunter pressure concept of caps.

Money isn't everything.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Thanks muzzy !!! We need some kind of sign once in awhile that we are not alone.

I would'nt mind being Govenor for about a month - I'd sure shake things up & you would either Love or Hate me - But I would make some HUGE changes & go to my grave someday knowing I did the right things.

Did your Mom ever find a date ??? I heard her on the radio before Mac went to Iraq  She sounded like a very cool lady


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Dick,

Can we bronze your "Fry my ... " post and put it on the wall somewhere here in cyber-land? That was great. When the young 'uns wanna know what the opinion of a North Dakota farmer is, they can read it.

Although it probably bounced off his skull with a thud, I appreciated the post. Only some one with your moral clarity could pull it off. 
Thanks,
M.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

No, that was my Grandma. She just turned 85 last friday and is still looking for a potential suitor. I thought if we teased her a little bit she would quit calling in to the radio, but she didn't get the clue. Luckily she is kind of humorous.


----------



## Mr. B (Mar 16, 2004)

First thing I guess I should tell you is I am from MN (feel free to start the bashing). I do have freinds and family that live in ND and I have never hunted there.

Since I do not have a basic understanding of the issues that are being faced there is no way I am going to tell any one how to deal with those issues. But I do have a question from what I have read it seems that the ND residents are against non residents buying or leasing land and then wanting to be able to hunt. Is this correct and if it is wouldn't the answer be to not put that land up forsale? I have not heard anyone upset at the people that are selling the land to the nonresident.

I also think that the lawsuit is wrong and it is just politics and big money getting in the way of management. I think that this lawsuit is going to have a negative affect no matter what the result.

Please do not group all those from MN as slob hunters, arrogant or any of the other terms of endearment that have been used just because we are from MN!


----------



## Fins_n_fur (Mar 9, 2004)

I say we (ND and SD residents) get together and form DAMN Sportsmen... (Dakotans Against MN Sportsmen).... haha

Just Kidding... (my attempt at humor)

:beer:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Nothing wrong with Humor when having a civil war after all their just Minnesotans ---I think we will be able to shame em to death :lol:

The North Division of DAMN Sportsmen :beer:

You guys have to take care of your State - I'm planning on moving South in the Winter when I retire 8)


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Mr B, thank you for coming to the site and we hope you visit again. We certainly do not view our guests from any state as slob hunters. In answer to your question about home folks selling land; many of the sellers are no longer home folks. Roughly 2/3s of North Dakotas privately held land is owned in abstentia, that is by people who do not farm it and usually do not live on it, and many cases are themselves no longer ND residents. Often explaining their willingness to sell to the highest bidder from outside.

Many farmers in North Dakota allow hunting on their property either owned or rented. Almost all NR hunter-landowners, in my experiance, will not allow other hunters on their property. It is an alien concept to them.
To us, sharing the resource is part of our heritage, our custom. If you have more of something than you can use, or cannot use, share it. If you would send me your email address I will send you a story from western ND that sums up very well the resentment you sense, and the reason for it.


----------



## rifleman (Jan 22, 2004)

wigeon

Your comment on the regulations being all politically motivated and having nothing to do with biology is true. If biology would have dictated the laws/regs, more restrictions would have been put in place that would have put the resource first, not the short term interests of a few. The waterfowl resource cannot consistently withstand the pressure it has been subjected too the past few years. The only way wildlife is truly a renewable resource is to use biology, not politics as the managing guidelines.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Muzzy,

That's great that you work for North Dakota game and fish. Are you a biologist or a technician?

If you are a biologist I am sure you got your BS, and very likely got an MS in wildlife management. Depending on the school, you probably took a few classes in environmental economics and natural resource policy.

Were you paying attention?

Do you remember the lectures about how hunters helped conserve many vital wetlands along the East coast from develepment with their MONEY. And what would have surely happened to many of the green timber stands along the Mississippi had it not been for "RICH" hunt clubs?

How about the lectures on policies that allow the wildlife and hunters to both win? Obviously the strategy to "reduce revenue, reduce habitat preservation, and shaft non resident hunters" never came up.

Why? Because it is a terrible policy.

Rifleman-- Thanks for agreeing with me that the biologists should be in charge of deciding game laws. The waterfowl resource is protected by some of the best bioligists in the country and the largest wildlife index in the world. That, combined with AHM, will protect the resources without having to limit NR hunters.

See ya,

The arrogant (thanks Dan) Texan (thanks Fetch)


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Widgeon, I am a biologist, and do have a biology degree with an emphasis in both fisheries and wildlife. I was simply making a point that you assume our department staff would be in support of such a lawsuit when in fact I don't know anyone who is. In fact, our waterfowl biologist Mike Johnson (highly esteemed across the nation) developed an even more restrictive plan called the Hunter Pressure Concept that would have placed a floating cap on total numbers.

I don't know how you figure that we are losing revenue by placing a few restrictions on non-resident hunters. They cost the department quite dearly to have come in here. Have you ever looked at the enormous size of our PLOTS (private land open to sportsmen) program. We never needed this before the major influx of nonresidents. This program costs a lot to operate in both the number of employees needed to run it, and their costs to work on a daily basis in addition to the actual amount needed for the habitat lease. It certainly isn't a cash cow.

Also, on your comment on preserving habitat, the biggest thing to preserve habitat in ND was no net loss of wetlands where there are restrictions placed on drainage of farm lands. This is exactly why Minnesota waterfowl hunting is not what it used to be, most of their praire habitat is drained and plowed. CRP is also a contributing factor, but this isn't preservation at all, simply putting land into grass. While this is good for wildlife, it isn't preservation. Keeping native prairie from being plowed under would be an example of preservation.

People want to come here because of the high quality of hunting. If the doors are totally wide open, that quality of hunting will degrade and what people come here for will no longer exist.

Anyone who advocates environmental economics should realize that decisions should not be made because of finacial reasons.

At one time, we had a government that believed that the animals belonged to the wealthy, nobility, those who could pay for it. I believe they were sent packing back to England.

Whether any one wants to admit it or not, federal duck stamps in all actuality raise few ducks. Even in a state such as ND which has the largest number of WPA's and Refuges in the nation, this amount of land is miniscule compared to the amount of private land. More ducks are raised on private lands than any of the federal lands purchased by duck stamp dollars. In fact I would not be suprised if the Lion's share of this money goes to administrative costs at the USFWS. It does fund a lot of research, but it still seems to come back to the fact of whether there is water and grass on large parcels of land (more land than is owned by the fed gov.)

Here are a few facts regarding recent changes on our regulations.

1. There is no cap on the total number of nonresident upland game hunters or waterfowl hunters.

2. There is no cap on the number of waterfowl hunters in any of the three zones.

3. There is a 7 day restriction in two small zones, which will not affect very many nonresidents because the average nonresident waterfowl hunter only spends about 5 days in ND. The people most upset about this restriction are those who have purchased or leased land in those two zones for their most exclusive use--which contributes to the access opportunity problem for BOTH the average resident and nonresident hunter. (You can ask Dick Monson, a resident farmer what happens in his neck of the woods to young farmers who cannot compete with nonresidents in the purchasing of land with inflated values. It sure doesn't help the state of ND)

4. The change in license structure was probably long overdue when you compare the old license prices with other states n the area. The 10 day or two 5 day upland license limitation again will not impact that many nonresidents because the vast majority makes only one or two trips a year. It will make a difference to someone who comes to ND more often--but they still have an option to purchase as many additional upland licenses as they want and again there is no limit on non-resident hunters.

5. The prohibition of nonresidents on game and fish owned and leased land lasts only for the first 7 days of pheasant season and does not limit the number of nonresidnets allowed. Over 99% of the state of ND is still available for nonresidnets the first week of the pheasant season.

6. The early waterfowl opener (the first 7 days), allowed under the federal framework in liberal and moderate seasons, is for residents only. The rest of the season there are no restrictions on the total number of nonresidents who want to hunt waterfowl except for the long standing 14 day limitation and the new small zones discussed above. Residents only the first week makes some sense if you consider that over 75% of our nonresident hunters come from MN and Wisconsin. Last year both of these states DID NOT TAKE THE EARLY OPENER AND THE PROSPECT OF HAVING A HUGE INFLUX OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ND'S EARLY OPENER AND THEN RETURN HOME FOR THEIR OWN OPENER PROMPTED THIS RESTRICTION.

7. We do owe allegiance to our ND residents who live here all year, and support the state of ND in many, many ways.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

As to item number 6. Do you think the majority of NRs actually do understand the concept that pressure DOES move the ducks out of state quicker and that's why they want to be here for the opener....I wonder. Too bad they hunt the entire week and don't give the ducks a chance to settle down a little...you know, like the residents who hunt the weekends do. Also great point....why wouldn't MN open their season early?....also maybe something to do with pressure? Maybe we there should be a regulation pertaining to that issue. If your state doesn't open it's waterfowl season early when given the chance by the fed framework then you can't hunt the ND, SD or any other state that does.

And thank you for reemphasizing the issue of how much land there is to hunt in ND for the 1st week of pheasant season, 99%, 99%, 99%, 99%.
Get it...THERE IS 99% of the total land in ND open to hunting to all NRs the first week. In fact there is very little land in the SW that falls under the PLOTS or state land. I'm sure they would be more than happy to have all of you out there to hunt. You'll have very little competition from resident hunters....oh yah, don't forget to bring your check book though. But according to some of you that's ok...so have fun.


----------



## DLT (Apr 14, 2003)

Muzzy - Well said!! Those facts need to be stated over and over again.

Widgeon - Your earlier posts kept referring to "caps" and how North Dakota should not cap non-residents. If you digest points 1 thru 6 in Muzzy's post surely you see how unrestrictive our regulations really are.
In the words of another writer, North Dakota is more like a generous, rich uncle in it's treatment of non-residents, willing to share the resource.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

EUREKA!!


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Muzzy,

Yes, North Dakota doesn't have too many restrictions when it comes to non-resident hunters. However, the regulations that are put in place have more to do with politics than with biology.

A Minnesota resident who owns acreage in North Dakota does not have the same rights to hunt his own land as a non-resident native (even though he pays property taxes and helps educate your kids)? What? Can you cite a reference that lists this as an acceptable form of wildlife management? Didn't think so.

What ****** me off more is some of the "sportsmen" on this site want further restrictions (like South Dakota) based on nothing but the fact that they don't like NRs hunting in "their" state.

They try to separate hunting and money, which simply cannot be done. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. The PLOTS are expensive-- a concept that blows right over some of your heads. It's called "investing in the resource". You put money or work in, and enjoy the benefits. I'm really sure that the North Dakota G and F takes it in the shorts financially when non-residents come to hunt. Sure.

I never said I wanted to open the floodgates of hunters into North Dakota. The "tragedy of the commons" would surely follow, and hunting would go to hell. But laws based on BIOLOGY would prevent that from happening.

My statement that some of your G and F folks may support fewer non-resident laws is probably true.

Duck stamps raise few ducks? What bull.

Reading these forum entries, it appears (from some of the "educated sportsmen) as though Federal Duck stamps and ducks unlimited have done nothing for North Dakota. And CRP reduced duck numbers.

No wonder you disagree with me.

Later,

The arrogant texan

YEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAA


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

You mean Ignorant right ???...................ok & arrogant :roll: this has to be Victor or AQ - but without any copy & paste it is hard to believe AQ would show up here from the fuge

Vicky has lots of these same hangups & always acts like he knows more about ND than Nodakers :roll:

Hard to believe someone who most likely has no real concept what it is like up here & how unique our Laws are & how fragile the balance in all this really is :eyeroll: & what would be even sadder if folks like this had their way once we cross that point of no return we would end up like them or worse because losing some thing this special here would affect all those South of us :eyeroll: Bad enough to have to worry about Habitat & Nature but to have to worry about traveling shooters becoming the final thing that screws up ND is sad beyond belief :eyeroll:

& Minn is pizzed because ducks don't migrate easterly as much as they wish

NR's Limited is a GOOD IDEA !!! & now so much of this anti BS & if ND does the right things like SD - our Politicians are going to feel guility & back off :eyeroll:

I hope they can use good judgement & do the right things - if part of that incorporates teaching a few lessons - so be it :******: Many won't learn any other way :eyeroll:


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Owning land does not give a person the right to hunt. Hunting is a privilege just as driving a car is. ND has legislation that states hunting is a right, but that means that hunting will be maintained in ND for the general populace. Even though we have this in our constitution, it is still a privilege for the individual as the right can be revoked, and you need a license to participate.

I never once said that the arguments are based on biology nor did I say they were not. Politics are involved and no one can say that they are not. Last time I checked, people were animals too and people management is a large part of wildlife management.

You are right, we will never separate money from the issue, but that doesn't make it right.

I never said we were taking it in the shorts with plots, but it involves millions of dollars that we didn't have to expend before. I said that nonresident hunters were not the cash cow to the G&F that you think they are.

I have a feeling that I know more people in the Game and Fish Department (since I know who all of them are, there are less than 200 of them) than you do. Tell me the name of one person in the agency who agrees with the lawsuit.

Duck stamps do raise ducks, but when over 95 percent of the land is private, the public lands raise few ducks in comparison. No amount of money can overcome the drastic differences in acreages.

DU and Delta and other organizations are fine, but regardless of what they have done, we have had great bird hunting when there is water on the landscape. Couple these with the soil bank era and now CRP and bird numbers skyrocket. Last time I checked these organizations were not able to make it rain. Federal money does fund the CRP program but duck stamp dollars had no part in this and it was an agricultural program which had signicifcant wildlife benefits.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Widgeon, we definately have different viewpoints on this subject and will probably never agree.

However off of the beaten path we got, my main point is that I just wanted to make the point that contrary to you opinion, I don't know of anyone in the G&F dept. that supports the lawsuit.

My original reply was stated in a clear, polite way that stated the I don't know of any G&F employees in support of the lawsuit.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Muzzy,

I don't mean to be disrespectful at all.

My only point in bringing up the G and F is that I find it hard to believe that 200 natural resource professionals agree on something like this. It is a complex problem indeed, and you and I both know how hard-headed biologists can be.

See ya,

widgeon


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Widgeon
There are 149 full time employees according to the latest staff list on the internet. 26 in administration, 24 in conservation and communications division, 33 in enforcement, 22 in fisheries, 44 in the wildlife division. I had to count them up myself, I didn't have an exact count when I sad less than 200.

I can honestly say that I have not polled them all and there may be a paper pusher in administration that has a differing opinion. However, in various staff meetings involving other divisions the major consensus is that there are too many people flooding into the state in the fall. Never once have I heard anyone make the comment that we need to let everyone in. The department wouldn't have spent many hours coming up with a concept to handle this opinion of theirs if our professionals didn't think it was a good idea.

It might be hard to believe that we are all on the same page, but we are a small agency, we all know each other, and believe it or not, we talk to one another. I have yet to hear one of our people say, way to go MN.

We are also all resident hunters who for the most part grew up here and want to maintain the hunting scene as it has been in the past. Call it greed if you want too, but we feel that we (ND hunters) have a definate say in the distribution of the bounty. Yes, things change and not always for the better. We are going to fight this along side of our resident sportsmen and defend our position along the way.


----------



## Vtgunner (Nov 24, 2002)

I have been coming to this site and others for awhile now, And this topic has been a hot one for a few years now. I admire North dakotans for fighting for what they feel is right. I am on their side on this topic. I have seen out of staters ruin Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont on this side of the country in much of the same way they are pushing at North dakota and south dakota.

These two states belong to the people that are residents of them, out of staters like me should not have the same rights as them. Who am I to dictate what is best for them. I am a visitor there and the simple thought of them ALLOWING me one day in their paradise is a blessing. How about some respect for these people. An out of stater should never have a say in another states laws and politics. You are a guest in North and South Dakota, if not move there, if you don't want to, stop worrying about what isn't yours anyway. You are a guest.....act like it and respect the residents that live there!!!!!!!!!If you don't like it, Go hunt down SOUTH! I am a Vermonter that respects Dakotans!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I don't understand why all those big city/state hunters are complaining, I know they are used to waiting in line for their turn in everything they do in those populated areas.

Just because it's to late for the NR's to protect their own resources doesn't mean we have to let NR policies ruin our state.

Alot less ***-kissing and back scratching in the 'good ol boys club' is what is needed. If this statement ****** ya off, you are the problem.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Muzzys' point 4
"4. The change in license structure was probably long overdue when you compare the old license prices with other states n the area. The 10 day or two 5 day upland license limitation again will not impact that many nonresidents because the vast majority makes only one or two trips a year. It will make a difference to someone who comes to ND more often--but they still have an option to purchase as many additional upland licenses as they want and again there is no limit on non-resident hunters." 
*this is exactly why I felt that doubling the NR license fee (for adults) would provide a lot of extra revenue and not add very much pressure*
Muzzys' point6
6. The early waterfowl opener (the first 7 days), allowed under the federal framework in liberal and moderate seasons, is for residents only. The rest of the season there are no restrictions on the total number of nonresidents who want to hunt waterfowl except for the long standing 14 day limitation and the new small zones discussed above. *Residents only the first week makes some sense if you consider that over 75% of our nonresident hunters come from MN and Wisconsin.* Last year both of these states DID NOT TAKE THE EARLY OPENER AND THE PROSPECT OF HAVING A HUGE INFLUX OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ND'S EARLY OPENER AND THEN RETURN HOME FOR THEIR OWN OPENER PROMPTED THIS RESTRICTION. 
*And this is why elimnating NR hunting on the weekends would be so effective make Nrs come during the week stay for 5 days spend some money and not interfere with the residents on the weekends*
I just was amazed at the response to those concepts


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

"And this is why elimnating NR hunting on the weekends would be so effective make Nrs come during the week stay for 5 days spend some money and not interfere with the residents on the weekends " this line at the end of the above post was added by me I didn't mean to say Muzzy said or recommended it.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob,
I'll agree, that would work if all the NRs were from Georgia. Not the case. Many of our friends and relatives, did I say MANY, are just across the river in MN. The vast majority are blue collar and a weekend restriction would kill their hunting entirely. Not to mention taking MOST of the youngsters out of the equation that are in school in the Fall.
It'll NEVER be considered.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bob...by splitting the upland and waterfowl into 2 seperate licenses...we did basically double the fee.


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2004)

Bobm, I don't know about you, but I work hard and long for my money. To take time off during the week wouldn't work because a lot of waterfowlers from MN have to work in order to pay the bills. Even though MN has alot of money, there's a lot of us blue collars' out there who won't take weekdays off. Take us out of the equation, how much money is NoDak gonna make then?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

*Field hunter *you are correct and they are the problem, look I don't want this but sooner or later something has to give as more and more people go to ND Hunting. What you are saying is that although the problem of overcrowding / overuse is "acccording to Muzzy 75% hunters from Mn and Wis" You don't want to restrict the NRs because they are from MN.
*Well then logically the problem is unsolvable because even though you identified the problem because of friendship you refuse to do the obvious solution. * I understand your emotion but its not logical although it is admirable. :beer: 
( and I'm from Wisconsin and love MN so this isn't personal its just obvious) we Nrs are going to have to be limited some way I would rather see this than caps where people can't come at all.
*Ken* contrary to #1 Waterfowler I don't have a money tree either but I still think they fees are low and could be raised significantly( for Adults) without any resentment if the money was used for habitat and the license was a season long license. (AS stated previously a season long license wouldn't really change the amount of pressure significantly especially if we can't hunt weekends.
*#1 waterfowler everybody on this site works for a living as far as I know so whats your point? *You get some vacation time spend it in ND and spend some money while you are there! There is no reason you should expect ND to be your unrestricted playground. I don't want to sound harsh but if we don't come together with the residents of ND leasing and commercial hunting will squeeze them and they will then squeeze us out.
ANd I'm planning to move to ND or MT so I going to be one of the people I'm limiting soon so give up the you're from georgia argument its BS, it doesn't matter if I'm from the moon the overcrowding pressure is from MN NRs and they need to provide a solution before the welcome mat is gone for everyone that does not have family like Field hunter in ND  
*We Nrs need to think in terms of what we can do instead of what we don't want to do. 
We need to contribute more money and give the residents some elbow room when they hunt. $200 is twenty a day on the current 10 day license where else can you have hunting like there is in ND for that cheap?? NOWHERE*


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Sorry Bob, can't agree with you on this point and never will. Your solution takes the average NR freelancer and his kids entirely out of the equation. I have to say you are beng a little selfish on who you want to see in ND hunting.....How about a program like what is in effect for the dairy industry? The farther away you live from Wisconsin the less of a federal subsidy you get for your milk. Maybe the further you drive, the less chance you should have to hunt. Sounds kind of ridiculous but so is locking out our neighbors for the weekend. It would be about the same as stopping waterfowl huntng after 1:00 EVERY day....pretty much would kill our local kids that want to hunt after school in the Fall. Remember, ND doesn't want to restrict NRs from hunting in ND anymore than necessary, we just want to maintain the resource as it is now with no more over crowding. To maintain the waterfowl population in the state for a longer time period in the Fall without forcing them to SD prematurely, I think it would be worth while to investigate the closure of hunting after 1:00 Sat and Sun for all hunters....sure would give them a chance to feed and loaf until the next morning without a guy in a duck boat harrassing them all day long on the roost.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree with you FH except for one thing...

Years ago when there were the same amount of hunters as now but mostly residents....we hunted on weekends and went back to work on Mondays...there were only a couple thousand Nr who hunted during the week.So the birds were not harrassed and settled down....kind of like what happened this year on the PLOTS after res went back to work on Monday.

So...if us we res. have anything to say about this...I would rather see the season close say on Wed. Thurs. and Fri and let us hunt all day on Sat and Sun.


----------

